Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

In speaking on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015, can I begin by commending the member for Charlton for his contribution to this debate, and I certainly endorse all that he has said in the speech he just made. In leading Labor's response to this legislation, the member for Grayndler outlined the track record of the Abbott government in turning its back on the environment. The member for Grayndler listed the numerous changes that the Abbott government has made since coming to office that weaken or abolish Australia's environmental protection laws. No Australian government on record has turned its back on the environment and sought to demonise environmentalists more so than has done the Abbott government. No Australian government has either through ignorance or by deliberate intent ignored the value of the environment to our wellbeing, to our future and to the future of future generations to the extent that the Abbott government has.

If anyone wants an example of cost-shifting on to future generations, it is the Abbott government's denial of environmental responsibilities, ignoring the environmental consequences of its actions today and effectively transferring those consequences and the associated cost burdens on to future generations. The fact that broadcaster Alan Jones is running a campaign against this legislation—Alan Jones not being a radical, left wing environmentalist—should highlight for members opposite the absurdity of this legislation and their shallow justification for it.

The bill removes the right of third parties to challenge the legality of a development which has environmental consequences by removing section 487 of the EPBC Act 1999. It is a provision that was introduced by the Howard government about 15 years ago. Since its introduction, there have been 5,500 development applications under this provision of the act. Of those 5,500 development applications, there have been 33 court challenges against 22 projects. Of those, six were successful and only one project has ever been stopped. The facts and the figures speak for themselves. There is no problem with the act or that section of it. The EPBC Act is serving Australia well and so is that particular section.

There is indeed no basis and no justification on the facts presented for repealing section 487 of the EPBC Act. I have a copy of the act here with me and it includes—and it is written very clearly—the condition that individuals or community groups must have been in that space for at least two years. That was a thought out piece of the act. It was not something that was just flippantly or carelessly included at the time, and it has served Australia well.

Communities do not have the right to challenge the merits of a project approval. And under the act they do not have the right to challenge the merits of the project approval itself, but they have the right to challenge the legal validity of it. The situation is very different to the simplistic comparisons made by many members opposite when they liken third-party appeals for environmental matters to third-party appeals objecting to a residential development somewhere. The natural environment belongs to all Australians. Its destruction or degradation affects all Australians, nor can the natural environment speak for itself, in the same way that future generations have no voice about the decisions made by today's society. The environment is not a self-contained, isolated area but is connected to and forms part of the world around it and the global environment. As history shows, it is because of environmental activists that so many of Australia's iconic environmental assets have been preserved for future generations. The real issue, however, should never be about who it is that raises the objection. The real issue is: does the objection have merit? If it has, it should not be a question of who it was raised by.

Australia's environment, like that across the world, is constantly under threat. We have seen, only in the last couple of hundred years of white settlement in this country, the loss of hundreds of species, and a further 1,700 species and ecological communities are currently under threat and at risk of extinction. In fact, Australia probably has the worst track record of any of the advanced countries with respect to the documented decline in biodiversity of any continent. More than 50 species of Australian animals and 48 species of Australian plants have been made extinct in the last couple of hundred years, and the situation for many others is just as serious. It is easy to ignore or to dismiss those statistics, because most people, including me, have probably never seen or heard of some of the species lost or at risk of being lost. Every time a species is lost there are consequences for others species.

The fact remains that it is environmentalists, who do not necessarily live next to development sites, who take the time to study the environment, who understand the environment best and who understand its value. If you are a research scientist based in one of the capital cities, it does not mean that you have no connection with the environment in the middle of Australia, where perhaps you have spent half your life doing the research work that you do. When you are aware that there is a risk to that environment, why should you not have the right, having put so much time and effort into preserving that environment, to also stand up for it? Of course you should. That is why section 487 is in the current EPBC Act.

The courts already have the ability to deal with vexatious claims simply by dealing with them expeditiously and, if necessary, by not only dismissing them but also awarding costs against the plaintiff. So, if there is a frivolous objection, then I believe that every court has the opportunity and the mechanism to deal with it. I also note that the recent decision by the government to set aside its own decision regarding the Adani project approval, because the government failed to comply with its own legal obligations, is being used as an example by coalition members of how actions of environmentalists obstruct projects from proceeding. That the Federal Court felt compelled to issue a public statement clarifying the Adani matter is telling of the distorted reporting of the facts and the politicisation of this matter by some media writers and some coalition members. The Federal Court statement makes the situation clear. As the member for Grayndler has already read the statement fully into the Hansard,I will limit my own comments about it. It is most unusual that a court of the land, the Federal Court, saw it necessary, effectively, to intervene in the public debate and issue a public statement in order to stop the misrepresentation of the matter.

It is also interesting that the matter goes to the heart of the minister's own department not providing him with the relevant information at the time. That in my mind raises a very serious question: why did the department fail to provide the minister with the information that was required? Was it because the department is under-resourced? If that is the case, again, it is consistent with the theme of this government in undermining the environment by not properly resourcing the very departments that act to protect it. The minister can respond to that when the debate is closed, but I suspect that the under-resourcing of the environment department is one of the reasons this mistake occurred. I suspect that it is also causing problems in the protection of the environment in so many other parts of the country.

The attacks on environmentalists by most of the coalition members who have spoken in support of this legislation are also extraordinary. These are the same people who come into this chamber and who, when it suits them, talk up the environmental wonders of Australia such as the Great Barrier Reef, the Daintree Rainforest region, Kakadu National Park, Fraser Island and probably all of Tasmania, because all of these places truly are environmental assets for Australia. They criticise the environmentalists who brought attention to the importance of these assets, but they never acknowledge that it was those same environmentalists who have today preserved them and that, through the preservation of those environmental assets, there is an economic value generated for the whole of the country. Through tourism alone, most of those places raise an extraordinary amount of income for the regions they are in. I have no doubt they form some of the most important reasons for people coming to Australia in the first place.

If members opposite want to talk about jobs, then they should also be honest about the number of jobs that are created when we preserve our natural environment. The Great Barrier Reef is a good example where, supposedly, 60,000 jobs or thereabouts have been created in that part of Australia alone. I am sure that we could multiply that many, many times over when we combine all of the environmental assets that we have in this country. If we lost those environmental assets, there no longer would be a drawcard for many overseas visitors to come to Australia. In turn, what would be the downward effect to our economy of those losses?

The environment is a unique asset across the world, and particularly here in Australia, and we should do all that we can to preserve it. That is why the EPBC Act was legislated in the first place. It is because the parliament of the day, and preceding parliaments, recognised the importance and the value of it to our economy and to our nation and set about a process to make sure that it is protected for the future. Yet this government today wants to turn back what was implemented by previous governments who had the foresight to understand the importance of what they were doing—previous governments which, I might say, included previous coalition governments, because it was indeed under the Howard government that the EPBC Act, including this particular section of the act, was legislated.

I finish on this point: it was not that long ago—it was, I think, in around 2009—that the Hawke report, which thoroughly reviewed the EPBC Act, was brought down. That review came up with an extraordinary number of recommendations, and there were suggestions made as to how the EPBC Act could be improved. None of those suggestions in any way raised concerns about section 487. So here we have an expert asked to look at the act and advise the parliament as to how we can make it better, and not once did he raise concerns about section 487. I would have thought that, if there was a legitimate concern about the operation of that section of the act, Mr Hawke would have found that concern and brought it to the attention of the parliament. But that was not done, because it was never a concern.

This is an ideological attack on the environmental movement across Australia by a government, the Abbott government, that simply does not understand or value the environment that we have in this country, and it is an ideological attack that goes to the heart of the work of thousands of people across this country who every day contribute towards preserving their local environment. I have to note again the hypocrisy I see from so many members opposite, who are prepared to stand up in this chamber and applaud the work of these environmentalists but, at the same time, try to diminish the very act that goes hand in glove with the work that they are doing to preserve what we have.

Lastly, I finish on this point: it is also concerning to hear criticism of environmental organisations because they have DGR status. The bottom line to DGR status is that people want to make contributions to the environmental movements they do because they value our environment. It is a choice people make. So to say that taxpayers' funds are being used to undermine development projects across this country is also an absurdity, because those people making those donations do not do it because of their tax-deductibility; they do it because they care about Australia's environment.

See this speech in context