Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I hear the member for Corangamite interjecting—it is interesting. She should be standing up to the Prime Minister, telling him it is not good enough. She should be making sure that there are jobs available for her constituents rather than sitting there and seeing the jobs go out the door—not good enough, Member for Corangamite; I am very disappointed that you are not standing up for your community. Labor will not under any circumstance support weakening environmental protection or limiting a community's right to challenge government decisions. This is a government that is not about jobs. We in the opposition are about jobs.

Since being passed by the Howard government 15 years ago, the EPBC Act has been the overriding national environmental protection law, including throughout the whole of the mining boom. Environmental groups are required to operate within this law. It has been on the books for 15 years and it is only now, after the environment minister has been incompetent, that the government are seeking to change it. I can understand that. They probably realise that his incompetence will continue. This legislation was designed to protect the environment because the environment is important. Threatened species are important. Unfortunately, the government do not appreciate the importance of the environment not only for those people in the areas that will be affected by development but for Australia and the whole of the world's ecosystems. Under this proposed legislation, landholders have a right to appeal decisions where a project impacts on their land, but, where the legislation was intended to protect the environment for, say, a threatened species, under this bill those groups and organisations standing up for the environment will not have the ability to challenge decisions.

Community objection rights are important because they build community confidence in the planning system, they guard against corruption and they result in better environmental assessments and outcomes. The threat of third-party appeals creates a stronger incentive for proponents and the government to adhere to the law, improving the quality of environmental assessment of major projects. It is not the actual exercise of power to enforce the public right that matters most but the threat that it will be exercised that wins improved accountability to an approval system that can be plagued by vested interests—something that those on the other side of this House do not like to hear. They do not like accountability; they do not like transparency; they do not like openness. We have seen that time and time again in this House.

In looking at this provision, only about 0.4 per cent of the EPBC Act referrals have ever been challenged. The scope of the appeal rights within the EPBC Act 1999 is already restricted to judicial review. Communities do not have the right to challenge the merit of a project, yet this government wants to see the law amended even further so that the protection of the environment is thrown out the door. It is very disturbing and really shows that you cannot trust the Abbott government. It objects to being held accountable and, as I said, does not like scrutiny. Removing effective appeal rights will result in less scrutiny and rigour in the assessment process and will most likely result in poorer environmental outcomes at a time when Australia's natural environment is under greater threat than ever. That the government constantly denies that climate change exists—we have a Prime Minister who calls it 'crap'—is testimony to the fact that this government does not take environmental protection seriously.

If this amendment is made to the EPBC Act, the only people who will be able to challenge the approval of a mine or any other major industrial development with high environmental impacts will be individuals who can prove they will be directly affected, who have the funds to go to court and who have the courage to risk a massive cost order against them which will probably bankrupt them if they lose. In short, it will effectively put an end to any legal challenges against federal approvals of major industrial developments with high environmental impacts. No wonder this government is called the anti-environment government.

It is interesting to look at the people who have questioned whether this amendment should be enacted. Even Phillip Ruddock has questioned the government's plan to prevent environmental groups from challenging major mining projects. Alan Jones, who is a strong supporter of those on the other side, has also questioned this legislation.

I will conclude by saying: this government does not like being held accountable. It does not like openness and transparency. It has no respect for the environment. This legislation should not pass the House; it should not pass the Senate; it should not become law because it is one of the greatest threats to our environment that this country has seen—second to one: the Abbott government.

See this speech in context