Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to wear the badge that I have been retrospectively branded with this week: that of a radical activist. If a radical activist is someone who will stand up for their community and organise with others in their community to stand up for the environment then that is what I am. I am a radical activist. Those opposite have not been shy this week about labelling people who care about the environment and labelling people who are prepared to make a contribution in causes around the environment.

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015. What we have seen could be described as lively debate, but that implies being fleet of foot or mind, and I would argue that those opposite have been neither. Rather, the debate has been marked by a sledgehammer approach. We have had conflated rhetoric and people being accused of being vigilantes, vandals, saboteurs and of gaming a system. Going to the Federal Court is now gaming the system! This is a really important debate because it gives us an opportunity to lay out what the changes before us actually are and what has brought them before us.

We are talking about the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which, as has been pointed out by many in this debate, has been in operation for some 15 years since it was introduced by Prime Minister John Howard. It provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places defined in the act as matters of national environmental significance. As someone who represents an electorate with a Ramsar site, I stand here proudly to say that this act is critically important and should not be amended as suggested.

This amendment bill seeks to repeal section 487, which will remove the ability of third parties to take action under the act and instead only allow persons who can meet the standing test in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. What does this mean in real terms? What does it mean to the people in my community? Currently, this law allows very specific groups and people to challenge an approval given by government where the processes have not been followed to the letter of the law—where an approval has been granted without meeting the requirements of the act. Generally, when an appeal is lodged the parties involved withdraw the approval and revisit the process until they can guarantee that it is legal.

This amendment bill removes the ability to do that from specific people. Currently, legal challenges are limited to community groups who have been active for at least two years. This amendment would mean that challenges would be limited to people who can prove they are directly affected. In real terms, they have to prove they are directly affected and have the funds and the courage to risk a massive costs order against them. What it means is that the errors in the approval process would go unchallenged. The act, as it stands, means that errors do not go unchallenged, that people are careful in deliberating in the approval processes, that environmental concerns are addressed appropriately and that mitigating measures are taken to ensure environmental protection.

But here we are, in the federal parliament, looking to undo that process. Let's have a look at the context. We are here because Minister Hunt made a mistake. Generally, if grown-ups make a mistake, they own it, they act to ameliorate the damage and they move on. But no. What we have seen from Minister Hunt is the throwing of the toys out of the cot. He has had a huge dummy-spit because he got something wrong. I would have thought that grown-up governments required grown-up ministers, not toddler tantrums like we have seen here.

Those opposite have opened up a new front in the Abbott government's war on everything fair. This time it is the environmentalists are under attack. In reality, the EPBC Act, as it stands, delivers attention to detail, sensitive compromise and negotiated outcomes. Reason is what this act delivers. But this week we have heard speech after speech of scalding rhetoric. I have found listening to the speeches from those opposite over the last 48 hours personally affronting. I led a community campaign. I was chairperson of the Werribee Residents Against the Toxic Dump. This was a group of people concerned about the environmental impacts of a project that had the support of the Premier of the day, Jeff Kennett, and was being proposed by a huge company. CSR was the company. In leading that campaign I worked with a group of incredibly sensitive and reasonable people. I worked with a farmer—a farmer, as it happened—who was very concerned about the damage to the reputation of the Werribee South growers and their produce. I worked with a suburban solicitor who was concerned that the people's voices were not being heard and that the processes were pitched against the community. I worked with an academic—and I of course was a school teacher. We had a scientist on our committee. In fact, we had two scientists on our committee.

The changes that are being suggested today and the rhetoric being piled on during this week vilify people who have clear community concerns and they pigeon-hole people from my community as wild 'mung bean eating vandals'—that was one of the quotes yesterday. A few people in my community may have eaten mung beans, but I have not. The people on the group I chaired were concerned about potential damage, real damage, to the groundwater that is used to water the crops in Werribee South. Those people were prepared to take whatever action was required. That included a trip to Canberra to see if, given the danger to the Ramsar wetland, the federal government were interested in our cause.

I find it offensive, and I know that all the people in my community who were involved in that campaign will have found it equally offensive, to have heard concerned citizens typecast in this way. We were residents, we were farmers, we were people critically concerned about our community and about our environment—and we did all the evil things be ranted about. We took action. We took every action we could to ensure our voices were heard. We were on the consultative committees. We did seek what legal avenues were open to us. We worked closely with the Geelong Environmental Defenders Office. We sought legal advice from that group. We sought their expertise.

What we are discussing today is about taking away a community's right to seek explicit expertise in environmental matters if they have a problem with a proposal in their area. We have heard lots of rhetoric like, 'You should be in the immediate vicinity', and we have heard lots of rhetoric about people taking action from thousands of miles away. The EPBC Act is exactly what this country needs to ensure that people thousands of miles away can express their concerns, can seek redress, can be involved in the process, and can ensure that the approval process ticks every box under the act.

There is no doubt in my mind that this in fact another war for this government—someone else to pick a fight with—and their overblown rhetoric camouflages the fact that they want to change something that was introduced under the Howard government, something that has worked for 15 years, and which, as speaker after speaker has said, has resulted in one project being stopped. The fact that these provisions are in the act ensure that those involved in the process are able to make sure that their due diligence is done appropriately. They ensure that the approval process has followed the law. That is what is important here. To those people from the Mackay Conservation Group, the grassroots community-based organisation from North Queensland which is run by a group of dedicated volunteers, I say, 'Keep up the good work' and 'If you need expert advice from the New South Wales Environmental Defenders Office, seek it, because it reflects the same work I did as a concerned citizen of my community some years ago.'

History shows that the EPBC Act, as it stands, ensures that processes are followed. It ensures community voices are heard. It ensures approvals are not corrupted. This bill is dangerous legislation. It seeks to circumvent natural justice and disempower the public of Australia. It seeks to silence communities when they are critically concerned and critically involved. In fact, I would go further and say that it will limit community involvement. Community activism is a good thing, not a bad thing. Having people informed and involved in the debates around major projects ensures that a community goes with a project when it gets ultimate approval. I suggest strongly that those opposite rethink this mad war on environmentalists.

See this speech in context