Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Like other concerned members and the members of the Labor Party, I too would like to lend my voice to opposing the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015, which seeks to amend section 487 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

There are very good reasons for opposing this legislation, and it is not because we are trying to give voice to people who are not entitled to a voice. It is not that we are trying to sponsor a reform through litigation. It is solely because, if this passes the House, we will limit the ability of individuals, communities and, yes, environmental groups to challenge large-scale development projects that will impact on the environment under the federal law.

For the last 15 years, this act has been Australia's principal piece of legislation for environmental protection. It was introduced in 2000 by John Howard—hardly the greatest rogue environmentalist, tree-hugging prime minister this nation has ever seen. This piece of legislation in 2000 showed that he had a vision for preservation of environmental concerns.

This legislation provides the legal framework to protect and manage national and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places, which are defined in the act as matters of national environmental significance. Apart from other things that that government did, including Work Choices, we on this side of the House would actually call this act a positive contribution to our nation's future and the preservation of our environment for future generations.

Since its enactment, there have been approximately 5,500 projects that have been through the EPBC process. Of these, only 33 Federal Court challenges by third parties against 22 projects eventuated. Interestingly, when you look at those 5½ thousand projects, they equate to 0.4 per cent of projects referred under the act. Of the 33 actions, four were discontinued or resolved with the consent of the parties, six were legally successful, one project was actually stopped and the rest were unsuccessful. This amendment is not exactly responding to something that the courts have been inundated with. It is not responding to something where mischievous judges have overturned projects—one was stopped.

Since the year 2000, a few things have occurred, including the mining boom. This act, including section 487, has been in force then. I think most would conclude, from those statistics that I just gave, that it has not threatened the viability of those projects. Therefore this project to repeal the enabling provisions of the EPBC Act is just another relentless attack by this government on the environment and the groups that take seriously the protection of the environment.

Currently, under Australia's EPBC Act, anyone who is adversely affected by a decision or failure to make a decision has the legal right to challenge the project. This includes any Australian citizen, resident or organisation established in Australia who have acted 'for protection or conservation of or research into the environment' any time in the two years before the decision was made. That sounds fair enough; you have to establish some credibility here—not just any old Tom, Dick and Harry but people who have been involved in research to be demonstrated over the two years prior to a decision being made. However, the proposed changes will restrict the ability of these third parties to challenge the approval of a mine or another major industrial development and limit those challenges to only those directly affected by a development such as the immediate landholder.

This amendment will not only restrict but it will move to ensure that various environmental groups, farming groups and certainly local communities with a genuine interest in not only development but also what precedes the development—the status of the environment and its impact—will no longer have a voice.

The Liberal Government's decision to amend the EPBC Act and restrict third-party appeals has arisen in response to the Adani Carmichael project in Queensland's Galilee Basin. This $16.5 million project is significant

and was approved by the environment minister in 2014 but was then later set aside following a challenge by the Mackay Conservation Group. The Federal Court's decision to set this project aside was based not on a specific environmental challenge but the failure of the minister now at the table to comply with his own law—namely, to properly consider the impact of the Carmichael mine on the Great Barrier Reef, taking into account vulnerable species as well as Adani's environmental track record.

See this speech in context