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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I really needed that protection too. He might be an able medium-pace bowler, but I'm not sure he's an able environment minister!

While not directly affected, we had an issue in my own electorate which is analogous to what is occurring here. It is not directly impacted by this legislation. The conservative government of New South Wales took a very similar approach to what the minister is doing here, but they decided to move 5,800 tonnes of radioactive waste from Hunters Hill on the North Shore in a conservative electorate to a facility in Kemps Creek, Western Sydney, on the boundaries of my electorate. The view was that this could create hazards—long-term issues, health issues—for the people of North Sydney. If you were north of the harbour, that was a consideration. Therefore, they could move that.

Even the then premier himself admitted that the radioactive waste was seven times above the acceptable limits, it was certainly too dangerous to leave it where it was—in North Sydney, that is—and they were looking for a more appropriate place to put it: in the backyard of the people of Western Sydney. That is how they approached it. Fortunately, apart from the 5,000 residents various conservation groups, scientists, school communities and everybody else came together to cause the government to stop that. If they had the ability at that stage, they would have banded their resources and gone to court to stop that, because people in Western Sydney were generally very concerned about themselves, their families and the future of their local environment.

Therefore, the issue of trying to silence third parties and take away third-party appeal rights is not the way to go. Third-party appeals and third-party interests actually create a stronger incentive for proponents of these projects and governments not only to adhere to the law but to get their assessments right. It also builds on community confidence in the planning system, guards against corruption and results in better environmental assessment outcomes for all.

We all have a direct interest in making sure projects like the Adani Carmichael mine project are properly assessed and screened to minimise adverse impacts to the wider community and environment and for generations to come. However, in this government we see a direct interest only in protecting a certain degree of interests—the interests of large mining companies—as opposed to enforcing the law for all. If these changes go ahead, not only will the new amendments undermine the basic justice and fairness for, in this case, rural communities but really for any communities who are now facing off against some of the biggest companies and mining enterprises in the world; but it will also impact to the detriment of community health, social wellbeing and the environment.

When will this government start enforcing its own laws so the community does not have to? That is the basis for our opposition to this amendment.

See this speech in context