Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before the House, this morning, on the motion regarding law and the environment, we have propositions that are profoundly illiberal, from a Liberal government, and also deeply cynical, which raise some interesting and challenging questions for all of us as law-makers. The member for Wills's contribution touched on this in saying that the proposition really advanced by the member for Dawson is: can a particular set of companies break existing laws with impunity?

There is perhaps a wider question that underpins the debate that is taking place in the House this morning, and that is: as law-makers, should we be engaged in running commentary about matters which are the subject of judicial proceedings, or should we perhaps be more concerned with putting in place appropriate legal frameworks? This is a debate that is replete with false issues, and that has been demonstrated in the language of government members in contributing to this debate this morning. It is profoundly unhelpful to technical questions which go to the standing of third parties to intervene in proceedings under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to talk of ecoterrorists and extremists, to make allegations along the lines—as the member for Dawson did—about people who pretend to be environmental activists, to talk consistently in terms of lies and slanders and to talk about ideology as if it is a one-way street, because the propositions the member for Dawson advances are deeply ideological and evidence a very limited understanding of the role of this place and, in particular, what our civil society and, indeed, our democracy can offer. And so we see the false issues, the conflating of ideology with outcomes.

At the core of this debate are questions of the operation of our democracy and questions of evidence that need to be brought forward in it, as well as these matters of principle, and these are the two matters that I will briefly touch upon. It is clear on the evidence, subject to review by the Productivity Commission, and, indeed, the work of the coalition dominated Senate committee back in the 1990s which led to the current provision, section 487 of the EPBC Act, that these standing provisions have effectively balanced the relevant interests, not only those of landowners, those seeking to develop land and exploit resources and the wider community—the present generation—but also, critically, as the member for Wills touched upon, those future generations who deserve to inherit the same beautiful and pristine environment that we enjoy today. The present provision, of course introduced by that well-known eco-terrorist John Howard, recognises also that there is such a thing as civil society and that this is a good and, indeed, a vital thing in our democracy, which makes the language and the tenor of this debate so very troubling.

I mentioned also, as well as this matter of principle, the question of evidence. One might assume, in listening to the contributions of government members, that there is a major barrier to investment in the form of this provision. Of course, the reverse is true. We have just come through the greatest mining boom in Australia's history and, as the member for Wills touched upon, there have been over 5,000 referrals under the broad EPBC Act framework but only 33 third-party applications brought relating to 22 projects over the 15- or 16-year life of these provisions—a tiny amount.

These provisions have brought certainty. They have effectively balanced interests. They have not always given blank cheques to the interests the member for Dawson is representing, and it is somewhat disturbing to hear a member of this government talk about jobs. This is a government that has a lamentable record when it comes to supporting employment, particularly secure employment, and I look forward to the contributions of government members in the next debate on that matter here. This side of the House recognises that there is a public interest in having a provision such as the current standing provision in the EPBC Act. It is not just us who say so; it is the Productivity Commission, who have recognised in the review of major project approvals that there is a public interest in allowing third parties to bring judicial review applications, as it allows the legality of the process to be enforced, providing an important safety valve in the system. Safety valves are critical in this system.

These approval decisions are decisions that we cannot afford to give wrong. We also cannot afford to trash our democracy in the interests of self-interested parties, and we should be very slow to remove the capacity of the Australian community at large to have its say on these matters. (Time expired)

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context