Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

():  I recall a time that whenever a project was put up to any level of government, whether it was local, state or federal government, the first thing that would be asked was what would be the social, economic and environmental outcomes of that project. And while it was always true that all three of those matters were considered in the assessment process, including the environmental aspects of it where reports would be submitted justifying how the project was not going to damage the environment in any way, the reality is that once projects got approval the environmental outcomes were often largely neglected. There have been countless reports over the years highlighting the environmental losses and the degradation of the land on which we live. Ecosystems are being destroyed; plant and animal species are being lost. That's all contributing to a very unhealthy environment. An unhealthy environment, leads to poor health outcomes for the people, animals and plants that live within it.

The EPBC Act came into effect, I believe, in July 2000, over two decades ago. I have to say that, for all its good intentions—and there have been some good outcomes as a result of that legislation—the reality is that we are still falling short in meeting the environmental outcomes that I believe all of us in this House would aspire to. The 2021 State of the Environment report identified climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, pollution, resource extraction and land clearing as contributing factors to a deteriorating environment. It was a report that quite frankly brought home the reality of what is happening in the world around us and why we need to do so much more.

This is a matter that this government, the Albanese Labor government, and in particular, this minister—the Minister for the Environment, the member for Sydney—take very, very seriously. I believe we have a moral obligation not only to the people of this generation, but to future generations, to take this matter very seriously. Just as we are the losers of poor environmental outcomes of previous decades, where animal and plant species have been lost, so too future generations will be the losers if we fail to preserve and protect the environment that they will live in in the years to come.

We will be held accountable for our failure to do what we should have done. Both the State of the Environment report and the Samuel review highlighted the need for stronger environmental protection measures. Whether it is climate change or habitat loss—and the other matters I referred to—that have individually or collectively been the problem, the reality is that so much more needs to be done.

I am sure other members could do their own research and come up with all sorts of statistics that highlight just what is happening. The number of Australian threatened species has risen eight per cent since 2016. In other words, rather than going down, it has increased. And more extinctions are expected in the coming decades. Australia now has more foreign plant species than native plant species. Again, this is just highlighting the transition that has taken place. The number of plant and animal species listed as threatened increased to 1,918 in June 2021, up from 1,774 in 2016. Again, as the years go by, the situation deteriorates. Between 2000 and the 2017, 7.7 million hectares of land habitat was cleared. Between 2014 and 2019, across Australia, 11 per cent of the coastal dune vegetation was lost. Those statistics alone should be of concern to anyone that has any interest in the environment. I genuinely believe that everyone in this House does care about this issue.

We also know that climate change, while it's related to many of those losses, is another issue in its own right. Climate change is also a factor of environmental destruction. The two go hand in hand. Whilst climate change contributes to more environmental losses, environmental losses contribute to climate change. We all know in this place that the reality is that, again, across the world, huge efforts are being made to mitigate the effects of climate change and huge investments are being made, all because of climate change. So the reality is that, if we can help with the environment, we may be in a position where we don't need to spend as much on matters to address climate change. The reality also is that the last decade has been the hottest on record. That heat—the highest increases being on the land—is also affecting our oceans and our waterways, and that additional heat is directly contributing to some of the losses that I referred to earlier on in my remarks. Only today, the front pages of some of our newspapers talked about coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef, as we all know, is a national environmental and economic treasure of our country. The Great Barrier Reef is something we should strive to protect in any and every way that we can. Again, when we look at why it's deteriorating—apart from climate change—another contributing factor is the sediment washing into the reef from the land. This is tied to land-clearing, land use and so on. Everything is interconnected, and that's why we need to have a holistic system that's going to ensure we don't make any more destruction than what has already occurred.

One of the problems we've faced over the years—and it has been referred to in this place on many occasions—is that environmental responsibility in Australia is shared between the three levels of government. In all fairness to those who criticise all the different rules and regulations, that creates a problem. Quite often, many of the approval processes are duplicated, and duplication causes time-wasting and time-wasting causes additional costs to people applying to have their projects approved. That's not to mention that quite often there are differences of opinion about what should and should not be approved. That's a problem, and I'm hoping that perhaps this legislation will go part of the way to addressing and resolving that.

I said at the outset that this government takes environmental responsibility very seriously. Last year, this government established the Nature Repair Market, which made it easier for anyone who wanted to invest in nature repair projects. There are many good people out there, and many good businesses and different corporations, who are genuinely investing in nature repair projects. I commend them for it. But if we can make it even easier for them to do that then I'm sure that they will do even more. Again, it will be a win-win for everyone responsible. We also expanded the water trigger so that the assessment of our water resources and the impact of projects could be better controlled and managed. That's important for our farmers and for anyone who relies on that water, which might otherwise be contaminated because of the different projects being developed around the country. In fact, protecting our water resources is as critical as protecting anything else that we have in this country. As we all know, water is the essence of our survival.

That's why this legislation, in my view, is important legislation. It's important legislation because it creates stronger environmental powers, it creates a faster environmental approval process and it creates much more transparency and available information for anyone who is going to propose a project or use the land in any way, shape or form. It will make everyone's life so much easier. The establishment of our first national independent environment protection agency with strong powers and heavy penalties is a good thing. I believe that, in reality, most proponents don't want to destroy the environment. Most proponents are as concerned about the environment as I and other members of this place are. So they will do the right thing, but they need to have some guidance to do that; they need to have accessible information and they need to have transparency in the process to be able to do that. If we make everyone's life easier then everyone is a lot more likely to cooperate with the processes that they're asked to engage in. And we'll also have a new office called Environment Information Australia which will ensure accountability and transparency. I said at the very outset of my remarks that environmental accountability was always part of the initial approval process, but it's rarely been part of the process of following up after a project has been approved and we need to have that. We need to hold to account those who say they will do something but then don't follow up. In my view, both of those agencies will go a long, long way towards addressing the shortfalls of the EPBC Act that have been identified by both the Samuel review and by the Australia state of the environment report.

I conclude with these remarks. In my time in public life, the environment has always been a priority issue wherever I go. At local government level, you will find people and councils all around the country doing their bit to try and ensure that we have a sustainable environment. At state level, I see governments trying to do their best as well, and I believe that this parliament over the last 50 years has tried to do the same. I don't believe that the parliament would have liked to have seen our environment in any way degraded, and measures have been put in place, including legislation. I also now see groups like Rotary and Lions have included the environment as one of the key measures they will be looking to contribute towards as part of their projects around Australia and the globe. And I don't go to a single school where the schoolchildren don't raise the environment as a priority matter for our future. It is a matter that people genuinely care about because they know it is critical to our future survival.

We, as a parliament, have a responsibility to ensure that we preserve and protect the environment and, at the very least, stop it from degrading further. The measures proposed in this legislation, I believe, will go a long way towards doing that. Others will argue that perhaps they are imperfect, that they may cause other problems. The reality is that, as with every bit of legislation, there may be flaws, but this bit of legislation at least responds to identified problems of the current system as identified in the Samuel review and implements what I believe will be measures that will ensure that our environment is better protected into the future.

See this speech in context