Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Whilst the headline of this legislation might say 'nature positive', the reality is this is Australia negative. I've been through the second reading speech and other pieces of the legislation. The part that really stands out in the second reading speech is we know that most businesses are doing the right thing, but the intention of this Labor government is to impose yet another layer of legislation, regulation and enforcement over the top of them. Even though the states have the responsibility and they do this already, the intention of this legislation is to set up the green police with enforcement powers. Can you imagine, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, organisations like the CFMEU—who do this in construction already with rights of entry onto a construction site and cause all sorts of grief for the construction sector—having similar people with similar powers at a federal level around the environment, where they can then enter your site, your farm, your operation, on the basis of the fact that they have a reasonable belief. Last time I checked, it isn't that hard to get a reasonable belief. It is up to the individual to make that determination and you don't need much evidence.

I want to speak a little bit about the hypocrisy. Let's look at reality. The reality is this: this federal Labor government signed up to an international treaty for which 30 per cent of the nation's lands and oceans have to be locked up—30 per cent. I had some research done through the Parliamentary Library. On land alone you need an additional 60 million hectares to meet that target. Now, that can't come from existing parks, from the national parks or from state land. That is already counted. The only place those 60 million hectares can come from is cleared and partially cleared agricultural land. There about 426 million hectares of agricultural land in the country right now. I know in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, and in the member for Dawson's electorate, it matters. It is a big part of the economy. It provides jobs and food for this nation and the world. For those who may be listening, to give your concept of just how much land 60 million hectares is, the entire Australian sugar industry, all of it, the whole lot, is farmed on around 350,000 hectares. So there is 350,000 hectares for the entire Australian sugar industry and the Labor proposal is that 60 million hectares of cleared or partially cleared agricultural land has to come out of production. It is ludicrous! And on top of that there'll now be an enforcement provision under the legislation where inspectors, let's call them—for want of a better word—will come onto your farm or your property and enforce these requirements from a federal level, on top of what's already there at a state level.

If we look at the practical application, many of these things already exist. We already have the Environmental Defenders Office—that great bastion of selective prosecutions, funded by this Labor government. In fact, in their very first budget, the government allocated $9 million for the Environmental Defenders Office. So let's look at some of the activities that they've undertaken. They've undertaken activities opposed to Barossa offshore gas, which, fortunately, the judge threw out for a very prejudicial basis, and that was the right decision. They have looked at a whole stack of other resources driven projects and used taxpayer funds to delay or close down these operations.

But where are they not? We don't see the Environmental Defenders Office anywhere on the huge swathes of land that are literally being bulldozed, levelled and covered with solar panels in regional Australia. We don't see them at Clarke Creek, a wind farm in Queensland, where—and this is in their environmental management plan—3½ thousand hectares of pristine forest koala habitat is being bulldozed to provide roads and access to put up wind turbines. Where is the Environmental Defenders Office defending the environment?

There's a gentleman called Steve Nowakowski, a self-described greenie activist. Steve tells me that he's been arrested many times for tying himself to bulldozers and chaining himself to trees. He has come to the realisation that the proposal—and we saw more of it in the ISP from AEMO today. The damage it will cause to the environment is outrageous for what will be part-time power that can't run the country and has to be replaced at least every 20 years, assuming it doesn't get damaged by a fire, a hailstorm, a cyclone or anything else that happens in this country every other year.

Steve has become a supporter of nuclear. He was originally opposed, but he has seen firsthand what is happening, particularly in Queensland. I attended a function with Steve and Colin Boyce, the member for Flynn. It is horrifying, what is happening. Yet the people who are supposed to be advocating for the environment, to protect the environment and to protect pristine wildlife and wildlife areas, are nowhere to be seen—nowhere. They are quite happy to make noise about the Great Barrier Reef. I compliment the member for Makin for identifying how important the reef is, but I would suggest to the member—and others—that he actually goes and reads the reports on the Great Barrier Reef, which say that the bottom half in particular is in the best condition it has been in for decades. That report has conveniently been shelved or put somewhere else, because 'Let's make some noise about the reef.'

Can you imagine, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, this legislation passing and someone having a warrant to go out, investigate, enforce it and issue huge fines to organisations, on top of what happens at the state level, on top of what happens at the local level and on top of what happens with the Environmental Defenders Office with lawfare? How on earth will you get investment in this country? Layer upon layer of delays, lawfare and court actions make it even more difficult for people to invest and get an outcome.

This might seem like a strange concept to some, but businesses invest to make a profit, and if they can't make a profit and they can't pay their bills then they won't employ anyone and they won't invest here. So there is a significant risk from this legislation in terms of Australia's sovereign risk around the world, and it will continue to get worse. We know what happens between this Labor government and minor parties like the Greens and the teals—doing deals, particularly in the Senate. The outcome is horrifying.

The bill, allegedly, is amending nine pieces of environmental law to confer permitting, licensing, compliance and enforcement responsibilities directly onto the CEO of the proposed EPA. Mr Deputy Speaker, you've been here a while; I've been here a while. Why do we need a minister of the Crown if it is the intention of this government to give all of the authority to the CEO of an organisation, a bureaucrat or a member of the Public Service? It's a legislative authority. It takes away the responsibility of the minister to make a decision in those circumstances. You and I both know, Mr Deputy Speaker, once it's implemented, it's almost impossible to reverse because you need support of both the House and the Senate. We continue to see these challenges over and over and over.

The CEO can also establish an advisory group. You'd think that an advisory group might have three, five, seven or maybe even nine participants, but the proposal from this Labor government is that it's unlimited. There is no limit to the number of people that can be on the advisory group to the CEO for this new proposed organisation, this new level of bureaucracy. And where will they all be when it is a state responsibility, like, for example—we heard about the water trigger—the GAB, the Great Artesian Basin, an incredibly important water source for regional Australia? Where were they in the most recent debate when we saw proposals to literally pour liquid poison into the GAB? Who took up the fight? The member for Flynn, the member for Dawson and others. But nowhere did we see the Environmental Defenders Office. What will happen with this bureaucracy? Will they do those things? How do they get a constitutional power to override the state? So this proposal is fraught, absolutely fraught.

It's outlined in the second reading speech that existing directed audits will be expanded to cover an even greater range of circumstances. So you're in business—I spoke about this with the member for Dawson just yesterday, who is and has been a long-term agricultural producer; a farmer. He and I are of a similar age and similar backgrounds. When we first started, you used to go to work, you used to grow the best crop you could possibly manage and you'd drive your tractor and do everything else you'd have to do. But, now, you have to fill your forms in, you have to do your reef regulations and you have to allocate on a piece of paper exactly how much fertiliser you might apply, even though—really?—nobody wants fertiliser to run away, because it costs money, affects profit margin and affects and impacts whether you produce a crop. I don't know any producers that want run-off from their fertiliser, from their pesticide or from any other application. But it is getting so hard now, so difficult.

Family farmers are literally walking away, and they are selling out to big corporates, particularly those who come from overseas, from pension funds from super funds, and we are seeing larger and larger and larger organisations running over Australian family farmers. I think that's a tragedy for this country. Where is the opportunity for our youth, for our children, for those who live in those regions who are desperate to get their own farms? Now, not only do they have to get over the top of capital, competency, ability to grow, markets and the duopoly; they also have to get past another set of regulations and legislation that impacts what they do but doesn't really have any impact in terms of an outcome.

I'll give you a really good example. My region was recently brought into what's known as the reef regulations in Queensland. It is the Burnett Mary regional area. Would you believe that the Mary River runs to the Pacific Ocean and then turns south? It actually flows to the south. But our region now has to deal with the reef regulations because of the impact on the reef, which is 100-and-something kilometres to the north. It literally doesn't go there. It can't; it flows the other way. But every single provider, like the member for Dawson used to be, has to comply with legislation which has no impact on the reef but has huge impact on their organisation, their profitability and their ability to hire people.

So this legislation—this proposal for the green police, this proposal for even more bureaucracy, which will have more powers than the minister because the minister will allocate those powers to the CEO—is a mistake. It is not in the interests of this country. There are so many levels, so many layers, already, that you do not need the green police. If we look at carbon sequestration, that is something that those opposite are continually worked up about. They love the CSIRO, and I love them too. But, if you actually go and read one of their reports, you will see that there is no practical way whatsoever to reduce carbon emissions by the amount that those opposite are claiming they will without carbon capture and storage. It is the only option. There is no practical outcome that can be achieved under the existing protocols apart from that one. I'd certainly encourage those opposite to go and read that report. It makes for very, very interesting reading.

There will be the ability to issue what's called an environmental protection order, an enforcement tool to force project proponents to immediately cease work on their developments at any time where it's reasonably suspected that they've contravened their obligations under federal environmental law. That is on top of their state obligations, on top of their state workplace health and safety legislation obligations, on top of the criminal requirements to pay their workers, on top of all of the other things they have to deal with every single day to be in business. It's a great shame that there are so few people in this building who have had the great opportunity to run their own business. It makes your hair grey, it creates a lot of risk and it creates problems at home on occasion, but you get to put yourself out there. You can set your own path. You can pay people. You can be proud of what you do. You can take risks. You can make money. You can educate your kids, and it is a great vocation. But there are so many things getting in the way of the ability for any individual to find their own path and their own way, and this is just another one.

What's wrong with Landcare? Landcare is a great, practical solution, a fundamental and wonderful piece of legislation that was applied by Bob Hawke as Prime Minister. I applaud him; it was the right decision. But we cannot continue to have ideological decisions that set the framework of policy in this country with no thought to application, to the damage that it will do and to the restriction that it puts on trade and on individuals who are just out there trying to run their businesses and have a go.

I oppose the legislation. I oppose the green police. I think it's not in Australia's interest, and I am incredibly concerned about the ability of an agency like this to end up like the CFMEU, to end up with rights-of-entry provisions and to end up with actual powers and warrants and authority to go on to law-abiding businesses and shut them down. No-one wants to damage the environment; no-one wants to damage the reef. They just want to be able to run their businesses without so much interference, and they are walking away, particularly those in small businesses. And my heart breaks for those individuals, those young Australians, who want to get in and have a go and who just can't get that opportunity.

See this speech in context