Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was interrupted when I was speaking about the Prime Minister, who on 27 September said in relation to climate change that the government was not really interested in ‘what might happen to Australia and the planet in 50 years time’. This was an extraordinary statement from the Prime Minister, given that it is quite clear that many of the CSIRO predictions of what will happen in 2050 are happening right now. The Prime Minister, it would appear, is some 50 years behind when it comes to climate change.

In his second reading speech last Thursday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage described the EPBC Act as:

… a world-class and innovative piece of environmental legislation.

Why then is the government treating the act with such contempt? The process in this has been a farce. In government, Labor commit themselves to having a comprehensive review of the act with proper consultation processes and appropriate time for public discussion and debate. Robert Hill, for so long the leader of an endangered species in themselves, the moderates in the Liberal Party, and a former Minister for the Environment and Heritage, was very proud of the act. He stated in 1999 that it was:

… by far the most significant piece of environmental legislation enacted by the Commonwealth parliament.

Importantly, he also said:

I think we’ve got the balance about right.

The following year, in December 2000, Robert Hill described the act as:

… user-friendly. It establishes an assessment and approval process that provides certainty and that is governed by tight time frames.

He went on to say:

Decisions are made in a timely and transparent manner. Assessments under the EPBC Act are being effectively integrated with state processes, avoiding delay and duplication.

There was a time when these things seemed to matter—getting the balance right, being user-friendly and having transparency—but the Howard government has changed. There is no longer a balance in this government. Transparency has gone the way of Beta video recorders—a relic of the past, it seems. User-friendliness has gone out the window: 409 pages of amendments added to a 733-page act and rushed through the parliament. The bill upsets the balance between environmental protection and development approval. The voice of moderation is disappearing. Increasingly the climate change sceptic, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, is running environment policy in the Howard government. How else can you explain not a single mention of climate change in the bill?

Robert Hill certainly understood the dramatic impact climate change would have on Australia. He supported the Kyoto protocol, emissions trading and a greenhouse trigger under the EPBC Act. But that is long gone now. Indeed, Robert Hill said on 30 March 2000:

… the Howard government worked very hard to ensure that the Kyoto protocol gave recognition to Australia’s special circumstances. There are those who foolishly believe that Australia has something to win by derailing the Kyoto protocol.

In the words of the former Minister for the Environment and Heritage, we now have a Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, who is indeed a fool, because he and others are attempting to derail the global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The fact that the Howard government’s premier environmental law completely ignores climate change demonstrates how out of touch this government is. It is an inconvenient truth for the government that between 1990 and 2004 emissions rose by 25.1 per cent, once you exclude the decisions of the New South Wales and Queensland governments on land clearing.

The government has consistently boasted that the Kyoto protocol is irrelevant because Australia will meet its target anyway. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say it is going to damage the economy on the one hand but at the same time say that we will meet our target. Last week of course the environment minister conceded that the Howard government might not meet its target at all.

Climate change is the great nation-building challenge of the 21st century—avoiding dangerous climate change, preparing our economy for a carbon constrained world, getting our energy mix right, ensuring we are world leaders in clean, renewable energy and seizing the significant opportunities that the global challenge of climate change will bring. This bill is a huge missed opportunity.

Today I offer a simple challenge to the Howard government: join the Labor Party in the fight against climate change. Support Labor’s amendment to establish a climate change trigger under the EPBC Act. Support Labor’s practical amendment, to be moved in the consideration in detail stage, to ensure climate change is an integral part of the act. Robert Hill understood the significance of a climate change trigger. Indeed, on 10 December 1999 he released a consultation paper on the possible application of a greenhouse trigger under the act. At the time he stated:

Introducing a greenhouse trigger would provide another measure for addressing our international responsibilities in relation to climate change and ensuring Australia meet its Kyoto target.

Senator Hill got rolled in the cabinet. So, instead of best practice, we have had seven wasted years.

Labor will act. I have had a private member’s bill before this House to establish a climate change trigger under the act and will be moving an amendment to this bill along those lines. This would ensure that new developments represent best practice. The climate change trigger will apply to the establishment of any industrial plan or other facility which emits or is likely to emit more than 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide or equivalents per year or any other action, series of actions or policies which would lead or be likely to lead to the emission of more than 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide or equivalents per year. Any such action will require ministerial approval, unless the minister decides that the action is not controlled under the act. If the action is approved, the minister can, under the act, attach conditions to the approval such as the need to mitigate its greenhouse emissions. Labor’s amendment also provides that the minister must consider whether the direct or indirect emissions of carbon dioxide that are likely to result from the action will be minimised by the use of best practice environmental management and low-emissions technology.

There is no argument for not accepting this amendment. The government should support this and should support other amendments. It should add a new objective to the act to protect Australia from dangerous climate change. It should add a new principle of ecologically sustainable development to note that decision-making processes should consider and minimise where possible the adverse effects of climate change. It should add a new section 3B outlining the significance of climate change and add a definition of climate change to reflect the definition of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change established under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which Australia is a participant. If the Minister for the Environment and Heritage really believes that climate change is a very serious threat to Australia, he will support these amendments.

Robert Hill also understood the need for the EPBC Act to evolve to consider new triggers for environmental protection. In 1999, when discussing the act’s triggers, he stated that:

... it will be an evolving situation reflecting community attitudes and what really is seen as the best and most appropriate mix at the time.

In fact, the act provides for a five-year review to assess the need for any new matters of national environmental significance, the key environmental challenges that trigger the act. The most recent review was undertaken in April 2005. Its outcomes were never published and, as we can see by the amendments before the House, no new triggers have been added. In failing to publish the results of the review, the minister has failed to fulfil his obligations under his act. There are not a lot of environmental pieces of legislation in the environment and heritage portfolio, but this minister cannot even fulfil his obligations. Section 28A is very explicit. It states:

Every 5 years after the commencement of this Act, the Minister must cause a report to be prepared on whether this Part should be amended ...

It goes on to say:

Before preparation of the report is completed, the Minister must cause to be published in accordance with the regulations (if any): (a) a draft of the report; and (b) an invitation to comment on the draft within the period specified by the Minister.

None of this has occurred. What is the minister’s response to his being in breach of his own act? He seeks to repeal the section. The arrogance of the minister is quite extraordinary. But this, of course, is not the first time the minister has broken his own law. The environment minister admitted in Senate estimates on 31 May 2006 that he broke the laws governing heritage protection. Under section 324J of the existing EPBC Act, the minister must gazette a decision to list a place on the National Heritage List within 20 business days of receiving advice from the Australian Heritage Council. There is no discretion in the current act; the minister cannot just delay announcing decisions due to political reasons. At the May estimates the minister did not deny that he had decided more than 200 days earlier to place Old Parliament House on the National Heritage List. The minister seemed unconcerned that he had broken the law, telling Senate estimates:

A number of decisions have not met those timelines. That is right.

That is arrogance personified from this government.

This bill is a missed opportunity. It is marked by arrogance throughout it. You see it in the attempt to curtail third party appeal rights, you see it in the undermining of public consultation processes and you see it in the further politicisation of decision-making processes. The bill contains five separate measures to strip away the right to appeal ministerial decisions before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. They relate to threatened species, migratory species, marine species, whales and dolphins, and wildlife trade permits. This sets an extraordinary precedent. The appeal rights in relation to wildlife permits have existed since 1981. The checks and balances and transparency that were said to be such an integral part of the act are fast disappearing. Labor will restore that transparency. We will move amendments to repeal those sections of this amendment bill that remove the right to appeal ministerial decisions to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The bill places even more power in the hands of the environment minister—a minister who has treated the act as his own political plaything. The bill allows the minister to determine annual themes through a priority assessment list for the listing of threatened species and heritage places. Once a year the minister will call for nominations of possible themes and the nominations will be considered by the scientific committee and the Australian Heritage Council. In the end, the minister will decide on the themes. He or she can remove items from the priority assessment list and only needs to notify the nominee and put the decision on the internet. In proposed section 194K(3) of the bill it states:

... in exercising the power to make changes to the priority list the Minister may have regard to any matters that the Minister considers appropriate.

Just think about that extraordinary provision—placing even more power in the hands of a minister who already treats the act as his political plaything. We already know about the orange-bellied parrot, a favourite of the environment minister. Who knows what other favourite threatened species or heritage themes lurk in marginal seats around the country. We know that decisions to use the act have not been based upon science; they have been based upon politics. You see it again in section 324A(5), where, in deciding whether or not to list a place on the National Heritage List, the minister must give regard to advice from the Australian Heritage Council but may also ‘seek and have regard to information or advice from any other source’— a Liberal party candidate perhaps or a National Party branch resolution. There has to be some appropriate scientific basis for this if the act is going to have integrity and if, at the end of the day, the environmental needs of this nation are not going to be set aside and undermined. This provision gives the minister carte blanche to seek advice from any source or make whatever decision he or she chooses. It undermines the integrity and the independence of the heritage protection regime.

Why would people be concerned about that? Let us look at when the environment minister has used the act. In June 2005, he tried to offer emergency heritage protection to allow cattle grazing in the Victorian Alpine National Park. That flew in the face of scientific evidence and advice from his own department. His department had advised the Victorian government in 2004 that cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park ‘is highly inconsistent with the sustainable protection and management of its natural heritage values’. That was the advice from the minister’s own federal department, but what did he do? He intervened to try to impose an outcome that was against heritage and protection of the natural environment.

That situation was repeated in the Pythonesque farce over the Bald Hills wind farm in Victoria. On 10 March 2006 the Department of the Environment and Heritage advised the minister to approve the Bald Hills wind farm under the act, because it found ‘no direct evidence of any impact on the orange-bellied parrot at Bald Hills’. Nonetheless, the minister blocked the $220 million project because he thought there might be one endangered theoretical parrot every 1,000 years, thus honouring a political commitment made during the federal election campaign. Given the abuse of the act for political purposes, there is a real danger in providing this minister with even greater discretion.

There is a great irony that the environment minister abuses the EPBC Act when it is in his political interests but runs a mile from it when it requires tough decision making. Just have a look at the Australian Whale Sanctuary. The act provides for the establishment of an Australian Whale Sanctuary to give formal recognition of the high level of protection and management afforded to cetaceans in Commonwealth marine areas and prescribed waters—a legally binding safe haven for whales. What has the Howard government done with these powers? Absolutely nothing. More whales than ever before have been slaughtered in the Australian Whale Sanctuary since it was established, because the government refuses to enforce its own act. In fact, the Attorney-General has taken legal action to intervene in a court case to say that the EPBC Act should not be enforced as it would ‘create a diplomatic disagreement with Japan’. Japan as a nation is a great friend of Australia, but we do have a diplomatic disagreement when it comes to the slaughtering of whales in Australian waters, and Australians want to see our laws enforced. I am appalled that the government is making it even harder for community groups, including environment groups, to protect our natural flora and fauna by stopping appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Labor will seek to restore AAT appeal rights, and we will continue to campaign for real action to make the Australian Whale Sanctuary a true sanctuary and ensure that the slaughter is stopped for all time.

The amendments outlined in this bill represent a further backward step in the protection of Australia’s natural, cultural and Indigenous heritage. They continue the tremendous slide in heritage protection that has occurred since 1996. Labor governments, of course, have a proud record. It was in 1973 that the Whitlam government set up the Hope royal commission into Australia’s National Estate. That led to the establishment of the Australian Heritage Commission under my friend Tom Uren. The commission was responsible for managing Australia’s Register of the National Estate. Today, that register contains over 13,000 sites of natural, cultural and Indigenous significance. Tragically, the idea of an independent heritage body is now just a memory, and this bill sounds the death knell of the Register of the National Estate. That will be phased out after five years. In the second reading, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage referred to the archiving of the Register of the National Estate. Let us be honest: the register is being abolished. The bill removes the requirement for the minister to have regard to the register when making decisions, and it will disappear after five years. We will be moving amendments to restore the Register of the National Estate and to require the minister to have regard to it when making decisions.

The Howard years have been characterised by a lack of respect for our heritage. The Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 is another brick in the wall. Among other things, this draconian act overrode the EPBC Act and Indigenous heritage laws in establishing the site for a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. The Howard government has always put its political interests ahead of the national interest. Another example is the government’s attitude to Anzac Cove. In 2003, the Prime Minister promised to protect Anzac Cove forever. He promised to make it the first listing on the new National Heritage List. On 18 December 2000, the Prime Minister said:

It seems to me ... entirely appropriate that the Anzac site at Gallipoli should represent the first nomination for inclusion on the National Heritage List. And, although it’s not on Australian territory, anyone who has visited the place will know that once you go there you feel it is as Australian as the piece of land on which your home is built.

Instead of protecting Anzac Cove, we know that the Howard government requested road works which damaged the integrity of the geography of the site, which had remained largely the same for 90 years. Now the government has raised the white flag. It will no longer pursue national heritage listing for overseas sites. The bill establishes a new List of Overseas Places of Historic Significance, a symbolic measure but a pathetic, weak backdown, given the commitments that had been given by government. The much vaunted National Heritage List, the linchpin of the government’s heritage regime, really has failed to live up to the rhetoric. It is not protecting our Indigenous heritage; it is not protecting our precious national heritage.

Simon Molesworth, the head of the National Trust, has described the list as ‘abysmal’. In the last 18 months, only 26 places have been added to the list. I am pleased that Labor Party pressure has increased the number of places on the National Heritage List, but there is still only one site listed in the Northern Territory and South Australia. It is outrageous that only one of our 16 World Heritage sites is on the list. That is in spite of the fact that there was a special six-month grace period under the act in which it could happen automatically.

In Senate estimates in May 2005 the secretary of the department said:

… there was clearly a misunderstanding in the department as to the act’s meaning. That, quite frankly, is a problem. ... Our understanding of the legislation is that the legislation was not what we thought it was.

This was an extraordinary concession. The minister does not know how the legislation works, the department under the minister does not know either and yet you have 409 pages of amendments being rushed through the parliament. The Howard government have failed to address the issues of our natural environment. If they are serious, they will support Labor’s amendment, which will strengthen the act. At the moment, the EPBC Act fails to address the great environmental challenge of climate change. The Australian public will judge this bill very harshly if it is not amended, and that is why Labor will oppose this bill if it is not amended. The EPBC Act has failed when it fails to address the major issue facing Australia, leading to a plant and animal extinction crisis where 20 per cent of our species are threatened with extinction by the end of this century. We have a number of challenges before us. I commend my amendment to the House. (Time expired)

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The EPBC Act is very important to me and to my electorate in Townsville and North Queensland. In Townsville we have the Barrier Reef lagoon, in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Of course, that is World Heritage listed but we also have the World Heritage listed tropical rainforest. The interaction between the coastal plain and the reef lagoon gives rise to concerns from time to time in relation to protecting that environment. It is the EPBC Act that comes into play, when it is triggered, to make sure that that special place is protected.

The EPBC Act is also important to me because it may well be that Townsville will be the location for the new alumina refinery in Queensland called the Chalco project. Bauxite will be shipped from Cape York down to Townsville, if that is where the refinery is situated, and it will be refined in our city. Alumina refineries produce copious quantities of what is known in the industry as ‘red mud’. There is some discussion about where the refinery would be located in Townsville and I know that the coordinator general’s department of the Queensland government and the company itself is mindful that this project will trigger the EPBC Act. This act will provide protection for the Great Barrier Reef lagoon and I am very pleased to see that the community leaders in Townsville, to a person, have said that they are not—(Quorum formed) I thank my colleagues for attending. It gives me the opportunity to remind them that the Australian Labor Party intends to vote against these very sensible amendments to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

As I was saying, community leaders in Townsville, to a person, have made it very clear that the Chalco refinery will not proceed unless it satisfies the EPBC Act. This is a vote of confidence in the act by both sides of politics, and I am very pleased to see that the act is operating as intended. The current act has been six years in operation and it has operated very successfully. But from time to time you pick up things in the act where, if there were changes introduced, it would allow a better act and a more sensible operation of the act, and that is why the government has brought these amendments to the House today. The changes basically simplify the processes in the act. They make it easier for all people who are captured by the act, but they do not in any way alter the protections that have been in the act for the last six years.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, they do.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, they do.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are 400 pages of amendments or changes. What sort of a point is that? What point are the Labor Party making? If you have to change the act, you have to change the act, and if you have to make minor technical amendments then you make the minor technical amendments.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Without public consultation. No public consultation!

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the point that is made about having no public consultation, I have seen the consultation process occur on a project on Magnetic Island in Herbert, and the process was unreasonably disgraceful. Two or three people are able to hold up sensible development that has absolutely no impact on the environment or heritage whatsoever—zero—for two years. That is obviously unreasonable, and obviously you have to do something about it. These processes today will do something about it.

In relation to the amendment that the Labor Party put up, the first part says:

(1)

the bill is being rushed through the Parliament without proper consideration or consultation …

Goodness me. If the Labor Party would only act more sensibly in the operations of the parliament, it would stop having these silly quorums when we are trying to have a debate about these things, it would stop wasting the time of the House throughout the sittings of the parliament and perhaps things could be a little bit better. Then I see:

(4)

the bill will increase the Howard Government’s politicisation of environment and heritage protection …

What absolute rubbish. The Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 is not about that at all. The Howard government implemented the most significant environmental protection that this country has ever seen. It funded the largest environmental protection program this country has ever seen. The Natural Heritage Trust has been outstandingly successful. The Labor Party’s answer to all that when the EPBC Act was first proposed was to vote against it.

The Labor Party will claim cutting red tape is just weasel words for reducing environmental protection. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Howard government is not interested in process for process’ sake. Many of the changes in the act before the parliament are relatively minor and of a machinery nature. These all add up to making the act easier to use without changing—and that is a guarantee—the very high level of basic environmental protection. Projects that are likely to have significant impact—for example, the Chalco alumina refinery—will still need rigorous approval under the EPBC Act. But this now provides for quick decisions for straightforward proposals. What is wrong with that? There are projects that trigger the EPBC Act, but these are straightforward and blind Freddy can see that there will not be any impact on the environment or the heritage. So we are reducing the number of mandatory steps and enabling decision points to be handled concurrently along the way. Of course, it provides more tailored assessment guidelines to fit the particular proposal.

I heard the member for Grayndler give an example of the government’s high-handedness in relation to the environment and heritage when he talked about the nuclear waste repository proposed for this country. Governments have to show leadership from time to time. We had all of the state governments saying, ‘Not in my backyard.’ But Australia needs a nuclear waste repository in a proper location, and that is why proper locations were determined. The member for Grayndler seemed to think that a piece of land somewhere in the desert in the Northern Territory used for a nuclear waste repository would somehow or other affect the environment and the heritage of the place. Any reasonable Australian would know that that comment is unreasonable. We cannot have nuclear waste stored in containers in car parks in hospitals. We just cannot. With the Labor state governments, to a person, saying, ‘No, it’s not going to be in our state,’ the federal government showed the necessary leadership and moved on.

The member for Grayndler also spoke about the Kyoto protocol. We hear the Labor Party all the time talking about the Kyoto protocol, but I remind the House that those who are part of the sensible debate on the environment know and understand that Kyoto is a slogan—it is not a solution. Signing the Kyoto protocol is an excuse for not having a proper debate at all. Sensible people in this debate know and understand that. And they know that the direction Australia is heading is a much better way than signing a protocol that is already dead in the water—a protocol that does not include the biggest polluters in the world, a protocol that would damage Australia. Of course Australia is very proud to be one of the few nations in the world that are actually meeting Kyoto targets.

These changes before the House will provide for quick decisions on straightforward proposals. They are going to reduce the number of mandatory steps in the process. They will provide greater flexibility for the process and they will enable the minister to decide that advice to other ministers under section 160 is not required. This is a good result and it is what the country needs. It is appropriate and sensible, after six years of operation of the EPBC Act, to make amendments to further streamline and improve the efficiency of the operation of the act while continuing to protect our very precious environment and heritage. I support the bill.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In supporting the passage of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 government members have argued that this legislation does not in any way alter the protections in the existing act. That is untrue. I want to concentrate my remarks on a particular provision in this legislation that can have profound implications for the protection of Australia’s natural and built heritage—that is, proposed section 324JJ. In essence, it says that the minister is to decide whether or not to include a place on the National Heritage List. In so doing the minister will receive advice from the Australian Heritage Council and that advice will be in the form of an assessment of the heritage values of the particular site. The minister then, under the amendments proposed in this bill, will take account of the advice of the Australian Heritage Council but, crucially, at section (5):

(b)

the Minister may seek, and have regard to, information or advice from any source—

in making a decision as to whether a site will or will not enter onto the Heritage List.

Let us, as a parliament, understand what this means. The minister receives the advice from the Heritage Council. That advice, no doubt, will be well formulated by a group of experts, but in the end the minister can completely ignore that advice in making a decision on whether a property shall enter onto the register. It means that the minister can take account of anything—any information provided by anyone. It could be advice from the minister’s brother or mother. It could be advice from the minister’s newsagent or his political donor. I wonder if you can see the direction in which I am heading.

This sort of legislation has precedence. It has precedence in the Bjelke-Petersen era in Queensland. I was an adviser in Canberra to the then Prime Minister when particular destructive developments were occurring in Queensland under the Bjelke-Petersen government. I refer to the midnight demolitions of the Bellevue Hotel and the Cloudlands Ballroom. What the then Premier of Queensland did was effectively argue, ‘It’s all very well me being advised that these are areas of great cultural significance and have heritage values; I’m just taking into account another consideration, and that is donations by my developer mates.’ And so he did. And there was no legal remedy to those midnight demolitions.

Fast-forward 30 years and we have here, in this parliament, a piece of legislation that validates Bjelke-Petersen type behaviour—that is, the minister can receive from the Heritage Council rolled gold advice that a particular site is of wonderful, iconic heritage value in Australia and say, ‘Wow, that’s interesting but I’ve also got another piece of advice and that is that my developer friends think that this’d be a dandy place to stick a high-rise development or a golf course or some other commercial development.’

The Bjelke-Petersen era is alive and well in the Australian parliament. And we have government members coming into this place and saying that this legislation does not in any way alter the protections in the existing act! That is complete rubbish. I know that no-one on the government side will be drawing attention to this legislation. They have brought into this chamber a piece of legislation that runs to 407 pages. It has been rushed into the parliament, and government members are awishin’, ahopin’ and aprayin’ that no-one will notice this particular odious provision that empowers the minister to reject any and all heritage applications at his or her whim.

Now, let us look at some of the sites that have been nominated for the National Heritage List but have not yet been accepted. Empowered by this amendment bill, when it has passed through the parliament, the minister can, at a whim or for any other reason, reject nominations that have already been lodged under the recommendation and analysis of the Heritage Council. I thought I would download some of those nominations. I am sure that those who are listening tonight will understand the significance of some of them. I have not ranked them in iconic status, because they are ranked in alphabetical order, but they are household names. Starting with A, there is Australia Square in George Street in Sydney. If the minister considers that there is a development proposal or interest, and therefore that Australia Square does not have heritage significance, then under proposed section (5)(b) of 324JJ the minister can say, ‘All very interesting, lovely report, but it is not going on the Heritage List.’

Another area that most Australians will have some fond associations with is the Australian Antarctic Territory. Maybe it is that, after the expiry of the present agreement that there would be no mining developments in Antarctica, the minister of the day would say, ‘Well, it’s fine that the Australian Antarctic Territory seems to have heritage values, but I’m not going to recognise those values by putting the Australian Antarctic Territory on the National Heritage List.’ Similarly, the minister could knock back the Cherub’s Cave grey nurse shark habitat on Moreton Island, in Queensland. There might be a sandmining proposal that interferes with that habitat, so the minister, rather than saying, ‘Yes, I accept it’s got heritage values,’ can say: ‘I reject the notion that this has heritage values. I reject the advice of the Heritage Council, and it is not going to be recognised as having heritage values by being added to the National Heritage List.’

The City of Adelaide Historic Layout and Park Lands could receive the same treatment, as could a rather iconic piece of sand in the Great Sandy Region called Fraser Island. Most Australians would know about Fraser Island. But the minister, in a Howard government, can say: ‘Fraser Island does not have national heritage significance because I have decided it doesn’t. And, by the way, there are some development proposals there that I don’t want complicated, so it’s not going on the National Heritage List.’ Regarding the Great Western Tiers in Tasmania, the Greater Wilsons Promontory area, and the High Court and the National Gallery precinct here in the ACT, the minister could say, ‘I don’t see any heritage values in those whatsoever.’

The Kosciuszko National Park falls into the same category, as does Noosa National Park. Regarding the very place in which we are having this debate, Parliament House in Canberra, there would be no heritage significance if the minister decides that it has no heritage significance. Regarding Old Parliament House, the beginning of national parliament in Australia, the minister is empowered under this legislation to determine that it is not worthy of entry onto the National Heritage List. Point Cook air base falls into the same category, as does the Tarkine wilderness area, the Greater Blue Mountains area and an area in which I was born and grew up, the Warrumbungles National Park, on John Renshaw Parkway, Coonabarabran, where the Siding Spring Observatory is located. This is astonishing legislation—the minister could say that the Warrumbungles National Park and the Siding Spring Observatory have no heritage values because he has decided that they have no heritage values and are not going onto the list.

The government will argue that the minister had this capacity anyway because of the silence of the existing act. The reason that this amendment has been put in is to protect the minister’s butt, so that he can say, ‘To remove any doubt as to whether I have the capacity to knock back a heritage application, based on a whim, I am going to put into this amendment a clause which says that I can—on a whim or for whatever other reason—decide that an area does not in fact warrant listing on the heritage list.’

This is not the way to manage the issues of the economy and the environment. Fundamentally, we make an error when we talk about balancing the economy and the environment. What we need to do is integrate the economy and the environment by embracing the philosophy of ecologically sustainable development—that is, having the economy growing strongly but in an environmentally sustainable way, so that we are not visiting upon future generations the economic and environmental costs of environmental damage and ultimate clean-up. Translate the concept of ecological sustainability into this legislation, and this is how the legislation should work. The Heritage Council does a lot of serious work on an application. It comes to a view. It then makes a submission to the minister, and the minister then would not have the discretion to say, for whimsical reasons or because he has developer mates, that an area does not have heritage values. It either has heritage values or it does not have heritage values. It is not up to the minister to say, ‘It’s got economic value and therefore it doesn’t have heritage values.’

The Heritage Council in many cases may advise that an area does not have heritage values, but if the council says it does have heritage values then it should be acknowledged as an area of national heritage significance. Then we come to the management of that property. Here is where I would argue that putting something on the National Heritage List does not necessarily mean that no economic development can occur on that site. It is a matter of protecting the values. If you can preserve the values, it is not necessarily a matter of totally protecting the site. That is an important distinction.

This has historic precedent. I understand why the first bill came forward: there were real problems with the national estate heritage listing process, from the 1975 legislation all the way through the eighties and 1990s. That is, an under-resourced Australian Heritage Commission was receiving nominations to the Register of the National Estate—a different concept. It was so underresourced that it could not properly assess the applications. So, for the benefit of doubt, it was very strongly disposed to putting anything and everything on the Register of the National Estate.

This was used by people in the environment movement to try to prevent development occurring, for example, in any area of Tasmania that was on the Register of the National Estate. Their tactic was to put as many areas on the Register of the National Estate as possible. A compliant Australian Heritage Commission would agree because it did not have the resources to assess the heritage values properly. The way to manage that would have been to say—and the Hawke government did—that the government was not going to accept the argument of the environment movement that there could be no logging in a national estate area. The Hawke government, on 12 June 1986—it was one of my first duties as an adviser to the Prime Minister—put out a press release saying that the Hawke government would protect national estate values. The environment movement had wanted it to say that it would protect all national estate forests.

I understand and accept that that national estate listing process was basically flawed. Therefore there was a case for a new piece of legislation that got the listing process right and that improved the integrity of the listing process. But, having improved the integrity of the listing process, you cannot then give the minister a veto right to say that, notwithstanding the advice that something is a rolled gold piece of iconic Australian natural, built or cultural heritage, it is not going on the list because he or she has commercial reasons not to put it on the list.

Having made those points, and having made them strongly because I feel strongly about this, I will say there is no doubt that in this legislation there are ample provisions that involve extra protection or improvements to the existing legislation. The tragedy is that, through this Cloudland Bjelke-Peterson style amendment, the government is destroying any possibility of the good parts of this legislation being properly recognised; there are so many fundamentally bad parts to this legislation. The way that this should have been approached—and I understand that this legislation was developed in consultation with the states—is that it should have enjoyed a proper public consultation process so that a light could be shone on some of its most odious provisions. That would have allowed us in this democracy to argue that they be deleted and the good parts retained. But those of goodwill and who are well motivated in the bureaucracy and in the Heritage Council, and those who have a genuine interest in Australian heritage and economic development, are going to confront the situation where this bill will have a very bad reputation because it has such odious provisions included in it.

Working with the states is the way to go. The intergovernmental agreement on the environment that was reached in 1992 introduced the notion of full faith and credit. By that I mean that the Commonwealth and the states would agree on an environmental assessment process, and if that were followed rigorously by a particular state then the Commonwealth would not seek to replicate the entire process. There had been the problem of a project proponent going through a state environmental assessment process, getting a tick for that and then being confronted by new Commonwealth environmental assessment processes that dragged out the assessment process and applied new restrictions. After a while, commercial development proponents just gave up and went away because they had been subject to a death by a thousand cuts. That is why the 1992 intergovernmental agreement on the environment was developed. It was based on the principles of ecological sustainability and applied the notion of full faith and credit. There was so much potential to do good in the bill being considered—to protect genuine cultural, built and natural heritage—but the reputation of this legislation will be badly sullied.

That brings me to my final point. The government has been in office now for 10 years. It is very difficult in looking back to think of any major environmental improvement or major environmental achievement of this government. Yes, it did put a lot of money into a National Heritage Trust, some of which no doubt was spent well and wisely, but much of it was spent in marginal and National Party seats and was not necessarily spent very wisely at all. You can hardly qualify that as a great environmental achievement. If we look at the Murray-Darling Basin system, we see that when Bob Hawke launched the environment statement Our Country Our Future in 1989 one of the big challenges was seen to be to improve the health of that system. This was symbolised by the fact that the Prime Minister launched that environment statement on the Murray River. There were a lot of dead trees on it because of waterlogging and salinity. Come forward from 1989 to 2006, and the Murray-Darling Basin system is sicker than ever because the government has not got the guts to take on the issue of water allocations and move to permanent trading in water rights.

I cannot think of any great environmental achievement of this government—and then it brings in a piece of legislation, much of which I might find had a lot of merit if I had the time to go through its 200-odd pages. But, because it has the Joh Bjelke-Peterson amendment, I will certainly be voting against this legislation. I want the Australian people to understand the significance of the power that the minister now claims for himself in this legislation: the power to knock over any application for any icon anywhere around Australia because he or his developer mates, brother, sister, mother or daughter thinks it should not go on the list. This is absurd and it is obscene. Therefore I will be strongly opposing this legislation.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be speaking in support of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006that is, I will be opposing the member for Rankin. I do not believe his concerns will prove to be founded in the long run, although he did show to the parliament this evening the depth of his knowledge of the history of this legislation from his former roles working for a previous government.

I support the government’s proposed amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, or the EPBC Act, as it is generally known. In the six years since the introduction of this act, the challenges facing the Australian environment have changed. Just as the Australian environment itself has changed, experience has shown us that there are ways in which the operation of the EPBC Act can be improved to optimise its efficiency while maintaining and enhancing its environmental effectiveness. The bill proposes those improvements.

As chair of the Australian government’s environment and heritage backbench committee I have witnessed the community’s wide acceptance of the EPBC legislation and have been proud to be part of the real results this act has had for the environment, particularly in my electorate of McMillan.

In his second reading speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the member for Flinders, explained:

The EPBC Act has established Australia’s place as a world leader in environmental legislation. The act has been acknowledged as a world-class and innovative piece of environmental legislation. It is one of the few environmental laws anywhere in the world that provides a comprehensive national approach to environmental protection and that deals with such a wide range of environment and heritage issues.

He also went on to say:

For the first time in our Federation, the EPBC Act clarified the environmental roles and responsibilities of the Australian government, and the linkages between it and the state and territory governments. The act provides mechanisms for consultation and cooperation between those governments. It puts in place a streamlined environmental assessment and approvals process in a way that is predictable, transparent and efficient, employing statutory time frames to ensure timely decision making.

As I said in my opening remarks, this bill is about efficiency—an opportunity for continuous quality improvement. The government now proposes to streamline the act with a series of amendments that will benefit the community, industry, the economy and the nation, while maintaining our strong commitment to protecting Australia’s unique and iconic natural, Indigenous and cultural heritage.

Broadly, the amendments include changes in six areas. Cutting red tape in government will reduce duplication and complexity, and improve assessment and approval processes. Other changes will have a more significant impact on the application of the act, including providing incentives for developments to be considered earlier in the planning process, in the context of regional plans and strategic assessments. The amendments mean that quicker decisions can be made on straightforward projects, which will result in greater cost savings and efficiencies for industry, government and the community.

Another change to the EPBC Act will be the increased flexibility in setting conditions on developments. In this area, the amendments in the bill will broaden the types of conditions that can be attached to development approvals. This will allow voluntary compensatory actions and financial contributions to be made to help offset the impacts of developments in situations where impacts are unavoidable. The two areas that will interest people in my Victorian electorate of McMillan will be the increase in the certainty for community and industry and the strengthening of compliance and enforcement. I will cover those two areas in more detail later in my address.

I do not think the Howard government gets the recognition it deserves in terms of working to preserve, protect and enhance our environment and heritage. As the Minister for the Environment and Heritage said earlier this year during the budget session:

Over the past 10 years, the Howard Government has committed historic levels of funding to tackling the national challenges of natural resource management and climate change …

The Howard government has nominated a sustainable environment as one of its nine strategic priorities and has made an environmentally sustainable Australia one of its four national research priorities. This commitment has been backed up by resources, with total spending on environmental issues increasing from just $370 million in 1995-96, when the Howard government came to government, to $1.55 billion in 2006-07. Anybody would have to agree that is a major commitment. (Quorum formed)

Governments get accused of blowing their own trumpets, but I say to you that there is no shame in acknowledging the achievements we have made, like vehemently opposing commercial and scientific whaling and our commitment to pursuing an end to these practices through international forums and the Howard government’s oceans policy, the first such policy in the world, which develops regional marine plans including a system of marine protected areas. Then there is the fact that air quality in cities and urban areas has improved markedly as a result of mandatory cleaner fuel standards.

Another huge success story is the Natural Heritage Trust, the biggest and most successful environmental restoration program in Australia’s history, with $3 billion in funding helping local communities in 56 regions across Australia to clean beaches, rehabilitate coastlines, reduce erosion, improve the health of land and waterways, increase the productivity of agricultural land and protect our threatened species. It is estimated that over 800,000 Australians, mostly volunteers, have contributed to thousands of Natural Heritage Trust projects. I cannot talk highly enough of the Howard government’s approach to the environment and its encouragement of hands-on, grassroots environmental action through programs like Landcare and its on-the-farm ground support. Landcare projects providing for farmers in terms of coordination and access to funding for fencing, revegetation, erosion control and salinity reduction are to be commended.

Across my Victorian electorate of McMillan there are four highly active Landcare networks with over 30 Landcare groups. I take my hat off to the volunteers and coordinators who work tirelessly to implement Landcare projects that foster volunteerism, teamwork, local ownership and community spirit. Landcare is a living, breathing example of the effectiveness of this act and other acts that control our environment. They clarify the environmental roles and responsibilities of the Australian government and those of state and territory governments. This clarity comes through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act which provides a framework for the seven matters of national environmental significance for which the Australian government has particular responsibility. These are: World Heritage properties; National Heritage places; wetlands of international importance—that is, wetlands declared under the Ramsar convention—nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities; listed migratory species; the Commonwealth marine area; and nuclear actions.

In my Victorian electorate of McMillan, a very special and breathtaking place, we have a rich and varied environment. Unlike your seat, Mr Deputy Speaker Haase, McMillan sounds small, but it covers some 8,300 square kilometres of the most beautiful parts of Victoria from the Great Dividing Range in the north to Wilson’s Promontory in the south and from the eastern outskirts of Melbourne to the start of the Latrobe Valley in the east. McMillan is the gateway and the heart of Gippsland, although Minister McGauran would probably tackle me on that. The rolling hills with nearly 2,000 farms—and, yes, even though we have a vast drought across the nation—is the emerald jewel in our nation’s crown, except for parts of Queensland of course. We still need rain. Our rivers and our dams are not filled. Our catchments for our water supply for Gippsland and Melbourne are not filled. We are looking forward to that rain, because it will come first in Gippsland, I feel. Whilst our farmers are doing reasonably well, though some are starting to feel the pinch now, we still produce 20 per cent of Australia’s milk with the 2004 figures showing that Gippsland farmers hold higher equity in their farms than the national average and continue to build their asset base. As well as farmland, McMillan is also home to the sensitive coastal regions of South Gippsland, particularly Wilson’s Promontory, a corner of my electorate that is very special to many Victorians. I share the coastline of course with the member for Gippsland and the member for Flinders, and this area is a most precious area.

Returning to the amendments that I believe will be nearer and dearer to the hearts of the residents in my electorate from the Bald Hills, Toora and Foster districts, as mentioned previously these changes will increase the certainty for the community and industry and strengthen compliance and enforcement. These communities in my electorate, without appropriate consultation or involvement, have been lumbered with one constructed wind power station and two proposed power stations. The community in and around Bald Hills and Foster deserves the right to a full public consultation process, a right removed by the Victorian Labor government. These people did not have the avenue of the local council planning processes and therefore were not able to provide evidence detailing the threat these proposed power plants and wind turbines would be to the 18 threatened bird species in the area, in particular the critically endangered orange-bellied parrot at Bald Hills and the endangered wedge-tailed eagle at Foster North.

The amendments in this bill coupled with recent court proceedings in the Federal Court and the recent community roundtable discussion to work towards a national code for wind farm installations or wind turbine installations highlight the Australian government’s desire for community consultation and involvement through the frameworks and provisions of the EPBC Act. I have been accused by the Victorian state Labor government of being ‘anti wind and anti renewable energy’ because I have stuck my neck out and worked for my communities and my constituents around Bald Hills and Foster. This is just not the case.

In fact, I applaud the Howard government’s $1 billion pledge to investigate and develop all forms of technology to combat greenhouse gas emissions, including clean coal, solar, geothermal, carbon sequestration and wind power. The Australian government wants to explore a range of technologies but not to the detriment of our endangered species or our precious coastal regions and wetlands. This is what the framework and the provisions of this act will allow.

What is important for the communities I have mentioned in my electorate is that the proposed amendments set out in this bill will provide greater opportunity for public participation. The amendments will provide more appropriate mechanisms for community participation to be considered and acted upon by the government. The government is not removing any appeal rights in relation to judicial review. Anyone affected by a particular decision will still be able to appeal that decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. The extended standing provisions of the EPBC Act continue to apply.

With regard to the repeal of the provision, ‘No undertakings as to damages for interim injunctions,’ this merely brings the EPBC Act into line with other Commonwealth legislation. This means that the Federal Court will have the discretion to require an applicant for an injunction to give an undertaking as to damages as a condition of granting an interim injunction. It is appropriate for the courts to be making these decisions rather than for them to be prescribed in legislation. The ability to appeal administrative decisions of public servants is an important right. This ability is being preserved. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal will have the same jurisdiction as now in relation to any decisions made by public servants as delegates of the minister. However, many of the decisions taken under the act require careful balancing of competing interests and judgements.

The Australian government considers that, where these decisions are sufficiently important to be taken by the minister as an elected representative, those judgement calls should not be able to be overturned by an unelected tribunal such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Of course under these proposed changes appeals through the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act will continue to apply to wildlife decisions under the EPBC Act, whether taken by the minister or his delegate. This provision is important as it ensures the minister has made his decision appropriately. But, ultimately and rightly, as an elected representative it is a decision the minister makes, not a judge. Changes proposed by this bill limit the use of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where it is more appropriate for an elected member of parliament to make the decision than a judge.

In closing, I reiterate that the changes to the EPBC Act proposed by this bill will ensure matters of national environmental significance continue to receive the highest possible level of protection. They will cut red tape and enable quicker and more strategic action to be taken on emerging environmental issues. They will make environmental decision making more efficient and cost-effective. They will provide greater certainty for industry while, at the same time, strengthening compliance with and the enforcement of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. They will make regional decision making with its better strategic framework a priority and increase the general understanding of the processes and mechanisms of the EPBC Act.

The bill will build on the substantial environment and heritage gains so far achieved under this act and by the Howard government and will provide the framework for Australia to move forward in the 21st century. The proposed changes will strengthen the act’s environmental protection regime and increase its effectiveness by facilitating more strategic approaches while at the same time reducing the extent to which the act is process driven in a non-productive manner. I commend the bill to the House.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This legislation, which has been rushed into the House, that we are debating today will be opposed by the Labor Party, particularly if the amendments that we will move are not carried. The Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 probably represents in the clearest possible way the approach the government is going to take to the protection of the environment in relation to a number of proposals for development and a number of proposals for speeding up development approvals. This includes the analysis and consideration of the existing EPBC Act that certain parties around the Commonwealth have represented to the government as standing in the way of them being able to conduct their business. But the critical question is whether or not this legislation will serve to better enhance the protection of Australia’s environment.

There is a glaring omission in the legislation that has been brought into the House: it does not contain any measure in relation to climate change. There has been a long debate in the community amongst scientists and conservationists and it is a debate which has come into the House over a period of time. It is a debate that was current when the first tranche of EPBC legislation was being considered in relation to what ought to be the appropriate triggers for the environment minister to have to take note of regarding an action under the act. At the time, it was felt that there ought to be a greenhouse trigger because there were clear signs that what are described as anthropogenic activities—the activities of humans, whether it is using motor vehicles, power stations or a whole range of other different activities—were contributing in significant ways to the possibility of an emerging pattern of global warming. Even though the science at that particular point in time was less complete than it is now, there were sufficient reasons for the government to consider whether or not the greenhouse trigger should have been included in the original EPBC Act—but it was not.

A number of years later, in 2006, the signs of global warming are clear and apparent wherever we look. Each and every day brings more media reports, scientific analysis and evidence that global warming is upon us and that it produces a number of significant risks—risks to endangered species, risks to natural landscapes and risks to the viability of our inland river systems.

For an example, I picked a news clipping at random. It is from the Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday, 30 August 2006: ‘Fears over speed of glacial meltdown’. We often talk about the likely impact of global warming on the Antarctic and Arctic regions. The article points to the impact of global warming on the Andean glaciers in South America. Amongst other things, it says:

The rate of glacier retreat has shocked scientists, says a report on the effects of global warming in Latin America ... Their study says climate change is accelerating the deglaciation phenomenon.

The report went on to point out:

The last two hurricane seasons in the Caribbean rim—

to the north of the Andes—

caused $US12 billion ... damage to countries other than the US. Climate change models predict more rainfall in eastern South America and less in central and southern Chile with a likelihood of greater and opposite extremes. The 2005 drought in the Amazon basin was probably the worst since records began.

That sounds very familiar to me. It is a consistent pattern that we are experiencing in the global climate and it is clearly a consequence of the increasing emissions into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases. If there were any environmental issue of significance that the national government should be addressing it is this: the prospects of the impact of climate change on our economy, our ecology and our future. Yet there is nothing in this legislation at all. That is a glaring omission and I urge the minister and the government to consider the amendments that Labor is bringing in which would make sure that there was effectively consideration of climate change in the assessment of developments that come to the minister under the EPBC Act.

This bill has some 400 pages of amendments. It is complex and being viewed with real concern by conservation organisations and by those who have a legal background and some knowledge of the way in which the approvals process has hitherto worked under the EPBC Act. I note in particular that the Worldwide Fund for Nature and the Humane Society International have both spoken out quite strongly about their concerns for the deficiencies that exist in this legislation. Both of those organisations have a record of working constructively with the government—a record, I think, of analysing in a sober and prudent way legislation of an environmental kind that comes into this House. Yet they say very clearly that there are a number of features of this legislation which gives them concern. Andreas Glanzing, the senior policy adviser for WWF, says:

HSI and WWF-Australia are alarmed by the proposed changes and the potential for the Minister to politicise what should be an objective scientific process.

Why would these organisations have concerns of that kind? Perhaps one reason is that we first learnt about this bill when we read in the Australian, in a Denis Shanahan article, that new legislation was going to come into the House to speed up and expedite the decision-making process in relation to projects which would fall under the EPBC Act. The Burrup Peninsula in particular was slated as one of the possible developments which would benefit from legislation of this kind. As it turns out, the Burrup Peninsula is an area that has been identified as having great cultural importance and natural heritage values as well. The assessment and understanding of those values must balance the development needs and proposals that are intended for the Burrup with the need to adequately protect the world’s largest collection of intact rock art and petroglyphs. That is a threshold issue for both the Western Australian and the federal government. On the basis of the legislation that is being introduced into the House, the government is now finding itself in a position of having to respond.

We have seen a number of pieces of legislation come into this place over the past week which have been rushed through this House. Yet this is another piece which is great in its complexity, which has emerged virtually out of nowhere and which contains a number of particular and specific provisions which are worrying not only for those of us in the House, as we look at it and assess and analyse what we think the government is doing with legislation of this kind, but also for those interest groups who represent the community interest and want to see the environment substantially protected. Of real and critical importance are the concerns that the bill abolishes the right to appeal ministerial decisions relating to the protection of whales and dolphins, threatened species and other wildlife. It is very clear that there are a number of amending provisions which remove the right of review of ministerial decisions by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The basis on which legislation of this kind as constituted in the original EPBC Act passed the parliament was that the minister’s decisions could be subject to review. There are a number of decisions that ministers for the environment have made in the past and are likely to make in the future which require that review. That review is very necessary not only for the adequacy of the decision-making process but also to ensure that people have confidence, particularly when areas of natural significance and environmental importance are being considered by the minister.

In particular, I note that affected decisions in terms of the ministerial review are decisions to issue or refuse a permit; to specify, vary or revoke a condition; to impose a further condition on a permit; to transfer or refuse to transfer a permit; and to suspend or cancel a permit in relation to a listed threatened species or ecological community. The government’s poor environment record is at its starkest when the minister actually has to make decisions and take into account the likely impact of a development on something like a threatened species or ecological community. Yet there has been a removal of the right of review by this legislation. That is why we feel so strongly in the House that the amendments we are bringing in need to be given full support by the government.

Debate interrupted.