Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, I suppose I should breathe a bit of fire into this debate, seeing that your good self and the honourable member for Kingsford Smith, who was just here with us in the House, are flush from your attendance at the ARIAS, but I will just have to play a dead bat on this for the rest of the—

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Aren’t you in the hall of fame?

Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw honourable members’ attention to a number of very serious concerns about the operation of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 that were outlined in a report by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills that was tabled in that chamber recently. The Senate committee has found that a number of sections of this piece of legislation may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties.

The sections of the bill the Senate committee is referring to in this regard are very important ones. They deal with the national heritage nomination and listing process, of which I will speak a little more later; the application of heritage provisions to freehold land on Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands; the application of strict liability in a number of the fisheries provisions; the power to search vessels; the power to order searches without a warrant; the power to order strip searches; and other matters.

This is a very serious charge, yet the Senate committee has found that in most cases the explanatory memorandum for this bill does not include a satisfactory explanation for changes that could trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. The explanatory memorandum offers little or no justification for many of these provisions. The parliament deserves better than this. At the very least, the public is owed a very detailed explanation of exactly why the government thinks it needs provisions that, in the words of the Senate committee, ‘trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties’. The fact that there is no explanation is yet another indication of how absolutely arrogant the government has become.

But the Senate committee has raised other serious concerns. The committee is also concerned that several clauses relating to penalties do not comply with the Commonwealth’s own Guide to framing Commonwealth offences, civil penalties and enforcement powers. This is a scathing criticism and condemnation of the government’s processes by that Senate committee, yet there is little or no explanation as to why these clauses do not comply.

A key concern of both Labor and the Senate committee is the fact that current provisions for reviews by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions are made personally by the minister. Yet all the explanatory memorandum says about this restriction on the rights of all Australians is that this ‘leaves the merits of these important decisions to be dealt with by the government’. What an extraordinary criticism and situation we face on this important piece of environmental and heritage legislation, which has been some four years in review and in the making, and which the government describes as the centrepiece of its environmental policy. Here we have this scathing criticism of it by a Senate committee.

Australians, as I have said before, are owed a much more detailed explanation of why the government is instituting these measures in this legislation. It demonstrates, yet again, that this is a government that is arrogant. Its ministers are arrogant and they pay scant regard for the proper appeal and other processes that they should have regard for in this major piece of legislation.

One of the most serious concerns raised by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee relates to provisions that would allow the minister to confer police powers on persons who are not police officers. I have raised concerns about similar provisions in bills relating to quarantine and fisheries management many times over the years. It is a very serious matter. These authorised officers, who are not trained police officers, will have power to detain and search. They will have powers that are normally held by police officers. Again, the explanatory memorandum fails to offer a detailed explanation as to why the government is again going down this path in this piece of legislation.

I was pleased to note that there are persons on the other side of politics who share Labor’s concern. They share Labor’s concern about the lack of proper and convincing explanation for these serious changes, many of which have the potential to impact heavily on the normal freedoms that Australians enjoy. In the Senate recently in debate Liberal Senator David Johnston—not a member of the opposition; one of the government’s own senators—had this to say:

This explanatory memorandum is probably one of the most appalling I have ever seen in the short time I have been in the Senate. It discloses no motivation, no reasoning and no justification for some of the most draconian powers that this parliament can conceivably and possibly enact: rights of search and seizure without warrant, rights of personal frisking without warrant ... this legislation should go back to the drawing board.

Hear, hear! I couldn’t agree more: this legislation should go back to the drawing board. But what a scathing criticism from somebody who is new to the parliament and has not got embroiled, I guess, too much up to now, with how the government operates. He is coming in with a cool eye on a piece of legislation and has concluded that it is the most appalling he has seen in the short time that he has been in the Senate. Well, the opposition simply rests its case.

The operations of this legislation are of vital concern to Australian farmers. Over 60 per cent of Australia’s land mass is in private hands. If any government wishes to make any great inroads on improving the environment then it needs to have the farmers of Australia working with it to achieve that objective. I am proud of the conservation efforts of most Australian farmers, and it is regrettable that in the popular media they are not given appropriate credit for what they do on their farms to improve the environment, conserve it and protect its biodiversity.

We on this side of the House are very proud of the great Landcare initiative of previous Labor governments and we commend the government for continuing funding in this vitally important area. That program has been warmly embraced by farmers and has been a catalytic program in changing the culture towards environment issues in the farming community, in establishing longstanding partnerships between farmers and community groups and in making a difference to local environments. Farmers have given willingly of their time and their knowledge of the landscape for the betterment of the Australian environment.

There are, no doubt, elements of this legislation that might find favour with Australian farmers—its noble objectives, the drive for better flexibility and streamlined processes—but in my experience it is the detail that often brings a different consideration of the initial cut and consideration of a bill and a subsequent deep concern. And there is plenty in this bill to concern Australia’s farming community, not least the staggering omission of any reference to climate change in this bill. There are 409 pages of detailed amendments to the most significant legislation dealing with the environment on Australia’s legal books and no mention of climate change! I rest my case once again.

There is another area of the bill that I would like to make comment on and which will be the subject of amendment by Labor in order to maintain the integrity of the Register of the National Estate, which contains more than 13,000 sites of natural, cultural and Indigenous heritage significance, some of those in my electorate of Corio in the Geelong region. I first raised this matter in a speech to this House in 2002, when I questioned whether adequate protection would be afforded cultural assets in the Geelong region currently on the Register of the National Estate. These assets include churches such as St Paul’s Anglican Church, Christ Church, St John’s Lutheran Church, St George’s Presbyterian Church and manse, and Sts Peter and Paul’s Catholic Church on Mercer Street. On the list are important hotels in Geelong, and I have to say I have drunk at a few of these—the Golden Age, the Bay View Hotel, the Geelong Wool Exchange and the Terminus Hotel. Other buildings and houses listed include the Corio Villa, the Dennys Lascelles Woolstore, the Geelong Army Drill Hall, the Geelong Customs House, the Geelong Town Hall, Lunan House in Drumcondra, Wimmera House and, of course, the great Osborne House.

These are unique cultural and heritage assets and their current level of protection under Commonwealth legislation will be watered down by this bill. As I noted in 2002—and I do so again—most of these assets will not be listed if this bill is made law. However, these assets are a part of Geelong’s rich heritage and culture and they must be given maximum protection as sites of real significance under Commonwealth law. That is why the integrity of the current Register of the National Estate must be maintained.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 is to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to make it a more efficient and effective act, to allow for the use of more strategic approaches and to provide greater certainty in decision making. I have serious concerns about the legislation that we are debating here tonight. The government has argued that it is designed to create a balance between the environment and development, and I would argue very strongly that I am very concerned about this aspect of the legislation. My fears are that it actually moves the balance between protecting and caring for our environment in favour of development. If that happens then we as a nation will be the losers.

I would like to share with the House an experience I had last week. I attended the Wyong Shire Council school environment competition award ceremony, and I was extremely impressed with the depth of knowledge the students had, the diversity of their contributions to the competition and their overall commitment to protecting and conserving our environment. These students recognise the importance of protecting endangered species, conserving water, preserving our natural environment and reversing the effects of global warming. It never ceases to amaze me that students between the ages of five and 12, as they were last week, can understand how important protecting our natural environment is, yet the Howard government does not seem to get it. These students at the presentation really demonstrated their knowledge and understanding, and I have to say this is something the government does not appear to do. These students really brought home to me the message that if we care for our environment then our environment will care for us.

Whilst I have referred to students in the Wyong shire in this particular competition, which is run each and every year and which develops the understanding of students in that area, there are many other worthwhile projects in schools within the Shortland electorate, and the Floraville Public School immediately comes to my mind. It has won the Sydney Morning Herald environmental competition on a number of occasions. What is happening with our young students is that they recognise that protection of and care for our environment is the way of the future.

The Howard government needs to understand that it is not a competition between the environment and the economy, with the environment being sacrificed because it is secondary to the economy. Rather, we must protect and preserve our environment in order to ensure the survival of our planet. Without its survival, everything else is secondary. I say those words and hope that the government thinks about their meaning. It is about achieving a balance between our environment and development and ensuring that our economy is built upon that balance, rather than sacrificing our environment at the expense of economic pursuits.

As I have already mentioned, this bill is supposed to develop a balance between the environment and development. I am concerned that it is has moved more towards promoting and looking after the interests of development. The bill reduces the processing time and cost for development interests. To my way of thinking, and from the research I have done into this legislation, this demonstrates that development is the priority. When development becomes the priority, the needs and interests of the environment come into conflict; that is a problem.

Within my own electorate of Shortland—it is a coastal electorate and a very beautiful area with a pristine environment—there is a little hamlet, Catherine Hill Bay, which is a very strong link with our history in the Hunter Valley and in Australia. It has beautiful surf and a beautiful natural environment and is currently heritage listed. It has three settlements: Mine Camp, Middle Camp and the town of Catherine Hill proper. There is enormous pressure to develop all of the land around there and to change the face of this settlement which is really a link to that area’s mining heritage. The heritage and the natural beauty of the area are two things that I think this bill should be looking at protecting, but I think the interests of development will be paramount when we come to looking at issues of environmental protection and development. That not only creates fears as to the future of our coastal communities but also worries me about the direction we are going in as a society.

This bill also provides enhancement ability to deal with large-scale projects, gives priority attention to projects of national importance through the use of strategic assessment and approval approaches and puts in place measures to enable developers to avoid impacts on the matters of national environmental significance protected by the act. It enables a better focus on protecting threatened species and ecological communities in heritage places that are of real national importance. The issue is determining what ‘real national importance’ is and it fails, I think, to bring that out clearly. The bill is also supposed to clarify and strengthen enforcement provisions of the act, and I think it probably does.

The EPBC Act is Australia’s primary environmental law. It provides a framework for environmental protection and any actions that are likely to have an impact on matters of national environmental significance. The development I just referred to at Catherine Hill Bay near Lake Macquarie is one such development that I think is in an area of national environmental significance—an area that should be protected.

The greatest weakness of this bill is its failure to address climate change. I will speak at some length about that in a moment. The bill has the ability to fast-track environmental assessments and approvals of major projects. This is very dangerous; when approvals and assessments are fast-tracked, it can lead to issues of great importance being left out. It is terribly important that the community has the ability to have proper input into these major projects and assessments and that the approval process is not truncated in any way. Also of concern are bioregional plans, which will not be legislative instruments, thus reducing parliamentary oversight; I think that speaks for itself.

The bill fails to address the concerns that we on this side of the House have expressed about World Heritage sites and the National Heritage list. Only one of Australia’s World Heritage sites is currently on the National Heritage list. That is a concern. The government has failed to ensure that our Natural Heritage sites overseas have been properly listed and taken care of. A prime example of that is Anzac Cove. I do not think there would be an Australian that would disagree with Anzac Cove being listed—and it has been.

When the list was launched in 2003, Anzac Cove was to be the first site to be placed on the list—and, as I said, no-one would disagree with that—but it has not happened. Instead, the government has requested roadworks which, as we all know from the many questions and the lengthy debate in this House, have damaged the site that is so important to us here in Australia. Ten years of the Howard government’s rule and reign in this country has put Australia’s natural heritage under great pressure.

This legislation has 409 pages of amendments which will really change the way our environment is protected. I think that that is of real concern. I do not believe that the Australian community will have the opportunity to scrutinise and discuss the application of this bill properly before it is rushed through this parliament. Another real concern I have about the legislation is that it reduces transparency and accountability, as so much of the legislation that comes through this House does. I think that there has been a degree of arrogance by the government and it has shown an extraordinary lack of commitment to process and to ensuring that we have proper debate on this issue.

I think one of the issues that is of great concern to all Australians these days is that of climate change. I know that people in the electorate of Shortland are very concerned about climate change. There is not a day that goes by when I am not contacted by email, telephone or letter by a constituent raising this issue. Back in September I held a climate change forum in the electorate. I did so because of the enormous interest and concern within the community. It was held on a Sunday at Swansea RSL and there were in excess of 150 people there. I do not think there were many vacant spaces at all within the room. There was an in-depth discussion on that day. I can unreservedly say that everybody who attended that forum expressed their concern about the direction of the government on climate change.

Each day as I sit here in this House and hear the Prime Minister push us further and further down the nuclear path, I become more and more worried—because nuclear power is not the solution. Nuclear creates more problems than it solves. Nuclear confronts us as a nation with a whole set of new challenges. There is no way that we can get away from the fact that the waste from nuclear power is very harmful. There is no way that we can guarantee the safety of that waste forever. It is waste that lasts over generations and it will create a situation where we in Australia will be a lot less safe than we are both from a security point of view and from an environmental point of view. There have been some notable examples in the past where there have been environmental problems associated with nuclear power. I implore the Howard government to think very carefully about this.

Last week in the Main Committee the member for Ryan said in a very gung-ho way that the government planned to put a nuclear power station in the Shortland electorate. I have news for the member for Ryan: I will not stand back and let the government build a power station in the Shortland electorate. I also have the news for the member for Ryan that the people of the Shortland electorate are totally opposed to a nuclear power station being built there. The people of Shortland would like the government to make a real commitment to addressing the issue of climate change—not enlisting the help of Ziggy Switkowski, who is a person who is committed to nuclear power and a nuclear industry, and not commissioning him to do an inquiry into establishing a nuclear power industry in Australia but looking at addressing the real issues that will work towards solving global warming.

The first thing that the Howard government needs to do is to sign the Kyoto protocol. I know that the government has been opposed to signing up to Kyoto, but the reasons it gives do not hold up. The government has said that we should not be involved in Kyoto because the developing world is not involved. There are 158 countries throughout the world that have signed up to Kyoto and the notable exceptions are Australia and the US. I do not think that we can in all conscience refuse to sign up to Kyoto. It is an absolute disgrace that the government has refused to embrace Kyoto and sign on the dotted line. How can we expect to be taken seriously when we talk about climate change when we will not make the most basic commitment to solving the problem of climate change? The first thing the government needs to do is to sign up to the Kyoto protocol.

There are many other initiatives that the government could immediately undertake to improve the situation in relation to global warming. One of the first things is to support the renewable energy industry. The government looks at it as a competition between economic growth and ensuring that we solve the issue of climate change. As I said in my opening comments, if we do not solve the issues around climate change, the issues of whether to have economic growth or whether to thrive as a country are irrelevant because they will no longer be issues. So we must immediately sign up to the Kyoto protocol, cut Australia’s greenhouse gas pollution by 60 per cent by 2050, establish a national greenhouse emissions trading scheme, substantially increase the mandatory renewable energy targets and establish a climate change trigger under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. We have the ability to make a real change in relation to climate change, and I urge the government to do so. (Time expired)

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, let me say that I am delighted to see members of the public and members of the press gallery in attendance here tonight to hear my contribution! There has been a lot of talk about climate change, and I would like to address that a bit further into my contribution. I would like to reflect on a number of things, because the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 is very wide ranging, as I am should you would recognise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think there are 409 pages. Some of the provisions relate to the developments that can take place and the way in which the EPBC Act can, as some people have suggested, assist developments. There are similar provisions within the various state legislations for developments of significance.

One of the things I would like to touch on is the way in which the current drought has been captured by some and implanted into the climate change debate and the global warming debate. I mentioned this the other day in a speech on a matter of public importance. I was pleased that most of the other members who spoke recognised that problem: that a number of agendas were running parallel to the drought and the pain caused by the drought, particularly to country communities—although, over time, it will cause pain in an economic sense to the broader community as well. A number of speakers have spoken about the way in which Australia has looked at the water debate. A number of people have suggested that Australia has to do much more to rein in some of the over-allocation problems of water that we have had, that we have to address some of these issues agriculturally and that there has to be more water put into the system, particularly the Murray-Darling system, to overcome some of the environmental problems that have occurred in the past.

One of the issues that have been raised from time to time is the water usage patterns of the cotton industry. I know that Senator Bill Heffernan, for instance, in the Senate, has raised the issue of Cubbie Station and the impact of that on the Darling system, particularly, and on the Murray system—the various implications of  Cubbie restricting flows on the environment, not only to the graziers downstream but also to the riverine environment. The two things I am about to say may seem to be in conflict, but I believe that Cubbie Station should be purchased and the water that has been contained in that area should be released into the system. What has happened with Cubbie Station, in particular, is that they have taken a principle—a legal principle, admittedly—too far. Governments—whether it be the Queensland government alone, or in conjunction with the New South Wales government or the Commonwealth government—should look at purchasing Cubbie Station at some time in the future.

The other issue I would like to touch on, if I could, refers directly to the cotton industry and the environmental impacts of that on water flows. It also refers to the Murray mouth and Lake Alexandrina. Many members may not know some of the statistics. Lake Alexandrina is virtually a dam at the end of the Murray system, with what are called ‘barrages’ that have been put in place. That system dams water back about 100 kilometres up the Murray system, partly because the land is very flat in that area. Lake Alexandrina is 22 times the size of the parliamentary secretary for water’s Wentworth electorate. It has an enormous amount of water which is relatively shallow and has a very high evaporation rate.

I am informed from doing some research that the evaporation rate from Lake Alexandrina is probably about 1,000 gigalitres a year. Over time, there have been a lot of arguments about the amount of water going down the Murray-Darling system to reach the Murray mouth. I think most people realise that the Murray mouth has a dam at the end of it now. One thousand gigalitres is an enormous amount of water bearing in mind that the lake itself holds 2,850 gigalitres of water. The government are trying to save 500 gigalitres by buying some of that water from licence holders, by efficiency means, through pipes and leaky channels et cetera to try to get more into the system. Lake Alexandrina, this dam—or lake as people would refer to it—at the end of the system holds nearly six times that amount of water. It holds 2,850 gigalitres of water.

In the debate that was held here the other day, the parliamentary secretary for agriculture—who I have regard for and who I think has great knowledge in terms of water, particularly in the Murray system—mentioned that nearly 1,000 gigalitres has evaporated from that lake system, twice as much as the government is trying to restore. There is 1,000 gigalitres of evaporation taking place on the one system of Lake Alexandrina. The cotton industry in New South Wales, which has been blamed for a lot of water problems in the whole system in the three states, uses 1,500 gigalitres of water, which is about half of what Lake Alexandrina holds. To put it another way, Lake Alexandrina holds twice the amount of water that the total New South Wales cotton industry uses and 1,000 gigalitres of evaporation from the relatively shallow system, which is 22 times the size of the parliamentary secretary for water’s electorate, is two-thirds of the total amount that the cotton industry uses in New South Wales.

I produce those figures to put things into perspective and to use climate change to drive a whole range of other debates so that we have a look at what we are doing with some of the water that we do have. I do not believe Australia has a water shortage. I disagreed with the Business Council of Australia on a number of their solutions to that problem, particularly in transferring water from rural areas to major urban areas to overcome the supposed water problems of our major cities. Those cities are surrounded by water. That is the reason a lot of those people are there, because of the water. There is no water shortage in our cities. People can argue whether re-use arrangements should be put in place. There is plenty of water there if people want to remove the salt from it. In the last figures I saw, in fact in the Business Council’s own document I think, the desalinisation figures were about two-thirds of what it would take to put in place re-use facilities for urban populations.

Nonetheless, the Business Council have looked at a number of issues to do with saving water and our water problems. As I said, I agree with them in that I do not believe that there is a water problem. I think there are problems in the way in which we use water and the way in which water evaporates from open storages. I know the Menindee Lakes is something that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is actually looking at. There is an enormous amount of evaporation there. It is very shallow; the re-engineering of those lakes could create more water by reducing the surface area and making the system deeper so that the evaporation rate is reduced. So we can have an impact on the water resources if we really want to look at some of those issues.

There is artificial recharge—very little has been done with that. If you visit parts of South Australia, particularly urban South Australia in the north of Adelaide, you can see, I admit on a relatively small scale, some of the recharge of run-off water from urban areas as well through wetlands, which has created an enormous impact from clean water being stored underground and pumped out at a future time. A lot of people would say, ‘If you put water underground, won’t it run away? How do you get it back?’ I wondered the same thing some years ago as well, but in groundwater systems you actually create a bubble with hydraulic pressures and the lateral movement in some of those systems is probably less than a metre a year. In the right sort of aquifers, you can actually contain water in a massive bubble and pump it out at a future date without mixing it with, say, surrounding salt water. So there are number of things that we really have not looked as closely at as we should.

This bill actually looks at the development issue, which I raised in the parliament about 10 days ago, which is the major development west of Werris Creek. I admit I live near Werris Creek. BHP are proposing to put in place a very large coalmine. They are currently doing some investigative work. There is a 500 million tonne massive deposit of coal there. I am not opposed to coal or coalmining. I have a coalmine next door to me. I have a coal loader virtually on my property within view of my house and they are doing a tremendous job. Those I think are the real issues that this bill and the government should look at in terms of the BHP proposal because, unlike the land next door to where I live, this particular proposal has the potential to interfere with the groundwater systems at the head of the Murray-Darling system. The parliamentary secretary on a number of occasions has said—and I agree with him—that we do not understand sufficiently the relationships between groundwater and surface water, let alone the interrelationships between groundwater systems.

Admittedly, this massive development has been assessed through state government departments. The state government has taken it away from local government because of the significance of it. If we allow that process to take place only on a localised impact basis, it could be to the detriment of the surrounding ground water systems, particularly downstream in terms of the Murray-Darling system. In my view, a number of interrelated aquifers are at risk. I do not believe that BHP or any coal-mining company in this nation or the world has ever been in the situation of contemplating mining in high water bearing gravels where there are interrelated groundwater systems. Those same groundwater systems are the subject of constant debate between me, the Prime Minister and others in this place about the compensation and taxation treatment of people who have lost allocations of water to gain sustainability for those systems.

I am pleased that the parliamentary secretary is here. I have argued that we really should examine closely, through the national water initiative, the possibility of an independent study into not only this particular coal project—BHP will do that on a localised basis—but also the potential off-site impacts of mining in high water bearing gravels where you have interrelated groundwater aquifers. I would suggest that, when this act is interpreted, we should look very closely at those problems. If you just look at the localised impacts, you can buy land and you can destroy land, and some would say that is the price of progress. But if you have off-site effects—destroying aquifers or causing leakages and fractures—it affects not just where the mining takes place but also downstream. And those groundwater systems cover many hundreds of kilometres and provide viability not only for many productive people in the farming sector but for ecosystems as well.

I spoke earlier about the use of this bill. The arguments about climate change, drought and water are all being wrapped up into one and the drought is being used as part of the climate change debate. I do not think anybody can suggest that the current drought is part of a greater system. I think the ALP’s definition of climate change in its amendment to the bill is very shaky in that it bases long-term arrangements on some of the definitional issues surrounding climate change. Labor’s amendment (4) states that ‘the Parliament acknowledges that climate change is the greatest threat to Australia’s natural environment’. That is a fairly wide-ranging statement. I believe we can do a hell of a lot more with renewable energy et cetera, and I have spoken about that in the past. The amendment also states:

The Parliament acknowledges that climate change

…           …    …

(b)

will have far-reaching impacts globally, in Australia’s region and in Australia, including:

(i)

possible higher temperatures and lower-rainfall in southern Australia;

(ii)

possible more frequent extreme weather events such as storms, heatwaves and drought, ...

Note that it says ‘possible’. That is one of the definitions of climate change that I think really does need to be looked at.

Many have dragged into the climate change debate the exceptional circumstances provisions for drought. I am pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the member for Farrer, is here because I think the example I am about to give occurred in her presence. The Prime Minister met a farmer—I think it was in Victoria but it may have been in New South Wales—who spoke about access to and criteria for exceptional circumstances relief. His area had been declared to be in exceptional circumstances. The farmer made the point to the Prime Minister that he could not get any exceptional circumstances relief. The Prime Minister fell into a trap that was promoted in particular by the urban media. The Prime Minister said: ‘Hang on a bit! If you’re in EC you are getting something.’ That is the message that is being promoted: if you are a farmer in an EC declared area, you will receive something. That is quite incorrect—and the parliamentary secretary would know that. The Prime Minister did not know that; I think he does know it now.

It is very important for people to recognise that living in an exceptional circumstance declared area means nothing other than that you can apply for business assistance by way of interest rate subsidies—and most people will be knocked back for a whole range of circumstances. Last week I spoke about Peter Cullen and others saying that the government’s drought assistance is propping up non-viable farmers. Part of the criteria for exceptional circumstances interest rate assistance for farm businesses is that non-viable farmers cannot get it—it is not available to those people—so it cannot be propping up non-viable farmers.

I will conclude by saying that, in the broader debate about climate change, drought and water usage, people should start looking at the facts involved rather than trying to send their own messages and agendas, particularly about the drought circumstances that people find themselves in. (Time expired)

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 is an important bill, at least in title, although I am not so sure about the implementation of it. If it was as important as the government might think it is, they might not have introduced it so quickly. They might not have created a situation where debate in this House, the House of Representatives—the house in which governments are made and unmade—should occur with an explanatory memorandum, yes, and with some amendments from the opposition, yes, but with no background information from the library at all, because this has been introduced in haste. It has also been introduced prior to the Senate committee which is to deal with this matter examining the bill.

Thus are we treated here by a government that is very proud of its environment, heritage and biodiversity legislation. It is proud of the fact that it has been in operation for six years, and the explanatory memorandum actually gives us a checklist of all the wonderful things the government thinks it has done. Then it says in the EM: ‘As for what this bill is doing, we found a whole series of areas needing change. Having put the legislation on a set of trainers for six years and having seen how it works, we have identified these things. So now we’re going to make a series of procedural changes but we don’t really want anyone to look at them too closely before we make them, so we’ll put the bill through the parliament in such a way that there won’t be enough scrutiny of it.’

This bill is really just a bean counter’s exercise. It is about this: how do you make adjustments across a range of different areas in terms of the impacts of environmental change, and how do you do it in such a way that it is cleaner and easier? Part of that is explicable in terms of what the thrust of the original bill was—the fact that this is an attempt to clean it up and that it is a way to get the federal government more directly involved, in conjunction with the states and territories, in the matter of environmental management. But this being a conservative government, we know that it is going to be all about auditing and benchmarking—not actually doing much that is very practical—because they laid that out when they first came to government.

The practical things are done by state governments. We know that, for most of what is important in the environmental and heritage area, most of the implementation is at the state administrative level—that is, whether it goes to the question of uranium mines and their implementation, which is covered by this bill, or of Ramsar wetlands or of national parks and the way in which they operate: all the vast range of environmental matters and most of the practical considerations. The Commonwealth has some particular areas of significance, particularly those that relate to environmental conditions in our fisheries, in particular those fisheries that are outside state control in Commonwealth controlled waters.

The explanatory memorandum goes to extraordinary lengths, in a Dr Kemp-like fashion, to boost this bill over and above what is being done—as Dr Kemp did when he was in education and talked a great deal about literacy and numeracy but did not actually do much other than propagandise in relation to it. When he was the minister for the environment we got this bill, and we got a lot of talk about what was proposed to be done and how important it was to look after the environment—a lot of heat but not all that much action.

Have a look at the specifics of the 490 pages of this bill. It is not late-night reading—although maybe it might be: it could be good bedside reading if you want to nod off fairly quickly. But if you actually want to take a novelistic approach to this and look at a story of a country, the story of an environment, the story of biodiversity in Australia—the actual story of the impacts of the changes that are affecting Australia right now—historically and contextually, along with what is happening now and how the primary actors, the protagonists in this story, might have their part to play, you have to look elsewhere. You would have to look outside this bill. You would have to look at what is really happening on the ground and you would have to look at a much broader picture, very much in the way that Al Gore, the former Vice-President of the United States, recently did. We saw the film here: it was displayed in Parliament House, and a book has been produced with it, looking at the whole broad issue of climate change.

Climate change? That is actually not mentioned in this bill, is it? Where can I find climate change in here? Let me look. Is it in the explanatory memorandum? Is it in the 490 pages of the bill? Is it in any of the addenda to the bill? Try as I might—I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker—but as I riffle through this at great speed I simply cannot find it. Where will I find it? Guess what: I will find it in the amendments put up by the shadow minister for the environment. I will find it not only in the general amendments that he has put in this second reading debate but I will also find it, as mentioned by the member for Windsor, under 3B in fact—not 4, in the definition of climate change. The shadow minister has the audacity to say this in the consideration in detail amendments that he will put:

‘3B  Climate change

The Parliament acknowledges that climate change

(a)

is the greatest threat to Australia’s natural environment;

(b)

will have far-reaching impacts globally, in Australia’s region and in Australia, including:

(i)

possible higher temperatures and lower-rainfall in southern Australia;

(ii)

possible more frequent extreme weather events such as storms, heatwaves and drought,                       impacts to which Australia’s natural, rural and urban environments, and many industries, are potentially vulnerable.’

It is germane to the whole question of dealing with Australia’s environment and our biodiversity that we actually take this into consideration. This is not faddishness, as it was not faddishness for all of those Australian farmers and everyone who put their money into particular ventures from 1860 until the end of the 1880s to put in wheat farms in the Mallee, the Wimmera area and Western Australia. They had wonderful seasons. For three decades Australia’s agricultural production dramatically expanded—and, as is the nature of things, people tend to think that current circumstances will last forever.

That was the expectation of those people who took those good years—three decades full—which came after a period at the end of the 1840s when Australia, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria, was under tremendous difficulty. There had been periods of drought in the 1840s, the price of land had fallen significantly and there was a great shortage of workers. Then, in the 1850s, we had the goldrushes, which took people from out of their normal occupations. It was a bit like Australia now in its effects. There was a great skills crisis across the land because people left their normal jobs and went to where the gold could be found. It is happening now, with people leaving their normal jobs and going to the mining areas to take up jobs which will bring the ‘gold’ back to them. I think the modern gold hunters will do better than their predecessors. It was the provisioners who made money in the 1850s.

The great story of Australia’s agricultural development in the 1860s to 1880s was based on a weather pattern that has not been replicated in modern Australian history. They were the very best years you can imagine. If you extrapolated any of the years in those three decades and said that they were what we were going to have, you would have continued to invest in lands in the Wimmera, in the Mallee and in Western Australia—and people have tended to do that because hope springs eternal—but the reality right now, and most of the discussion Australia-wide, although it is not here in this bill which has been brought before the House, is about the depth and effect of this current drought and whether or not this is more normal. There is the hope that it will not be so. It is a bit like the situation, but maybe worse, of the great poem Said Hanrahan by Father O’Brien where people’s current conditions were projected into the future. Whether it was drought or flood, Hanrahan always saw things on the pessimistic side. It is possible to do that for Australia, but governments and farmers and people generally need to take a very practical approach to this.

We live in dynamic climatic systems. For the whole history of this planet, people living in the biosphere have been directly affected by the way in which it is constituted. Creatures on the planet—indeed, creatures only just discovered and reported through work done by Princeton University—include microbes that have been living three kilometres down in the earth, in still waters beneath a mine in South Africa.  These microbes are at least 30 million years old and untouched by the biosphere. They are not dependent at all on the sun, either directly or indirectly, for the provision of energy, but in fact live on the result of decayed uranium and the sulphur compounds that they ingest. Those colonies may in fact be the dominant life form on this planet. They could be the dominant life form on other planets. We have seen related life forms around smoker holes at the bottom of the ocean where, otherwise very deep and under very great pressure, volcanic activity allows certain niches in which life can exist and develop.

But these, even if they are the majority, are the exception, not the rule, for us. What happens on the surface of the planet is critical, and government action is critical. When it was first argued that the control of chlorofluorocarbons was possible, that the changes needed to ensure modern refrigerants would exclude chlorofluorocarbons be mandated by governments and that we could in fact improve the atmosphere and deal with the problems, there were a lot of people who said that it could not be done—there would be too much cost and it would destroy economies. Decades later we know that it is possible to get rid of CFCs. We have effectively done it and we have fixed the problem.

Likewise with the whole question of climate change. Historically and geologically, there will always be climate change. In 100 million or 200 million years from now, the likelihood of us existing as a species is almost negligible. The likelihood is that there will be massive climatic changes and climatic effects from the tectonic movement of the continents, that in 200 million years time there will be a new Pangaea, because the continents will smash together again. It is entirely predictable. Australia will smash into North America and will have mountains far higher than those of the Himalayas. Those mountains will in fact see Australia a vast, endless desert. But this is geological time. It is interesting to know about it, but we actually live in our current situation.

What is our task? To ensure that our biosphere is dealt with in such a way that we have a liveable ecosystem not only for ourselves as human beings but also for all the creatures that inhabit this planet. We know with certainty that a bill that deals with Australia’s environment, our environmental heritage and our biodiversity should not just be talking about nuts and bolts and it should not just be talking about how to weigh up how people will adjust to those changes; it should be talking about the fundamental changes themselves. This is clear and apparent. We know already and the punters out there know—not just the scientists but every normal, sensible human being in their Australian backyard, whether it be in Sydney or Melbourne or regional Australia—that the rainfall patterns have changed and have changed dramatically. You cannot gainsay it. We know when they measure how much water is in Warragamba Dam—that is if they tell us; they now tend not to—that the normal rainfall patterns have changed. And I have seen a similar situation in Melbourne and its major dams.

The argument of those who pursue the climate change argument is this. We have seen partial greater heating of the oceans, and it will be greater in the future. The heating of particular areas, those partial changes that we have seen, go to the question of what is involved in the definition of climate change. They also go to not only the greater climatic effects—more turbulent events like hurricanes, cyclones and so on—but also to the question of where the moisture actually falls. If you look at the fundamental patterns that are agreed upon, moisture is falling further to the south and away from the normal catchment areas. That is why the proper way to react to this is to say: ‘For people who live in Sydney or Melbourne, what you do in your backyard and your home is going to be critical in terms of not only conserving but also utilising the rain that does fall in coastal areas, because we know how much pressure is on the other areas.’

If you listen to what the farmers are saying in a number of different areas thoughout Australia, you will hear some of them say that things are survivable. There is just enough there, even though there is variation within particular areas, that they can still produce their crops. They can make it through this particular period. But they know that the severity of this is great.

Just yesterday there was a report in the media of a major survey that is done each year on Australia’s wetlands, and this report was different to all of the others. This report found virtually no migratory birds in the wetlands, because the wetlands have dried. The Darling is not flowing. This is a severe, significant and fundamental change. Now, you can gainsay it and say, ‘It is part of the normal pattern, and it is not really part of the whole climate change scenario.’ But if it is—and so far not only the likelihood but the meteorological certainty is that those observable changes are part of a broader long-term pattern—then the impact of that change on the environment and our biodiversity is that it will entirely devastate our fauna and, indeed, potentially, our flora.

The key issue is how much time those populations have got to adapt to those changed circumstances. It is the rapidity of the change that has really taken everyone and grabbed them almost by the throats. And people are somewhat aghast at it because—whatever the projections were, whatever people might argue about what level of percentage of increase in average annual temperature there would be, and whether or not it is that—it has all come home very quickly.

We know that frog populations worldwide have dramatically decreased. We know that is an indicator not only of biological diversity but of environmental health. They are the litmus test of that environmental health. We also know that, as the amount of rain and snow deposited in mountain areas changes and as glaciers retreat, it is having absolute effects on the biodiversity in those areas. There are populations that are being completely wiped out. Why? And why will that continue? Because we live on a planet of variability, where particular species have adapted to particular circumstances and biological niches where they are comfortable. They have invested a great deal in doing that. Rapid change wipes them out.

We could have another great devastation. It is possible that the cumulative effects of what we are seeing now could lead to the kinds of great wipings-out that we have seen before. We know, just from the normal operation over historical time, in the past 10,000 years—in particular as we have industrialised, but even before that, during the agricultural revolution—that the action of man’s operations on his environment are to the detriment of particular species. It encourages some; it wipes others out. The degree of the knocking-out of species has grown dramatically greater over the last number of years.

The only saving grace that you could think of in this regard—and I think climate change now has to be taken as very real—is this: the past 10,000 years have been a warm period; what we should be expecting is that the next 100,000 years will be a cold or glacial period, and this may provide some buffer. But it also may be that the irregularities of these changes are so great and so fast that our biodiversity will be smashed completely.

This bill speaks to the nuts and bolts of arrangements. It should really speak to the fundamental problems. (Time expired)

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is an elephant in the chamber and it is called climate change. We might be discussing the most important piece of environmental legislation in this country, but let us not mention climate change. This elephant is not in the corner any more; it has wandered into the centre of the room and it is three storeys high. But far be it from this government to pay it any attention at all. In fact, nobody look at the elephant—we are just discussing the environment today.

We are comprehensively amending, on very short notice, the most important piece of environmental legislation—and they are the government’s own words—and one would assume that the government’s amendments would update the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 to reflect current realities. So what is the most important issue facing the environment here in Australia and around the globe today? And what is not mentioned on a single one of the 409 pages of this bill? The answer to both questions is the same: it is climate change. Oops!

I can just imagine a week ago the minister saying, over in the ministerial wing: ‘Oops! We forgot to put in climate change! Let’s push it through in a week. It’s our only chance. Maybe no-one will notice.’ And, if that were true, we might actually have a chance of having this bill amended. But the unfortunate truth is that the government, in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary, still does not recognise climate change for the significant issue that it is.

We as a nation, along with many other nations around the world, are living beyond our environmental means. For decades, we have been sucking more out of this little bit of our planet than we return, and all those decades of living as if water and clean air were limitless have finally impacted on our little part of the planet. If we do not change the way we do things, our very way of life, our health and our future is in very real jeopardy. I am not overstating the seriousness of this issue. This reality is understood around the world, and it is understood around my community. One of the issues that is raised perhaps more often than any other now in our community is water. Yet in this chamber it is not taken seriously. In this bill, the most significant piece of environmental legislation that we have seen, it is not taken seriously.

Whatever the solutions are, we have not found them all yet. This is an extremely complex problem at a level that we have not encountered before, and we are still finding the answers. We will continue to find the answers probably for years to come. How much time do we have? We are running late already. Climate change is here already. It is a reality already, and we as a nation—at all levels of government, in every community and each of us individually—have to deal with this and change this nation’s course. All you have to do to send this government into an apoplexy of indecision is whisper the words ‘climate change’. I say to this government: you cannot afford to carry on as if it will never happen to us; it is happening to us. You cannot afford to just follow the Prime Minister and his view that ‘the government is not really interested in what might happen to Australia and the planet in 50 years time’, and I am quoting the Prime Minister there—that is a statement he made just a month ago on 27 September.

Even the Prime Minister a month ago must have been aware of the growing chorus of concern around the globe, and yet he says that in his view the government is not really interested in what might happen to Australia and the planet in 50 years time. Why is he the Prime Minister? Why do we have as Prime Minister of this nation a man who is not concerned or even interested in what might happen to Australia and the planet in 50 years time? A lot of the voters will still be alive in 50 years time, and certainly their children will be. This is amazing. If for no other reason, he has passed his use-by date. It is time to go, John. There are 409 pages of amendments here and not one mention of climate change. How is that even possible from a supposedly functioning government? Climate change is the elephant in the centre of the room, and the government is carefully turning its head away. Every member of the government, even those who know better, is carefully making sure that they do not look at the elephant. It is the one issue that we as a nation must address and then, beyond that, if we are able to, convince others on as well.

Drought is destroying this land from beneath us. The salt is rising. Arable land in the traditional farm belts is shrinking. The year 2005 was the hottest year in Australia since records began in 1861. Around the globe the 10 hottest years ever have all occurred within the last 14 years. Sea levels have risen 20 centimetres over the past 100 years and will continue to rise. The devastating effects of climate change will be seen not just in the environmental degradation of our natural world but also in local, national and global economies. These impacts will be just as devastating. To give just a small example, you need look no further than the Great Barrier Reef. It is already under threat not only from global warming but also from the government’s continued commitment to allow mining around the reef. Destroy the reef and you lose the 200,000 jobs of the people who rely on the tourism industry and the reef for their livelihood. You would take $4.3 billion out of the Queensland economy, and that is before you consider the flow-on effects of the increased jobless who have lost their livelihood from the reef.

In the next 25 years the populations of Sydney and Melbourne are expected to rise by around 30 per cent. The water supply is expected to fall by 25 per cent. It does not take a genius to see that the water restrictions we are on now will not be enough. It is perfectly obvious to anyone that if your population rises by 30 per cent and your water supply falls by 25 per cent then you have a big problem. For the Prime Minister I will say this once again, because he does not seem to get it: if your population rises by 30 per cent and your water supply falls by 25 per cent then you have a problem, Prime Minister—you will have a problem very soon. You will have an even bigger problem in 50 years time, but I know you do not care about that. You will have a problem very soon and you might like to care about that, Prime Minister. And then there are the businesses that rely on water—mechanics who flush radiators, nurseries, pool builders and so on. They will struggle to stay in business and are already struggling. Then there are the consequential knock-on effects of business closures on the rest of our community.

How much is the drought costing the country even now? Farms are failing, livestock is being devastated and crops are withering in the field. The government just allocated $2 billion in drought relief, but how long will that last and how much will we need in a couple of years time? The cost of protecting our coastline from erosion and inundation due to rises in sea level is unimaginable. It does not take another study to figure out what is going on and what must be done; it obviously does require a change of government, but not another study. We have to address climate change. It will scar our very soul as a nation to see the extent of our folly if we watch much of the land that we occupy become lost to salt and rising oceans and watch our great rivers die. That is part of our soul. It is about the way we see ourselves in this great land of ours. It will damage us irreparably if we see this great nation damaged in that way.

The impact will be catastrophic both environmentally and economically. I know this government does not particularly care about the former, or does not understand the former, but we know it cares about the latter. I have heard on the radio and on TV in the last couple of weeks that climate change has become a trendy issue for Liberal Party members to jump on board. At least they have learnt how to say it in public now, but it is time they learned how to do something about it. This bill does nothing. The recent conversion of some is too little, too late to save this bill. This bill was irrelevant before it was drafted, and pushing it through this House with disgraceful haste will not hide its flaws.

There are 409 pages of amendments to the government’s most important piece of environmental protection legislation and they do not mention the greatest threat to the world environment and to our environment: climate change. The government is rushing this bill through the parliament with incredible haste. The parliamentary secretary introduced it only five sitting days ago. The government expects to have it through the Senate by the end of the month. There are 409 pages of amendments to the most important piece of environmental legislation, in the government’s own words, and almost no time for proper scrutiny.

Even on the surface, without looking at all the fine print where the devil really is, you can see that this is a bad bill. When the parliamentary secretary, the member for Flinders, introduced this bill he said some very interesting things about it. He spent some time outlining the successes of the current act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. He explained how many extra fisheries have been assessed and accredited, the number of threatened species recovery plans organised, the record penalties imposed for illegal clear-felling and so on. These are all achievements for which the government should be congratulated. The EPBC Act is one that this government has been very proud of. Then the member for Flinders let the cat out of the bag, though, and told us what this legislation is really all about. In some of the finest Sir Humphrey Appleby speak, he said:

Operational improvements can be achieved by reducing processing time and decision points affecting the environmental assessment and approval of proposed development …

Or, to put it in plain English, it can be improved through less oversight, fewer checks and balances and more destruction of both the environment and heritage. How are the government going to achieve this? The parliamentary secretary tells us how: by ‘using strategic approaches and providing greater incentive for development interests’. It is an environment and heritage bill that will ‘provide greater incentive for development interests’! They do not even try to hide it under their usual Orwellian doublespeak. When I saw ‘providing greater incentive for development interests,’ I flicked back to the title, thinking it was probably called the ‘Saving Trees from Loggers Bill’. That would be the normal way the government would name a bill that had this underbelly to it. They do not even try to hide it. They just say it right out in the open: ‘This bill will provide greater incentive for development interests.’ It is absolutely astonishing.

It seems that the original act, even watered down as it was, was just a little bit too effective. This legislation encourages development at the expense of the environment and our nation’s heritage and allows it to happen with less scrutiny and oversight from others who may have an interest. The ability for interested and even affected third parties to be involved in the process will be seriously curtailed under this legislation. This is supposed to be a bill to protect our environment and heritage. It does not even mention climate change and it sets about ‘providing greater incentive for developer interests’. No wonder the government is rushing this legislation through. You would not want anyone to notice this one, would you?

The government is right not to want anyone to notice, because it is lagging so far behind the community on this that it is out of sight. This is the issue that people are all talking about, when they walk through their dusty backyards to their barbecue. This is the issue that everyone now talks about—this is the real barbecue stopper. When I am out and about in my electorate, this issue comes up more than any other issue. I was out and about at two mobile offices on Saturday. Out of about two dozen people whom I spoke to for about an hour on Saturday morning, four of them raised this matter as a major concern—an extraordinarily high number of people who, without any soliciting on my part, walked up to me in the street and expressed their concern about the environment. They are getting incredibly aggressive, and also incredibly informed, about their expectations of government.

They expect real strategy. This is a complex and multilayered problem and they expect complex and multilayered solutions—not one-off projects designed to give an impression of activity but genuine long-term commitment, complex and multilayered strategy. In short, they expect some work. They expect a government that recognises a problem, that recognises the community’s concern about this problem and that sets about doing some real hard work trying to find some real solutions. It is not a short-term problem. There is not a short-term solution and there is not a political solution to this. The problem is simply too huge. You cannot come up with something just before the election on this one and make the problem go away. You cannot make it appear to go away. This problem is here until this government starts to find answers to this problem. The public expects hard work from this government. They expect commitment and action and this bill is nowhere near the mark. This bill should go back to the garbage bin and this government needs to start again, with some real community consultation and some real hard work.

As a community we have to learn to be smarter with water. We have to learn to adapt to our climate. It is not so long ago that some local councils forbade residents from having backyard water tanks on aesthetic grounds. Can you imagine a council surviving if they had that policy today? Addressing climate change, given the damage that has already been done, is going to take us decades. This is not an election cycle issue that can be fixed in an instant or that is going to go away. It will be years before we see tangible results, but it cannot be years before we start the work. The work is late already. Today is too late; tomorrow is later; the day after that is later still. For a government that does not care what happens to this country in 50 years time, I guess it does not have to act but, for the rest of us in this country who do care, we beg you to get off your bottoms and get to work. This is the biggest issue that the environment has faced and it is probably the biggest issue that this country has faced, and denying it will not make it go away. Denying it might make you go away at the next election, but it will not make this problem go away. Quite frankly, we cannot wait another year for you guys to lose the election to act on this. We have to act on this now.

There is no point saying that we will meet the Kyoto protocol levels if we do not ratify the document and therefore gain the benefits that it brings. Labor will sign Kyoto and engage in the carbon trading scheme that will bring economic benefits to smart companies. That is the key, of course: a smart company will make money; smart companies will stay ahead of the curve. Around the world, emission standards and carbon trading certificates are becoming fundamental to normal, everyday business operations.

If we do not set up a national carbon trading system then there are many Australian companies which will no longer be able to trade internationally because they will not be able to supply the necessary documentation regarding their environmental credentials. We have to cut emissions. It is as simple as that. Everyone knows it except, it seems, the most senior personnel in this government. Labor believe that we need to cut emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. That is our target. We on this side of the House have a target.

Due to the Howard government’s complete lack of leadership on this issue, the state premiers have agreed to set up a cooperative emissions trading scheme of their own. They are going around the government. With the federal government not prepared to act in this area, the state governments are finding a way around it—just as the community is—to find a solution to this very real problem.

Labor in government will take the lead on this issue and coordinate a national effort, which is what is desperately required in this country. We will take the lead in the region. On 5 January this year, Labor released a policy discussion paper on climate change in the Pacific outlining the seven key elements to Labor’s plan. These included: a Pacific climate centre to ensure proper measurement and monitoring of the effects of climate change; assistance for mitigation, adaptation and emergency response efforts, such as protecting freshwater sources from saltwater contamination; dealing with infrastructure decay caused by coastal erosion; assistance with intracountry evacuations when citizens have to be moved from low-lying areas to higher ground; training to help the citizens of countries that have to be fully evacuated; establishing an international coalition to accept climate change refugees when a country becomes uninhabitable because of rising sea levels; assistance to preserve the cultural heritage of those who are evacuated; and establishing a Pacific climate change alliance to add greater momentum to global efforts to deal with climate change.

But for Australia to credibly be part of such an alliance, it must ratify the Kyoto protocol and commit to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Labor is taking the lead on this issue and we are looking as far as we can into the future. This government cannot see past the next opinion poll, let alone the kind of vision that this issue requires. This bill is proof of that. You do not have to go any further than this bill to see this government’s pathetic credentials when it comes to the environment.

We know what this government thinks about refugees; it likes to put them on an island in the Pacific Ocean—they call it the Pacific solution. One wonders what they will do when we are the Pacific solution—when rising sea levels in the Pacific bring thousands of refugees to this country. We will become the Pacific solution if we do not work, not just in our own country but with our neighbours, to protect them from this great threat.

You cannot address climate change with just one initiative. It has to be a multifaceted attack. Reducing emissions is one such element and renewable energy must be another—not the odd one-off project but a real, sustainable strategy to improve this country’s development of renewable energy and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Labor will increase the mandatory renewable energy target.

The fossil fuels we use are eventually going to run out. We all know that. We have known it for some time. Why, then, is this government doing so little on renewable energies? Why has it done so little for 10 years? For 10 years we have known about this; why has it done so little? In fact, with this legislation before us today the government is moving in the opposite direction, making it easier for development interests to continue to operate without checks and balances and without any regard to the environmental impact of their operations.

Labor is willing to step up and take the lead on these vital issues that will affect generations to come. We have to, because this government will not. I urge members of this House to reject this bill and support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Grayndler.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with pleasure that I rise tonight to speak on the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006, particularly about what it does not address, and to endorse the second reading amendment moved by my colleague Anthony Albanese, the shadow minister for the environment and member for Grayndler.

Ten years of the Howard government have seen enormous pressure come to bear on our environment. Climate change is cutting our water supply, starving our towns and cities of this essential resource. It is unfortunately a time when we can say the mighty Murray River has been at its lowest levels for 100 years and in some places a trickle represents this truly national icon. Seventeen million hectares of productive land is facing complete obliteration by 2050 due to salinity problems. Yet this bill that should be addressing this issue of tremendous importance has been rushed through. Labor is moving to amend it on a number of fronts, and the opposition’s second reading amendment highlights those.

There are 409 pages of amendments in this bill that will ultimately change the way the environment is being protected, but the government—as is its wont these days, after gaining control of the Senate—would not allow a proper examination of the consequences of this bill. Under the government’s agenda, due to be decided and resolved by the end of November, something as serious as a major piece of environmental law that governs the operations of the nation is being rushed through with unseemly haste. The bill has been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, which is due to report in mid-November, but debate on the bill has commenced before we have had the opportunity of looking at public submissions and, most importantly, hearing public commentary.

In our view it is an appalling abuse of process and just shows the arrogance of this government. The government has to be condemned for pushing this bill through both houses without a proper time frame for consideration or without proper public consultation processes.

A quick glance at the detail shows that the amendments will curtail third-party appeal rights and will undermine public consultation processes, and the amendments will allow the further politicisation of decision-making processes on very important matters relating to the protection of our heritage and our environment.

Amazingly, the most serious global issue, that of global warming and climate change, is not even dealt with in this bill. The Howard government have left us unprepared for the dramatic challenges that lie ahead. In my view, they have no cohesive national plan to prepare for climate change. They have no cohesive national plan to cut Australia’s soaring greenhouse emissions. I can see the need for these. We need a plan for the future—a national climate change strategy.

The consequences of climate change are very real. Ask anyone; ask anyone in my electorate. As I have said, I can see the need for change. So can many others in my electorate. For example, east of my electorate, Gippsland was ablaze. With temperatures in the mid-thirties, well above the average for early October, and wind speeds reaching 100 kilometres an hour, fire fighters had an unenviable task of taming some of Victoria’s 40 fires. And three other states have declared themselves to be in extreme fire danger some six weeks earlier than the same time last year.

Other extreme weather events that many people in my electorate—and the member for Flinders—would have noticed include: two category 4 cyclones; one of the worst snow seasons on record; water stresses in our cities; unseasonable snap frosts devastating stone fruit crops; a relentless El Nino, lowering most grain yields; and now, according to the Treasurer, we are officially in the worst drought ever.

In looking at other third-party endorsements of the seriousness of the difficulties we face, read no further than Paul Sheehan in an article that he wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald. Talking about what Australia will become if we do not fix our environment, he said:

The Roman emperor Nero is best remembered for having his mother and wife assassinated, murdering his second wife, indulging in orgies, concerts and sporting spectacles while persecuting Christians, and blaming them for the great fire of Rome during which, most infamously, he supposedly played the lyre from the balcony of his palace. Nero playing while Rome burned is myth. The rest is not.

I wonder what history will say about us when we are gone, off to that great absolute water frontage in the sky?

That we fiddled while Rome burned? That we were the wealthiest society in our history, worth more than $350,000 for every man, woman and child, with the biggest homes, the most cars, the highest debt, the lowest savings, the highest rates of obesity and excess weight, and the greatest amount of consumerism, gambling and drug consumption, while the landscape, the lifeblood of the nation, died around us—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hunt interjecting

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Paul Sheehan. He went on:

I’m sure the member for Flinders thinks so.

We have elected a prime minister, four times, who has led Australia through an era of unbroken and unprecedented prosperity, yet appeared obdurately impervious to the greatest issue of our times. He promised to reduce the size and intrusiveness of government but instead increased federal taxes, including the GST, to a peacetime record of 25.7 per cent of gross domestic product, but did not use this unprecedented flow of funds to mobilise the nation against the greatest threat to its survival.

Sheehan speaks about a particular project in Coombing Park. It is about a farmer who is trying to protect his property. He wrote about what this farmer said:

“We are going down to 20 per cent stocking rate, which is below our cost of production,” King told me on Friday. “Our business cannot trade for many more years if we erode our equity each year. Even the best farmers are suffering now. The bush is dying. The towns, the landscape, the rivers are being killed by this climate change.”

Note the term “climate change”. Not “drought”.

As this farmer says:

“I have no doubts this will all accelerate as time passes. Pretty soon we will be able to see the great deserts from the Great Dividing Range.”

That was written by Paul Sheehan—no friend of the Labor Party, I can assure you. Human induced global warming and its resultant changes in our climate system is no longer an intellectual issue discussed by Blundstone-wearing urban greenies—it is mainstream, it is empirical and it is now. The government must move to tackle global warming comprehensively, as is required in the national interest, and it certainly does not in this bill.

A report set for release in Britain today warns climate change could cost the world trillions of dollars. Labor’s Treasury spokesman, Wayne Swan, last week met the report’s author, respected World Bank economist Sir Nicholas Stern, after he briefed the British cabinet on the economics of climate change. Mr Swan today said of the report:

It says basically that the globe and individual nations have a window of opportunity only of 10 or 15 years to act …

Failure to act would lead to a worldwide recession, he said, and leave large sections of the globe underwater in 50 years time. We saw that graphically illustrated on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald. Mr Swan also said that the Stern report said countries needed to introduce ambitious targets to reduce carbon emissions but that the government’s failure to ratify the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions meant Australia was starting a long way behind. Labor’s environment spokesman, Anthony Albanese, has basically said the same thing.

It is not an issue that just concerns my electorate or those in this chamber. A recently released annual Lowy Institute poll reveals Australian concern over global warming to be the big sleeper of national affairs, a problem that worries Australians more than Islamic fundamentalism. Australian public convictions on climate change have crept up on the government and have now overtaken it. It is interesting that in the year 2000, amongst other timely commitments to addressing climate change, the Labor Party committed to ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Although only a small step in helping reduce greenhouse pollution globally, it remains a significant symbol of international diplomacy and one to which Labor remains committed, particularly as it sends a very powerful market signal to the world.

The government says that, if Australia ratifies the Kyoto protocol, Australian jobs will be lost to places without the same market conditions, such as India and China. From what I can see, Australian jobs are going to these countries largely because the government has failed to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Being locked out of the protocol’s mechanisms means Australians are unable to create worthwhile business opportunities from reducing greenhouse pollution. As an example, if Australia had ratified the Kyoto protocol, farmers would be able to claim large financial rewards for permanent revegetation projects. How? By selling to Kyoto countries and their companies the credits created by locking up carbon in trees and soil. But under the Howard government farmers miss out yet again.

In a similar way, any local business—even a school—that undertook an energy efficiency upgrade could sell its carbon credits in a carbon market and be financially rewarded for its efforts. In the first half of this year, the European carbon market was worth $15 billion. The government’s continued isolationist position for international action is stopping Australian businesses access global markets and it means that jobs in the new markets are being created offshore and not here, not in our country, not in our cities, our suburbs or our regions.

So if these opportunities are not arising here, where are they? What, for example, are our allies the Americans doing? Let me tell you what some of the Americans are doing. Whilst the Australian position has been aligned with that of President Bush and his anti-Kyoto stance—although we will see what happens after the midterm congressional elections—the Howard government has failed to see the substantial shift by various US national, state and city leaders taking prominent roles in the carbon constrained global market. Seven US states, 227 cities and a number of influential members of congress, both Republican and Democrat, are circumventing the Bush White House’s intransigent position. These congressmen and women, governors and mayors are committing their jurisdictions to emission reduction targets, carbon trading and renewable energy development. As the US moves forward on climate, it leaves Australia politically and economically isolated as the least prepared developed country in the world on this issue.

Let us talk about some of the leading US climate initiatives, which of course include the US banks. The Bank of New York has created a registry that it hopes will ease and increase trade in the growing global market for voluntary greenhouse gas credits, sources at the company recently said. I quote one of the sources:

“We saw an opportunity coming out of the Kyoto Protocol where companies … can buy varieties of gas emission reductions to offset their direct emissions or offset carbon products and services to customers,” a Bank of New York source based in London told Reuters in a phone interview.

The global voluntary carbon market has grown from three million to five million tonnes of CO² credits traded in 2004 to 20 million to 50 million tonnes in 2006, and is expected to reach 100 million tonnes or more next year, according to the Climate Group, a London based non-profit organisation. The voluntary trade the Bank of New York registry targets is separate from the mandatory trade under the UN’s Kyoto pact, such as the European Union’s emissions trading scheme. Many US companies such as Alcoa and DuPont have cut emissions voluntarily. Carbon credits on the EU market were selling for about $US19 a tonne recently and at about $US4 a tonne on the Chicago Climate Exchange some months ago.

Let us see what major US companies say on the particular regulations:

In April 2006, a US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee panel were surprised to hear the heads of high-powered energy, utility and retail companies including General Electric, Wal-Mart, Shell, Exelon and Duke Energy say they would welcome or accept mandatory caps on their greenhouse gas emissions.

Here is another one:

RETAIL GIANT TAKES A BIG STEP — In October 2005, the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, announced a $500 million climate change commitment including initiatives to:

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in seven years.
• Increase truck fleet fuel efficiency by 25% in three years and double it in ten.
• Develop a store that is 25% more energy efficient within four years.
• Pressure its worldwide network of suppliers to follow its lead.
• Operate on 100% renewable energy.

With $312.4 billion in annual sales and more than 6,400 stores and facilities worldwide, Wal-Mart’s climate change commitment is of international business significance.

And another one:

IMAGINING ECO — In May 2005, General Electric, one of the world’s biggest companies with revenues of US $152 billion in 2004, announced “Ecomagination,” a major new business driver expected to double revenues from cleaner technologies to US$20 billion by 2010. This initiative will see GE double its research and development in eco-friendly technologies to US$1.5 billion by 2010, reduce company-wide emissions by 1% and improve energy efficiency by 30% by 2012. In May 2006, the company reported revenues of US$10.1 billion from its energy efficient and environmentally advanced products and services, up from US$6.2 billion in 2004, with orders nearly doubling to US$17 billion. In 2005, the company’s wind energy business was worth US$2 billion, estimated to rapidly reach US$4 billion. In five years, GE expects that alternative energies will comprise more than 25% of all energy equipment revenue.

We need to stay in the emissions trading game:

To prepare for an inevitable limit on greenhouse gas emissions, over 40 US and Canadian companies and organisations, including Baxter, Ford Motor Company, Interface, International Paper, Manitoba Hydro, Motorola and Tufts University, have joined the Chicago Climate Exchange, a voluntary but legally-binding program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The scheme has been operating since 2003 to enable participants to prepare for an emissions trading future. By the end of 2006, participants are expected to have reduced emissions by 4%. In April 2006 over 1 million tonnes of CO2 permits were traded through the Chicago Exchange, and in the first two weeks of May 2006, over 2.4 million tonnes of CO2 permits were traded.

And if you looked at alternative fuels as well:

Microsoft magnate Bill Gates jumped into the bio-fuels market in April this year when he purchased US$84 million (AU$112 million), a 25.5% stake in common stock shares of Pacific Ethanol Inc., makers of corn-based fuel.

While not a major investment for Gates, it does indicate a market signal. Let us look at another one of our partners, China, and their efforts to reduce climate change. It was mentioned today by the Prime Minister that because China and India are not serious about global change that we should not be serious about signing the Kyoto protocol.

Contrary to popular opinion, China is leading world efforts to combat global climate change. It has ratified the Kyoto protocol. According to environmental sources, between 1997 and 2001, China reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 17 per cent whilst its economy grew by 34 per cent. This was achieved by switching to cleaner energy sources, restructuring its economy and improving the efficiency of non-renewable energy sources such as coal. It has been calculated that China’s energy-saving measures have cut carbon dioxide emissions significantly

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hunt interjecting

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can tell the Chinese government this. China’s latest five-year plan includes a commitment to achieve—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hunt interjecting

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What you have to worry about, mate, is whether or not they are going to put a nuclear power plant in your electorate. That is what I would be worried about in terms of energy efficiency. China’s latest five-year plan includes a commitment to achieving economic growth by ‘optimising structure, improving efficiency and decreasing energy consumption’.

Included in the latest five-year plan are targets for the next five years of a 10 per cent fall in total pollutants, a 20 per cent fall in total energy consumption per unit of GDP and a 30 per cent reduction in total water use. China has committed to generating, excluding hydro power, 10 per cent of its energy with renewable technology by 2010 and 15 per cent by 2020. China plans to reduce the percentage of its power which is produced by coal from 78 per cent to 40 per cent by 2030. China currently invests $9.3 billion in renewable energy, more than double the United States’ renewable investment. In 2004, China introduced auto emissions standards equal to Euro II standards. Currently, the United States cannot export cars to China as they do not meet Chinese emission standards. In 2008, China will introduce tighter auto emission standards equivalent to Euro III standards. China has reduced taxes on bicycles and introduced a fuel tax which penalises four-wheel drives and the least fuel efficient cars.

Brazil is a world leader on ethanol production, requiring 100 per cent of gasoline to be blended with ethanol. Indonesia has set a biofuels target of 10 per cent by 2010. Of course, business strategies in these countries did not change overnight. Their governments introduced policies to phase in emissions targets and low-carbon technologies, creating massive opportunities for local labour markets and export growth.

The disappointing element of this is that Australia could be part of this, but is not. What do we need to do in Australia? Australia needs a systematic response rather than a bandaid response simply because Textor and Crosby are polling and saying it is an issue for the government. We need to not be isolated and playing catch-up. We need the government to be very serious about dealing with this particular issue. If you look at renewables, the Victorian renewable energy target of 10 per cent by 2016 made the Solar Systems project viable. That project was funded by the government.

John Howard has rejected expanding the national renewable energy target beyond two per cent but is relaxed about putting a nuclear power plant in the electorate of the member for Flinders. Australia is the only country where renewable energy projects are being closed and we have seen job losses as a consequence of that. John Howard criticises Kyoto but sent Ian Campbell to China to open a $300 million renewable energy project that was funded by the clean development mechanism of the Kyoto protocol. What I see in this bill is a lost opportunity for Australians. Mark my words: when Australians come to vote, they are no fools. They know that this change in their climate has to be addressed by a government that does not just respond to polling but responds to the genuine needs of the Australian community. Let us see if they are serious because this bill certainly proves that they are not.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising on behalf of the government to address the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006, I firstly thank all members on either side of the House who have presented their arguments. This bill does one critical thing. It assesses and changes the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and sets them up for the coming decade in such a way as to achieve two fundamental things: firstly, it strengthens and enhances provisions to protect the environment in relation to specific projects as they are considered, it provides a tougher regime and it provides a way of dealing with the great challenges before us as we look at individual projects; and, secondly, it does this in a way which will make it faster, more efficient and give people greater certainty and the greater ability to make decisions both on investment and on protection of the environment.

In looking at the bill, and in looking at the arguments presented, I want, firstly, to look at the background and what has been achieved over last six years under the regime established through the Environment Protection And Biodiversity Conservation Act; secondly, to deal with the changes which have been specifically outlined and addressed in the course of this legislation; and, thirdly, to deal with four of the arguments presented during the debate by our friends on the opposition benches.

Firstly, on the regime which we have inherited, the EPBC Act—the most comprehensive environmental legislation in Australian history—essentially has been in force for six years, during which time over 2,000 referrals have been made. This has led to approvals being required for 420 major proposals for development around Australia. Nearly 200 assessments have been completed and 150 approval decisions have been made. As part of that, 120 fisheries have been assessed; nearly 200 new species, communities and environmental processes have been included on the lists of threatened species, ecological communities and key threatening processes; 250 listed threatened species recovery plans have been developed; and 50 Ramsar wetland management plans have been put in place. Over 15,000 wildlife trade permits have been considered and issued and 370 places have been added to the National and Commonwealth Heritage Lists since the commencement of the new National Heritage Scheme in January 2005.

Taken together, we have seen a comprehensive piece of legislation which was intended to achieve, and which has achieved, the combination of protection of the environment and certainty for the process of investment. But this bill seeks to enhance that regime. It seeks to essentially achieve four outcomes. The first of those outcomes is about streamlining the process and reducing red tape. In particular, it attempts to speed up the pace at which consideration and approvals are processed. That is important for those who are concerned about the environment and it is important for those who need to make judgements, decisions and investments. It will, in many cases, lead to outcomes that people who are making proposals might not necessarily want. We will see that there are difficult decisions about what is a viable proposal and whether it will have an impact on the environment. If it does have an impact on the environment—a threatened species or something else—then we will not hesitate to demand that there are adequate responses and protections put in place or otherwise the project will not proceed. It reduces the number of mandatory steps in the assessment and approvals processes and it allows for different authorisation processes to occur concurrently. That is how we are streamlining things.

The second great outcome which we seek from this bill is certainty for industry and the community. In particular, the bill allows proponents to give their views on proposed approval decisions, including any proposed conditions, before the final approval decision is made. It includes the ability to establish a transparent process for consideration and reconsideration.

The third of the major amendments contained within this bill is to establish a more strategic and flexible approach to dealing with a combination of assessments and listings. In particular, it allows the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to pursue priorities, not simply to respond to a range of different references from people in all different parts of the country. They are important, they will be considered, but it does allow most importantly for the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the Department of the Environment and Heritage to pursue the most important, most pressing and most urgent needs, not merely those which have been put forward on a procedural basis. In particular, the change establishes a more strategic approach to the listing of heritage places, to threatened species and to ecological communities by strengthening the role of the minister, the Australian Heritage Council and the Threatened Species Scientific Committee in setting priorities and work programs.

This leads me to the last of the core reasons and actions contained within the amendments and this bill. It will strengthen compliance and enforcement. In particular, the amendments will establish new penalties which are aimed at ensuring the proponents do not commence proposed development action prior to the referrals assessment and approvals process under the EPBC Act being completed. In other words, there will be penalties and punishments for people who jump the gun, who try to pre-empt decisions and who simply try to cheat the process. Those are tough measures and we make no apologies for that.

Against those changes, a series of considerations have been raised by our friends on the opposite side of the chamber. The first and most significant of those is in relation to climate change. It is a generalised argument that this bill has failed to deal with climate change. I want to make three brief responses in relation to climate change. The first is my very clear long-held and longstanding position that the facts on global warming are clear and absolute: it has been proceeding and is proceeding, and we have the latest information from the Bureau of Meteorology of a 0.6 degree increase in global temperature over the last century—precisely as predicted—and that this is a direct result of human activity in relation to carbon emission. I make no bones about the fact that it is real—I never have—and I regard it as a deep and clear personal responsibility and one of the abiding tasks of my time in parliamentary life. But the big question here is: what has been the response? You would imagine, from what the opposition says, that there has been a dramatic increase in emissions from Australia. But what we find, very clearly, when we look at Australian emissions in the period from 1990 until now, is 550 million tonnes as opposed to 560 million tonnes of CO² or equivalent gases. There as been almost no change in the emissions profile of Australia as opposed to what the rest of the world has seen.

The other thing we want to talk about here is that our friends on the other side make a great deal of the fact that Australia is one of the few countries in the developed world that have not ratified the Kyoto protocol, yet it is like looking at the list of people who promise to kick 100 goals a year in Australian Rules football and comparing it with those who actually do. They give all the weight to the people who make the promise and give no weight to the people who actually deliver. Morality rests with performance. Let me make that statement. Morality rests with those who have actually delivered. When you look at what has happened in relation to targets, when you see what has happened in the European Union, Japan, Canada or so many other countries, you will see that other countries have promised but failed to reach their targets but that Australia is one of a handful of developed world countries that have actually reached their targets. So what you need to do is to recognise that morality rests with those who have achieved their targets, not with those who make a blithe promise, fail to achieve their targets and clothe themselves in some greater good simply on the basis of the promise and not the delivery. That is the reality: Australia is one of the very few countries in the world to have done that.

By comparison, what we see is that we have taken simple, clear and absolutely practical steps to reduce emissions. Only in the last week we have seen some of the most significant projects in the Western world in terms of practical reductions, further reducing Australia’s 560 million tonnes of CO² or equivalent emissions. They are real projects, whether in Hazelwood, Victoria, the Solar Systems project within Mildura or, as we have seen today, the two major carbon emissions projects in Queensland under the Low Emissions Technology Development Fund. We choose to make a difference by actually reducing emissions. The questions I would have for the Labor Party are simple ones: what is the level of the tax you will apply? If you are going to impose a cap and trade system, what is the level of the cap you will apply? Let us hear what the cap is, because that would be profoundly interesting. Against that background, I make no apology for the fact that, of all the countries in the world, Australia has done as well as any on controlling our emissions as opposed to this fantasy which has been peddled.

The second of the arguments the opposition has taken in relation to this bill is that we have failed to protect overseas historic heritage places. But we have worked with overseas governments and we have very clearly put in place a system that will allow for a list that will further enable us to deal with overseas governments in a way that will best help to assist Australia and help to protect the places overseas.

The third criticism made by the opposition is in relation to decisions on listing heritage places. The opposition has said that the minister is not going to take into account information from anyone in making his or her decision on the listing of heritage places. Let me make this absolutely clear: this provision is not new. The EPBC Act currently allows the minister to seek additional public comments. After receiving advice from the Australian Heritage Council, the minister will be allowed to consider the situation but will not be forced to divert the processes and to act in a way that is utterly contrary to good process and to the way of a fair hearing.

The fourth and final criticism I want to deal with is a curious one. It is the notion that the penalties we have in place in relation to marine reserves on Ashmore Reef and in other places are too hard. That is what the opposition have told us. They have said that the penalties we are imposing on people who take protected species such as turtles, dolphins and dugongs are too hard. Well, bad luck; we make no apologies. We have set in place a difficult and tough regime which will mean that the master and recidivist crew members will be held and prosecuted and that the rest of the crew will be sent home at the earliest opportunity. If that is a tough regime, I am delighted. I stand for that and I am pleased about it.

In summing up the government’s position in relation to the second reading of this bill, what I want to say is this: we have the EPBC Act, which has set in place the strongest level of environmental protection practically that we have ever had within Australia, but we can go forward and streamline it. We can make it more effective and we can include tougher penalties. We have heard—but we reject—the positions put forward by the opposition. Against that background I want to congratulate the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the Hon. Senator Ian Campbell, his staff and his officers. I am delighted to commend this bill to the House.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Grayndler has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.