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

I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment (Antarctic Seals and Other Measures) Bill 2006 is to make amendments to the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 and the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005.

The Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 gives effect to Australia’s obligations under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty—the Madrid protocol of 1991, of which Australia was a principal architect. The Madrid protocol afforded significantly increased protection to the Antarctic environment.

Measures giving effect to Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Seals 1978 are currently embodied in the Antarctic Seals Conservation Regulations 1986, which means that penalties for offences can only be set at a low level.

This bill transfers the seals related measures in the existing Antarctic Seals Conservation Regulations 1986 into the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980. Seals and whales are the only two families of mammals native to the Antarctic. Whales are already protected under the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.  The bill increases the penalties for seal related offences to bring them into line with other wildlife related penalties in the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980.  Taking seals for commercial purposes will remain prohibited.

The Madrid protocol specifically prohibits mining in the Antarctic, and mining remains prohibited by the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980.

In addition to the pecuniary penalty already available, the bill introduces a maximum imprisonment penalty of 16 years for mining in the Antarctic. The ban on mining is the key feature of the Madrid protocol and the severity of the proposed penalty reflects the seriousness of this offence as well as the degree of premeditated planning required to commit such an action.

In recognition of the high scientific value of meteorites found in the Antarctic, the Antarctic Treaty Parties in 2003 agreed to a measure to protect them from uncontrolled collection. The bill implements this agreement by requiring a permit to collect meteorites or to remove meteorites or rocks from the Antarctic. Accordingly, it will also be an offence for a person to remove a meteorite or rock collected in the Antarctic. Collecting rocks and meteorites under a permit is exempted from the restriction on mining activities.

The bill will also extend to individual animals the protection afforded by the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 to seals and birds in concentrations of more than 20.

As a precaution against the introduction of non-native organisms and diseases to the Antarctic environment, the bill includes the requirement for a permit to re-introduce a native bird or seal to the Antarctic. Such a permit would set appropriate conditions for the safe re-introduction of a native animal. This requirement would apply, for example, to the return to the Antarctic of a vagrant individual or a specimen from a zoo.

The bill also adjusts other penalties throughout the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 to better reflect the hierarchy of offences, and to more closely align them with penalties for similar offences under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Finally, the bill will amend the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 to allow a WELS standard to be incorporated by reference into a determination that relates to a particular WELS product, and make another minor amendment to correct a drafting error regarding the definition of offence against this Act.

In particular, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate not only the Department of the Environment and Heritage but also the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and his staff on this work. The minister has been a champion of Antarctic species mammals protection. It has been one of the defining elements of his period as environment minister, and at present he is one of the world’s leading conservationists for marine mammals. I believe that the extension of the Antarctic seals protection measures embodied in this legislation is an appropriate step forward and also a symbol of the commitment which he and the government have towards the protection of Antarctic mammals and marine mammals in general. I am delighted to commend this legislation to the House.

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

The Australian Labor Party support the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment (Antarctic Seals and Other Measures) Bill 2006. We do have, however, deep concerns about the government’s approach to environmental protection. The Howard government has delivered one extreme bill after another, each one designed to trample on environment protection measures. So it is a small relief to find a bill that we can actually support. The rule seems to be to introduce bills that roll back environmental protection, but this bill seems to be the exception. Maybe the influence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage has brought about this result.

The Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment (Antarctic Seals and Other Measures) Bill 2006 transfers the protection of seals in the Antarctic Seals Conservation Regulations Act 1986 to the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980. This enables penalties to be imposed which are in line with other wildlife related offences and to meet Australia’s obligations under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, commonly known as the Madrid protocol. The bill also amends the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 to enable a determination by incorporation of a reference to the water efficiency and labelling standards. It also makes other minor drafting amendments. I note that Senator Ellison in his second reading speech stated:

In addition to the pecuniary penalty already available, the bill introduces a maximum imprisonment penalty of sixteen years for mining in the Antarctic. The ban on mining is the key feature of the Madrid Protocol and the severity of the proposed penalty reflects the seriousness of this offence as well as the degree of premeditated planning required to commit such an action.

In recognition of the high scientific value of meteorites found in the Antarctic, the Antarctic Treaty Parties in 2003 agreed to a measure to protect them from uncontrolled collection. The bill implements this agreement by requiring a permit to collect meteorites or to remove meteorites or rocks from the Antarctic. Accordingly, it will also be an offence for a person to remove a meteorite or rock collected in the Antarctic. Collecting rocks and meteorites under a permit is exempted from the restriction on mining activities.

The bill will also extend to individual animals the protection afforded by the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 to seals and birds in concentrations of more than 20.

Those measures are fine, but the real issue is the Howard government’s environmental performance. The problem with the inadequate performance of the government is best illustrated by the amendments currently being proposed to Australia’s main environmental law—the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This bill shows how arrogant the government is when it comes to environmental protection. Let us not forget there was no exposure draft and no environmental heritage groups were consulted about the bill. The 409-page bill was introduced in the House on the Thursday and debated the following Wednesday. The bill was debated in the House without a Bills Digest and before submissions had even been received for the Senate inquiry.

Senator Carr, Labor’s representative on the Senate inquiry into the bill, was given only eight minutes to question each witness. WA Liberal senator David Johnson got it absolutely right when he told the Senate on 18 October 2006 that the explanatory memorandum for the bill:

… 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 and rights of personal frisking without warrant.

…       …            …

… this legislation should go back to the drawing board.

It is of particular concern that we have the extraordinary position that the EPBC Act has 733 pages and the bill has 409 pages of amendments, and yet we have no reference whatsoever to climate change as part of the legislation or the amendments.

The other issue that is worth addressing, given the relevance to the bill currently before the House, is the protection of whales. There is a profound irony that the environment minister uses the EPBC Act as his personal political plaything but runs a mile from it when it is all too hard. Just have a look at the Australian Whale Sanctuary. The EPBC Act provides for the establishment of an Australian whale sanctuary to:

… give formal recognition of the high level of protection and management afforded to cetaceans (whales and dolphins) in Commonwealth marine areas and prescribed waters.

It is a legally-binding safe haven for whales, and what has the Howard government done with these powers? Absolutely nothing.

It is tragic that more whales than ever before have been slaughtered in the Australian Whale Sanctuary since it was established because the Australian government has refused to enforce the EPBC Act. It has also refused to take legal action. Indeed, when the HSI took legal action to enforce the EPBC Act, the Attorney-General intervened in the court case. In his submission, he said:

It would create a diplomatic disagreement with Japan.

Japan are our friends, but we do have a diplomatic disagreement when it comes to whales and when it comes to the failure to enforce the Australian Whale Sanctuary.

In conclusion, the Labor Party supports the bill before the House, but we do have very deep concerns about the government’s approach to environmental protection. There is, of course, no more important issue than the issue of climate change, and this is a government that is failing to address the greatest challenge facing the global community in the interests of not just this generation but future generations to come.

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

I share the concerns that the shadow minister has about the government’s approach to environmental protection. I believe that the government’s action in relation to climate change is flawed. It is letting the Australian people down in relation to introducing initiatives to address climate change and in its failure to sign the Kyoto agreement. In the last week that the parliament was sitting, we debated the environment and heritage amendment legislation, which the government argued was to address the balance between the environment and development. I believe it removes the balance; it moves it away from the environment and towards development. These are two examples of how the government has failed to give real protection to the environment, protection for which the Australian people look to the government.

The Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment (Antarctic Seals and Other Measures) Bill 2006, which we are debating today, transfers the protection of seals from the Antarctic Seals Conservation Regulation 1986 to the Antarctic Treaty (Environmental Protection) Act 1980. It also makes some minor amendments to the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act. It enables penalties to be imposed which are in line with other wildlife related offences and it allows Australia to meet obligations under the Protocol for Environmental Protection to the Antarctic treaty, the Madrid protocol. The bill removes the protections given to seals under the Antarctic environmental protection act, whilst whales remain protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the EPBC Act—and I will talk a little more about that in a moment.

The bill also creates new offences relating to the removal and collection of rocks and meteorites from the Antarctic and updates offences in relation to the disturbance of Antarctic flora and fauna. They are very important initiatives, particularly given the fragile nature of the environment in the Antarctic. This is not a controversial piece of legislation and we on this side of the parliament are supporting it. As the shadow minister said, it gives us great pleasure to join with the government on an issue that deals with the protection of the environment.

Seals were previously protected under the Antarctic Seals Conservation Regulations 1986. Those came into effect because Australia was not supportive of the commercial sealing that was taking place—and this goes as far back as 1960. Commercial sealing was an industry that we had serious concerns about. The Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals was set up to protect the six species of seals in the Antarctic: the southern elephant seal, the leopard seal, the Weddell seal, the crab-eater seal, the Ross seal and the southern fur seal. Seals are a species we really need to protect.

Article 7 of the protocol prohibits any activity connected with mineral resources other than for scientific research. The text of the protocol can be found in schedule 2 of the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980. Obviously the purpose is to avoid adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment.

The legislation also looks at trying to avoid adverse effects on climate or weather patterns. The attempts to look at addressing that issue are very important given the current environment. They are also very important given the fact that throughout the world we have very serious concerns about changes in weather patterns. It is very important for us as a nation and as a society to realise how important it is that we are very mindful of actions that can impact on the weather and on our environment. It also looks at ensuring that the fauna and flora are protected.

The protection of whales is an important part of the EPBC Act, which deals with the establishment of sanctuaries. While the act does establish sanctuaries, and government members are very supportive of the protection of whales, it is quite different when it comes to the enforcement of the act. So, while the act prevents the slaughter of whales, the government refuses to enforce the act. I find it quite disconcerting that on one hand members of the government promote the protection of whales while on the other hand they fail to to enforce this protection.

In conclusion, I reiterate that it is so important that as a nation we protect our environment. If we do not care for our environment, we are not caring for our future. By having a sound, flourishing environment and protecting the global environment we are ensuring the future of not only our nation but nations throughout the world.

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

in reply—In rising to conclude the debate on the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment (Antarctic Seals and Other Measures) Bill 2006, I want to thank those members who have spoken in the debate. The member for Grayndler presented, in his customary fashion, the opposition’s perspective. I refer in particular to the comments made by the member for Shortland, who gave a brief but moving eulogy on the importance of marine mammals, and I respect her commitment to these noble creatures.

The amendments to the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 will significantly strengthen the government’s protection of the Antarctic environment by, firstly, incorporating the provisions of the Antarctic Seals Conservation Regulations 1986 into the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980. This will afford additional protection to seals in the Antarctic by enabling appropriate penalties to be set for seal related offences. Secondly, it will introduce new offences regarding the collection and removal of rocks and meteorites from Antarctica. Antarctica, as I have previously noted, is a particularly rich source of meteorites, which are scientifically important, as was highlighted only this year in a major international film. These amendments recognise the high scientific value of these meteorites and give effect to an Antarctic treaty measure prohibiting the collection of meteorites and rocks in the Antarctic.

Thirdly, the amendments introduce a maximum penalty of 16 years imprisonment for mining in the Antarctic, which will be additional to the pecuniary penalty already in the act of up to $110,000. The Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty prohibits activities related to mineral resources other than for scientific research. Because the ban on mining is a key feature of the protocol and any mining activity would require a significant amount of planning and resources, it is appropriate that the penalty for mining activities in the Antarctic be increased to reflect the serious impact that such activities could have on the sensitive Antarctic environment and Australia’s standing in the Antarctic Treaty system.

The bill also amends the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005. These amendments are required to enable the establishment of water efficiency labelling and standards for a product, to be incorporated by reference into a determination that relates to the WELS product, and make another minor amendment to correct a drafting error regarding the definition of offences against this act.

I conclude by making two points. Firstly, in relation to the view presented by the member for Grayndler that, whilst he welcomed the increased protection for marine mammals, he believed that there was still insufficient protection for whales, he has ignored the fact that the government has, under the EPBC Act, a strong and powerful criminal deterrent for inappropriate activities. This is a powerful regulation and enforcement mechanism, and we will not hesitate to use it appropriately, as and when it comes up. Secondly, this is part of a broad push, led by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, to safeguard marine mammals not just within Australian waters, not just within the Antarctic, but on a global basis.

We make no apologies for the vigour with which we pursue our protection of marine mammals throughout the world. These creatures, whether they are whales or seals within our own waters or whales internationally, are a profoundly important part of the ecosystem and are also global environmental treasures. It is our task and our responsibility not only to conserve these species but also to let them grow and become a permanent feature and to never lose them for future generations. They are a fundamental part of our global biosphere, and we are proud to play a small role in ensuring that future generations have these animals as part of their global treasures. I am delighted to commend the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment (Antarctic Seals and Other Measures) Bill 2006 to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.