Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not keep the House long at all. I had pretty much concluded my remarks when this bill was last before the House, except to move as a second reading amendment the following:

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give the bill a second reading because it would be ill advised to continue with the bill without considering:

(1) the impact of Schedule 1 of this bill in relation to the protection of matters of national environmental significance under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and

(2) government plans for the delegation of approval powers to states through bilateral agreements."

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) 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 Port Adelaide has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill today. There are two key elements of this bill, and I will only briefly mention the first. I disagree with the previous speaker in that it seeks to make a technical amendment to the EPBC Act to ensure that past decisions cannot be exposed to legal challenges. I was pleased to hear that despite media reports to the contrary the amendment does not reduce the level of protection provided for threatened species and ecological communities under the act. Australia has incredibly diverse native species, many of which are under threat as a result of human activities, and relevant conservation advice must always be considered.

I intend to focus on the second key element, and part of that is the increasing of penalties under the EPBC Act and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Act for killing and injuring turtles and dugongs. On 15 August I was proud to stand next to the then shadow minister for climate action, environment and heritage, Greg Hunt, and local conservation legend Jennie Gilbert of the Cairns Turtle Rehabilitation Centre when we launched our $5 million plan to provide greater protection for dugongs and turtles along the Great Barrier Reef. It came as a result of ongoing community concern about illegal poaching and the need for greater care for our dugong and turtle population. The plan included a commitment to treble the financial penalties for poaching and illegal trafficking of turtle and dugong meat, and these are certainly significant increases. Under the EPBC Act 1999 the maximum fine will increase from $170,000 to $510,000 for the offences of killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping or moving a dugong or a turtle in a Commonwealth area. Where these penalties relate to strict liability offences—for example, used to deter potential offenders rather than to impose punishment—the maximum financial penalty will increase from $85,000 to $255,000. Maximum financial penalties for injuring or taking turtles or dugongs in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 will increase from $340,000 for aggravated criminal offences to $1,020,000 and for strict liability offences from $10,200 to $30,600. These increases will be a significant deterrent to those individuals who are doing the wrong thing. We certainly must get the message out that we will be imposing criminal convictions and larger fines. This is not mere rhetoric. These animals are too important for that.

Getting back to our $5 million plan, in addition to the focus on the threats of poaching and illegal hunting, it also has other key elements, including    $2 million for specialised Indigenous Ranger Programs for marine conservation along the Far North Queensland Coast and into the Torres Strait and for strengthened enforcement and compliance. This will be done through supporting additional officers on the water and on land to crack down on dugong and turtle poaching and the illegal trade in dugong and turtle meat. We will certainly be working with the Queensland government on the potential for extending the authority of select Indigenous rangers to take action to stop illegal poaching. This is a very important element of this, because while we do have ranger programs in place, in many cases they have absolutely no authority whatsoever. For example, I have known of a ranger standing on a beach with a large number of turtles that had been turned on their backs while they were being butchered, and he did not even have the authority to ask the names of those involved. We need to change that. That badge cannot just be a mickey mouse badge; it actually has to mean something. The rangers have to have the authority to take evidence, to take names, to confiscate equipment that is used in relation to these types of activities and to provide that evidence in a court of law that will see those individuals prosecuted for these illegal activities.

We have an added challenge up there that also needs to be addressed, and this is in the shared zone between Australia and Papua New Guinea, where we need to be working in collaboration with the villages, particularly those in the Western Province area of Papua New Guinea, so that we can work together, because it is as critically important for those villages as it is for the Torres Strait that these turtle and dugong populations are preserved. We are also looking at places like Raine Island, where the turtle breeding area is seriously under threat. It is collaborative work that could be done by the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, which is headed by Sheridan Morris in Cairns. She has a wonderful relationship with the villagers in Papua New Guinea and also works well with the Torres Strait community. She would be a great way of bringing both of these together. This would make sure that we are able to get the necessary enforcement and education to make it happen. But it is not going to work unless the Indigenous rangers themselves have the authority to identify and challenge any activities.

The $2 million for the Australian Crime and Misconduct Commission to investigate the practice of illegal killing, poaching and transportation of turtle and dugong meat is another very important initiative. I know that the other side have accused us of being high-handed, but, as they rightfully said, there has never been a prosecution in this area. There is a good reason for that: there are just too many jurisdictions involved, and nobody wants to take responsibility. You have Queensland Fisheries, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Queensland Police and the Federal Police. It just goes around from one to the other. It is little wonder that these activities continue without being punished, because no jurisdiction takes full responsibility for them. By putting them through to the crime commission, at least you have a chance of starting to get some prosecutions.

The $700,000 towards cleaning up marine debris along the Far North Queensland coast, the Torres Strait Islands and the Coral Sea is a very important initiative, particularly in relation to ghost nets, which pose a huge risk for turtles and dugongs as well as other marine species. There are a couple of great organisations that deal with this. Heidi Taylor is the co-founder and director of the Tangaroa Blue Foundation, which carries out a program of beach clean-ups all along the Far North Queensland coast, as do the Mapoon Land and Sea Rangers, who do great work collecting ghost nets on Western Cape York. During a beach clean-up at Mapoon in July, members of the Mapoon Land and Sea Rangers, a team from Conservation Volunteers Australia, and volunteers from GhostNets Australia and Tangaroa Blue covered 11 kilometres of beach and removed just under 3,700 kilograms of debris, including 7,154 rubber thongs, 877 cigarette lighters and 2,663 gill net floats. So you can see the extent of the problem, and that is on just 11 kilometres of beach. It is a critical initiative.

There has also been $300,000 set aside to support the Cairns and Fitzroy Island turtle rehabilitation centres. This will certainly help with capital works and help the hospital achieve a permanent and sustainable future. The Cairns and Fitzroy Island rehabilitation centres do some fantastic work with a large group of volunteers. Doug Gamble, who is the owner of the Fitzroy Island Resort, generously donated the land for the Fitzroy Island centre earlier this year, and Jennie Gilbert, who I mentioned earlier, works tirelessly on behalf of these creatures. The funding will be well-utilised in rehabilitating turtles and returning them to the sea.

There are other issues that also need to be addressed. I have been speaking with the minister on these, and I am very keen that we continue to pursue these if we are going to deal with looking after the turtles and dugongs in the longer term. I certainly have major concerns with the illegal trading of meat. I know that it does happen in my electorate. Unfortunately, this turtle and dugong meat is cryovaced, frozen and transported through airports. In my view, there should be a prohibition on the transport of this meat. I am in absolute, total support of native title and of ensuring that native title rights for traditional hunting are protected. However, I am very much of the opinion that it is not in the spirit of native title for individuals to go out there and slaughter large numbers of turtles and dugongs, cryovac them up into plastic, freeze them and then send them all around Australia. At the moment they can do that quite legally if they claim it is for domestic use. It is my view that these creatures, if they are going to be slaughtered in traditional ways for cultural purposes and ceremonies, should be consumed and used in the area in which they were taken, because a very important part of the cultural use of these animals is respect for the animal. Quite frankly, I see no respect in having them sent in cryovac bags around Australia just so somebody can enjoy a little bit of turtle and dugong in Canberra or Sydney or Melbourne. That is an area that I think we need to address.

Another area that concerns me immensely is to see the images on Facebook of individuals going out there boasting of their slaughter of juvenile animals and what have you, and making all sorts of inappropriate comments. Again, it gets back to respect for the animal and blatant abuse of it. These activities are certainly ramping up public support for a total ban on the right to hunt endangered and vulnerable species. Around the country there is very serious momentum for a proposal that would see the total banning of hunting of these creatures for any reason. I would like to congratulate Colin Riddell from Save Australian Dugongs and Turtles, in conjunction with Bob Irwin, for his outstanding and passionate efforts. They have certainly rallied organisations, such as Animals Australia, and others too, such as the RSPCA, to call for an urgent change to the Native Title Act.

This is understandable and, unfortunately, this decision will not be made in our area, but rather it will be made in the metropolitan areas of Sydney or Melbourne. Make no mistake, if it continues, particularly with the Facebook images, there is a high probability that these guys will be successful. While I admire the work that Bob Irwin and Colin Riddell are doing, they know that I have a real issue with the extinguishment of native title rights. I urge the Indigenous communities to take control of this so that we do not lose this opportunity. That means that we have to deal with those individuals who are blatantly abusing the rules and posting on Facebook et cetera. While I disagree totally with Colin and Bob in this area, I can understand why they continue to pursue it. If we do not get something done there and in regard to the transporting of the meat, I do believe it just opens things up for abuse. It certainly is not in the spirit of native title.

Another area that I have great concern about is the activities of a few individuals who are getting involved in taking creatures from green zones in our region.

I have many examples there. One family in particular is going to a place in Green Island and, in front of horrified visitors, slaughtering turtles—which are seen as being like pets—and large fish. These animals have lost all fear of humans. These individuals weave amongst tourists swimming at Green Island and spear fish and turtles. They drag the turtles onto the beach, rip them open, pull the eggs out of them and cut them up, with maybe 50 or 60 absolutely horrified overseas tourists standing there watching them. They take what they want from the turtles and leave the mess for the national park rangers to clean up, and the rangers have absolutely no authority to stop this from happening. Michaelmas Cay is an area that has been protecting sea birds. The same group goes out there and, in front of horrified tourists, clubs to death large numbers of sea birds and takes them away, and nothing is done.

You can see why people are asking the question, 'Why on earth aren't we doing something about that, when we are making such a noise about the whales?' It would be better to make green zones, particularly those where there is human interaction with these creatures, no-go areas rather than having this senseless slaughter. It is no different to walking into somebody's house and beating their pet kitten to death, quite frankly, because these creatures have no fear of people. I congratulate Steve Davies, who has been very involved in trying to stop this, for raising the issue.

I think where we are going is a good start. I certainly support the initiatives that we see here today. As I said, I urge the minister to consider further claims on this. At the end of the day, the only way we are going to be able to comprehensively deal with this is to give the authority to the Indigenous rangers, to the Indigenous elders—who know what is traditional and know what is and is not appropriate—to deal with this. I commend this bill to the House.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The remarks of the member for Leichhardt were very interesting, and I have taken note of them, but I wish to direct my remarks to a different section of the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. The House will be aware that bill amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The purpose of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is, unsurprisingly, the conservation of Australia's biodiversity—our unique and beautiful birds, plants, and animals.

It is therefore timely to ask: how well is the act performing in achieving this outcome? Sadly, it is failing badly. According to BirdLife Australia, there are currently 392 different kinds of fauna listed as threatened under the act, including no fewer than 112 different types of birds. Nineteen of these species are listed as critically endangered. There are many different examples of how Australian wildlife is in decline, but one of the most striking was covered in a report in Australian Birdlife magazine in September this year by Sean Dooley and Samantha Vine titled 'Parrots in Peril'. It reports that no fewer than 12 of Australia's around 60 parrots and cockatoos are listed as either endangered or critically endangered. That is around 20 per cent of our most loved and highest profile fauna at imminent risk of extinction.

The Norfolk Island green parrot has a current population of between 50 and 100, with possibly as few as 11 breeding females. The western ground parrot population is around 100 birds, in two separate populations in Western Australia. That population has declined by over 80 per cent in the last three generations. The orange-bellied parrot migrates between coastal Victoria and Tasmania. They are now down to around 45 birds. The night parrot population is unknown—it is an inland Australian species—but the best guess is that it is around 250 birds.

The Coxen's fig-parrot, which is a rainforest bird of Southern Queensland, has been estimated at 100 breeding birds, but there are surveys that suggest that fewer than 50 may remain. The eastern regent parrot of inland Victoria and South Australia comprises around 1,500 adult birds. The population has declined in some parts of South Australia by 66 per cent in the last 20 years. The golden-shouldered parrot of Cape York Peninsula nests in tunnels that it excavates into termite mounds. Its current population is probably about 2,500 birds—1,500 around the Morehead River and around 1,000 around the Staaten River. The swift parrot migrates between Tasmania and Victoria and New South Wales. There are approximately 1,000 breeding pairs of this bird, with a maximum of 2,500 individuals.

Four types of black cockatoo are also endangered. The Kangaroo Island glossy black cockatoo adult population is 350 birds. The south-eastern red-tailed black cockatoo population is approximately 1,500, and that is declining. The Baudin's black cockatoo of south-west Western Australia has a current population of 10,000 to 15,000. The Carnaby's black cockatoo has a population of approximately 40,000, and that is also declining.

Penny Olsen had a lengthy report on the sad history of the orange-bellied parrot in the Australian Birdlife publication. She writes that conservationists have struggled to keep the orange-bellied parrot going. It is precarious to say the least to maintain a species once it has sunk to such low numbers. There is no resilience left in the population to combat the inevitable challenges nature throws at it: fire, flood, famine and other upheavals, not to mention inbreeding. As a final blow, climate change may be shifting the bird's climatic envelope south and off the southern edge of the continent, carrying with it the unfortunate parrot. Orange-bellied parrots are breeding in captivity, so, instead of a thriving wild population, we may be left with institutionalised orange-bellied birds. Extinction in the wild, I think, is a very dreary prospect. As Penny Olsen laments, there was a time when politicians feared an extinction on their watch, but that seems to have lapsed over the years.

What does BirdLife Australia say needs to be done? They say that we need to have a national threatened bird recovery fund to implement recovery plans for critically endangered birds, supported by federal funding of $25 million per annum. They also say that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act requires strengthening. In particular, they say the act requires a mechanism to account for cumulative impact and the ongoing loss of threatened species habitat. I think they are 100 per cent right.

The Australian Conservation Foundation also urges that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act be strengthened. They say that the act needs to be changed so that Commonwealth decision powers under environmental law can never be devolved to the states. They also express concern that the act allows the federal minister a wide discretion as to how the EPBC Act is implemented. This can lead to decisions based on political expediency rather than environmental standards.

The Australian Conservation Foundation says that the EPBC Act should specify objective, science based, mandatory standards by which ministerial decisions under the act are made, and impose a duty on the minister to protect the environment. Improving third-party access to merits reviews of decisions taken under the act is critical, allowing civil society to help enforce compliance and increase public confidence in the act.

What does the bill before the House do? It takes us in exactly the opposite direction. This amendment marks the beginning of efforts by the Liberal government to deconstruct all the good work done by previous governments, both Labor and Liberal, in protecting the environment, which the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act helps ensure. For this Liberal government it is all about paving paradise to put up a parking lot—whether on issues such as reversing action on climate change and protecting the Great Barrier Reef or this amendment, they have nailed their colours to the mast of environmental vandalism and the trashing of this country's beautiful and unique national heritage.

The first part of this bill effectively removes any need for the minister to consider certain environmental advice when approving things such as ports, mines and housing developments. With many of our most loved species on the brink of extinction—including the Leadbeater's possum, the Tasmanian devil and bilbies—we should be strengthening their protection, not undermining it. The bill before the House adds a clause to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act which states that a decision to approve a development will not be invalid merely because the minister failed to receive relevant approved conservation advice. This bill effectively removes the legal requirement for the minister to consider threatened and endangered species when approving projects. It is not just about the federal minister, though. If and when plans to delegate environmental approval powers to Queensland and New South Wales come into effect, the Newman and O'Farrell governments will also be relieved of the duty of considering conservation advice before approving projects.

Labor is opposed to weakening approval powers and, like many in the community, we simply do not trust Queensland Premier Campbell Newman to protect environmental assets such as the Great Barrier Reef. This bill drastically weakens the EPBC Act's protection of threatened and endangered species. Although the minister is still notionally expected to consider formal advice about how to protect these species—the so-called 'conservation advice'—the bill removes any capacity to legally challenge an approval on the basis that advice was not properly considered. Even worse, it does this retrospectively. Current legislation ensures that the minister takes into account all the relevant advice before approving a decision on a new mine, on a port expansion or on a significant new housing development. Depending on the type and location of a project, this advice could include information about a native species that is threatened or endangered. So what we have here is a bill that, on the one hand, weakens protection for threatened species such as the Tasmanian devil whilst, on the other hand, increases penalties for illegal hunting of turtles and dugongs. Weakening environmental laws is environmental vandalism. It is regrettable, but I think the Newman government will never protect the environment and cannot be trusted to protect our natural heritage, including the Great Barrier Reef.

The changes in the first part of this bill will not only mean that the federal minister does not have to consider expert advice but also that state ministers will not have to consider this advice. There is a serious question around our international obligations that needs to be posed in this debate. As a good global citizen Australia has signed a number of treaties. Those treaties include: the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat; the Convention for the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage; the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals; the International Tropical Timber Agreement; and the Convention on Biodiversity.

Schedule 1 of this bill seems to have been precipitated by the recent Tarkine case, which saw an approval decision overturned because advice was not provided to the then minister by the department. In that case the court found that the decision to approve the mine was invalid because the minister had failed to consider the approved conservation advice for the Tasmanian devil, a threatened species under the act. Unlike the previous Labor government, which did not seek to change the law as a result of this challenge, the Liberal government have apparently decided that if the law does not suit their agenda they will simply change it—take their bat and ball and go home.

This change would mean that legal challenges such as this one would fail. There are now ten mines proposed for the Tarkine over the next five years. I understand that nine of these mines are Pilbara-style, open cut mines. The Tarkine is home to the last disease-free population of the Tasmanian devil. The Tasmanian devil, as the House would be aware, is being pushed to extinction by the fatal devil facial tumour disease. This disease has been estimated to have killed 80 per cent of the Tasmanian devil population in the past decade. As such, the habitat of the Tarkine is critical to the survival of this iconic species in the wild.

The Tarkine contains an extraordinary expanse of temperate rainforest—one of the world's greatest remaining tracts of temperate rainforest. Running continuously for more than 70 kilometres and reaching beyond the Arthur and Pieman rivers, this magnificent rainforest includes the Rapid, Keith, Donaldson and Savage river systems. This tract of rainforest is Australia's largest single tract of rainforest wilderness. Globally, it is one of the most significant remaining tracts of temperate rainforest left on the planet. Given that more than three-quarters of Australia's rainforest have already been permanently destroyed, I believe that it is critical that we protect the fragments that are left.

This bill is just further evidence of a government that quashes debate and refuses to listen to the experts. They have been shutting down bodies providing advice on climate change, and now they want to ignore conservation advice as well. The conservationists have also said that the amendment before the House would stymie a challenge to the Maules Creek mine in NSW, which they say was approved based on erroneous information.

Whitehaven Coal, the mine's developer, was allowed to clear 544 hectares of endangered box gum woodland as well as further habitat that contains threatened species such as the swift parrot, which I mentioned earlier in my remarks, and the greater long-eared bat. The Minister for the Environment is being urged by conservation groups to revoke the approval. Jess Abrahams, the healthy ecosystems campaigner at the Australian Conservation Foundation, has said:

Review and recourse from third parties to government decisions is an essential part of democracy, so it's very worrying this is being removed.

…   …   …

Environmental protection is suffering a death by a thousand cuts at the moment. Laws are being weakened and approvals are being handed over to the states, which have a questionable record of protecting the environment.

…   …   …

We should be strengthening laws but instead we are watering them down.

She is absolutely right. Conservation advice is fundamental to making the best decisions on projects that have potentially harmful impacts on listed species. The objective of the act is to protect the environment. This amendment removes ministerial accountability and weakens environmental protection.

The government is already in the process of attempting to devolve federal approval powers to state governments, a move that would see state conservative premiers in charge of some of our country's greatest natural assets. The laws that protect Australia's most significant environmental assets—our World Heritage areas, precious water resources, internationally significant wetlands and threatened species—are not 'green tape'. The areas are priceless assets for all of us to find tranquillity and enrichment of the soul—much more important than wealth foregone for miners and developers. I urge the House to support the amendment moved by the shadow minister for the environment.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a privilege to speak on the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. I note that it is really the English cricket team that has become an endangered species in this country, with the final fall of wicket in the second test heading our way. Congratulations to Harris on the last wicket—fantastic result!

On a more serious matter, it is more impressive to follow the member for Leichhardt on the first component of this bill, which I totally support, on turtles and dugongs, and to hear his stories about what is going on in his electorate and at the Great Barrier Reef. It is a great keeping of our election commitment that we are increasing the penalties. It is something we said we would do and is yet another tick for the coalition's environmental credentials on improving the situation in a way that will practically assist in an outcome on the illegal pouching of dugongs and turtles. It is done in a way that will not impact upon Indigenous rights to hunt in native-title areas but will increase criminal and civil penalties for the killing, injuring and taking, trading, keeping or moving of a turtle or dugong in a Commonwealth marine area or within the Great Barrier Reef marine park. It is something that is a worthwhile endeavour: keeping our election commitments.

We are moving an important amendment to the second component of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to ensure that if the Minister for the Environment does not have relevant approved advice it will not invalidate the decision under the act. This follows the court case that the member for Wills referred to, and I do want to take him up on one point that he argued: we are not making a case about a particular issue about a parrot or possum or other serious issues around the country; this is a legal issue about the separation of powers and about which jurisdiction will have the ability to make decisions that relate to serious approvals for major projects and could potentially affect past projects.

The member for Wills missed a very important point, and I was disappointed to see that he missed this. It is on raising the matter of the court case that led to the amendment being put into the House. It is in regard to the mining case of the Tarkine approved by the then environmental minister, Tony Burke, and re-approved by Labor. So, in terms of outcomes, the member for Wills really does not have cause for complaint. If he is trying to suggest this amendment would have altered the situation or is somehow a profoundly bad thing to do, the previous Labor government went ahead with the mine approval anyway. That may be completely appropriate; there may be nothing wrong with that. But the member for Wills, in avoiding that issue, is not necessarily representing the case in a fair way.

It was okay for the previous Labor government to continue to approve this mine in the Tarkine, although the Commonwealth was exposed to serious legal action on a fairly oblique point on this advice. Think about all of the green regulations at both a state and federal level; all of the regulations that cover approvals which you must qualify for in Australia to get an approval for a mine underway. We know that they are substantial, we know that they are comprehensive and we know that the advice received from a state and federal level is detailed. All of these considerations are taken into account. But to expose the Commonwealth and these projects to retrospective problems with their approvals does not assist anybody.

Hence the amendment we see before us today. The member for Wills skirts around saying that since 7 September there has been some dark pall cast over the environment in Australia and that concrete manufacturing is something that—as stock has gone up in Australia—we are using to concrete wilderness. 'Paved paradise' is his phrase from a famous song. I do not think that the climate has changed since 7 September or that things have got warmer or that possums and birds have more things to fear from with this government than they did from the previous government. Let us be serious and realistic about this. We do need to protect our environment and we do need to proceed with projects that are important to our economy and our society. Legally speaking, it is a better situation for the parliament to approve this bill and so to ensure that an act of the minister is not subject to that uncertainty for a major project or major approval once it has gone through all of the considerable regulatory hoops that you must go through in this country.

It is why we have a green-tape agenda to reduce green tape in Australia. That is an unnecessary duplication at state and federal level. We think green tape is probably one of the biggest impediments to getting business moving in this country and one of the main contributors to making our businesses less competitive on the international stage. By removing many of these many duplicate layers of green tape we can get things done and protect the environment. That is, of course, the best way for human beings to coexist with the natural world we live in.

It really is not a great idea for the members opposite to come in here and say that we are against this particular parrot, or that particular possum or that bird. That is not the case. We take seriously the conservation advice delivered to the government. But it is not a good legal case, when we have a separation of powers, to have the Commonwealth exposed—or to have the minister, via the Commonwealth—exposed to his decisions being second guessed every step of the way. We are literally at the very end of a very substantial process that anyone must go through to get a mine approved in this country.

I fully support this amendment and those technical amendments that address the risk make this legislation retrospective. That is, we will not now see a flurry of legal action taken in response to previous decisions. The member for Wills should look pretty carefully at that part of the bill which we are debating here today. We are making this retrospective—not the decisions of former Liberal Party or National Party environment ministers over the past six years but the decisions of the previous government that could be subject to legal exposure. That is appropriate and proper and an adult approach to government. The opposition comes and suggests that, somehow, we have a dark and evil agenda in relation to the environment when we are simply saying that the processes that we have gone through are rigorous, the green standards that have to be met are high in Australia by anybody's benchmark and the minister has had the appropriate advice and has had the chance to consider that advice. We believe that, once all of that has been gone through, it should not be subject to particular legal action specifically in relation to the nature of the advice received by the Minister for the Environment.

I do not believe that the member for Wills made a very compelling case. He may have had some good things to say about protecting various sections of flora and fauna in our country, but he did not make a compelling case. He conveniently overlooked that in the particulars of this legal matter the Tarkine mine was ultimately approved by the then environment minister anyway. So the outcome was the same, but the legal challenge that was gone through is an unnecessary impediment to doing business that we can remove by passing this piece of high-quality legislation and ensuring that we do not expose the Commonwealth unnecessarily to this risk.

I fully support this bill, and I hope that members opposite start to tone down their approach of accusing us of wanting to concrete every piece of environment in the country. It simply is not the case. It is overblown rhetoric. It is not really necessary. Frankly speaking, it is the case that too many of our projects, which are so important to our economy and to Australia's prosperity, are being wound-up in too much duplication and green tape, and it is something that this government will look at.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. For the benefit of listeners, the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to address the implications arising from the Federal Court's decision in Tarkine National Coalition Inc. v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, otherwise known as the Tarkine case, which the previous speaker referred to. It also provides additional protection for turtles and dugongs by increasing the financial penalties for various offences and for civil penalty provisions, and it amends the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 by providing additional protection for protected species under that act.

Protecting our natural environment is important as economic development to this country because it is about creating jobs and prosperity, and both are of equal importance to the nation and to government. The two are in fact compatible if managed responsibly. To this government the environment appears to be expendable whenever it is pitted against economic development. In fact, not just for this government but also for conservative state governments across the country, we are now seeing a clear track record where the environment seems to come off second best whenever it in any way impedes money-making ventures and development.

Sadly, what is not very well understood by many is that damaging the environment has, indeed, substantial economic consequences. The preamble to the Australian government response to the report of the independent review of theEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, otherwise known as the Hawke review, said:

… ecosystems deliver essential services worth between US$21 trillion and US$72 trillion a year, which is comparable with the 2008 World Gross National Income of US$58 trillion.

So around the world we can see that the economic value of maintaining and sustaining our natural environment is on par with the gross national income that is generated through economic development right throughout the world. In fact, it is a fool's gain to profit at the expense of a degraded environment.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that Australia has experienced the largest documented decline in biodiversity of any continent over the last 200 years. Australia's rate of species decline is amongst the world's highest and is the highest amongst OECD countries. This is a matter I spoke about in June of this year when addressing a private member's motion that I raised in this place, criticising the conservative state governments of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria for allowing land clearing, cattle grazing, logging, prospecting and tourist activities in conservation areas where those activities presented a serious risk to the environment.

The Abbott government now seeks to reverse the World Heritage Listing of some 100,000 acres of Tasmania's Tarkine. As the shadow minister for the environment on our side—the member for Port Adelaide—quite properly alluded to, it has probably never occurred previously within this parliament that we have seen a reversal of the international listing of a World Heritage area.

The government is now going to defer some $650 million of Murray-Darling Basin water buybacks and is creating uncertainty about the additional 450 gigalitres of water that was to be returned to the system under the previous Labor government. I note that this decision will particularly affect the state of South Australia. I also note that, since the 7 September election, the Liberal members from South Australia have hardly said a word about this issue. Yet prior to the election and in the months leading up to the September federal election they were happy to wear the 'I love Murray' T-shirts in order to promote themselves as being champions of the cause of restoring water to the River Murray so that South Australia could receive its fair share of that water and so that the Lower Lakes in South Australia would not be left in the degraded state that they were in at the height of the drought a few years ago. So you take a particular stand before the election because you know that is what the people in South Australia expect from you, but, after the election, when you have been re-elected, you walk away from the commitments that you made leading up to the election—you backtrack on them, you start to withdraw the money that is required to create the water returns and you withdraw the money that is required to restore the additional 450 gigalitres which South Australians fought very hard for because it was so important and made so much difference to the final amount of water that flows into South Australia.

In fact, this agreement was reached after almost 100 years of bickering between all the states. It took the best part of six years of the Labor government's being in office to finally sign off on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I will give credit to the opposition—the plan was initiated under the national Water Act 2007, under the Howard government. It started then, and it took us six years to finally get an agreement. We finally did get an agreement, and then we saw the new government walking away from it. It is all about an environmental matter. It is all about ensuring that the environment is treated as importantly as every other aspect of this country.

I have concerns about this legislation because it seems to be going down the path of walking away from environmental responsibilities. Firstly, the minister is no longer required to take into consideration certain environmental advice when approving ports, mines and housing developments. That in itself is concerning, because if the minister is not required to take into consideration certain environmental advice then, effectively, he has no particular accountability to the environmental standards that we set. In other words, the environmental consideration can become irrelevant to the minister's decision. There is no accountability mechanism if the minister is not required to take into account certain environmental considerations. Secondly, I have concerns because the minister is likely to rely on environmental assessments carried out by the state governments, who, in my view, have already displayed very poor form in protecting our environment. Last week the Prime Minister, in answer to a question without notice in this place, said that since coming to office his government had, in the previous eight weeks, given environmental approval for projects worth $160 billion. I have no idea which projects the Prime Minister was referring to, but I hope that the environmental assessments required for the approval of those projects were thorough and that the minister did not ignore any of the environmental consequences of those approvals which might have been brought to his attention.

I certainly welcome decisions where we get on with projects that have the necessary approvals, but I hope that they are done in a way that is consistent with the environmental obligations of any government and that we have not simply fast-tracked on the basis that this legislation is going to get through and that the minister is no longer required to take into consideration certain environmental advice when granting those approvals. It would be of interest to know exactly who provided the assessments to the minister on those approvals worth $160 billion. Was it done through the Commonwealth, was it done through state governments or was it done through the proponents? Whose advice did he rely on?

I believe the minister knows that this legislation is a backward step in managing our environment. The way he has gone about bringing it into this House is interesting. He brought in legislation, which I suspect he very much expects to be criticised for by the environmental groups around Australia, and he has done so by simultaneously connecting it to a bit of environmental legislation that protects turtles and dugongs. He is trying to sweeten the legislation or dress it up in an environmentally positive way by adding the protection for dugongs and turtles. I totally support any legislative aspects that go to the protection of dugongs and turtles. There is no question about that at all. However, if the minister were serious about the protection of dugongs and turtles, he could equally have come into this place with separate legislation focusing on and dealing with those two matters only.

Secondly, if he was serious about protecting the dugongs and turtles he would provide more resources to those very authorities and community bodies that currently exist to enable them to enforce greater compliance with the laws, because the problem with the dugongs and turtles is not that we do not have laws in place but that they are not being in any way policed by anyone. So simply increasing the penalties, as he has done, without providing the additional resources to monitor the laws becomes meaningless. I note that, in drawing up the additional legislation, the minister at no time consulted with the traditional owners: with the land and sea councils or with the Indigenous groups of the area who know best how to protect dugongs and turtles.

Putting $2 million into the Australian Crime Commission, as the minister has done, to investigate the illegal killing of turtles and dugongs is not the answer. A better answer would be to put that kind of money into supporting the local groups. One of the lessons that we learned through the Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications, of which I have been a member for the last six years, was that if you want to best manage local environmental assets you do so by empowering the local community groups that have the expertise, the knowledge and the commitment to manage the very things that you want looked after. They are the people who are on the ground, they know what works best and they are the people that care the most. Yet that is not what this government seems to be doing.

Our environment around Australia and around the world is increasingly under threat from climate change—a matter I have spoken about on other occasions—from mining, from farming, from residential and commercial growth, from fishing, from construction and even from tourism. Wherever human activity occurs, the environment is always under threat. That is not to say that we cannot work compatibly with it; we can. But we need standards, and we need to ensure that those standards are complied with and met. We are working with the state governments to try to streamline the processes that are required to ensure that those proper environmental standards are achieved. I welcome the fact that we are working with the states, and I welcome the opportunity to try to streamline the processes and make them more efficient. What I do not want to see is streamlining coming into effect at the expense of good policy and at the expense of the environment.

A couple of years ago the Labor government commissioned a review of the EPBC Act. It was referred to as the Hawke review. Of the 71 recommendations put up by the Hawke review, none included the legislation that we are debating today. The most thorough review of that legislation did not incorporate the changes to the legislation that the minister is now proposing. For those reasons, I support the amendments moved by the opposition.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Makin talked about the environment being under threat. Let me educate the member for Makin about who is in fact under threat in my state, in my electorate. It is the worker, the investor and the general community on the north-west coast of Tasmania. I would ask the member for Makin, the member for Wills and the member for Port Adelaide: how many mines are being developed in your electorates? How is the unemployment rate going in your electorates? How is investor confidence going in your electorates?

The reality is that the members opposite, having now moved the amendment—which, I understand, they have foreshadowed—just do not get it. Is nigh on 50 per cent of their state locked up? No, it is not. We are sick and tired in our state, and certainly in my electorate of Braddon, of being treated as some social, political and environmental experiment. The reality here is that we need this amendment to ensure that, in future, confidence can be gained by those people who go through the approval process and who do everything that they need to do.

I will not be spending any time speaking on the first part of the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill. As you would expect, I want to use my time to focus on the second part. This bill seeks to amend the EPBC Act to ensure that if the Minister for the Environment does not have regard to and relevant approved advice, it will not invalidate a decision under the act. That section of the bill is of particular interest, as I said, to many constituents, to small and medium-sized businesses and to mining operations in my electorate of Braddon. The questions here are: do we want to continue to stand in the way of development or not? Do we want to continue to add to the list of endangered species by adding that of the worker? I do not think so. I would hope that members opposite would also agree that that is not what we want.

It was only last week in this chamber that I delivered my maiden speech. As anyone who has done it over the last few weeks and those yet to come will know, it is a very special moment in an elected member's time. What they speak about often indicates the priorities of the particular member. In my maiden speech I made the point very strongly that mining companies need certainty in the application process, and this amendment is certainly timely for me to speak about. I said I have a vision of a mining industry that is not only finally confident in the processes of approval that they undertake but also confident that the process optimises environmental outcomes while being efficient, fair, reasonable, dependable and free of opportunistic political intervention. I went on to say that Australian mines of the 21st century know well their environmental responsibilities. It is high time we got off their backs and let them once again stimulate our economy; the members opposite want to get back on their back. They have not got off. They will stay on the back of development in Tasmania. As I said last week, enough is enough.

If you were to believe what has been coming from that side over the last hour, you would think that there is some sort of deep, evil conspiracy that somehow or other attaches to this amendment. But I can say that this amendment is about finally shining some sunlight on the inconsistencies and vagaries of this act and the way in which it opens loopholes for groups such as the Save the Tarkine coalition in my electorate. I believe that this amendment is in fact the first step towards achieving many of the goals that we have set in re-opening Tasmania for business.

The conservation advice amendment is a technical amendment that addresses a risk so that past or future decisions made under the EPBC Act will not be invalidated if the minister does not meet the requirement to have regard to any relevant approved conservation advice. We need to understand what this means. It means that—after the process has been gone through and everything has been considered that could be considered—if suddenly something pops up from somewhere, it does not open the door to it's being something the minister did not give consideration to. The amendment that we see before us is vital for Braddon, for my state and for other parts of the country, as it is currently the case that the EPBC Act decisions could be challenged and overturned if a court rules that a minister has not given due consideration to relevant conservation advice, which potentially exposes a series of past project approvals to possible legal challenge.

I believe it is important to note here that this amendment does not reduce or alter the level of protection for the environment. It just does not. The conservation advice amendment does not reduce the level of protection provided for threatened species and ecological communities under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The amendment is technical and designed to ensure the validity of decisions made under the act.

If the members opposite want to continue to stand in the way of development in the electorate of Braddon and in Tasmania and across the country, be that on their heads. They just do not get it. The former members who were in this place obviously did not represent sufficiently the interests of my state and my electorate, because, if they had, the previous parliament, the 43rd Parliament, would have dealt with this and would have given the confidence that is required. The perfect example of this obviously goes to the matter that has already been raised, and that is the issue of Shree Minerals, who, in July of the year just gone, had their application for an iron ore mine overturned by the courts following a challenge by the Save the Tarkine organisation.

I will digress just for a moment to say that—and this is breaking news, I suspect—they are up to it again. The Venture Minerals proposal has been going along reasonably swimmingly as another great job-creating investment in my electorate, but the Save the Tarkine coalition are up to it again. They have been back to the High Court with a further intervention in that process. With only a week to go for the case to be heard, it obviously has not given enough time for that matter to be considered properly without damaging the prospects of the court case. And now what have we got? We are coming into Christmas. How beautiful is their timing! They are a bunch of geniuses! We will not get this matter heard until, probably, February, and, as is too often the case, more than likely jobs will be at risk over the next two months through the Christmas-New Year period. What a disgrace! They are up to it again: working with lawyers who just want to attack development in Tasmania and who continue to use my state and my electorate as some sort of political experiment, working pro bono to make a name for themselves—a group that sits around a kitchen table for its committee meetings, or perhaps meets in a phone box, because that is how many of them there are! But they are up to it again.

Mr Perrett interjecting—

You can laugh, but you should know better. My state is in deep trouble.

Mr Perrett interjecting—

You should know better too, and you should know and understand what this is all about.

Shree Minerals have since had their application approved—thank goodness—and I can say here today that their Nelson Bay mine, located about 70 kilometres south-west of Smithton, has increased production at the mine and is now on the verge of having its first shipment of iron ore out of the Burnie port. It is about jobs, to me. That is why I am here; that is why I got elected. We are about development—acceptable and approved through the processes—and this amendment now goes to protecting these applications in the future from any past or future disputes.

What is going on at Shree Minerals in my electorate is momentous not only for that company but also for that community—a community that has been in a very awkward spiral of job losses over the last few years. It is telling that, on the day that Shree Minerals finally began work on the mine and so bringing employment to a hurting community, this group, which could meet in a phone box, said—when jobs have been made available to people in my electorate and they wander into their workplace with pride in anticipation of a pay cheque to feed their family—'It is a shameful day.' But I will tell you what is a shameful day. It is when such a minority group can have such a negative impact on a community. That is what they are up to. They are economic vandals. There is no doubt about that. They never accept the reality. They will never accept the umpire's decision. They do not care if jobs are lost; they want to keep their name in the press. They ought to go somewhere else. Maybe they should go to the electorates of you over there—the ones who are not supporting this amendment today. Maybe then you would get a taste of what it is like to have people continually trying to lock up even more of your state. We have nearly 50 per cent—just get that: 50 per cent—of my state locked up so that you cannot do any development, and they want more. They will never be satisfied with what they get. In the very area that they protest in, over the last 150 years, hundreds of mines have been mined in my electorate, and thousands upon thousands of jobs and thousands upon thousands of families' lifestyles have been sustained through that activity.

This just cannot go on. So I welcome this amendment and I cannot believe that members opposite will stand in the way of this amendment. In the months leading up to the campaign, they all of a sudden found their conscience and, together with the Deputy Premier in Tasmania, Mr Green, put their hands up to say: 'We are pro mining. We will do what we have to do. They are a bunch of nerds,' and other words you would not want to say in this parliament, to distance themselves from these people. No, you are not. Your words are hollow. You are not distancing yourself from the Greens, the minority groups or from the Save the Tarkine coalition. You are back in bed with them today through trying to knock back this amendment and put forward your own amendments to withhold schedule 1. So do not dare tell people in my electorate and in my state that you are on their team. You are anything but on their team. You are with the enemy on this. You need to support this amendment.

Mining is so important an industry in Tasmania and in my electorate and it has to be a part of the economic recovery. The mining industry's current value-added contribution to Tasmania is about $1.3 billion, or approaching six per cent of the state's GDP. This is not to be frowned at. This is a huge part of what the economy of Tasmania is about. I cannot stand here in this place today and not urge members opposite to have some sense of justice for the people of Tasmania. Do not try to play these political games. I can see what you are up to. It is absolutely transparent. You just want to be stoppers and hinderers. The people of my electorate of Braddon and the people of Tasmania have had enough. Do not dare put up your hand in my electorate and say you are on the team of the developer, of the miner, of the worker or of the families when you sneak up here into Canberra—hardly with a member of the Labor Party now represented in this place, other than the member for Franklin—a week or two out from Christmas and stand in the way of getting legislation through this House that will ensure what happened to Shree Minerals will not happen to someone else.

To suggest for one moment that the environment in this country or in my state is under threat could be nothing further from the truth. This country has a proud environmental record. Have we made mistakes? Are there things we wish we had not done back then? Of course there are. But obviously the intelligence and the research was not available back then. It is now our job to get research and intelligence and accumulate it, and we do. Every assessment and proposal has to jump through hoop after hoop. And even when you get to the end of the hoops and it has been approved, unless we change this legislation it will always be possible for someone, some group, meeting in a phone box somewhere to decide it is time to put another spanner in the works, to chuck another wobbly, and try to stop development in my state. That time should be over. I plead with members opposite to reconsider their position and support this legislation as it stands and as is required to give certainty in my electorate of Braddon.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The former speaker started strongly for two or three minutes, where he quoted himself, but as soon as he got into other territory he really started to flounder. The Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 on one level is about protecting turtles and dugongs, which everyone supports. But on another level it is a stalking horse. It is about protecting the ability of the Minister for the Environment to effectively ignore recommendations about developments. It removes the legal requirement for the minister to consider threatened and endangered species, but it does increase penalties for illegal hunting of turtles and dugongs.

As a Queenslander—I married someone from Cairns and all of my in-laws are up in North Queensland—I understand the importance of the Great Barrier Reef and of turtles and dugongs, which come all the way down to Brisbane. All six species of marine turtles are listed under the EPBC Act as threatened: the loggerhead, the leatherback and the olive ridleys are actually endangered, and the green, hawksbill and flatback are vulnerable. So, obviously, we should do all we can to make sure they are protected. The same applies to dugongs, for which there are all sorts of problems, because they are migratory. Also, there are lots of threats to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, where dugongs do a lot of their breeding. Some of the populations have not recovered from Cyclone Yasi—in terms of the flow-off—and there are all sorts of challenges. I commend the Minister for the Environment for that part of the legislation.

But, as I said, this is not about turtles and dugongs. This is actually about a stalking horse. Why would an environment minister still continue to draw pay if they propose that the decision maker will not have regard to approved conservation advices when they make a decision? Why would an environment minister abrogate their right to run their ruler over the environmental advice provided to them? Unless the Minister for the Environment comes in here and says, 'I should have my pay cut in half,' then he has no credibility at all when it comes to this.

Let us be realistic. The mining industry of 2013 is a completely different industry to the mining industry of 100 years ago that created moonscapes in parts of Tasmania. Those days are long gone. Mining industries now get big ticks for making sure they protect the environment. The rehabilitation they carry out is world class. We are world leaders when it comes to rehabilitation. I say this after having worked as an adviser to the Queensland Resources Council. I know the peak body in Queensland quite well and I know the great work that has been done when it comes to rehabilitation. I do not know mines in Tasmania, but I do know mines in Queensland. I know Queensland has a lot of things going for it that are not dissimilar to Tasmania in that we have a brand that says we are clean, green and a great tourism destination. We also have some of the best resources in the world.

How do we balance those? I can tell you, Member for Braddon, what we do not do. We do not throw out the rule book when it comes to the environment, because that effectively is what we are doing here. This stalking horse that those opposite are carping about is all about saying that the environment minister does not have to have regard to the conservation advice provided to them.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not a stalking horse.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly what this legislation is about. If those opposite had the foresight to look through this legislation they would see that that is what they are advocating. The Labor Party is the party of jobs, jobs for everybody and jobs that are sustainable, not short-term jobs. Let us be realistic about this. We have seen a few things take place. For a start, the environment minister has said to every state: 'You make decisions about the environment. We trust you.' That will lead to a potted patchwork approach to decision making.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not what he said.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The legislation has already been agreed at COAG. The environment ministers in the states will now make decisions about projects. And we have seen it in Queensland and I am particularly worried about the Queensland government. Before the election—back in March last year—they hardly said anything about the environment; in fact, they even put out a letter to the environment groups saying: 'You can trust us. We will do the right thing by you.' Then after the election—and I mean the morning after the election—the first statement made by the Deputy Premier elect, Jeff Seeney, was not a visionary statement about what Queensland will look like in 30 years time. No, the first thing that he said was, 'The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is too big.' That is what a Queensland Deputy Premier said the morning after the election. There was no mention of that before the election, but that was the first thing that he said afterwards. I am a big believer in people carrying out after the election what they promise before an election.

The reality is that the Premier of Queensland, in an environment in which income is constrained, is likely to be blind when it comes to mining approvals. If they are going to effectively be told, 'You don't have to pay attention to the approved conservation advice,' that is going to completely tip the balance between sustainable mining and a sustainable environment. That is going to tilt it too far in favour of mining companies.

As I said, the Labor Party has a strong presence in the mining industries. We take notice of the jobs in the mining industry. But it must be a balanced and sustainable industry. We need to remember—and anyone from Tasmania would know this—what happens when you have unchecked mining and when mining companies do not have an obligation to consider the environment before they put a shovel in the ground. That can be a recipe for disaster.

These amendments are important. They need to be seen in the context of the planet overall, because that is fundamentally what those opposite do not get. Obviously, the prism through which we should consider things is our approaches to putting a price on carbon. We understand that it is a cost to people and that it means that they have to readjust. We understand that it involves them putting their hand in their wallets or changing their lifestyles. Why do we ask them to do this, something that is tough to retail to people at the polling booth? The reason that we do it is because we care about the future. Unless we have the capacity to look our children in the eye and say, 'I am more important than you'—and that is something that I cannot do to my four-year old and my eight-year old—we need to get this right. The people sitting on green seats now need to get it right; the people sitting on red seats over in that other place need to get it right. History will judge us harshly for how we approach the future of the globe.

Australians put their trust in the Abbott government to do what is best for our nation. Obviously, I did not agree with their policies. But they continue to make misleading and destructive statements and now some of those opposite have gotten into groupthink so much that they have started to convince themselves that it is the actual truth. The carbon price legislation is a classic example.

In my home state of Queensland, environmental protection and the conservation of biodiversity is exceptionally important. We are a very diverse state. We have deserts, rainforests and mulga; we even have Antarctic beach. We have the biggest sand island in the world, Fraser Island. Ironically, that became protected through the actions of Campbell Newman's dad when he was environment minister under Malcolm Fraser. Queensland is incredibly diverse, but we also have these incredible resources that can create the jobs and the exports that will keep people employed for the next 30, 50, 100 or 200 years. We want to see our economy grow and prosper but we cannot do so by sacrificing our environment. That way madness lies. If you look at China, you can see what happens if you have unchecked development with people not considering the environment. That can create riots and health problems and the like.

Queensland had a tourism campaign with the slogan, 'Beautiful one day, perfect the next.' That is something that we need to consider. Yet in the last couple of weeks I have seen the Queensland government talk about mining and exporting uranium. I even heard the processing of uranium floated the other day. There was no mention of it during the election. In fact, when I raised this during my election campaign in September there was a strong response from my opponent saying, 'No, that's a fear campaign; there is nothing like that being considered.'

The reality is that we need to look at uranium and nuclear power stations not just through the prism of Fukushima and how things can go wrong or Kakadu, where we saw some problems over the weekend. We need to consider what it would mean to that brand of, 'Beautiful one day, perfect the next,' if you have barrels of yellowcake going through the Great Barrier Reef or, if they decide not to go through the Great Barrier Reef, up through the Northern Territory to the accredited port or down to South Australia. If they go through South Australia, that would mean that they would be trucking it through my home town of St George. I know the current member for New England has deserted St George, but I would love to have that conversation in the pubs in St George: 'We've got some yellowcake coming through here and going down those country roads.' I believe you have to get the balance right. Surely listening to the conservation advice provided to a mining company is a logical pre-step to any big mining operation.

I campaigned about marine parks at the end of the 43rd parliament, when we had votes on the marine parks that Labor had created—a system of marine parks that are the envy of the world; a system of marine parks such that we see people come to Australia to learn what we have done. But, sadly, those opposite in the 43rd parliament voted against that—we only won the continuation by one vote. I am sure the member for Melbourne would remember that one vote with which we won. In fact, we even saw the member for Wentworth vote against the park that he had created when he was the environment minister! That was the political power play that we saw in the 43rd parliament.

The reality is this bill is nobbling an environment minister's ability to make decisions about mining projects. As I said, all power to his arm when it comes to protecting turtles and dugongs—although I think there could have been greater consultation with Indigenous groups around Queensland, and that that clearly illustrates why this is a stalking horse rather than a fair dinkum approach to looking after those species.

UNESCO's World Heritage committee has had a look at our reef and assessed it as being in danger—already under threat. We have mining projects set to come online in Queensland over the next few years. There are pressures coming from the miners in terms of the suggestion that they put sludge out into the reef. I have been going to North Queensland for about 25 years. When you see the changes you can see that there are challenges for the reef, challenges for the tourism industry and the nearly 60,000 jobs that hang off the biggest living organism in the world. We need to get the balance right. Those opposite are not doing that.

There was a time, when it came to the environment, when Australia was a world leader. We saw that with our marine park proposal under former Minister Burke in the Labor government. We have a history of punching above our weight as a middle power. This step is a retrograde step. This step takes us back to the bad old days that I remember, with Joh Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland, where the white shoes were out from under the desk wandering around dictating how things were done.

Ironically, mining companies have moved on. They have world's best practice and they should be recognised for such. If the project is so dodgy that it cannot even get an approved conservation advice then perhaps we should not be doing it. We need to be sensible when it comes to the environment and jobs. (Time expired)

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 pulls in two different directions. On the one hand it is taking away part of the legal requirement that applies to environmental approvals processes involving the Commonwealth minister, and on the other it is putting in place what are said to be greater protections for some particular species. I have to say that it is consistent with what we have seen from a range of coalition state governments that have been elected in Australia in recent years. We are seeing here, in this first piece of environmental legislation from the new coalition government at the federal level, a taking away of protections of the environment.

The Minister for the Environment can seek to dress up what is occurring in this bill however he likes—and sought to do so, in fact, in his second reading speech—but what is actually occurring is the taking away of legal protection that is presently there for the environment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. That legal protection requires the Commonwealth minister, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, to take into account conservation advice. The minister would have it that that conservation advice is still going to be taken into account but then says that what this act does is makes sure that no decision taken by the minister that fails to take into account that conservation advice will be invalid. In the next breath he would have this parliament and the people of Australia believe that that is not a lessening of environmental control.

Anybody at all, whether or not they have any legal expertise, can immediately see that if you take away the right to go to a court and have a decision by a Commonwealth minister declared invalid then the force of a legal requirement on a Commonwealth minister to take into account conservation advice is a great deal less than if the capacity exists to go to a court or tribunal and point correctly to the fact that a minister has not taken conservation advice into account properly and for that decision to be declared invalid.

I am not sure what the minister thinks is going to be the force of this particular part of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act if this bill passes the House and passes the Senate, but it is pretty clear to us that it will greatly lessen the force of the environmental approvals process as it presently stands. Make no mistake: this bill lessens the force of Commonwealth environmental law. It weakens Commonwealth environmental law. And, as I said at the outset, it is consistent, regrettably, with what we have come to see so often from the conservative parties when they get to power either at the state or the Commonwealth level. At the state level, in my home state of Victoria we saw as almost the first act of the newly elected Baillieu government the reintroduction of cattle to the alpine regions of Victoria against all the known science and all the known research, fulfilling a promise that had been made to their supporters in the Mountain Cattlemen's Association of Victoria. And they persisted for some months with the pretence that there was some actual scientific basis for this proposed returning of cattle to the high country. It needed the then minister for the environment, Tony Burke, to step in before that short-lived attempt to put back the clock, in an environmental sense, was stopped in Victoria.

It is important to keep the context of the cattle in the high country in mind. There have been no cattle in the high country on the New South Wales side of the Victoria-New South Wales border since the mid-1960s. But, regrettably, cattle continued to persist in the alpine regions of Victoria right into the early 2000s, when the then Labor government was able to bring that particular activity to an end. It is of course an activity that has no environmental basis. It has been very clearly established for many years that there is tremendous environmental harm, in fact, flowing from grazing cattle in the high country. Tony Burke said at the time, somewhat memorably, that to put cattle into the Alpine National Park was to make a national park into a farm—which of course it is not. But it is emblematic of the attitudes the conservative parties take to environmental protection. They would far prefer to pander to commercial interests, to ignore the science and to ignore environmental advice than to properly protect the environment.

Regrettably, we are seeing again in Victoria in recent weeks talk by the Napthine government about putting cattle into the high country—again, on the pretence of some kind of trial, when, as I said, all the known science has been completely clear now for many years. I fear, given the other kinds of measures that this environment minister and this new federal government have been discussing in terms of preparation to hand back environmental assessment and approval powers to states, that this small piece of legislation is just the precursor to what will be a wholesale attack on environmental regulation and environmental protection in this country. You would have to say that nothing about any of the actions of this new government in relation to environmental matters—in its still less than 100 days of government since the election—gives the people of Australia the slightest confidence that this government is to be trusted on environmental matters. Certainly they are not a government that can in any way be trusted to keep their promises. They are not a government that can in any way be trusted to be the government they said they were going to be before the election. And they are certainly not a government that can be trusted to govern with anything like orderliness or deliberation. Rather, we see, staggering from day to day, decisions made on the run. And of course that is the antithesis of the kind of regulation and governmental activity that you need in the environmental area, where, as has often been said, developers—people wanting to take commercial advantage and people wanting to exploit natural resources—need to win only once, because then the development is underway and the project is up and running.

People seeking to protect the environment—and governments, when they seek to protect the environment—need to win every time in order to ensure that the environment is protected. Sometimes that will mean some considered deliberation. It will mean taking your time, looking at the science, taking into account conservation advice, which is the basis of this bill, and taking the time to make sure that the conservation advice has been considered properly. Sometimes it will mean taking the time to ensure that the environmental effects have been properly considered before rushing to make a decision. What this bill does is take away the consequence that would flow if the conservation advice were not properly taken account of.

Somewhat extraordinarily, in the second reading speech the minister actually referred to a recent Federal Court decision—Tarkine National Coalition Incorporated v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, which was earlier this year. The Federal Court found that an approval in relation to the Tarkine Forest was invalid because the then minister had not had proper regard to relevant approved conservation advice. The response of this government, far from being to ensure that, in future, proper regard is given to all conservation advice, and far from being to beef up the processes that apply to the obtaining and consideration of conservation advice, has been to rip up the rule book, to take away the legal consequence that has attached up until now—and that should continue to attach—to failing to take into account conservation advice in this way.

It is, as I said earlier, a weakening of environmental laws, just when this government is proposing to hand over to the states a large part of environmental assessment and approval powers. I have given only the single example of cattle in the high country in relation to the conduct of this present state Liberal government, but one could cite a whole range of other examples. The Newman government, since coming to office not all that long ago, has in almost all its decisions sought to put development ahead of the environment. The Newman government certainly cannot be trusted to protect our national heritage, in particular—and the member for Moreton, who spoke before me and who is a Queenslander, spoke eloquently about this—the threat posed to the Great Barrier Reef by the actions of the Newman government. Australia is a signatory to a whole range of environmental treaties. They include the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, the International Tropical Timber Agreement, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. All of these conventions, and Australia's adherence to them, are potentially called into question by the legislative change to the approvals processes which is proposed by this bill. It is regrettable that, as almost its first piece of environmental legislation—because one can hardly count the so-called repeal of the carbon tax set of legislation as environmental legislation—this government has sought to bring forward a decision which takes away the force of the existing provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

I hasten to say that in this bill the government is also bringing forward provisions that protect turtles and dugongs. For many years it has been very well known that marine turtles and dugongs are impacted by a range of enduring threats, including habitat loss, poor water quality, being part of so-called bycatch, poaching, marine debris and boat strike. In government, as a matter of resourcing, as a matter of departmental organisation and as a matter of particular programs, Labor made addressing these issues effectively a very high priority. All of the work that was put in train by the Labor government continues in close association with state and territory governments, with traditional owners in the north of Australia and with other groups with an interest such as commercial fishers.

This law is one which we support because it is a continuation, with some additional protections, of a range of programs that we put in place while in government. In particular, it is worth noting that the former Labor government invested some $7 million in Indigenous self-management, because that is the very best way to ensure that the sustainable and appropriate management of dugongs and turtles continues. Critically, the approach that we took in government included leadership and advice on the take of marine turtles and dugongs, developing community based sea country management plans and the support of traditional owner involvement in the sustainable use of marine resources and in compliance training.

We have also supported Indigenous ranger teams to remove ghost nets. These are lost or abandoned nets which impact on turtle and dugong populations. As with all of our environmental work while in government, our approach was based on our respect for the customs and traditions of Indigenous Australians and their right, as traditional owners under the Native Title Act, to hunt native species for personal, domestic, non-commercial or communal needs. So we do support a balanced approach. (Time expired)

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an astounding bill. It says that, if you are the Minister for the Environment and someone gives you some advice that something needs to happen to protect a threatened species, you are allowed to ignore them. If a mining company comes in and says, perhaps, 'We want to develop here, right in the middle of a national park,' and someone says, 'You can't do that in that way, because that might affect a threatened species,' this bill says that the minister can completely ignore that advice and side with the mining company. It also means that if you go to court to challenge it by saying that, 'No, look, hang on, there is expert advice that the Tasmanian devil—'or perhaps a species up on the Great Barrier Reef—'is going to be threatened by this and potentially made extinct and wiped off the face of this earth,' there is nothing the court can do about it because the minister is able to hide behind their decision and say, 'No, we've changed the law to say that we can ignore the best conservation advice available in this country.'

That is an astounding proposition to come from someone who says he is the Minister for the Environment. If you were the Minister for the Environment, presumably you would craft laws in this country that gave the environment the maximum possible protection. Instead, these laws are being rewritten by, essentially, mining companies—and that is, ultimately, what this bill is. A couple of weeks before Christmas, this is a nicely wrapped up gift to some of Australia's and the world's biggest companies, at the expense of the environment and at the expense of species that are threatened. It is this parliament's job to stand up for species and the environment that otherwise would not have a voice. Unless we put into law proper protections for the species that we share this planet with, we are going to see a 'let it rip' mentality. Chop it down, dig it up, ship it off—that is the limit of the government's vision for the country.

Our environment laws at the moment are not actually that strong and are nowhere near as strong as they should be. It is astounding that, in the first few sitting weeks of parliament, before the end of the year, the first thing that the government wants to do is weaken them even further so that the minister for the environment does not even have to listen to advice about what it would take to protect threatened species. It is a very cynical attempt to overcome a decision that has been referred to before in the debate, where the previous minister for the environment gave the go-ahead to a mine in a forest in Tasmania without having any regard to advice that said, 'This will impact on the Tasmanian devils in a way that potentially would breach your obligations,' and was found by the court to have not followed the act. This law is now attempting not to strengthen our processes to make sure we are never found in breach of those obligations again but to change the law so that such court cases never happen again—so that, if you ignore a piece of advice about conservation, there is nothing anyone can do about it.

It is very clear why this is happening. We heard why from a couple of speakers before. It is because the country is now open for business, apparently. That does not just include our cities and our rural areas; it includes our parks, too. It seems our parks are now open for business. This is a piece of legislation that the government wants to get through by the end of the year so that it does not even have to listen to advice about how we can protect some of our threatened species in the future. We have seen, in my state of Victoria, what that means in practice. It means, for example, cattle being allowed to graze in Alpine National Park areas—in defiance of the science and in defiance of common sense—so that we can turn the park into a paddock, so that cows can have a free feed. It does not matter what happens to threatened species or the environment!

There is a second part to the bill, which is to increase penalties for those who harm or kill turtles or dugongs. That is something that many people from across the political spectrum, including in this chamber, have been raising as an issue for some time. But, again, the cynicism of this government knows no bounds. At the same time as they modestly increase penalties in this law, they are enthusiastically rolling out the red carpet for the big coal and gas port developments on the reef's coast, developments that pose huge risks to the Great Barrier Reef's dugong and turtle populations. Dredging and dumping of dredge spoil offshore destroys the sea grass where the turtles and dugongs live and feed.

The true test of this minister's commitment to the dugong and turtle populations in the Great Barrier Reef falls due on Friday the 13th. That is when the minister will decide whether or not to approve the Abbot Point coal terminal expansion. If he approves it, that will facilitate Abbot Point becoming the biggest coal port in the Southern Hemisphere, facilitating the export of vast amounts of climate-destroying Galilee coal from Queensland. It also involves—which is relevant to this debate—dredging and dumping three million cubic metres of dredge spoil offshore in the reef's waters. That is going to contribute to destroying turtle and dugong habitats. We will see how much the minister really cares about the dugongs and turtles when it comes to the Abbot Point development.

In the few minutes I have left I will foreshadow some amendments that we will be moving in the detail stage. Firstly, we will move to strike out schedule 1 of the bill, because this schedule as it is currently drafted will allow the government to just ignore science and just ignore advice from experts in this country about how to protect the environment. That is anathema to good governance—having no requirement that, in the environment protection legislation of this country, you have to even listen to advice about how to protect the environment. That is anathema to good governance and it must go.

The second amendment that we will move does something fairly straightforward. It will strengthen our national environment laws to ensure that all major decisions about projects that will significantly harm Australia's most precious places and wildlife must be made by our national environment minister. This is crucial. We have seen state governments in operation. We have seen their willingness to trash the environment for the sake of a dollar. For that reason, over time we have developed national environmental protection laws. Those laws which allow the national government to step in and override state governments have meant that, for example, we have not seen dams built in Tasmania—as I am sure many people here know.

What is on the cards with this government—and it was flagged under the previous government—and what this amendment will stop is the federal government saying to the state governments: 'Look, you decide. We will hand over to you, essentially, the responsibility for making a decision about whether or not national environment laws are complied with.' We have seen this government act at the behest of some of the country's and the world's biggest mining and resource companies, and sign MOUs with the New South Wales and Queensland governments to kick-start the process, to essentially hand to Premiers Newman and O'Farrell the federal environment minister's powers. It is rumoured that, at the upcoming COAG meeting, we are going to see more of that. If this proceeds, the federal government will have no power to step in and stop, or even place conditions on, developments that are likely to have a significant impact on some of our most precious national icons. It would mean the federal government could protect neither World Heritage areas from big mines nor threatened species from being sent to extinction by state governments, who would approve—and we have seen them do this—major developments in key habitat.

As I said, if this procedure had been in place in the past, we could not have stopped the Franklin from being dammed. If it were in place, we would not be able to stop oil rigs in the Great Barrier Reef. We need to stop the Abbott government from creating essentially a one-stop shop for business to sell out our environment. This would be a major step backwards. It would overturn 30 years of gradually increased, and greatly needed, Commonwealth involvement in environmental protection. I do not want to see Premier Napthine in sole control of whether or not to put cows in the Alpine National Park or Campbell Newman in sole control of the World Heritage Great Barrier Reef. That is what is likely to happen unless the amendments that we are going to move are passed. Likewise, unless this House supports the amendments that the Greens are going to move, we will have Barry O'Farrell in sole control or whether or not to send koalas there to extinction. I am pleased to hear the noises from the Labor Party that, although they initially floated this idea, they now understand what it would mean. They understand that the Hawke legacy is fundamentally under threat from this government and, unless we support—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Melbourne will have leave to continue his remarks should he so wish.