Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the order of the day will be debated cognately with the order of the day relating to the motion moved by the member for Barker concerning the disallowance of the inclusion of the River Murray and associated wetlands floodplains and groundwater systems from the junction with the Darling River to the sea in the list of threatened ecological communities.

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

I want to make some remarks about these listings, some of them about the context in which these listings were made, and I will respond to a couple of the perhaps less measured remarks particularly from the member for Barker. I want to thank the member for Barker and the member for Parkes for their contributions. I recognise that at least a substantial part of the member for Barker's contribution and the vast bulk of the member for Parkes's contribution reflect some significant misgivings that I know their communities have about those listings. They were reflected in conversations I had with irrigator communities and their leaders in the South Australian Riverland when I was there during the election campaign. To some degree those misgivings were based on what I would accept is fact, but they are also, to some degree, misgivings based on misunderstandings about the impact of these listings.

The first thing I would say to frame this debate for the House is that this was not a listing I made at the behest, as the member for Barker suggests, of a foreign lobby group. This was a listing I made based on the advice from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee, a committee set up by former Minister Hill as part of the EPBC Act reforms—the very substantial, far-sighted reforms by the Howard government—and it is a committee I thought had very strong bipartisan support. Its advice was taken very seriously by governments of both political persuasions. I think I am right in saying that the only occasion on which the advice of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee has previously been rejected by a minister is that of the famed case of the orange-bellied parrot.

This is a motion moved by the government in the House effectively to reject the advice of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee—not some foreign lobby group, as the member for Barker would have people think—for the second time in the history of this environmental protection framework. A theme is emerging with this government: shut down strong, independent sources of advice around environmental protection. We know what the minister did to the Climate Commission. His first act in the area of climate change was to shut down the Climate Commission. Thankfully, they have been able to sustain themselves on the back of public donations to continue to provide digestible advice around climate change to the parliament and the broader community. In the other place they are debating another proposal of the Minister for the Environment to shut down the Climate Change Authority. Time and time again we are seeing this minister and ministers in other policy areas trying to shut down all sources of strong, independent advice to make sure that the parliament, the government and, most importantly, the broader community gets advice only once it has been filtered through the Prime Minister's office or at the very least the minister's office.

It is very important that people watching this debate understand that what the government is proposing here is to overturn advice from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee. This is not advice that was dreamt up by that committee overnight; it is a process that started in 2008. It is a process that involved consultation with 60 organisations, including local councils, NRM bodies, irrigation regions and farmers federations and it involved technical workshops over a couple of years. The advice was very deeply considered by the committee. Reasonable people can disagree about the impact of this decision, but it should not be suggested that this was a decision taken overnight and that it was not based on strong evidence. It was based on evidence that was channelled through an environmental protection framework put in place by the former Howard government and supported throughout the six years of the Rudd and Gillard governments.

I will respond to the suggestion from the member for Barker that this is going to tie up Riverland communities in so-called green tape. The member for Barker was at least right—I am sure the member for Parkes made this comment to—in that a range of species that are vulnerable or endangered, in some cases perhaps critically endangered, because of the running down of our river system over many decades are already protected under the EPBC Act. That self-evidently is true. What we are also seeing as the environmental flows—the environmental returns—to the Murray-Darling Basin start to take effect is that many of those flora and fauna species, happily, are starting to recover at the end of the drought and with environmental flows returning to the river. But at issue in this debate is the fundamental question: does this government want to continue with a process of environmental protection that simply goes species by species, whether it is flora or fauna, or does this government recognise the benefit to everyone, whether they are advocates in environmental protection or potential developers in those regional communities, of having a more strategic approach that deals with communities in their broader sense rather than the communities as a collection of individual species that go through their own listing process? Again, reasonable people can disagree. I am sure that the member for Barker has thought long and hard about that philosophical question. But what has completely escaped this debate is the benefit that Riverland communities would have—we are doing this process in the Hunter Valley as well to have broad regional strategic assessments—in knowing that there is essentially one process of listing that covers that community, that takes account of all factors in that community, and, if anything, has the potential to cut down green tape rather than increase it.

The last thing I would say before closing and allowing others to contribute to this debate is to respond to the suggestion that this listing was somehow going to close Riverland communities. To some degree that impression was based on an understandable misunderstanding, if you like, by people who had not had the opportunity to read through the listing and the legislative context in which it was made. But, to some extent, it was based on suggestions that were given by others who should have known better because the impact of this listing is quite clear: it is only in new developments that it would have a significant impact on the ecological community under question. If you read the EPBC Act, there is no suggestion that this listing would have any impact on existing arrangements, whether they are farm arrangements or other industrial arrangements in those relevant communities. Again, reasonable people can disagree about the benefits of this listing, but it does not help the confidence of the communities that the member for Barker and the member for Parkes, understandably, are seeking to protect and advocate for to have misunderstandings put in their minds about the impact of this list.

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

This is one of the worst Christmas presents for the Australian environment. There has been a reshuffle overnight and the Minister for the Environment is now the minister against the environment. We have known for some time and argued in this place and elsewhere that our national environmental protection laws, and in particular the legislation under which this regulation has been made, do not allow for sufficient protection of the Australian environment. We have seen that previously. We saw it in the case of the state government moving to allow cows to graze in alpine national parks and we saw then the limitations that the environmental protection legislation, the EPBC Act, places on the adequate protection of ecosystems. We saw the minister, under pressure from many, including from the Greens, ultimately agree to a listing in that case, but not before it was brought to this place in the form of a private member's bill from us to reform the EPBC Act to allow it to give greater protection to the environment and in particular to ecosystems.

Earlier this week, we had the spectacle of a further weakening of the EPBC Act, where the astounding proposition was put before this parliament that when the minister is given conservation advice he does not need to take it into account—he or she does not need to take expert conservation advice into account. It was not just retrospective legislation or prospective; it gave the current minister at the table a free pass until the end of this year to be able to make decisions that ignore expert scientific advice about how to protect threatened species. Then, of course, late yesterday we saw one of the greatest pieces of environmental vandalism in Australian history: the approval of the Abbot Point development, which will see millions of tonnes of cubic metres of sludge dumped on or near the reef. As a result, the reef and the jobs that depend on it are now under threat.

Now, this morning, with perhaps 24 hours notice—and I am not even sure if we have had that—we have members of the government coming in this place proudly proclaiming that what they are doing is specifically at the request of the Irrigators Council and the big business lobby. Not once in any of the contributions they have made so far to this debate have they said that they have spoken to anyone about the environment or that their motivations for doing this are about protecting the environment. That is not what this is about. When we look at the Macquarie Marshes, why were they included? Why was the listing made in the first place? It is important for the parliament to know this because none of the previous members mentioned it because they do not care. For them, protection of the environment is just an optional extra.

Why were these listings included? I read from the listing:

No-one has mentioned that so far, and no-one has mentioned what the impact will be on those ecosystems and connectedness. One of the advantages of both of these listings is that they took a whole-of-system approach and acknowledged that ecosystems across this country rely on connectivity.

On the question of the Murray, the honourable member who moved this motion did not once refer to what impact this would have on the health of the system or how we would protect ecological communities in the area. As someone who when growing up spent many months of their early years down in the area of the Murray mouth, I think that anyone who does not believe that one of the most important areas of our country's environment is under threat is kidding themselves. We in this place should be doing everything we possibly can to ensure it has the highest level of environmental protection, not coming in here and stripping away some of the important protections that are left.

For people who have been observing this government in operation over the last couple of months, this should, sadly, come as no surprise, because this is not a government that listens to reason or evidence. This is an example of exactly why we need to enshrine in our national environment protection laws the requirement to have regard to expert advice on sustainability and the science. What we have here is a government and backbenchers who are essentially shills for the corporate lobby and who will ignore science in the interests of big business. The complete absence of reference to protecting the environment and protecting ecological communities in their contributions speaks volumes.

So I will not be supporting this disallowance motion. The Macquarie Marshes and the Murray-Darling Basin, and the river systems and the ecosystems that surround both of those, deserve the highest possible protection from this parliament. We should not be stripping it away a couple of days before Christmas.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last year the ALP government brought into Australian nearly 200,000 migrants and nearly 100,000 illegals. That was not their fault. I am not blaming them for it, but there were nearly 100,000 illegals. They were visa overstayers mostly. And there were 125,000 457 visa holders.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wrong bill, Bob.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you will find it is very much the right bill. That was 400,000 people who came to this country looking for jobs, but there were only 180,000 new jobs in the country. We desperately need the Galilee Basin to be opened up. The previous speaker referred to Abbott Point. But you have to get the coal out, my friend. To get the coal out you have to have a port.

Mr Bandt interjecting—

Thanks to people like you, instead of dumping that fill where it should be dumped—on the littoral area—and instead of it being used to make new and beautiful land for the people of Australia to live on and enjoy the wonders of this country, it is being dumped out on the reef. It is not being dumped on the reef anyway; that is a bit of rubbish. It is being dumped in an area where there is 40 feet of dumped—

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

Forty metres.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might stand corrected: it might be 40 metres of dumped silt. This silt has been dumped over time and this will continue. Get your facts correct: when you talk about one million tonnes, spread that out over 100 kilometres, because that is where it will be spread, and then ask how that would affect an area that already has 40 metres of silt.

Coming back to the motion, I wrote a history book which, thanks to the people of Australia, has been a best seller—we have sold nearly 20,000 copies. You do a lot of research when you write a book. The publishers, Murdoch Books, insisted that I put down what I feel should happen in our country. The first thought that came to my mind as a historian was the Murray-Darling, because drought-proofing nearly a tenth of the surface area of this country is truly the greatest accomplishment of this nation. We have turned two sleepy, empty rivers into two great canals carrying water across some of the driest parts of the world—namely, the Murrumbidgee River and the Murray River, both of which flow east-west. Also, around one-tenth of Australia's peak-load power comes from the mighty hydro-generators.

Let us look at what this parliament is doing today, which I think is excellent. We live in some of the most restrictive societies on earth. In particular, there is no question that New South Wales and Queensland are not far behind California in the international litigation register. The Queensland prison population doubles every seven or eight years. The state's economy is collapsing while trying to look after the people we throw in jail. I recently read that in California there are more people in prison than in primary school. This is the price of a restrictive society. We praise the government for removing some restrictions.

I repeat that the Murray-Darling is the greatest accomplishment of the Australian people. The Murray-Darling's mighty system feeds more than 20 million people. This system was created by the people of Australia from nothing. You could not irrigate because there was no security of water supply until the Snowy Mountains scheme was built and only then could you start producing food from this wonderful food bowl. The terrible part is that everyone in this parliament in the last 15 years will be condemned in the history books—and I have written one. Every person who has been in here will be condemned because they have closed down 30 per cent of that great achievement of the Australian people. You on both sides of the parliament voted unanimously to shut it down. It was only the righteous anger of the ordinary Australian people and some great Australians—and I name Alan Jones and John Laws, who have not always been flattering about me, but I praise them wholesomely on this—who rose up against this place, but you still proceeded to shut down 30 per cent. You wiped 30 per cent out of the greatest achievement of the Australian people. I wrote in my book, in the section entitled 'Walking with Giants', that these were the men who built the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme—men from the Baltic states, Finland and all over Europe who came to build this mighty scheme. The Australians who worked on it were men like Les Thiess, who eventually edged out all the foreign contractors and built the vast bulk of the Snowy project. Thirty per cent of this great achievement was snatched out of existence by this parliament to its disgrace. The history books will not be kind to those who served in this parliament.

But today we are talking about the removal of restrictions, and I praise the government fulsomely for it. I would like to say to the minister that I disagree violently with the previous speaker, who is my worthy colleague, and we agree on many things but not on this. He said that the government was acting without expert advice, but you can get that advice from the Parliamentary Library. That advice says that if you introduce ethanol it will increase CO2. There are 23 reports in the American Congressional Library and every single one of them indicates a 28 per cent reduction, and a number of them deal with sugar. We are at 72 per cent. So, I think the expert advice here is a heap of cow's manure! Alternatively, every other report in the rest of the world is wrong. Every single country in Europe is signed up to 15 per cent ethanol; China is on 15 per cent ethanol; India has announced it is moving to 15 per cent ethanol; all of the Americas are on ethanol. Every country on earth is doing it, except Australia. I would not listen too carefully to the expert advice.

People live in the bush because they love the bush. They are not going to be the people who destroy it, and if you give them a little bit of water and a little bit of land that they can farm—and a level playing field, which they do not currently have—then they will look after the bush for you. Europeans—the French and the Germans, for example—subsidise their farmers to keep them there, because otherwise there will be no-one to look after the land. The greenies have destroyed us commercially in North Queensland—just go and look at their handiwork. It does not go back to pristine Australian wilderness; it becomes overrun with introduced weed species. A very good friend of mine, Daniel Messina, told me: 'You’ve got to come out and look at this. There's 150 acres of cleared land, and the entire surface area is covered by giant sensitive weed and Singapore daisy.' I could not believe it. Unfortunately, aggressive weeds take over when you remove farmers from the land. (Time expired)

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Murray, you would anticipate that I would be deeply concerned about this disallowable instrument. I support most strongly the motion moved by my colleagues. The Murray River, and, indeed, the whole of the Murray-Darling Basin, is an extraordinary ecological system with ephemeral streams. The great Murray River is itself an ephemeral stream. If it were not, there would be red gum forests at the end where the Murray meets the sea in South Australia, where there are, in fact, sand dunes. The Murray River has been a managed river for more than a century. Initially, it was managed to be a navigable stream to take produce from the great inland producers of wool, meat, wood and fish to markets. Later it was managed for irrigation purposes, as well as continuing to be used for recreation.

Unfortunately, there was very little consultation before the move to put the critically endangered label on the River Murray and associated wetlands, flood plains and groundwater systems, from the junction of the Darling River to the sea and on the wetlands and inner flood plains of the Macquarie Marshes. The decision was a bolt out of the blue. There was no consultation with the community in the basin and certainly not with the irrigators or those who depend on the stream for their livelihood and who have in fact maintained the ecosystems in the sustainable condition they are in today.

During the last 15 years the basin has sustained 10 years of the worst drought on record. During that time there was great stress in the ecosystems, and in the human communities, but a mark of the resilience of the basin ecosystems is shown by the extraordinary recuperation and revival of life that has occurred since the rains came. With the rains that broke the 10-year drought came floods. That is the way of the seasons in Australia: droughts then flooding rains. The measures already in place to manage the health of the basin's ecosystems are well and truly adequate. We did not and do not need to have this additional critically endangered label put on the great Murray River and the associated wetlands. Keeping that label in place would be a joke. We would be bound up in extraordinary additional red-tape requirements that would do nothing to affect ecosystem health but would only give a lot of people jobs to do running around the countryside. It would not in fact support any of the ecosystems or any of the species that are still in the process of recovering from the 10-year drought.

I support my colleagues who are seeking to disallow this instrument, which refers to a knee jerk action in the dying days of the last government. There was no appropriate or proper consultation. The scientific community was not properly consulted. The Murray-Darling Basin and the Murray River itself are in excellent hands. Those are the hands that not only love the place—it is where they live—but depend on the river's health for their livelihood. When you depend on an ecosystem to feed your family you do not destroy it; you do not make it less sustainable. You actually nurture and steward that ecosystem, because it also represents the livelihood of your children and your grandchildren. That is why the community in the Murray-Darling Basin, who are Australia's food and fibre producers, are always the first to stand up and plant trees, put in nesting boxes and fence out remnant vegetation. That is what they do. One of the things that has left me in awe, when I go to major tree planting days or revegetation efforts, is that I will see 80-year-olds planting trees on their properties. You may think, 'What's the point? They're 80; they're not going to see those little tiny saplings grow.' They do it because they have a sense of the future generations who will be there to live in harmony with that ecosystem. It is not just a financial issue; it is also the love of place. It is like the Indigenous sense of being part of that place. I am most pleased that we are moving this disallowance motion. I commend those who moved and seconded the motion. I support absolutely keeping the basin and its river in the safe hands that now sustain it.

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

I move:

That the motion moved by the member for Parkes be put.

Question agreed to.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion moved by Mr Coulton be agreed to.

Question agreed to.