Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this urgency motion. I must say that, having heard the debate, I think the urgency is not so much about wind farms or indeed parrots but appears to be something to do with the Victorian Labor Party trying to divert attention from something—but we will get to that in a moment. I have to congratulate my well-informed colleague Senator Brandis on the way he has dealt with the issues of due process. I think we have comprehensively debunked any conspiracy theory that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage has somehow stepped outside of the process. I think that theory has been completely debunked.

What has been a consistent theme in the argument from those opposite is that somehow the minister should be accused of this evil of having no consistency. From all the information that is before me, all I can see that the minister has refused to do is be pressured to make a fundamental decision about protecting the environment. He has sought to find that very delicate balance between development and the environment and has said, ‘I am not going to make that decision until I have considered the most recent and most comprehensive information at hand.’

You have to take this job seriously. It has been a fair amount of time since those opposite have perhaps had that opportunity, but I would remind them that they should look very carefully at the actions of this minister. He has a very proud history of delivering consistent decisions. Those decisions have to be made after very carefully balancing development with environmental protection. It is not an easy task. You have to do it very carefully. This government and this minister have demonstrated that they have been able to do that for some time.

I will cite a couple of well-known recovery plans. In the context of, say, a windmill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act does not simply look at the footprint that the windmill makes on the ground and what plants will no longer exist there because we have stuck a great windmill there but it also looks at the wider implications. In another context, this government has said, ‘You not only need a plan to manage mullet or sharks; you also need to look at the wider impact.’ Of course, that is exactly what this minister is doing. In the case of the dugong recovery plan, this government did not namby-pamby around this area. Yes, there were a lot of people who got their noses out of joint and, yes, there were a lot of developers who said, ‘That’s inappropriate,’ or ‘That’s not right,’ but we put in specific legislation to ensure that there were dugong protected areas. That is consistent with the approach we are taking today.

The turtle recovery plan was, again, absolutely consistent with the decisions that the minister has made. The development of the turtle recovery plan was carried out only after the minister had received the best possible information on turtles, particularly with respect to their interaction with the fishing industry, and how we could enable them to recover. The industry developed turtle excluding devices—devices that are now recognised as some of the best innovations around the world and which are now in bycatch-reducing devices. The industry put in a supplementary submission and came back to the minister and said, ‘Now can we continue?’ They had in fact ameliorated any of the potential damage that may have been caused by their activities.

But if we are looking for a real comparison, we can look at the albatross recovery plan. Mr Acting Deputy President Barnett, coming from Tasmania, you would appreciate this. The albatross is an iconic species. Everybody knows that albatrosses are threatened and endangered. But, in terms of the comparison between the orange-breasted parrot and the albatross, there are thousands of albatrosses and there are no parrots. The parrots are in such perilous circumstances. With the albatrosses, we said, ‘There is simply no acceptable bycatch—none.’ We gave the tuna industry time to come back with another submission. We said, ‘If you want, you can come back with another submission on how you go about it and not how many birds you kill.’ They went away and developed tori poles and down-shooting devices and eventually said, ‘Night setting only. We are going to operate at a time when albatrosses cannot negatively interact’—and the minister said, ‘Crack on.’ That is exactly what happened, Senator Carr. Their submission took these matters into consideration.

For your information, Senator Carr, the orange-breasted parrot could possibly be called a coastal parrot. You may or may not be aware that it travels only about two kilometres from the coast. As has already been said here today, it is at most risk when it is flying and moving between habitats. So perhaps they could consider spatially where they are putting the wind farm. The minister is not standing in the way of these things. Quite rightly, he has looked at the very best scientific advice. I am quite sure that, if someone comes up with a plan that can ameliorate those challenges, he would be supportive.

There has been a lot of derision and there have been a lot of Monty Python jokes—poorly done—but we have made a very long-term commitment to this animal. This is part of a 10-year recovery plan. This is not something that has dropped out of the air. It is not an attempt to dupe people in this place, as those opposite would have us believe. In fact, the people who have been doing the duping are those on the other side. We keep hearing from Senator Carr: ‘One in a thousand years’, ‘Be afraid’, ‘This is ridiculous’ and ‘Obviously it is a political conspiracy.’ I will quote straight from a document that was addressed to the authors of the report, Biosis. The question asked was basically: ‘Is this valid? Should we take this part of the report to mean one in a thousand?’ The document states:

To find the number of birds that might be killed at any one wind farm such as Bald Hills, was not the intent of our work and thus the scenario for a particular site—although it contributes to the cumulative impact assessment—is simply a scenario for the purposes of modelling.

That debunks the one in 1,000 theory clearly and utterly. If you have heard that, take it from your mind because it is utter rubbish.