Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Hansard source

If ever there were a case where a minister should not just be censured but also be sacked, it is this one. If we look at the speaker’s list for this debate today, we can see from the list of government speakers that those on the other side of the chamber know this to be the case as well. I have no doubt that Senator Ian Campbell would be somewhat disappointed. Over the six years that he was a parliamentary secretary, he would have had to come in here time and again and defend ministers and he would have seen ministers defend ministers. But, when a censure motion is moved against him, not one minister is put on the list to defend his actions.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Minchin, is not on the speaker’s list. There is no minister from that frontbench on this list to defend the miserable action taken by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell. Why? I put it to you, Mr Deputy President, that it is because they know that there is to be a fundamental redistribution of the frontbench as a result of this minister’s action. They know the truth of this matter—that is, that this minister not only deserves censure but also deserves the sack. It is only a matter of time before the Prime Minister sees the truth of that as well. They know the truth of the matter. Senator Minchin has not come in here to defend his colleague because he knows the truth of this matter.

The Australian political system and its environmental legislation provide for considerable latitude in the actions a minister can take—if he acts in accordance with the law. For example, he can draw upon precedents. In the case of this government, there were five other decisions by ministers for the environment to approve wind farms which carried out management studies. There was a case in South Australia involving the Stanwell Corporation. There was a case back in 2001, when the then environment minister, Minister Hill, approved a 130-megawatt wind farm at Woolnorth in Tasmania on the condition that the Hydro-Electric Corporation ‘prepare a plan to repair or mitigate damage to the habitat of the orange-bellied parrot’. The management plan approved by the minister allowed for six parrots to be killed every two years.

Minister Kemp approved a 150-megawatt wind farm in 2002, on 17 October, for near Portland in Victoria. He did so on the specific condition that Pacific Hydro prepared a management plan that mitigated against impacts in the event of orange-bellied parrot mortalities as a result of collisions with turbines. In 2002 and 2003, various ministers approved wind farms near Port MacDonnell in South Australia and Jims Plains in Tasmania—again with management plans attached. So the minister had plenty of precedents to call upon. In fact, the circumstances are such that this government has managed to ban wind farms where there are no orange-bellied parrots but to provide permission for wind farms to be developed where there are parrots.

We have a situation where the minister can also rely upon the advice of his department. We have here a clear case where Mr Gerard Early—a man who I have observed over many years at Senate estimates committees to be of considerable reputation within the Australian Public Service and a person who is known to not be a red hot radical but rather a moderate, considered and conservative public servant—advised the minister not in any equivocal way but in an unequivocal way that there were no grounds for him to act on this matter. In fact, the advice was that if he did he would be opening the government to legal challenge over a whole range of developments around the south-east coast of Australia. The minister chose to ignore that advice as well.

The minister, however, accepted the advice that he himself gave to the electorate of McMillan back in October 2004, during the federal election. It is clear what occurred. As we know, there was a federal election on 9 October 2004. On 12 October 2004, the local newspaper in McMillan, the Great Southern Star from Leongatha, provided us with details of the Liberal candidate saying, ‘When Ian Campbell arrived, the whole complexion of the campaign changed for me.’ Senator Campbell gave a commitment to do everything within his power under the EPBC Act to veto the Bald Hills project. That was a position that he made clear three days after the election. A statement was made in the local newspaper to that effect. It follows the articles that were published in other newspapers at the time and the letter that the minister distributed throughout the electorate during that election campaign. It is quite clear that the minister acted not on the basis of legal advice, not on the basis of departmental advice, not on the basis of precedent but on the political basis that he had committed to a position before he had considered the evidence.

The illusions of this minister, like so many broken pieces of china at a Greek wedding, were smashed by Justice Weinberg on 4 August, when he said that the decision of the respondent dated 3 April was to be set aside. He said that the matter was to be remitted to the respondent for reconsideration ‘according to law’ and that the respondent should pay the applicant’s cost, to be taxed in default of agreement. The minister has confirmed that that is the commitment he gave.