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

I rise today to speak to a censure motion that effectively has asked that this chamber censure the Minister for the Environment and Heritage for his actions in blocking the Bald Hills wind farm on the basis of its first application. I would like to congratulate Senator Brandis because he has led not only this chamber but also the Australian people very carefully through a step-by-step process, which was very easy to understand—no conspiracy—about how this minister has stuck very closely to the process and has followed the requirements under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to the letter.

In fact, if the minister has failed in any way, he probably failed to automatically place a project—the value of which we just heard from Senator Ray—worth $220 million ahead of environmental considerations. Yes, he probably failed to do that, but his job is to ensure that he finds the balance—not just some vague balance you can pull out of the air—that is prescribed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. What we heard from Senator Brandis in this chamber today is that the minister absolutely held to the letter of the law of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity and Conservation Act.

We have had people from the other side stand up and say, ‘We can quote people like Mr Early.’ What was he relying upon? That is right: he was relying upon the Victorian government’s material, which we have now exposed today to be, whilst voluminous, missing a couple of important points. I note Senator Ray’s criticism of the previous environment minister, Dr David Kemp. Perhaps the mistake that former minister David Kemp made was that he also relied on the Victorian government. In hindsight, perhaps he should not have relied on that information to make the decision on Wonthaggi—only 20 minutes away from Bald Hills. I am quite sure that, if that minister were here today and heard about the disingenuous way that the Victorian government provided that information, he would think that he should have been more cautious about what weight he put on the Victorian information.

The Minister for the Environment and Heritage thought that there were obviously some bits missing in the report, so he said, ‘This is in relation to quite a specific context, but there is another context under which I need to be provided advice.’ It is quite clear under section 133, part VII, of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that it is the minister’s responsibility to seek further information. That is what he did. He said, ‘We will commission something that specifically prescribes what the impact of these wind turbines will be on four particular species’—one of which was the orange-breasted parrot. He sought the very best information—the very latest, most scientific information—which was obviously far more comprehensive and specific than the information provided by the Victorian government. After he considered that very specific information—the very best available—he made a decision based on good science. I do not understand why those on the other side are somehow criticising our minister for using the very best, very latest information that was based on the best science.