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

While people on the other side may make turtle and dugong jokes, I say that this is a very important issue, because these are iconic species that we are talking about. That is why we care about this. If these were house sparrows, we would not be bothered. That is why the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is there: to directly protect some of our iconic species. Another recovery plan that I would point you towards is the albatross recovery plan, which very clearly laid out the specific pieces of information required. There were no less than three applications from the seafood industry, because this government said, ‘You will not be able to continue to catch tuna unless you come up with an amelioration plan.’

What is happening now is that in exactly the same circumstances the proponents of the Bald Hills wind farm are being asked to come up with a mitigation plan. I understand that that mitigation plan is coming in the near future. Senator Ray made a huge prediction that we will change our mind on this. This is a process that identifies changes in behaviour. If you change your behaviour and mitigate the damage towards the orange-bellied parrot then the application will get the go-ahead. That is a process that has been consistently applied by this government over time. I will add here that I admire very much Senator Brandis’s use of the English language. He has coined a new phrase: ‘the Monty Pythonesque burlesque from the other side’.

There are a lot of threats to this bird that have not been discussed in this place. You would think that the only threat to this bird was from the wind farm. People keep saying, ‘One in 1,000 years.’ Let me tell those on the other side that they can giggle and they can laugh but to be associated with such a disingenuous comment should bring shame on them. One in 1,000 years is, according to the survey, absolute rubbish. There has not been any evidence to show that that is the case. Senator Carr got up and said, ‘One parrot in 1,000 years.’ That is absolute rubbish.

Senator Brandis talked about some modelling that was done in the Biosis report. This is a very recent report. The reason that you have to apply the precautionary principle is that reports like these normally provide a whole range of circumstances. In this report, the range was from 0.87 of a parrot—which is probably not really a parrot but a parrot with a bit missing—in one set of circumstances, to about one parrot in the next set of circumstances, to 1.39 of a parrot.