Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

There are a number of points that I think the government has missed regarding its statement of urgency for the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006. It is obviously quite keen to rush this legislation through before the National Audit Office completes its audit over the last five years on the implementation of the bill. I very strongly suspect that there will be some key points that come out of that review that should be included in legislation. I ask the question: why is this legislation being rushed through before the National Audit Office has completed its review of this legislation?

If this government is truly trying to improve this particular piece of legislation, surely they would wait for that audit to see if there were key things that should be included in the legislation. But, no, we have this bill being rushed through the parliament with an absolutely inadequate amount of time for those that use this legislation—the community and environmental groups—to comment and for the Senate committee to adequately review the depths of these changes.

There are 400 pages of legislation and we were given but a few weeks to review the implications. I suspect it will be the same as other pieces of legislation that have been rushed through this place: it will come back for amendment to fix inadequate legislation that was rushed through without being given proper scrutiny. Surely we should be waiting for the report from the Audit Office to come out so that we can include what I think would be well thought out suggestions that could improve the legislation.

Then, of course, we have the State of the environment report 2006, which is due out at any time. Again, I strongly suspect that this will once again highlight the parlous state of the environment in Australia—for example, Australia’s coral reefs. I very strongly suspect it will highlight the threats that climate change poses through both coral bleaching and acidification. I think it will also highlight the declining nature of our biodiversity in this country—the loss of species that continues apace in this country, building on the fact that Australia has the highest rate of mammalian species extinction in the world and that the threats are ongoing, particularly the threats of climate change.

I suspect that the report will look at the health of our wetlands in Australia, which continue to decline—the Gwydir wetlands and the Macquarie Marshes wetlands are but two. And the state of our rivers is a national disgrace. The quality of our rivers continues to decline. As I said, species loss continues at an alarming pace. But we still have not seen the minister’s report on the triggers of national environmental significance. Under the current act, the minister is required to review every five years what are commonly called the national triggers or the points of national environmental significance. We have not seen that report. I am given to understand that it has been completed, but we have not seen it. I would have thought that that report should have been made public so that senators reviewing the legislation and the broader community could actually look at whether the amendments the government is proposing adequately pick up the findings of that report.

We should look at some of the issues that the government and the minister, in particular, are required to consider at the moment. One very close to my heart is, of course, the Burrup Peninsula. The minister was supposed to make a decision a while ago. He extended the consultation time, as is provided for under the act—in fact, comments close tomorrow, 28 November. If this legislation goes through, the minister can postpone making a decision on the Burrup Peninsula virtually indefinitely. This is rock art of world significance. It is arguably the most important rock art site in the world. A decision on the future of that may be delayed indefinitely by the minister once this legislation goes through.

I can actually see why the government wants to rush this legislation through and exempt it from the cut-off. It is so that nobody gets to review the State of the environment report 2006 prior to the amendments going through and so that people do not get to review the National Audit Office’s review of the current act. This is fundamental input into the review of this legislation and the government does not want to see it before it makes these changes. Why don’t they want to see it? Are they scared of what is going to be in that report? Why hasn’t the government released the report into triggers of national environmental significance when they are required to do a review? Why hasn’t that report been made public so that people can review that?

There is a great deal of evidence that we need new triggers around climate change and water. We all know of the water crisis facing Australia, and I think the State of the environment report will also pick up on those. We all know that there are a number of crucial decisions that the minister needs to make, including on the 500 critical habitats to be possibly listed on the national lists.

It seems to me that these are urgent issues that the government in fact wants to avoid. This is important legislation for the protection of our environment, at a most critical time. We are facing crises over climate change and water in particular. You would think that the government would want to review this legislation in light of those crises. You would think that the government would perhaps amend the legislation to deal with those two critical issues and to deal with land clearing, for example, as that also leads to biodiversity loss and species loss. And does not the name of this legislation include biodiversity conservation?

I too oppose the motion to exempt this legislation and the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006 from the cut-off. I believe that if the government were truly intent on developing better environmental and heritage protection legislation, they would allow the three critical reports that I mentioned to be released and considered before rushing this legislation through this place.