Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in opposition to the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006. As with most of the controversial bills that have passed through this chamber since July 2005, there has been an issue with the time frame in relation to this bill. Again, we see the Howard government rushing legislation through this parliament without proper consideration or consultation. This parliament and the people of Australia should have been provided with a decent opportunity to scrutinise and discuss the implications of the bill, but this government has its own time frame, its own agenda and is determined to have the debate done and dusted in this sitting.

The Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 is just another example of the Howard government again missing an opportunity to improve on current legislation. It represents a lost opportunity to address the very real challenge we are facing in Australia and around the world: the challenge of climate change. We cannot get away from the fact that this bill is made up of 409 pages of proposed government amendments, and there is not one single mention of protecting Australia from dangerous climate change, nor is there any measure to cut Australia’s greenhouse pollution.

For all its importance, all its consequences and all the time and effort spent on bringing this legislation into this parliament it is disappointing that we have before us a bill that falls far short of the mark. Not only has this government failed to take up the opportunity to improve our legislation but, through the proposed changes, it will effectively weaken the existing legislation. If this bill is passed, it will weaken the protection that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Australia’s major environment law, provides for Australia’s biodiversity and heritage.

The EPBC Act provides a framework for environment protection for any actions that are likely to have an impact on matters of national environmental significance in relation to World Heritage properties, Ramsar wetlands of international importance, nationally threatened species and ecological communities, migratory species, nuclear actions, the Commonwealth marine environment and places on the National Heritage List. It is our primary environment law. However, the greatest weakness of the EPBC Act is that it fails to address climate change. It is not considered a matter of national environmental significance by this government, and now, when the government has the opportunity to address this issue, it puts forward a bill that fails to do so. It represents a backward step in the protection of Australia’s natural, cultural and Indigenous heritage.

So what else is wrong with the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No 1) 2006? What are its other weaknesses? Firstly, it repeals the third-party appeal rights against ministerial decisions in relation to the exploitation and trade of wildlife, a right which has existed since 1982. This includes the import of species under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, such as Asian elephants and the export of koalas to Thailand. Secondly, it effectively abolishes and archives the Register of the National Estate, which was established by the Whitlam Labor government and which now contains some 13,000 sites of natural, cultural and Indigenous heritage significance. The requirement for the minister to have regard to the register when making decisions will be phased out after five years. Thirdly, the significant implications it has for Australia’s natural and built heritage. The amendments will mean that the minister is to decide whether or not to include a place on the Heritage List. The minister will receive advice from the Australian Heritage Council in the form of an assessment of heritage values of the particular site. However, clause (5) says:

(b) the Minister may seek, and have regard, to information or advice from any source—

in making a decision as to whether a site will or will not enter onto the Heritage List. Ultimately it appears that the minister can completely ignore the advice of the Heritage Council—the experts, one would assume—and take advice from anyone.

The weaknesses in this bill continue with the undermining of public consultation processes and the politicising of decision-making processes. The government will no longer be required to review the matters of national environment significance, the triggers under the act every five years. And the scientific committee will no longer be required to assess state and territory lists of threatened ecological communities.

Concerns have also been raised that the bill may fast-track environmental assessments and approvals of major projects. It also abolishes the right to appeal some ministerial decisions relating to the protection of whales and dolphins, threatened species and other wildlife—all of this at a time when Australia is facing a plant and animal extinction crisis. Twenty per cent of our species are threatened with extinction by the end of the 21st century. Australia now leads the world in mammalian extinctions. So we trail the world in setting the example on climate change and, to our shame, lead the world in mammalian extinction.

Even the unanimous report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills criticises the bill and the explanatory memorandum, raising serious concerns about the absence of reasons or explanations for some serious new offences and penalties and the decision to limit appeals on ministerial decisions. This bill—409 pages of amendments—should have addressed environmental issues and included measures to cut greenhouse gases and to ensure appropriate assessment of large-scale greenhouse polluting projects, measures to encourage energy efficiency and use of renewable energy and measures to address climate change. But it fails to do so.

On 5 September 2005, the member for Grayndler, Labor’s shadow minister for the environment and heritage, Anthony Albanese, introduced a private member’s bill to establish a climate change trigger under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The climate change trigger would enable major new projects to be assessed for their climate change impact as part of any environmental assessment process and would ensure that new developments represent best practice. We understand that a proposal for a climate change trigger has been with the federal environment minister since 2000. With the introduction of this bill we are debating today and the absence of a climate change trigger within it, are we now to take it that a climate change trigger has been formally rejected by the Howard government?

This government cannot be trusted with the environment. This week’s release by the Australian Bureau of Statistics of its Water Account, Australia, 2004-05 reveals that Australia’s well is running dry. Dam levels across Australia are down to 48 per cent capacity and are as low as 33 per cent across New South Wales and 39 per cent across Victoria. Climate change is clearly having an impact on water supplies, cutting dam levels in cities and water flow into the Murray-Darling Basin. The Murray is at its lowest level in 100 years.

John Howard has wasted a decade denying the existence of climate change. Australia is now facing the consequences of 10 years of denial and inaction from the Howard government over climate change and water. The Murray River is in dire straits. Since November 2003, the Howard government has promised buckets of money to recover water for the Murray but has not delivered one drop. The Murray-Darling Basin Commission website states that, as of 6 November 2006, zero water has been recovered under the Living Murray Initiative.

Climate change and water are two sides of the same coin, and Australia desperately needs a strategy for both. Without a plan to cut Australia’s greenhouse emissions and address climate change, John Howard does not have a water plan.