Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Mr Acting Deputy President. I am quite passionate, especially when 5,000 people have signed a petition saying that they do not want these brickworks. I do apologise for that, but I must say that it does amaze me. I must also add that, the way this bill is going, we may as well change the minister’s title to ‘King Campbell the Unquestionable’.

It is evident that this minister is intent on constructing a Commonwealth environmental protection regime where commercial interest can far outweigh the environmental health interests of local communities. I draw senators’ attention to page 1 of the bill’s explanatory memorandum, which puts the highest priority in respect of the proposed amendments on reducing environmental assessment, approval processing time and costs for development interests. In other words, the minister is saying that development interests should outrank environment and community health interests in final environmental assessment decision making. At least the minister is consistent.

With the BGC Brickworks fiasco we have seen a demonstration of just how far this government is prepared to manipulate federal environmental law in order to circumvent state environment and planning laws to support commercial interests. In the BGC Brickworks case, the financial interests of Mr Buckeridge and the owners of Perth Airport have won the day over legitimate community concern. The BGC Brickworks case has shown that if you live in a residential suburb adjacent to Perth Airport you can expect the Commonwealth government to sanction the building of toxic and dangerous industry up against your back door. You can also expect to have to send your children to local schools where there is the constant risk of a toxic pollution event emanating from industrial activities on nearby Commonwealth land.

I remind senators that I am not talking about a government decision taken 20 years ago. I am not talking about a decision that was taken 10 years ago. I am not even talking about a decision that was taken five years ago. No, I am talking about a decision that was taken by the federal government this year and which was supported to the hilt by Minister Campbell, as chief protector of the environment of Australia. The explanatory memorandum to the bill includes the statement:

The Act—

that is, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999—

focuses Australian Government interests on the protection of matters of national environmental significance, with the States and Territories having responsibility for matters of state and local significance.

That would be cold comfort to the people of South Guildford, Rosehill, Forrestfield, High Wycombe and Maida Vale, who live next to Perth Airport. The proposed amendments in this bill give highest priority to fast-tracking environmental assessments and approval processes and to reducing the time and expense of development interests in meeting their environmental protection obligations. In conclusion, I strongly endorse the comments of those senators who have spoken against this bill—and I note that not one senator from the government has. I urge senators to oppose the bill.