Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to congratulate the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, and his predecessors in the Howard government for the very fine work they have done in protecting and nurturing Australia’s environment. In fact, in 10 years, the Howard government has done more for the environment than all other governments in Australia’s history put together. I often say that this is the greenest government Australia has ever seen. The congratulations for that go as far back as when Senator Rod Kemp was the shadow environment minister prior to the 1996 election. He was followed by Senator Hill, who was undoubtedly one of the most competent environment ministers ever to have graced Australian government, followed by Dr David Kemp, who was a very good environment minister, and now by Senator Ian Campbell, who is doing a very fine job in the portfolio.

Rather than there being policy inertia, as the previous speaker said, the current government has done more things for the environment than any government in Australian history. I could spend the whole 20 minutes of my speech listing the things that this government has done that the previous Labor government never even addressed in its 13 years. I will not do that, because time does not allow me to, but I will mention a couple. Versions 1 and 2 of the Natural Heritage Trust have put more money into the environment, done more good works for the environment and encouraged more people to do work for the environment than ever before in Australian history. I encourage the minister to make sure that, when the third version of the Natural Heritage Trust is considered by cabinet, it is adopted in line with the Keogh report to the government on that particular issue. I certainly hope that the next version of the NHT will be as well funded as the previous two versions.

Through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, this government has been responsible for putting about a third of the Great Barrier Reef under the protection of marine parks, up from about two or three per cent in Labor’s years. Labor talk about this a lot—Senator McLucas often talks about this—but it was the Liberal government that actually put a third of the Great Barrier Reef into marine parks, protecting what is undoubtedly one of the seven wonders of the natural world. Congratulations to the government for that.

If you look at a range of issues you will see that this is a government that has genuinely supported the environment with practical measures that actually do something, not just talk about it. I have not even mentioned the great work that Senator Ian Campbell has done in the areas of whaling and climate change, just to name a couple. The Howard government’s implementation of an oceans policy was not only a first for an Australian government but, indeed, a world first. Australia was proudly the first nation ever to have a recognised oceans policy. I am delighted that, at some time in one of my past careers, I had some significant involvement in the implementation of Australia’s Oceans Policy. It is a very significant document that other countries are now looking at and copying.

In relation to this bill, I share the concerns of other speakers about the timing—not so much of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts report but of the consultation with those involved in this piece of legislation. I had the same concern with the very significant package of broadcasting bills which came before this parliament. As a member of the committee that looked at both packages of legislation I went along with the government; I accepted that there was a need to bring these pieces of legislation forward quickly. I have to say to my colleagues in the ministry that it will need a lot of persuasion for me to ever accept again that these inquiries should be as truncated as these have been.

I was very distressed on both occasions—during the committee inquiries into the communications package of legislation and this environment package—that people who could have added considerably to the outcomes sought by the government were not even consulted. They were not given any sort of advance warning of the legislation.

Over the years Senator Hill particularly built up a very close rapport with many people in the environment industry—not the ratbag Wilderness Society. You would never want to deal with those people; they are Senator Brown’s mob. They are in it for the politics, to try and defeat a Liberal government. They are not there for the environment; just to make political approaches that will help in their very, very left-wing social view of the world and the very left-wing policies that they put forward.

But there are some groups involved in the environment, whom you would not even call environment groups—people like the national parks associations and WWF. I expect that most people involved with WWF do not vote for us but they have, over the years—through nurturing by Senator Hill and me, as minister for conservation—had an input into government legislation. They understood what we wanted to do, although they did not always agree with it, but they came forward. They were invited to come forward and they were able to point out things that bureaucrats, with all their ability, commitment, intelligence and goodwill, simply had not considered. It was to our credit that we involved these people in consultation—not to defeat the legislation, because most of them understand where the government wants to go, but to come in and contribute to these Senate inquiries.

The same applies to the Senate committee. I have no desire to defeat, alter or misdirect the approach that the government wants to take in this bill. I understand a lot of the reasoning behind the legislation, but it could have been so much better—as could the package of broadcasting bills—if we had involved some of the people at the coalface who could tell us things that our public servants, with all the best will in the world, did not quite follow through on, think about or understand.

So I share the concern of others in this chamber at the process of the investigation into this package of bills. Like other speakers I am distressed that we have not been able to take advantage of well-meaning people. Most of the people who gave evidence were well meaning. There were a couple of the ratbags—a couple from the Senator Brown group who were just there to make a political point—but not many. Most people who came forward and wanted to make a comment had a genuine concern about the environment and a genuine understanding of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. I think they made some very valid points that perhaps we could have pursued. I was horrified, in evidence, to find that one arm of government had not even consulted another arm of government in an area that this legislation touched upon. I will come back to that later.

It is important to get these bills through and it is important to get them through in a timely fashion. I understand things depend upon it. But I think we as a government are short-selling ourselves and not taking advantage of the goodwill and understanding that could help improve the legislation we want to take forward. Like some others, I am distressed that some groups who gave evidence expressed a genuine feeling of betrayal. When this legislation was introduced in the first instance there were groups who were consulted. We did not always agree with them—and I suspect we would not have agreed with them on this occasion—but we did them the courtesy of putting it to them, getting their views and perhaps improving the legislation as a result of those views.

There were some environment groups who, whilst they were not altogether happy with the original EPBC Act, eventually saw the merit of it and became firm supporters. But they were not even consulted on this and they felt a sense of betrayal, which I felt for them as well. I certainly urge upon my colleagues that we should consult more widely and show people the legislation. I repeat—I have said it about five times—that we should do that not to divert the government’s goal or course of action but to improve it and get to the goal in a better way.

I congratulate, also, Senator Eggleston, who did a magnificent job as chair of the committee. He dealt with this in and very constrained timetable. I will not speak for Senator Eggleston but I will say that it is difficult for a chairman to deal with these issues when people want to make an input but simply have not had the time to do it. I recall the evidence of the Law Council of Australia. If ever there was a body that could look through all the clauses of a piece of legislation and quickly grasp it and understand it, it would have to be the Law Council of Australia, which comprises all the lawyers and great legal minds in this country. But even the Law Council of Australia came before us and said that they simply had not had time to look through the legislation, understand every clause and make as good a submission as they would have hoped to have made. I do not think that does our government any credit. Senator Eggleston had to deal with this as chairman. He had to deal with some angry people. He had time constraints—as the committee did—but he was able to very skilfully achieve the task he had been set and got to a conclusion and prepared a very fine report.

I congratulate the staff of the committee. They worked under considerable pressure and time constraints to get the report together. Quite frankly, I do not know how they do it. We as committee members sit there and listen to evidence and we make comments, ask questions and get some views, but someone has to commit it to writing in a sensible way. They have to understand the sentiments of the majority of the committee and prepare a report accordingly. I say to the committee secretariat, led by Dr Ian Holland—those involved are mentioned in the report—congratulations and well done on producing such a fine report under difficult circumstances.

I refer briefly to some of the recommendations in the majority report. Recommendation 1 deals with the government investigating the issue of heritage properties within the ACT that are located on designated Commonwealth land to ensure their protection heritage status is not compromised with the repeal of the Register of the National Estate. I have not, I confess, followed that up. I am not sure whether the committee has met to get the government’s response or whether the government or the department has got back to the committee on that. I certainly hope that the department has taken notice of that recommendation and has addressed it.

If the committee is right in its understanding, this is a classic example of an unintended consequence. Because of the ACT situation, because it is a territory, certain things happened that were not the government’s intention. Hence my point that perhaps with a little wider consultation such things would be addressed. Perhaps there is a government response that I have not caught up with. I hope—I am quite sure it will have—the department has followed up on that.

The second recommendation in the majority report suggests that the minister review the wording of proposed new subsection 179(6) in the light of certain issues. I quote from paragraph 5.64:

The committee does note that there may be an unintended consequence of the proposed amendment to subsection 179(6). The Australian Fisheries Management Authority is required to apply the Australian Government’s Harvest Strategies to all Commonwealth fisheries, and these will be specified in Plans of Management under section 17 ...

The committee went on to point out that with the current proposed wording of that paragraph:

Every Plan of Management developed by AFMA could be considered to be a plan referred to in subparagraph ... If so, this would have the effect (presumably unintentional)—

I would hope it would be unintentional—

of making every species of fish taken in accordance with an AFMA Plan of Management eligible to be listed as conservation dependant under subsection 179(6).

Different people would have different interpretations of this. I am concerned that legislation such as this would have the effect of changing fisheries management into environmental management. We have a very good fisheries management authority, one that is comprised of an excellent and very capable board and very capable staff. I believe that they are able to manage the fisheries in the best possible way. When managing these fisheries, conservation aspects, industry aspects and the sustainability of the fisheries have to be taken into account. No-one knows better than the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the industry that if fishing is not sustainable there will not be a fishing industry in Australia in future. But it needs the experts in fisheries management to determine that, not some department or organisation that is more focused on environmental concerns which sometimes, I suspect, are not appropriate. I hope that the minister and the department have reviewed that wording. I may pursue that a little further at the committee stage of the bill.

Finally, I raise an issue that is dealt with in recommendation 3 of the majority report and that I think other speakers have referred to. It goes to a suggestion that was made to us, and it was not an aggressive suggestion. Evidence came to us that said: ‘The department does a great job. They’ve got some very capable officers there, but they aren’t well enough resourced to do all the things that the EPBC Act requires them to do.’ Without going into a five-day estimates committee hearing I cannot say whether that is true or not, but from what I would call ‘guarded’ or ‘skilfully bureaucratic’ answers that some of the witnesses from the department who appeared before us gave—and I give them every credit for this; they did not want to agree with that and I can understand why they would not, and well done that they did not—I gathered, reading between the lines, that perhaps they share the concern of many people involved in these areas that they are not well enough resourced to do all of the things which the EPBC Act requires them to do. The committee’s recommendation, as a suggestion to the government—hopefully the minister will be able to use that to advance his claims as the budget process starts—is that the government consider whether the department is adequately and appropriately resourced to administer this very fine piece of legislation.

I repeat that I would like to raise some issues at the committee stage. I support the legislation and I support the minister. I also support our government, which, as I said at the beginning, is the greenest government this country has ever seen. I congratulate the minister and wish him every support and encouragement in his continuing role in looking after Australia’s environment.