Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

No? Oh well, I was going to give you a plus there! I use that example to demonstrate that this is about a lot more than just picking on coal or any particular industry or activity. It is about all of us realising that we are going to have to change our behaviour significantly. There is a proposal from the Brisbane Airport at the moment to build a second runway. There is some controversy locally about that because of aircraft noise. I appreciate that some people have concerns about that, although frankly if you compare it to a lot of other capital cities we are doing quite well in Brisbane. It is a very good airport; I am not against the airport. The simple fact is that, by building that second runway—quite logically, to increase capacity—it will facilitate a huge increase in air travel into Brisbane and air travel more broadly. That will lead to a huge increase in the use of what is a very significant emitter of greenhouse gases and, at least according to some of the science, in a way that has a greater impact than if it were emitted at ground level. But that is not being factored in in any significant way in what is an extremely large environmental impact assessment for Brisbane Airport.

Again, this is not to single out one development and say that it is bad and we should make ourselves feel good by stopping it or singling out one particular activity and saying, ‘If we ban this, everything will be fixed.’ I use this simply by way of an example, firstly, to demonstrate that it is a wide-ranging issue and an omnipresent one, which is why we need to be starting to assess it more comprehensively in our environmental impact laws, and, secondly, to indicate that, at present those sorts of things are really not being looked at in any significant way in environmental impact assessments because they are not comprehensive enough.

In some respects one could argue there is a second tier greenhouse check at the moment because, of course, triggers that already exist are World Heritage areas—including, of course, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which we all know or should know is at risk of significant damage due to climate change—and threatened species, which are already on the brink of extinction. If there are significant changes in their habitat due to climate change, those are the sorts of things that can push them over the edge. There are second tier components, if you like, that are there. But I guess the simple fact is that seven years ago the view of the then Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the federal government was that they had a preferred position about a way forward—to have this as part of the triggers in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—and that has now changed. It would be useful to know why it is the case if, indeed, that is the case—it certainly seems that way.

To repeat, this on its own will in no way address climate change but I think it is an extra way to help us all shift our mindsets, attitudes, behaviours and the way we automatically assess the impacts of everything. We are going to need to make some significant shifts. Frankly, I do not think it is going to be as easy as some people suggest it can be, but it is very much necessary. This on its own will not make it happen but it would help in pushing it in the right direction.