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

I want to indicate, not surprisingly, the Democrats’ support for this amendment. I think it is identical in large part to the ones that were circulated under my name. I will throw one question in at the start, before I make general comments on the amendment, that goes to what the minister has just said. As I think he would be aware, there has already been a lot of activity in the area affected by the Traveston dam, with a fair bit of pressure, quite frankly, being put on local people to sell to the Queensland government. My understanding is that this amendment from what might loosely be called the positive pile, at least from my point of view, makes it clearer that it is inappropriate for action to start on a project until it has been fully assessed by the federal minister. Obviously, that would mean not putting in the bulldozers and not laying the concrete and that sort of thing. I wonder whether there is any wider application of that for action in the broader sense, such as clearing out people, which I think is a bit problematic given some of the trauma that Senator Ian Campbell has rightly identified. I ask if he could give any view on whether those sorts of things are covered in any general way by legislation, either current or pending.

I go to the amendment. As was mentioned by Senator Siewert, the State of the environment report, which was released and tabled yesterday and which Senator Campbell has spoken about and pointed to in the media, included an assessment of the EPBC Act. I noted that the report recognised and acknowledged that the EPBC Act has made an important contribution to environmental protection in Australia during its first five years of operation.

I also note that, in the full report that was done for the committee putting together the State of the environment report, a review was put together by Chris McGrath, a barrister who, as the minister would probably know, has sought to use the EPBC Act a number of times. As I said in my comments in the second reading debate, I think it is a shame that the perhaps unintended consequence of some of the controversy in the environmental movement when the bill was first passed is that some within the environmental movement have not sought to use the act as much as they could have to try to generate positive outcomes, as some people who have, including Chris McGrath, have managed to have some success.

The review that Chris McGrath did for the state of the environment committee concluded not just that the EPBC Act had made an important contribution but also that the absence of a trigger for greenhouse emissions was a very significant gap in the regulatory framework of the matters of national environmental significance. I know we have already dealt with that matter, but I wanted to point to that because, when this legislation was first brought into being in 1999 and the government at the time made promises to go down the path of developing a climate change trigger, that was because the Democrats saw at the time that this was a major issue that needed a lot greater scrutiny and needed to be reflected in our national environmental framework. I note Senator Campbell’s point from the last time we debated this that it was the state Labor governments that were opposed to that being adopted. That is a fair enough point to make, but it was in reflection of the fact that climate change seven years ago—or even well before seven years ago, but in the framework of this much more powerful environmental law that was being put in place—had an appropriate role to play. I think the review that was done for the state of the environment committee recognises that.

I make that point because it is quite clear, particularly with regard to water issues that are covered by the amendment from Senator Siewert relating to water use and large dams, that this is an issue that we all know now is crucial for the nation. The issue of unsustainable water use—to use the heading that was in the Democrat amendments—is an issue that we think ought to have more of a national focus. I know there has been a lot of debate backwards and forwards, particularly by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, about the greater role that the Commonwealth could have. A lot of that at the moment is outside the legislative framework; it is managed through things like the National Water Initiative and some sticks and carrots such as the potential dangling of money and trying to get agreements in meetings. Quite frankly, whilst that is an ideal goal, I do not think it has generated anywhere near as much progress as should have occurred. Putting in place a trigger on unsustainable water use and major infrastructure projects like large dams would clearly be an appropriate legislative measure to give the Commonwealth a role to play. That is why I think it is very timely.

Land clearing is an area where there has been some progress in recent years, but it is progress that has not been as complete as it could have been, and in some of the states it is not as reliable as it needs to be. We need to have much more certainty that backsliding will not occur in that area. Again, I think there is an important role that the Commonwealth could play that was identified by that review, along with climate change as another key major national environmental issue. Land clearing links into climate change, of course, as land clearing is a major emitter of greenhouse gases. But, because it is clearly such a major national issue and because of the success we have had, including in my state of Queensland, Australia has done much better than it would have in meeting its Kyoto targets. I think there is clearly logical consistency here. This is not just a grab of any issue that the Democrats or Greens think would look good to pack into the act for the sake of it. They are clearly central issues of national environmental significance, as is appropriate under this act.

I think the amendment has a lot of merits. In the example of the Traveston Dam, which Senator Brown raised, it has been made clear that that already triggers the act because of matters like endangered species, world heritage, Ramsar wetlands and migratory birds. They are consequential effects, if you like. The minister, as you know, is trying to assess it in terms of whether or not it is a viable piece of water infrastructure. That becomes a bigger issue, with the other dam in south-east Queensland: the Wivenhoe dam, which will obviously still have some environmental impacts, particularly downstream, going into the Moreton Bay Marine Park and some of the Ramsar wetlands around there. Assessing that on its own merits is something that, given the state of water policy in Australia and the lack of progress, is appropriate and I think it is clearly a matter of national environmental significance. That is why it is appropriate for it to be put forward by both the Greens and the Democrats.

I say in conclusion that it is based upon proposals put forward by groups that have sought to work constructively with the act as it stands—that is, the Environmental Defenders Office and groups like WWF, HSI and the Tasmanian Conservation Trust. These groups have sought to engage constructively with the act. They are not just throwing up a wish list. They are positive amendments. They are groups which seek to use the act in conjunction with other constructive campaigns that they are running. WWF has been playing a significant role in trying to find more constructive solutions for water policy issues, for example. So, there is a lot of merit to the amendment. I know we are under a guillotine so I will cease talking now but I think that it needs to be put on the record, even briefly, that the amendments have merit and would further strengthen what, as Senator Campbell has said, is a piece of strong environment law. That is why the Democrats put them forward and why we support the amendment, as moved by Senator Siewert.