Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (3) standing in my name:

(3)    Schedule 1, item 85, page 20 (line 32) to page 21 (line 1), TO BE OPPOSED.

This is an amendment to restore the five-yearly review of matters of national environmental significance to ensure that the EPBC Act evolves to consider new triggers or environmental protections. This is a principle that Robert Hill, a former environment minister, understood. He proposed that such a process of evolution be built into the environmental protection legislation of this country. He put this view with regard to additional triggers and the EPBC Act in his discussion papers where he said:

We will be evolving a situation reflecting community attitudes and what really is the best and most appropriate mix at the time.

So in fact the act provides for a five-yearly review to assess the needs of any new matters of national environmental significance and the key environmental challenges that trigger the act. The most recent review was undertaken in April 2005. I have asked the minister on a previous occasion where the published report of that review is. I have yet to get a satisfactory answer. As we can see by the amendments before the chamber, no new triggers have been added. The opposition maintains the view that, because of the failure to publish the results of the review, the minister has failed in his legislative obligations under the act. We take the view that section 28A is explicit:

Every 5 years after the commencement of this Act, the Minister must cause a report to be prepared on whether this Part—

that is, matters of national environmental significance—

should be amended ...

It goes on to say:

(4) Before the preparation of the report is completed, the Minister must cause to be published in accordance with the regulations (if any):

(a)

a draft of the report; and

(b)

an invitation to comment on the draft within the period specified by the minister.

It is our view that that has not occurred. I take the view that the minister is in breach of his own legislation. So far what we have had is that the minister is seeking to repeal this section of the legislation. It is his response to his current breach of the act. The opposition takes the view that it reflects the arrogance of the government and the incompetence of the minister and ought to be addressed by an amendment such as this. I trust that this will be supported by at least sections of this government.