Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I present the first report of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts on the operation of the Environment, Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I would like to take a few minutes to make some comments on this important report. At the outset, I would like to thank all of the submitters to the inquiry that led to this report, as well as the secretariat for their assistance and the other senators who participated in this inquiry. It is a substantial report, as befits a very important piece of the nation’s legislation. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was passed by this parliament in June 1999 and came into effect the following year. Significant amendments were made to the act in 2006. The objectives of the act are broadly to provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance, and in so doing to promote and conserve Australia’s biodiversity and heritage and to promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources.

The act, which has been in operation for nearly a decade, from time to time excites a lot of interest in Australia, particularly when a decision is made under the act that is deemed to be incorrect by either the proponents or the opponents of a particular action that has been considered under the act. Of course Australia has a history of environmental activism and protest. The tensions between what are loosely called ‘development’ and ‘protection’ of the environment erupt from time to time. Those tensions are often deeply felt, and that was apparent in this inquiry and in a number of the 113 submissions made to the inquiry. It would be fair to say that any legislation that instructs decision making about environmental issues in Australia is going to attract attention, and I have to say that that is a good thing. It was a welcome reference by the Senate and has enabled us to investigate the operation of this act over the last 10 years.

The EPBC Act itself includes a provision for an independent review to be undertaken into the operation of the act and the extent to which the objectives of the act have been achieved. That independent review has been commissioned by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, and is currently underway. It is due to report by 31 October 2009, so many persons and organisations have made submissions to both that independent review and the Senate committee inquiry that led to this report. I do note that the committee notes in the report that the minister has requested Dr Allan Hawke, who is the head of the independent review of the EPBC Act, to take the findings in this report into account in the deliberations of the independent review. That is a very welcome initiative from the minister.

While there are a number of recommendations in this report, the committee does note that the very wide and varying terms of reference did make it difficult for the committee to focus on key issues because so many issues were raised by submitters. Some of the terms of reference probably did not receive sufficient attention from submitters for the committee to make any recommendations of note. However, there were a number of persistent themes throughout the inquiry, which I will briefly address. These include the operation of regional forest agreements. The committee felt that the amount of evidence on this issue warranted a separate report, and that will be presented on 24 April 2009.

Another persistent theme was that the act should clearly state that its purpose is to protect the environment and to protect and conserve Australia’s heritage rather than just to provide for that protection and conservation—a point made by a number of submitters. The committee has made a recommendation with regard to altering the wording of the objects of the act to delete the words ‘provide for’ so that it is quite clear that the act should actually protect the environment. Since the inception of the act, certainly in more recent years, there has been considerable debate about whether additional triggers are needed in the act, particularly triggers in relation to climate change and also to land clearing. The committee has made recommendations in this regard, the first of them to do with climate change. It notes that the government should consider the appropriateness of a climate change trigger but in the context of the government’s overall response to climate change and, in particular, to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Madam Acting Deputy President, you could have the best act in the world but if the resources to implement it and to follow up its operation are insufficient then there is not much point in having the legislation. So the committee has made strong recommendations that the government give urgent consideration to increasing the amount of resources available to the department in the areas of assessment, monitoring, complaint investigation, compliance, auditing projects approved under part 3 of the act and enforcement action. Importantly, too, the committee has recommended that the department be resourced adequately to undertake regular evaluation of the long-term environmental outcomes of decisions made under the act and that the government ensure there are agency resources to undertake that new and much-needed activity. The reason for that recommendation is that the committee was aware that decisions made under the act can have a long-term impact on Australia’s environment, conservation and heritage, and we need to be mindful of that.

Also addressed in the report is the interaction between this act and the Fisheries Management Act, and there is a recommendation for a review of how the two interact. Another persistent theme was the effectiveness of bilateral agreements with the states. The committee has recommended that there should be an evaluation of those agreements. Considerable evidence was given during the committee inquiry as to whether or not people believed that that arrangement with the states is delivering what it is expected to. There are further recommendations dealing with processes of the act and accountability mechanisms, including the process of nomination and listing of threatened species or ecological communities and whether or not that could be done in a way that improves its transparency, rigour and timeliness. Another recommendation deals with the use of ‘offsets’. It makes a strong statement that government policy regarding the use of offsets for habitat conservation should clearly state that offsets must only be a last resort and must deliver a net environmental gain. The report also addresses the issue of ministerial decisions under the act and recommends that the government consider expanding the scope for merits review of particular aspects of the act.

I know other senators want to speak on the report, and there are additional comments and perhaps a dissenting report. I think the inquiry and subsequent report is a good first step in ensuring that the parliament continues to take particular account of this very important piece of legislation. I commend the report to the Senate.