Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014. Buried in a mass of evidently redundant legislation that the government has seen fit to make a big song and dance about repealing are a handful of important weakenings of environmental protection. That is a great cause of concern for us. They centre around protection for water in the Murray-Darling Basin, around protection for marine areas and around protection from ozone depleting substances. I do not know whether it was deliberate that these were buried amongst a mass of errant commas and unnecessary hyphens, which the government thinks important to deal with, but these issues are important. They are protections for the environment and they stop big business from doing whatever it is that they want to do to the environment to simply turn a profit.

The first section that is proposed for repeal is section 255AA of the Water Act, which says:

Prior to licences being granted for subsidence mining operations on floodplains that have underlying groundwater systems forming part of the Murray-Darling system inflows, an independent expert study must be undertaken to determine the impacts of the proposed mining operations on the connectivity of groundwater systems, surface water and groundwater flows and water quality.

That sounds pretty good to me. That says: if you are going to mine in the Murray-Darling and you might stuff up the groundwater, you should probably do an independent study first that works out just how much damage you are going to do. That is an eminently sensible provision that is on our law books for good reason and, as one of the previous speakers mentioned, it has been used.

The previous speakers' contention was that this is duplicative of our other new regulations. But it is not. Clearly this section covers subsidence mining in the Murray-Darling. What the government and, sadly, also the opposition are contending is that somehow we do not need this anymore because we have already got protection from large coalmines and coal seam gas in relation to their water impacts. Well, we do have that protection, if you can call it that, because when it comes to coal and coal seam gas everything always gets approved by the environment minister no matter which side is in charge. But those provisions in the EPBC Act only relate to large coalmines and coal seam gas. The provisions in the Water Act relate to subsidence mining. We do all sorts of mining in the Murray-Darling. Clearly there is coalmining and coal seam gas mining. But there is also mining for copper, gold, silver, lead and zinc. Those are the mines that are captured by this provision in the Water Act. So it is not duplication. This is protection for our groundwater systems in the Murray-Darling which this government, with absolutely no objection from the opposition, is proposing to remove from our law books. I think that is an absolute tragedy and it once again demonstrates the influence the big mining companies have on this government and, sadly, also on the opposition.

This section has a very interesting history. Back when it was introduced in 2008, the then member for New England in the other place, Tony Windsor, proposed an amendment to strengthen that section. That amendment was that, if substantial risk was identified in that independent study that was mandated to be done, an exploration licence must not be granted. Again, that second part was perfectly sensible. It said that, if you have done your study and you have found that you are going to stuff up the groundwater, you will not be allowed to do that and you will not have a water exploration licence granted to you. That is very sensible. And we moved a similar amendment here in this place under the former Leader of the Greens, Senator Bob Brown.

One day we were debating that amendment and we had folk like Senator John Williams and former Senator Barnaby Joyce speaking in favour of the amendment. They said they would give the government the numbers so that this amendment would succeed. Senator Williams said: 'We need to have a proper independent inquiry into underground aquifers in these areas. It is vital that the truth be brought out about these prime agricultural areas. It is vital that this study be undertaken. Hence, I offer my support for this amendment.' So the National Party were prepared to say: 'Yes, let's give this section some teeth and let's make sure that when you do this independent study, if it shows that the subsidence mining is going to affect groundwater in the Murray-Darling, you will simply not be allowed to proceed.' Unfortunately, the following day, when that amendment came on for a vote, the Nationals did not support it. So the day before the vote they were crowing that they would support it, but on the day of the vote they did not support it.

Rumour—and Hansardhas it that the Australian Minerals Council frequented the building on the night of those amendments. So one wonders what pressure was placed on the then Nationals senators to ditch their protection for groundwater in favour of doing the bidding of the mining industry. Today, it seems the Minerals Council and their ilk are coming back for the rest of this little section which is a bit of a thorn in their side. They do not want to have to do groundwater studies. They would rather ignore the impact that the industry has and just be allowed to reap profits unhindered by regulation.

I have talked about how, clearly, this is not duplication, as some of the previous speakers have contended. It is a great shame that the Abbott government wants to take away this section and ignore communities who want better protection for their groundwater, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin. We have seen huge opposition to, in particular, coal seam gas and coal mining. There is now some regulatory oversight of those areas with the water trigger, but it only applies to large coalmines. So we have small coalmines that are not covered and we have copper, gold silver and other mines in the Murray-Darling that will now also not be covered. So, again, we have got open slather for the convenience of the big mining companies. It seems we are getting pretty used to that situation here in this place.

The other two sections that this oddly titled bill seeks to repeal relate to ozone relating substances. Senator Canavan was saying they are just trying to make it easier for small business because they are proposing to exempt small importers from the regime entirely. Indeed, they are exempting small importers from the fee and levy regime for ozone depleting substances. But they are also changing the rule about 'the heel', the 10 per cent that is left over in a gas canister once the container is used up. In other jurisdictions—the USA for one—there is a certification process in place to make sure that that left over ozone depleting substance—that pretty serious stuff—is not just emitted somewhere else. Once this section is removed, there is nothing on our law books that would cover that left over ozone depleting substance. To cut a long story short, we are weakening the protection for our atmosphere from ozone depleting substances by allowing these left over ozone depleting substances to go unaccounted for and by removing small importers from the fee regime entirely.

'Sea installations' is the third tranche of environmentally damaging repeals that are proposed by this bill—things such as pontoons, artificial islands, fish aggregating devices and even offshore hotels. There is currently a permit system which requires installers to have a permit to build those sorts of things in the marine environment. This bill proposes to repeal that. They are also proposing to change the objects of the Sea Installations Act to omit the need for installations to be consistent with the protection of the environment. So, again, this means that they are leaving the environmental impacts of sea installations to a different regime, the EPBC Act, which we know only covers actions which are going to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance. So any of those impacts—which may still be great but do not pass that very high bar of 'significant impact'—will now be unregulated. So there is no way you can say that this is not just a reduction of environmental protection for marine areas.

So on that basis the Greens will be moving amendments to block the repeal of those three important environmental provisions. We would like to keep those provisions and see them remain on our law books. However, it is no surprise that we have this government's approach of trying to gut what limited environmental protections that we already have on our law books. Get in line! The Abbott government has been very busy in the last 12 months, repealing as many environmental protections as it can possibly think of. We have got rid of the ministries for science and climate change and we have got rid of the carbon price itself. Instead of fixing the flaws in the mining tax, we have repealed that as well because, apparently, we are in a plutocracy here and not a representative democracy.

The environmental defenders offices, which help people use the law to protect the environment, have been defunded for the first time in their entire existence, again, leaving the community without access to legal advice to implement the laws of this nation. The Climate Commission was of course abolished. The government are still trying to get rid of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and they have succeeded in defunding the Renewable Energy Agency. They have also abolished the Water Commission and I am sure Senator Rhiannon, who will also be making a contribution on this bill, will have some more remarks on that. Mr Abbott thinks we have too much forest locked up in national parks. Their attempt to delist the Tasmanian World Heritage forests brought us great international shame and, thank heavens, that did not succeed.

The federal government are now turning their sights on marine protection and are trying to reduce the excellent work by reviewing those science-based management plans and are, again, creating uncertainty for environmental protection and for the rights of people who are fishing sustainably.

The government have, unfortunately, ticked off on every single big coalmine and coal seam gas proposal that has ever passed their desk, which makes an absolute farce of our already weak laws. The government have approved the world's biggest coal port, the Abbot Point coal terminal expansion, in this day and age in no other place than the Great Barrier Reef. It is just sheer madness. They have cut the Reef Rescue funding, which was a great program, working with farmers to try to modernise their farming practices and reduce run-off into the reef, which is clearly a big problem for water quality. The federal government, sadly, took $40 million out of that successful program.

So, as I say, get in line! The list of environmental assaults by the government just keeps on growing. Of course, the biggest concern that we have with the government's agenda of attacking the environment at every turn is their plan to wash their hands of their responsibilities under our federal laws and leave it all up to state governments.

If this plan for a so-called one-stop shop, which will sell out the environment, goes ahead it will be the biggest backward step this nation would have ever taken in environmental protection in 30 years. I was invited by one of the previous Labor speakers to focus on that issue. So thank you. We indeed have been, ever since the then Labor government proposed this awful idea. I am very pleased that the Labor Party have now decided that indeed it is an awful idea and now no longer support that concept.

However, I just want to take the previous speaker, the member for Lines, to task in that we have been focusing on this for the better part of two years, with amendments, private members' bills and motions. So, thank you, for the recognition that this is indeed a terrible proposal that the Abbott government has now adopted. I can assure you that we will be doing everything we can to try to keep that protection for our nationally significant environmental icons where it belongs: in the hands of the federal government. We need that oversight. We have international obligations to protect these amazing areas and these iconic, unique species.

You simply cannot leave that job to state governments. It is not their job to act in the national interest. They will never act in the national interest. They will act in their state's interests and that is fine; they are state governments. That is why they should not be charged with protecting the national environment. We have already seen throughout history that if we did not have these federal protections we would have had oil rigs in the Great Barrier Reef. The Franklin River would have been dammed. There would have been cows in the Alpine National Park. The Mary River, in Queensland, would have been dammed. We have seen instances where those federal laws have been able to protect areas and species that the world holds dear, contrary to the wishes of state governments of the day. So, please, let us not junk those important protections in some misguided attempt to make it easier for business to get their approvals.

There are two things about that. Clearly, the plan to try to fit a round peg into a square hole by squeezing the federal rules into state laws will actually make it more complicated. Any business that is trying to operate across state borders will now be met by different regimes. So, far from making it easier, it will in fact make it more complicated.

We await the return of the bill, which seeks to allow the accreditation of state regimes to do the federal government's job for it even without the protection of those federal standards being enshrined in state laws. What the government are seeking to do is truly horrific. They are washing their hands of environmental responsibilities that took 30 years to build, when then Prime Minister Bob Hawke took to the High Court the plan to dam the Franklin and established that yes, when there is an international convention, such as the World Heritage convention in that instance, then the federal government does have the right and indeed it has the responsibility to act to protect those environmental assets. That is now all under threat with this hasty plan to ditch the ability of the federal environment minister to actually do their job in protecting the environment. And to put cowboys, such as Campbell Newman, the Premier of Queensland, in charge and in sole control of the Great Barrier Reef just fills me with fear. This is the same guy, who, when asked about international concern for the Great Barrier Reef replied with the comment, 'Queensland is in the coal business.' I am afraid that Queensland is also in the tourism business, with 69,000 people—