Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute Labor's position on the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. Labor is happy to see that the government has changed its approach by making some of these changes to conservation advice retrospective only. Before I get onto the substance of this bill, I will say that I am surprised that the government has brought this bill forward. Its order of business continues to chop and change all over the place. Yesterday we were continuing with the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill. I understand that the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill will come on for debate at some point today, but I just find it very bizarre the way this government is trying to run this place, chopping and changing its program on legislation, especially environment legislation.

As we know, there is no good news for this government when it comes to the environment—no good news at all. That will be debated soon when we look at the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill, which stands alongside all the other climate change related abolition bills that the government has tried to bring into this place. They have all been steps to take Australia backwards when it comes to protecting our unique environment but also contributing to and doing our part on climate change action.

This particular amendment bill, the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill, has a number of components to it and a number of scheduled amendments. As I said at the outset, Labor is pleased that the government has changed its approach to conservation advice, making these changes retrospective only. We recognise that many projects that have been approved are already at the development stage and that Australian jobs should not be jeopardised due to a technicality.

The problem identified by the then environment minister, Tony Burke, was one of the department's making. In fact, it was, indeed, the department that failed to provide the separate piece of paper on conservation issues that were dealt with throughout a range of other briefing documents. That is what led to the issues and confusion forthwith. Labor believes allowing previously approved projects to carry on will ensure that business confidence and jobs for Australian families are protected. That is a good move in this particular amendment bill.

But, given the government's overall agenda for the environment, one cannot help but think that this bill is a bit of a sideshow, because we have had a government now systematically dismantling any policy that will help us respond to climate change, whether it is attempting to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or the Climate Change Authority or whether it is getting rid of a legal cap on carbon pollution. The history is right there for all to see—this is a government that has taken us backwards on climate change. I find it a little bit bizarre that this government has brought on this piece of legislation today—which, as we know, has a focus on turtles and dugongs, and I will get to those forthwith—when, on every other environment measure, it has certainly taken this country backwards.

We have a government that is hell-bent on handing over environmental approval powers to state and local governments, weakening those powers and leaving, for example, Premiers such as Campbell Newman or even the Mayor of Mackay in charge of the Great Barrier Reef. The Mayor of Mackay would have more sway and powers in decision-making processes for the Great Barrier Reef than the Minister for the Environment.

That is the sideshow that I highlighted in relation to the bill before us—the fact that the government simply cannot get its act together on the environment. It has been a laughing stock and an embarrassment not just at the national level but at the international level. Now, today, on the very last day—well, one would hope it is the very last day!—of parliament sitting this year it has brought forward this Environment Legislation Amendment Bill, which has some positive components, as I have outlined, that Labor is pleased the government has finally seen important to put in place.

I go now to schedule 1, which will remove the ability to challenge decisions on certain grounds. Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the EPBC Act, environmental approval decisions made by the minister are open to potential legal challenges. I mentioned those in relation to the former Labor minister, Mr Burke. This has not changed with the bill that is before the Senate. Labor supports an amendment to the EPBC Act, which protects projects that were approved prior to 31 December 2013 from legal challenge on the basis that the minister did not consider separate conservation advice as part of that decision-making process. This problem was caused by the Department of the Environment not providing a particular piece of paper regarding advice on conservation issues—advice that was provided in a range of other briefing documents and formed part of decision-making processes.

We recognise that many projects that have been approved are already at the development stage. Jobs should not be jeopardised, and that is why, due to this technicality, we support schedule 1. Allowing previously approved projects to carry on will ensure that there is business confidence. Labor also supports the community's right to challenge government decisions that impact their environment, their livelihoods or their way of life. This amendment does not limit the right to challenge on any other grounds. That is why Labor will be supporting schedule 1.

Labor also supports schedule 2 of this bill, which attempts to provide greater protections for turtles and dugongs, and we know that the minister has some regard for turtles and dugongs. However, it does not provide what is really needed. More resources and support for Indigenous groups to enable them to police their own communities on land and sea are what is really needed. This was a constant theme in evidence and submissions to the legislation committee's inquiry into the bill. I am sure that Senator Birmingham is aware of that evidence.

What this bill does is merely increase existing penalties for illegal hunting. Penalties are one thing, but these are penalties that have never even been used before. Resources to enforce a law, not penalties on paper, are really the crucial element here. It needs to be highlighted strongly that all that this particular schedule does is increase penalties. Resources are the key if we want to really look after, save and protect turtles and dugongs. Penalties could be for 100 years, but without enforcement, they are pointless. We all know that. The fact that the penalties have never been used before raises some questions. It is all well and good to increase penalties, but let us be real about this. It is more important, I think, to highlight the issue of resources. Also, the government did not consult with Indigenous groups in Queensland and the Northern Territory, they did not consult with traditional owners and they did not consult with the land and sea councils. If the minister had bothered to consult, he would have found out very quickly that the real needs are in resourcing current management plans and enabling the enforcement of the law, rather than merely increasing penalties.

Labor recognises that increasing penalties certainly is part of a broader plan to protect turtles and dugongs, and that is a good thing. I note the World Wildlife Fund in Australia have done a lot of work in this regard in relation to dugongs in particular. They have highlighted how dugongs are listed globally as vulnerable to extinction. They have highlighted that:

Australian waters are home to at least three-quarters of the global population and are a vitally important stronghold for the species.

They have also highlighted that populations of dugongs:

…world-wide have become increasingly fragmented and anecdotal evidence suggests that numbers are declining as a result of the loss and degradation of seagrass meadows, fishing pressures, Indigenous hunting and coastal pollution.

I think that we all know the importance of turtles and dugongs; it is what this government is going to do about them that is important. As I have made it very clear, I do not think that simply amending this schedule to increase penalties without addressing the issues of resourcing is going to make a difference. The fact that there was no consultation done by this government, again, is snubbing those particular traditional owners and it is snubbing the land and sea councils, who are on the ground and have a detailed understanding of the plight of these particular animals.

Labor recognises that increasing penalties is part of the broader plan of this government to protect turtles and dugongs. This plan includes funding for Indigenous rangers, and we support the government's efforts for that. We always have supported funding for Indigenous rangers. The plan provides funding to clean up ghost nets. When Labor was in government, it also funded these endeavours. That is a positive step continuing on from Labor's approach. The plan also provides funding to care for and rehabilitate turtles and dugongs that have been injured in the seas of North Queensland—another good component.

The government's plan also includes $2 million for an Australian Crime Commission investigation into the illegal killing of turtles and dugongs and the illegal transport of the meat. I have to say that this does sound like a clear case of overkill. Why does the government not work with local communities rather than going straight to the ACC, giving them $2 million and having it dealt with at a high level? This seems to be the ongoing approach by this government: increase the penalties, get the Australian Crime Commission involved, give them lots of money, do not talk to anyone do not find out what is going on on the ground and ignore expert advice of the people who deal with these issues every day. I do think that it is not the way to go; I do think it is a case of overkill. I strongly urge the minister and his department to consult—the word 'consult' needs to be brought into the lexicon of this government—with traditional owners to formulate a realistic plan for the protection and management of turtles and dugongs in northern Australia.

If they were to do that, we would support the government in this approach,. Having said that, Labor will not stand in the way of schedule 2 of this bill. We believe in the principle of schedule 2, but we would be happy to work with the government to provide real and long-lasting protection by enabling Indigenous groups to adequately police their own laws and customs. That is really the way to address the plight of turtles and dugongs. I urge the minister to consider that. Marine turtles and dugongs are impacted, as we know, by a range of enduring threats, including habitat loss, poor water quality, bycatch, poaching, marine debris and boat strike. In government Labor made these issues are a high priority, and this work continues in close association with state and territory governments, traditional owners and other stakeholder groups—such as commercial fishers. We also invested $7 million in Indigenous self-management, because this is the best way to ensure the sustainable and appropriate management of the dugongs and turtles. Critically, Labor's approach included leadership and advice on the take of marine turtles and dugongs, developing community-based sea-country management plans and support for traditional owner involvement in sustainable use of marine resources and compliance training.

I think the government can learn from what Labor did in office with this approach and we would welcome such an approach from the government—instead of this punitive approach of raising of penalties. We also supported Indigenous ranger teams to remove ghost nets—that is, lost or abandoned nets—which impact on turtle and dugong populations. Our approach was based on our respect for the customs and traditions of Indigenous Australians and the right under the Native Title Act for traditional owners to hunt native species for personal domestic or non-commercial communal needs. We do support a balanced approach to traditional hunting and the sustainability of native species such as turtles and dugongs.

I to understand that there are some other components to this amendment bill—amendments to be moved by the Greens—and we will look at those in the course of this debate. I am unsure as to whether Senator Xenophon has amendments that he will bring forward, but again Labor will look at those as well during the course of this debate. The main part of this bill are schedules 1 and 2—the ones I have just gone through in this contribution. It is important when we address this part of the EPBC Act that we highlight that it is about Australia being well informed about our biodiversity through the work of government, communities, NGOs, traditional owners and the like. If there is some way in which these amendments address those issues, then that is a good thing, but I do want to stress that there are ways of doing things. Whilst Labor will not stand in the way of schedule 2, I really do want to emphasise the importance of the need for the government to consult those particular groups. They do have the expertise and the knowledge, and they are out there in Queensland and northern Australia on the ground. They are not here in Canberra in departments, making decisions in silos. It is important that those in government take their advice and knowledge into account.

Finally, I would like to say that the other part of this that makes it so important is the fact that Australia has signed a number of international treaties, which, of course, guide the protection and management of a number of important species and ecological communities: treaties like the Convention on Biological Diversity; the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat—otherwise known as the Ramsar Convention; the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. All these conventions need to be taken into account when we look at amending the EPBC Act and it is important that Australia lives up to its obligations under those treaties. Labor will support these two schedules.