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

I rise to speak on the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. It is somewhat ironic that what the government is seeking to do here is to have a bill that allows it to ignore science. The first part of this bill, which the Greens have opposed ever since it first passed the House one year ago, says that it is fine for the Minister for the Environment to ignore the conservation advice that was provided prior to December 2013. This sends a ridiculous message about the importance of science. Unfortunately, we know that this government is well known for its disregard of evidence based policy making, particularly on environmental issues, and we know that it has abolished the minister for science; but this bill is just an absolute slap in the face. This is why we will be moving an amendment to oppose the ability of the minister to ignore conservation advices—and I will say more on that later.

What the first part of the bill seeks to do is to say that the community cannot challenge the minister on any decision that was taken that disregards relevant conservation advice. Again, we see these attempts to silence the community's valid right to have a say in environmental decisions and their valid right to challenge decisions that are made in the absence of science. The fact that this bill has for so long sat before parliament with that affront to science in there is an indictment of this government. So we will be moving—as we did in the House of Representatives, although, unfortunately, we received no support at that stage—to delete that part of the bill which is a kick in the face to science and say: 'Actually, conservation advices are important. They are relevant information. The minister should be properly informed when making decisions about projects which are likely to have a significant impact on matters that are nationally environmentally significant.' I am not too sure what Labor is doing on this one, but I understand that the government has agreed that this is a ridiculous proposal and that it will support the Greens amendment to dump this slap in the face. That is at least a step in the right direction. I am relieved at that, because it would have sent a really bad message and it would have set a precedent that allows the environment minister to ignore relevant information. Frankly, we see so much of that process already so politicised and driven by vested interests that we need these basic protections which at least say that the minister should look at the advice before he ignores it. We know that that is what happens. I am pleased that this part of the bill will at least oblige the minister to look at the expert advice. He is, of course, then free to ignore it, and I am sure he will continue to do so in his desire to bend over backwards to the big end of town.

The second part of the bill has been quite a vexed issue. This part of the bill increases the penalties for the unlawful take of turtles and dugongs, which are protected species federally and are also on many state protected species lists. The Greens have held concerns throughout the whole course of the debate on this issue that there has been extremely limited consultation with Indigenous communities on how to achieve sustainable management and sustainable take in accordance with cultural practices of turtles and dugongs. Unfortunately, it seems that the government has not conducted the appropriate amount of consultation. Certainly in the course of the inquiry into this bill, there were many Indigenous voices who were saying: 'Nobody even asked us. We're actually managing this voluntarily and we're doing quite well. Why is the government bringing down these draconian laws?' We heard those concerns. I would like to place on record that we are really pleased that many of the Indigenous communities are tackling this issue off their own bat. These are community-led responses for voluntary moratoria on the take of turtles and dugongs. This is the sort of approach that is an appropriate response to this issue. We know that the vast majority of Indigenous communities do not want to see turtles and dugongs treated in a cruel manner. There are a handful of incidents where that has occurred, but they are the outliers.

Interestingly, what we are seeing is a purported approach to protect turtles and dugongs. When you look at the bigger picture, the government is presiding over a massive expansion of the coal and gas industries, with huge amounts of associated dredging and offshore dumping of that dredge sludge right in the habitat—the feeding and breeding grounds—of turtles and dugongs. So whilst we are prepared to support the increase in penalties for the unlawful take of these precious species, we would say to the government that, if it really wants to protect turtles and dugongs, to stop approving all of these mega coalmines, mega coal export ports, with all of their millions of tonnes of dredging and offshore dumping of that sludge. You are damaging the valuable seagrass beds, which are the feeding and breeding grounds for these animals. We welcome your purported commitment to turtles and dugongs. Why don't you just actually follow through and do what is really necessary to protect these precious creatures and in a culturally sensitive manner? We will continue to campaign on that issue.

It was really disheartening that, within three months of taking office, the government approved the Abbot Point coal port expansion, which is slated to be the largest coal port in the Southern Hemisphere and which happens to be in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area. At that stage, the government approved it, with three million cubic metres of dredging and offshore dumping of that sludge. Because of the massive amount of community pressure and the huge outcry from the scientific community, including scientists from within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—who, of course, were then silenced by their superiors—the government is now entertaining the possibility of onshore disposal of that sludge. I think this is a huge win for the community, and I sincerely hope that the government will take a very close look at the proposal that is currently before it.

My concern is that, rather than dumping this sludge offshore, the proponent, which is now the Queensland government—they have stepped in because they basically are the coal industry—want to dump this sludge onto some wetlands on the shores of the Great Barrier Reef. These wetlands are not on the international significance list but they have the qualities that could make them eligible. These are nationally significant wetlands—the Kali Valley wetlands. This government now has an application before it to dump the sludge that has been dredged up from turtle and dugong feeding and breeding grounds—creating all sorts of sediment plumes in that dredging process—on the very kidneys, the filters, of the reef, right on the coastal area at Abbot Point. So we will continue our campaign that speaks for the vast majority of Queenslanders, who do not want the reef trashed and who do not want these wetlands on the shores of the reef trashed either, not just because they are beautiful migratory bird habitats but because they are the filter system which helps protect the water quality of the Great Barrier Reef.

We certainly have a long way to go when this government, within three months of taking office, approve the world's largest coal port in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. They also approved the fourth LNG plant on Curtis Island, which is similarly in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. They have indicated support for a second shipping channel in Gladstone, again, with massive amounts of dredging associated with that proposal. If we are talking about actually protecting turtles and dugongs, the government might want to think about not digging up their habitat. That is just a tip.

I want to place on record that I am really pleased that thanks to community pressure, scientific outcry and the massive pressure that the international community is brought to bear on Australia in embarrassing us for three years running, by warning us that the reef might be placed on the world heritage endangered list, Minister Hunt has started to feel that pressure and has now taken a step forward. He says that he does not want to dump sludge offshore.

But when you look at the commitment, unfortunately it is so full of loopholes that it is effectively business as usual. According to Minister Hunt, it is still okay to dump sludge in the World Heritage Area. You just cannot dump it in the marine park. Last time I checked, world heritage was kind of important to the entire planet, so this artificial distinction between the marine park in the World Heritage Area is farcical. Mounds of sludge do not respect a line on a nominal map. According to Minister Hunt, it is also still okay to continue dumping maintenance dredge spoil into the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area's waters and it is still okay for projects that are in the pipeline to do that too.

His commitment, sadly, is a little vague around the edges and is so artificially designed so as to, unfortunately, not provide the protection that is needed for the Great Barrier Reef. Again, if the minister really does want to do something to help the future of our precious turtles and dugongs and to safeguard the 67,000 people who need the Great Barrier Reef healthy for their job, not to mention the fact that this is an international icon and a biodiversity wonderland, then he should stop the dredging, stop the dumping and not make these wishy-washy commitments that are so full of holes. The government might think that they can get away with it with a two-second grab, but anyone who is paying attention—and they are—knows that it is a meaningless commitment.

That said, we are prepared to support the increase in penalties for the unlawful taking of turtles and dugongs, but what we will be proposing is to actually increase the penalties for the unlawful taking of all threatened species that are protected by our federal environment laws. If Minister Hunt is so committed to engaged species, why just single out turtles and dugongs? Why are those other species and ecological communities not similarly worthy of a decent level of protection? We will be moving an amendment to that effect and I am extremely disheartened to be of the understanding that nobody else in this place agrees with us in that regard. There is no support for increased protection for threatened species across the board. Be that as it may, let us hope that people change their minds between now and then.

I have talked about the importance of science and I have talked about the need to actually increase all penalties, but what is an important point to remember is that this government has slashed 450 staff from the Department of the Environment. Where are the people that are meant to be doing the good work of enforcing our laws, as weak as they are? The fact that the laws need to be improved is patently obvious. If you are not even enforcing laws that are substandard, how can you expect to be genuinely delivering environmental protection?

The minister has made some vague commitments about increasing the compliance officers to deal particularly with these offences and we welcome that. I am yet to see the evidence of that and, frankly, I would not trust this government as far as I could kick them; but I am looking forward to confirmation that there will indeed be increased officers to do compliance for these new offence provisions. But what about all of the other breaches of environmental law? What are you going to do about those? You are cutting staff left, right and centre. There is nobody left to do the work to enforce these already weak laws. Sadly, that speaks to the true commitment of this government to the environment. We know that there has not been any prosecutions under these provisions, so it is somewhat ironic that we are now doubling penalties for offences that have never been enforced in the first place. It is very interesting. Again, one fears that the government is simply trying to paint themselves as caring when every other action of theirs indicates that they are disdainful of the environment.

We have seen one year now of complete attacks on the frameworks and the regulations that are meant to protect our environment. I have talked already about the terrible threat that the Great Barrier Reef is under and the fact that this government is approving coal ports, gas ports, dredging, dumping and coal mines left, right and centre, almost without taking a breath. That is not the only area of the environment that they are distinguishing themselves in. The biggest one is climate change. We know that they have gotten rid of what was a successful price on carbon, which was already bringing down emissions to tackle the biggest problem that humanity will ever face. They have gotten rid of that because of a three-word slogan and a pathetic desire to try to prop up their own popularity in the polls. What a shame they stuck to that promise, because every other promise has been completely thrown by the wayside.

We know they also got rid of the mining tax, which could have been raising more revenue. What a shame that it was removed, because now they are seeking to get money out of the pockets of vulnerable people and off the sick and the aged. Why did they not just fix up that tax? We all accepted that it was not raising the revenue it was meant to. That was because of the loopholes that were built into the tax. Why not fix up the mining tax and actually have it as a revenue raiser? Instead, they say, 'No, let's axe that, because big business asked us to.' They are being completely run by the mining industry. They are looking now at attacking the old, the sick, the poor, students and the unemployed. Good one guys!

The mining tax has gone and the carbon tax has gone. We know that they are still seeking to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The government is on the record about that. We can expect that next year. I hope that the people in this place can see the sense of an investment in clean energy that is generating jobs, that is bringing down carbon emissions and that is driving us into a more sustainable future. Unfortunately, I know the dinosaurs that dominate the government benches. Hopefully, the crossbenchers can see the sense and the positives that come from renewable energy. But I fear for the future of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We know that the Abbott government has approved every single coalmine and coal-seam gas project that has crossed the desk of the environment minister—the minister supposedly for the environment. I am afraid that when you approve absolutely every coalmine and every coal-seam gas project you do not deserve that title.

When it comes to our environmental laws generally, the Greens have been campaigning ever since the Gillard government first proposed this ridiculous notion of federal environmental responsibilities to protect things that are internationally significant to the planet being given away to state governments to administer—because 'Wow don't they have such a great record on the environment!' Look at Premier Campbell Newman; what a real environmental champion that guy is! These are the people that this government wants to put in charge completely, without any oversight or federal control of our World Heritage areas, threatened species, wetlands and all of those areas that we have promised to the world that we will look after as a nation. This government wants to give those responsibilities away. They cannot wash their hands fast enough.

I am pleased that the Labor Party have now changed their mind on the proposal and are standing with us to try to protect what is left of our environmental laws. I am pleased that the crossbenchers also see that this is a very dangerous proposal, that it is a very slippery slope and that it would leave absolute environmental cowboys in charge of trashing the place. That is what has happened in the past. We would have had oil rigs in the Great Barrier Reef but for these federal laws, we would have had cows in the Alpine National Park, the Franklin river would have been dammed and the Mary river would have been dammed. We know that we need federal environmental protections because history shows us that, if we did not have them, then all of these beautiful icons would have been sacrificed at the altar of convenience and private profit, being run by the state governments. We will continue to fight that most affronting proposal for the environment that is coming out of the Abbott government.

I have already talked about the 450 job cuts that have come from the environment department under the hand of this government. We know that the value that this government places on science is minuscule, given that we have no science minister anymore and the CSIRO has faced cut after cut. Sadly, the Abbott government has ended the grants to community organisations that were performing environment and heritage functions—that longstanding program that we have had on our books for decades. The voluntary grants to environment and sustainability heritage organisations have now completely gone. In terms of forests, we know that they have tried to attack the Tasmanian World Heritage listing. Thankfully, they were incredibly unsuccessful in that regard. We know that, when it comes to biodiversity, whilst they purport to care about turtles and dugongs and a penalty on paper—which, of course, means nothing without the people to enforce it—they axed the $1 billion biodiversity fund, which was helping land managers, farmers and people who work on the ground to restore and rehabilitate important habitat. I would have thought that that was helpful work, given that we face the sixth extinction crisis and that biodiversity is in a worse state than it has ever been in living memory. The attacks on our environment continue, and the list could go on and on, but from that I can conclude that this government places absolutely no value on the natural environment. It is disdainful of biodiversity. We get laughed at all the time when we talk about the environment; well, sorry, there are no jobs on a dead planet. What we have here is an affront to science, and it is a concerning step to ignore the needs of all other threatened species.

I am pleased that the Greens seem to have made ground and may be able to kill that part of the bill that allows the minister to ignore conservation advices. That is a really positive step that retains the centrality of science in decision making—although, of course, the minister is free to ignore that advice. I will be moving to increase the penalties for all threatened species, and we will continue to campaign for there to be staff to enforce these laws and for these laws to be improved so that they can protect the environment on which we all rely.