Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. As I understand it, there are a number of amendments to this bill that have been lodged, and I guess we will work through them in the committee stage a little later. I understand that schedule 1 has been amended in the House. Schedule 1 is the removal of the need for the environment minister to consider separate conservation advice for approval decisions prior to 31 December. Schedule 2, as I understand the bill, increases the penalties for killing or injuring turtles and dugongs. As I said, there are a number of other amendments that, I understand, will be tabled in the committee stage of this bill.

From Labor's point of view, we recognise that there are many projects that have been approved and are already at the development stage and that Australian jobs should not be jeopardised due to a technicality. When we talk about the environment, some of the issues in this bill have been caused by the department not providing separate advice on conservation issues, and I think that this is one of the issues that we have seen throughout a number of stages of environmental work that I have certainly done through the Environment and Communications Committee. There does not seem to be a delineation between the environment and conservation. Previously approved projects have been allowed to carry on, which will ensure business confidence and jobs for Australian families, and I think that is the important factor. When we think about these types of issues, we have to think about what it means for the environment but also what it means for jobs and Australia's families. We do not support removing the need for the minister to take into account conservation advice into the future, but we support the streamlining of environmental assessment processes. We do not support the delegation of approval powers to the states. Throughout the conversation on the environment and the delegation of powers to the states, Labor has been extremely strong on the basis that there is a responsibility to have oversight of environmental issues and to not leave these things up to the states. There needs to be someone who can monitor the impacts of environmental decisions that are made around the country, not just the states and their own departments.

We are happy to see that the government has changed its approach, by making these changes to conservation advice retrospective only, but the concern is that we have a government that does not have a fantastic record on the environment. We have a government that has done absolutely everything in its power to tear down climate change policy. They have abolished the carbon tax. You have to question the sincerity of the government's desire to make sure that the environmental record in Australia is secure for the generations to come. Everyone needs to ask the question: what is the environmental record of the Abbott government? If you asked that question, the answer—certainly from this side—would be that they have no credibility when it comes environment. The environment minister talks about there being walruses in Antarctica. He does not even know the types of continents that walruses live in. The environment minister also does not understand the difference between a Tasmanian tiger and a Tasmanian devil. Tasmanian tigers have been extinct for many, many years, but the minister has been quoted as saying that we need to save the Tasmanian tiger. I think are lots of people in Tasmania who would be really happy if we could save the Tasmanian tiger, but I think we have to bring it back from the 1930s before we are actually able to do that.