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

I find that interjection from Senator Birmingham to try to say that a bill that has 'environment' in its title has nothing to do with the UN convention on climate change quite an extraordinary claim to make. We know that the future of the environment is all about climate change and what is happening in international forums to address climate change. It is even more extraordinary that the foreign minister is not being allowed to attend this very important international conference in Lima, Peru without having a minder with her who is, of course, Mr Andrew Robb, the Minister for Trade. Minister Robb has a well-known antipathy towards anything to do with climate change. He is a climate change denier. It is an extraordinary thing that the Prime Minister's office will not let the foreign minister attend this important meeting without a climate change denier there as well. I think that goes to exactly what this government's attitude towards the environment is.

I am a little bit surprised that a piece of legislation has come forward from the government which does have some value in it. Part of the bill that we can support is the increased penalties for killing turtles and dugongs, both of which are animals which Australians hold in great regard. I do not know if you can be affectionate towards a dugong or a turtle, but I will say there is some affection towards those sea animals from Australians. So I am pleased to see that this bill does go to that particular issue and also that it fixes up a mess of the government's own making with regard to environmental approvals.

What Labor does not support, of course, is feeding environmental approvals to state governments that are hostile to the environment, which is certainly the case of the Newman Liberal government in Queensland. We were very concerned in the Labor Party that there should be any diminution of responsibility of the federal government in terms of environmental approvals under the EPBC Act or a farming out to state governments that do not have any credibility in this space.

This also gives me an opportunity, of course, to again remind people that, while we are happy to debate this piece of legislation, what we would like to see from the coalition government is some genuine commitment to preservation of the environment. As I said in my opening comments, that should include actually doing something collectively with the international community about climate change and reducing our carbon emissions, and that is what we have not seen from this government. All we have seen from this government is a pathetic package called Direct Action, which every economist and every genuine environmental scientist knows will not work; it will simply pay big polluters to keep on polluting.

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

What is the point of having legislation like this when you are not addressing the big picture, Senator Birmingham? I find it extraordinary that Senator Birmingham has to be in this difficult space for him. When I was chair of the Senator Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, when Labor was in government doing great work on the environment, I have to say that Senator Birmingham was a very good representative on that committee. At that stage I believed that he believed—and I am sure he did—in the science that tells us that climate change is real and is caused by carbon emissions. It is a sad thing that Senator Birmingham has had to backtrack, if you like, or deny what we know is in his heart, and that is that he is a believer in climate change. I am pretty sure, Senator Birmingham, you are a reluctant sign-up to Direct Action, because you know that it is an expensive fraud perpetrated on the people of Australia. It is a fig leaf to cover the Prime Minister and the environment minister, who have no credentials when it comes to genuine commitment to addressing environmental problems in this country.

As I said, one of the concerns that Labor has about environmental legislation is that we take away the authority of the federal parliament to manage the EPBC Act, which is one of the best pieces of legislation that we have in this country to protect the environment. But this government, of course, wants to give responsibility for assessments to its Liberal mates. In the case of Queensland, we are particularly concerned about that. I would not be so concerned in my home state of South Australia, where the Premier, Jay Weatherill, has good environmental credentials. But the proper place for these approvals to be made is the federal parliament, and Labor will continue to fight for that to happen.

As I said, the modest benefits of this legislation include higher penalties for killing some marine animals. I note that, during the inquiry into this bill, Indigenous organisations complained that they had not been adequately consulted about that. Again, that is a hallmark of this government in the space of environmental legislation. They make it up on the run. They do not take advice from the experts. They do not believe in the science. They do not talk to local communities about the impact on them. They just listen to the big polluters and the environmental vandals, who will possibly rampage through the countryside, particularly in states where there are coalition governments who, like this federal government, have no actual commitment to protecting our environment.