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

I too rise to speak briefly to the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee. I was really pleased to get support—in fact, on World Environment Day last year—to establish this inquiry. Initially it was planned that it would be quite an expansive look at the various attacks on the national environment that this government in so brief a time had already wreaked, even back then. Sadly, that trajectory has continued, and we see environmental law after environmental law repealed, watered down, completely slashed; organisations defunded; denial of climate science; and silencing of anyone who speaks out against this government's environment agenda and its plan to absolutely undermine all of our protections. It has not been a good trajectory.

In the course of the time that has elapsed since the establishment of this inquiry, we have again fortunately had the chance to inquire into many of these matters in other inquiries. This particular inquiry was focused on particular aspects, namely the gutting of the biodiversity fund and the complete removal of funding, for the first time in 18 years, of the Environmental Defenders Office. Full disclosure: I used to work at the Environmental Defenders Office in Brisbane. I am proud of that. I had nine years there as one of their solicitors. They are an impeccable, professional outfit that provides free legal advice to members of the community on using our laws to try to protect the environment—that is, community enforcement of the laws that this place makes, often when government sees fit to not enforce its own laws.

We have seen report after report—most recently the Auditor-General's report at the federal level, and there was also an Auditor-General's report at the Queensland level—showing, sadly, that governments tend to under-enforce their environmental laws. They under-resource their enforcement departments, and they do not take prosecutions; they rarely investigate breaches. Things happen, and regulators turn a blind eye. It is an open secret; everybody knows that. That makes community enforcement all the more important. If we go to the trouble of writing decent environmental laws—which we did, before this government went to the trouble of axing most of them—then we need the community to be able to enforce and uphold those laws. It is part of a robust democracy for the community to be able to enforce the rule of law.

It is very telling that this government, rather than listening to those critiques and taking onboard the suggestions, or even respectfully disagreeing with them but noting them anyway, wants to silence its critics. It has been on a real program to try to do that. Not only has it axed, for the first time, the Grants To Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations, which, before its axing, was renamed the Grants to Voluntary Environment, Sustainability and Heritage Organisations. That was a long-standing fund that many environment groups used to do both on-ground work and excellent campaign work to identify systemic failures in our system and advise government on how those flaws could be changed and fixed for positive environmental outcomes. The government axed that fund.

It also axed the Climate Change Commission, which, through crowdfunding, was able to continue, thanks to the goodwill of Australian people who actually do care about the climate and understand that it is something human beings influence and that the government should do an awful lot more about it than this government proposes to.

Then this government completely removed, for the first time in 18 years, federal funding for the Environmental Defenders Office. Again and again, we see that this government just cannot take criticism. It cannot take on board criticism of its environmental record. It cannot even take on board advice from environment and other non-government organisations advocating for systemic law reform. It cannot take on board that feedback. Instead, it has moved for advocacy restrictions on much of the community sector, including the Environmental Defenders Office. It simply cannot accept the fact that these people are experts. They work on implementing these laws on behalf of the community. They have a very valued perspective, which often is not available to government through any other means. But because this government does not like criticism and cannot see when it is constructive, useful and efficient, it wants to shut down advocacy. It wants to say that somehow this is political activism. These people are environmental lawyers. They are trying to actually help you fix up sometimes unintended consequences in environmental laws—oftentimes the consequences are perfectly intended; in many cases they are not. This is actually a service to government and is, in particular, a service to the community, who want to see our environmental laws upheld and enforced.

Through the course of this inquiry, we have been thrilled to hear about the wonderful work of the EDO that has been going on. I was really disappointed to see that it is the EDOs in South Australia and the Northern Territory that stand to close their doors in a week's time—at the end of this financial year. For the first time in 18 years, this government chooses not to fund community enforcement of environmental laws. I think it is a new low for this government. I think it shows that they have an embarrassing glass jaw and that they actually do not believe in accountability and they do not want those laws enforced. Perhaps that should not be surprising, because we know that they are trying to give away those same environmental approval powers, for which the Commonwealth level of government fought for 30 years to assume responsibility for, and share that responsibility with the states. This government, with the stroke of a pen, wants to get rid of that responsibility and give it away to the states. So is it any wonder that they are trying to silence the environment groups who are saying, 'That is a really bad idea. The environment stands to suffer. Wrong way, go back.'

I am really pleased that, as part of the course of this inquiry, we have been able to hear about the excellent work of the EDOs. If anyone is listening—because we are being broadcast and people might be on the bus or driving home—we are almost at tax time and I would urge people to think about donating to the Environmental Defenders Office in their state. Some of those offices are about to close their doors because this government has entirely removed their funding, for the first time in 18 years. Not even John Howard withdrew funding for the Environmental Defenders Offices, but this government has completely gutted federal support. Which is why we Greens, in our additional comments to this inquiry, have recommended reinstating funding for the EDOs—and not just the base funding, but also the additional funds that had been provided on a temporary basis by the former government. Also, the Productivity Commission's report into access to justice recommended that Community Legal Centres receive an additional $200 million, and we have urged that the government think about the portion of that that should sit with the Environmental Defenders Office, who are, of course, a Community Legal Centre.

The short version is, the EDOs deserve federal funding. They perform a vital role for our democracy, and this government stands condemned for removing their funding and the funding to so many of those on-the-ground environment groups, who are doing excellent work.

The Biodiversity Fund was the second aspect the inquiry focused on. It was formerly almost a $1 billion fund. It was set up to be funded under the carbon price that we used to have before this government axed it, along with many other environmental protections. Unfortunately, under the former government it had been chopped in half before it was then ditched entirely by the current government. What a shame, because it was actually a fund that helped landowners access government support to rehabilitate their land—to work for positive environmental outcomes that also helped their own on-farm land-management outcomes. It was a win-win situation. It was essentially a stewardship program, and I would have thought that at least the Nationals could see the benefit of it. What a crying shame that we have now lost that funding pool entirely, thanks to an ideological objection to accepting climate science.

We have recommended that the funding for that Biodiversity Fund be restored, and we have also taken issue with the fact that this government claims to have been handing out some dollars for the Great Barrier Reef. We welcome that, of course. None have been greater champions of the future of the reef than those in my party, and that view is shared by many Australians. Why on earth, though, do you have to take that money out of other environment programs? What is so toxic about the environment that it does not deserve decent funding? Clearly, this government is being utterly run by its fossil-fuel-donor masters, and, once again, the environment is left to squabble over the crumbs from the table of funding. Again: wrong way, go back. The Great Barrier Reef deserves infinitely more funding and it deserves that without it being taken from Landcare programs.

I was really pleased to this inquiry was undertaken. There were over 1,000 submissions from members of the public that were not published. I want to thank each and every one of those people who took the time to make the submissions. And I want, in particular, to thank the witnesses who gave us such powerful evidence.

I want to finish by condemning the House of Representatives inquiry that is looking at removing the tax-deductible status of environment groups. For heaven's sake, stop the attacks on environment groups. They are there to try to protect this place. They are actually trying to protect it for future generations. They are trying to help you implement decent environmental laws and all you are doing is attacking them and de-funding them. It is very unbecoming, and it is not what Australians deserve.