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

I seek some clarification, and, obviously, I would like to insist on (1) to (6) being maintained. I want to ask if this about the substance of those amendments or about Senator Conroy's motion to split (1) to (6) off from (7), in which case we do not object.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: It is the substance of the amendments.

I am not speaking on the issue of whether or not to separate the amendments from the opposition's amendment, which I presume we will come back to at some point.

The Greens are moving these amendments because we believe that science has a very crucial role in the process of decision making, and our amendments go to the retention of two advisory bodies that the government really should avail itself of. They are the Product Stewardship Advisory Group and the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council.

We are seeing, time and time again, that this government has absolutely no respect for science. It has been cutting workers from the environment department and slashing funding from community groups. It now wants to silence community groups from even enforcing the government's own environmental laws, so this is just another attack in a long line of attacks against science and good sense.

The two advisory groups to which I referred are crucial bodies that provide the government with, effectively, free advice on how not to stuff up the planet. Why this government wants to abolish them is beyond me. The Product Stewardship Advisory Group has been constituted and has been functioning very well, and we are told by members of that group as well as community members that the government does not have that in-house expertise. It needs these advisory groups to give it decent information about product stewardship and about waste oil recycling. These amendments are simply a wanton refusal to accept expert advice. These bodies do not cost a lot to retain. This is, effectively, free expert advice to the government. I do not understand why they are trying to get rid of free expert advice. The only explanation is that they would rather not know so that they can take decisions which damage the environment and attempt to do so with impunity. So we will be insisting that these amendments, (1) to (6) on sheet 7642 be insisted upon by the Senate.