Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President Polley, it's a delight to be able to spend more time with you, after the weekend, but I do welcome the opportunity to debate the urgency motion put forward by Senator David Pocock, which I commend him for bringing in.

There are some very important elements to what Senator Pocock is drawing to the attention of the Senate and to the Australian community. And while I broadly support the principle of what Senator Pocock has put forward here, there are a couple of issues which I will go into a little bit of detail on, namely the funding component of this motion. That's what I am particularly concerned about. Why don't we start with that? That is an important issue, and I think it is important for governments and for political parties who operate in this place to consider how best that finite resource of taxpayers' funds is used. Supporting our environment, protecting our environment and conserving what is special, beautiful and unique to Australia are critically important. So government funding into programs and projects to do exactly that is essential.

Senator Pocock calls on the government to substantially increase funding for threatened species in this coming budget. I expect that work is well underway on the May budget and the finance minister is probably sitting over there now signing off on the documentation.

Along with the negative gearing changes—you are probably right, Senator Smith. But what concerns me most is something I've observed at Senate estimates. Senator Pocock has been quite forensic in his interrogation of the officials from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, particularly on the funding for threatened species work and work with endangered species and how we protect the environment. There are these nebulous figures thrown about. Every time Senator Pocock asks a question on exactly how much is spent and what we have for it and asks, 'Can you tell us where this is having an impact?' the answers are always vague: 'It's a bit of this; it's a bit of that. We'll take it on notice, Senator.' They go so far as to include administration costs—the reams of paper put into the printer down at the Threatened Species Commissioner's office—as funding toward the protection of endangered species.

This is why I have concern about just handing more money over to a regime which, frankly, isn't well accounted for and, as far as Senator Pocock's questioning at Senate estimates reveals, isn't really hitting the mark. So, until we get better answers about where this money's going, what it's doing and if it's actually having an impact, I don't know that we can just throw good money after bad.

But the more critical point of the motion that Senator Pocock has put down is around the legislation that we were promised. When this government came to office, we were told by the minister for the environment, Ms Plibersek, that we didn't have a minute to spare and that it was critically urgent that we get on reforming our environmental approval laws in this country. In addition to that, she committed to there being zero new extinctions on her watch as environment minister. Well, we're nearly two years in, and there has been a series of smoky-room, locked-door arrangements going on. We've had these so-called consultations with industry, environmental groups and other interested stakeholders—a select group—where, would you believe, some of the most complex law reform is going on in our generation, around something that is critically important, the environment, a public good, and you're not allowed to take your phone, your iPad or your laptop. No electronic devices go into these rooms where hundreds if not thousands of pages of legislation are presented for your consultation. You have to handwrite down the notes that you can in the time allotted to you and hope that you've got everything down right to go back and talk to your members, your associates and the people who work in your industry. What kind of a consultation is that?

The promise was made that we would have legislation in this parliament by the end of last year. We are hurtling towards the two-year mark, and this government hasn't got a skerrick of legislation on the table—not one piece. I hazard a guess that we won't be seeing legislation brought into this parliament before this election. I've a feeling things are so dire in their so-called consultation process that there is no hope of them being able to bring in this major election promise, to have legislation and to reform these laws before the end of this term of parliament.

The big losers out of that, of course, are the environment and, more importantly, or equally importantly, the economy—jobs and people's livelihoods. No certainty. It is another broken promise by this government. While I commend the motion, we won't be supporting it.