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

Senator Cadell asks, 'How did that go?' Well, I can tell you. Given that the Albanese Labor government has had to budget further funding to continue consulting on these proposed laws to replace the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which are Australia's federal environmental approval laws, it's not going well—and there is no end in sight. In fact, the Prime Minister and his environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, have both conceded that environmental approval laws will not be introduced into this parliament by the end of this parliamentary term—that is, before the next election. That is an egregious breach of faith with the voters of Australia. Instead, though, we do get more money being ploughed into this continued consultation process, a further $5.3 million to progress legislation reforms that, I add, we were promised would be in place, passed through this parliament, enacted, better for business, better for the environment. But no, we don't have that; we have further funding being spent on that.

Further, the budget doesn't actually do a thing to assist the environment. There is no new money being invested in on-ground environmental activity—the things that make a difference: repairing damage to the environment and assisting community groups to remedy problems in their local environment. There are amazing volunteer groups right across this country that know their country best, know what needs to happen, know how to unclog a river of debris, know how to fix a riparian zone and know how to rehabilitate landscapes. There is not a dollar for that sort of thing, but there are hundreds of millions of dollars for more bureaucrats in the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.

Would you believe that, since the election, 2,300 bureaucrats have been employed in that department in Canberra? I'm sure every one of those bureaucrats are very well meaning and want to protect our environment, and they want to work with stakeholders to ensure that we have a resilient environment in this country moving forward. But I don't think they're going to be able to achieve a lot from their carpeted, air-conditioned offices here in Canberra for the far-flung corners of our country that need hundreds of millions of dollars in investments to achieve the needed outcomes. In addition to those 2,300 new bureaucrats, $96 million is being spent on speeding up approvals under our federal environmental approval laws, which I've already referenced.

So, we've got broken laws. The government promised to fix them. They haven't, but they've got to spend nearly $100 million on top of employing 2,300 bureaucrats to speed up approvals. I'm not much of a gambling man, but I would be willing to wager that nearly $100 million will not make one iota of difference in the time taken to approve or reject projects under our environmental approval legislation in this country. It is a waste of money to plough it in this way, which doesn't tangibly improve outcomes for our environment and doesn't advance the agenda of this government the way we were promised it would.

Meanwhile, while they're pouring this money into their Canberra focused approach to environmental policy and law reform by employing an extra 2,300 bureaucrats and putting another $100 million into speeding up reforms—why that is needed I do not know—the Australian Institute of Marine Science had almost $36 million wiped from its annual appropriations and nearly $85 million taken out of its total net resourcing. The Australian Institute of Marine Science is the government funded entity that looks after the Great Barrier Reef and surrounding areas. They are the ones that do our world-leading science on that very, very important, valuable and fragile environment. Why is this government, which talks a big game on being committed to the reef, reef health and the community and the economy sustained by the reef, taking money away from on-ground action outside of Canberra up near the reef? AIMS is based in Townsville. Why is it having those reductions? There has been $36 million wiped out in one year and there's been a total net resourcing reduction of $85 million. That doesn't make sense to me. The rhetoric of this government is all about protecting the reef, improving reef health and castigating the former government for its terrible record. Now it's taking money away from this world-leading agency. It just doesn't make sense. But I guess they have to get the money to pay for these extra bureaucrats in Canberra from somewhere. They may as well go to Townsville and take it out of there!

Why don't we go to the Bureau of Meteorology? It's an important agency certainly as far as this government seems to be concerned. They say that they're climate champions and that climate science is exceptionally important, but the Bureau of Meteorology is having more than $82 million cut from its annual appropriations. That's $82 million being cut from our government funded national weather agency. I don't know how this works. Why are we taking money out of an agency charged with assisting the Australian community understand the weather and what it means and with long-term forecasting and predictions to help farmers make decisions about how they stock or destock their farms, what crops they plant and whether they need to plan to irrigate in a certain season or not? There have been terrible failures on the part of this agency around some of those long-term forecasts, so why, then, is this government off the back of that, instead of investing more in frontline meteorological activity and in the Bureau of Meteorology in totality, taking money out? I do not get that approach. Again, it probably speaks to this government's priorities. It's big on rhetoric, but when it comes to on-ground action and supporting frontline science that actually makes a difference to our country it's saying: 'We've got to find the funding to employ these extra 2,300 bureaucrats in Canberra somewhere; we may as well take it out of the Bureau of Meteorology. Why not?'

But there was a winner in the budget under this Labor government. It was one that I did not expect. That was the Environmental Defenders Office. It was an election promise honoured by this government. I have to give them credit for that. They said they would, and they have. They provided at the time of the election about $8.3 million over the next three years for the Environmental Defenders Office. This organisation, some might recall, was castigated in no uncertain terms by a Federal Court judge, Natalie Charlesworth. She pointed out that this organisation, funded by the Albanese Labor government, had confected evidence, coached witnesses and manipulated facts to suit a particular case they were bringing against the Santos Barossa project in northern Australia. That Federal Court judge did not mince her words. So egregious was their conduct that the federal environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, ordered her department secretary, Mr Fredericks, to review the funding of that organisation. We don't know what was in that review. We don't know what was asked for. We do know that the review apparently found, 'There's nothing to see here.' So, on the one hand, you have a Federal Court judge saying: 'This is terrible. This government needs to check its actions.' Of the other hand, you have a government funding them and a review saying, 'There's nothing to see here.' Funnily enough, before the review had even finished coming off the printer, this government had in these budget papers committed to ongoing funding for this organisation.

I might remind everyone that it's the Environmental Defenders Office, funded by this Labor government, that has hung the axe over the Tasmanian salmon industry. More than 400 jobs in the town of Strahan on the West Coast of Tasmania are uncertain today because this government funds an organisation that seeks to unpick the approvals that that industry operates under. It is that organisation that is funded by, in honouring a promise, this Labor government. Again, it goes to priorities.

While we're on Tasmania, I think it is important to focus on some of the things that weren't in the budget for Tasmania. There was, frankly, no funding for infrastructure around things like the South East Irrigation Scheme. I think that's a real failure. We've led the way when it comes to converting dry, unproductive land into productive farm country. The fact that there wasn't a dollar in there for projects like the South East Irrigation Scheme, to enable farmers to buy in and progress their projects, was a real lost opportunity. Roads funding shifted from a Liberal electorate to a Labor electorate—from Braddon to Lyons. I'm sure Mr Mitchell, the member for Lyons, is very happy with his Lyell Highway funding, but the people of Braddon are not happy that the funding was taken from the Bass Highway program to fund that.

Then, of course, Labor have stuck to their promise of funding for a Hobart waterfront stadium, but, sadly, this Labor government has refused to protect that funding when it comes to GST revenue. This government, while promising to fund a stadium on Hobart's waterfront—$240 million—has said: 'You know what, Tassie? We are not going to exempt that from GST calculations, and therefore you're going to have to pay for the whole lot.' What's funny, though—and this is what really makes my blood boil—is that the Treasurer of Australia, Jim Chalmers, has exempted a stadium in his own electorate from GST calculations. But, when asked by the Tasmanian members and senators who signed the letter, he said, 'No, we will not.' Of course, there was not a single Labor senator or member from Tasmania that signed that letter. There's still space on that letter. It's still sitting on my desk, and I invite any Tasmanian senator or member from the Labor Party who wants to sign it to sign it, because it's the right thing to do by our state. Sporting infrastructure is a great thing, and, of course, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the Queensland electorate that Dr Chalmers, the Treasurer of Australia, represents, which is getting a stadium, is worthy of receiving a GST exemption—his stadium in his electorate—then I would argue that Tasmania, a smaller state, a smaller jurisdiction, with a smaller capacity to raise its own revenue, certainly would be worthy of receiving a GST exemption on this funding.

To date, we've heard nothing out of the Tasmanian Labor members and senators, except for Mr Mitchell, who I heard on radio defending the Treasurer's decision to not grant this exemption and acting like Canberra's man in Lyons, rather than Lyons's man in Canberra. He was defending the indefensible, saying: 'It's okay. We've just got to live with it. It's everyone else's fault.' The fact is that if we consider every Tasmanian member or senator, whether they are Labor, Liberal, Green—and I acknowledge Senator Whish-Wilson, who signed that letter, and good on him for doing so—or Independent, everyone signed that letter except the Labor members and senators. As I say, there's still time. This budget has a big hole, ready to be filled by a GST exemption for the stadium in Tasmania. I look forward to your support on that.

Of course, there is no funding for the redevelopment of LGH, the Launceston General Hospital, a very important project—something absolutely essential for the health of northern Tasmanians in the electorate of Bass, parts of Braddon, and indeed, northern Lyons as well. It is critical infrastructure, but guess what: there is not a dollar in the budget for that. For further redevelopments at the Royal Hobart Hospital down south, which services a good portion of our population, there is not a dollar.

So really you do have to wonder what the Tasmanian Labor contingent here in Canberra are doing. I've just listed a whole heap of failures, including the most egregious one, which is this failure to exempt from GST $240 million for a waterfront stadium in Hobart—funding that would otherwise go to support our health system, our education system and critical infrastructure. It's an opportunity missed. At the end of the day, the only people that lose out here are not the politicians but the people that need that funding for the essential services it would provide.

So I say this budget is a failure when it comes to the environment portfolio, and certainly it's a failure when it comes to the people of Tasmania, where we have been dudded and we now know how this government really feels about Tasmanian men, women and children, including salmon workers, right across the state. (Time expired)