Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers today to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the Environmental Defenders Office.

It is of note that again we are debating the question of the government's funding of the Environmental Defender's Office. As we have seen previously, through a judgement in the court in Western Australia, Justice Charlesworth said in her judgement that the EDO's evidence was so lacking in integrity that no weight can be placed on it. Among other things, this organisation has been granted $8.3 million by the government—and Minister Wong did acknowledge during her responses during question time that it was based on an election commitment. I think we have to accept that a government will want to keep its election commitments. But the question that has then been asked is, what is it that an organisation has to do for a government to say it is no longer fit to receive funding from the government? What does an organisation have to do?

This is an organisation that has been involved in distorting and misrepresenting evidence, an organisation that has manipulated and coached traditional owners to fabricate evidence to put towards a court case. They portray themselves, by their name, as environmental defenders, yet they are nothing more than a job-destroying, anti-industry activist group. You can't describe them any other way than that. Yet this government continues to fund them.

As time goes on we see more and more circumstances surrounding this organisation, of whom Justice Charlesworth said, in the case in relation to Santos, that their evidence was so lacking in integrity that no weight could be placed on it. But the government continues to put weight on the evidence of this organisation. We saw it in the McPhillamys gold case. The EDO were involved in providing the evidence and preparing the evidence that this government relied on to stop the project. Yet Justice Charlesworth said, in the case involving Santos, that their evidence was so lacking that no weight could be placed on it. Yet this government continues to take their advice.

In my home state of Tasmania, the EDO was one of the organisations that wrote to Minister Plibersek in relation to salmon farming. Minister Plibersek could have said—and should have said—'No, the decision made by Minister Tony Burke in 2011 can stand.' But no: 'We'll overturn that; we'll have another look, create uncertainty for the salmon communities in Tasmania.' The minister has now kicked the can further down the road, for another year—so, another Christmas of uncertainty for salmon farmers and the communities in my home state of Tasmania. Her decision was, again, based on evidence by the Environmental Defenders Office, an organisation whose evidence was, as Justice Charlesworth said, so lacking in integrity that no weight could be placed on it.

So, not only do we have a magistrate saying that in a judgement—and obviously there's further work to be done on that in the next few days—but Minister Plibersek has taken the word of this organisation on a number of occasions to make anti-industry, anti-community decisions, and the government continues to fund them. It seems that there is nothing that these organisations can't do to disqualify themselves from receiving funding from this government.

But, worse, as well as continuing to fund them, the government handed them $8.3 million in the 2022 budget papers. And through estimates we've learnt that the EDO are on track to receive $15 million from the government by the end of the decade. Despite their record—they're killing off projects; they're working to kill off projects—this government continues to take the EDO's advice in making negative decisions against our communities.