Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I stand here ignoring Senator Colbeck's interjections because I listened to him in silence, out of respect, and it would be nice if there were a bit more of it.

The committee that I chair, the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, conducted an inquiry into this bill, and the report was informed by a range of expert submissions. There were a variety of views, of course. This issue and anything around the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act brings us a great deal of debate and two very strong opposing sides: those opposite, the coalition, who back business and business only and have no interest in the environment; and our colleagues over in the Greens, who fight valiantly to protect the environment and have a lesser concern about business.

What we're trying to do here, what we always try and do here, is find the balance that's right for Australia, the balance that respects and encourages investment in business but keeps the integrity of our environment at the heart of the decision-making. The committee found through its inquiry that this bill is unnecessary, misguided and counterproductive, basically, to Australia's environmental governance. The committee recommended that the bill not be passed. As we've heard from Senator Colbeck, it really is a desperate attempt to scare workers in regional Tasmania, and that absurd rant at the end about housing has no place in this chamber.

Labor will always back workers. There is an industry in Tasmania that is, that should be and that will be—we will support it to be—a sustainable Tasmanian salmon industry. It is at the centre of a lot of jobs, and therefore there's a balance in how you proceed. We know how much Tasmanians love their natural environment and we also know how important their local economy is. We stand here on the Labor benches not to pick one side or the other but to support workers, to support business and to support the environment. That is a more complex way to go, but it is the right way to go.

The bill that was introduced by Senator Colbeck is looking to impose arbitrary limitations on the reconsideration of environmental decisions. It basically restricts timeframes within which consideration can occur and limits who can actually request it. Senator Colbeck has argued that this will provide greater certainty for industry and investment, but, as the committee inquiry heard through its submissions, these proposed changes are unnecessary. There are already very strict conditions on reconsiderations that already exist, and those reconsiderations have been in the act for a long time. What we don't want to do, and what Senator Colbeck's bill would do, is undermine the fundamental integrity of our environmental protections.

The most glaring issue in this bill is that it removes an important safeguard in our environmental decision-making. Under the current act, the minister has the ability to reconsider a decision when a new substantial piece of information arises or when circumstances have changed significantly since the original approval. I think what you need to be clear on here is what the words 'substantial' and 'significant' mean. It's not that, as Senator Colbeck would have you believe, we're going to go and tell people they have to take their house down.

These are fundamental issues that need to be held within our environmental protection laws. The environment is not a static thing. As scientific information evolves, as we learn more and as things change, our environmental monitoring needs to identify those things. Then we need to deal with them—not in the manner that Senator Colbeck has dealt with them this morning, through scaremongering. These are often new threats and things that reveal new issues that need to be considered, not just ignored or mowed over for a particular ideological position. There are great dangers in limiting reconsideration to a three-year window, as has been proposed, because sometimes issues occur decades into the future. Things change. We do not live in a static world.

Restricting who can request such a reconsideration is also one of the big challenges with what the coalition is proposing here. Limiting reconsideration requests beyond three years and limiting who can make them is highly problematic. You're turning it into an entirely political situation, as opposed as a scientific, factual one that respects the community, respects business and respects the perspectives put forward when something changes.

This bill deliberately excludes community groups, because, as we know—and we hear it all the time—those opposite aren't big fans of community groups who have views on things, particularly when it comes to the environment. It excludes independent experts. It excludes environmental organisations. We know environmental organisations are public enemy No. 1 for the coalition. They can't bear somebody having an opinion and they can't go through a process of respecting people's ideas. The kinds of restrictions here about who can make a request are going to significantly reduce any public oversight and any community concerns being recognised.

We look at community participation in environmental decision-making as a crucial transparency and accountability measure. Removing this pathway for public engagement is going to erode trust even further than it already has. The system is widely regarded as inadequate. We know that; we talked about this endlessly in this chamber. Endlessly we have spoken about the problems with the EPBC Act. This has been going on for decades. But do you think we can get agreement to bring forward a revised bill? No. Those opposite are business only. Greens colleagues are environment only. Neither of these ways is the way to go. We need to come to a position where everyone gets that business is important and the environment is important. We need to find the pathway through that. That's what we've been trying to do with revisions to the EPBC Act that we've been talking about ever since we got into government, but do you think we can get an agreement? No, because it's an either/or. That's not what we're about. We're about protecting the environment and supporting business. That takes a much more complex thought process and a much more engaged process than either of our major party colleagues in this chamber or the other are prepared to invest.

Now, the EPBC Act, as I've said, already contains strict safeguards to ensure that any reconsideration requests are entertained only with substantial new information that warrants a review, not just for political purposes as proposed by Senator Colbeck. Sustainable investment anywhere in this country, in any industry—be it salmon farming, be it mining, be it housing; it doesn't matter—all relies on robust, reliable environmental governance. Allowing projects to proceed based on outdated or incomplete information creates long-term financial and long-term environmental liability. Ultimately, that will harm business, communities and ecosystems alike.

The comprehensive reform of the EPBC Act was informed by Professor Graeme Samuel's review. He identified—and I don't think anyone disagrees—that our environmental laws as they stand are broken. Yet in almost three long years we have not been able to get our colleagues in the chamber to have a proper conversation and agree to compromise. I know that's maybe not quite where people are at, but compromise is a good thing to get a better outcome. Until we get some more engaged, more thoughtful and more intellectual embrace by my colleagues of the reform that we're trying to get through to the EPBC, we will still be in this situation where we have the same conversation over and over again in this chamber, because the coalition and the Greens are so ideologically entrenched.

If what you are looking for, Senator Colbeck, is a better deal for business, I would suggest you engage with the EPBC reform, because, with the way the laws are now, they're not working for anyone. We know that, in the current situation—we're seeing it—our environment is facing unprecedented challenges: climate change, habitat destruction and biodiversity loss. We have to ensure that our laws on the environment are robust, responsive and informed by the best available science. This bill moves us completely in the wrong direction. Really, it is just a political stunt that Senator Colbeck has been put up to by his Tasmanian Liberal colleagues. We need an answer. We need a pathway. We need a measure that protects business, protects workers and protects the environment. With enough thought and a bit less ideology, we can get there.