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

What we have here is a government that is trying to do something it should have done a very long time ago. While we don't support the reference of this bill to an inquiry and we don't agree with some of the points made there, one thing we can all agree on is that this government has handled the situation before us terribly with regard to the salmon industry in Tasmania, which is why we have legislation here.

The only reason there is a bill that has been brought in at the eleventh hour to remedy this terrible, sorry saga is that the Minister for the Environment and Water has not done her job. Salmon workers in the electorate of Braddon in Tasmania have been facing this situation for more than a year—nearly 18 months. For two Christmases, these salmon workers have had no certainty about their employment. Those opposite said: 'We're going to follow process. We're going to follow the laws.' That was until the minister told her party, the government, 'We aren't going to do anything about it.' So the Prime Minister has been forced to bring in legislation relating to this issue. The more bizarre thing about this is who has brought it in. I don't think it's under the minister for environment's name. I don't think it stands in her name; I think it stands in someone else's name, which I find passing strange, given it is a bill to amend the EPBC Act. It does rather speak to some very deep divides within this government.

We read reports yesterday with regard to how long the Labor Party's caucus meeting to deal with this issue went on. There are people who are not happy within the government, which makes me wonder whether they are going to stick to their guns with this promise they're making, these laws that they've brought before the parliament. The Prime Minister promised these laws on 15 February—over a month ago—and on that day we wrote to the Prime Minister and said: 'We'd like to see these laws. This is urgent. We've been calling on you to fix this now for the better part of 18 months.' We didn't get a reply, so we chased up with phone calls, we sought briefings and we said we would make ourselves available at any time, anywhere, to understand the legislation they intended to bring in. We got our briefing and the copy of the bill yesterday afternoon, the day before parliament sat and the bill was introduced into the other place. I dare say it was the same for the crossbench as well. That is not good government; that is not good process.

I understand why the Australian Greens are frustrated, because this has been rushed in here in the hopes that they can fix a political issue. Rather, it highlights how desperate they're becoming, when, in order to get this thing through the Labor caucus, the Prime Minister has to commit to reintroducing legislation he promised would not come back in the form of the environment protection authority. We were told that in the state of Western Australia. The Prime Minister himself flew over there and took the entire cabinet to assure the mining industry that it was going to be okay. He said: 'There'll be no EPA under me. We will not be legislating to establish a new federal EPA. Don't worry about it.' Then, of course, we learned that secret deals were done between the crossbench and the minister for the environment. We had those big pages of black ink where the details of the deals were redacted. We still don't know what was in them, but here is the Prime Minister saying to his party room: 'Look, I know this is a bitter pill to swallow. We have to pass these laws to win the seats of Braddon and Lyons, and, as a sweetener, we're going to give you an EPA.' It is an EPA we oppose. We say it is bad for jobs and for the economy. In fact, we'll probably unpick anything that the legislation which is the subject of this motion will establish.

You have a minister for the environment who has refused to act for 18 months, even at the request of the Prime Minister—so much so that he has been forced to bring in legislation to work around his minister. How is that for good, stable government or good process? It's not in her name. It rather alarms me that this is the situation we're in. We are not even 100 per cent sure that we have a bill that does what it needs to, so we'll see whether amendments need to be made. We have a government going into an election that, if the polls are to be believed, will probably see them end up in a minority government with our good friends down here the Australian Greens. How do you think this little set-up is going to withstand a partnership arrangement? Not very well at all, I would argue. I dare say the people of Braddon and of Lyons whose livelihoods depend on this industry that we're supposed to be protecting here at the eleventh hour would not survive.

So I say to the government that we will be opposing this motion, but this government has handled this entire issue appallingly. It is clearly a political fix—not a proper one that should be afforded to the people of Tasmania.