Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to say a few words regarding the retiring Senator Robert Hill, following on from the contribution of Senator Watson. Senator Watson, of course, is the father of the Senate as the longest serving senator in this place. He made comments about Senator Hill, who was the second longest serving senator, along with Robert Ray, who both came in here in 1981. If I count correctly, that leaves only eight senators serving in this chamber who have experience of serving in the Old Parliament House, which ceased operating in 1988.

I think the terms for all but two of those will expire at the next election or in 2008. Some of them have already signalled they will not continue on. It certainly will not be too long before we will be down to just one or two who have memory and practical experience of serving in the Old Parliament House. That in itself is a sign of how long Senator Hill’s career as a senator has been. Of course a very large proportion of that has been in senior positions within his party, including quite an extraordinarily long term as leader of the Liberal Party in the Senate and Leader of the Government in the Senate for almost exactly 10 years.

I want to make some comments about a few aspects of his contribution. I have had some experience working with him in some of the portfolios that I have covered on behalf of the Democrats. I noticed a lot of the coverage and commentary following Senator Hill’s announcement that he was retiring focused on his work as Minister for Defence. That is understandable given that was his final ministry. However, I would like to concentrate on a few of his achievements in the environment portfolio. I think it is a very reasonable call to say that Senator Hill has been the best of the environment ministers from the current coalition government over the 10 years. In some respects, that probably is not saying that much because it is certainly an area where the overall performance of the government leaves a lot to be desired. But I think he made some quite significant achievements in that area that really should not be underrecognised. Senator Ian Campbell has not been in the portfolio long, so perhaps he might rise to the challenge.

Some of the reforms that Senator Hill pushed through as environment minister were significant ones. They have made a mark and will continue to make a mark for quite some period to come. That is not to say that there were not significant failings, of course. I think the biggest black mark, by a long way, was his failure as environment minister—and the failure of the government as a whole—to do very much of significance in the area of climate change and greenhouse. Indeed, it was Senator Hill as environment minister at the time who played a key role in undermining the development of a strong Kyoto protocol. He worked hard for Australia to get exemptions or special treatment in the way the Kyoto protocol was structured, and then, after that, the government went ahead and would not even ratify it. That area is certainly one that will not reflect well.

However, I want to point to some of Senator Hill’s other actions, particularly the passage of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act in 1999. That was quite a significant achievement. From where I sit in the political spectrum, you are always thinking that a minister might be doing something right in the environment if he is being criticised by many of his colleagues and by many in the National Party. Certainly some in the farming communities were apprehensive and remain apprehensive about the environment protection act. Having said that, I think the act in its final form was a great achievement. What is not such a good achievement is how the act has been administered since then. That is quite disappointing and there is a lot of room for improvement. It is a good reminder—and it is an example I often use—of how you can have very good laws but, unless you have a government or a minister with the will to implement them and administer them effectively, they are far less than they should be.

One of the key aspects of the act, which means it can still be used despite the negligence or reluctance on the part of the government of the day, is the fact that it allows others to have standing to take cases before the court. That was not able to be done before and it has been effective in a few areas. It is a shame that environment groups that have very few resources have had to take the initiative to take cases to court, using the federal environmental law to address actions that the federal government should be addressing. But at least that opportunity is now there; it was not there before. I certainly do not want to say the act is perfect as it stands, but it does provide a good foundation on which to build and significant scope for delivering much better environmental outcomes, if it is used to its full potential. That is the big if at the moment.

During the passage of that legislation in 1999, I think it is fair to say that it was very heavily amended, in effect by the Democrats. Although government amendments were tabled, they had been negotiated with the Democrats and, of course that was something that was controversial from the environment movement side of things. There were many in the environment groups who opposed it and some who quite strongly supported it and have sought to use it effectively since then. Indeed, one of the disappointing aspects was the very strong and, I believe, extremely unfair and unfounded attacks on the legislation at the time, and for quite a long period afterwards, by some in the environment movement. This has meant that some environment groups have not used the legislation as much as they could, because they have seen it is a negative. Even though it does have flaws, it is a significant advance on the law that was in place before. That negativity is slowing started to change.

One of the things I remember from the debate around the federal environment protection legislation in 1999—and I posted this on the internet recently—was that Senator Brown was sitting or standing virtually right beside me throughout the debate, and he was extremely unhappy and flinging all sorts of insults at the Democrats: we were the destroyers of the forests and the ones who were bringing in the chainsaws and the bulldozers and unleashing destruction on the environment on a scale that has never been seen before. He said this legislation was the death knell for the forests. The fact that there was never any legislative protection for the forests before did not seem to matter—the fact that it was not in this legislation was going to mean the death knell for the forests. It is ironic to see the same Senator Brown now, seven years later, using that legislation, undertaking a court case, to try and protect some forests in Tasmania. Let me say, I hope he is successful, in case people think I am being too critical. For legislation that was the death knell for the forests, with the Democrats being a bunch of pathetic poodles and all the other descriptions that we got at the time for allowing that legislation to pass, for that legislation now to be used to try and protect the forests, I think, must mean there has been a shift in attitude along the way. I hope that shift in attitude occurs with other environment groups.

Another of Senator Hill’s achievements that I was involved in, and that I would like to point out, which will definitely leave its mark for a long period of time—it might seem like a small thing, but I believe it was significant—was the establishment of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. This involved former Defence Force lands—some beautiful sights—Cockatoo Island amongst them, Chowder Bay and Georges Heights around Mosman, which are very historically significant, particularly Cockatoo Island. The original proposal put forward in that legislation was very poorly set up. It was an area where in working with Senator Hill over quite a long period—I think it was over a year from when it first started to when we finally reached agreement—we got legislation passed that was good legislation. It set out and ensured that what was meant to happen would happen.

The trust, I am very pleased to say, is working very well. I think it provides a model for how similar sorts of things could go in the future, including community involvement. Those lands will be available for the foreseeable future for generations to come—restored, available and accessible—which is a significant achievement. He was from Adelaide and I am from Brisbane, so helping Sydney Harbour is not something we always focused on. It is one thing that I had not heard anyone else mention and it deserves a specific mention as a key achievement of his.