Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Campbell, Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Is the minister aware of reports expressing concern about the future of a $700 million pulp mill project in South Australia because of fears for the endangered red-tailed black cockatoo? Has the project been referred to the Commonwealth under environmental protection law, meaning that an assessment will have to be made by the Commonwealth as to whether the pulp mill goes ahead? Hasn’t the minister, under media pressure, undermined these controls by telling the Australian last night that the project was likely to get federal approval?

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister now indicate whether, when assessing this project, he will apply the Bald Hills wind farm formula, where a major project was shut down because of a one in one thousand year risk of killing an orange-bellied parrot, or will the minister apply the Heemskirk wind farm formula, where a project was given the all clear, even though it was directly in the flight path of the very same orange-bellied parrot? Aren’t the minister’s key considerations in decision making political and not environmental?

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind senators that interjections are disorderly, but I also remind those asking questions that there are certain time limits, and that particular question was quite long.

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I have seen the reports in the press today about the pulp mill proposal. I made a statement last night because the reporting has been incredibly inaccurate. Because we have a very strong, internationally recognised environment law in this country of which we should all be proud, the Department of the Environment and Heritage receives about 300 referrals a year. The pulp mill one is one of 300, so we deal with these probably more than once a day. I was told by my department, when I touched down on returning from St Kitts yesterday afternoon, that this was an entirely routine referral, that it would most likely be dealt with on the documentation, as most of them are, that it would not require an environmental impact assessment statement, and that it would normally not even reach my desk. So it seems to me that people are beating this up.

In relation to the Bald Hills proposal, Labor seeks to misrepresent a report about this species, the orange-bellied parrot. There are only 50 breeding pairs left in the world. In fact, it is compared by the Victorian government on their own website to being as endangered as the panda or the Siberian tiger. The Victorian government has either stopped or relocated around a dozen projects as a consequence of that. That is the same Victorian government that stopped a wind farm proposal only 200 kilometres from Bald Hills because of threats to wedge-tailed eagles only nine months ago. We know that the Labor Party firstly have very poor credentials on the environment, and that their environmental policy has not changed in about a decade. They simply do not care about Australian native species, either at the federal level or the Victorian level. The Labor Party really needs to work a little bit harder on environmental policy.

Yes, we have a strong environmental law, but, in relation to this proposal for a pulp mill in Penola, my department advises me—and I correctly put that into the press overnight—that this is an entirely routine matter and one of about 300 we would receive every year. We obviously make sure that Australian wildlife are cared for and that approvals are given in a way that protects Australian wildlife. But we also balance that against the incredibly important role of the Australian government to create strong economic growth and to get fantastic, world-class environmental outcomes. Those outstanding environmental outcomes come from a government that not only manages the economy well but also delivers the best environmental outcomes this nation has ever seen, and from a government that spends more money on the environment and also enforces the environmental law in a way that previous governments could possibly only dream of.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the minister did not answer the specific questions, but I ask: don’t concerns about the Penola pulp mill show that the minister’s grossly political decision to block the Bald Hills wind farm, on the basis that one parrot might be threatened every thousand years or so, has created significant uncertainty for infrastructure investors? Can the minister guarantee that any decision about the Penola pulp mill will be made on the basis of a proper environmental assessment and not, as was the case with Bald Hills and Heemskirk wind farms, on the basis of political considerations? A guarantee, please, Minister.

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The decision at Bald Hills was not made because of a threat of one bird loss per one thousand years. That was in fact a Goebbelsian interpretation of the report by Biosis done by the Victorian government—the same Victorian government that stopped a wind farm last year 200 miles from Bald Hills because of a wedge-tailed eagle that was not even threatened. The risk to the orange-bellied parrot is that if you lose one every year you will wipe the species out. The Labor Party would like to see the orange-bellied parrot wiped out. We are very happy to protect Australian wildlife, but also to ensure that we have a strong economy.