Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5151, moved by Senator Carr.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Carr’s) be agreed to.

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

I move Democrats amendment (1) on sheet 5131:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 14), after item 67, insert:

67A After Subdivision F of Division 1 of Part 3

Insert:

Subdivision FA—Protection of the environment from greenhouse actions

24B Requirement for approval of greenhouse action

                   (i)    the action is not a controlled action; or

                  (ii)    the action is a controlled action but this section is not a controlling provision for the action.

24C What is a greenhouse action?

Subdivision FB—Protection of the environment from land clearance

24D Requirement for approval for land clearing

                   (i)    the action is not a controlled action; or

                  (ii)    the action is a controlled action but this section is not a controlling provision for the action.

24E What is a broadscale clearing action?

Subdivision FC—Protection of the environment—unsustainable water use

24F Requirement for approval for water use

                   (i)    the action is not a controlled action; or

                  (ii)    the action is a controlled action but this section is not a controlling provision for the action.

Subdivision FD—Protection of the environment from large dams

24G Requirement for approval for construction and operation of large dams

                   (i)    the action is not a controlled action; or

                  (ii)    the action is a controlled action but this section is not a controlling provision for the action.

24H What is a large dam?

In the interests of time, I shall make just a few brief comments. This amendment goes to issues similar to those we have talked about in the two previous bursts of debate on this bill. I think we have pretty much talked through those issues. Given that we are operating under a guillotine and we have less than two hours to go in the committee stage of the debate, I simply note that this is a somewhat stronger version of the amendment that has just gone down and seeks to take into account lifetime emissions rather than just emissions over a 12-month period. Given that there are other matters that we have not spent hours debating but that it would be useful for us to spend some time on, I will leave my comments there.

Question negatived.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5143:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 14), after item 67, insert:

67A After Subdivision F of Division 1 of Part 3

Insert:

Subdivision FA—Offences relating to greenhouse gas emissions

24B Offence relating to greenhouse gas emissions

This is an amendment to insert a greenhouse gas trigger that is equivalent to 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum. It would catch medium to large mining operations and other high energy users around the country who would have slipped in under the Labor Party’s 500,000-tonne trigger. It is consistent with what former Senator Hill and, in fact, the Prime Minister agreed to, back in 1999-2000; it just goes further than 500,000 tonnes and is a more stringent measure at 100,000 tonnes. It does not mean that such activities are prevented, but it does mean that those activities would trigger the environmental assessment and approvals process and, during that process, there would be an assessment of whether that project was consistent with the national target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This issue has been canvassed extensively over the last few hours as we have debated this bill, so I will leave my remarks there.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Milne’s) be agreed to.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Australian Greens amendment (2) on sheet 5143:

(2)    Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 14), after item 67, insert:

67B After section 24A

Insert:

Subdivision FB—Protection of the environment from land clearance

24c Requirement for approval for land clearing

                   (i)    the action is not a controlled action; or

                  (ii)    the action is a controlled action but this section is not a controlling provision for the action.

24E What is a broadscale clearing action?

Subdivision FC—Protection of the environment—water use

24F Requirement for approval for water use

                   (i)    the action is not a controlled action; or

                  (ii)    the action is a controlled action but this section is not a controlling provision for the action.

Subdivision FD—Protection of the environment from large dams

24G Requirement for approval for construction and operation of large dams

                   (i)    the action is not a controlled action; or

                  (ii)    the action is a controlled action but this section is not a controlling provision for the action.

24H What is a large dam?

This amendment relates to triggers for items of national environmental significance—land clearing, large dams and water resources. I will speak about all three triggers. The State of the environment report released yesterday highlighted the rate of clearing in Australia. It found that, between 2000 and 2004, 1.5 million hectares of forest were cleared across the continent and that it is often the case that the replacement vegetation, whether natural regeneration or planted trees, is not like the communities that were previously cleared. Undoubtedly, clearing of native vegetation is the largest cause of biodiversity loss. Australia still has an unenviable record globally of biodiversity loss.

I remind the Senate that 90 species in Australia are listed as threatened, and of concern at a regional level are 39 freshwater fish species, 92 frog species, 253 reptile species, 289 bird species and 209 mammal species. Unfortunately, it is not an enviable record. Globally, we are in the sixth mass extinction of biodiversity in the history of the earth, and it is the first to be driven by human activity. The main causes of diversity loss are habitat destruction and degradation, invasive plant and animal species, and unsustainable levels of harvesting. Habitat destruction and degradation are undoubtedly caused by land clearing.

We believe this needs to be an issue of national significance and that is why we are moving an amendment to insert in this bill a trigger to deal with this. We are also moving an amendment to insert a trigger on water. This issue is in the media every day. Australia is at the moment in a water crisis. This is as a result of drought, climate variation and, I believe, climate change. We believe we need to be regulating the impact of water extraction, because it is an issue of such national importance. We need to be addressing the significant issue of over-allocation around Australia. There are significant difficulties in regulating water across state boundaries. We have different controls in each state.

There is a very strong push to start looking at the development of the north. We are deeply concerned about what this means for our biodiversity and particularly for our water resources. Therefore, we believe there is a definite need to have very strict environmental controls in place before any further unsustainable development in the north occurs. That is another reason that we believe we should have a national trigger on the issue of water.

Just last night I was talking in this place about the dire threat to our wetlands in Australia, particularly our 64 Ramsar wetlands. I am aware that Ramsar is already an issue of national environmental significance, but there are issues around Ramsar, such as the regulation of water, that I believe should become issues of national environmental significance. Another issue that was highlighted in the State of the environment report was our unsustainable use of groundwater and the lack of appropriate regulation of groundwater. Unsustainable water use affects all jurisdictions across Australia. It is a key threat to many of our wetlands, which, as I was saying, are of national and international importance. We have the Gwydir wetlands, which I spoke about extensively last night, Macquarie Marshes and the Coorong. Just two weeks ago the Department of Environment and Heritage in South Australia put out a report highlighting the dire impacts on the Coorong wetland, another wetland of international importance. The Auditor-General in Western Australia has issued a fairly damning report about the management of wetlands there.

We have another amendment to do with the operation and construction of dams. Yet again dams are in the media. Australia has 447 large dams, with a combined capacity of 79,000 gigalitres. That is equivalent to 158 times the volume of Sydney Harbour. These hydrological modifications occur throughout Australia to varying degrees and we are deeply concerned they will have a potentially devastating impact on the Australian environment. We are already seeing the impact on the Australian environment of overallocation of our water resources. Surface water use across Australia is reported to increase annually by 69 per cent or 20,300 gigalitres.

We believe that making large dams an automatic trigger for this act will allow the minister to create much clearer guidelines on how dams are assessed. We believe that it will better enable the minister to assess the environmental impacts of dams. It will reduce uncertainty for proponents if they know that this particular project will be one that comes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Therefore, we believe it will ensure better environmental protection for our major rivers and their associated ecosystems.

Hopefully by having a water and a large dam trigger in the legislation we will also be able to better manage our riparian vegetation, which, yet again, according to the State of the environment report, is in a very degraded state and much in need of repair. At the moment it is not being fixed, although the excellent environmental management programs that many community organisations carry out are doing an extremely good job. Unfortunately, as is highlighted by the State of the environment report, the success of many of these projects is undermined and easily compromised by unsustainable large-scale land and water use patterns. It is those water use patterns that we in Australia need to get much better regulation and control of. That is why we believe it is very important that the federal government, particularly now, with such a strong focus on water, is provided with a national environment trigger so that it can act much more strongly and clearly to manage water and so that there is no uncertainty about its role and it can show much stronger leadership in the water debate. I will admit that it has made some moves to address the water issue. I personally, along with the Greens, do not think those moves have been vigorous enough or that they address the issues to the extent that is due. By making these issues major triggers we will be able to achieve that.

The biodiversity loss in Australia, both through land clearing and unsustainable land and water use practices, is a major problem—one that needs to be much more seriously addressed. By putting these triggers into the act, the federal government will be able to take much stronger action on these issues. I therefore commend this amendment to the chamber.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I back the amendment moved by Senator Siewert. I would like to briefly ask the minister about the Mary River dam proposed at Traveston Crossing near Gympie in Queensland. The matter has been referred to him for consideration under the act. What is not clear is whether the initial proposal for the dam is to be assessed or whether the potential for a higher dam is going to be the one that the minister looks at. In view of the fact that the Queensland government is making it very clear that it seriously intends if not to go ahead with the higher dam then to make sure there is no impediment to it going ahead in the future—for example, through the purchase of private lands—it would seem to be sensible that the minister consider the proposal as a whole and the impact of the much bigger dam on the Mary River system and the wider ecosystem that will be affected.

Would the minister give an outline of the threatened species and what the impact will be on them? It might be a bit early for this, but I can tell the chamber that my impression is that the impact on the Queensland lungfish, for example, which is internationally regarded as an important link between we vertebrates on land and the marine vertebrates from which we come, will be enormously detrimental. The major breeding grounds of this listed-as-endangered creature are parts of the gravel bottom of the Mary River, where it lays its eggs. The major extent of what is left of its breeding grounds will be suffocated under the dam. Critical to any creature’s survival is the area where it reproduces. There is grave concern about the Mary River turtle, as well as the Mary River cod and a number of other species. There are alternatives to the dam but there are no alternatives to them.

I know it is early days but I wonder if the minister could say over what period his consideration of the impact of this megaproposal will be. I want to know how long it will take and also what the process will be and what circumstances might lead him to decide that this proposal will have too great an impact on the nation’s heritage to allow it to go ahead.

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

Senator Brown is quite right: it is very early days. The Australian government will be taking a very close interest in the terms of reference and the entire process. We want to ensure that the process is done correctly on the first occasion. We do not want to see a repeat of the Meander dam process where the Commonwealth forced the Tasmanian government to go back through another entire 12-month process. We want to make sure that the community are confident that the bilateral agreement will work properly as to all of the issues that are quite properly the purview of the Australian government under this legislation, which Senator Bartlett has most eloquently described as a very powerful piece of environmental legislation—one that the Greens opposed in the past but that was supported by the Democrats.

This legislation does give the Commonwealth power to ensure that those nationally listed species that Senator Brown has referred to can be afforded very high levels of protection. He has mentioned the lungfish and the Mary River cod. Ramsar listed wetlands are also likely to be affected by the construction of this very large dam proposed by the Queensland government. There are also likely to be impacts right across what I believe are called the Great Sandy Straits—that is from my vague memory of geography in my early days in Queensland—and into the western side of Fraser Island, which is obviously a very important World Heritage area that was listed by the coincidentally named Fraser government.

The process will be thorough. Whether there is an assessment of the part A proposal for the dam not fully filled or whether the assessment will be on the impacts of the dam’s second stage proposal when the dam is full to the brim, is potentially a moot point. The assessment will have to look at the indirect impacts, and it is quite clear to me even at this early stage—and I do not want to seek to pre-empt the process; I want to give some general comments—that it is quite likely that because of the way the law is framed we would have to look at the impacts of the dam when it is full to the brim regardless. So I think those impacts will have to be assessed.

I think the assessment process could possibly take some years. This is a very complex process. I will check, Senator Brown. I have just been advised by my adviser that we would not expect a decision on this until around mid-2008, so it will be a detailed and comprehensive process. I have given undertakings to a range of concerned citizens in that area. Just the proposal for the dam has already had a massive social impact. I have had a constant stream of concerned Queenslanders and their representatives through my doors over recent weeks, including Warren Truss and Senators Ian Macdonald, Brandis, Trood, Santoro and Joyce. To his credit, Senator Bartlett has taken a very close interest in this proposal. He has been in my office at least twice, going through the process and having himself briefed on it. This is a very big proposal by the Queensland government and its impacts on those matters of national environmental significance will be thoroughly and comprehensively examined, and I want to make sure that the community members involved feel that the process is robust and that they have a strong voice in that process.

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

I want to indicate, not surprisingly, the Democrats’ support for this amendment. I think it is identical in large part to the ones that were circulated under my name. I will throw one question in at the start, before I make general comments on the amendment, that goes to what the minister has just said. As I think he would be aware, there has already been a lot of activity in the area affected by the Traveston dam, with a fair bit of pressure, quite frankly, being put on local people to sell to the Queensland government. My understanding is that this amendment from what might loosely be called the positive pile, at least from my point of view, makes it clearer that it is inappropriate for action to start on a project until it has been fully assessed by the federal minister. Obviously, that would mean not putting in the bulldozers and not laying the concrete and that sort of thing. I wonder whether there is any wider application of that for action in the broader sense, such as clearing out people, which I think is a bit problematic given some of the trauma that Senator Ian Campbell has rightly identified. I ask if he could give any view on whether those sorts of things are covered in any general way by legislation, either current or pending.

I go to the amendment. As was mentioned by Senator Siewert, the State of the environment report, which was released and tabled yesterday and which Senator Campbell has spoken about and pointed to in the media, included an assessment of the EPBC Act. I noted that the report recognised and acknowledged that the EPBC Act has made an important contribution to environmental protection in Australia during its first five years of operation.

I also note that, in the full report that was done for the committee putting together the State of the environment report, a review was put together by Chris McGrath, a barrister who, as the minister would probably know, has sought to use the EPBC Act a number of times. As I said in my comments in the second reading debate, I think it is a shame that the perhaps unintended consequence of some of the controversy in the environmental movement when the bill was first passed is that some within the environmental movement have not sought to use the act as much as they could have to try to generate positive outcomes, as some people who have, including Chris McGrath, have managed to have some success.

The review that Chris McGrath did for the state of the environment committee concluded not just that the EPBC Act had made an important contribution but also that the absence of a trigger for greenhouse emissions was a very significant gap in the regulatory framework of the matters of national environmental significance. I know we have already dealt with that matter, but I wanted to point to that because, when this legislation was first brought into being in 1999 and the government at the time made promises to go down the path of developing a climate change trigger, that was because the Democrats saw at the time that this was a major issue that needed a lot greater scrutiny and needed to be reflected in our national environmental framework. I note Senator Campbell’s point from the last time we debated this that it was the state Labor governments that were opposed to that being adopted. That is a fair enough point to make, but it was in reflection of the fact that climate change seven years ago—or even well before seven years ago, but in the framework of this much more powerful environmental law that was being put in place—had an appropriate role to play. I think the review that was done for the state of the environment committee recognises that.

I make that point because it is quite clear, particularly with regard to water issues that are covered by the amendment from Senator Siewert relating to water use and large dams, that this is an issue that we all know now is crucial for the nation. The issue of unsustainable water use—to use the heading that was in the Democrat amendments—is an issue that we think ought to have more of a national focus. I know there has been a lot of debate backwards and forwards, particularly by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, about the greater role that the Commonwealth could have. A lot of that at the moment is outside the legislative framework; it is managed through things like the National Water Initiative and some sticks and carrots such as the potential dangling of money and trying to get agreements in meetings. Quite frankly, whilst that is an ideal goal, I do not think it has generated anywhere near as much progress as should have occurred. Putting in place a trigger on unsustainable water use and major infrastructure projects like large dams would clearly be an appropriate legislative measure to give the Commonwealth a role to play. That is why I think it is very timely.

Land clearing is an area where there has been some progress in recent years, but it is progress that has not been as complete as it could have been, and in some of the states it is not as reliable as it needs to be. We need to have much more certainty that backsliding will not occur in that area. Again, I think there is an important role that the Commonwealth could play that was identified by that review, along with climate change as another key major national environmental issue. Land clearing links into climate change, of course, as land clearing is a major emitter of greenhouse gases. But, because it is clearly such a major national issue and because of the success we have had, including in my state of Queensland, Australia has done much better than it would have in meeting its Kyoto targets. I think there is clearly logical consistency here. This is not just a grab of any issue that the Democrats or Greens think would look good to pack into the act for the sake of it. They are clearly central issues of national environmental significance, as is appropriate under this act.

I think the amendment has a lot of merits. In the example of the Traveston Dam, which Senator Brown raised, it has been made clear that that already triggers the act because of matters like endangered species, world heritage, Ramsar wetlands and migratory birds. They are consequential effects, if you like. The minister, as you know, is trying to assess it in terms of whether or not it is a viable piece of water infrastructure. That becomes a bigger issue, with the other dam in south-east Queensland: the Wivenhoe dam, which will obviously still have some environmental impacts, particularly downstream, going into the Moreton Bay Marine Park and some of the Ramsar wetlands around there. Assessing that on its own merits is something that, given the state of water policy in Australia and the lack of progress, is appropriate and I think it is clearly a matter of national environmental significance. That is why it is appropriate for it to be put forward by both the Greens and the Democrats.

I say in conclusion that it is based upon proposals put forward by groups that have sought to work constructively with the act as it stands—that is, the Environmental Defenders Office and groups like WWF, HSI and the Tasmanian Conservation Trust. These groups have sought to engage constructively with the act. They are not just throwing up a wish list. They are positive amendments. They are groups which seek to use the act in conjunction with other constructive campaigns that they are running. WWF has been playing a significant role in trying to find more constructive solutions for water policy issues, for example. So, there is a lot of merit to the amendment. I know we are under a guillotine so I will cease talking now but I think that it needs to be put on the record, even briefly, that the amendments have merit and would further strengthen what, as Senator Campbell has said, is a piece of strong environment law. That is why the Democrats put them forward and why we support the amendment, as moved by Senator Siewert.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his contribution. I just have one further brief question. One of the problems with the Meander Dam proposal in Tasmania was that all the information was not there, available for people from both sides who were concerned about it, to see as it went down the line. I think that led to the unnecessary delays that the minister is talking about. I wonder if he could give an assurance that that will not happen with the Traveston Dam and other proposals, but that there will be transparency of information available to the minister, as it comes to him, so that the public—whichever side of that debate they may be on—can, with knowledge, feed into the process as it goes along.

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

One of the things we insisted on in the second part of the Meander Dam process was that all of that information be made public. That is one of the things that this bill allows me to do as federal minister. I know this contradicts some of the outrageous claims that this amendment bill we are debating tonight weakens the act. I think it makes the act a lot more effective, and in many parts strengthens it, but before the night is out we will be inserting—all going well—a new provision that will give me a quite explicit power under section 132. That section currently creates provisions that give the minister power to seek further information for approval decision, but we are adding a new part D3, which gives the minister the power to seek further information if the relevant impacts of the action have been assessed under a law of the state or territory, and the appropriate minister of that state or territory. So, basically, it gives a quite explicit power to the Commonwealth minister to demand that information from the state. We will be making sure that all of that information is made public so it is a transparent process that the community can be involved in.

I will very quickly respond to the details of the amendment about the insertion of a water trigger and a land clearance trigger. The State of the environment report gives us some very positive news in relation to land clearance. I am sure many of us would like to see even better results but I commend the graph on page 71 to anyone who is listening and who cares about the environment. You can go to the DEH website and follow the links to the SOE. If you go to page 71 you will find that, back in the seventies, Australia was clearing up to 550,000 or 560,000 hectares, in net terms, a year—that is the difference between the amount of forests destroyed and the amount of forests replanted. By about the nineties that figure was hovering around 250,000 and possibly up to 300,000 hectares a year net loss of forest, and hovered around those figures right through to about the end of the 1990s.

The great news in this report is that—and the data has not been put in for post-2004—in 2003 we very nearly hit break-even in Australia. In fact, we are looking like planting more trees than we are chopping down, for the first time since white settlement. So that is a good achievement, and it is a cooperative achievement, I think it should be pointed out, between the activities and policies of the state governments and the federal government. It shows a very useful trend.

On my latest mathematics it looks as though the combined policies of the Natural Heritage Trust, the National Action Plan on Salinity and Water Quality, the 2020 plantation vision and some other measures, have seen us plant, over the last 10 years, in excess of 900 million trees in Australia. We are on track to plant one billion trees, and if I can get my mathematics and calculations close enough I hope to go somewhere and plant the billionth tree, probably some time early next year.

I will be as brief as I can because there are other amendments that senators will want to talk about. This underpins the fact that the cooperation between the state and federal governments, the EPBC Act, and a range of other policy measures—including, for example, the Tasmanian private forest initiative, which I will launch in Tasmania, to purchase 45,000 hectares of forests on private land, with a large proportion of old growth—are more sensible and effective ways of protecting Australia’s forest cover, protecting our biodiversity and reversing land clearing.

Similarly, in relation to the water trigger, although we get very frustrated at the lack of progress from time to time, the government are committed to working cooperatively with the states on water policy. We have backed that up, not only with vigorous action and leadership by the Prime Minister—and more lately by the Parliamentary Secretary with special responsibility for water, Mr Turnbull—but with some $700 million just in the Murray-Darling Basin alone, through the Living Murray initiative; an extra $500,000 for works given to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission in the last budget; and the $2 billion water fund, which creates incentives for the states to put in place a range of measures.

We think that cooperative approach is the best way to go. There have of course been threats made about the Commonwealth taking over control of water, from both sides of politics I think it is fair to say. But my strong view is that a cooperative federalist approach is desirable. That is not to say that the Commonwealth would rule out seeking to go further if we were not able to make the sort of progress that the government would want. So I am not going to denigrate the proposal of a water trigger outright. I think it is the sort of thing that the Commonwealth would keep in its policy back pocket, to be quite frank. But we think that in a federation where the states have primary responsibility for water resources—quite properly, I would say—a cooperative approach is the best. But we do recognise that water does not respect state boundaries—particularly the water in the Murray-Darling system, which crosses four states and one territory—and that getting that cooperative federalist approach right is very important.

The issues at stake are huge for Australia, and the Commonwealth could never rule out using a blunter legislative and constitutional instrument some time in the future. But we have committed and re-committed to a cooperative federalist approach, working with the states. I think that, although we do not believe we have made good enough progress to date, there are already some signs that that approach can bear fruit for the environmental and ecosystem outcomes we are seeking and, also importantly, for sustainable agriculture.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a number of points but I would also like to ask a few questions. The first point is that planting trees does not necessarily replace biodiversity. I remind the chamber of the comments from the State of the environment report where it says:

It is often the case that the replacement vegetation, whether natural regeneration or planted trees, is not like the communities that were previously cleared.

I would like to know the percentage of regrowth or trees that were planted that replaced a fully functional ecosystem and whether there is any data on how many hectares of fully functioning ecosystems were replaced.

I would also like to draw the Senate’s attention to the fact that there is a big push, as is well known in this place, to develop the north. In fact, in my own home state of Western Australia—and the development also extends into the Northern Territory—there is Ord stage 2, which will lead to the clearing of a large amount of native vegetation. And if certain senators from the government have their way, and do start the push for developing the north, there are likely to be other areas in the north. I believe very strongly that the federal government needs a strong trigger with which to assess that. I believe that is an issue of national environmental significance.

I also understand that there is a lot of ongoing clearing of native vegetation in Tasmania. I would like to ask the minister what the government is doing about addressing the continuing land clearing in Tasmania.

I also understand that for part of the national water fund the funding is not necessarily tied to outcomes. I have some concerns that there is in fact a wonderful tool there that the government has at its fingertips and that it could be using to a fuller extent. I would like to see that more closely tied to some better outcomes.

I also have a couple of questions about the Mary River dam. I think there is still some confusion in Queensland about whether the public will get to see the state government’s environmental review before it is handed over to the federal government. I understand that is because it is classed as a project of state significance. I am asking whether that will occur.

Secondly, I am pleased to see that the government and the minister will be able to ask for additional material. I am wondering whether, on the Mary River dam proposal, the government will be asking Queensland to justify the dam and whether they will be requiring the state to produce the water figures and their calculations on water prior to making any further decisions. Are they able to, and will they be doing it?

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

If those figures are relevant, we would do. The guidelines, the terms of reference and the draft EIS for the Mary River dam proposal at Traverston Crossing will all be made public and the public will be allowed to comment on them—and, in relation to the draft EIS, before it comes to me.

Question negatived.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (3) standing in my name:

(3)    Schedule 1, item 85, page 20 (line 32) to page 21 (line 1), TO BE OPPOSED.

This is an amendment to restore the five-yearly review of matters of national environmental significance to ensure that the EPBC Act evolves to consider new triggers or environmental protections. This is a principle that Robert Hill, a former environment minister, understood. He proposed that such a process of evolution be built into the environmental protection legislation of this country. He put this view with regard to additional triggers and the EPBC Act in his discussion papers where he said:

We will be evolving a situation reflecting community attitudes and what really is the best and most appropriate mix at the time.

So in fact the act provides for a five-yearly review to assess the needs of any new matters of national environmental significance and the key environmental challenges that trigger the act. The most recent review was undertaken in April 2005. I have asked the minister on a previous occasion where the published report of that review is. I have yet to get a satisfactory answer. As we can see by the amendments before the chamber, no new triggers have been added. The opposition maintains the view that, because of the failure to publish the results of the review, the minister has failed in his legislative obligations under the act. We take the view that section 28A is explicit:

Every 5 years after the commencement of this Act, the Minister must cause a report to be prepared on whether this Part—

that is, matters of national environmental significance—

should be amended ...

It goes on to say:

(4) Before the preparation of the report is completed, the Minister must cause to be published in accordance with the regulations (if any):

(a)

a draft of the report; and

(b)

an invitation to comment on the draft within the period specified by the minister.

It is our view that that has not occurred. I take the view that the minister is in breach of his own legislation. So far what we have had is that the minister is seeking to repeal this section of the legislation. It is his response to his current breach of the act. The opposition takes the view that it reflects the arrogance of the government and the incompetence of the minister and ought to be addressed by an amendment such as this. I trust that this will be supported by at least sections of this government.

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

I make the point that we have had three potential triggers put before the Senate tonight. In fact, we have had more than that, if you add them up. Actually we have had six potential triggers put before the parliament tonight, and Labor supported one of them.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two—two of our own amendments.

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

It must have been two out of seven, then. The government agreed with Labor on all but those two, so through our own processes we came to similar decisions. It is open to the government, or any government, to seek to put new triggers into the act. I have already said that we would not rule out looking at a water trigger at some time if a cooperative federalist approach fails to address Australia’s water needs. That would be one of the policy options that we would not rule out.

But you do not need a five-yearly review to tell you to do that. You need to have the sort of approach that the Howard government has, and that is to look at the needs, look at the effectiveness and do things like having a robust independent State of the environment report done to guide you in your policy decision making. If you make a decision that you want to put in a new trigger, then you bring the matter to the parliament without the need for yet another piece of red tape.

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

I want to put on record that the Democrats share the Labor Party’s concern. Again, the State of the environment report noted that the EPBC Act, as it stands, has improved public accountability and access to information. I do not think that the section the bill seeks to remove—the requirement for a report every five years about possible additions to matters of national environmental significance—is a piece of red tape. I think it is a useful accountability mechanism. It might be one that the government and the minister have not chosen to follow, which I think is a bit disappointing, but that is no reason to get rid of it. For that reason, I believe it is better to retain it as the Labor amendment seeks to do.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to indicate that the Greens will also be supporting this amendment.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that item 85 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1), (2) and (6) on sheet 5156 and (1) and (2) on sheet 5159:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 122, page 32 (line 14), at the end of section 37J, add:

           ; (e)    a nuclear waste dump containing nuclear materials other than nuclear waste of Australian origin or obligation;

              (f)    transportation of nuclear materials other than nuclear waste of Australian origin or obligation;

             (g)    uranium mining or processing facilities.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 318, page 101 (line 21), at the end of section 146M, add:

           ; (e)    a nuclear waste dump containing nuclear materials other than nuclear waste of Australian origin or obligation;

              (f)    transportation of nuclear materials other than nuclear waste of Australian origin or obligation;

             (g)    uranium mining or processing facilities.

(6)    Schedule 1, item 537, page 186 (after line 16), at the end of paragraph 305(2)(d), add:

                  (v)    a nuclear waste dump containing nuclear materials other than nuclear waste of Australian origin or obligation;

                 (vi)    transportation of nuclear materials other than nuclear waste of Australian origin or obligation;

                (vii)    uranium mining or processing facilities;

(1)    Schedule 1, page 27 (after line 5), after item 118, insert:

118A After section 34F

Insert:

                  (v)    a nuclear waste dump containing nuclear materials other than nuclear waste of Australian origin or obligation;

                 (vi)    transportation of nuclear materials other than nuclear waste of Australian origin or obligation;

                (vii)    uranium mining or processing facilities;

34G Declarations relating to nuclear actions

In moving these amendments I will explain their effect. The EPBC Act 1999 currently prevents the minister from approving certain nuclear installations—in particular, fuel fabrication plants, enrichment plants, nuclear power plants and reprocessing plants. However, other nuclear activities fall under the assessment and approval processes of the act as it currently stands. Nuclear activities, such as new uranium mines, nuclear waste dumps and transporting spent nuclear fuel, are examples of nuclear actions that come under the assessment and approval process. If the assessment finds that, for example, a nuclear waste dump will, or is likely to, have a significant impact on the environment, the act does not allow the minister to approve it.

The amendments that the government brought before the House changed that, and the amendments I am moving here tonight close the loopholes which could prevent uranium mines, nuclear waste dumps and nuclear transport facilities from being assessed if they occur in the context of bioregional plans, in the context of strategic assessments, in the context of conservation agreements, in the context of declarations made under section 33, in the context of the minister saying that it was approved by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency and in the context of a bilateral agreement, which, as it currently stands, could include a declaration that a nuclear action does not require approval under part 9 for the purposes of sections 21 or 22A.

The amendments I am moving tonight move to close those loopholes so that the minister cannot avoid assessing nuclear activities—new uranium mines, nuclear waste dumps and transporting spent fuel—under the act. The reason I am concerned that the Commonwealth may consider doing that is that we have had several pieces of legislation before the House recently making way for a huge expansion in nuclear activity.

There was the ANSTO bill before the house, which allows ANSTO to handle nuclear waste that is from overseas and not generated in Australia. There was the radioactive waste dump bill, which took away procedural fairness and judicial review from traditional owners and anybody else who might have wanted to go through a proper process of consultation and to object. Then there was the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommending Australia go straight ahead with exporting hugely increased amounts of uranium to China in spite of the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency is completely underfunded, as is the safeguards process. Then there was the report of the Prime Minister’s task force advocating a massive expansion in nuclear facilities, including nuclear power plants, but of course particularly highlighting new uranium mines and waste dumps.

Then there was the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources, which was supported by three Labor members: Mr Martin Ferguson, Mr Dick Adams, who represents Lyons in the state of Tasmania, and Mr Michael Hatton, who is the Labor Deputy Chair of that committee. They signed off on a recommendation that the Australian government minister, through the Council of Australian Governments and other means, encourage state governments to reconsider their opposition to uranium mining and to abolish legislative restrictions on uranium and thorium mining and exploration where these exist. Also, those Labor people signed off on a recommendation that the Australian government, again through the Council of Australian Governments, seek to remedy the impediments to the development of the uranium industry. They listed there that the government should specifically develop uniform and minimum effective regulation for uranium exploration and mining across all states and territories. They also disgracefully moved to ensure that processes associated with issues such as land access and native title assessments, approvals and reporting are streamlined. They have called for minimisation of duplication of regulation across levels of government, addressing of labour shortages and, finally, addressing of transportation impediments, particularly issues associated with denial of shipping services.

Everything points to a government push—with Labor support, if Mr Martin Ferguson, Mr Dick Adams and Mr Michael Hatton have anything to do with it—for expanded uranium mining, expanded nuclear facilities around the country and for minimising and getting rid of any legislative restrictions or impediments. On that basis, I think it is critical that we close the loopholes in the amendments the government has put forward. I am seeking to close those loopholes so that new uranium mines, nuclear waste dumps and nuclear transport facilities will have to be assessed under the environment protection legislation in this country.

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

I will put it simply and shortly: there are no loopholes. All of those matters will have to be assessed. They cannot be assessed under the bioregional plans or strategic assessment provisions. The act as it stands ensures that we have very high quality assessments for all actions relating to the mining, waste and transportation of uranium. These amendments are entirely unnecessary; the law is very strong as it stands.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the minister putting that on the record. I think that any analysis of this legislation will show that, whilst currently the minister cannot approve the fabrication plants, enrichment plants, power plants and reprocessing plants, all those other activities are required under the act. The bioregional plans make it quite clear that that is a mechanism by which the minister can make a declaration that a uranium mine is in accordance with a bioregional plan and therefore does not require approval under part 9 of the act. The same goes for strategic assessments and conservation agreements. I appreciate the minister saying in here that the legislation clearly does not contain those loopholes. On that basis, he will not have any problem supporting these amendments, which make it absolutely clear that those activities cannot be exempted by the minister by any process or declaration from being assessed under the act.

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

I will just make a clarification. Although those matters could be dealt with under a bioregional plan, that would not alleviate the need to have those matters assessed. We could not approve the bioregional plan unless those matters were assessed.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Siewert’s) be agreed to.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (3) on sheet 5143:

(3)    Schedule 1, page 33 (after line 29), after item 122, insert:

122A Division 4

Repeal the Division.

This amendment removes all references to the regional forest agreement in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and, in effect, brings forests back into Australia’s environment as if they mattered. The forests of Australia which are being logged have been removed from national environmental legislation. It is the greatest environmental travesty by parliamentary process, by government edict, that I know of anywhere in Australia. This amendment would mean that forestry operations around Australia would come under the same federal legislation, as do all other components of our national biosphere.

Question put.

Question negatived.

The Greens oppose item 189 in schedule 1 in the following terms:

(4)    Schedule 1, item 189, page 51 (lines 16 to 34), TO BE OPPOSED.

I note on the last amendment that there was silence except for the opposition of the government so I am hoping that means the opposition may have supported it. I will move onto this amendment. The Greens are opposing item 189. When you go to the explanatory memorandum at page 30 clause 82 it says that this is:

... to clarify that in making a controlled action decision—

the minister is making that decision, of course—

in relation to proposed developments, such as, a factory which will use timber from as RFA region, the Minister must not consider any adverse impacts of any RFA forestry operation ...

That is, in effect, a pulp mill exemption provision. This is a specific provision in the act to exempt Gunns’s pulp mill from proper environmental assessment. It is the Howard government’s Gunns’s pulp mill absolution clause. What it means is that the minister will effectively be prevented from looking at the impact of the proposed mega pulp mill on the Tamar River that Gunns has now effectively got state government approval for, insofar as the impact that pulp mill will have on Tasmania’s native forests and forests generally, high conservation value and old-growth forests, for decades to come.

This is an extraordinary provision. It would in future extend to other forms of wood processing, including forest furnaces—and there are proposals for three of those by the Labor government in Tasmania. These will enable forests, including high conservation value forests, to be fed into furnaces to be turned into electricity and fed through Basslink to the mainland to be sold as premium power.

So what we have there is the potential for conversion of high conservation value forests into so-called green power under federal legislation. It is a total travesty of the English language as well as of environmental probity and honesty. I ask the minister: is it a fact that this amendment will protect Gunns’s pulp mill from an assessment by him of the enormous impact—any impact at all—that there will be on Tasmania’s forests over the coming decade as they are fed into that pulp mill?

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

The answer is no because I have already made a controlled action decision in relation to that pulp mill. So the assertion by Senator Brown is absolutely and patently false.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the minister then, if it is ‘absurd and patently false’: will he be doing an assessment of the impact of the pulp mill on Tasmania’s forests and wildlife?

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

The forests are subject to an RFA and therefore subject to the laws that relate to the RFA. But in terms of wildlife, if there are impacts on wildlife then yes.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has said if there are impacts on wildlife—that includes in an RFA area—he will be doing an assessment. I ask him: will he confirm that to the committee? I am good at reading headshaking—and he has been advised that, no, he will not confirm that and he has been advised that, no, he will not be doing that assessment. Because what the minister knows is that the forests of Tasmania are in regional forest agreement areas. They were signed over to destruction by the Prime Minister’s signature in November 1997. We have now got to the horrendous situation where, as Senator Milne made clear in question time today, ammonium nitrate explosives are being used—the very thing that is being banned, because of terrorism, in this country except under licence. They are being licensed under the authority of the Prime Minister effectively through the regional forest agreement to blow up the biggest trees in the Southern Hemisphere such as those in the Styx Valley and the World Heritage value Upper Florentine Valley.

Here we have a pulp mill which is going, for two decades or more, to continue to erode the national estate and potentially World Heritage value forests of north-east Tasmania. The minister has every right to be hanging his head because he knows that this amendment is to make abundantly clear that he cannot do an assessment of those forests under a regional forest agreement and, therefore, the wildlife in those forests under a regional forest agreement.

I will go to one species that he knows very well—that is, the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle. Forestry Tasmania itself, with Melbourne university, has done a study of this exact area in north-east Tasmania—the Bass component of Tasmanian forestry operations—which will be the resource for Gunns’s proposed pulp mill. Those studying it found that it has a 65 per cent chance of going to extinction. This is one of the world’s six biggest raptors or eagles. It is bigger than the mainland variety. If Gunns’s logging proceeds—and this pulp mill will make sure of it, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate—that 65 per cent chance of extinction becomes a 99 per cent chance of extinction. The wedge-tailed eagle has had it. Make no mistake about this, what we are voting on here is the destruction of species in this great nation of ours through the unnecessary logging of what is left of our native forest estate in a country which has 1½ million hectares of plantations and does not need to cut native forests to provide wood for building, paper or whatever it might be. And this government knows it.

This government, through this particular amendment, is saying: ‘We will not allow ourselves to—we want the parliament to ensure that we cannot—look at the forests in assessing that pulp mill or the forest furnaces which are coming down the line.’ The State of the environment report, which was produced by the minister yesterday, was scathing on the loss of biodiversity in this country which continues to grow—that is, on the species going to extinction in this nation when that should have been stopped long ago. And here we have a minister for the environment in a government which is deliberately legislating to destroy ancient ecosystems upon which species, from the great wedge-tail of Tasmania down to minute species within the firmament of the forest, depend—legislating to destroy their habitat, destroy their creation, destroy their existence on this planet. Can you believe it?

You, as this government, are concocting a situation where you are legislating to put blinkers on to blind yourselves to this deliberate destruction of what is left of the fastness of creatures which make this country, which are the essence of this country. You are legislating knowing that, by doing so, you are going to send them to destruction for a Gunns pulp mill. You are legislating that you cannot look at that process, knowing that we are in a period of unprecedented extinction of species due to human activity. This government is legislating to prevent interference in that extinction process which has been signed into law by the regional forest agreement by Prime Minister Howard.

Then along comes the Stern report which says, ‘Go from the environmental aspect and look at the economic aspect.’ When you do the figures, you will find that we are getting paid $10 or $15 a tonne by Gunns for what they take out of the forest; the huge amount they leave there they pay nothing for. Yet under a carbon trading system—which we are told, and we know, the world is going to have, and which even the Prime Minister assents to now—those forests would be worth two, three or four times that amount if left standing. So you would send them to destruction now when, in a decade or two, standing, they would be worth four times as much, and you would still have the biological amenity and the safety for species they provide, and all the economic activity which would come out of tourists wanting to visit what is left of real wild forests on the planet.

I went for a walk the other morning—a beautiful sunny Saturday morning—with a little tourist operator from St Helens, into the Blue Tier, into a coupe to be targeted by Gunns in the next few months. It was sensational: huge Antarctic ferns, centuries old—some nudging a millennium old. And at the end of this 20-minute walk, which would delight the heart of anybody on the planet, we came to the Big Tree. It has a cave inside it. You walk in one side, it opens out like a small ballroom and you can walk out the other side. It is 19 or 20 metres in circumference at shoulder level around the base. And do you know, fellow senators, what they are going to do with that, in the next few months—possibly before we come back here? They are going to get another mixture of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil and blow it up. And this minister is legislating so that he cannot look at that, and so that Gunns can continue to do that and then feed it into their pulp mill. I get a little of the feeling for the environment that legislators must have felt in other parliaments for wicked things that have happened to human beings in the past.

So: we have 15 minutes left in this debate before it is guillotined. I will sit down. I will let it go. This minister has sat on his hands. He is not even going to look at those forests; this government will not. This Prime Minister has knowingly wiped his hands, like Pontius Pilate, of what is about to befall, is befalling and will befall the forest heritage of this nation and the world, and all the creatures that live in it. It is appalling beyond words. And it is all so unnecessary. Yet here we have legislation to say not only that the minister should not look at it, but that he cannot. This is a straitjacket of the government’s own introduction through law. Can you believe it?

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

I will be very brief, because I cannot allow what Senator Brown has said to stand on the record. Senator Brown knows, but he will not tell you, that the regional forest agreement that was struck between the Commonwealth and Tasmania in November 1997 followed one of the most extensive consultation processes and processes of identifying biodiversity to make sure that the forests had a balance of protection of biodiversity put in place with a long-term and secure resource security arrangement. The regional forest agreements across Australia, struck between the Commonwealth and the states of varying political persuasions, ensure that each of those forest areas achieve a comprehensive, adequate and representative cross-section of the ecosystem types within those forests. So all of that work has been done. All of those ecosystems have been protected.

It is interesting that Senator Brown would have the audacity to mislead about a document—which is available, because I released it yesterday—prepared by Professor Bob Beeton and an eminent group of scientists, ecologists and statisticians on the state of Australia’s environment. It is a phenomenal document, independently assessing just where we are. It is a five-yearly report, an audit and a checklist on where we are. And Senator Brown said it is scathing in what it says about Australia’s biodiversity loss. What does Professor Beeton’s committee say about the regional forest agreements at page 44? He says, and his committee says:

The regional forest agreements have also been important in conserving forest values.

He goes on to say:

The result of the 2005 Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement—

which builds on those RFAs—

is that more than 156 000 hectares of forest were added to formal and informal reserves and, of that, some 121 000 hectares were old growth forest.

So he hides all of those facts. He hides the fact that under this government we have protected Tasmanian forests and, as a result of the election commitments made by the Prime Minister at the last election, diligently applied, we see the Tarkine forest protected. I remember talking to the Pullinger family down there in November, just after the election. I said to the Tarkine coalition, ‘What would be a good result in terms of protecting the Tarkine?’ And they said: ‘Look, 50,000 hectares would be a reasonable outcome—a bronze medal sort of outcome. Sixty thousand hectares would be a silver medal outcome; 70,000 hectares would be a gold medal outcome.’ And we were able to achieve 72½ thousand hectares of the Tarkine being protected in perpetuity, locked away forever so that future generations of Australians and people from around the world can do as Senator Brown did last weekend and walk through those magnificent forests and enjoy those values.

So under the RFA in Tasmania the forests have that sort of protection. Where the wildlife and other nationally significant species occur, of course they will have to be assessed under the process. I think Senator Brown knowingly misleads in relation to this process. We have a strong law that ensures that these sorts of proposals are assessed, and we also have good policies in place that are protecting and preserving biodiversity in forests across Australia in a way that has never been done before.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to seek some clarity from the minister. I heard him say earlier that the pulp mill was going to be assessed by the minister, that it was a controlled action and that the species in forests that will be fed to the pulp mill will be under assessment. But I understand, looking at the transitional provisions, that this legislation will apply retrospectively so that the pulp mill will in fact be exempted. So I would like absolute clarity on whether these retrospective provisions are going to exempt the pulp mill. Secondly, the RPDC assessment in Tasmania specifically excludes the assessment of the forests and there were complete lies told by Gunns in relation to the forests. They said initially that is was going to be plantation based but now it is to be native forest based, and they want access to native forest for 30 years for this pulp mill. Thirty years: that is a minimum of 2½ million tonnes a year for 30 years out of native forests in Tasmania.

I would like the minister to tell the House whether the transitional provisions in this legislation will be retrospectively applied to the pulp mill. Secondly, will he spell out to the House the process by which he as the federal minister is going to assess the environmental impacts of the feedstock to the pulp mill? How is he going to assess it? What is the process?

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

These provisions do not apply retrospectively. I made quite clear statements about the assessment of impacts on wildlife. It is quite clear that within RFA forests they are covered by the RFA provisions. Any nationally significant wildlife outside those RFA areas that are affected by the proposal will be assessed under the law.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, there you have it. The forests that we are talking about are all inside the RFA process, and there will be no assessment of the wildlife or the forests as far as this destructive pulp mill is concerned. The minister had his head on the desk—I do not blame him. It is an appalling process against this nation by this government. The Prime Minister drives this process. He signed the regional forest agreement. He, with the logging industry, is behind the writing of this component of the legislation.

As the minister knows, I have taken action on Wielangta in the Federal Court against the destruction of species there in south-east Tasmania. The swift parrot is one species that has just returned to the state, in much depleted numbers from its former range. And the proposal is to log the heartland of its breeding in Wielangta. The minister was talking about the forests, but we all know—schoolkids know—that when you cut these forests down he can go and celebrate planting his billionth tree, but those trees are not providing habitat. They are not old enough; they do not grow to the age. Gunns is never going to let them grow to the age; it wants to cut them down again. They need to live 100 years before their branches drop out and the swift parrots, for example, can find a nesting place. No nests, no species: that is what this process is, and no minister to assess it. This legislation makes it abundantly clear that the pulp mill is outside the reach of the minister. This is the minister’s Gunns provision. It is a most shameful piece of legislation.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that item 189 in schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question put.