Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute Labor's position on the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. Labor is happy to see that the government has changed its approach by making some of these changes to conservation advice retrospective only. Before I get onto the substance of this bill, I will say that I am surprised that the government has brought this bill forward. Its order of business continues to chop and change all over the place. Yesterday we were continuing with the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill. I understand that the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill will come on for debate at some point today, but I just find it very bizarre the way this government is trying to run this place, chopping and changing its program on legislation, especially environment legislation.

As we know, there is no good news for this government when it comes to the environment—no good news at all. That will be debated soon when we look at the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill, which stands alongside all the other climate change related abolition bills that the government has tried to bring into this place. They have all been steps to take Australia backwards when it comes to protecting our unique environment but also contributing to and doing our part on climate change action.

This particular amendment bill, the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill, has a number of components to it and a number of scheduled amendments. As I said at the outset, Labor is pleased that the government has changed its approach to conservation advice, making these changes retrospective only. We recognise that many projects that have been approved are already at the development stage and that Australian jobs should not be jeopardised due to a technicality.

The problem identified by the then environment minister, Tony Burke, was one of the department's making. In fact, it was, indeed, the department that failed to provide the separate piece of paper on conservation issues that were dealt with throughout a range of other briefing documents. That is what led to the issues and confusion forthwith. Labor believes allowing previously approved projects to carry on will ensure that business confidence and jobs for Australian families are protected. That is a good move in this particular amendment bill.

But, given the government's overall agenda for the environment, one cannot help but think that this bill is a bit of a sideshow, because we have had a government now systematically dismantling any policy that will help us respond to climate change, whether it is attempting to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or the Climate Change Authority or whether it is getting rid of a legal cap on carbon pollution. The history is right there for all to see—this is a government that has taken us backwards on climate change. I find it a little bit bizarre that this government has brought on this piece of legislation today—which, as we know, has a focus on turtles and dugongs, and I will get to those forthwith—when, on every other environment measure, it has certainly taken this country backwards.

We have a government that is hell-bent on handing over environmental approval powers to state and local governments, weakening those powers and leaving, for example, Premiers such as Campbell Newman or even the Mayor of Mackay in charge of the Great Barrier Reef. The Mayor of Mackay would have more sway and powers in decision-making processes for the Great Barrier Reef than the Minister for the Environment.

That is the sideshow that I highlighted in relation to the bill before us—the fact that the government simply cannot get its act together on the environment. It has been a laughing stock and an embarrassment not just at the national level but at the international level. Now, today, on the very last day—well, one would hope it is the very last day!—of parliament sitting this year it has brought forward this Environment Legislation Amendment Bill, which has some positive components, as I have outlined, that Labor is pleased the government has finally seen important to put in place.

I go now to schedule 1, which will remove the ability to challenge decisions on certain grounds. Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the EPBC Act, environmental approval decisions made by the minister are open to potential legal challenges. I mentioned those in relation to the former Labor minister, Mr Burke. This has not changed with the bill that is before the Senate. Labor supports an amendment to the EPBC Act, which protects projects that were approved prior to 31 December 2013 from legal challenge on the basis that the minister did not consider separate conservation advice as part of that decision-making process. This problem was caused by the Department of the Environment not providing a particular piece of paper regarding advice on conservation issues—advice that was provided in a range of other briefing documents and formed part of decision-making processes.

We recognise that many projects that have been approved are already at the development stage. Jobs should not be jeopardised, and that is why, due to this technicality, we support schedule 1. Allowing previously approved projects to carry on will ensure that there is business confidence. Labor also supports the community's right to challenge government decisions that impact their environment, their livelihoods or their way of life. This amendment does not limit the right to challenge on any other grounds. That is why Labor will be supporting schedule 1.

Labor also supports schedule 2 of this bill, which attempts to provide greater protections for turtles and dugongs, and we know that the minister has some regard for turtles and dugongs. However, it does not provide what is really needed. More resources and support for Indigenous groups to enable them to police their own communities on land and sea are what is really needed. This was a constant theme in evidence and submissions to the legislation committee's inquiry into the bill. I am sure that Senator Birmingham is aware of that evidence.

What this bill does is merely increase existing penalties for illegal hunting. Penalties are one thing, but these are penalties that have never even been used before. Resources to enforce a law, not penalties on paper, are really the crucial element here. It needs to be highlighted strongly that all that this particular schedule does is increase penalties. Resources are the key if we want to really look after, save and protect turtles and dugongs. Penalties could be for 100 years, but without enforcement, they are pointless. We all know that. The fact that the penalties have never been used before raises some questions. It is all well and good to increase penalties, but let us be real about this. It is more important, I think, to highlight the issue of resources. Also, the government did not consult with Indigenous groups in Queensland and the Northern Territory, they did not consult with traditional owners and they did not consult with the land and sea councils. If the minister had bothered to consult, he would have found out very quickly that the real needs are in resourcing current management plans and enabling the enforcement of the law, rather than merely increasing penalties.

Labor recognises that increasing penalties certainly is part of a broader plan to protect turtles and dugongs, and that is a good thing. I note the World Wildlife Fund in Australia have done a lot of work in this regard in relation to dugongs in particular. They have highlighted how dugongs are listed globally as vulnerable to extinction. They have highlighted that:

Australian waters are home to at least three-quarters of the global population and are a vitally important stronghold for the species.

They have also highlighted that populations of dugongs:

…world-wide have become increasingly fragmented and anecdotal evidence suggests that numbers are declining as a result of the loss and degradation of seagrass meadows, fishing pressures, Indigenous hunting and coastal pollution.

I think that we all know the importance of turtles and dugongs; it is what this government is going to do about them that is important. As I have made it very clear, I do not think that simply amending this schedule to increase penalties without addressing the issues of resourcing is going to make a difference. The fact that there was no consultation done by this government, again, is snubbing those particular traditional owners and it is snubbing the land and sea councils, who are on the ground and have a detailed understanding of the plight of these particular animals.

Labor recognises that increasing penalties is part of the broader plan of this government to protect turtles and dugongs. This plan includes funding for Indigenous rangers, and we support the government's efforts for that. We always have supported funding for Indigenous rangers. The plan provides funding to clean up ghost nets. When Labor was in government, it also funded these endeavours. That is a positive step continuing on from Labor's approach. The plan also provides funding to care for and rehabilitate turtles and dugongs that have been injured in the seas of North Queensland—another good component.

The government's plan also includes $2 million for an Australian Crime Commission investigation into the illegal killing of turtles and dugongs and the illegal transport of the meat. I have to say that this does sound like a clear case of overkill. Why does the government not work with local communities rather than going straight to the ACC, giving them $2 million and having it dealt with at a high level? This seems to be the ongoing approach by this government: increase the penalties, get the Australian Crime Commission involved, give them lots of money, do not talk to anyone do not find out what is going on on the ground and ignore expert advice of the people who deal with these issues every day. I do think that it is not the way to go; I do think it is a case of overkill. I strongly urge the minister and his department to consult—the word 'consult' needs to be brought into the lexicon of this government—with traditional owners to formulate a realistic plan for the protection and management of turtles and dugongs in northern Australia.

If they were to do that, we would support the government in this approach,. Having said that, Labor will not stand in the way of schedule 2 of this bill. We believe in the principle of schedule 2, but we would be happy to work with the government to provide real and long-lasting protection by enabling Indigenous groups to adequately police their own laws and customs. That is really the way to address the plight of turtles and dugongs. I urge the minister to consider that. Marine turtles and dugongs are impacted, as we know, by a range of enduring threats, including habitat loss, poor water quality, bycatch, poaching, marine debris and boat strike. In government Labor made these issues are a high priority, and this work continues in close association with state and territory governments, traditional owners and other stakeholder groups—such as commercial fishers. We also invested $7 million in Indigenous self-management, because this is the best way to ensure the sustainable and appropriate management of the dugongs and turtles. Critically, Labor's approach included leadership and advice on the take of marine turtles and dugongs, developing community-based sea-country management plans and support for traditional owner involvement in sustainable use of marine resources and compliance training.

I think the government can learn from what Labor did in office with this approach and we would welcome such an approach from the government—instead of this punitive approach of raising of penalties. We also supported Indigenous ranger teams to remove ghost nets—that is, lost or abandoned nets—which impact on turtle and dugong populations. Our approach was based on our respect for the customs and traditions of Indigenous Australians and the right under the Native Title Act for traditional owners to hunt native species for personal domestic or non-commercial communal needs. We do support a balanced approach to traditional hunting and the sustainability of native species such as turtles and dugongs.

I to understand that there are some other components to this amendment bill—amendments to be moved by the Greens—and we will look at those in the course of this debate. I am unsure as to whether Senator Xenophon has amendments that he will bring forward, but again Labor will look at those as well during the course of this debate. The main part of this bill are schedules 1 and 2—the ones I have just gone through in this contribution. It is important when we address this part of the EPBC Act that we highlight that it is about Australia being well informed about our biodiversity through the work of government, communities, NGOs, traditional owners and the like. If there is some way in which these amendments address those issues, then that is a good thing, but I do want to stress that there are ways of doing things. Whilst Labor will not stand in the way of schedule 2, I really do want to emphasise the importance of the need for the government to consult those particular groups. They do have the expertise and the knowledge, and they are out there in Queensland and northern Australia on the ground. They are not here in Canberra in departments, making decisions in silos. It is important that those in government take their advice and knowledge into account.

Finally, I would like to say that the other part of this that makes it so important is the fact that Australia has signed a number of international treaties, which, of course, guide the protection and management of a number of important species and ecological communities: treaties like the Convention on Biological Diversity; the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat—otherwise known as the Ramsar Convention; the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. All these conventions need to be taken into account when we look at amending the EPBC Act and it is important that Australia lives up to its obligations under those treaties. Labor will support these two schedules.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. It is somewhat ironic that what the government is seeking to do here is to have a bill that allows it to ignore science. The first part of this bill, which the Greens have opposed ever since it first passed the House one year ago, says that it is fine for the Minister for the Environment to ignore the conservation advice that was provided prior to December 2013. This sends a ridiculous message about the importance of science. Unfortunately, we know that this government is well known for its disregard of evidence based policy making, particularly on environmental issues, and we know that it has abolished the minister for science; but this bill is just an absolute slap in the face. This is why we will be moving an amendment to oppose the ability of the minister to ignore conservation advices—and I will say more on that later.

What the first part of the bill seeks to do is to say that the community cannot challenge the minister on any decision that was taken that disregards relevant conservation advice. Again, we see these attempts to silence the community's valid right to have a say in environmental decisions and their valid right to challenge decisions that are made in the absence of science. The fact that this bill has for so long sat before parliament with that affront to science in there is an indictment of this government. So we will be moving—as we did in the House of Representatives, although, unfortunately, we received no support at that stage—to delete that part of the bill which is a kick in the face to science and say: 'Actually, conservation advices are important. They are relevant information. The minister should be properly informed when making decisions about projects which are likely to have a significant impact on matters that are nationally environmentally significant.' I am not too sure what Labor is doing on this one, but I understand that the government has agreed that this is a ridiculous proposal and that it will support the Greens amendment to dump this slap in the face. That is at least a step in the right direction. I am relieved at that, because it would have sent a really bad message and it would have set a precedent that allows the environment minister to ignore relevant information. Frankly, we see so much of that process already so politicised and driven by vested interests that we need these basic protections which at least say that the minister should look at the advice before he ignores it. We know that that is what happens. I am pleased that this part of the bill will at least oblige the minister to look at the expert advice. He is, of course, then free to ignore it, and I am sure he will continue to do so in his desire to bend over backwards to the big end of town.

The second part of the bill has been quite a vexed issue. This part of the bill increases the penalties for the unlawful take of turtles and dugongs, which are protected species federally and are also on many state protected species lists. The Greens have held concerns throughout the whole course of the debate on this issue that there has been extremely limited consultation with Indigenous communities on how to achieve sustainable management and sustainable take in accordance with cultural practices of turtles and dugongs. Unfortunately, it seems that the government has not conducted the appropriate amount of consultation. Certainly in the course of the inquiry into this bill, there were many Indigenous voices who were saying: 'Nobody even asked us. We're actually managing this voluntarily and we're doing quite well. Why is the government bringing down these draconian laws?' We heard those concerns. I would like to place on record that we are really pleased that many of the Indigenous communities are tackling this issue off their own bat. These are community-led responses for voluntary moratoria on the take of turtles and dugongs. This is the sort of approach that is an appropriate response to this issue. We know that the vast majority of Indigenous communities do not want to see turtles and dugongs treated in a cruel manner. There are a handful of incidents where that has occurred, but they are the outliers.

Interestingly, what we are seeing is a purported approach to protect turtles and dugongs. When you look at the bigger picture, the government is presiding over a massive expansion of the coal and gas industries, with huge amounts of associated dredging and offshore dumping of that dredge sludge right in the habitat—the feeding and breeding grounds—of turtles and dugongs. So whilst we are prepared to support the increase in penalties for the unlawful take of these precious species, we would say to the government that, if it really wants to protect turtles and dugongs, to stop approving all of these mega coalmines, mega coal export ports, with all of their millions of tonnes of dredging and offshore dumping of that sludge. You are damaging the valuable seagrass beds, which are the feeding and breeding grounds for these animals. We welcome your purported commitment to turtles and dugongs. Why don't you just actually follow through and do what is really necessary to protect these precious creatures and in a culturally sensitive manner? We will continue to campaign on that issue.

It was really disheartening that, within three months of taking office, the government approved the Abbot Point coal port expansion, which is slated to be the largest coal port in the Southern Hemisphere and which happens to be in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area. At that stage, the government approved it, with three million cubic metres of dredging and offshore dumping of that sludge. Because of the massive amount of community pressure and the huge outcry from the scientific community, including scientists from within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—who, of course, were then silenced by their superiors—the government is now entertaining the possibility of onshore disposal of that sludge. I think this is a huge win for the community, and I sincerely hope that the government will take a very close look at the proposal that is currently before it.

My concern is that, rather than dumping this sludge offshore, the proponent, which is now the Queensland government—they have stepped in because they basically are the coal industry—want to dump this sludge onto some wetlands on the shores of the Great Barrier Reef. These wetlands are not on the international significance list but they have the qualities that could make them eligible. These are nationally significant wetlands—the Kali Valley wetlands. This government now has an application before it to dump the sludge that has been dredged up from turtle and dugong feeding and breeding grounds—creating all sorts of sediment plumes in that dredging process—on the very kidneys, the filters, of the reef, right on the coastal area at Abbot Point. So we will continue our campaign that speaks for the vast majority of Queenslanders, who do not want the reef trashed and who do not want these wetlands on the shores of the reef trashed either, not just because they are beautiful migratory bird habitats but because they are the filter system which helps protect the water quality of the Great Barrier Reef.

We certainly have a long way to go when this government, within three months of taking office, approve the world's largest coal port in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. They also approved the fourth LNG plant on Curtis Island, which is similarly in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. They have indicated support for a second shipping channel in Gladstone, again, with massive amounts of dredging associated with that proposal. If we are talking about actually protecting turtles and dugongs, the government might want to think about not digging up their habitat. That is just a tip.

I want to place on record that I am really pleased that thanks to community pressure, scientific outcry and the massive pressure that the international community is brought to bear on Australia in embarrassing us for three years running, by warning us that the reef might be placed on the world heritage endangered list, Minister Hunt has started to feel that pressure and has now taken a step forward. He says that he does not want to dump sludge offshore.

But when you look at the commitment, unfortunately it is so full of loopholes that it is effectively business as usual. According to Minister Hunt, it is still okay to dump sludge in the World Heritage Area. You just cannot dump it in the marine park. Last time I checked, world heritage was kind of important to the entire planet, so this artificial distinction between the marine park in the World Heritage Area is farcical. Mounds of sludge do not respect a line on a nominal map. According to Minister Hunt, it is also still okay to continue dumping maintenance dredge spoil into the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area's waters and it is still okay for projects that are in the pipeline to do that too.

His commitment, sadly, is a little vague around the edges and is so artificially designed so as to, unfortunately, not provide the protection that is needed for the Great Barrier Reef. Again, if the minister really does want to do something to help the future of our precious turtles and dugongs and to safeguard the 67,000 people who need the Great Barrier Reef healthy for their job, not to mention the fact that this is an international icon and a biodiversity wonderland, then he should stop the dredging, stop the dumping and not make these wishy-washy commitments that are so full of holes. The government might think that they can get away with it with a two-second grab, but anyone who is paying attention—and they are—knows that it is a meaningless commitment.

That said, we are prepared to support the increase in penalties for the unlawful taking of turtles and dugongs, but what we will be proposing is to actually increase the penalties for the unlawful taking of all threatened species that are protected by our federal environment laws. If Minister Hunt is so committed to engaged species, why just single out turtles and dugongs? Why are those other species and ecological communities not similarly worthy of a decent level of protection? We will be moving an amendment to that effect and I am extremely disheartened to be of the understanding that nobody else in this place agrees with us in that regard. There is no support for increased protection for threatened species across the board. Be that as it may, let us hope that people change their minds between now and then.

I have talked about the importance of science and I have talked about the need to actually increase all penalties, but what is an important point to remember is that this government has slashed 450 staff from the Department of the Environment. Where are the people that are meant to be doing the good work of enforcing our laws, as weak as they are? The fact that the laws need to be improved is patently obvious. If you are not even enforcing laws that are substandard, how can you expect to be genuinely delivering environmental protection?

The minister has made some vague commitments about increasing the compliance officers to deal particularly with these offences and we welcome that. I am yet to see the evidence of that and, frankly, I would not trust this government as far as I could kick them; but I am looking forward to confirmation that there will indeed be increased officers to do compliance for these new offence provisions. But what about all of the other breaches of environmental law? What are you going to do about those? You are cutting staff left, right and centre. There is nobody left to do the work to enforce these already weak laws. Sadly, that speaks to the true commitment of this government to the environment. We know that there has not been any prosecutions under these provisions, so it is somewhat ironic that we are now doubling penalties for offences that have never been enforced in the first place. It is very interesting. Again, one fears that the government is simply trying to paint themselves as caring when every other action of theirs indicates that they are disdainful of the environment.

We have seen one year now of complete attacks on the frameworks and the regulations that are meant to protect our environment. I have talked already about the terrible threat that the Great Barrier Reef is under and the fact that this government is approving coal ports, gas ports, dredging, dumping and coal mines left, right and centre, almost without taking a breath. That is not the only area of the environment that they are distinguishing themselves in. The biggest one is climate change. We know that they have gotten rid of what was a successful price on carbon, which was already bringing down emissions to tackle the biggest problem that humanity will ever face. They have gotten rid of that because of a three-word slogan and a pathetic desire to try to prop up their own popularity in the polls. What a shame they stuck to that promise, because every other promise has been completely thrown by the wayside.

We know they also got rid of the mining tax, which could have been raising more revenue. What a shame that it was removed, because now they are seeking to get money out of the pockets of vulnerable people and off the sick and the aged. Why did they not just fix up that tax? We all accepted that it was not raising the revenue it was meant to. That was because of the loopholes that were built into the tax. Why not fix up the mining tax and actually have it as a revenue raiser? Instead, they say, 'No, let's axe that, because big business asked us to.' They are being completely run by the mining industry. They are looking now at attacking the old, the sick, the poor, students and the unemployed. Good one guys!

The mining tax has gone and the carbon tax has gone. We know that they are still seeking to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The government is on the record about that. We can expect that next year. I hope that the people in this place can see the sense of an investment in clean energy that is generating jobs, that is bringing down carbon emissions and that is driving us into a more sustainable future. Unfortunately, I know the dinosaurs that dominate the government benches. Hopefully, the crossbenchers can see the sense and the positives that come from renewable energy. But I fear for the future of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We know that the Abbott government has approved every single coalmine and coal-seam gas project that has crossed the desk of the environment minister—the minister supposedly for the environment. I am afraid that when you approve absolutely every coalmine and every coal-seam gas project you do not deserve that title.

When it comes to our environmental laws generally, the Greens have been campaigning ever since the Gillard government first proposed this ridiculous notion of federal environmental responsibilities to protect things that are internationally significant to the planet being given away to state governments to administer—because 'Wow don't they have such a great record on the environment!' Look at Premier Campbell Newman; what a real environmental champion that guy is! These are the people that this government wants to put in charge completely, without any oversight or federal control of our World Heritage areas, threatened species, wetlands and all of those areas that we have promised to the world that we will look after as a nation. This government wants to give those responsibilities away. They cannot wash their hands fast enough.

I am pleased that the Labor Party have now changed their mind on the proposal and are standing with us to try to protect what is left of our environmental laws. I am pleased that the crossbenchers also see that this is a very dangerous proposal, that it is a very slippery slope and that it would leave absolute environmental cowboys in charge of trashing the place. That is what has happened in the past. We would have had oil rigs in the Great Barrier Reef but for these federal laws, we would have had cows in the Alpine National Park, the Franklin river would have been dammed and the Mary river would have been dammed. We know that we need federal environmental protections because history shows us that, if we did not have them, then all of these beautiful icons would have been sacrificed at the altar of convenience and private profit, being run by the state governments. We will continue to fight that most affronting proposal for the environment that is coming out of the Abbott government.

I have already talked about the 450 job cuts that have come from the environment department under the hand of this government. We know that the value that this government places on science is minuscule, given that we have no science minister anymore and the CSIRO has faced cut after cut. Sadly, the Abbott government has ended the grants to community organisations that were performing environment and heritage functions—that longstanding program that we have had on our books for decades. The voluntary grants to environment and sustainability heritage organisations have now completely gone. In terms of forests, we know that they have tried to attack the Tasmanian World Heritage listing. Thankfully, they were incredibly unsuccessful in that regard. We know that, when it comes to biodiversity, whilst they purport to care about turtles and dugongs and a penalty on paper—which, of course, means nothing without the people to enforce it—they axed the $1 billion biodiversity fund, which was helping land managers, farmers and people who work on the ground to restore and rehabilitate important habitat. I would have thought that that was helpful work, given that we face the sixth extinction crisis and that biodiversity is in a worse state than it has ever been in living memory. The attacks on our environment continue, and the list could go on and on, but from that I can conclude that this government places absolutely no value on the natural environment. It is disdainful of biodiversity. We get laughed at all the time when we talk about the environment; well, sorry, there are no jobs on a dead planet. What we have here is an affront to science, and it is a concerning step to ignore the needs of all other threatened species.

I am pleased that the Greens seem to have made ground and may be able to kill that part of the bill that allows the minister to ignore conservation advices. That is a really positive step that retains the centrality of science in decision making—although, of course, the minister is free to ignore that advice. I will be moving to increase the penalties for all threatened species, and we will continue to campaign for there to be staff to enforce these laws and for these laws to be improved so that they can protect the environment on which we all rely.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. As I understand it, there are a number of amendments to this bill that have been lodged, and I guess we will work through them in the committee stage a little later. I understand that schedule 1 has been amended in the House. Schedule 1 is the removal of the need for the environment minister to consider separate conservation advice for approval decisions prior to 31 December. Schedule 2, as I understand the bill, increases the penalties for killing or injuring turtles and dugongs. As I said, there are a number of other amendments that, I understand, will be tabled in the committee stage of this bill.

From Labor's point of view, we recognise that there are many projects that have been approved and are already at the development stage and that Australian jobs should not be jeopardised due to a technicality. When we talk about the environment, some of the issues in this bill have been caused by the department not providing separate advice on conservation issues, and I think that this is one of the issues that we have seen throughout a number of stages of environmental work that I have certainly done through the Environment and Communications Committee. There does not seem to be a delineation between the environment and conservation. Previously approved projects have been allowed to carry on, which will ensure business confidence and jobs for Australian families, and I think that is the important factor. When we think about these types of issues, we have to think about what it means for the environment but also what it means for jobs and Australia's families. We do not support removing the need for the minister to take into account conservation advice into the future, but we support the streamlining of environmental assessment processes. We do not support the delegation of approval powers to the states. Throughout the conversation on the environment and the delegation of powers to the states, Labor has been extremely strong on the basis that there is a responsibility to have oversight of environmental issues and to not leave these things up to the states. There needs to be someone who can monitor the impacts of environmental decisions that are made around the country, not just the states and their own departments.

We are happy to see that the government has changed its approach, by making these changes to conservation advice retrospective only, but the concern is that we have a government that does not have a fantastic record on the environment. We have a government that has done absolutely everything in its power to tear down climate change policy. They have abolished the carbon tax. You have to question the sincerity of the government's desire to make sure that the environmental record in Australia is secure for the generations to come. Everyone needs to ask the question: what is the environmental record of the Abbott government? If you asked that question, the answer—certainly from this side—would be that they have no credibility when it comes environment. The environment minister talks about there being walruses in Antarctica. He does not even know the types of continents that walruses live in. The environment minister also does not understand the difference between a Tasmanian tiger and a Tasmanian devil. Tasmanian tigers have been extinct for many, many years, but the minister has been quoted as saying that we need to save the Tasmanian tiger. I think are lots of people in Tasmania who would be really happy if we could save the Tasmanian tiger, but I think we have to bring it back from the 1930s before we are actually able to do that.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not conclusive; there's been sightings.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan says they have been sightings. There have not been any proven sightings. I do not know what you do in your leisure time, Senator O'Sullivan, but I am sure that whatever it is you do you can see Tasmanian tigers in your sleep. But this is a serious issue. We have an environment minister who does not know that Tasmanian tigers have been extinct since the 1930s. There is a lot of difference between a Tasmanian tiger and a Tasmanian devil. The Tasmanian devil is a tiny, cute little fluffy thing. It is black and white. Tasmanian tigers are quite big. They are a dog-like animal with stripes on the back of their hindquarters. The two are very, very different.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At least they can tell the difference between a zebra and a horse.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Bilyk, it is the difference between a zebra and a horse.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One's got stripes.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are very different—yes, one has stripes—in the DNA and makeup of a Tasmanian tiger and a Tasmanian devil. It is concerning that we have an environment minister who does not know where a walrus lives and who does not know the difference between a Tasmanian tiger and a Tasmanian devil.

The record of the Abbott government on environmental issues is astounding. It ranges from moving backwards on climate change to risking our reputation on outstanding World Heritage icons.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just hand it all to the states.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Bilyk, they will hand it all to the states. That is the concern. Soon after the Abbott government came to office they began rushing through environmental approvals, including for the Abbot Point coal terminal along the Great Barrier Reef. The government disallowed the endangered-community listing of the River Murray from the Darling to the sea. We have a whole host of issues where there is no environmental record from a minister who does not know the environment very well, if he does not know the difference between a Tasmanian tiger and a Tasmanian devil.

Those opposite went against all reason and all advice and sneakily had the world's largest marine reserve system reproclaimed to undo the management plans that gave them effect. They also began the handing over of environmental approvals to the states. That is a real concern, because we will end up with the states having control of some of our best icons and some of our best attractions that we have in this country for tourism—things like the Great Barrier Reef. Mr Abbott wants to hand over the Great Barrier Reef to people like Campbell Newman. I am not a Queenslander—I am certainly not a Queenslander—but I would have no faith in handing over the beauty of the Great Barrier Reef, the future of the Great Barrier Reef and the control of the Great Barrier Reef to Campbell Newman, who just wants to slash and burn. That is a real concern.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not true.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr Deputy President, that is true. We have seen the result of what Campbell Newman has done in Queensland, Senator O'Sullivan, with the slash and burn technique that is his approach in a number of areas. The concern is what he will do if he gets control of the Great Barrier Reef. On the other side of the country the government want to give Colin Barnett control of Ningaloo Reef. These are World Heritage listed areas. They are places of absolutely magnificent beauty that we need to make sure are there for future generations—our children and our grandchildren—to enjoy and for tourists to come to this country to enjoy, but the government want to hand control of them over to the states. I do not have any faith that that is a good, effective system.

The government have also abandoned efforts to have Queensland's Cape York added to the World Heritage list. Talking about the World Heritage list, what about the debacle of the Tasmanian forests? It was amazing. The previous Labor government, of which I am very proud to have been a member, helped to ensure that there was an enhanced listing of wilderness areas in Tasmania. In my beautiful state of Tasmania we have some of the best wilderness areas in the world. We have the cleanest air. We have some of the most pristine environment. What happened when Mr Abbott became Prime Minister? The first thing on their list of things to do was to cut off 74,000 hectares from the wilderness World Heritage area. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to run a case to have those 74,000 hectares delisted. We all know what the result of that was, don't we? For those who don't, the government did not win. They did not win for a number of reasons. One is that the argument to overturn the listing as a World Heritage Area was not a substantial one to begin with. They spent a lot of money trying to do it but no effort. They put absolutely no effort into that. This is the whole problem with what the Abbott government are trying to do to our environment. They want to slash and burn, but they are not prepared to put any arguments forward. All this was happening at around the time the Tasmanian election was on. I do not want to be cynical, but, quite frankly, you do have to wonder sometimes about where these things come from, the rationale and the idea behind them. We have a problem where we have a government treating our environment like a sideshow. It is not a sideshow; our environment is precious. We cannot turn it back. We cannot repair it once it is ruined. We cannot alter things once they are damaged. And we have to put particular processes in place to protect the environment moving forward. But we have a government who do not seem to be worried about that.

On other issues the government have been intent on, they have shut down the Climate Commission. Also, they want to axe the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This body, in particular, is making a very positive return to government coffers—but, no, that does not matter because it does not fit with the agenda to slash and burn and get rid of the environmental processes that Labor so very carefully put in place. Labor put these in place to make sure that we are not only in step with ourselves but in step with the world in terms of the climate moving forward and protecting our environment into the future. But, no, they want to slash and burn all that. They want to shut the doors on the Renewable Energy Agency. They are talking about reducing the RET. These are things that will ensure the future of our pristine environment. When my grandchildren grow up, I want them to be able to breathe the beautiful fresh air that I can. I want to make sure that we do not have sea levels rising to an extraordinary degree. I want to be able to say that I was part of a government and part of a generation that protected this environment and that looked after it for people around the world. People in Kiribati, for example, are going to have to move off their island because of climate change, global warming and sea levels rising. In Antarctica—where the minister thinks walruses live—we are seeing a whole range of ice melts down there attributed to global warming. So I want to be part of a government that looks after that. I am hoping that, after the next election, I will be part of a government that will protect the environment that has been so callously disregarded by the current government. There does not seem to be any rhyme or reason as to what they are doing. They say they want to save money—and there is no issue with governments trying to make and save money—but it should not happen at the expense of the environment for future generations.

If we look at the protection of turtles and dugongs, for example, there needs to be greater protection for them. However, we need to make sure that Indigenous groups are able to police their own communities on land and sea. Consulting with traditional owners about the environment is, I think, a very important point. If the minister had bothered to consult, he would have found out very quickly that the real need is in resourcing current management plans and enabling the enforcement of the law rather than merely increasing the penalties for the protection of turtles and dugongs. In Labor, we want to also make sure that marine turtles and dugongs are not impacted by a range of enduring threats. In government, Labor did effectively address these issues as a high priority, and the work continues, in close association with state and territory governments, with traditional owners and other stakeholder groups, such as commercial fishers. But, again, this is why the handing over of environmental controls to states is fraught with danger: many of the environmental issues in this country lap across a number of states and a number of jurisdictions. Without that Commonwealth approach, we are faced with problems. With one-stop shops, states will be able to make decisions without fear or favour about impacts on other jurisdictions. The issue for us is to make sure that the Commonwealth not only has the ability to have control but also the ability to look after the environment when it crosses over jurisdictions.

I talked a little bit about the Tasmanian wilderness proposal. As I said before, the Tasmanian wilderness is an area of high beauty. I do not know whether Minister Hunt has been down to the Tasmanian wilderness. I am sure that he has. If he has not, then I hope he gets a chance to go down and view it, because these are some of the most beautiful areas in Australia. He needs to see these things so that, when he makes decisions about the environment, he understands what the environment means to Australia—and, hopefully, it would change some of his slash-and-burn techniques on the environment.

If we have a look at some of the other things, we see they have ripped out Commonwealth funding from the environmental defender's office. That provides a means for concerned Australians to challenge environmental approval decisions and to protect the places they love, so why has this minister taken that out? Why has he taken us backwards on climate change? Why has he taken us back with how he wants to axe ARENA and get rid of the Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the RET? Why are these things happening?

They ripped nearly half a billion dollars out of Landcare. I was actually on the environment committee when we did the inquiry into Landcare and I have to say that a lot of the submitters were really concerned about what this meant for local communities and for the environment generally. They were concerned about replacing local volunteer work and the strategic networks they had set up to look after the environmental issues in their community and running it through the Green Army program. There were issues around the concerns about the training and the commitment to the environment, but there were also many people who provided evidence to that committee who had over 20 years of experience involvement in Landcare and who genuinely cared about their community. That is the reason they had provided 20-plus years to Landcare groups. They now have concerns about whether or not they are going to be responsible for doing the paperwork and providing the project information rather than getting out into the environment and doing what they really love: looking after it from their community's perspective. (Time expired)

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take the opportunity to contribute to this debate about the very important Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. This bill, as has been pointed out, does a couple of things. It removes the need for the Minister for the Environment to consider separate conservation advice for approval decisions prior to 31 December 2013 and increases penalties for killing turtles and dugongs. I know there are some amendments to be moved to this bill by other parties. Labor will be supporting one of those amendments from the Greens and not some of the others. I look forward to the committee stage of the debate on this important bill.

It is interesting that we are here talking about an environment bill today in the Senate when we have heard overnight of tensions within the government ranks in the environment space as Foreign Minister Julie Bishop is preparing to attend the 21st meeting of the COP in Lima, Peru to discuss the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It seems the Prime Minister's office is not allowing Ms Bishop to conduct that responsibility on her own.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The government's representation at the UNFCCC convention in Lima is not remotely relevant to the matters contained in the bill that is under consideration before the chamber.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will simply remind Senator McEwen of the question before the chair, but it has been a fairly wide ranging debate in the short time I have been here in the chair. At this point in time, Senator McEwen, you still have the call.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find that interjection from Senator Birmingham to try to say that a bill that has 'environment' in its title has nothing to do with the UN convention on climate change quite an extraordinary claim to make. We know that the future of the environment is all about climate change and what is happening in international forums to address climate change. It is even more extraordinary that the foreign minister is not being allowed to attend this very important international conference in Lima, Peru without having a minder with her who is, of course, Mr Andrew Robb, the Minister for Trade. Minister Robb has a well-known antipathy towards anything to do with climate change. He is a climate change denier. It is an extraordinary thing that the Prime Minister's office will not let the foreign minister attend this important meeting without a climate change denier there as well. I think that goes to exactly what this government's attitude towards the environment is.

I am a little bit surprised that a piece of legislation has come forward from the government which does have some value in it. Part of the bill that we can support is the increased penalties for killing turtles and dugongs, both of which are animals which Australians hold in great regard. I do not know if you can be affectionate towards a dugong or a turtle, but I will say there is some affection towards those sea animals from Australians. So I am pleased to see that this bill does go to that particular issue and also that it fixes up a mess of the government's own making with regard to environmental approvals.

What Labor does not support, of course, is feeding environmental approvals to state governments that are hostile to the environment, which is certainly the case of the Newman Liberal government in Queensland. We were very concerned in the Labor Party that there should be any diminution of responsibility of the federal government in terms of environmental approvals under the EPBC Act or a farming out to state governments that do not have any credibility in this space.

This also gives me an opportunity, of course, to again remind people that, while we are happy to debate this piece of legislation, what we would like to see from the coalition government is some genuine commitment to preservation of the environment. As I said in my opening comments, that should include actually doing something collectively with the international community about climate change and reducing our carbon emissions, and that is what we have not seen from this government. All we have seen from this government is a pathetic package called Direct Action, which every economist and every genuine environmental scientist knows will not work; it will simply pay big polluters to keep on polluting.

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

What is the point of having legislation like this when you are not addressing the big picture, Senator Birmingham? I find it extraordinary that Senator Birmingham has to be in this difficult space for him. When I was chair of the Senator Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, when Labor was in government doing great work on the environment, I have to say that Senator Birmingham was a very good representative on that committee. At that stage I believed that he believed—and I am sure he did—in the science that tells us that climate change is real and is caused by carbon emissions. It is a sad thing that Senator Birmingham has had to backtrack, if you like, or deny what we know is in his heart, and that is that he is a believer in climate change. I am pretty sure, Senator Birmingham, you are a reluctant sign-up to Direct Action, because you know that it is an expensive fraud perpetrated on the people of Australia. It is a fig leaf to cover the Prime Minister and the environment minister, who have no credentials when it comes to genuine commitment to addressing environmental problems in this country.

As I said, one of the concerns that Labor has about environmental legislation is that we take away the authority of the federal parliament to manage the EPBC Act, which is one of the best pieces of legislation that we have in this country to protect the environment. But this government, of course, wants to give responsibility for assessments to its Liberal mates. In the case of Queensland, we are particularly concerned about that. I would not be so concerned in my home state of South Australia, where the Premier, Jay Weatherill, has good environmental credentials. But the proper place for these approvals to be made is the federal parliament, and Labor will continue to fight for that to happen.

As I said, the modest benefits of this legislation include higher penalties for killing some marine animals. I note that, during the inquiry into this bill, Indigenous organisations complained that they had not been adequately consulted about that. Again, that is a hallmark of this government in the space of environmental legislation. They make it up on the run. They do not take advice from the experts. They do not believe in the science. They do not talk to local communities about the impact on them. They just listen to the big polluters and the environmental vandals, who will possibly rampage through the countryside, particularly in states where there are coalition governments who, like this federal government, have no actual commitment to protecting our environment.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 11.56, time for this debate has now expired.