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

I present the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on Australia's environment, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I rise today to table the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee into Australia's environment. Firstly, I would like to thank all the people who took the time to submit to this inquiry and recognise the amount of work and effort that went into these submissions. I would also like to recognise the people who took time out of their own days to appear before the committee at hearings in Brisbane and Canberra. The committee received 61 submissions and held two public hearings. I would also like to thank the Environment and Communications References Committee secretariat staff for their hard work and excellent advice on this and all other inquiries that I have worked on with them.

Of course, it is no secret that this government is no friend of the environment. Their record is truly shocking, ranging from moving backwards on climate change to risking our international reputation for outstanding World Heritage icons. Soon after coming to office, the Abbott government began rushing through environmental approvals. The government disallowed the endangered community listing of the River Murray from the Darling to the sea. The government discarded any sense of reason and ignored expert advice to sneakily have the world's largest marine reserve system re-proclaimed to undo the management plans that give them effect. But it does not end there. This government has taken us backwards on climate change by repealing the carbon tax in favour of a taxpayer funded dressed-up slush fund. In its first auction of its emissions reduction fund, it paid $660 million of taxpayers' money for only 10 million tonnes of new carbon abatement—a carbon price of $66 per tonne. It also wants to axe the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which provides assistance to clean energy developments and actually makes money for the budget bottom line.

The government approached the World Heritage Committee to delist 74,000 hectares of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage area. This embarrassing application was dismissed out of hand by the World Heritage Committee. The government has been entrusted with one of the greatest honours in public life: to protect and promote Australia's magnificent natural assets. Instead, it is intent on destroying them and the Prime Minister is not embarrassed for the world to know what he is doing. In fact, this government is in the unenviable position of being internationally renowned for its disregard and disrespect for the environment. When this reference was accepted to the committee, it was much more broad-ranging and also included consideration of the government's attacks on carbon pricing, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the renewable energy target, the Climate Change Authority and the Climate Commission. It was also due to look at the government's cruel cuts to Landcare and consider the government's plan to hand over environmental approval powers to state governments, as well as the government's poor record on the Great Barrier Reef and Tasmania's Wilderness World Heritage area.

After the lodgement of this reference, however, it became very clear that these areas needed serious investigation as discrete inquiries themselves, which were undertaken through the committee. As a result, the focus of the terms of reference was narrowed to look at the remaining areas that had not previously been looked at and that still needed further investigation. The first of these was the Biodiversity Fund, an initiative of the previous government which was established to improve the resilience of Australia's unique species to the impacts of climate change, enhance the environmental outcomes of carbon farming projects and help landholders to protect carbon and biodiversity values on their land. The Biodiversity Fund represented a significant investment of Commonwealth funds in Australia's environment and allowed ecologically complex solutions to be pursued in a variety of landscapes across Australia. The committee received general concerns from witnesses and submitters about the implications that changes to access to Commonwealth funding and decreases in the level of funding for environmental projects would have for the future of Australia's environment.

We also dealt with the Environmental Defenders Office. Currently, there are eight state and territory—or there were at the time of the hearing—community environmental law centres which form the EDOs of Australia. The work undertaken by the EDOs relates to legal advice and representation, community legal education programs and the formulation of environmental policy and law reform. The EDOs are the only public interest environmental lawyers in Australia. As a result of this status, the EDOs of Australia argued that, 'Access to environmental justice ultimately depends upon our continued capacity to deliver a range of specialist legal services to the community.' The EDOs also argued that they provide a unique service to local communities through their education programs. They also play a significant role in public interest environmental litigation.

The EDOs receive funds through fees, donations, gifts and government grants and programs. EDOs of Australia also commented that the funding received by each office fluctuates markedly from year to year due to progress-based funding, one-off philanthropic grants and a variable success of fundraising efforts and income from services. In December 2013, the Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook outlined cuts for legal protection reform and advocacy funding, including a $10 million cut in funding over four years to the EDOs. The Attorney-General's Department noted that the supplementary funding agreements entered into by the previous government included an immediate termination clause. This was executed immediately with the December 2013 MYEFO announcement.

At this time, the EDOs were also notified that their ongoing base funding would not be renewed beyond its expiry date of 30 June 2014. The Attorney-General's Department commented that the recurrent funding was not terminated or cancelled, rather that the government had agreed not to continue this funding at the expiration of the current funding arrangements—that was at 30 June 2014. The committee received evidence on the consequences of the defunding of the EDOs on the organisations and the work that they undertake. The EDOs of Australia pointed to the importance of stable funding for the long-term delivery of services. The committee acknowledges the vitally important role that EDOs have undertaken over many years. The EDOs empowered communities through education about their legal rights regarding the environment and the provision of advice on legal matters. The EDOs also played a significant role in providing access to justice where it is in the public interest for environmental matters to be pursued by those who cannot afford private legal representation. By providing this important legal assistance, EDOs serve to reduce frivolous litigation by taking very few matters to court.

The committee notes the finding of the Productivity Commission that, in the past five years, no cases in which the EDOs were engaged were dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous or vexatious. The concern of the committee was that, without the EDOs, communities and individuals across Australia will not be able to access legal assistance or legal advice on matters that directly affect their local environment. The committee went on to make three recommendations. Those recommendations are: in relation to the Biodiversity Fund, the committee recommends that the Department of the Environment undertake an evaluation of the impact of the Biodiversity Fund; recommendation No. 2 was the committee recommends that the Commonwealth government reinstate funding for projects for biodiversity conservation to the level which had been available under the Biodiversity Fund; and the third recommendation of the report was the committee recommends the Commonwealth government establish a new funding agreement for the Environmental Defenders Offices which reinstates the funding previously provided.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to make a small contribution in relation to the report tabled by Senator Urquhart this afternoon on behalf of the Environment and Communications References Committee. The government senators on this committee, me being one of them, consider that the premise of this inquiry really had nothing to do with Australia's environment. In fact, we thought it was completely baseless and motivated by political intent. The idea that the Abbott government is attacking the environment, following the disasters of the previous government in relation to things like green loans, the carbon tax and the home insulation scheme, seems really quite hypocritical.

The most distressing thing was, as the Greens were the ones that actually called for this inquiry, just the extraordinary scaremongering that went on. It was completely unnecessary and damaging scaremongering. Then, to come into this place to try to table this document was very disappointing. I put that in the context of being the chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee and deputy chair of the references committee. I worked very hard with those opposite, whether it was the opposition, the Labor Party, the Greens or the crossbenchers. In every report we try to bring down a consensus report. This inquiry was so ridiculous that, right from the word go, you knew you could never even attempt to get a consensus report or an outcome in which this reference actually delivered a heap of recommendations which might have some meaning or some benefit for Australia. It was never going to do that, because the basis of the inquiry was never going to allow it to do that.

Something that just cannot go without being mentioned today is some of the facts and figures that were just put on the record by Senator Urquhart in relation to the emissions reduction fund. The reality is that this government put to the Australian public an emissions reduction fund, which was like a reverse auction, and we purchased 47 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent abatement. That is four times as much as achieved under the previous government's carbon tax. Those results alone clearly prove that the coalition's climate change policy is delivering real and significant abatement benefits, just as we said it would. For all the scaremongering that went on through this inquiry and previous inquiries into this particular issue, the cold, hard realities were that when the first round of reverse auctions came down it was quite clear that this particular program was working a whole heap better than the carbon tax had ever even attempted to work.

If you sit down and have a look at it, the 47 million tonnes of abatement was delivered at an average of $13.95 per tonne. If you have a look at the $15.4 billion that was spent by the previous government on the carbon tax to try to reduce emissions, it works out at $1,300 a tonne. You do not have to be much of a mathematician to realise that that is actually 93 times more expensive. So, to come in here and suggest that this government is attacking the environment, when we have actually delivered, at a very reasonable cost to the taxpayer, something that they said we never would, is ridiculous. In addition to that, we are investing $2 billion to manage natural resources—things like Working on Country, the Green Army, the Reef Trust; there is a whole raft of policies and platforms that this government is delivering in support of our environment. And the redesign of the Landcare program: whilst there is no doubt that this government was left with a legacy of debt and deficit that you could not jump over, we still have tried to manage, within the resources that were available to us, programs that allow—particularly in the case of Landcare—decision making to go back to the local communities. I think Australians are sick to death of being told what to do by government. I think they would like to have a little bit more say in what is going on. The redesign of the Landcare program to allow this decision making to go back to local communities is but one example of the way this government believes we should be looking to run this country.

There was no question in the committee that we all acknowledge the financial constraints with which we were faced in this space. There was no doubt, in the government's side of the debate, that budget measures needed to be implemented. We would have liked to see much more money spent in the environmental space, but the reality was that we could not. In this context, the government cannot and will not restore funding to the Environmental Defenders Office, which I think was one of the key platforms for the political motivation by the Greens for this inquiry to be held in the first place. I do not think the discontinuation of funding to EDOs reflects an adverse judgement on the merits of EDOs at all. It just reflects the broader context of the stringent resource constraints that we face because of the actions of those who go before us.

Instead of the recommendations that have been tabled in the substantive report today, instead of this witch hunt, this committee should have commended the government for undertaking massive investment in environmental programs in an unprecedented environment of fiscal constraint and given that in the first 18 months of this government we have delivered some very significant benefits and changes, not least of which is the decision by the World Heritage Organization not to proceed to put the Great Barrier Reef on the endangered list. Unfortunately, as much as I would have liked to work with the opposition and the Greens to come up with a consensus report, that was obviously never going to be able to occur, simply because it was, I believe, a witch hunt set up by the Greens.

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

I too rise to speak briefly to the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee. I was really pleased to get support—in fact, on World Environment Day last year—to establish this inquiry. Initially it was planned that it would be quite an expansive look at the various attacks on the national environment that this government in so brief a time had already wreaked, even back then. Sadly, that trajectory has continued, and we see environmental law after environmental law repealed, watered down, completely slashed; organisations defunded; denial of climate science; and silencing of anyone who speaks out against this government's environment agenda and its plan to absolutely undermine all of our protections. It has not been a good trajectory.

In the course of the time that has elapsed since the establishment of this inquiry, we have again fortunately had the chance to inquire into many of these matters in other inquiries. This particular inquiry was focused on particular aspects, namely the gutting of the biodiversity fund and the complete removal of funding, for the first time in 18 years, of the Environmental Defenders Office. Full disclosure: I used to work at the Environmental Defenders Office in Brisbane. I am proud of that. I had nine years there as one of their solicitors. They are an impeccable, professional outfit that provides free legal advice to members of the community on using our laws to try to protect the environment—that is, community enforcement of the laws that this place makes, often when government sees fit to not enforce its own laws.

We have seen report after report—most recently the Auditor-General's report at the federal level, and there was also an Auditor-General's report at the Queensland level—showing, sadly, that governments tend to under-enforce their environmental laws. They under-resource their enforcement departments, and they do not take prosecutions; they rarely investigate breaches. Things happen, and regulators turn a blind eye. It is an open secret; everybody knows that. That makes community enforcement all the more important. If we go to the trouble of writing decent environmental laws—which we did, before this government went to the trouble of axing most of them—then we need the community to be able to enforce and uphold those laws. It is part of a robust democracy for the community to be able to enforce the rule of law.

It is very telling that this government, rather than listening to those critiques and taking onboard the suggestions, or even respectfully disagreeing with them but noting them anyway, wants to silence its critics. It has been on a real program to try to do that. Not only has it axed, for the first time, the Grants To Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations, which, before its axing, was renamed the Grants to Voluntary Environment, Sustainability and Heritage Organisations. That was a long-standing fund that many environment groups used to do both on-ground work and excellent campaign work to identify systemic failures in our system and advise government on how those flaws could be changed and fixed for positive environmental outcomes. The government axed that fund.

It also axed the Climate Change Commission, which, through crowdfunding, was able to continue, thanks to the goodwill of Australian people who actually do care about the climate and understand that it is something human beings influence and that the government should do an awful lot more about it than this government proposes to.

Then this government completely removed, for the first time in 18 years, federal funding for the Environmental Defenders Office. Again and again, we see that this government just cannot take criticism. It cannot take on board criticism of its environmental record. It cannot even take on board advice from environment and other non-government organisations advocating for systemic law reform. It cannot take on board that feedback. Instead, it has moved for advocacy restrictions on much of the community sector, including the Environmental Defenders Office. It simply cannot accept the fact that these people are experts. They work on implementing these laws on behalf of the community. They have a very valued perspective, which often is not available to government through any other means. But because this government does not like criticism and cannot see when it is constructive, useful and efficient, it wants to shut down advocacy. It wants to say that somehow this is political activism. These people are environmental lawyers. They are trying to actually help you fix up sometimes unintended consequences in environmental laws—oftentimes the consequences are perfectly intended; in many cases they are not. This is actually a service to government and is, in particular, a service to the community, who want to see our environmental laws upheld and enforced.

Through the course of this inquiry, we have been thrilled to hear about the wonderful work of the EDO that has been going on. I was really disappointed to see that it is the EDOs in South Australia and the Northern Territory that stand to close their doors in a week's time—at the end of this financial year. For the first time in 18 years, this government chooses not to fund community enforcement of environmental laws. I think it is a new low for this government. I think it shows that they have an embarrassing glass jaw and that they actually do not believe in accountability and they do not want those laws enforced. Perhaps that should not be surprising, because we know that they are trying to give away those same environmental approval powers, for which the Commonwealth level of government fought for 30 years to assume responsibility for, and share that responsibility with the states. This government, with the stroke of a pen, wants to get rid of that responsibility and give it away to the states. So is it any wonder that they are trying to silence the environment groups who are saying, 'That is a really bad idea. The environment stands to suffer. Wrong way, go back.'

I am really pleased that, as part of the course of this inquiry, we have been able to hear about the excellent work of the EDOs. If anyone is listening—because we are being broadcast and people might be on the bus or driving home—we are almost at tax time and I would urge people to think about donating to the Environmental Defenders Office in their state. Some of those offices are about to close their doors because this government has entirely removed their funding, for the first time in 18 years. Not even John Howard withdrew funding for the Environmental Defenders Offices, but this government has completely gutted federal support. Which is why we Greens, in our additional comments to this inquiry, have recommended reinstating funding for the EDOs—and not just the base funding, but also the additional funds that had been provided on a temporary basis by the former government. Also, the Productivity Commission's report into access to justice recommended that Community Legal Centres receive an additional $200 million, and we have urged that the government think about the portion of that that should sit with the Environmental Defenders Office, who are, of course, a Community Legal Centre.

The short version is, the EDOs deserve federal funding. They perform a vital role for our democracy, and this government stands condemned for removing their funding and the funding to so many of those on-the-ground environment groups, who are doing excellent work.

The Biodiversity Fund was the second aspect the inquiry focused on. It was formerly almost a $1 billion fund. It was set up to be funded under the carbon price that we used to have before this government axed it, along with many other environmental protections. Unfortunately, under the former government it had been chopped in half before it was then ditched entirely by the current government. What a shame, because it was actually a fund that helped landowners access government support to rehabilitate their land—to work for positive environmental outcomes that also helped their own on-farm land-management outcomes. It was a win-win situation. It was essentially a stewardship program, and I would have thought that at least the Nationals could see the benefit of it. What a crying shame that we have now lost that funding pool entirely, thanks to an ideological objection to accepting climate science.

We have recommended that the funding for that Biodiversity Fund be restored, and we have also taken issue with the fact that this government claims to have been handing out some dollars for the Great Barrier Reef. We welcome that, of course. None have been greater champions of the future of the reef than those in my party, and that view is shared by many Australians. Why on earth, though, do you have to take that money out of other environment programs? What is so toxic about the environment that it does not deserve decent funding? Clearly, this government is being utterly run by its fossil-fuel-donor masters, and, once again, the environment is left to squabble over the crumbs from the table of funding. Again: wrong way, go back. The Great Barrier Reef deserves infinitely more funding and it deserves that without it being taken from Landcare programs.

I was really pleased to this inquiry was undertaken. There were over 1,000 submissions from members of the public that were not published. I want to thank each and every one of those people who took the time to make the submissions. And I want, in particular, to thank the witnesses who gave us such powerful evidence.

I want to finish by condemning the House of Representatives inquiry that is looking at removing the tax-deductible status of environment groups. For heaven's sake, stop the attacks on environment groups. They are there to try to protect this place. They are actually trying to protect it for future generations. They are trying to help you implement decent environmental laws and all you are doing is attacking them and de-funding them. It is very unbecoming, and it is not what Australians deserve.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Urquhart be agreed to.

Question agreed to.