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

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to the government's proposed changes to the EPBC Act, which remove the rights of third parties to challenge environmental approval decisions in the courts. Is prime ministerial confidant and commentator Alan Jones correct in his assessment that, 'The latest move by the Abbott government puts at risk not just our environment but our very democracy'?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Singh: no. If Mr Jones said that—I have not seen his remarks—that is not correct at all. Let me, if I may, Senator Singh, explain what the government intends to do. Section 487 of the EPBC Act creates an exception to the ordinary law. The ordinary common-law rule is that a person is entitled to commence proceedings, including proceedings for administrative review of a decision maker's decision, if that person is affected by the decision. That is the law. That has been the law since time immemorial. Anyone who is affected has a right of standing before a court or an administrative review tribunal. Section 487 of the EPBC Act created an exception to that traditional common-law principle by giving standing to apply for review of administrative decisions made under that particular act to anybody who was an Australian citizen or a person ordinarily resident in Australia who, at any time within the previous two years, had any involvement whatsoever in any activity relating to conservation or research into conservation.

Senator Singh, unfortunately, that provision—inserted, I might say, by the Howard government in order to give genuine environmentalists an additional forensic benefit in the review of disputed environmental decisions—has been availed of in recent years by vigilante litigants who are quite blatant, quite shameless, in their declaration that they intend to use that enhanced statutory standing for the purpose of economic destruction, and we will not allow that to occur. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I find it very surprising that the Attorney is not aware of the comments of Alan Jones, which have been plastered on TV ads on every television screen. Is the National Farmers' Federation right to be concerned that the standing of farmers and their representative bodies could be affected by the government's attack on the EPBC Act?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have seen Mr Brent Finlay's comments and those others of the National Farmers' Federation. Any farmer, any landholder, any businessman who is affected by any environmental decision will have the standing to challenge that decision, to seek administrative review of that decision. They do not rely, they do not depend, upon section 487 of the EPBC Act for that standing. They do not. It is very simple, Senator Singh. If they are affected, then, as a matter of ordinary common-law principles, they have a standing in the court and they have a right to challenge that decision. If they are not affected then they rely on section 487. But section 487 is not the basis on which a person affected by a decision can challenge it. They can challenge it under the ordinary law.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you going to quote Andrew Bolt now?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! To the question—ignore the interjection, Senator Singh.

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

What has Andrew Bolt said? Can the minister confirm that in the 15 years since John Howard introduced these environmental approval laws, only six out of 5,500 approvals have been successfully challenged by third parties? Is it any surprise that even Alan Jones thinks that this bad policy is an abuse of power?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, Senator Singh, what we are concerned about is responding to the threats—and you were in the chamber in the last sitting fortnight when I read from the declaration that radical environmental groups had published to declare that they would use legal devices, including the expanded right of challenge under section 487 of the EPBC Act, for the explicit purpose of closing down the Australian coal industry.

Senator Singh, in my state of Queensland the Carmichael mine is one of the biggest projects that has ever been proposed, and the people of Central Queensland in particular are appalled at the thought that the jobs that would be brought to Central Queensland could be lost as a result of opportunistic litigation by people with no recognised legal interest in the matter whatsoever but merely a political point to make to misuse the courts for their purpose. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.