Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020 be referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 November 2020.

This motion is in relation to the government's legislation that was tabled in the House of Representatives last week that is going to weaken Australia's environmental laws. It's going to weaken the ability of the federal government and the Commonwealth to ensure that we protect Australia's most iconic places, our special species and the wildlife that Australians right around this country and indeed people around the world hold dear.

This legislation is a carbon copy of the Tony Abbott bill from 2014, and it's very disingenuous of the government to put forward this bill without any other process. We know that the government has been saying for the past few months that they would be insisting on a piece of legislation that would mirror or at least reflect the recommendations from the Graeme Samuel review. That, of course, is the independent review done into the EPBC Act, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the current law that is meant to look after our environment. That review has been 10 years waiting and is still ongoing; we haven't got the final report. The interim report, which was tabled in June, made it very clear that we need stronger environment protection, not weaker, because our environment is at breaking point. Our environment is at a point where the decline is so bad that, if we don't do something, it is simply unsustainable. The rate of extinction of Australian species is unimaginable. Climate change, land clearing and pollution are pushing our environment to crisis point and our native species into extinction.

What we need is stronger environmental protection and an independent watchdog to make sure those rules are put into place and those standards upheld. But what this government has done is introduce a piece of legislation that simply hands over powers for approvals to the states and the territories. Why do the government want to do this? It's for the same reason they wanted to do this in 2014 under the leadership of Tony Abbott, and that's to make it easier for big miners and big developers to get approval for projects that are going to damage or be harmful to the environment. The government today are arguing that we need it because of COVID-19. They're doing it under the cover of the pandemic crisis. It is absolutely cynical and terrible that this government is prepared to sacrifice Australia's already damaged environment, suffering environment in order to do what it is these corporations have wanted for a long time—that is, an easy ride through the environmental approval process.

This parliament and this Senate need to stand up to this government and say that this will go to a proper inquiry. We need to make sure we scrutinise it. It is our job as legislators to do that. There should be no more progress of this legislation in this place until there has been a full-blown Senate inquiry at the very least. We should, in fact, be waiting until the final report is tabled, which won't be until 31 October. That's what we should be waiting on. We shouldn't be allowing this government to rush through legislation that is going to trash our environment even more.

Heaven knows what happens when there aren't strong enough environment protections, when the states make the decisions. You end up seeing Rio Tinto blowing up ancient Aboriginal artefacts. You see state governments wanting to dam the Franklin or arguing for coal seam gas extraction to be expanded in the Northern Territory and New South Wales. We can't trust this government. They want us to rush this legislation through with no inquiry, with a nod and a wink that it will all be okay. Well, we don't trust you. This must be inquired into, and this motion must send the legislation off to inquiry. (Time expired)

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports this reference to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. If ever a government needed scrutiny on environmental management and its legislative agenda, it's the Morrison government. This bill appears to be a rehash of Tony Abbott's failed 2014 environment bill, which would harm Australia's natural environment and put jobs and investment at risk. There are no national environmental standards in this bill, despite those being the foundation of Professor Graeme Samuel's proposed reforms. This bill would see more major project job delays, more investment uncertainty, more conflict, less trust in decisions and worse outcomes for the environment.

With no proposed standards, no independent cop on the beat and no additional funding for the states, despite the extra responsibilities, this bill appears to be designed for political conflict. But it does need further scrutiny. If Mr Morrison were serious about securing broad support and durable reform he would not be rehashing Tony Abbott's failed 2014 bill, breaking his promise on national standards or cherrypicking the interim report of one of Australia's most experienced business regulators.

The environment minister, Sussan Ley, said in July that the government would introduce strong and rigorous environmental standards that had buy-in across the board at the same time as introducing her proposed legislative change. This government has failed the test it set for itself. In his interim report Professor Samuel warned against the exact approach the government is now taking. In 2015 the parliament did not support these amendments in response to significant community concern about the ability of states and territories to uphold the national interest in applying discretion in approval decisions.

Even when presented with an opportunity to provide more certainty for jobs, investment and our environment, Scott Morrison chooses conflict. Labor has engaged constructively with the Samuel review from the very start. Scott Morrison has very favourable conditions for reform: an opposition that has said it will engage constructively and a well-respected review chair who is working with leaders from agriculture, resources and business, as well as traditional owners, conservationists and academics. The Morrison government should, firstly, introduce strong national environmental standards; secondly, establish a genuinely independent cop on the beat for Australia's environment; and, thirdly, fix the explosion of unnecessary 510 per cent job and investment delays caused by their massive funding cuts.

The Samuel review is the most significant opportunity for environmental reform in the last 20 years, but Scott Morrison is bungling it.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These amendments are minor and technical in nature but are vital for implementing the decision by national cabinet without unnecessary delay.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course these amendments ought to be scrutinised by a Senate inquiry. It's really important for the Australian people to understand that this government's legislation—this amendment bill—is designed for one thing, and one thing only: it's designed to pave the way for our big, greedy and polluting corporations, many of whom pay little or no tax at all, to be able to trash our precious environment with ever-decreasing environmental protections and ever-decreasing scrutiny.

This is a government that will always, always go in to bat for its corporate donors—for those big corporate profiteers—and it is a government that will never stand up for nature. It will never, never stand up and take decent action to address the breakdown of our climate. When will we ever learn? How many more people need to die in floods and bushfires driven by dangerous climate change? How many more people need to lose their properties? How many more people need to have their lives destroyed because we are allowing and facilitating the destruction of nature by the big corporate profiteers? We must do better than this.

We already know, thanks to the interim report of the Samuel review, that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is misnamed. We already know, thanks to that review, that it does not protect the environment and that it does not conserve biodiversity. We know that because Professor Samuel has told us so. And what's this government's response? It is to come in and weaken environmental protections. It is to come in and say, 'We're going to do more to pave the way for the big corporate polluters. We're going to do more to make sure that they can continue to look after the interests of their shareholders above and beyond the need to protect our environment.'

We have to do better, and I ask the government: how are you going to explain yourselves to your children and your grandchildren? How are you going to look them in the eye and say that, in the middle of an extinction crisis, in the middle of a climate crisis, you came in here to weaken environmental protections in Australia? You came in here to destroy the chance of getting strong action to address the climate breakdown. How are you going to look future generations in the eye? I'll tell you what: you won't be able to.

Senator Seselja interjecting—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No matter what Senator Seselja is mumbling about over in the corner—

Senator Seselja interjecting—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And on he goes again. I don't remember pulling the chain and asking for a contribution from you, Senator Seselja. I'm here to speak up for future generations.

Senator Seselja interjecting—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm here to speak up for the threatened species whose habitats you are destroying.

Senator Seselja interjecting—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator McKim, resume your seat. Minister, I have called you to order at least three times. I expect you to respond when I call you to order. Senator McKim has the right to be heard in silence.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm here to speak up for the threatened species who don't have a voice in this place—species like the beautiful swift parrot, which is being driven to extinction by habitat destruction facilitated by the native forest logging industry in my home state of Tasmania. That beautiful little bird is now on the IUCN Red List because its habitat is being destroyed, hundreds of hectares at a time, by the brutal, rampant industry that strip-mines our native forest in my home state of Tasmania. That's why the Greens are in this place, and we will never go quietly into the night while people like you—the environmental destroyers, the rapers of our planet—continue on this dark path that you are on today.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4, in the name of Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.