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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I take note of this report because this is a very, very important review. It is required under the EPBC legislation that every ten years our environment laws are reviewed, that they're looked at in great detail, that experts consider whether they are fit for purpose and report to both the government and the parliament about the effect of our laws and whether they are doing what they need to do. We know that the government had this report for some 90 days before releasing it. And of course they happened—let's put this on the record—to release it right in the middle of Mr Albanese's frontbench reshuffle last week. You'd think that this government would have been a bit more courteous to not publicly release an important document like this in the middle of when other things were going on—unless, of course, this government wanted to cover up and distract from the recommendations in this report.

Let's go to those recommendations, because they are absolutely fundamental. What Professor Samuel says in this review is that our environment laws are in dire straits, that our environment is suffering, that if we don't act now we will lose our native animal species for good—gone! The biggest threats, of course, to our wildlife and to our environment are climate change and habitat destruction. This report calls on the parliament and the government to take swift action to put in place stronger laws and protections for our environment. We need to take heed of this advice. We need stronger protections and stronger standards. We shouldn't be allowing new developments and new mines and new destructions to occur without considering the very real long-term impact that these projects are having on our environment. We need laws to protect what we have, because we don't have much left. We need laws that protect our wildlife before they're gone for good. This report shows that native species, like the koala, will be extinct before 2050 unless we stop destroying their habitat. It shows that our rivers and our streams and our natural waterways will be polluted unless we stop polluting them with the developments that are just going on and on. It says we have to stop allowing the corporate greed in this country to override the environment and the needs of the community. We need to protect what we have.

Australians love our natural places, they love our special spots, they love our native animals and they want us to protect them. One of the things I've noticed out of COVID is that people are reconnecting with their natural surrounds more than ever. They want to be outside enjoying the Australian bush, our beautiful beaches, our coastline. They don't want to see Australia's environment trashed any more, they want to see our animals protected and they want a government that will do what it needs to do to stop extinction in its tracks. We need strong laws, we need better protection but we also need an independent watchdog to ensure that these laws are actually upheld, to ensure that, when corporations get a green light, they're held to account for what they do and what they don't do.

It's quite clear in this review that the cosy relationship between corporations in this country and the governments of the day, state and federal, has made our environment suffer. It's put it in a worse state. We can't trust that governments will simply do the right thing, certainly not when they've got their hands out for election donations. Politics needs to be taken out of this. Dirty politics needs to be taken out of this. The environment needs to be put front and centre, and we need strong laws and a watchdog to make sure our environment is protected for good. This isn't just for today or tomorrow; this is for generations to come. It's time we heeded this advice today. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of this document. In his review, which is highly critical of our existing environment laws, Graeme Samuel went to the situation of our logging laws—the regional forest agreements. We've had many debates in this chamber about the complete inadequacy of the regional forest agreements in protecting our forests and the wildlife that depend on our forests—the wildlife that, so sadly in so many cases, is becoming critically endangered and hurtling towards extinction.

Graeme Samuel had some pretty strong words to say about how he saw the regional forest agreements operating. He said:

… the Review considers that the provisions for RFAs are the most unacceptable and require immediate reform.

He also said:

The Review considers that the environmental considerations under the RFA Act are weaker than those imposed elsewhere for MNES—

matters of national environmental significance—

and do not align with the assessment of significant impacts on MNES required by the EPBC Act. Submissions from stakeholders indicated concern around the effectiveness of the RFAs to protect threatened species that rely on the forest areas covered by RFAs. There is also great concern that the controls on logging within forests have not adequately adapted to pressures on the ecosystem such as climate change or bushfire impacts.

There is insufficient Commonwealth oversight of RFAs and the assurance and reporting mechanisms are weak.

Essentially, the RFAs are not protecting our forests. Graeme Samuel called for immediate action to make sure that logging operations are covered under the same environmental standards as other actions, and that they be subject to the same national environment standards he proposes in his review.

This is damning. Graeme Samuel's report completely reinforces and underlines what people who are concerned about the future of our forests have been talking about for decades. If you go into our forests and see the destruction of our forests, you can see what's going on. Graeme Samuel, in his review, has said, 'Yes, this is what's occurring; our forests are not being protected by our logging laws. Species are being left to hurtle towards extinction, and immediate action is needed.'

But what action have we seen from this government? They have been sitting on this report for the last three months. We've had another summer of logging operations; another summer of logging the habitat of swift parrots, which are critically endangered; another summer of logging the habitat of Leadbeater's possums, which are critically endangered, another summer of logging the habitat of greater gliders, which are rapidly reducing in numbers; and another summer of logging the habitat of koalas. This is what's currently going on in our forests, and this review has said, once and for all, that this is going on and that immediate action is needed.

The Greens say that the only responsible thing that this government should do—and it should have done it years ago, if not three months ago when it got this report from Professor Samuel—is to put an immediate moratorium on logging in our native forests. We know the native forest logging industry is the rump of the timber industry in Australia. Almost 90 per cent of the wood that comes out of Australia comes from plantations. The Greens believe, and anyone concerned about the future of our forests believes, that we should be increasing that so that 100 per cent of the wood coming out of Australia comes from plantation forests.

There is no role for logging of our precious native forests in Australia. There should be an immediate moratorium on the logging of all of our native forests. We should be scrapping the regional forest agreements, which have not been protecting our forests. They have not been protecting jobs. They have been destroying our critical heritage—our First Nations cultural heritage, our environmental heritage. They have been destroying habitat for animals. They have been destroying our water supplies. They have been impacting upon the potential of these forests to be wonderful resources for tourism and recreation. This report lays out clearly that our forests are not being protected and that urgent action is needed to make sure that they are.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of this document as well. This is a very, very important document. It is a statutory review after 10 years of operation of the EPBC Act. It is worth reading what Mr Samuel says in the executive summary of the review:

The overwhelming message received by the Review is that Australians care deeply about our iconic places and unique environment. Protecting and conserving them for the benefit of current and future generations is important for the nation.

The evidence received by the Review is compelling. Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. The pressures on the environment are significant—including land-use change, habitat loss and degradation, and feral animals and invasive plant species.

He goes on to talk about a number of things and then says:

The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable.

That's extremely important. He has basically come to the conclusion that there are significant problems with our environmental laws and, like any good reviewer, has come up with a range of very sensible suggestions. We know that this has not just been through a process of the report landing on the desk of the minister and being tabled in the parliament; there was an interim report as well.

A whole range of different remedies have been laid out in the report. I will just mention some of the big-ticket items: the requirement for strong national standards; the reducing of red tape around those standards by devolving responsibilities to the states; an assurance commissioner to make sure that the environment is protected. He mentions transparency—and transparency is always a good resolution to any particular problem that involves government—and using that as a key for regaining trust, which is something the report says needs to be done. He also talks about reducing the complexity of the legislation. There are a whole bunch of remedies in here, and the government has a lot of work to do. I'm actually quite surprised that we haven't seen a response to this report from the government, noting that it has been with the minister for some time now. What is essential—and Mr Samuel spells this out—is a holistic plan to deal with this issue. There needs to be something that the government lays out saying, 'This is how we intend to approach this problem; here is our timetable of implementation in terms of legislation and then what may flow from that,' so that the Australian public has the complete picture.

I will just indicate to the government that I don't intend to support any measures that are ad hoc and just cherrypicking of the legislation. There has to be a plan that has been laid out. I don't want to find myself in a situation where I'm being asked to support perhaps weaker standards or where I'm being asked to support the devolution of decision-making to the states, when the states may not have the proper expertise and capacity to conduct decision-making in respect of the environment. I don't want to pass laws that allow devolution without the assurance commissioner being dealt with at the same time so that there's balance as we change things and we have the assurance on the other side.

I'm mindful that the government has for some time now promised to have an inspector-general for the Murray-Darling Basin, yet we've not seen that legislation in any form. So I won't be accepting a promise that there will be some future legislation that deals with something like an assurance commissioner. This is a really important issue. I'm prepared to take it on pragmatically, because saying no to everything will mean we leave ourselves in the same parlous state that we are in. So we have to approach this in a proper manner. I urge the government to come up with a plan that they can present to the parliament, and I caution them not to try and bring little bits of legislation that might suit one side of change without the possibility of the implementation of the whole report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.