Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers today to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the Environmental Defenders Office.

It is of note that again we are debating the question of the government's funding of the Environmental Defender's Office. As we have seen previously, through a judgement in the court in Western Australia, Justice Charlesworth said in her judgement that the EDO's evidence was so lacking in integrity that no weight can be placed on it. Among other things, this organisation has been granted $8.3 million by the government—and Minister Wong did acknowledge during her responses during question time that it was based on an election commitment. I think we have to accept that a government will want to keep its election commitments. But the question that has then been asked is, what is it that an organisation has to do for a government to say it is no longer fit to receive funding from the government? What does an organisation have to do?

This is an organisation that has been involved in distorting and misrepresenting evidence, an organisation that has manipulated and coached traditional owners to fabricate evidence to put towards a court case. They portray themselves, by their name, as environmental defenders, yet they are nothing more than a job-destroying, anti-industry activist group. You can't describe them any other way than that. Yet this government continues to fund them.

As time goes on we see more and more circumstances surrounding this organisation, of whom Justice Charlesworth said, in the case in relation to Santos, that their evidence was so lacking in integrity that no weight could be placed on it. But the government continues to put weight on the evidence of this organisation. We saw it in the McPhillamys gold case. The EDO were involved in providing the evidence and preparing the evidence that this government relied on to stop the project. Yet Justice Charlesworth said, in the case involving Santos, that their evidence was so lacking that no weight could be placed on it. Yet this government continues to take their advice.

In my home state of Tasmania, the EDO was one of the organisations that wrote to Minister Plibersek in relation to salmon farming. Minister Plibersek could have said—and should have said—'No, the decision made by Minister Tony Burke in 2011 can stand.' But no: 'We'll overturn that; we'll have another look, create uncertainty for the salmon communities in Tasmania.' The minister has now kicked the can further down the road, for another year—so, another Christmas of uncertainty for salmon farmers and the communities in my home state of Tasmania. Her decision was, again, based on evidence by the Environmental Defenders Office, an organisation whose evidence was, as Justice Charlesworth said, so lacking in integrity that no weight could be placed on it.

So, not only do we have a magistrate saying that in a judgement—and obviously there's further work to be done on that in the next few days—but Minister Plibersek has taken the word of this organisation on a number of occasions to make anti-industry, anti-community decisions, and the government continues to fund them. It seems that there is nothing that these organisations can't do to disqualify themselves from receiving funding from this government.

But, worse, as well as continuing to fund them, the government handed them $8.3 million in the 2022 budget papers. And through estimates we've learnt that the EDO are on track to receive $15 million from the government by the end of the decade. Despite their record—they're killing off projects; they're working to kill off projects—this government continues to take the EDO's advice in making negative decisions against our communities.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're talking about the Environmental Defenders Office funding, and we would be forgiven for thinking that not only is Christmas coming—we see a change from those opposite—but an election is coming. Let's put some details on the public record following on from the responses to questions given by Senator Wong. She quite clearly articulated that the issues that have been raised have been referred to the department, and obviously there is responsibility to make sure there's due process and that things are done according to contractual arrangements. But let's just remember that the EDO has been funded for 20 years, including under the Howard government, until it was cut by Mr Tony Abbott in 2013. So we already see what would be ahead of us under Mr Dutton, including here today, and the cuts that he would make.

We also know that when we go to an election and we make a commitment, we live by that commitment and we honour that commitment. Last financial year, 75 per cent of the EDO's income was from charitable donations. State and territory governments funded them as well. As with any organisation in receipt of public funds, I, along with the Labor government, expect the Environmental Defenders Office to demonstrate the highest possible ethical and professional standards. That's what we do—without using a white board.

As I said, there was a theme here today in the questions asked by those opposite. We're leading up to an election, so we know that, yes, the EDO is in the firing line. We also know that Mr Dutton, from his record when he was in government, is very quick to cut funding, so let's try and understand why the opposition are targeting this organisation—because who is next on their list to cut funding to? Will they do as they've done in the past?

It's interesting to have my fellow Tasmanian senator from the opposition here today, because in 2013 your government cut funding to Launceston Community Legal Centre and they had to halve their staff. That's what you did. North Queensland Women's Legal Service in Herbert was unable to service two-thirds of its case load. That was in response to a Liberal government. The Gold Coast Community Legal Centre faced losing both of its specialist domestic violence lawyers despite overwhelming demand.

Instead of attacking us in this chamber, why don't you set out your plans to make cuts, which you will do. We know that that's what Mr Dutton did when he was Minister for Health. We know he cut billions of dollars out of health. Yet they come in here and, at every opportunity, play political games, when they could have supported good legislation that is trying to address the issues that our community is facing at the moment, with the cost-of-living pressures. What do they do each and every time? They vote against it. What did they do when there was an opportunity to support early educators in this place? How did they vote on that legislation? They voted no. What did the Liberals and the Greens do for a whole week in this chamber? They cozied up together to stop a vote on funding for housing in this country that would ensure social and affordable housing for those Australians that want it.

So the one thing that those opposite lack is credibility. They can't be trusted. They will come in and they will cut, cut, cut—because that's their record. It's in their DNA. So, if I was working in any legal service around this country, I would be very concerned about electing the opposition as the next government, because people know how arrogant Mr Dutton is. They know they can't trust Mr Dutton. We know from past experience what is going to happen if they— (Time expired)

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a delight to follow Senator Polley, I can tell you! I always enjoy listening to what Senator Polley has to say. That apparently was the government's best defence of what is one of the most outrageous policies this government has.

We asked in question time why this government continues to fund that outrageously ridiculous organisation, the Environmental Defenders Office. The answer we got from the minister was, 'It's because we made an election promise.' They said it in that serious and sensitive tone that was taken today, because they didn't want to be needled on it, because they know it is a bad decision. They just wanted to point to an election commitment. Now, let's not pay any attention to all of the other promises they made before the election. The promise to take $275 off every power bill for every household across the country isn't a promise they're going to honour at all, I can tell you, but regardless of what the EDO does the government will fund them for eternity.

Let's revisit what the EDO has done. They're at the heart of many bad decisions in this country and many of the appeals we find in our courts of law around job-creating, resource-providing, economy-driving projects. Mining, forestry, fishing—you name it; the EDO are in there doing their darnedest to prevent these projects from getting up, and they will go to any lengths. We've already heard about the Santos Barossa case, where Justice Natalie Charlesworth eviscerated the EDO and they were caught flat-footed. They'd fabricated evidence. They'd coached witnesses. We now have written evidence about what was happening here. So-called academics were working in concert with the EDO to figure out where they should put a serpent on a map to affect the outcome. They didn't want to rely on science. They didn't want to reply on anthropology. They just wanted to confect evidence to get the outcome they wanted. That is an outrageous breach of any standard required of a legal professional.

The minister, in defending this appalling, job-destroying organisation and Labor's taxpayer-funding of this organisation, said that there was a review done. Yes, there was a review done, and some conditions put in place, but it has changed nothing. That same group, which did exactly what I've just described in the Santos case, has been the instigator of the uncertainty facing the salmon industry in Tasmania. I'm disappointed Senator Polley isn't here to hear me talk about this. I'm sure she agrees with me that this organisation is jeopardising the jobs of 5,000 Tasmanians through confected evidence, making things up. The government blindly defends this organisation, and the money has no end date on it, either, for what it's worth; it just continues to flow. I asked at estimates: when will this funding run out? Never, it turns out.

It's not just that. We heard Senator Colbeck talk about McPhillamys goldmine in Blayney, which we saw the EDO at the heart of as well. Eight hundred jobs, in this case, and a billion dollars of economic activity are gone, including hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties revenue for the state of New South Wales, which goes into hospitals, schools and roads. That's all gone, courtesy of the EDO.

This Labor government says: 'We want to have a future made in Australia. We want to see more things done here. We want better paying jobs for Australians. We want to value-add. We want to grow the economy.' But they will fund an organisation that, at its core, opposes these projects and does what it can to stop them, tripping up applications, frustrating the course of these assessments and approvals, causing unnecessary job losses and delaying good projects from going ahead. There is no justification for what this government is doing. I'll be very surprised if they recommit to funding the EDO. If they do, it means that they have learnt nothing about what is important to Australian workers and why we need to do what we can.

Reform the laws all you like around environmental approvals. It doesn't matter what you do when it comes to the laws. If you're funding organisations that are activists in the courtroom and simply want to frustrate and stop jobs from being created through these projects, then you are not going to get projects approved and jobs created. It just makes no sense to me. It rather makes me think that the Labor Environment Action Network have control when it comes to these decisions. It's an appalling decision, one that must be revisited. The fact that they blindly commit to ongoing funding of the EDO is beyond belief.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the debate. I just want to make it clear to the Senate that I was on the committee that looked into the Barossa gas proposal. It was a couple of years ago, in a previous parliament and that sort of stuff, but I just wanted to put that on the record. I also want to say, as a proud Western Australian, that gas and mining are essential to our economy and to the Australian economy. I do want to say very clearly on the record, before I go to the body of the debate, that mining jobs in Western Australia—everywhere you go in Western Australia you will see fluoro shirts. I may not have a great relationship with some mining companies—and that's personal because of their treatment of the trucking industry—but mining is not an enemy of mine. Gas is not an enemy of mine. The sooner we get it in this nation—there are certain members in this parliament who love to attack fossil fuels. You don't see them walking to work. They're in the air-conditioned BMW or they're sitting at the front of the pointy part of the aeroplane, but they still want to bag out fossil fuels. I wanted to get that on the record.

I will go to the case of Justice Charlesworth with the Santos case. I'm not going to go into it too deeply, but I'm not going to sugarcoat it. If there's a rotten apple, sort it out. I pride myself on my years as an owner operator. I pride myself on my years as a transport workers union organiser. I don't support rotten apples, and I don't support foul play like that. I'm glad that it was uncovered, and I'm glad of the actions taken.

In saying that, we'll now move on. As my colleague Senator Polley said so exquisitely no less than 10 minutes ago—clearly the EDO was in play when I first came into this building under the Howard government. The EDO was funded by the Howard government. I know it was the Abbott government—I think in about 2013—that defunded the EDO. We must not forget that, and we also must not forget, as Senator Polley made quite clear, it was an election commitment taken to the election by the Albanese opposition at the time. As much as some of those opposite might not like the idea, if you make an election commitment, sometimes there is an expectation from the good people of Australia that, if the opposition wins and gets into government, they will deliver on their promises. That might be a strange thing to some of those opposite, but the truth of the matter is that the Albanese Labor opposition was elected to government, and they delivered on their promise. They funded the EDO. We've heard the figures of $8 million.

I heard Senator Duniam's contribution, as well as the previous opposition speaker before that—something about another $15 million, as it came out at Senate estimates, until 2030. Colleagues, I've got to tell you, I'm not great at mathematics, but I've worked out that that's over five years away. They got $8 million this year, and there's another $15 million. That's only $3 million a year or something like that—crikey! Look at the work that the EDO has done, whether we like it or not. I want to quote a few figures here. It says here that 75 per cent of the EDO's income for the last financial year was from charitable donations, and state and territory governments fund the EDO too. There is a lot of buy in and there's a lot of partnership in that.

What we know is that without the funding for the Environmental Defenders Office, just 46 per cent of environmental approvals were approved on time previously. I know the frustration we share now, with the approval process taking too long to make sure it right, but it was only 46 per cent. With funding for the EDO—which we heard earlier, but I want to reiterate—no less than 84 per cent of environmental approvals are on time. How do you argue against that when you've got to have a bit of transparency and accountability?

Seriously, some of the arguments in this building, particularly this week—thankfully there are no children present now, and I hope they weren't here earlier on, when we saw some of the shenanigans being performed by some of the senators—are quite embarrassing. I did want to get up here. I wanted to have the opportunity to correct the record. I wanted to have the opportunity, through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, to actually make a contribution as a long-time senator in this chamber with some grace, with some dignity and without the screaming and the yelling that I've heard here in the last week. Coming up to Christmas, I tell you what: I don't know if anyone can sit here for any longer if we have to put up with the performances that we've seen here. I thank my colleagues for listening and giving me the opportunity to put forward my case. I support the EDO.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The standards of the organisation that you fund are the standards that you accept. What we heard in question time today was essentially a failure of the Labor government to properly condemn the EDO for their actions. It was also a failure of this Labor government to commit to withdrawing the funding for the EDO. Therefore, you can only assume this Labor Party government accepts the standards that the EDO have put on display not just in relation to the case in the Northern Territory but across Australia.

The Environmental Defenders Office have defiled environmentalists across the country through—one of my colleagues used the phrase 'shenanigans'—their spiv-like, shonky, charlatan-like behaviour. If it was a private business, the EDO would be sold up and the administrators would be appointed. Instead, it is being kept alive notwithstanding the serious issues of misgovernance and—I'm going to say—malfeasance within the organisation. It's being kept alive because the taxpayers of Australia are funding this organisation to the tune of millions of dollars.

I'm very proud to say that the Liberal and National parties will not fund the EDO. We will stop funding the EDO. We believe that the taxpayers of Australia are doing it pretty tough at the moment because (a) they've got a Labor government, (b) they've got a Labor government and (c) they've got a Labor government—but in particular they've got a Labor government who have suddenly discovered, thanks to the Labor Party secretary doing a bit of research, that there's a cost-of-living crisis out there. Everyone's been doing it tough for a couple of years. They're working longer hours. Everything is costing more. They've got a Labor government who are hiding in the Canberra bubble—or the Canberra world, as I like to call it—and not understanding what's going on out there, and they see that their taxes are being spent to fund an organisation called the Environmental Defender's Office. Justice Charlesworth said the EDO's evidence was 'so lacking in integrity that no weight can be placed on it'. Justice Charlesworth went on to say the EDO was involved in 'distorting and misrepresenting evidence, and, furthermore, they manipulated and coached a number of traditional owners'.

I certainly hope that, when the legal matters come to an end, any legal practitioners who were involved in this matter are taken before the relevant professional bodies of the state or territory with a view to their practicing certificates being removed, because any legal practitioner, or anyone who has spent a couple of days in law school, will know that the conduct of those lawyers within the EDO is the conduct of people who should be on the other side of any legal framework—that is, they should be the defendants rather than the council defending them. It is actually shameful what these legal practitioners have done. It is not just the misuse of money; it is the misuse of their power as lawyers. They are people who are supposed to defend the rule of law, but instead these legal practitioners have done everything in their power to defile the rule of law and to defile any Australian who may have an interest in how our society is governed. For that reason, the EDO should be defunded and, in an ideal world, wound up, sold up and put in a rubbish bin.

Question agreed to.