Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will be speaking in support of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006that is, I will be opposing the member for Rankin. I do not believe his concerns will prove to be founded in the long run, although he did show to the parliament this evening the depth of his knowledge of the history of this legislation from his former roles working for a previous government.

I support the government’s proposed amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, or the EPBC Act, as it is generally known. In the six years since the introduction of this act, the challenges facing the Australian environment have changed. Just as the Australian environment itself has changed, experience has shown us that there are ways in which the operation of the EPBC Act can be improved to optimise its efficiency while maintaining and enhancing its environmental effectiveness. The bill proposes those improvements.

As chair of the Australian government’s environment and heritage backbench committee I have witnessed the community’s wide acceptance of the EPBC legislation and have been proud to be part of the real results this act has had for the environment, particularly in my electorate of McMillan.

In his second reading speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the member for Flinders, explained:

The EPBC Act has established Australia’s place as a world leader in environmental legislation. The act has been acknowledged as a world-class and innovative piece of environmental legislation. It is one of the few environmental laws anywhere in the world that provides a comprehensive national approach to environmental protection and that deals with such a wide range of environment and heritage issues.

He also went on to say:

For the first time in our Federation, the EPBC Act clarified the environmental roles and responsibilities of the Australian government, and the linkages between it and the state and territory governments. The act provides mechanisms for consultation and cooperation between those governments. It puts in place a streamlined environmental assessment and approvals process in a way that is predictable, transparent and efficient, employing statutory time frames to ensure timely decision making.

As I said in my opening remarks, this bill is about efficiency—an opportunity for continuous quality improvement. The government now proposes to streamline the act with a series of amendments that will benefit the community, industry, the economy and the nation, while maintaining our strong commitment to protecting Australia’s unique and iconic natural, Indigenous and cultural heritage.

Broadly, the amendments include changes in six areas. Cutting red tape in government will reduce duplication and complexity, and improve assessment and approval processes. Other changes will have a more significant impact on the application of the act, including providing incentives for developments to be considered earlier in the planning process, in the context of regional plans and strategic assessments. The amendments mean that quicker decisions can be made on straightforward projects, which will result in greater cost savings and efficiencies for industry, government and the community.

Another change to the EPBC Act will be the increased flexibility in setting conditions on developments. In this area, the amendments in the bill will broaden the types of conditions that can be attached to development approvals. This will allow voluntary compensatory actions and financial contributions to be made to help offset the impacts of developments in situations where impacts are unavoidable. The two areas that will interest people in my Victorian electorate of McMillan will be the increase in the certainty for community and industry and the strengthening of compliance and enforcement. I will cover those two areas in more detail later in my address.

I do not think the Howard government gets the recognition it deserves in terms of working to preserve, protect and enhance our environment and heritage. As the Minister for the Environment and Heritage said earlier this year during the budget session:

Over the past 10 years, the Howard Government has committed historic levels of funding to tackling the national challenges of natural resource management and climate change …

The Howard government has nominated a sustainable environment as one of its nine strategic priorities and has made an environmentally sustainable Australia one of its four national research priorities. This commitment has been backed up by resources, with total spending on environmental issues increasing from just $370 million in 1995-96, when the Howard government came to government, to $1.55 billion in 2006-07. Anybody would have to agree that is a major commitment. (Quorum formed)

Governments get accused of blowing their own trumpets, but I say to you that there is no shame in acknowledging the achievements we have made, like vehemently opposing commercial and scientific whaling and our commitment to pursuing an end to these practices through international forums and the Howard government’s oceans policy, the first such policy in the world, which develops regional marine plans including a system of marine protected areas. Then there is the fact that air quality in cities and urban areas has improved markedly as a result of mandatory cleaner fuel standards.

Another huge success story is the Natural Heritage Trust, the biggest and most successful environmental restoration program in Australia’s history, with $3 billion in funding helping local communities in 56 regions across Australia to clean beaches, rehabilitate coastlines, reduce erosion, improve the health of land and waterways, increase the productivity of agricultural land and protect our threatened species. It is estimated that over 800,000 Australians, mostly volunteers, have contributed to thousands of Natural Heritage Trust projects. I cannot talk highly enough of the Howard government’s approach to the environment and its encouragement of hands-on, grassroots environmental action through programs like Landcare and its on-the-farm ground support. Landcare projects providing for farmers in terms of coordination and access to funding for fencing, revegetation, erosion control and salinity reduction are to be commended.

Across my Victorian electorate of McMillan there are four highly active Landcare networks with over 30 Landcare groups. I take my hat off to the volunteers and coordinators who work tirelessly to implement Landcare projects that foster volunteerism, teamwork, local ownership and community spirit. Landcare is a living, breathing example of the effectiveness of this act and other acts that control our environment. They clarify the environmental roles and responsibilities of the Australian government and those of state and territory governments. This clarity comes through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act which provides a framework for the seven matters of national environmental significance for which the Australian government has particular responsibility. These are: World Heritage properties; National Heritage places; wetlands of international importance—that is, wetlands declared under the Ramsar convention—nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities; listed migratory species; the Commonwealth marine area; and nuclear actions.

In my Victorian electorate of McMillan, a very special and breathtaking place, we have a rich and varied environment. Unlike your seat, Mr Deputy Speaker Haase, McMillan sounds small, but it covers some 8,300 square kilometres of the most beautiful parts of Victoria from the Great Dividing Range in the north to Wilson’s Promontory in the south and from the eastern outskirts of Melbourne to the start of the Latrobe Valley in the east. McMillan is the gateway and the heart of Gippsland, although Minister McGauran would probably tackle me on that. The rolling hills with nearly 2,000 farms—and, yes, even though we have a vast drought across the nation—is the emerald jewel in our nation’s crown, except for parts of Queensland of course. We still need rain. Our rivers and our dams are not filled. Our catchments for our water supply for Gippsland and Melbourne are not filled. We are looking forward to that rain, because it will come first in Gippsland, I feel. Whilst our farmers are doing reasonably well, though some are starting to feel the pinch now, we still produce 20 per cent of Australia’s milk with the 2004 figures showing that Gippsland farmers hold higher equity in their farms than the national average and continue to build their asset base. As well as farmland, McMillan is also home to the sensitive coastal regions of South Gippsland, particularly Wilson’s Promontory, a corner of my electorate that is very special to many Victorians. I share the coastline of course with the member for Gippsland and the member for Flinders, and this area is a most precious area.

Returning to the amendments that I believe will be nearer and dearer to the hearts of the residents in my electorate from the Bald Hills, Toora and Foster districts, as mentioned previously these changes will increase the certainty for the community and industry and strengthen compliance and enforcement. These communities in my electorate, without appropriate consultation or involvement, have been lumbered with one constructed wind power station and two proposed power stations. The community in and around Bald Hills and Foster deserves the right to a full public consultation process, a right removed by the Victorian Labor government. These people did not have the avenue of the local council planning processes and therefore were not able to provide evidence detailing the threat these proposed power plants and wind turbines would be to the 18 threatened bird species in the area, in particular the critically endangered orange-bellied parrot at Bald Hills and the endangered wedge-tailed eagle at Foster North.

The amendments in this bill coupled with recent court proceedings in the Federal Court and the recent community roundtable discussion to work towards a national code for wind farm installations or wind turbine installations highlight the Australian government’s desire for community consultation and involvement through the frameworks and provisions of the EPBC Act. I have been accused by the Victorian state Labor government of being ‘anti wind and anti renewable energy’ because I have stuck my neck out and worked for my communities and my constituents around Bald Hills and Foster. This is just not the case.

In fact, I applaud the Howard government’s $1 billion pledge to investigate and develop all forms of technology to combat greenhouse gas emissions, including clean coal, solar, geothermal, carbon sequestration and wind power. The Australian government wants to explore a range of technologies but not to the detriment of our endangered species or our precious coastal regions and wetlands. This is what the framework and the provisions of this act will allow.

What is important for the communities I have mentioned in my electorate is that the proposed amendments set out in this bill will provide greater opportunity for public participation. The amendments will provide more appropriate mechanisms for community participation to be considered and acted upon by the government. The government is not removing any appeal rights in relation to judicial review. Anyone affected by a particular decision will still be able to appeal that decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. The extended standing provisions of the EPBC Act continue to apply.

With regard to the repeal of the provision, ‘No undertakings as to damages for interim injunctions,’ this merely brings the EPBC Act into line with other Commonwealth legislation. This means that the Federal Court will have the discretion to require an applicant for an injunction to give an undertaking as to damages as a condition of granting an interim injunction. It is appropriate for the courts to be making these decisions rather than for them to be prescribed in legislation. The ability to appeal administrative decisions of public servants is an important right. This ability is being preserved. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal will have the same jurisdiction as now in relation to any decisions made by public servants as delegates of the minister. However, many of the decisions taken under the act require careful balancing of competing interests and judgements.

The Australian government considers that, where these decisions are sufficiently important to be taken by the minister as an elected representative, those judgement calls should not be able to be overturned by an unelected tribunal such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Of course under these proposed changes appeals through the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act will continue to apply to wildlife decisions under the EPBC Act, whether taken by the minister or his delegate. This provision is important as it ensures the minister has made his decision appropriately. But, ultimately and rightly, as an elected representative it is a decision the minister makes, not a judge. Changes proposed by this bill limit the use of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where it is more appropriate for an elected member of parliament to make the decision than a judge.

In closing, I reiterate that the changes to the EPBC Act proposed by this bill will ensure matters of national environmental significance continue to receive the highest possible level of protection. They will cut red tape and enable quicker and more strategic action to be taken on emerging environmental issues. They will make environmental decision making more efficient and cost-effective. They will provide greater certainty for industry while, at the same time, strengthening compliance with and the enforcement of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. They will make regional decision making with its better strategic framework a priority and increase the general understanding of the processes and mechanisms of the EPBC Act.

The bill will build on the substantial environment and heritage gains so far achieved under this act and by the Howard government and will provide the framework for Australia to move forward in the 21st century. The proposed changes will strengthen the act’s environmental protection regime and increase its effectiveness by facilitating more strategic approaches while at the same time reducing the extent to which the act is process driven in a non-productive manner. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context