Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Hansard source

I commend the honourable member for Batman for his contribution to this debate. Always it is a considered contribution and one that pulls no punches. I rise to oppose the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006. I support the second reading amendment moved by the member for Grayndler which encapsulates in the broadest sense what is dreadfully wrong with this flawed piece of legislation that is now before the House. The second reading amendment moved by the member for Grayndler expresses strong concern that:

(1)

the bill is being rushed through the Parliament without proper consideration or consultation;

(2)

the Howard Government has failed to halt the decline in Australia’s natural environment and best agricultural land;

(3)

the bill contains no measures to cut Australia’s spiralling greenhouse pollution or protect Australia from dangerous climate change;

(4)

the bill will increase the Howard Government’s politicisation of environment and heritage protection; and

(5)

many of the proposed changes in the bill will reduce Ministerial accountability and opportunities for genuine public consultation;

and therefore calls on the Howard Government to:

(6)

ensure climate change is properly factored into environmental decision making under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the Act);

(7)

establish a climate change trigger in the Act to ensure large scale greenhouse polluting projects are assessed by the Federal Government; and

(8)

allow greater time for public consultation and debate on the bill”—

A central question has to be asked about this particular piece of legislation: will these streamlined procedures and amendments addressing claims of duplication of processes, insufficient flexibility and scope, ambiguities, anomalies and lack of certainty maintain at the end of the day a high level of protection for the environment? That is a fundamental question, because the government has come into this place with an extremely complex bill that we have not had adequate time to consider and, of course, we must match the amendments in this legislation against some very important benchmarks that the Australian community wants in place to protect the Australian environment.

I note the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Corangamite—Captain Zero, as we know him in the Western District. I would have thought that the honourable member for Corangamite, being a grazier from the Western District, would have had some regard for process. He has been in this parliament long enough to understand that good legislation only comes from good consideration and debate, and we have not had it in this instance. I will make sure that the people of Geelong are aware of the fact that the honourable member for Corangamite is attempting, along with his colleagues, to ram a piece of legislation through this parliament without due process—the sort of due process that his constituents and mine in the Geelong area demand of us in this place. They do not ask for it; when a significant piece of legislation comes before this particular parliament, they demand that the honourable member for Corangamite and the honourable member for Corio, as representatives, do our duty by them and allow sufficient time for consideration of these lofty issues.

The Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 seeks to amend in a substantial way the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which commenced operation in 2000. This particular legislation forms the centrepiece of Australian law relating to the environment. The bill we are debating here today is acknowledged by the government—not just by us; in the explanatory memorandum it is acknowledged by the government—that this is ‘the first comprehensive attempt to define the environmental responsibilities of the Australian government’. If it is the first comprehensive attempt to do it and we have a piece of legislation that is 409 pages long, with an enormous number of amendments, why is the government ramming this legislation through this parliament?

In the explanatory memorandum, the government goes on to say:

... enables the Australian Government to join with the States and Territories in providing a truly national scheme of environmental protection and biodiversity conservation.

This is a major piece of Commonwealth legislation. The bill contains 409 pages of amendments and the government’s own explanatory memorandum runs to 117 pages. This is indeed a complex piece of legislation. It is highly technical and it has far-reaching consequences for stakeholders, whether they are developers, farmers, environmentalists, communities, state and territory governments or private or public companies. It is legislation that is of great concern and consequence to the Australian people. Given all of this, why has the Howard government so abused the parliamentary and public consultation process to ram this bill through this parliament in this way?

Previous speakers on this side of the House, the opposition, have acknowledged that there are parts of this legislation worthy of some support, but they can only be supported if we as the opposition are given enough time to consider the detail of the bill, seek out expert advice on the technical aspects of the legislation, have sufficient time to engage in meaningful discussion with stakeholders and have sufficient time to internally reach a considered view on aspects of the bill. If the opposition are permitted to go through those processes, the government knows that at the end of the day and in the interests of the Australian people we will agree with it on the matters which we think ought to be supported by the Australian people.

I notice that the Prime Minister has entered the chamber to grace us with his presence at question time. I think there are people in the gallery who would like to know why the Prime Minister and his government are seeking to ram this piece of legislation through this parliament. It is legislation that was four years in the making and is the most significant piece of environmental legislation in Australia’s history, and the Prime Minister, his cabinet and his colleagues on the back bench are ramming it through this parliament without adequate time for consultation and discussion. Let it be a matter on the public record that the opposition have not had sufficient time to assess the impacts of this legislation on stakeholders or the environment.

Given the lofty objectives of the bill and their significance, I would have thought that good governance and appropriate democratic practice would have dictated a different approach by the government to this legislation. This 409-page bill has been dumped on the opposition at short notice. I have requested a Bills Digest from the library but I have been informed that one will not be available for two weeks, long after the debate has taken place in the House. As I understand it, no comprehensive briefing on the detail and the implications of the bill has been provided to the opposition by the minister’s department. The debate will occur well before Labor has had the opportunity to consult with key stakeholders or consider their evidence before the Senate committee that is scheduled to inquire and hold hearings into this bill. This is an absolute abuse of power and process, and it is the mark of an arrogant government that cares little now for proper parliamentary process and scrutiny and even less for good democratic practice.

See this speech in context