Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The point the member for Grayndler just made in respect of the record of the Howard government, particularly, is something that we should be very proud of. We are probably not as good in the Liberal Party at telling our story, and we have a very fine record as far as the environment is concerned.

What is a reality is that we always need to review—we always need to, where it is appropriate, update and modernise—legislation in respect of the circumstances that prevail. It is the same when you consider, for example, welfare payments. I have no doubt that, when people rightly wanted to put in place a safety net for those Australians who, in a compassionate society, had fallen through the net, so to speak, the legislation was a mechanism to catch those people and to support them in their hard times. That is the Australian way. But I do not imagine that the people who designed that legislation ever imagined we would be in a situation like we are in today where, for many, this has become a lifestyle choice rather than an opportunity or incentive to help them get back on their feet. And so it is with the bill to amend the EPBC Act—in particular, section 487—that we are here to discuss today, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015.

But this is the issue: the Labor Party and the Greens are always conflicted here. I notice the member for Hunter sitting opposite. In the discussion today the specifics of this have been drawn to the issue of the Adani case and the action that was brought against a mine that went through the best assessment, the best approval process that exists anywhere in the world—and Australia should be rightly proud of the assessment and approval process that we have. But it is not just about the Adani mine, because in Tasmania, as the member for Grayndler mentioned, it is about the timber industry. The same principles that apply to the Adani case in Queensland equally apply to the timber industry in Tasmania that was destroyed by the Labor Party, both state and federal, with the support of the Greens—only because of a lust for power; only because of a desire to stay in government. It was a tragic story in our history, and I would welcome the member for Watson, any time he likes, to come on down. As to the member for Franklin, I have not seen him show his face in Tasmania since those disastrous years—which, fortunately, we are moving on from.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is Australia's national environment law. It is amongst the most stringent in the world. It provides a legal framework to facilitate sustainable development while protecting nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities, migratory birds, heritage places and water resources. However, when the act was introduced, as I mentioned, they never imagined that we would be confronted with a new breed of eco-warriors, career campaigners and protesters, all well-funded through tax-deductible donations. This is the brave new world that we have inherited, and we must, where it is appropriate, adjust legislation to be in line with reality.

The minister in his second reading speech highlighted the fact that, by establishing a one-stop shop for environmental assessments with all states and territories, we have tried to streamline this process of approvals. In fact, work with a construction and resource value of over $1 trillion has been approved since we came to government. The time taken to see environmental approvals has reduced by 50 per cent. I experienced this firsthand with the South East irrigation scheme in Tasmania. That was, in fairness, a funded commitment delivered by the previous government. But when I was elected and we came to government it was buried in a bureaucratic nightmare of environmental approvals between state and federal governments. Thanks to the good work of the minister, Minister Hunt, at that time, we managed to work that out and managed to get that through.

We have world-class environmental standards and world-class administration. But, from time to time, legislation needs to change to make sure the original intent of the government—which was the Howard government—at the time is indeed upheld.

We are increasingly seeing an Americanisation through the use of litigation in so many aspects of our lives. Particularly, it disgusts me—it is cruel—to see ads for these no-win no-pay lawyers; I remember watching, a couple of years ago, the Tour de France on television, and every second ad was saying: 'Do you feel like you've been wronged? Do you have a sore back? Well, come and see us and we'll get some money for you.' So this is increasingly what we are seeing, whether it is local communities trying to put on an event and dealing with the increasing costs of public liability insurance, or whether it is a policy of using environmental litigation to disrupt and delay projects to increase investor risk and increase costs within the projects and make Australia a less attractive place to invest money—in other words: to increase sovereign risk. This is what is happening in our nation.

I refer to a document entitled Stopping the Australian coal export boom: funding proposal for the Australian anti-coal movement. The authors of this document are Mr John Hepburn, from Greenpeace Australia Pacific; Mr Bob Burton, from CoalSwarm; and Sam Hardy—I will say 'Sam'; I do not know the person in question—from the Graeme Wood Foundation. As to the Graeme Wood Foundation, in Tasmania we have had experience of Graeme Wood. Graeme Wood was one of the people who purchased the old Triabunna woodchip mill during that disastrous lead-up to the Tasmanian forestry agreement, which the former speaker mentioned. It was part of a dodgy deal that was done with Gunns in their dying days, tragically, and the purchase was sold to these operators below what commercial operators within the forestry industry had previously offered. It devastated the community of Triabunna, on the east coast of Tasmania, and the livelihoods of hundreds of people involved in the southern Tasmanian timber industry.

I note also in the minister's speech a reference to the Australia Institute. They are topical at the moment, because they are the ones who wrote a report for the MUA on coastal shipping—which is another discussion we could have in this place very soon. What was achieved by the purchase of the Triabunna woodchip mill was the inability of southern forests to have a market for their residues. They shut us out and they destroyed the industry. I remind those opposite that Tasmania has not forgotten—and we would welcome the member for Watson any time he likes to come to Tasmania, because he will be reminded at every moment of the damage that was done during those terrible years.

I will read from the Australian anti-coal movement's document. It says:

Our strategy is essentially to 'disrupt and delay' key projects and infrastructure while gradually eroding public and political support for the industry and continually building the power of the movement to win more.

I would encourage anybody listening—those in the gallery, those who might be listening at home and those who, in order to go to sleep, might read this at some point in time—to seek out this document. I am sure it is publicly available. If it is not, they can contact my office and I would happily provide that to them. The point to make here is that this is not a grassroots campaign. This is a top-down strategic campaign to disrupt and delay. These eco-warriors and career protestors are funded, as I mentioned, through tax deductible donations, through the DGR status that many of them have.

Reference was made to the Great Barrier Reef. This has been a disaster for Greenpeace Australia. Minister Hunt did some outstanding work in getting the World Heritage Committee to take the Great Barrier Reef off the 'watch list'. This has been an absolute disaster for Greenpeace's fundraising activities, because they can no longer go out there and scare people. They can no longer use those images of polar bears dying due to a harvested forest in Tasmania or images of a piece of the Barrier Reef that has coral bleaching. They can no longer use those things, because it has been taken off the 'watch list' due to the good work of Minister Hunt and this government. That is a tragedy for Greenpeace, because it makes it more difficult for them to scare people and do their fundraising. It was the same with the Tasmanian forests. Never did the truth get put in the way of the emotive campaign that they used to generate funds. It is not about the forests; it is about the organisation's concern.

When the act was first introduced it was well intentioned to protect Australia's environment and biodiversity to allow appropriate development, but the world has moved on. The EPBC Act was never intended to disrupt and delay key projects in infrastructure. It is in need of updating. There is a need to update the act. Section 487 of the act, whilst well intentioned, has now become the basis, by virtue of the Americanisation of our justice system, that allows virtually any person or group to bring a lawsuit, whether they are adversely impacted or not. It is out of step with Commonwealth law. It is a legal loophole which activists have exploited. Section 5 of the ADJR Act sets the standard definition for Commonwealth law regarding who can make an application for judicial review as any 'aggrieved person'. An aggrieved person includes a person whose interests are adversely affected by the decision, such as farmers, landowners and other interested parties. It is absolutely imperative to note that the changes proposed will not in any way remove the capacity of people with a genuine grievance, such as farmers, landowners and other interested parties, to object to developments where there is a genuine grievance.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

I hear the member for Hunter, who I note has many coalmines in his electorate—and he is standing there protesting against this. I do not understand it. In the short time allotted to me, I will quote from Minister Hunt's statement. In conclusion, he stated:

Indeed, the World Heritage Committee not only reversed the direction we inherited of the Great Barrier Reef being on the 'watch list' with a direct path to being placed on the 'in-danger list', it lifted the Great Barrier Reef back to the highest rank of World Heritage listing and praised Australia as a global role model only seven weeks ago.

That is, indeed, a disaster for Greenpeace, as I mentioned.

This brings me to a particular area of interest, the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, which makes up 52 per cent of our state. National parks, World Heritage areas and formal reserves take up 52 per cent of the island state. There would not be another state in Australia that would come within a bull's roar of such a figure. I think South Australia is the next state, with just over 20 per cent. Fifty-two per cent of Tasmania is now formal reserves, World Heritage areas and national parks. There is no other jurisdiction where you would find that.

We are, of course, the nation's environmental conscience, and it is with real pleasure that we will be welcoming the Reactive Monitoring Mission from the World Heritage Investigative Committee, who will be coming to Tasmania shortly to review plans by the state government, through their expression of interests process, for appropriate and sustainable tourism developments within our national parks. This is part of the extension—the 74,000 hectares that the previous speaker mentioned—in 2013. Unfortunately, at that time, the World Heritage Committee did not come and have a look on the ground or consult with the many communities that put in quite legitimate concerns about the expansion at that time. The group that have been impacted more than any other by this are the people accessing speciality timbers. Anyone who has been to Tasmania would realise what a wonderful history and legacy we have with our celery-top pine, with our sassafras, with our myrtle and with our Huon pine. Those areas are now off limits. So get in early. Unless we can change this, there will be no more timber in those areas available for boat builders, craftsmen and for tables et cetera. Our speciality timbers have been a big part of our state's history over many years.

That is the legacy of the damage that was done under the previous Labor-Green government. I will never forget and, while I have breath in my lungs, I will continue to remind people of the damage that was done during those terrible years. Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution.

See this speech in context