Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think it is safe to say that all of us in this House, when we speak on environmental matters, recognise the importance of looking after our environment and providing a good environment for future generations. But at the same time we have to be able to utilise the resources that exist in that environment. We can have a look at clear policies of Greenpeace Australia to try to stop Australian coalmining dead in its tracks, stated in terminology such as:

Our strategy is to 'disrupt and delay' key projects and infrastructure while gradually eroding public and political support for the industry …

When that industry employs thousands of Australians, I think it is well within the responsibility of this government to seek to take steps to ensure that organisations such as Greenpeace and others that want to destroy our economy and return us to the Dark Ages are stopped and prevented from doing so. At the same time, I think it is important that those who are affected by proposed projects, such as local farmers and landowners, should be able to appeal the decisions. In this regard, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015, in seeking to remove section 487 from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, still provides protections for those farmers and landholders and retains their right to appeal any decision.

With regard to this proposal to amend the EPBC Act, we need to recognise that Australia continues to have some of the most stringent and effective environmental laws in the world, and we absolutely should continue to do so. But once projects have met these tough environmental requirements, they should be able to proceed without legal sabotage from organisations such as Greenpeace and others that are conducting a war on projects not just in Australia but around the world. These changes to the EPBC Act will also bring it into line with other Commonwealth laws. Our legal framework under the EPBC Act seeks to ensure that we have sustainable development while at the same time protecting important flora and fauna, ecological balances, places of heritage significance and our invaluable water resources, considering we live in one of the driest continents on earth.

When the EPBC Act was enacted some 15 or so years ago, organisations such as Greenpeace did not run these lines of interference—did not use the courts to prevent companies that had been through due process from proceeding with their duly-approved projects. This unprecedented threat—the use of litigation to disrupt and delay these key projects and infrastructure within Australia—directly increases investor risk. But, more importantly, it impacts on the ability of companies to create jobs for Australians. At the end of the day, that is what we are talking about: jobs for Australians. We are also talking about the ability to sell minerals in the export market to developing countries. In particular, with respect to the Adani project in Queensland, we are talking about exporting to India and helping to lift millions of Indians out of poverty by providing them with a cheap and efficient source of generating power.

I commend the minister for taking action against this unnecessary and disruptive litigation industry which, if not checked soon, has the potential to have devastating results for Australia's future economic growth. There is currently a number of actions in courts, particularly in Queensland, with the direct intention of shutting down or preventing these projects. In Queensland in particular we have seen the effect of the trail-off of the capital expenditure part of the mining boom and the impact that that has had on many people in Queensland in terms of job losses, significant reductions or closures of businesses. This is particularly so through Central Queensland—Mackay, Gladstone, Rockhampton and Emerald are particular areas that have been affected very, very badly. The opportunity for these new projects to come on stream was looked forward to by these communities as a way of recovering from the current downturn that we have seen as a result of recent falls in prices for coal and other minerals. This legislation is very timely in that regard.

The thought that organisations such as Greenpeace and others are seeking to use the law, contrary to its intentions, to disrupt these important projects is a slight on those organisations. The goal of these legal challenges and campaigns against mining and infrastructure is not necessarily to win, but to delay and disrupt them and to make them economically unviable for the project proponents. Therefore, I think it is incumbent on this government to look at ways in which it can change the rules or the law to ensure that these projects, after they have been through due process, are able to proceed as planned.

Currently, the EPBC Act enables individuals, organisations or associations who have, at any time in the two years immediately prior to the decision in question, engaged in a series of activities in Australia or an external territory for the protection or conservation of, or research into, the environment to commence proceedings for judicial review. This provision of the EPBC Act, as I said earlier, was well intentioned. However, it has now become the basis for virtually any person or group to bring a lawsuit, regardless of whether they are adversely affected or even near the project. This is out of step with Commonwealth law and has provided a legal loophole for activists to exploit.

On the proposed changes: the EPBC Act standing provisions were always intended to allow the genuine interests of an aggrieved person whose interests are adversely affected to be preserved. Importantly, this remains the case. Changing the EPBC Act will not prevent those who will be affected by a project from seeking judicial review. This is as it must be. It will maintain and protect their rights. However, importantly, it will prevent those with no connection to the project other than political ambition to stop a development, from using the courts to disrupt and delay key infrastructure where it has been appropriately considered under the EPBC Act.

I think we should continue to support our economic activity, and that is what we are seeking to do with these changes to the EPBC Act. Legal challenges do not add any value whatsoever to the economic growth of this country, other than maybe lining the pockets of some lawyers.

See this speech in context