Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015. This bill proposes to amend the EPBC Act and will repeal the extended standing provision that is currently in the EPBC Act. This is the government's response to the perceived threat that the Attorney-General, the nation's first law officer, has described as 'lawfare'. Lawfare is an important word, an interesting word, used by the Attorney-General and by the various speakers opposite.

I think it is a part of the militarisation of the political discourse taking place under this government. Do you see the people that they send out to plant trees? They call them the Green Army. The people they send to check your shampoo at the airport they call the Border Force, and they give them a paramilitary uniform. They even actually put the words 'Border Force' on the Australian flag out in front of the building. They talk about a 'war on wind farms' and an 'assault on solar', and the proliferation of flags we have seen under this Prime Minister is phenomenal. It is all part of that militarisation of the political discourse, which is disconcerting. I think it bespeaks a Prime Minister who is basically a trumped-up cadet, who would take any opportunity to find an opponent.

I am all for supporting the ADF and recognising the service of Australians who have put on a uniform, but I advise against that militarisation of our political discourse. It is disconcerting. It is not the Australian way. We have had referendums on conscription in the past, 100 years ago. We have never really been the sort of nation that has anything like this, but Australia will turn up and fight—no doubt about that. We have a long history of turning up when there are times of conflict around the world and doing more than our fair share in supporting democracy and freedom and those democratic values that Australia espouses. But I warn against this particular militarisation of our political discourse that has happened under Prime Minister Abbott.

Let us revisit this legislation that is going to change standing under the EPBC Act. Remember, the EPBC Act was brought in by that incredible greenie, the tree-loving Prime Minister called John Howard. Prime Minister Howard brought in this bit of legislation. What are the objectives of the EPBC Act? To provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance, and to promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources. They are the reasons for the legislation brought in by Prime Minister Howard. I commend him for this legislation that has served Australia well. To achieve these objectives the act does various things, including promoting a partnership approach to environmental protection and biodiversity conservation through the involvement of the community in management planning. These are commendable objectives, and it is hard to see how anyone, 15 years later, would criticise these objectives, particularly the Attorney-General, the nation's first law officer, who used that term 'lawfare'—that conflating of war and law together, a very powerful bit of language that the Attorney-General has trotted out there.

All Australians should value our precious environment. We are the nation most vulnerable when it comes to climate change. The great opportunities that we have with our farmers and our agricultural producers could be under threat if we do not protect our environment carefully. But it is abundantly clear that the Abbott government have no credibility when it comes to the environment. Their record is absolutely horrendous: rushing through environmental approvals as soon as they took office and disallowing the endangered community listing of the River Murray from the Darling to the sea. They reproclaimed the world's largest marine reserve system so that the management plans that were in place would have no effect. They ripped funding from the Environmental Defenders Offices—the offices that allow concerned Australians to challenge environmental approval decisions. They have gone backwards on climate change. Basically it is almost putting their head in the sand—I think it is so close to the term literally applying here. They are making Australia a laughing-stock around the world. In fact, we have won five fossil awards at the climate change talks in Warsaw. Yet, in putting forward this bill, the government want us to believe that they can be trusted to protect our environment and that there is no need to allow conservation groups—the people whose business it is to protect our environment—to challenge any decisions that the government makes.

The Attorney-General says that the current EPBC Act gives a 'red carpet for vigilante litigation.' This is the Attorney-General who understands how frivolous and vexatious matters can be thrown out of court at first instance—or he should understand. The government's scaremongering just does not marry with the facts. Since July 2000, there have been 5,500 projects that have gone through the EPBC approval process, seen through the lens of the legislation introduced by Prime Minister Howard. For those 5,500 projects, only 30 challenges have been made to decisions on EPBC assessed projects. Of those 30 challenges that actually got up as a challenge, only six have been successful. I am not a mathematician, but that has to be in the 0.00 type percentages that we are talking about—six out of 5,500 projects. The EPBC Act has hardly opened the legal floodgates to so-called vigilante groups.

It is hardly surprising that so few challenges have been made. Going to court is very expensive. For a conservation group to come within the extended standing provision, they must show that at any time within the previous two years they have engaged in a series of environmental conservation or research activities in Australia or one of our external territories. Conservation groups do not get any monetary benefit from a successful challenge. They would probably argue that the benefit of preserving our environment is worth more than any amount of money. Nevertheless, such litigation is stressful, costly and expensive, and there has to be a name of a person filed in the court.

Let us look at the case that instigated the Attorney-General to draft this bill, where now those opposite are suggesting we should amend the EPBC Act. The challenge was brought by the Mackay Conservation Group against the decision approving the Adani coalmine. The minister responsible for making the decision failed to consider two threatened species, the yakka skink and the ornamental snake, that inhabited the area of the proposed mine. The environment minister, Greg Hunt, made a mistake. It is that simple. But at no time prior to going to the court did Minister Hunt admit that he had made a mistake. He could easily have done so at any point—just said: 'Oops, sorry about that. Let's start again.' But he did not. Minister Hunt chose not to. He forced the Mackay Conservation Group to spend lots of money taking this matter all the way to the doors of the court. Then, when he was faced with the prospect of an embarrassing loss in court, Minister Hunt finally admitted that he had made a mistake. Remember, this was not a court case. This was a consent order where the parties sat down, including the Government Solicitor, and agreed to a consent order. All parties, including Minister Hunt, agreed that an error had been made by the minister in the approval process. Was this a mistake or a deliberate error? I would like to believe that it was only a mistake.

Nevertheless, to have had this knee-jerk reaction from those opposite in terms of changing the EPBC Act, an act that has served Australia so well for 15 years, is bizarre. Let's just think about these same circumstances if the Mackay Conservation Group were not able to bring such a challenge. Would the minister have suddenly had an epiphany and said, 'Oh, I made a mistake and I'd better start this process again'? It is hard to imagine that Minister Hunt or any minister would have, given that he did not so even when faced with a court challenge telling him exactly where he had made the mistake in terms of doing his job. So, if the Mackay Conservation Group would not have standing, who would have standing to bring this challenge against the minister's error?

Are we going to sit around and wait for the Yakka skink to study law and trot up and say, 'I am about to be wiped out?' Or the ornamental snake? I certainly have seen a few reptilian people around the courts but I do not think any ornamental snakes have law degrees. So without this extended standing provision in the EPBC, a person wanting to challenge this decision would have to show that they were an aggrieved person. The skink and the snake would have to show that they were an aggrieved person. Who else would be affected by this decision and who could bring an action? Who would have known about the Yakka skink or the ornamental snake residing in that area other than a conservation group?

All Australians are affected by decisions such as this when they directly affect our environment; whether any Australians would have had standing to challenge this decision is much trickier. The Mackay Conservation Group could attempt to bring a challenge based on this standing. It might succeed but it certainly would spend a lot of money and a lot of time arguing about its stranding instead of the real issue—that the minister had made a mistake. If it was ultimately not found outstanding then the minister's error would have been swept aside and the Yakka skink and the ornamental snake or whatever species that would be affected by a project would at best have become more threatened and at worst joined the ever-increasing list of our extinct species.

I was patting some endangered species with the environment minister a few days ago

Mr McCormack interjecting—

I think our polls are a little bit healthier than that but I do take that interjection. He does profess to care about endangered species. There are currently 472 species listed as extinct, endangered or vulnerable under the EPBC Act. What a crime it would be to see another species disappear on this minister's watch due to one of his errors. If we can go back to the objects of the EPBC Act:

…to provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance;

The extended standing provision allowed the Mackay Conservation Group to bring this challenge. This challenge was directly related to protecting the environment, in particular protecting two threatened species. The extended standing provision is crucial to the EPBC meeting its objectives. There is a knee-jerk reaction by the government to the embarrassment of being forced to admit that its own environment minister made a mistake.

The government have a lot of problems to deal with. But this mischievous piece of legislation should not factor into their parliamentary agenda. I know it is not a packed parliamentary agenda; I understand that. Nevertheless, they should be concentrating on things like the fact that the deficit has increased, that government debt is up, that unemployment is up, that taxes are up. Instead, they are wasting their time declaring war on wind farms, declaring war on the ABC and SBS, and now declaring war on conservation groups.

Instead of getting real reform and leading the Australian community through these challenges that are facing us, real legislation through parliament, the government is intent on fighting for the sake of fighting. The Prime Minister is a pugilist looking for an opponent. I saw it in my home town of St George, a town that produced a lot of great boxers. You would see the guys in the pub, the old boxers sitting in the corner. If you rang a bell, they would basically jump up and start swinging. The old punchies in the corner of the bar, if you hit a bell out they would come ready to hit someone. That is what this Prime Minister is and we need better.

This legislation is ridiculous. It has no foundation for reform. In fact it is rolling back Howard government reform that came in 15 years ago. Do we truly believe that a mistake by a minister is never going to occur again or, heaven forbid, a deliberate error? This amendment would have the effect of hiding government mistakes and assessments under the EPBC. Alan Jones—not exactly a bleeding heart leftie; more likely someone who is normally a friend of the government—is doing television ads declaring how bad this amendment is. You know the government should be worried. They have really got a tin ear when it comes to doing the right thing.

I do not support this bill. Every sensible person opposite, I urge you to join me in rejecting this attack on common-sense and good law. It reminds me a line from a song by Paul Kelly and Kev Carmody called This land is mine. There is a white settler voice having one verse of the song and an Indigenous voice responding. The song says, 'This land is mine' and that is the thinking that too many people opposite have—that this land is mine. The Indigenous voice responds saying, 'This land is me.' Surely, if we are going to be real Australians, fair dinkum Australians, we should protect and preserve where possible.

Remember, the EPBC allows for appropriate development; 5,500 projects have gone ahead, only 30 have been challenged and only six have been found to legitimate grounds for challenge. Listen to that voice—that this land is me—rather than just saying that it is only an economic process. That quote—this land is mine—is at the front of this wonderful book called The Big Fig written by the member for Moreton, available in—I would like to say all good bookshops—the bookshop here.

Mr Chester interjecting—

Well, if only make it made it to the bargain bins. I urge those opposite not to support this bill.

See this speech in context