David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015. Most importantly, it amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to repeal section 487, which extends the meaning of 'any person aggrieved' as defined in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The EPBC Act is a very important act. The original intention of the EPBC Act was not to generate serial vexatious litigation procedures by tenuously linked parties who would not normally be declared to have a legal interest in any action that was being taken, but the recent legal action to halt the Carmichael mine in Queensland has put a spotlight on this very issue.

I looked into section 487, and it does indeed extend the definition of which parties are declared to be aggrieved and have a legal interest, namely, legal rights, privileges or permissions. I was flabbergasted to read that section 487 means that anyone anywhere in Australia, whether it was right next door or on the other side of the country—an individual, a group, an association that has done any environmental activism or been involved in environmental protection, conservation or research—gets the same rights to bring an action as the person next door.

To make some parallels, so that the average man in the street understands where I am coming from, you only have to look at what applies to, say, a home renovation or extension or the building of a new house. If any of my constituents were undergoing that process, they have to put in a development application with the local council, and it is a very rigorous process. Also, the neighbours and the affected person on the other side of the street or next door get to have a say in the process. If section 487 of the EPBC Act were applied to that, if I were doing some renovations up in Wauchope, someone from Western Australia in an environmental group could turn up and block my house extensions and try to find a skink, a snake or something that might be threatened or a habitat that my renovations were going to put in doubt. When you look at it that way, you can see that the original EPBC Act did not have this provision. That was added later to extend the provisions to give a green light to environmental activists to act like they do in the USA, which is to delay, disrupt and frustrate major undertakings by serial legal actions.

We do not want legal vigilante groups stopping development in this country. We have a good environment and we have a really good Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. But this section gives environmental activists special treatment. We are all equal under the law but, like in Animal Farm, some people are more equal than others. That is essentially what section 487 is saying. Under the proposed law, those concerned people can still have a say but they do that when the environmental impact statement is being made. They can make a submission there, which is quite reasonable and sensible. It does not mean that any Tom, Dick or Harry from anywhere in Australia can turn up and bring legal action, which is, in effect, what section 487 is doing. This has shone a very bright light on quite a distorted bit of legislation.

We do not want US-style vigilante legislation. We do not want special treatment for special groups. If you do have a genuine legal interest, whether you are a farmer next door to a mine, factory or some other major development or whether you are the neighbours, not necessarily a farmer, and have a legitimate interest or whether you are the local council or whether you are the state government that requires an agricultural impact statement or an aquifer interference statement, all those rigorous parts of the act and all the state environmental acts still apply. It is just about applying the regular ADJR Act provisions and who has an interest.

I commend this bill to the House because it is going to make a sensible contribution to the EPBC Act and it will stop the term 'lawfare' that has been coined. It is probably better to say that they are using a peculiar extension which gives them a particular legal right that is out of kilter with all other judicial review decisions and definitions. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context