Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I continue now my contribution on the changes to the EPBC Act. I reiterate that I am opposed to these changes. They are fundamentally unfair. I have already expressed the concerns of my community in my electorate of Richmond on the Far North Coast of New South Wales. They have concerns about the national perspective and the local perspective as well. We have the threat of harmful coal seam gas mining in our area. I have outlined our concerns in relation to this bill and also the pro-CSG agenda of the Liberal Party and the National Party.

Since the election of the Abbott government we have seen constant attacks upon our very precious environment and those who work to protect it. The government completely lacks any environmental credibility. In fact, they have a litany of past environmental attacks. These include actively pursuing the destruction of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, abolishing the Climate Change Authority and removing the Marine Reserves Network. They have very harshly cut funding from many grassroots environmental programs. They have made harsh cuts to Landcare programs and also groups like the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. We have seen a whole series of harsh cuts.

We have also seen the government use quite offensive language when they refer to people who wish to defend the environment. They refer to them as vigilantes and saboteurs. I think that was the terminology the Prime Minister and another minister used recently. Quite frankly, that is insulting and it is not fair. People have a right to object and to be part of the process, and that is what is wrong with this bill—it is taking away the right of people to protest. It is insulting that the government continues to use such derogatory language about people of goodwill who wish to just make a point about how concerned they are about the environment. I certainly request that the government stops doing that.

Labor have a very proud tradition of protecting the environment. In fact, it was the Hawke Labor government which first moved to protect the Franklin River from being dammed, it was a Labor government that stopped mining in Antarctica and it was a Labor government that explained how important it was that we take action on climate change though pricing carbon. We were very clear about that. We have a very proud record right across the board when it comes to our action on the environment. Certainly, in my area I have spoken previously about the impacts of harmful coal seam gas mining. New South Wales Labor has a very proud record there as well. In fact, we went to the last state election with a very clear policy of ensuring that the North Coast be kept gas field free because New South Wales Labor understood the concerns of people in the area.

In contrast to all that, we have the Liberal-National party, who at every level, whether it be federal, state or even local government, are absolute and complete environmental vandals. This amendment proves that. The last time the government moved to amend the EPBC Act it was to hand approval controls over to their mates in the state government—another disastrous act and another attack on environmental protections. Now the government want to stop any kind of opposition to inappropriate environmental approvals by essentially barring access to the courts. The Abbott government intend to change the EPBC Act to stop third-party interventions on developments affecting the environment, and that is plainly wrong and unfair. It is yet another attack in the Prime Minister's relentless war on the environment and those very important groups who seek to protect it—groups like Greenpeace and Lock the Gate that work very hard to protect the environment. In my area, I have seen firsthand the remarkable work that groups like Lock the Gate do in protecting the New South Wales North Coast from harmful CSG mining, so I do find it offensive when derogatory terms are used against them. They are essentially hardworking individuals—and it is not just Lock the Gate; there are many similar groups and I use this opportunity to commend them on the work they do to protect our environment.

We all know that the EPBC Act has been the overriding national environmental protection law for the past 15 years. The approval of thousands of projects was managed perfectly well under this system by the Howard government and then by two terms of the Labor government. Since the EPBC Act commenced in July 2000, approximately 5½ thousand projects have been through the EPBC process. Of these, there have been 33 Federal Court challenges by third parties against only 22 projects. This equates to only 0.4 per cent of projects referred under the EPBC Act—hardly the avalanche that we hear many on the other side referring to. Standing provisions under section 487 of the current EPBC Act are already sufficiently rigorous. Removing effective appeal rights will result in less scrutiny and rigour in the assessment process and will most likely result in poorer environmental outcomes at a time when Australia's natural environment is under greater threat than ever. Ultimately, if this bill is successful, the only entities that will be able to challenge the approval of a development with high environmental impact will be those individuals who, firstly, can prove they will be directly affected, secondly, have the funds to be able to go to court and, thirdly, have the courage to risk a massive cost order against them which would probably bankrupt them if they lose. So it really does prohibit so many people from pursuing that avenue.

This amendment to the EPBC Act is a foolhardy response. The government's own incompetence and failures are being borne out in the courts, and that is why they are responding in this way. This bill has been written by and for environmental vandals—as I said, that is what we see across the chamber. It is very disappointing and we see it at federal, state and local levels. What I do find concerning are some of the claims we hear from across the chamber that the EPBC Act is costing jobs. That is simply not true. The only thing costing jobs is the government's mismanagement of the economy. Indeed, under the government more than 800,000 people are now unemployed, the first time the unemployment rate has been this high in 20 years. So, in fact, they are the problem and it is quite wrong when they try to cast blame into other areas.

Let us be clear. When it comes to the environment, Labor will always support a common-sense approach to our environmental regulatory systems such as some of the streamlining of assessment processes. Labor will not, however, support the weakening of environmental protections by limiting a community's right to challenge government decisions in the courts. Labor supports the environment but also the fundamentals that underpin our democracy. Fundamentally, individual and community objection rights are very important and need to be protected in legislation. They have to be protected because they assist in building strong community confidence in our planning systems and they do result in much better environmental assessment processes and much better environmental outcomes right across the country.

Effectively, this amendment will put an end to any legal challenges against federal approvals and major developments with high environmental impacts. That is so disappointing. This is a foolish amendment by a desperate, chaotic government. Instead of focusing on good governance, they are playing distraction politics and are seeking to rip the heart out of the environmental protection in the EPBC Act, which has been the bedrock of sensible environmental approval in this country for the last 15 years. The fact is that the threat of third-party appeals does create a stronger incentive for proponents and the government to adhere to the law, improving the quality of the environmental assessment of many major projects. Our environmental laws are vitally important for the future of our nation. I stand in condemnation of the government for their continued environmental vandalism and I oppose their changes to the EPBC Act.

See this speech in context