House debates

Thursday, 10 September 2015

Bills

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015; Second Reading

11:55 am

Photo of Lisa ChestersLisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015, which is before us today, speaks volumes as to who this government is and the desperation that it now has. It is desperate to create an enemy and a villain within our community. This amendment that is before us is the government waging another ideological war over what should be sound environmental law that gives communities hope and confidence that this parliament and our laws will take on board their concerns about any major development.

Members of the cabinet and this government have been very quick to stand in this place or in the public space, deem these groups to be vigilantes and label them as environmental radicals, wanting to smash up and destroy development. This government is wrong and could not be further from the truth. People who are actively involved in many of these cases include a number of people in regional areas: farmers, community groups, Landcare groups and people from my own electorate who are concerned about the impact that major mining developments or other developments are having on their local community and their local environment. It is wrong of the government to label anybody who exercises their rights under this act as vigilantes, environmental vandals or reckless. It is creating nothing but anxiety, fear and demonstrations of a government that is out of control, irrational and going for cheap headlines.

The intention of the changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is to stop third parties from intervening on developments affecting their environment. It is unbelievable that the government would do this knowing full well about the concerns that have been raised within their own communities about a number of these projects. The National and Country Liberal MPs that will vote for this bill or stand and speak on this bill are letting down their communities.

The EPBC Act has been an overriding national environmental protection law for the past 15 years. It has stood and lasted through the mining boom, and it has posed no problem to creating jobs in that industry or the economy. Thousands of projects have been approved and managed effectively under our current system, which was here during the Howard government and then two terms of the Labor government. The intention to repeal section 487 of the EPBC Act is a rash reaction from the government, which is trying to cover up its own failures—which have been borne out in the courts—and at the same time trying to create another enemy within the community.

The government has been caught out for not properly managing the approval process of the Adani mine under the act, which is what has brought this legislation before us today. It is making outrageous claims and trying to change the legislation to cover up its own incompetency. The government's claims that this act is costing jobs are just outrageous and are another attempt by this government to pretend that it is a government focused on creating jobs when its actions, not just on this issue but on a number of issues, have put thousands of jobs within our country regional areas at risk.

The EPBC Act was designed to protect the environment and gives local communities an opportunity to challenge any development that they believe may impact on their local community. Landholders have the right to appeal decisions where they believe projects may impact on their land. We are not talking about inner-city greenies as the government would have us pretend. We are talking about environmental groups in communities. We are talking about farmers. We are talking about groups like Lock the Gate. Lock the Gate has been vocal in a number of our communities. The Lock the Gate Alliance is a national grassroots organisation of over 40,000 supporters and more than 250 local groups. They are not the radicals the government would like to paint them as. They are, as I have said, our farmers. They are people in our schools in our regional communities. Sure, they have triangles, but they are yellow triangles not green triangles. They speak up because they believe the impact of overmining our land could put at risk good prime agricultural land. What they ask for is a set of laws that allow them to object to mining projects that could impact on their ability to keep their land productive.

It is not just the Lock the Gate Alliance who speaks up about these projects. The National Farmers' Federation recently spoke out against this government's decision to approve another coalmine. The National Farmers' Federation argues that farmers and food production need to come before the needs of the mining industry. These are not, as the government would like to present, radicals and vigilantes—the nasty words they use for people who are speaking up about their concerns. These are people living in regional Australia. Whether they be involved in the National Farmers' Federation, the Lock the Gate Alliance, Landcare groups or other organisations, they are speaking up and wanting balance and fairness when it comes to decisions about the use of the land in their area.

People in my own electorate have been quite vocal about this, and a number of them have written to me. Kerry, from Woodend, said:

I feel strongly about protecting our environment. I live in the Macedon Ranges and love its nature and wildlife. I'm in favour of clean energy sources rather than polluting ones. Can you please speak up for the above by refusing to weaken Australia's Protection Laws.

Barbara, from Macedon, said:

Big polluters should not be able to develop projects without checks and balances. Australian communities and environment groups should have the right to access the law to speak up for land, water and wildlife and against polluting and damaging mining projects. Australia needs stronger, not weaker, nature protection laws to balance the power of big polluters over governments—

It is up to government to make sure there are fair, balanced laws. Marie, from Bendigo, said:

We have been members of ACF for many years and are shocked at the strategies of this government to try and sabotage what would otherwise be sound law.

Margaret, from Castlemaine, said:

I am shocked, angered and totally dismayed to read this morning's Age Newspaper regarding the Prime Minister's new attack on laws governing environmental protection and conservation groups. This is outrageous… People like myself care and love the environment and seek every opportunity to embrace reusable energy and community natural resources for a sustainable and healthy future.

And we want the right to know that we can challenge any changes to that.

These are just a few of the people who have raised concerns about not only this government's attacks on environmental law but also its outright hysteria in labelling as vigilantes those who speak up against proposals in their area.

I think about some of the other controversial projects in my part of the world. Near Maldon there is a proposal to have intensive chicken farming. A number of locals in Maldon and the Tarrengower community have objected to that project. They are worried about the effect it will have on their own enterprises. There is a stud farm there, there is a natural environment there and there is a school not far from where the proposal is. They have gone through several processes to challenge and tease out what is appropriate and fair development within their community. In our society, across regional Australia, there is always going to be conflict between different industries. It is the role of government to make sure there is a framework that is rigid, robust and fair enough to allow each of those groups to challenge possible development.

Our farmers are strongly making the point that we cannot afford to lose all of our prime agricultural and food production land to mining projects. We need to make sure that we have sound environmental and resource management of our land. For the government to try to turn its incompetent stuff-up in the courts into an opportunity to weaken the environment laws not only smacks of ridiculousness but is also a demonstration that it does not have the interests of regional Australia at heart. Instead, this is cheap political opportunism. This government is very quickly raging out of control. Whether it be this or other reforms, they have little care or regard for what is going on in regional Australia.

Finally, the government claims that this project will create thousands upon thousands of jobs. The figures they bandy vary from question time to question time—one day it is 2,000, the next day it is 10,000 and then it is 5,000. But the mine says it will only create just over 1,000 jobs. They also will not confirm who those jobs will go to or whether they will be local workers. I suspect it will be FIFO workers.

If the government are serious about projects that create jobs, they need to work with industry to ensure that locals get those jobs first. Australians do not care if you are creating jobs for overseas workers. In fact they get frustrated. What we see time and time again from this government is that they say they are the champion of jobs but they are not championing Australians for jobs or locals first for local jobs. They are very happy and quite complicit with companies being able to bring in their own overseas workers to work the jobs.

I was recently in the north speaking to some workers in Townsville and Brisbane. They said to me that, when it comes to these projects, they do want to see more jobs in their regions but they want to see rules in place to ensure that the local kids and local people get opportunities at the jobs first. The government need to drop the rhetoric on this one and stick to sound environmental law that was introduced by one of their former governments. They need to stop going straight for the cheap political headline, using words that divide the community, labelling people as vigilante or radical green groups, and start being serious in engaging communities about what is appropriate, fair, environmental friendly or sound projects.

Other speakers on this side of the House agree or disagree about whether the mining project itself is appropriate. I tend to be on the environmental side and on the side of the farmers. I want to see more and more of our land preserved for food production and agriculture. I have to ask all those National and Liberal MPs: where are you in this debate? Are you seriously standing up here and saying, 'Ignore the farmers' concerns, ignore the lock-the-gate concerns. Let's label them as radicals, environmentalists and greenies. Let's pretend they don't exist and let's just back our mates in big business. Let's try to cover up the fact that we stuffed up. Let's not be embarrassed when we go along to that next big fundraiser and say that we have the court case won on that one. Let's try to ram through an amendment to an act that has existed for a while that gave community assurances that decisions being made in their area, in regional Australia, was sound and that they had an opportunity to object.'

Our communities need to know that their views are being listened to. Currently the act that we have before us gives communities the confidence in our planning system. They guard against corruption and result in better environmental assessments and outcomes. I urge the House to vote down this amendment that will only create more fury and more wars in our community. (Time expired)

Comments

No comments