Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 73 (after line 16), after item 178, insert:

178A After subsection 78(3A)

Insert:

(3B) However, subsection (3A) does not apply if the action is likely to cause or significantly contribute to the extinction of any native species or cause any other unacceptable impact as defined in section 527F.

(2) Schedule 1, item 181, page 73 (line 21) to page 75 (line 15), omit the item.

When the Leader of the House stood up to introduce the Environment Protection Reform Bill, in an astonishing misstep he forgot to say one crucial word in the bill's title—'protection'. That might have been a slip of the tongue but many have since been left wondering if the government has left protection out of the bill as well. Indeed, it's been well ventilated by now that these reforms fall well short of what's needed to stop and reverse biodiversity loss and to meet the challenges of the climate crisis. It's riddled with all sorts of carve-outs and loopholes which would allow for continued environmental destruction in the face of all the evidence.

Speaker, you'll excuse me, being from Tasmania, for reminding the House of the mother and father of all carve-outs: the exemption of the regional forestry agreements and the changes which the government rammed through the last parliament on budget day this year to exempt the salmon industry from ongoing scrutiny. Some perhaps remember specifically the former environment minister being ruthlessly undermined by the Prime Minister and forced to come in here and herald the government's choice to remove her ability to reconsider certain past environmental decisions, all because the Prime Minister promised the salmon companies they could continue to wreak environmental havoc in Macquarie Harbour and continue driving the Maugean skate to extinction. In these bills, the new environment minister is undermining these reconsideration revisions even more, and that's of particular concern, s another feature of these bills that concerns me is the devolution of approvals to states and territories who, let's face it, have an even worse track record on environmental approvals than the feds.

To remedy that, my amendments insert a new section to clarify that a minister can reconsider past decisions if the action concerned is likely to contribute to the extinction of a native species or has another unacceptable impact as defined in the new section 527F. My amendments also delete clause 181, which introduces a new limit on the timeframe for third parties to apply for reconsideration to just 28 days and sets other new and ridiculously high thresholds which must be met when any third party wants to request a decision to be reconsidered. Let's not mince our words. As drafted, the process is so onerous and limiting that it's intended to all but end the ability of members of the community to request that past decisions be reviewed. That's bad process, bad for transparency and bad for the environment. The fact is that the reconsideration process is an important safeguard intended to ensure environmental decision-makers can correct mistakes and be flexible and responsive to a changing environment and evolving science.

I want to bring attention back to the Maugean skate because it really is emblematic of what's wrong with our environment laws currently and what the government plans to bake in with these reforms. There, in Macquarie Harbour, we have an endangered, prehistoric fish which has outlasted the dinosaurs and exists in that one location only. We've also got clear scientific evidence of its decline, coinciding with expanded salmon farming following a federal approval created in 2012. Moreover, we have updated and authoritative conservation advice from the experts at the environment department saying the primary driver of the skate's decline is low dissolved oxygen and that the main, anthropogenic cause of that oxygen debt is the salmon farm.

Surely, acting in the environmental and public interest and on the precautionary principle, any environmental regulator worth their salt would account for this new evidence and rein in the industry to prevent an extinction. But what has been done instead? The previous environment minister sat on a reconsideration request without a decision for almost two years before the government then removed the power to reconsider that decision altogether. Now the government comes back to take another bite of the cherry with these reconsideration changes because, clearly, other industries got jealous of the salmon industry and wanted unfettered, forever approvals themselves. In other words, freed of the responsibility to consider changing circumstances and empowered to improve whatever they like under the guise of the national interest, Australia's environment ministers will now preside over the next mass extinction event. The community won't stand for that, so I won't support these bills without significant changes, and I urge the parliament to support my amendments and to come together to pass other sensible changes to fix these broken bills.

See this speech in context