Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2014. This bill seeks to introduce cost recovery arrangements to applications under the EPBC Act in accordance with the well-established cost recovery guidelines which operate in a range of other areas—in my experience, they operate quite effectively in the area of health regulation. Fees will be set up and published in the usual way in accordance with those guidelines that have been in place for almost two decades now—namely, by regulation.

I note that the minister in his second reading speech assured the parliament that exemptions would be granted for applications under the EPBC Act that would be delivering public benefit, as opposed to a more private benefit for a particular corporation seeking a development. The minister in that second reading speech gave the example of a local council making an application under the EPBC Act for approval to undertake burning-off. That, if I might say so, is an important assurance that the minister gave to the parliament.

The minister presents this bill as part of his overall intention to hand over his responsibilities or, more broadly, Commonwealth responsibilities to protect matters of national environmental significance under this piece of legislation to state governments and, as we have more recently discovered, in some cases to local councils as well. It is important that I emphasise that our attitude to this bill is very separate from our overall attitude to those ministerial intentions—namely, to hand over the broad responsibilities under the act. In order to allow for debate and make clear those delineations, I move as a second reading amendment:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading the House notes:

(1) the Government’s poor environmental record;

(2)    the importance of protecting Australia’s rich and diverse environment;

(3)    the need to fully examine the range of changes proposed to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act since September 2013; and

(4)    the lack of assurance from the Government about the future management and protection of our natural environment.”

In eight short months since the election of this government it has shown itself to have scant regard indeed for its responsibilities to protect and to nurture Australia's environment, particularly to deal with matters of national environmental significance. In February 2014 The Independent newspaper in the UK—not a Left-wing newspaper, not The Guardian, and not one of the newspapers traditionally associated in the UK with the Left, but a more centrist newspaper—posed the question: 'Is Tony Abbott's Australian administration the most hostile to his nation's environment in history?' That question is on the lips of many, many Australians who care for our unique and extraordinary environment on the Australian continent. The list of environmental atrocities already committed by this government in eight short months is a very long one. The minister's record is one almost exclusively of removing environmental protections rather than nurturing them, expanding them, making sure they are doing the job they were intended to do. I will just give a few short examples.

The disallowance of the endangered community listing of the Murray River below the Darling Junction, which I know is a matter of great interest to the member for Barker who is in the chamber here, was done after literally years of work by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee. I know you want to move to your chair so you can interject, Member for Barker, which is why I gave you that opportunity.

Mr Pasin interjecting—

It is a pathetic concession to nothing more than a scare campaign. They are undoing the management plans for the world's largest marine reserve system—again, off the back of a mendacious scare campaign by those opposite which sought to frighten recreational fishers from Queensland, for example, about the impact of reserves that were literally hundreds of kilometres offshore in that state of Australia.

This government and this minister have turned back literally decades of bipartisan support for the Commonwealth's particular and special role in protecting matters of national environmental significance—a role that harks right back to the Franklin dam campaign and the decision of the High Court that followed. The intention to hand over those approval powers rests on a misapprehension, nurtured by this minister, that approvals by the Commonwealth are a drag on the time and resources of companies seeking to undertake particular developments impacted by this legislation. Everyone who has participated in this process in one way or another knows it is the assessment process that takes time and energy. We were working with state governments over the course of 2012-2013 to achieve two things: that instead of two environmental impact assessments there could be just one, which could happen by way of a bilateral assessment agreement with the states; and that there could be just one public consultation process rather than two.

This is not a party political point that I make; I have made it in my own state of South Australia where the state Labor government has decided to agree to take on the Commonwealth's responsibilities under the EPBC Act. This is not a Labor or a Liberal question. Our party holds, as a point of principle, that the Commonwealth should retain responsibility for matters of national environmental significance.

But perhaps there is no more striking example of the national government's responsibility, and the degree to which that has been neglected by this minister in eight short months, than the responsibility for our World Heritage areas. Australia is moving into refined company indeed. We are only the third country, in the more than 40-year history of the World Heritage system, to seek to delist a World Heritage property within its jurisdiction, following decisions taken by Tanzania and Oman. Members in this House would be familiar with the application to delist 74,000 hectares of wilderness in the Tasmanian World Heritage area—a listing which, as part of the Tasmanian forestry agreement, ended 30 years of ongoing conflict between conservationists, industry, workers and, more broadly, families and communities on the island of Tasmania. I note that the World Heritage committee secretariat, in its draft report, has given this government short shrift indeed about this misconceived application.

Last but not least, this minister has been asleep at the wheel in relation to Australia's most iconic environmental asset, the Great Barrier Reef—one of the seven natural wonders of the world. If members of the House read the draft report the World Heritage Committee issued some weeks ago they will see that the World Heritage Committee has very great concerns about this government's—and, for that matter, the Queensland government's—management of that environmental asset, which is in crisis. Three issues were raised by the World Heritage Committee in their draft report that give the committee concern about the status of the reef: firstly, the decision to approve dredging, and the dumping of dredged material, in the Marine Park area at Abbot Point; secondly, the delegation of approval powers from the Commonwealth to the states and territories; and thirdly, the reversal of very significant land-clearing laws put in place by the Beattie government—perhaps the most significant environmental decision in recent memory. To halt the extraordinary land clearing that was under way in the last several decades was a very significant decision—but it has been reversed by the Newman government.

This minister not only seems disinterested in taking action to protect the environment but, as part of a broader theme of this government, this minister is very keen to tie the hands of local communities that would seek to voice their views about their local environment through the Environmental Defenders Office. The EDOs have been in operation for more than 20 years, supported throughout the duration of the Howard government with Commonwealth funding but cut off at the knees only weeks after the election of this government. It was a blatant, transparent decision to cut down strong independent local voices from local communities. All of this was done without addressing this government's hopeless lack of commitment to tackling climate change.

But having said that, and in the spirit of bipartisanship, I indicate that the opposition will support this bill. The cost-recovery guidelines are well-established. They have worked well for many years, including the last six years in which the Labor Party was in government. They defray taxpayer costs that are ultimately picked up by the Commonwealth for approvals made in relation to an application or development ambition that a private company may have and, for that reason, are supported in principle by the Labor Party. But I say again, at the risk of repetition: we took particular note of the minister's assurance around exemptions for applications involving a public benefit so that organisations seeking approvals for public, rather than private or commercial, benefit would not have to pay the fees that will be issued under this legislation. On that basis, as I indicated, we will support this legislation.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being almost 1.30 pm I will interrupt the debate in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue her remarks when the debate is resumed.