Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Australian Labor Party to oppose the latest act of vandalism by this government against Australia's natural environment, an action which does not seek to repeal a decision of the former Labor government but, instead, repeals legislation introduced by that radical environmentalist, John Howard. Even before this latest example of overreach, Tony Abbott had well and truly established himself as the worst Prime Minister in modern Australian history when it comes to the protection of our natural environment.

Kevin Rudd's first act as Prime Minister was, proudly, to ratify the Kyoto protocol, an act that Labor had campaigned long for in opposition, including private members' bills I brought before this parliament when I was Labor's environmental spokesperson. But one of Tony Abbott's first acts stands in stark contrast to the act of the Rudd Labor government. It was of course to abolish the Climate Commission, a body made up of scientists, businesspeople and economists tasked with providing the community digestible information about climate change. That was what they attempted to do in their first legislative act on the environment before this parliament.

Notoriously, we know that Tony Abbott made Australia the first nation in the world to dismantle a carbon pricing mechanism; in particular, abolishing any legal cap or target on carbon pollution levels for 2020 and 2050. Unsurprisingly, Australia's carbon pollution levels have started to rise again, particularly in the electricity sector. He also broke his promise to keep the renewable energy target in place, causing investment in large-scale renewables in Australia to plummet by 88 per cent while it soared by 16 per cent globally. And he is still trying, in vain, to abolish ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and the CEFC, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

The Prime Minister's opposition to strong and sensible action on climate change is well known. Perhaps less notorious have been his repeated attacks on Australia's natural environment. The Abbott government tore up the Tasmanian forestry agreement that had ended 30 years of conflict in that state, an agreement negotiated by the forestry industry, the union and environmental groups with the support of the state and federal governments. This was a blatant act of vandalism with no apparent thought given to the consequences for the industry being able to achieve certification of its product for export—a simple act of ideology based on the view expressed by the Prime Minister that Australia has more than enough trees. He then embarrassed the nation by taking an unprecedented application to the World Heritage Committee to delist 74,000 hectares of world heritage-listed forest in Tasmania, an application that was dismissed out of hand by the committee.

The Prime Minister has also repealed the management plans designed to protect Australia's marine reserves, the largest in the world at the time of their proclamation by the member for Watson. Two years on, there is still no idea what the Abbott government intends to do with our marine environment. This government also remains committed to washing its hands of the decades-old responsibility of Australia's national government to protect our assets of national environmental significance. For more than 40 years, this responsibility has been embraced and discharged by Commonwealth governments of both political persuasions. This extraordinary decision would handover this parliament's responsibility—for example, to protect the Great Barrier Reef, one of the seven natural wonders of the world—to state and local governments.

I could go on listing the atrocities committed by this government against our extraordinary natural environment, which is ours to enjoy but ours to also show a responsibility to protect for future generations to come. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015, though, is perhaps the pinnacle in petulance by the Prime Minister in this policy area, certainly not a decision of the adult government we were promised—more like the behaviour of a schoolboy angry at having kicked an own goal.

Let us be clear: we are not at this point with the Adani project in the Galilee Basin because of what you read in the screaming headlines of some newspapers about 'lawfare' or, as the Attorney-General described it, vigilante litigation; we are at this position with Adani because the government failed to comply with its own law because the government realised its own plunder and then made itself an application to the Federal Court to set aside its earlier approval of the Carmichael mine.

Indeed, because of the blatantly misleading statements made by some members of this government and some media commentators about the Adani decision, the Federal Court took the extraordinary step of issuing a statement about the case. It is worth reading the statement into Hansard in full. The following can be attributed to a Federal Court spokesman if required. They said this:

The purpose of this statement is to correct media reports about the making of orders by the Court affecting the proposed Carmichael coal mine project.

On 12 January 2015 the Mackay Conservation Group filed an application for judicial review of the decision of the Minister for the Environment made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (the Act) to approve proposed action to develop an open cut and underground coal mine, rail link and associated infrastructure in central Queensland, subject to certain conditions.

On 4 August 2015 a judge of the Court made orders setting aside the Minister’s decision. The orders were not made after a hearing. There was no judgment. There were no findings. The orders were made by consent, that is, with the agreement of the parties to the litigation.

Proposed orders were presented to the Court in a letter from the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS), who acted for the Minister and the Commonwealth. The letter was written with the agreement of the other parties: Mackay Conservation Group and Adani Mining Pty Ltd.

In the case of an agreement by parties to litigation to set aside a decision of the Executive, the Court’s usual practice, known to the parties, is that the Court be informed of the error sufficient to set aside the decision. In this case that was done in the letter from the AGS.

The basis of the parties’ request and the basis upon which the orders were made was that:

1. The Minister found that the proposed action would have a significant impact on two listed threatened species: the Yakka Skink and the Ornamental Snake

2. There were conservation advices approved by the Minister for those two species.

3. Under the terms of s 139(2) of the Act, it was mandatory for the Minister to have regard to the approved conservation advices.

4. In deciding whether or not to approve the proposed action, the Minister did not have regard to the approved conservation advices.

5. The Minister did not have regard to the approved conservation advices because they were not included in the material that was before him at the time he made his decision.

What an extraordinary statement from the Federal Court, setting out the facts of how the Federal Court arrived at that position—agreed to by the Australian Government Solicitor, Adani and the Mackay Conservation Group. It is also worth noting from the statement that the applicant in this litigation was the Mackay Conservation Group, a grassroots community-based organisation from North Queensland, run by a committee of dedicated volunteers.

Members of the government continue to pretend that the litigants were the New South Wales Environmental Defenders Office and make much of the distance between their Sydney office and North Queensland. They might have represented the Mackay Conservation Group, but that is hardly relevant; it was the group based in Mackay in that local community who made the application. I would be surprised if Adani was using the services of lawyers from the Galilee Basin.

It is now well understood that the consent decision to set aside the Adani approval was only the sixth time in 15 years that a development approval has been successfully challenged in court, and only the second occasion in more than a decade. Over the course of those 15 years, some 5,500 projects have been referred under the EPBC Act to the minister. The only other project that was successfully challenged during the past decade was reassessed and ultimately approved anyway.

It is abundantly clear that there is no problem requiring a solution here—except perhaps for the government to fix up its own internal assessment and approval procedures. This was a failure of internal government procedures by the Abbott government and by this minister and his department. Yet they seek this radical legislation before this parliament to undermine this core environmental legislation—which was established by the Howard government and which has been operating effectively since its introduction—which provides certainty for industry and provides confidence for the community.

This is just another example of a Prime Minister determined to engage in conflict; it is a distraction from his long list of failures and internal division. It is very clear that this is a Prime Minister who had a plan to get into government but does not have a plan to govern. This is a government that does not have a sense of purpose and is, therefore, looking for disagreement rather than building consensus in the community. It is no wonder that some of the government's strongest supporters historically are its strongest opponents on this and other issues when it comes to a balanced and common-sense approach to environmental legislation. I congratulate people such as Alan Jones and others who have been prepared to stand up and articulate their strong views in what they see as the long-term national interest on these and other issues. The problem for this Prime Minister is that he is much more comfortable wrecking, negating and destroying than building.

As I said earlier, the bizarre thing about this latest proposal is that the provision that this bill seeks to repeal is a legacy of the Howard government, a provision introduced in 1999 which commenced operation in 2000. This provision was created for a very good reason. Environment groups and project proponents had been battling it out in the courts for years to work out what the rules for standing in court procedures were. The High Court in 1980 decided, in a case brought by the Australian Conservation Foundation, that the interest of an environmental organisation on the environmental impact of a proposed development or project was, in the words of Justice Gibbs, 'A mere intellectual or emotional concern', which was insufficient to give it legal standing. That, of course, is because common law has always based the concept of standing or the right to take legal proceedings on the ability to demonstrate an interest that the person or organisation taking the preceding has and which is being adversely impacted by the project. While this obviously makes sense where a project might impact someone's property or business interests, indeed their private economic interests, environmental protection laws are primarily directed at protecting public interests. The entire general public has an interest in the protection of our natural environment. Indeed, there is a very real argument that those of us here today have a responsibility for those who will follow us tomorrow to make sure that we leave a legacy of an enhanced rather than a degraded natural environment. We know that this is not just about environmental concerns. There are good social policy reasons why a natural environment is important but there are also fundamental economic interests of why the natural environment is critical in the short, medium and long term to Australia's national interests.

It is pretty easy to think of some examples of projects that would impact important environmental assets but that would not involve anyone's private interests in the short term. Take the World Heritage properties protected by the EPBC Act in accordance with our international legal obligations. A proposed project that would adversely impact on the Great Barrier Reef might not impact anyone's private interests;—obviously the reef itself cannot take legal action if the minister again fails to apply his own laws properly—only a representative organisation can take an action which would hold the government to account. Or take the threatened species that are protected by the same legislation. The Tasmanian devils were not able to take action in the Shree Minerals case a couple of years ago; instead, it fell to an environmental organisation to do it for them. These examples are serious examples because the message from the government, in relation to all of these matters protected by this legislation, is that you will simply have to trust the government. If a project threatens Australia's World Heritage properties or endangered iconic species, no-one will be able to challenge this government in court. No-one will be able to stand up for the environment in court.

The government appears to be at pains to assure Australia's farmers that they are not the target of this legislation and that they will still be able to take the government and developers to court if their landholdings or businesses are adversely impacted by a development. I will mention only in passing the utter confusion among government ministers around what was actually being proposed when this was first announced. I guess that is what happens when the Prime Minister announces policy on the run in question time with no draft legislation, with no consultative process and when the relevant minister is out of the country.

The Attorney General told the Senate that only part of section 487 was being repealed such that farming peak bodies would still be able to take representative actions in our courts. Apparently, the Minister for Agriculture was busily assuring his constituents the same thing. Ridiculously, two different sets of government talking points were apparently circulating amongst coalition members in the parliament, one set suggesting that only part of the provision would go, in keeping with the Attorney-General's assurances to the Senate, and the other set suggesting that the whole provision would be repealed. We know now that the Attorney-General either was misinformed or did not read his brief carefully, because the bill seeks to repeal the entire provision of section 487.

Still, the Minister for Agriculture has assured farmers that they will still be able to take legal action. The farmers know that that is not the case. It is crystal clear that they would have to do so now on an individual basis, demonstrating that their private interests were adversely impacted and pitting themselves alone against the resources of multinational companies and the Commonwealth government. We have seen from the controversy around the Shenhua mine in the Liverpool Plains that fine legal points will be able to be drawn out by high-powered lawyers acting for the companies and government over whether or not a particular farmer is actually impacted by a development proposal. Even if the Minister for Agriculture has so little regard for the representative work of Australia's environmental organisations, it beggars belief that he could possibly have supported this legislation in the cabinet in the light of what it does to Australia's farmers and their representative organisations.

They are awake. They are onto this minister. This is what the Vice-President of the National Farmers' Federation, Fiona Simson, said:

The Adani decision seems to have been caused by either Adani or the department not applying the law properly, but then, suddenly and with no warning or consultation, we get this put forward … we prefer evidence-based policy making.

Evidence based policymaking—that is what the National Farmers' Federation are saying they support, and that is what good government should provide for. Tim Duddy, farmer and Chairman of the Caroona Coal Action Group, which is campaigning against the Shenhua mine, raised the obvious objection that even a directly affected farmer would be risking their farm from a costs order if they took legal action against a multinational company.

The idea that we should simply trust this government to protect Australia's natural environment, free from judicial review, would be laughable if it were not so very serious. But Labor does not oppose this legislation just because of this government's appalling record on the environment; we do so as a matter of principle. The right of citizens with standing to challenge their governments in court is a fundamental pillar of a robust democracy. We must not set this principle aside simply to provide a drowning Prime Minister with a headline and a stoush.

The need for a provision that reflects the unique public interest involved in protecting Australia's natural environment is patently obvious. The New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption has also reinforced the importance of third-party appeal rights against development approvals from a public integrity perspective. In its 2012 report Anti-corruption safeguards and the New South Wales planning system, the commission made this important point on page 22:

Third party appeal rights have the potential to deter corrupt approaches by minimising the chance that any favouritism sought will succeed. The absence of third party appeals creates an opportunity for corrupt conduct to occur, as an important disincentive for corrupt decision-making is absent from the planning system.

As a general proposition around the integrity of public decision making, that is absolutely correct. The former Attorney-General and current Father of the House, the member for Berowra, obviously had these matters in mind when he apparently raised his concerns about this bill in the Liberal Party room meeting just a couple of weeks ago. He also made the obvious point that, if people were concerned about vexatious litigation becoming rampant under this legislation, there are other ways for that to be dealt with, through costs orders and the like, preferably by the courts themselves instead of a Prime Minister desperate for diversions and making policy on the run.

The right of citizens and their representatives to take legal action where they believe their government has failed to comply with the law can be deeply inconvenient and sometimes embarrassing for a minister and the government, as it is for this minister over his incompetence when it comes to the Adani application. But it is a fundamental part of a transparent and properly functioning democracy, and this parliament should not trash those democratic principles as a matter of convenience for the coalition and this Prime Minister. Where legislation seeks to protect public interest—in this case, the protection of our natural environment—as well as private interests, there needs to be special provision made around standing to take legal action.

Even for a government with the appalling record that this one has on Tasmanian forests, on our marine reserves, on action on climate change and on every aspect of environmental protection, this bill is beyond the pale. It seeks to remedy a problem that exists mainly in the feverish imaginings of right-wing bloggers and a Prime Minister desperate for a fight. That is why the Australian Labor Party will oppose this bill. This bill should be withdrawn and rethought by this Prime Minister and by the coalition party room. It is indeed a tragedy that issues which often have been the subject of consensus in this parliament about protection for our environment have gone so far under this reactionary Prime Minister that we are seeing this legislation.

The members of the coalition and the Prime Minister from time to time describe themselves as conservatives. Conservatives seek to protect what is there, although they might be afraid of progressive change and might not want to embrace change moving forward as a society. Well, there is nothing conservative about this legislation. This is about winding back the gains of the past—winding back the gains not of a Labor government but of the Howard government—which is why this legislation can be truly described as reactionary legislation, why this government can be described as a reactionary government and why we will reject this legislation.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point the member for Grayndler just made in respect of the record of the Howard government, particularly, is something that we should be very proud of. We are probably not as good in the Liberal Party at telling our story, and we have a very fine record as far as the environment is concerned.

What is a reality is that we always need to review—we always need to, where it is appropriate, update and modernise—legislation in respect of the circumstances that prevail. It is the same when you consider, for example, welfare payments. I have no doubt that, when people rightly wanted to put in place a safety net for those Australians who, in a compassionate society, had fallen through the net, so to speak, the legislation was a mechanism to catch those people and to support them in their hard times. That is the Australian way. But I do not imagine that the people who designed that legislation ever imagined we would be in a situation like we are in today where, for many, this has become a lifestyle choice rather than an opportunity or incentive to help them get back on their feet. And so it is with the bill to amend the EPBC Act—in particular, section 487—that we are here to discuss today, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015.

But this is the issue: the Labor Party and the Greens are always conflicted here. I notice the member for Hunter sitting opposite. In the discussion today the specifics of this have been drawn to the issue of the Adani case and the action that was brought against a mine that went through the best assessment, the best approval process that exists anywhere in the world—and Australia should be rightly proud of the assessment and approval process that we have. But it is not just about the Adani mine, because in Tasmania, as the member for Grayndler mentioned, it is about the timber industry. The same principles that apply to the Adani case in Queensland equally apply to the timber industry in Tasmania that was destroyed by the Labor Party, both state and federal, with the support of the Greens—only because of a lust for power; only because of a desire to stay in government. It was a tragic story in our history, and I would welcome the member for Watson, any time he likes, to come on down. As to the member for Franklin, I have not seen him show his face in Tasmania since those disastrous years—which, fortunately, we are moving on from.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is Australia's national environment law. It is amongst the most stringent in the world. It provides a legal framework to facilitate sustainable development while protecting nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities, migratory birds, heritage places and water resources. However, when the act was introduced, as I mentioned, they never imagined that we would be confronted with a new breed of eco-warriors, career campaigners and protesters, all well-funded through tax-deductible donations. This is the brave new world that we have inherited, and we must, where it is appropriate, adjust legislation to be in line with reality.

The minister in his second reading speech highlighted the fact that, by establishing a one-stop shop for environmental assessments with all states and territories, we have tried to streamline this process of approvals. In fact, work with a construction and resource value of over $1 trillion has been approved since we came to government. The time taken to see environmental approvals has reduced by 50 per cent. I experienced this firsthand with the South East irrigation scheme in Tasmania. That was, in fairness, a funded commitment delivered by the previous government. But when I was elected and we came to government it was buried in a bureaucratic nightmare of environmental approvals between state and federal governments. Thanks to the good work of the minister, Minister Hunt, at that time, we managed to work that out and managed to get that through.

We have world-class environmental standards and world-class administration. But, from time to time, legislation needs to change to make sure the original intent of the government—which was the Howard government—at the time is indeed upheld.

We are increasingly seeing an Americanisation through the use of litigation in so many aspects of our lives. Particularly, it disgusts me—it is cruel—to see ads for these no-win no-pay lawyers; I remember watching, a couple of years ago, the Tour de France on television, and every second ad was saying: 'Do you feel like you've been wronged? Do you have a sore back? Well, come and see us and we'll get some money for you.' So this is increasingly what we are seeing, whether it is local communities trying to put on an event and dealing with the increasing costs of public liability insurance, or whether it is a policy of using environmental litigation to disrupt and delay projects to increase investor risk and increase costs within the projects and make Australia a less attractive place to invest money—in other words: to increase sovereign risk. This is what is happening in our nation.

I refer to a document entitled Stopping the Australian coal export boom: funding proposal for the Australian anti-coal movement. The authors of this document are Mr John Hepburn, from Greenpeace Australia Pacific; Mr Bob Burton, from CoalSwarm; and Sam Hardy—I will say 'Sam'; I do not know the person in question—from the Graeme Wood Foundation. As to the Graeme Wood Foundation, in Tasmania we have had experience of Graeme Wood. Graeme Wood was one of the people who purchased the old Triabunna woodchip mill during that disastrous lead-up to the Tasmanian forestry agreement, which the former speaker mentioned. It was part of a dodgy deal that was done with Gunns in their dying days, tragically, and the purchase was sold to these operators below what commercial operators within the forestry industry had previously offered. It devastated the community of Triabunna, on the east coast of Tasmania, and the livelihoods of hundreds of people involved in the southern Tasmanian timber industry.

I note also in the minister's speech a reference to the Australia Institute. They are topical at the moment, because they are the ones who wrote a report for the MUA on coastal shipping—which is another discussion we could have in this place very soon. What was achieved by the purchase of the Triabunna woodchip mill was the inability of southern forests to have a market for their residues. They shut us out and they destroyed the industry. I remind those opposite that Tasmania has not forgotten—and we would welcome the member for Watson any time he likes to come to Tasmania, because he will be reminded at every moment of the damage that was done during those terrible years.

I will read from the Australian anti-coal movement's document. It says:

Our strategy is essentially to 'disrupt and delay' key projects and infrastructure while gradually eroding public and political support for the industry and continually building the power of the movement to win more.

I would encourage anybody listening—those in the gallery, those who might be listening at home and those who, in order to go to sleep, might read this at some point in time—to seek out this document. I am sure it is publicly available. If it is not, they can contact my office and I would happily provide that to them. The point to make here is that this is not a grassroots campaign. This is a top-down strategic campaign to disrupt and delay. These eco-warriors and career protestors are funded, as I mentioned, through tax deductible donations, through the DGR status that many of them have.

Reference was made to the Great Barrier Reef. This has been a disaster for Greenpeace Australia. Minister Hunt did some outstanding work in getting the World Heritage Committee to take the Great Barrier Reef off the 'watch list'. This has been an absolute disaster for Greenpeace's fundraising activities, because they can no longer go out there and scare people. They can no longer use those images of polar bears dying due to a harvested forest in Tasmania or images of a piece of the Barrier Reef that has coral bleaching. They can no longer use those things, because it has been taken off the 'watch list' due to the good work of Minister Hunt and this government. That is a tragedy for Greenpeace, because it makes it more difficult for them to scare people and do their fundraising. It was the same with the Tasmanian forests. Never did the truth get put in the way of the emotive campaign that they used to generate funds. It is not about the forests; it is about the organisation's concern.

When the act was first introduced it was well intentioned to protect Australia's environment and biodiversity to allow appropriate development, but the world has moved on. The EPBC Act was never intended to disrupt and delay key projects in infrastructure. It is in need of updating. There is a need to update the act. Section 487 of the act, whilst well intentioned, has now become the basis, by virtue of the Americanisation of our justice system, that allows virtually any person or group to bring a lawsuit, whether they are adversely impacted or not. It is out of step with Commonwealth law. It is a legal loophole which activists have exploited. Section 5 of the ADJR Act sets the standard definition for Commonwealth law regarding who can make an application for judicial review as any 'aggrieved person'. An aggrieved person includes a person whose interests are adversely affected by the decision, such as farmers, landowners and other interested parties. It is absolutely imperative to note that the changes proposed will not in any way remove the capacity of people with a genuine grievance, such as farmers, landowners and other interested parties, to object to developments where there is a genuine grievance.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

I hear the member for Hunter, who I note has many coalmines in his electorate—and he is standing there protesting against this. I do not understand it. In the short time allotted to me, I will quote from Minister Hunt's statement. In conclusion, he stated:

Indeed, the World Heritage Committee not only reversed the direction we inherited of the Great Barrier Reef being on the 'watch list' with a direct path to being placed on the 'in-danger list', it lifted the Great Barrier Reef back to the highest rank of World Heritage listing and praised Australia as a global role model only seven weeks ago.

That is, indeed, a disaster for Greenpeace, as I mentioned.

This brings me to a particular area of interest, the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, which makes up 52 per cent of our state. National parks, World Heritage areas and formal reserves take up 52 per cent of the island state. There would not be another state in Australia that would come within a bull's roar of such a figure. I think South Australia is the next state, with just over 20 per cent. Fifty-two per cent of Tasmania is now formal reserves, World Heritage areas and national parks. There is no other jurisdiction where you would find that.

We are, of course, the nation's environmental conscience, and it is with real pleasure that we will be welcoming the Reactive Monitoring Mission from the World Heritage Investigative Committee, who will be coming to Tasmania shortly to review plans by the state government, through their expression of interests process, for appropriate and sustainable tourism developments within our national parks. This is part of the extension—the 74,000 hectares that the previous speaker mentioned—in 2013. Unfortunately, at that time, the World Heritage Committee did not come and have a look on the ground or consult with the many communities that put in quite legitimate concerns about the expansion at that time. The group that have been impacted more than any other by this are the people accessing speciality timbers. Anyone who has been to Tasmania would realise what a wonderful history and legacy we have with our celery-top pine, with our sassafras, with our myrtle and with our Huon pine. Those areas are now off limits. So get in early. Unless we can change this, there will be no more timber in those areas available for boat builders, craftsmen and for tables et cetera. Our speciality timbers have been a big part of our state's history over many years.

That is the legacy of the damage that was done under the previous Labor-Green government. I will never forget and, while I have breath in my lungs, I will continue to remind people of the damage that was done during those terrible years. Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin by reassuring and guaranteeing the member for Lyons that many of my frontbench colleagues and I will be accepting his invitation to visit his electorate on a regular basis between now and polling day. In addition, we will remind his constituents of all the measures he has backed since he has been here which have undermined their financial opportunities. I will be telling them that I was in the House the day he supported the repeal of third-party individual rights to appeal against Commonwealth decisions under the EPBC and that he was prepared to accept that his farmers, even if they are able to secure standing, would have to put their farms on the line to take legal action—the result of which could result in punitive cost orders against those very farmers. Of course the natural consequence of that could be the loss of the farm. That is what the member for Lyons just supported in this place, and I will be reminding his constituents of that at every opportunity.

To take the member for Lyons up on his point: there would be no greater supporter of the mining industry in this place than me. The coalmining industry alone directly employs some 11,000 people in my region, the Hunter region, and is crucial to about 50,000 more jobs. I invite members, including the member for Lyons—he was providing plenty of invitations for me to come to Tasmania; as I said, I am happy to accept the invitation—to my electorate where the majority of the people at the pub on a Friday night are either working in the coalmining industry or an associated sector.

I invite them to come to my supermarket on a Saturday morning where in every aisle they will find a coalminer, a coalmining family or a family working in a related sector related. I invite them to accompany me to my local end-of-year school presentations where, out in the crowd, you will see the hi-vis uniforms associated with the coalmining industry of those parents who have found time away from the workplace to come and support and acknowledge the achievements of their children.

Drive up through the Upper Hunter and witness the four-wheel drives with the iconic elevated fluoro flags that are so well known to the coalmining industry filling the car parks of local motels. Come to the local cafes with me and see them doing very, very well and full of people who are so obviously associated with the coalmining industry. Come to local sporting events on a Saturday and Sunday and see how the local sporting sides, particuarly the juniors, are typically sponsored by one of the coalmining companies that operate in the Hunter region. Come to the many community facilities around the Hunter electorate which have been constructed and developed with donations from the coalmining industry.

More broadly, the coalmining sector—or the mining sector—was the key factor in taking us through the global financial crisis. In addition to the very good economic management of the then Rudd government, the coalmining sector was crucial in Australia avoiding recession, and the pain and grief, experienced by so many other countries around the world, including of course the United States.

Those who want to accelerate the demise of the coalmining industry are fools. They may be well-intentioned fools but fools just the same. I include in that group those on Newcastle council who in their wisdom recently decided to resolve, as a council, to ensure that none of the money they raise from ratepayers in the future shall be invested in any bank which has investments in the coalmining industry—or fossil fuel industries, more generally. This is the council with the largest coal port in the world within its local government boundaries. This was just silly, and I have learnt this morning that, disappointingly, last night an attempt to rescind that dumb decision failed at Newcastle council. What a message to send.

The most disappointing thing about that decision is that the council has been used as a pawn in a much larger game. They were no doubt lobbied to take this action by an organisation known as 350.org—an international green group committed to divestiture in fossil fuel related sectors. This group have been very clever: they will be able to travel around this country and the world convincing others to do the same by demonstrating that they have had a big win in convincing Newcastle council, at the heart of the coalmining sector, to take this decision—the council are pawns in the game, and it was a very big mistake on their part.

Anti-coal activists everywhere are happy for Australia and the rest of the Western world to have grown rich on the back of fossil fuels but want to deny others as they strive to lift themselves out of poverty. Australia's coal is relatively clean and efficient. We should want the Chinese and the Indians, for example, burning our coal rather than the dirty alternatives. It is common sense, and we should be happy to take the export earnings. It is a win-win.

Like in Australia, over time, those developing countries will become less dependent on fossil fuels, but it will be a slow process over many decades. In the meantime, we should continue to provide them with relatively clean fossil fuels. Here in Australia, renewables will continue to grow at a pace, and coal's decline will continue as a proportion of the share but continue to grow over the coming decades. New technologies might enhance coal's future. We just do not know but we do not need green activists trying to determine what the market should do.

Of course my mind is not closed to the negative impacts of coalmining.

This Sunday, as I do every year, I will attend the annual memorial services at the offices of the United Mine Workers Union. There we will pray alongside the Jim Comerford Memorial Wall, which contains the names of more than 1,800 men and boys who gave their lives mining the coal of the northern coalfields. Thankfully, we have come a long way in recent decades, largely thanks to the work of the union, and we now have dramatically fewer losses of life. Sadly, they still occasionally occur.

The coalmining industry impacts on our air and water quality. It probably exacerbates local health problems like asthma. It is not unusual for residents to find a thin layer of dust on the car in the morning. Our sustainable industries live in constant concern about the potential impact of the mining sector on their own industries. Many of these sustainable industries are also very important to the Hunter's economy—the agriculture, viticulture and thoroughbred breeding industries, for example. These are crucial sectors to the Hunter's economy and provide us with much-needed diversity.

As the member for Hunter, I have lived with land use conflict all of my political life and I know it well. Managing land use conflict successfully results in jobs, wealth, economic diversity and a healthy local environment. Like with workplace safety, community tolerance for less-than-optimal environmental outcomes is in decline. So are our challenges in ensuring the sustainability of the fossil fuels sector.

The Commonwealth recognised these growing community concerns when it dealt itself into the environmental approvals process through the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the very act the government of the day is trying to undermine today. This was good because, amongst other things, people were losing and continue to lose faith in the capacity or will of state governments to get the balance right. I have got to say there has been no greater example of that than my own state of New South Wales. I say that with great regret.

The PM who introduced the EPBC Act was John Howard. Tony Abbott now makes John Howard look like Al Gore. That is the reality. This bill seeks to remove key components of John Howard's bill. These include the right of third-party appeal against decisions made under the EPBC Act—surely a natural right. They are limited appeals. In the 15 years since the introduction of the EPBC Act, something like 0.04 per cent of the decisions have been challenged. This amendment allegedly comes out of the Adani case. That is the successful challenge to the approval of the Adani mine in Queensland—a project I support. The problem with the Adani mine was not the act; it was the minister's incompetence. We should not be changing the act; we should be changing the minister if we are serious about the Adani mine.

My real concern here, of course, speaking as the shadow minister for agriculture, is that we are about to deny farmers, primary producers, growers et cetera the opportunity to appeal against decisions when they believe they are going to adversely affect their operations. On the eve of the introduction of this bill, the Attorney-General was running around, as was Minister Hunt, saying—no, I retract that. That is not true. On the eve of the introduction of the bill, the Minister for Agriculture was running around saying: 'We're going to protect the farmers. We're only going to repeal part of the act. The rest will remain, and farmers will be okay.' The very next morning, Minister Hunt introduced the bill, and guess what. All of section 487 is going. We are arguing rightly that that is going to deny farming groups and individual farmers the right to appeal under the EPBC Act. The government says something different, but many people disagree with them—including, it seems, the President of the New South Wales Farmers Federation and Mr Tim Duddy, a farmer on the Breeza Plains and Chairman of the Caroona Coal Action Group. They are very concerned.

We claim, I think very rightly, that, even if a farmer is able to take standing, he or she will face the risk of punitive cost orders in the courts. In other words, with the repeal of this section a farmer wanting to challenge a decision will put his or her farm on the line—risk their farm for the right to appeal against a decision which is going to adversely impact on their farming operations. This is of particular relevance at this point in time as we all see in the public domain the debate around the Shenhua mine on the Breeza Plains in the very heart of the electorate of the Minister for Agriculture. There are very grave concerns. The President of the New South Wales Farmers Federation and Tim Duddy are both from that part of the world.

Barnaby Joyce cannot run around on the eve of the introduction of the bill and say, 'Don't worry; only part of section 487 is going to be repealed, so you'll be all right,' and then the next morning repeal or temporarily repeal all of section 487 and say, 'You're still going to be all right.' He cannot have it both ways. Minister Joyce has to start standing up for his electorate. It has been revealed that he made no representations to Minister Hunt on the Shenhua project. I have seen some of the advice to Minister Hunt. It suggests very clearly that there were still many unanswered questions around the Shenhua project. I support the industry, but I want to make sure that every decision is made on the right basis, and there are unanswered questions. It is not good enough for Minister Joyce to go onto the Breeza Plains and say he disagrees with his own cabinet decisions but then do nothing about it.

They are lining up on the Liverpool Plains to lynch Minister Joyce because of his inaction, his small talk and his inability to get things done. When he votes—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lynch?

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, lynch. Lynch would be the description I would give. There are a lot of very angry people in that part of the world. When he comes in—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's a bit strong. Do you know what it actually means?

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Metaphorically speaking. You know I am speaking metaphorically. When he comes in here—today, I suspect, or whenever the vote comes on—and votes in favour of this bill before the House today to repeal the right of his farmers to appeal against a decision like Shenhua, he will have driven another nail into his electoral coffin. Metaphorically speaking, I say to the member for Riverina.

I notice Minister Joyce has been speaking on the second reading of many bills. Is Minister Joyce on this bill today? I do not think so. Surprise, surprise. He was here on the water bill last night, unusual as it is for cabinet ministers to come in and do second readings. Minister Joyce needs to come in here today, add himself to this list and explain to his constituents—his farming communities in his electorate and right around the country—why he is denying them in the future the right to appeal against projects like Shenhua. We do not want any double talk. We want him to explain why it was he assured them that only part of the section was being repealed and, now that all of the section is being repealed, they are going to be okay. We look forward to hearing from the minister.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is safe to say that all of us in this House, when we speak on environmental matters, recognise the importance of looking after our environment and providing a good environment for future generations. But at the same time we have to be able to utilise the resources that exist in that environment. We can have a look at clear policies of Greenpeace Australia to try to stop Australian coalmining dead in its tracks, stated in terminology such as:

Our strategy is to 'disrupt and delay' key projects and infrastructure while gradually eroding public and political support for the industry …

When that industry employs thousands of Australians, I think it is well within the responsibility of this government to seek to take steps to ensure that organisations such as Greenpeace and others that want to destroy our economy and return us to the Dark Ages are stopped and prevented from doing so. At the same time, I think it is important that those who are affected by proposed projects, such as local farmers and landowners, should be able to appeal the decisions. In this regard, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015, in seeking to remove section 487 from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, still provides protections for those farmers and landholders and retains their right to appeal any decision.

With regard to this proposal to amend the EPBC Act, we need to recognise that Australia continues to have some of the most stringent and effective environmental laws in the world, and we absolutely should continue to do so. But once projects have met these tough environmental requirements, they should be able to proceed without legal sabotage from organisations such as Greenpeace and others that are conducting a war on projects not just in Australia but around the world. These changes to the EPBC Act will also bring it into line with other Commonwealth laws. Our legal framework under the EPBC Act seeks to ensure that we have sustainable development while at the same time protecting important flora and fauna, ecological balances, places of heritage significance and our invaluable water resources, considering we live in one of the driest continents on earth.

When the EPBC Act was enacted some 15 or so years ago, organisations such as Greenpeace did not run these lines of interference—did not use the courts to prevent companies that had been through due process from proceeding with their duly-approved projects. This unprecedented threat—the use of litigation to disrupt and delay these key projects and infrastructure within Australia—directly increases investor risk. But, more importantly, it impacts on the ability of companies to create jobs for Australians. At the end of the day, that is what we are talking about: jobs for Australians. We are also talking about the ability to sell minerals in the export market to developing countries. In particular, with respect to the Adani project in Queensland, we are talking about exporting to India and helping to lift millions of Indians out of poverty by providing them with a cheap and efficient source of generating power.

I commend the minister for taking action against this unnecessary and disruptive litigation industry which, if not checked soon, has the potential to have devastating results for Australia's future economic growth. There is currently a number of actions in courts, particularly in Queensland, with the direct intention of shutting down or preventing these projects. In Queensland in particular we have seen the effect of the trail-off of the capital expenditure part of the mining boom and the impact that that has had on many people in Queensland in terms of job losses, significant reductions or closures of businesses. This is particularly so through Central Queensland—Mackay, Gladstone, Rockhampton and Emerald are particular areas that have been affected very, very badly. The opportunity for these new projects to come on stream was looked forward to by these communities as a way of recovering from the current downturn that we have seen as a result of recent falls in prices for coal and other minerals. This legislation is very timely in that regard.

The thought that organisations such as Greenpeace and others are seeking to use the law, contrary to its intentions, to disrupt these important projects is a slight on those organisations. The goal of these legal challenges and campaigns against mining and infrastructure is not necessarily to win, but to delay and disrupt them and to make them economically unviable for the project proponents. Therefore, I think it is incumbent on this government to look at ways in which it can change the rules or the law to ensure that these projects, after they have been through due process, are able to proceed as planned.

Currently, the EPBC Act enables individuals, organisations or associations who have, at any time in the two years immediately prior to the decision in question, engaged in a series of activities in Australia or an external territory for the protection or conservation of, or research into, the environment to commence proceedings for judicial review. This provision of the EPBC Act, as I said earlier, was well intentioned. However, it has now become the basis for virtually any person or group to bring a lawsuit, regardless of whether they are adversely affected or even near the project. This is out of step with Commonwealth law and has provided a legal loophole for activists to exploit.

On the proposed changes: the EPBC Act standing provisions were always intended to allow the genuine interests of an aggrieved person whose interests are adversely affected to be preserved. Importantly, this remains the case. Changing the EPBC Act will not prevent those who will be affected by a project from seeking judicial review. This is as it must be. It will maintain and protect their rights. However, importantly, it will prevent those with no connection to the project other than political ambition to stop a development, from using the courts to disrupt and delay key infrastructure where it has been appropriately considered under the EPBC Act.

I think we should continue to support our economic activity, and that is what we are seeking to do with these changes to the EPBC Act. Legal challenges do not add any value whatsoever to the economic growth of this country, other than maybe lining the pockets of some lawyers.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to see that the member for Moreton, as usual, has made a contribution. It is good to see the member for Moreton here.

The stated objective of Greenpeace and others is to mount legal challenges to the approval of key ports, mines and rail lines—to run legal challenges to delay, limit or stop all major infrastructure projects such as mines, rail and ports—that have been identified through their high-priority strategy. The amendments in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015 seek to remove their ability to do that, to ensure that we create a framework so that business in this country, after it has been through a due process of assessment under the EPBC Act, can get on with the business of developing the mines, building the rail and building the infrastructure that this country desperately needs to fund its economic growth and to build and grow jobs for Australians. It is interesting to ask the question about whether those opposite actually support that notion of economic growth and jobs for Australians or support the activities of Greenpeace and their ilk who would prevent these jobs from being provided in our economy.

As I touched on earlier, these delays cost jobs in communities that need them most. I have already touched on some of the examples in Central Queensland around Gladstone, Rockhampton, Emerald and Mackay. But I am even aware of significant businesses in my electorate of Forde that have been affected by the downturn in the mining industry and are hoping that these new projects such as the Adani mine can get their approvals, get up and running and provide jobs in my local community as well.

Under this government, we want to be open for business. These changes to the EPBC Act are part of removing that uncertainty for investors. Since we have come into government, we have halved the time for approvals and cleared the backlog of approvals that was sitting there when those opposite lost government. We have also approved over $1 trillion in projects around the country. We have improved the certainty of doing business. That certainty for business is, at the end of the day, the most important thing so they can get on and do what they do best, grow the economy and employ Australians.

This bill will help restore that certainty to the EPBC Act, prevent unnecessary and unwarranted litigation and protect the ongoing rights of genuinely concerned farmers, landowners and similar parties. I commend the bill to the House.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015. This bill proposes to amend the EPBC Act and will repeal the extended standing provision that is currently in the EPBC Act. This is the government's response to the perceived threat that the Attorney-General, the nation's first law officer, has described as 'lawfare'. Lawfare is an important word, an interesting word, used by the Attorney-General and by the various speakers opposite.

I think it is a part of the militarisation of the political discourse taking place under this government. Do you see the people that they send out to plant trees? They call them the Green Army. The people they send to check your shampoo at the airport they call the Border Force, and they give them a paramilitary uniform. They even actually put the words 'Border Force' on the Australian flag out in front of the building. They talk about a 'war on wind farms' and an 'assault on solar', and the proliferation of flags we have seen under this Prime Minister is phenomenal. It is all part of that militarisation of the political discourse, which is disconcerting. I think it bespeaks a Prime Minister who is basically a trumped-up cadet, who would take any opportunity to find an opponent.

I am all for supporting the ADF and recognising the service of Australians who have put on a uniform, but I advise against that militarisation of our political discourse. It is disconcerting. It is not the Australian way. We have had referendums on conscription in the past, 100 years ago. We have never really been the sort of nation that has anything like this, but Australia will turn up and fight—no doubt about that. We have a long history of turning up when there are times of conflict around the world and doing more than our fair share in supporting democracy and freedom and those democratic values that Australia espouses. But I warn against this particular militarisation of our political discourse that has happened under Prime Minister Abbott.

Let us revisit this legislation that is going to change standing under the EPBC Act. Remember, the EPBC Act was brought in by that incredible greenie, the tree-loving Prime Minister called John Howard. Prime Minister Howard brought in this bit of legislation. What are the objectives of the EPBC Act? To provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance, and to promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources. They are the reasons for the legislation brought in by Prime Minister Howard. I commend him for this legislation that has served Australia well. To achieve these objectives the act does various things, including promoting a partnership approach to environmental protection and biodiversity conservation through the involvement of the community in management planning. These are commendable objectives, and it is hard to see how anyone, 15 years later, would criticise these objectives, particularly the Attorney-General, the nation's first law officer, who used that term 'lawfare'—that conflating of war and law together, a very powerful bit of language that the Attorney-General has trotted out there.

All Australians should value our precious environment. We are the nation most vulnerable when it comes to climate change. The great opportunities that we have with our farmers and our agricultural producers could be under threat if we do not protect our environment carefully. But it is abundantly clear that the Abbott government have no credibility when it comes to the environment. Their record is absolutely horrendous: rushing through environmental approvals as soon as they took office and disallowing the endangered community listing of the River Murray from the Darling to the sea. They reproclaimed the world's largest marine reserve system so that the management plans that were in place would have no effect. They ripped funding from the Environmental Defenders Offices—the offices that allow concerned Australians to challenge environmental approval decisions. They have gone backwards on climate change. Basically it is almost putting their head in the sand—I think it is so close to the term literally applying here. They are making Australia a laughing-stock around the world. In fact, we have won five fossil awards at the climate change talks in Warsaw. Yet, in putting forward this bill, the government want us to believe that they can be trusted to protect our environment and that there is no need to allow conservation groups—the people whose business it is to protect our environment—to challenge any decisions that the government makes.

The Attorney-General says that the current EPBC Act gives a 'red carpet for vigilante litigation.' This is the Attorney-General who understands how frivolous and vexatious matters can be thrown out of court at first instance—or he should understand. The government's scaremongering just does not marry with the facts. Since July 2000, there have been 5,500 projects that have gone through the EPBC approval process, seen through the lens of the legislation introduced by Prime Minister Howard. For those 5,500 projects, only 30 challenges have been made to decisions on EPBC assessed projects. Of those 30 challenges that actually got up as a challenge, only six have been successful. I am not a mathematician, but that has to be in the 0.00 type percentages that we are talking about—six out of 5,500 projects. The EPBC Act has hardly opened the legal floodgates to so-called vigilante groups.

It is hardly surprising that so few challenges have been made. Going to court is very expensive. For a conservation group to come within the extended standing provision, they must show that at any time within the previous two years they have engaged in a series of environmental conservation or research activities in Australia or one of our external territories. Conservation groups do not get any monetary benefit from a successful challenge. They would probably argue that the benefit of preserving our environment is worth more than any amount of money. Nevertheless, such litigation is stressful, costly and expensive, and there has to be a name of a person filed in the court.

Let us look at the case that instigated the Attorney-General to draft this bill, where now those opposite are suggesting we should amend the EPBC Act. The challenge was brought by the Mackay Conservation Group against the decision approving the Adani coalmine. The minister responsible for making the decision failed to consider two threatened species, the yakka skink and the ornamental snake, that inhabited the area of the proposed mine. The environment minister, Greg Hunt, made a mistake. It is that simple. But at no time prior to going to the court did Minister Hunt admit that he had made a mistake. He could easily have done so at any point—just said: 'Oops, sorry about that. Let's start again.' But he did not. Minister Hunt chose not to. He forced the Mackay Conservation Group to spend lots of money taking this matter all the way to the doors of the court. Then, when he was faced with the prospect of an embarrassing loss in court, Minister Hunt finally admitted that he had made a mistake. Remember, this was not a court case. This was a consent order where the parties sat down, including the Government Solicitor, and agreed to a consent order. All parties, including Minister Hunt, agreed that an error had been made by the minister in the approval process. Was this a mistake or a deliberate error? I would like to believe that it was only a mistake.

Nevertheless, to have had this knee-jerk reaction from those opposite in terms of changing the EPBC Act, an act that has served Australia so well for 15 years, is bizarre. Let's just think about these same circumstances if the Mackay Conservation Group were not able to bring such a challenge. Would the minister have suddenly had an epiphany and said, 'Oh, I made a mistake and I'd better start this process again'? It is hard to imagine that Minister Hunt or any minister would have, given that he did not so even when faced with a court challenge telling him exactly where he had made the mistake in terms of doing his job. So, if the Mackay Conservation Group would not have standing, who would have standing to bring this challenge against the minister's error?

Are we going to sit around and wait for the Yakka skink to study law and trot up and say, 'I am about to be wiped out?' Or the ornamental snake? I certainly have seen a few reptilian people around the courts but I do not think any ornamental snakes have law degrees. So without this extended standing provision in the EPBC, a person wanting to challenge this decision would have to show that they were an aggrieved person. The skink and the snake would have to show that they were an aggrieved person. Who else would be affected by this decision and who could bring an action? Who would have known about the Yakka skink or the ornamental snake residing in that area other than a conservation group?

All Australians are affected by decisions such as this when they directly affect our environment; whether any Australians would have had standing to challenge this decision is much trickier. The Mackay Conservation Group could attempt to bring a challenge based on this standing. It might succeed but it certainly would spend a lot of money and a lot of time arguing about its stranding instead of the real issue—that the minister had made a mistake. If it was ultimately not found outstanding then the minister's error would have been swept aside and the Yakka skink and the ornamental snake or whatever species that would be affected by a project would at best have become more threatened and at worst joined the ever-increasing list of our extinct species.

I was patting some endangered species with the environment minister a few days ago

Mr McCormack interjecting—

I think our polls are a little bit healthier than that but I do take that interjection. He does profess to care about endangered species. There are currently 472 species listed as extinct, endangered or vulnerable under the EPBC Act. What a crime it would be to see another species disappear on this minister's watch due to one of his errors. If we can go back to the objects of the EPBC Act:

…to provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance;

The extended standing provision allowed the Mackay Conservation Group to bring this challenge. This challenge was directly related to protecting the environment, in particular protecting two threatened species. The extended standing provision is crucial to the EPBC meeting its objectives. There is a knee-jerk reaction by the government to the embarrassment of being forced to admit that its own environment minister made a mistake.

The government have a lot of problems to deal with. But this mischievous piece of legislation should not factor into their parliamentary agenda. I know it is not a packed parliamentary agenda; I understand that. Nevertheless, they should be concentrating on things like the fact that the deficit has increased, that government debt is up, that unemployment is up, that taxes are up. Instead, they are wasting their time declaring war on wind farms, declaring war on the ABC and SBS, and now declaring war on conservation groups.

Instead of getting real reform and leading the Australian community through these challenges that are facing us, real legislation through parliament, the government is intent on fighting for the sake of fighting. The Prime Minister is a pugilist looking for an opponent. I saw it in my home town of St George, a town that produced a lot of great boxers. You would see the guys in the pub, the old boxers sitting in the corner. If you rang a bell, they would basically jump up and start swinging. The old punchies in the corner of the bar, if you hit a bell out they would come ready to hit someone. That is what this Prime Minister is and we need better.

This legislation is ridiculous. It has no foundation for reform. In fact it is rolling back Howard government reform that came in 15 years ago. Do we truly believe that a mistake by a minister is never going to occur again or, heaven forbid, a deliberate error? This amendment would have the effect of hiding government mistakes and assessments under the EPBC. Alan Jones—not exactly a bleeding heart leftie; more likely someone who is normally a friend of the government—is doing television ads declaring how bad this amendment is. You know the government should be worried. They have really got a tin ear when it comes to doing the right thing.

I do not support this bill. Every sensible person opposite, I urge you to join me in rejecting this attack on common-sense and good law. It reminds me a line from a song by Paul Kelly and Kev Carmody called This land is mine. There is a white settler voice having one verse of the song and an Indigenous voice responding. The song says, 'This land is mine' and that is the thinking that too many people opposite have—that this land is mine. The Indigenous voice responds saying, 'This land is me.' Surely, if we are going to be real Australians, fair dinkum Australians, we should protect and preserve where possible.

Remember, the EPBC allows for appropriate development; 5,500 projects have gone ahead, only 30 have been challenged and only six have been found to legitimate grounds for challenge. Listen to that voice—that this land is me—rather than just saying that it is only an economic process. That quote—this land is mine—is at the front of this wonderful book called The Big Fig written by the member for Moreton, available in—I would like to say all good bookshops—the bookshop here.

Mr Chester interjecting—

Well, if only make it made it to the bargain bins. I urge those opposite not to support this bill.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to see that I finally agree with something the member for Moreton has said. He is a lover of Paul Kelly as am I, so isn't that nice to find something we both agree on? I am pleased to rise to speak to the House today on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015.

The Abbott government is building a strong, prosperous and sustainable economy for a safe and secure Australia. Since coming to office there have been 12,500 new jobs created in Durack, which is about a quarter of the new jobs in WA since the government came to office, and there have been more than 335,000 new jobs created in Australia since the government was elected.

Projects create jobs, and the government and I want the highest environmental standards to apply to these new projects. That is why I will not sit idly by and watch jobs, investment and our economy be threatened by activist litigation. This bill will protect Australian jobs by removing the provision which allows green activists to get involved in litigation to merely frustrate, in many cases, the development of important economic projects in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

I repeat, the government does want the highest environmental standards. I personally want the environment to be in better condition tomorrow than it is today. We respect the right for people to take matters to court; however, I do not agree with people using the courts to frustrate a process in pursuit of a political agenda. The era of vocal minorities must end, so must the waste of taxpayers' precious money on policing these often neurotic protests which are unproductive and choking the Australian economy.

It is worth repeating that this bill will protect Australian jobs, something which is in this government's DNA. This bill should make a substantial saving in reduced litigation and increased investment security for business, something which those opposite will never understand and is more the pity. The previous Labor government, as we all know, left us a legacy of gross debt which is projected to rise to $660 billion. Suffice to say, those opposite have been financially reckless and have no idea when it comes to managing the country's finances. Debt and poor financial management are in Labor's DNA.

Section 487 of the EPBC Act is currently a welcome mat for radical activists who have a political, not a legal, interest in development to use aggressive litigation tactics to interrupt vital job-creating projects. These radicals are impacting on the country's economic growth and our jobs—jobs for young Australians, jobs for older Australians. I call on the Labor Party to leave the politics at the door and join the government in protecting Australian jobs. Let us see whether Labor are as committed to Australian jobs as they say or whether they will buddy up once again with the Greens.

Importantly, the proposed amendment will not affect local agricultural producers and others with legitimate proprietary, economic, financial or other direct interests. They can rest assure that their voices will be heard and the courts will be available to assist with the protection of their rights, and of course that is the way it ought to should be. The government will repeal this provision to return the law to the usual position where only someone with a legitimate interest in commencing legal action has standing to do so—someone who merely wants to prosecute a political cause does not. This bill is part of the federal government's long-term economic plan.

Monday of this week marked the second year since our government was elected to office. The people of Durack regularly tell me that they are pleased that this government is a breath of fresh air after six years of some of the most dysfunctional government in the Western world. Female workforce participation is at record levels, with over 171,000 more women in jobs at the time of the election. This has filtered through to Durack, I am very pleased to say, where women from around the electorate often tell me about a new job they have secured since our government was formed. The confidence which has been instilled in the business community has been sound, with a record 223,013 new companies registered last year. We have delivered tax cuts for small business, reducing the rate to the lowest it has been since 1967.

We are backing hardworking families through lower electricity prices by having abolished the carbon tax. We are backing seniors by providing certainty on superannuation. We are backing farmers with new tax write-offs for fencing, water infrastructure and fodder storage. We are backing homebuyers with interest rates at a four-decade low. We are backing job seekers with jobactive, which will assist jobseekers find not just a job but a career. We are backing northern Australia through the northern Australia white paper with a plan for sustainable development through better roads and other infrastructure.

This government have a record which the opposition could only dream of, and that is why I call on the Labor Party to join the government in protecting Australian jobs and support this bill. The Abbott coalition government want the highest environmental standards to apply, but we will not allow jobs, investment and our economy to be threatened by activist litigation. Business confidence and conditions are into positive territory, as Dun & Bradstreet said on 1 September:

… we’re seeing robust levels of optimism across all sectors in the … business community.

And they said, 'Retail trade is 4.2 per cent higher than it was 12 months ago.' The proof is in the pudding, and I am pleased to say unemployment has dropped to 6.2 per cent, down one per cent compared to this time last year. According to the Australian Financial Security Authority, bankruptcies are at a 20-year low—more good news.

There is an increasing trend by green groups and other organisations to use the court system to sabotage important economic projects. Their obstructionist behaviour is sacrificing tens of thousands of Australian jobs.

The Abbott government want to build on this strong economic footprint and build more regional jobs, especially in Durack, and that is why this bill is essential. The federal government have applied the highest environmental standards since coming to office. But, by doing that, we have still managed to halve the time for environmental approvals and we have cleared the backlog of projects that were left to languish by those sitting opposite. This government's pragmatic approach to the environment since being elected has created 3,000 new jobs for young Australians aged between 17 and 24 across over 350 projects throughout Australia.

Last week, I was very happy to be able to meet a vibrant, dedicated group of the Green Army who are currently working on restoring the Chapman and Greenough estuaries in the mid-west. This team is responsible for protecting, restoring and celebrating the significant national environmental and heritage values of these regionally significant waterways. The project employs nine people and goes to the heart of one of my key priorities, which is to give young people in my electorate a job. The Green Army is just one element of the government's environmental platform, which has approved 176 projects around Australia, valued at more than $1 trillion.

The people of Durack are a resilient, hardworking community—as you know Acting Deputy Speaker Broadbent because I have told you this before—and they are particularly frustrated by vocal minorities. It is not news but there have been some job losses in WA's north, and this government wants to ensure the right legislative environment, as do I, to encourage other resources projects to get out of the ground and create more jobs for the people of Durack. While I welcome people to exercise their democratic right to protest, I do not support the obstructionist behaviour, which unjustifiably wastes time and taxpayers' money and, more importantly, developers' money and, ultimately, Australian jobs. Vocal minorities have been ruling the airways for far too long, sometimes for no other reason than to just be adversarial, and regrettably the media gets sucked in every single time.

Currently under section 487 of the EPBC Act, radical activists who have a political interest can and do disrupt important projects, and this disruption is increasing. Activists themselves have declared that their objective is to use the courts for the political purpose of stopping developments. Alarmingly, we have learnt that one green group in their document, 'Stopping the Australian coal export boom', declared litigation as a strategy to delay and disrupt, and to reduce the financial viability of key infrastructure projects, including ports, rail and mines. And no doubt many of those potential projects would be in my electorate of Durack. This bill will repeal this provision to return to the acceptable position where somebody with a legitimate interest in commencing a legal action has standing to do so but somebody who merely wants to prosecute a political cause does not.

I stand here commending this bill not just as a Liberal but also as a lawyer. I also stand here commending this bill as someone who has worked in business development in the resources sector. I 'get' jobs, you 'get' jobs and the Abbott government 'gets' jobs as well. This bill is an element of the Abbott government's long-term economic plan, which supports jobs. The bill will disallow vocal minorities from engaging in vigilante time-wasting. Here is an opportunity for the opposition to join the government in protecting Australian jobs—existing jobs, but also the jobs of the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. There are many bills that come before us in this place that have Orwellian or euphemistic names, but the EPBC Act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, exists to deliver on the imperatives that are clearly present in its name. Unfortunately, the Abbott government puts no great value on those imperatives; the Abbott government wants to lump the EPBC Act and a range of other critical legislative protections in the simplistic, slogan-oriented category of 'green tape'.

As the brilliant Clarke and Dawe sketch revealed recently, the responsible minister appears unaware that his title is Minister for the Environment—just as the Abbott government is unaware, or ignorant, or wilfully blind to the fact that the EPBC Act is intended to serve in the interests of protecting and conserving our natural world in all its living diversity. To serve that function the EPBC Act assessment process has to be rigorous; it has to be open and transparent; it has to be an opportunity for Australians to share in the protection and conservation of the greatest shared asset in our common wealth, and that is the environment, marine and terrestrial, of which we are a part and which we are charged with keeping in trust for future generations.

For those reasons the EPBC Act process can never be allowed to become a rubber stamp to be banged out in the interests of speedy investment and careless development or for the mere appearance of scrutiny and diligence. Given both its preference for obfuscation in general and its history of eroding environmental safeguards in particular, it is sadly not all that astonishing to witness this government's latest assault on Australia's hard-won framework of environmental protection and our underlying respect for the rule of law. Indeed, this bill is merely the latest slip in the steady downhill trajectory when it comes to environmental protection in our country.

That environmental defenders and, for that matter, ordinary community members and activists would dare to make use of the EPBC Act to properly examine and properly constrain large development projects in the interests of ensuring transparency and due diligence—not to mention the best environmental and community outcomes—has provoked this government into yet another ideologically driven act of folly. Apparently changing the rules and belittling your legitimate adversaries is what you do when the game does not go your way.

What is particularly galling in the circumstances that have given rise to this bill is the way the government has deliberately and repeatedly misrepresented the facts in relation to the environmental assessment process and the involvement of the courts. Thankfully, the media coverage of this issue has allowed the wider community to understand that the failure to achieve approval of Adani's Carmichael coalmine in central Queensland was not the result of a court process initiated by environmentalists, but entirely the result of mistakes made by the minister. Yet this outcome was marshalled in support of the apparently pressing need to stop conservation groups from having access to the courts. I mean god forbid that ordinary Australians—people who care about the extinction of native species, who care about the contamination of groundwater, or the degradation of coral reef, or deforestation—should have the ability to contest aspects of enormous development proposals with the potential, in many cases, to cause enormous harm.

Just as this government has sought to mislead and scare the public on other issues for its own political purposes and political gain, so too in this case has it employed inflammatory language—'vigilante litigation', 'sabotage', 'inner-city greens'—to distort and grossly simplify a matter of important policy into a ridiculous kind of Punch-and-Judy show.

It was interesting to note Richard Denniss' recent observation in theAustralian Financial Review that data compiled by The Australia Institute, where he is chief economist, suggests that the third-party 'law-fare' Mr Abbott is so agitated by has only challenged approximately 0.4 per cent of projects covered by the EPBC Act he now wants to urgently amend. Denniss went on to make a number of salient points that go to the core of this government's values and methods. He wrote:

While much has been written about the Prime Minister's lack of an agenda, in reality he has a very clear set of goals. Unfortunately for the business community, those goals have more to do with stifling the desires of progressives than the pursuit of the pro-business agenda. Stopping same-sex marriage, spruiking a mine that many banks won't touch and ripping up a market-based emissions abatement mechanism are not 'distractions' for Tony Abbott; they are his raison d'etre.

Let's be clear about what is at stake with this legislation. By acting to limit the range of people allowed to have standing for the purposes of the EPBC Act, the government is acting to seriously dilute its effectiveness, which means that Australia's environment and biodiversity will be at greater risk of destruction and harm. As I have said previously on this subject, there is no doubt that this change would lead to poorer assessments, to mistakes and misjudgements, and to serious environmental damage and danger to life—including human life.

From the time that it was implemented by Prime Minister John Howard in 1999, the EPBC Act has worked remarkably well. It has given developers a clear framework within which to shape their projects and seek the necessary approvals. It has provided government with an effective administrative tool for supporting economic development that adheres to appropriately high environmental protection standards. It has empowered ordinary Australians—people who are neither part of government nor driven by an economic interest—to participate in the fact finding, analysis, consultation, argument and, on rare occasions, court action in relation to projects that stand to affect the environment that belongs to all of us in this country, wherever we live.

There are many examples where court challenges brought by environmental advocates have either prevented negative outcomes or forced closer inspection of projects that fall under EPBC regulation, among them the mass killing by electrocution of thousands of spectacled flying foxes on a lychee farm in Queensland, the development of the proposed Nathan Dam in Queensland, which would have caused pollution in the catchment of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, Japanese whaling in the Australian Whale Sanctuary and the question of greenhouse gas emissions from mines in NSW and Queensland. All these cases were subjected to greater rigour and more careful consideration through the involvement of people and groups who are devoted to the environmental cause. Let us pause for a second and pay tribute to those people. They are Australians who give their time and energy through great and unstinting conviction, through great love and respect for the natural world in all its fragility and beauty, wanting that beauty and diversity to persist, fighting to ensure that fragility is not pushed beyond the point of no return, which has already occurred too many times, and doing that work, lifting their voice, taking it to the streets, and to the courts if necessary, for the benefit of all of us.

In his second reading of this bill the minister showed the government's true colours. He said:

Since coming into government we have applied the highest environmental standards. We have halved the time for environmental approvals and cleared the backlog of projects left by Labor.

We have approved over $1 trillion in projects and established a one-stop shop for environmental assessments. All while maintaining environmental standards.

For the Abbott government, the EPBC Act is merely an example of green tape that stands in the way of investment and needs to be swept aside. Coming from a government that thinks coal has a bright future and that has actively undermined progress towards a clean energy economy, this claim to high environmental standards is laughable at best.

While the fate of the ornamental snake in central Queensland may not be of direct concern to my constituents in Fremantle, it is certainly in the interests of people all over this country that places, iconic and otherwise, are protected from irreversible environmental destruction. The impacts of the Adani mine in the Galilee Basin and its proposed port at Abbot Point, inside our iconic Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, are of course of great concern to the traditional owners of the land. They are of relevance to the surrounding communities, and they are of relevance to all of us. As Wangan and Jagalingou man Adrian Burragubba, one of the traditional owners of the land where the Adani mine is proposed, said in the group's video plea to stop this mine:

I'm gonna convince all of our people to stand together as one people and one voice, and then we're gonna ask all Australian people and people from all over the world to stand with us and unite with us to fight this fight.

It is wrong in spirit and wrong in concept to restrict the opportunity for people to have access to the courts in the very small number of instances where such action is necessary to legitimately question and even oppose development that has the potential to do very significant environmental harm.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a dummy spit from a government that broke the law and now wants to stop the community from enforcing the rules. We are only here because the minister did not follow the law, did not follow his own department's advice and was found by a court to have done the wrong thing in approving a massive coalmine without any regard for the obligation the so-called Minister for the Environment has, under the law, to look after the environment. The minister does the wrong thing, he gets called on it by the court—and, now, what do they say? They say, 'Let's change the rules so that the community can never take us to court again if we break them.'

This is critically important, because the rules we are dealing with are the rules in this country to protect our plants and animals, to protect our environment, to protect places like the Great Barrier Reef. The government says, 'We want to change the rules so that organisations and people who are concerned about the environment cannot take us to court. We only want those who are so-called directly affected to be able to do it.' Which individuals are going to be able to say that they are directly affected by an action on the Great Barrier Reef? Which individuals are going to be able to say that they are directly affected when an animal or plant species faces extinction?

What does the government want to happen? Does the government want the plants and animals and the Great Barrier Reef to start hiring lawyers themselves and go to court? The reason we have this law is to protect our environment. Because fish, snakes and skinks are not that well-known for hiring lawyers themselves and trotting off to court, the law says it is okay for people who care about the environment to do it themselves. Then we will leave it up to the independent court to decide whether the government has complied with the rules. That is too much for this government. They want to be able to do whatever they like, including ignoring the law that is there to protect our plants, our animals, our waterways and our reefs.

If this goes ahead, what does it mean for the ability of people to stand up for the environment? It means, for a farmer, that now they cannot have a group concerned about protecting the local area go to court, on behalf of the farmer, to protest against a coalmine that might affect the farmer's agricultural land. Instead, it means the only person who can go is someone who is directly affected. It means they themselves have to put their farm, their house or their business on the line and go through expensive litigation and face all the consequences that come from taking on what might be a massive multinational. It means they cannot tend to their farm and their business, because they themselves are going to have to be the focus of legal action. Instead, we have the very sensible proposition that says not anyone in the country but those who care about the area in question and have a history of caring about the area in question have the capacity to take it to court.

This government is just doing this because they have been caught out. They are looking for a distraction—beat-up on the greenies for a bit of a distraction. The problem is, as with everything this government does, they cannot even run a scare campaign properly. They have overreached, and the farmers know it. That is why you are hearing the National Farmers Federation saying, 'Isn't it curious that this happened not long after we went to the government and said, "What are you going to do to make sure we still have rights to defend people who will be affected by coalmines that we do not like?"'

It is why you hear farmers and landholders saying they do not have the time or funding to be investing in legal action with regard to environmental approvals. It is why you have lawyers making the point that going to court is very difficult, stressful and costly. Stephen Keim and Chris McGrath inThe Canberra Times said:

Removing this potential scrutiny will encourage both public servants and ministers to be less careful about complying with the law's requirements.

So it is clear what the government is doing: it is running away from criticism and giving itself the power to do whatever it likes with the environment, including not abiding by its own laws. This comes at a time when the government has hitched its wagon to a dying coal industry, an industry which is in crisis around the world. In the next year or so, you can expect to see some of the bigger players struggling and perhaps even declaring bankruptcy. Here in Australia, the community is already speaking up and saying: 'Coal is an industry of the past. Coal is the next tobacco, the next asbestos. We need to move towards renewable energy.' But the government is saying it is going to hold back the tide of renewable energy and do everything it possibly can to protect its mates in the coal industry who helped put them into power, including changing the law so that ministers are able to break it.

From listening to some of the speeches from the government you would think that there had been a tsunami of litigation that has resulted in critical projects being held up. It is not true. Our existing environmental protection laws, as important as they are, are weak. They do not allow for things like climate change to be taken into account and they do not give protection to a number of areas that they might. You often have to squeeze yourself through quite a narrow hole in order to be able to challenge the minister in the first place. The reality is that only 22 of the more than 5,000 projects that have gone through under this act have been challenged by community members and only two have been permanently stopped by legal challenges. With all this talk of 'lawfare', we are talking about two cases in 5,000 being stopped. And, remember, they get stopped because the minister does not follow the law, the minister does not uphold the standards that are there in the first place.

We already have a situation where you cannot just front up to court unless you have a proven interest in protecting the environment. We already have a situation where the environmental protection laws do not do enough—but the ones that we do have are important and worth defending. We already have a situation where we have to squeeze through some existing weak environmental protection laws and challenge the decision of the minister in court. In more than 5,000 projects, only twice has that been successful in having a project stopped—and we would say the environmental protection laws should be strengthened so that that number could go up. When that happens to hit one of the mates of this government, they cannot run here quickly enough to say they want the right to be able to break the law whenever they like and they do not want anyone to be able to hold them to account for it.

It is no wonder that people from environment groups to Alan Jones are now telling the government that this is a very bad thing to do. You were desperate for a distraction because you were not doing very well in the polls, so you overreached and picked on the so-called greenies. But you have said to farmers, to everyone who cares about the Great Barrier Reef, to everyone who cares about our waterways and to everyone who cares about plants and animals that they do not have the right to ask you to uphold your own standards anymore. That is why there is a community backlash. It is not often that the Greens and Alan Jones share a common platform. The fact that is happening on this ought to send a very clear signal to the government that they have engaged in overreach and it is time for them to step back.

Instead of changing the rules to protect a dying industry, instead of changing the rules to allow a government to break its own laws and do whatever it likes to the environment, it would be much better if we ditched this legislation and asked ourselves which projects we can invest in that will stand Australia in good stead in the 21st century. Believe it or not, there will come a point where the rest of the world tells us to stop digging at the rate we are doing now. There will come a point when the rest of the world says they want to be powered by renewable energy instead of coal. At that point, Australia had better have something to sell the rest of the world. If all we are doing is changing our laws and redirecting scarce public money to ensure new coal projects get off the ground—in a world where scientists have told us that 70 to 80 per cent of the coal that is in the ground needs to stay there if we are to avoid dangerous climate change—it is just madness. Let me repeat that. We as a planet have to leave in the ground about three-quarters of the coal that is already there. We cannot dig it up and sent it off to be burned. We have to make the switch to renewable energy and cut our pollution.

So instead of trying to prop up a dying industry by changing the laws and putting money into it, let's make the switch to renewables in this country and let's protect our environment. It is important for all of us that we have clean air and clean water. People visit this country because they like places such as the Great Barrier Reef, and there are many in this country who want to protect it. For what it thinks is a quick buck—although it is not turning into that—the government is saying: 'We're happy to dig up coal and burn it at a great rate of knots. It doesn't matter if climate change is going to bleach the Great Barrier Reef. It doesn't matter if it turns into a massive coal superhighway that pollutes the reef. We don't care about any of that. We just want to dig up and burn as much coal as we can.'

That short-sightedness and the fact that this government is able to unite everyone from Alan Jones to the Greens in condemnation of this bill shows just how out of touch it is and goes a long way to explaining why it is so on the nose with the public—because the public does not want this. The public wants people to be able to stand up in defence of the environment, the public wants government to comply with its own laws and not to write itself a get-out-of-jail-free card every time it breaks the law, and the public increasingly wants this government turfed out. If the government wants to have some chance of staying in power, it should start by ditching this bill and doing what the Australian people want.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015. In doing so, I pose a question. If you lived in Townsville and you were going to put a fence around your pool or change the fence around your property, should someone in Melbourne who has had something to do with a fence at some stage in his or her life be able to object to you putting that fence around your house? Should they be able to object to that such that you have to defend that action in court? Putting it the other way, should someone in Townsville be able to object to someone in Melbourne doing something to their house because, at some stage or other, the person in Townsville had something to do with a fence, a pool or anything like that?

That is why this environment protection and biodiversity conservation bill has been worded in the way it has. At the moment, if you have had anything to do with the environment, you can lodge an objection on any grounds whatsoever and it must be discussed and ruled upon, no matter where it is. You could be in Adelaide and object to a mine for anything going ahead in North Queensland, purely because you have had something to do with it. That is what is wrong with the system. The member for Melbourne was just in the chamber. I notice he did not get to Canberra by horse and cart; he flew here on a stinking great big fossil-fuel-burning jet. He got to the parliament this morning in a fossil-fuel-burning car. He is happy to use those things. He comes from Melbourne, which gets most of its electricity from those brown-coal energy generators in the Latrobe Valley. He is happy to receive all that and he is happy that his industries can use that, but, if someone in North Queensland wants to get ahead in their life—if they want to drive North Queensland and northern Australia—damn them to hell, says the member for Melbourne. 'You should not have the same opportunity as the rest of Australia. You should not be able to use your resources as you see fit because you know what you're doing.'

The Great Barrier Reef has been used as a working reef since time immemorial. Since the dawn of Aboriginal and Islander Australia, the Great Barrier Reef has been used as a working reef. Again and again in this argument and this debate on the environment, I have pointed out that everything we do impacts on our environment. It is how we manage those impacts which is important. The environmental constraints we have around the operations of ports and mines have grown substantially since the mid-1800s. If you look at how they first started digging gold around Ballarat, Bendigo, Bathurst and those sorts of places in the 1800s, it was a lot different from what we do now. Abbot Point, for instance, has over 300 terms and conditions already in place around which it must operate. The Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—all the environmental groups—have looked into those things, and still people complain. There are 300 terms and conditions, and numerous reviews have taken place. Do not forget that at one stage the Anna Bligh government was going to have coal ports from Princess Charlotte Bay all the way down to Brisbane. What we did was concentrate it all on Abbot Point and make sure that what we do is world-class. It is about how we manage the impacts; that is what is important. When we put these things forward, the Greens eventually complained about the destruction of the wetlands adjacent to the port near Bowen. What they did not realise—and that still had to be ruled on—was that these wetlands were actually man-made. They were not mangrove wetlands; they were man-made.

We talk about lifting people out of poverty. When I talk about the Carmichael mine and renewable energy in North Queensland, it is a serious conversation. The Carmichael mine is going ahead and has to go ahead for the sake of North Queensland. It is not about the biggest coalmine in Australia; it is not about the amount of stuff that is going through the Great Barrier Reef; it is not about the lifting of hundreds of millions of Indians out of poverty and giving them the kind of future that they should have. For me, the Carmichael mine in the northern Galilee Basin is all about small business in Townsville—from the stevedore at the port in Townsville, the technicians who will survey the road, build the road and fix the bridges, the drivers who will drive the pie vans to the men who are working, all the way to the drivers driving the trains to Abbot Point—with all the construction that will go on there. All those small businesses that profit in that area are what this is about. When this goes ahead, we will be looking at how we generate power in northern Australia. If the member for Melbourne were still here, he would be happy to hear about what we are trying to do there.

We need to underpin what we are doing with baseload power. To backtrack a little, Queensland is the only really decentralised state in the country. Townsville is 800 kilometres north of where the power is generated. For industry to develop in North Queensland, it must pay the transmission costs of that energy, including for all the power that is lost during transmission. I have Queensland Nickel and Sun Metals, the zinc refinery, in my electorate. Sun Metals is the second biggest user of electricity in the state. Because they have to pay the transmission costs and for the loss of transmission, they are paying an extra $20 million to $30 million a year to operate in Townsville. What is their option? To shut up shop. They were given a deal by premiers Peter Beattie and Wayne Goss when they signed up to this thing where they would have cheap power, equivalent to what is available in Gladstone and in Brisbane.

On top of that, when it comes to where the pricing point goes, it is an artificial point somewhere near Pine Rivers in Brisbane. That is where the point is—and it is an arbitrary point—so we are not competitive when it comes to providing power and energy into heavy industry in northern Australia. We should be value-adding our processing here. We should be able to process minerals and we should be able to export refined products and value-add. That is what we should do.

Recently in Townsville we had an energy round table. The government has an energy white paper out at the moment talking about how we do these things. The question I posed to my local industry groups, including Townsville Enterprise, was: Ewen Jones would really love to see a great, big coal-fired power station right in the middle of the state development area in Townsville; why shouldn't he? So we got together all the people involved in these things. What we came up with was that the energy needs of northern Australia, and of North Queensland in particular, whilst underpinned by a baseload coal-fired power station somewhere in the Galilee Basin, would represent a mosaic of power supplies. We have the ability, through Tully-Millstream—if we can ever get that thing operating—to provide hydroelectricity. The same goes for the Burdekin Dam and Hell's Gate—we could provide hydroelectricity through there. West of there we have the Kennedy wind farm and the large solar projects which can go in that space. We can provide the whole nation's renewable energy targets through those sorts of things. If we can get those things up and if we can use this $5 billion of concessional loan facilities to provide the framework and the high-powered wires to put these things together, we can establish an energy forum—an energy area—in North Queensland which will be very attractive to heavy industry. If you build that framework there, then that is what people will come and see. That is what will be attractive to investors and to industry.

At the moment we cannot progress that because we are so uncompetitive with the cost of energy, and into that goes Renewable Energy Certificates and the Renewable Energy Target. If we do this right, we can fix this up. We can develop the north of Australia, we can be an attractive destination for investment in industry and we can provide the nation's renewable energy targets. We can provide them well into this century—past 2050—and we can export that energy, technology and intellectual property into our region and around the world. That is what we can do. But unless it is underpinned by baseload power, it does not come off.

Whilst I appreciate that when the member for Melbourne was in here before he was speaking to his Melbourne constituency which principally uses brown coal burnt in the Latrobe Valley for its electricity and energy, where I come from I am talking about big wind, big solar and hydro, and I am talking about renewable energy in the form of the North Queensland Bio-Energy Corporation's establishment at Ingham, which will feed into those things. I am talking about the MBD Energy algae project at James Cook University which can be used to produce, basically, zero emissions baseload power. We can export that technology around the world. That is what we have to do.

More than anything, we have to be able to get to the stage where we can build stuff. If we have to continually turn around and appease some fellow who has got rich on the internet and has a philosophical bent on this and does not care how much it costs him, then we have to be able to do something about that to protect North Queensland and northern Australia, because these people are out to kill us. These people are out to make sure that North Queensland remains an energy backwater. These people are out there to make sure that we cannot develop our resources and our tech industry, and that we cannot become an alternative destination for investment or do anything in this space. We cannot let people make ridiculous claims against projects which have the future of our nation at their base. The member for Melbourne is going to stand there and tell me that Barack Obama has berated us in relation to the Great Barrier Reef. But Barack Obama has been able to lower his nation's carbon footprint by fracking. I do not see Alan Jones jumping up and down about that. I do not see the member for Melbourne jumping up and down about that. He almost climbed over three people to touch the man when he was here.

People like the member for Melbourne and people who do not go there and do not understand what we are trying to do on the ground really get under my skin. It gets under the skin of people trying to do the right thing in North Queensland. People in North Queensland are not economic vandals. We are highly sensitive to our region and our environment. We understand, above everything else, that whatever we do has an impact on our environment. But it is how we manage those impacts, and that is what we have had to do all the way through, because we have had state governments and federal governments which have pushed North Queensland and northern Australia to the backblocks because you cannot supply energy at a reasonable cost in these areas to develop industry. If we can do that, we can then develop the north of Australia properly, and that is what this is about. This is not about what the member for Melbourne wants. This is not about what India wants. This is about the small businesses in Townsville. This is about how we build my city of Townsville. This is about how we end up with a waterfront area in Townsville. This is about how we redevelop our CBD area. This is about how we improve our schools. This is about how we get more people to teach in North Queensland. This is about how we remove the tyranny of distance for remote education and for people who live in our region. Some of the most socially isolated people in Australia are in these regions. Nothing happens in the north of Australia without water and energy. Nothing happens unless we are prepared to work in that space and unless we are prepared to make these things here. Then we can provide a response to the world that says, 'Not only can you provide coal to hundreds of millions of Indians trying to drag themselves out of poverty, but you can provide it on a less costly basis and by a safe transport method.' What happens if they do not get it out of Australia? Do they just dig it up and use the swamp-based coal of Indonesia, the carbon footprint of which will be 10 times that of the thermal coal coming out of North Queensland?

Are we happy to do that? Are we so ideologically bent in this country that we do not care if somebody else supplies the coal, that we just want to make sure that Australia—and North Queensland, in particular—goes backwards?

That is what this country seems to be doing. The member for Melbourne is just trying to make sure that we cannot develop what we have here. It is okay for him, in the streets of Melbourne. It is okay for him down there; they are already fully developed. We are on the cusp of something great here. We finally have a Prime Minister, a Treasurer and a Minister for Trade who believe in the development of northern Australia. Let's get these other people out of the road so that we can actually do something in this space, because this is really important—not just to us but to the entire world. I thank the House.

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

I thank the member for Herbert. I notice that the member for Herbert is listed on both sides of my House of Representatives list. Perhaps you are going to speak to the other side of the argument as well today! I call the member for Richmond.

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

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015. I will say from the outset that I oppose the changes the Abbott government is making to this bill. The bill amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, or the EPBC Act, in relation to section 487. Section 487 extends the meaning of a person aggrieved in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, or the ADJR Act. The proposed amendments will remove the ability of third parties to take action under the EPBC Act and will allow only those persons who can meet the standing test in the ADJR Act to apply for judicial review.

This amendment will severely restrict the ability to challenge the approval of a mine or a major development with high environmental impacts to individuals who can prove that they will be directly affected. I believe that this is essentially unfair and that these amendments will fundamentally limit a citizen's or an individual's right to access the courts to challenge questionable environmental approvals. Undoubtedly, these amendments are an attack on everyday Australians who are rightly concerned for their environment and their country—a country that is now being run by a group of environmental vandals. These amendments attack the heart of what should be absolutely sacrosanct: the right of someone to appeal to the courts to protect Australia's and our community's pristine and unique environmental assets, of which we have so many in this country.

In my electorate of Richmond, on the New South Wales North Coast, this bill has caused huge concerns since it was first introduced. I have been inundated by locals approaching me about this. Their concerns relate to both local and national environmental matters relating to approvals and the role individuals or groups can play by raising their opposition to these developments. These locals are so worried about and indeed opposed to the Abbott government's actions in relation to this bill. They are worried about protecting our pristine environmental assets around the country and also within our region on the North Coast of New South Wales. Indeed, it is in equal weight that people have raised those concerns. They want to be able to voice their concerns about environmental matters right across the country. They want to have a say in relation to that, and of course they want to have a very big say on protecting our region.

As I have raised many time before in the House, my community is totally opposed to harmful coal seam gas and unconventional gas mining on the North Coast of New South Wales. It is indeed one of the biggest issues that unites many of us on the North Coast. We continue the very strong campaign to ensure that our region is kept gas-field-free. So many people have told me they are concerned that this legislation will just mean that the red carpet will be rolled out to the coal seam gas mining companies and our community's ability to oppose it will be severely limited. We certainly have opposed it as a community and we will continue to do that. Communities are worried that even if a damaging coal seam gas or unconventional gas mine has been approved they will potentially be locked out of challenging it and their voices will not be heard.

For a community that has fought so hard—and we have fought so hard together—to keep the North Coast gas-field-free, this situation is not acceptable. That is why the people in my electorate have made it very clear that they oppose this latest attack on the environment by the Abbott government. Our community continues to stand together, particularly to fight the Nationals' pro-CSG expansion agenda, which we see all the time on the North Coast. We all know what the Nationals think about people who care about the environment or want to stop CSG. The disgraced former state Nationals leader Andrew Stoner once labelled the people of the North Coast `professional bludgers'. That is what he called the people who were camped at Bentley to protest the potential of CSG mining there. It was probably one of the most insulting and undignified comments we have heard from the Nationals, and from the Nationals leader. Many people still recall that statement and are very angry about it.

And of course in the past few weeks we have seen CSG company Metgasco announce its plans to use the courts to attempt to force a very unwelcome return to the Northern Rivers. This has all come about because of the complete incompetence of the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals government to resolve this situation and also the continued pro-CSG agenda of the North Coast Nationals. Just recently in the New South Wales upper house the National and Liberals voted against a bill that would have banned coal seam gas mining in the Northern Rivers. By voting that way they indeed showed their true colours. Metgasco's plans are not welcome, and if they come back to Bentley our community will rightly protest—again—against it, in our thousands. As for the Nationals, they have shown themselves yet again to be shallow and weak. That is what the North Coast Nationals are: shallow and weak—all of them. They made so many false promises on the eve of the state election, and now they have all gone into hiding whilst we have this fiasco with Metgasco threatening to return.

Our community will continue to fight the return of Metgasco. We will continue to fight the Liberal-Nationals government as it continues to roll out its pro-CSG-expansion agenda throughout the North Coast. As I said, it is the Nationals that we hold to account for this and the Nationals that we hold responsible. They have had a very strong pro-CSG-mining agenda for a very long period of time. Their absolute incompetence in terms of Metgasco and its licences unfolds before us constantly. But, as a community, we will continue to fight Metgasco's or any other gas company's plans and will continue to fight the North Coast Nationals as well. We have shown, as a community, that when we stand united against any moves that might impact our pristine environment we do so in our thousands, and we do that proudly to protect the North Coast of New South Wales. We have many wonderful community groups and individuals who will continue to do that, and that is why they are so aghast at plans by this government that will take away their rights to potentially take action against any companies in relation to the New South Wales North Coast. Also, there are concerns right across the nation about protecting the environment and the wonderful environmental assets we have right across the country. So, my community stands united—

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

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue her remarks at that time.