Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the answers given by Minister Campbell on important issues relating to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Allegations have been made in the chamber today seeking to criticise the minister in relation to a decision or consideration of a decision regarding the proposed pulp mill at Penola in South Australia. Allegations have been made that it had been halted due to impact on the endangered red-tailed black cockatoo. It is important to remember that the south-eastern red-tailed black cockatoo, which was the bird used as the mascot in the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne and listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, is restricted to an area around the South Australia-Victoria border, including the Penola area.

It is clear that the mill owner has been advised that, due to the loss of some hollow-bearing habitat trees, their mill may impact significantly on this bird. The construction of the mill would remove 25 habitat trees, and the mill proponent intends to offset that with the provision of 200 hectares of habitat for the cockatoo. While any action that triggers the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act requires Australian government environmental assessment and approval, it is important to note that, just because a matter requires assessment and approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, that does not mean that the proposal will be stopped; it simply means that the assessment must demonstrate that the proposal is environmentally acceptable. As the minister says, this is a routine assessment. It is a transparent process for environmental assessment, unlike the Victorian government’s decision in relation to the wedge-tailed eagle, which the minister concentrated on both in his answer to questions today and in his recent comments in response to comments previously made.

I want to take the opportunity to focus on the credentials of this government—in particular, the decisions that this government and the minister have made in relation to the nonapproval of the Bald Hills wind farm, for which he has also been criticised. Let us not forget that the decision not to approve the Bald Hills wind energy installation in Gippsland, Victoria under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was only made after careful consideration of all the relevant facts and advice.

The minister has to balance the needs of development with the protection of our rare and threatened flora and fauna, ensuring that any development has to be sustainable. His decision in this regard was made on the basis of an independent report on the cumulative impact of wind energy installations, which concluded that almost any negative impact on the endangered orange-bellied parrot could be sufficient to tip the balance against its continued existence. The report concluded that, given that the parrot in question is predicted to have an extremely high probability of extinction in its current situation, almost any negative impact on the species could be sufficient to tip the balance against its continued existence. In this context, it may be argued that any avoidable deleterious effect—even the very minor predicted impacts of turbine collisions—should be prevented. The EPBC Act requires that, in the light of such evidence, the minister take a precautionary approach to approving any development. It is worthy to note that the precarious position of the orange-bellied parrot was recently recognised by the World Conservation Union, which has included the bird on its red list of endangered species. The minister’s decision in this regard was a proper one. Unfortunately, those on the other side have not quite understood what the parameters of that act are and the importance of taking those matters into consideration. (Time expired)