Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Ian Campbell) to a question without notice asked by Senator Lundy today relating to a pulp mill project in South Australia.

I have to say that the question was probably more illustrative of reality than was the answer. It is remarkable that a minister who is responsible for the administration of an important piece of environment legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, is keen to get out into the media and pre-empt the proper determination and consideration of matters that are the subject of that very important legislation—legislation that this government, with the assistance of the Democrats, rammed through this place, I think, on a Saturday sitting with about 15 or 20 seconds allowed to deal with each of the amendments that were required. The government own the legislation. They set up a process, and it has been handed, ultimately, to Senator Campbell to administer it.

During the last election, the current member for McMillan, Mr Broadbent, wanted to campaign against a wind farm in the electorate because there was a group of constituents who were opposed to it. He was keen to tell anyone who would listen that he would not allow the wind farm to go ahead. Then, lo and behold, on the most meagre and unconvincing evidence, he exercised his power under the EPBC Act to block the project and noted that, as has been repeated in media comment recently, the project was blocked by Minister Campbell because of a one in 1,000 year risk of killing an endangered orange-bellied parrot.

Then, we come to the issue of the application to build a pulp mill at Penola in South Australia. It is a $650 million pulp mill and the proponent of the mill says it has been put on hold whilst an assessment is made because of a proposal to cut down six potential nesting trees for an endangered cockatoo. Unsurprisingly, the mill’s project director, John Roache, is quoted in the Age as saying he was surprised by the intervention and concerned that the pulp mill might go the way of a Gippsland wind farm recently vetoed by federal environment minister Ian Campbell because of a one in 1,000 year risk of killing an orange-bellied parrot. One can understand that. Given the paucity of evidence justifying the decision in relation to the Bald Hills wind farm, what proponent of a project would not be concerned when the application was placed in the hands of this minister, given the propensity to prejudge projects? After all, if we look at the statements made by this minister in relation to the South Australian project, we find on the front page of the Australian today:

But in the wake of media coverage yesterday, Senator Campbell last night released a statement indicating he expected the pulp mill would receive federal approval.

And the minister said:

I understand the department has had constructive discussions with the proponent and preliminary advice from the department indicates that it does not expect any problems.

I would have thought that, if the minister was properly exercising his responsibilities, he would wait until all the evidence was in before he decided to make any comment on a proposal, particularly given the circumstances where he has already got himself into trouble with industry in relation to development proposals because of his totally unjustified decision in regard to the Bald Hills wind farm proposal.

If we look at the West Australian on 10 June, we see discussion about concern for flatback turtles and the development of the Gorgon liquefied natural gas project to be built on what is described as the pristine Barrow Island in the state’s north-west. The authority’s chairman is quoted as saying that his study has further highlighted the terrestrial and marine conservation values of Barrow Island and adjacent waters and flatback turtles in particular would be put at risk from the proposal, with two of the most important nesting beaches located adjacent to the proposed LNG processing plant. And he says that it is not possible at this time to identify management measures that would— (Time expired)