Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of this document as well. This is a very, very important document. It is a statutory review after 10 years of operation of the EPBC Act. It is worth reading what Mr Samuel says in the executive summary of the review:

The overwhelming message received by the Review is that Australians care deeply about our iconic places and unique environment. Protecting and conserving them for the benefit of current and future generations is important for the nation.

The evidence received by the Review is compelling. Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. The pressures on the environment are significant—including land-use change, habitat loss and degradation, and feral animals and invasive plant species.

He goes on to talk about a number of things and then says:

The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable.

That's extremely important. He has basically come to the conclusion that there are significant problems with our environmental laws and, like any good reviewer, has come up with a range of very sensible suggestions. We know that this has not just been through a process of the report landing on the desk of the minister and being tabled in the parliament; there was an interim report as well.

A whole range of different remedies have been laid out in the report. I will just mention some of the big-ticket items: the requirement for strong national standards; the reducing of red tape around those standards by devolving responsibilities to the states; an assurance commissioner to make sure that the environment is protected. He mentions transparency—and transparency is always a good resolution to any particular problem that involves government—and using that as a key for regaining trust, which is something the report says needs to be done. He also talks about reducing the complexity of the legislation. There are a whole bunch of remedies in here, and the government has a lot of work to do. I'm actually quite surprised that we haven't seen a response to this report from the government, noting that it has been with the minister for some time now. What is essential—and Mr Samuel spells this out—is a holistic plan to deal with this issue. There needs to be something that the government lays out saying, 'This is how we intend to approach this problem; here is our timetable of implementation in terms of legislation and then what may flow from that,' so that the Australian public has the complete picture.

I will just indicate to the government that I don't intend to support any measures that are ad hoc and just cherrypicking of the legislation. There has to be a plan that has been laid out. I don't want to find myself in a situation where I'm being asked to support perhaps weaker standards or where I'm being asked to support the devolution of decision-making to the states, when the states may not have the proper expertise and capacity to conduct decision-making in respect of the environment. I don't want to pass laws that allow devolution without the assurance commissioner being dealt with at the same time so that there's balance as we change things and we have the assurance on the other side.

I'm mindful that the government has for some time now promised to have an inspector-general for the Murray-Darling Basin, yet we've not seen that legislation in any form. So I won't be accepting a promise that there will be some future legislation that deals with something like an assurance commissioner. This is a really important issue. I'm prepared to take it on pragmatically, because saying no to everything will mean we leave ourselves in the same parlous state that we are in. So we have to approach this in a proper manner. I urge the government to come up with a plan that they can present to the parliament, and I caution them not to try and bring little bits of legislation that might suit one side of change without the possibility of the implementation of the whole report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.