Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Rice, who has been interjecting—and I know you are about to call her up, Acting Deputy President Polley—says, 'Yes, that's right.' But that attitude and argument does not take account of the fact that we as a society require energy to sustain jobs, to live, to run hospitals, to keep the lights on. That is the terrible approach that's been taken by the Australian Greens, which does not achieve balance. That is why we won't be supporting a political motion of this nature.

Having said all that, and despite the fact that such an approach would be bad for Australia in so many ways right across the country—particularly in the regions, I might add—there is a lot more at play here which is cause for concern in relation to our environmental laws. It was quite clear today; in listening to an answer that was given to a question asked by Senator Hanson-Young about reforms—and this very issue, as a matter of fact—it was apparent to me that the government is considering going down this pathway or a version of what's being proposed. Of course, the Greens would like to have it happen tomorrow. The government is working through its protracted, delayed and blown-out process. But, at the end of the day, it looks very much like another deal has been done between Labor and the Greens. We will see the detail of that over time.

I want to talk more broadly about the issue we face with environmental laws in this country. Senator Hanson-Young makes some very valid points around the fact that the laws aren't fit for purpose. They need reform; the Samuel review said so and the minister said so. I will never forget that Press Club address that Minister Plibersek gave, talking about the urgent need to act on environmental law reform, to protect our environment, to stop extinctions, to make sure the laws are fit for purpose, to provide certainty to business, the community and the environmental movement and to have streamlined processes. It was all very urgent.

All of that seems to have just been words, because, despite those calls for urgent action and a commitment by the minister that things would get cracking—'we don't have a day to waste'—despite the commitment to zero new extinctions, despite the commitment to 30 per cent of land being preserved for conservation purposes by 2030 and despite all of the other commitments that have been made, we are still nowhere near conclusion on reform of environmental laws. Again, Senator Hanson-Young's good work revealed that there's at least a 12-month delay in the government's efforts to reform these laws. So this is far from a need for urgent action and the government firing on all cylinders to reform this area of work. We are now around two years behind schedule on these reforms. They were announced and they were going to happen—we'd be fixing everything, we'd be stopping extinctions and we'd have a clearer pathway for businesses to seek approvals to do anything—but now that's another two years off.

That's why I look at this motion, which is kind of odd given there is a position in this chamber to not deal with the nature repair market legislation before we see the full suite of environmental law reforms in this country. That's a wise course of action, because we very much have a scrambled egg when it comes to the EPBC Act, which we are seeking to reform, yet the government is trying to stack up schemes and programs that will no doubt be out of date by the time these laws have passed because the basic laws we need to reform in this place will change. The motion here today, and the legislation that I understand has just been introduced, is another version of that too.

We're tinkering around the edges rather than the government getting on and doing what they promised they would do as a matter of urgency, which is reforming national environmental laws. The changes need to happen at the base level. We need to get the basics right. The environmental laws need to happen. I have not heard from the government about what they intend to do. Others have and some in the community have, but the opposition hasn't. (Time expired)