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

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not hear Senator O’Brien make one word of criticism of his comrades in the Victorian government, who used their environment protection legislation in July 2005, less than 12 months ago, to stop the Yaloak wind farm. This is located only around 200 kilometres from Bald Hills, and the same consultants who did a comprehensive analysis of the cumulative impact of bird strike from wind farms advised the Victorian Labor minister, a comrade of Senator O’Brien’s, that that wind farm would kill possibly three to four wedge-tailed eagles per year. The wind farm at Bald Hills was, in my view, appropriately stopped because it was located in a known habitat, a known migratory path, for orange-bellied parrots.

The wedge-tailed eagle, which the Labor government in Victoria used to stop the construction of a wind farm at Yaloak—I apologise to the members of that community if I have the pronunciation of that wrong, which I could well have—is listed on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s threatened species list under the lowest category of threat. In other words, it is a species of ‘least concern’. The IUCN red list, as it is known, goes from the highest category of ‘extinct’, obviously, through ‘extinct in the wild’, ‘critically endangered’, ‘endangered’, ‘vulnerable’ and ‘near threatened’ right down to ‘least concern’.

On the best science available, there are 50 breeding pairs of the orange-bellied parrot left in the world, and they are only found in Australia. This species of wedge-tailed eagle has around 100,000 left, but the Victorian government chose—for whatever reason; and I am not even criticising their decision—to stop a wind farm only a couple of hundred kilometres from Bald Hills because of the threat to a wedge-tailed eagle which is not listed as endangered or critically endangered. The orange-bellied parrot is referred to on the Victorian government’s own conservation department website as a species that is equally as endangered as the panda bear and the Siberian tiger.

In relation to the criticism that has been made of the statement that appeared in the press this morning about the Penola pulp mill proposal, this is, as I have said, one of 300 referrals that on average come to my department every year. Around 97 per cent of these sorts of proposals are dealt with at the departmental level. Again, this is a very different process to the process for Bald Hills. As I said, most of the referrals that come to the department are handled at the departmental level. This one was described to me when I arrived back from overseas yesterday afternoon as an entirely routine one. We corrected the record because the proponents, as I think Senator O’Brien correctly cited from the press reporting, were concerned that there might have to be an environmental impact statement. My department said, ‘No, that is almost certainly not going to be the case,’ that in fact it was an entirely routine referral and, that, based on getting further information from the proponents, it was likely to be dealt with in a relatively short period of time. That is why I made the statement—to confirm that.

This government, as I said in question time, is committed to having a robust environmental policy. We have invested more money in environmental repair than any other government in the history of Australia. We have brought in a very strong environmental law and we uphold it very strongly and consistently. We uphold it based on science, the basis of all of these decisions. What you hear from Labor is a confused yelling and screaming and carping and whining—from a political party that really has no environment policy, and what little policy it does have is deeply confused and deeply confusing.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that Senator Ian Campbell chose to end his comments on a point about confusion, because what we have seen here today is a minister who is desperately trying to confuse the issue to distract us from the fact that he has not only specifically undermined the credibility of any environmental protection policy but also has been true to the character of the Howard government—that is, a government that is willing to manipulate and twist issues of genuine concern to Australian citizens. These are issues such as environmental policy, the impact of climate change, renewable energy and genuine environment protection. He has tried to twist these issues into some short-term political gain for the Liberal Party. Environmental protection and action against climate change have been ongoing victims of this type of manipulation by the Howard government, and this environment minister stands by unconcerned and willing to participate. Two examples of this that we have seen are the Bald Hills wind farm and the threat to the orange-bellied parrot, and now we are seeing more examples of this willingness to intervene in a political way.

The political intervention in the approval of wind farms highlights two major issues which I would like to go into. The first is a willingness to bring federal environment protection policy specifically into disrepute. Using it as a political device will forever undermine the genuine efforts of organisations seeking to protect endangered species. It leaves them vulnerable to challenges as to whether or not it is genuine, because no-one will know what is motivating the environment minister. No-one can tell truth from spin or what the difference is between local Liberal political interests and genuine environmental concerns, such is the contempt of the Howard government’s environment minister for these policies. It leaves in tatters the credibility of those acts of parliament that we have debated at length. Who does Senator Ian Campbell think he is that he has the right to undermine environmental policy and the laws of this land in this way?

The second issue this political intervention highlights specifically is the complete contempt in which the Howard government hold renewable energy per se. Many of these projects do provide long-term prospects for creating renewable energy and deriving some triple bottom line return for the Australian economy as a whole. But nowhere can we see evidence of a long-term commitment to renewable energy; instead we see attempts by the Prime Minister to focus on nuclear energy. We have no major leadership role anymore in areas like photovoltaic systems.

As Labor’s environment spokesperson, Mr Albanese, highlighted, Australian wind farm technology is going overseas at a rate of knots. We see it walking offshore—most recently following Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to Australia, when a $300 million deal was signed by the Roaring 40s company based in Tasmania to provide three wind farms in China. This same company said they would not be proceeding with projects in Tasmania and South Australia because of a lack of federal government support. It is fantastic that we are exporting this type of technology, but why on earth does the Howard government not have a commitment to helping these technologies to prosper here and allow Australia to maintain our leadership in this critical area of renewable energy?

It is very clear that Mr Howard’s focus on nuclear power is at the expense of clean energy industries, and these examples are testimony to that. Under Mr Howard, Australia continues to say goodbye to clean energy ideas and fails to see the investment lift to an appropriate level. If you need more evidence, we need look no further than the 2006 budget, which for the 11th year in a row did not mention climate change. There were no initiatives for clean renewable energy. This is an area in which the Howard government has systematically and consistently failed to deliver on behalf of the Australian people. All we can see is a minister prepared to manipulate for short-term political gain and undermining the credibility of environmental protection laws in this country. It is a disgrace. (Time expired)

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, regularly comes into this chamber full of glowing self-assessments of his achievements and full of glowing self-praise. It tempts me to remind people what is said about self-praise. When any of his claims to greatness and his self-assessment are challenged, his immediate response is that the opposition is doing nothing more then carping or whingeing. When he is confronted with some direct questioning about the rationale behind some of the decisions that he personally makes as a minister or the processes that are being made by the department for which he has responsibility, he simply dismisses the questioning as coming from an opposition that has nothing better to do than carp or whinge and he avoids giving to the Senate and to the senators asking questions meaningful answers or holding himself or his department accountable in the normal way one would expect a minister to do so.

One notable example that comes to mind is the issue of the Bald Hills wind farm project. That was a project that the local member in the area, Mr Russell Broadbent, actively campaigned against. It was also a project that had been subject to a two-year strict environmental study by the Victorian government which approved that project, and which had taken all the environmental issues into consideration before it gave approval some two years earlier for that particular project. But the minister, using the ministerial discretion that he has under the appropriate act, simply banned it on the basis that the orange-bellied parrot may be endangered by the turbines of the wind farm once every thousand years or so.

It would seem logical to most people that the orange-bellied parrot would have more chance of being struck down by lightning than of being endangered by that particular wind farm. Any sensible person could only come to the conclusion that it was more of a political decision than an environmental one, and that it was one to support—in what is considered a marginal seat—one of his political colleagues. I think it is a disgrace that a minister would, in my view, misuse his ministerial prerogative on such blatant political grounds. The $220 million Bald Hills wind farm project would have reduced Australia’s greenhouse emissions by 435,000 tonnes per year. As I said, that project was approved two years ago by the Victorian government after a strict environmental assessment.

The minister then said, ‘I didn’t hear anyone from the Labor Party complaining about a different wind farm 200 kilometres away in Victoria that was not approved by the Victorian government,’ and asked why we were not criticising that. The same tests were applied against both farms by the Victorian government, using a strict environmental process. One passed and one did not based on environmental—not political—considerations. The minister went on to explain that the other wind farm could have endangered two to three wedge-tailed eagles per week. Two or three birds endangered per week is a very different situation to one potential death every thousand years or so. The logic of the minister in trying to give his old position some justification on the basis that the wedge-tailed eagle is at a lesser level on the endangered species list than the orange-bellied parrot and that, in his mind, he is able to reconcile those two things and say, ‘That farm should not have been given permission to go ahead based on the wedge-tailed eagle scenario,’ simply does not flow.

It is a concern that the minister for the environment does not seem to have in his mind the need for Australia to go down the renewable energy path. Wind energy technology is now moving offshore to China in order for it to be commercialised. This minister thinks that is a reasonable outcome when Australia is in the position of desperately needing to develop alternative technologies, but he does not want to provide any encouragement, does not want to set any mandatory renewable targets— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.