Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Ian Campbell) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the proposed wind farm at Bald Hills, Victoria.

What we saw in question time today was the minister’s attempt to defend his complete public humiliation last Friday when confronted with a court process that called into question his totally politically charged decision to knock over a wind farm proposition. What we saw as a result of the court hearings was that the minister was forced to accept a settlement which said that he would reconsider his decision according to law, the clear implication being that the first decision was not determined according to law but was a decision made according to politics—base politics that the minister pursued.

The minister today wanted to discuss the Victorian government, the WA government and something to do with the Supreme Court building in Victoria. He also discussed John Faulkner’s period as environment minister. Distinguished though it was, that did not seem to me to be all that relevant to the minister having to publicly explain why he put in a political fix, why he misused and abused his role as environment minister and why he sought to put political considerations in front of his obligations as a minister of the crown.

The minister’s behaviour in relation to the Bald Hills application for a wind farm is a sorry tale. He spent 450 days in search of a dead parrot. Here are the numbers on this issue: the minister was told that you would get one dead parrot in 1,000 years and that in the 10,000 sightings made when surveying the area they had not found one orange-bellied parrot—they had sighted 10,000 birds but not one parrot. What we know is that although this application was denied he approved 800 other turbines around the coast. While 800 turbines were approved, the Bald Hills application was knocked over—and this is despite the fact that a lot of these turbines were in areas where there is a genuine risk to the orange-bellied parrot and where there have been sightings and are breeding grounds.

What is at the heart of this is that for 450 days the minister refused to make a decision. Why? Because he was in search of an excuse. He was required under the act to make a decision within 30 days, but he took 450 days. From October 2004 until April this year he refused to make a decision. Why? Because he was looking for a justification to knock over the application.

What do we know? We know that every piece of advice that he got said that there was no justification for knocking back the application. His department and the scientific advice all said one thing: ‘There is no basis for you to refuse this application.’ The best he could do was to dredge up a dead parrot and say, ‘There is some minute risk to a parrot, and that is my justification for knocking off this one application.’ He approved 800 other turbines on the basis of the same sort of advice. He did not even require some applications to come to him. But he intervened in this case to ensure that this application did not go ahead.

Why? What was the only thing on the record that would support his decision? I give the minister credit for this, because he is honest in the sense that he honoured a political promise to the people of McMillan. He said before the election when writing to the electors that he would not allow that application to go ahead. Without any evidence and without any consideration for his role as minister he promised that it would be stopped. And you have to give him his dues: he did stop it. He put in the political fix. It took him 450 days to find the dead parrot to use as his excuse, but he finally found that and he hung the decision on that.

What we know is: at the first whiff of court action, he was humiliated. He had to withdraw and pay the legal costs of the other side because his advice was that he did not have a case. Now he has had to commit to going back and reconsidering his decision. It is a humiliating backdown, and what it shows is that he is not fit to be the minister for the environment. No-one—not industry, not the environmental community—can have any confidence in the decision-making processes, because they know that he will put a political fix in front of proper decision making.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How quickly petrol prices and interest rates vanish from the Labor Party’s perspective when there is a little bit of cheap politics to engage in. There they are bleating about petrol prices and interest rates, and today’s question time focuses on the orange-bellied parrot. My goodness! The credentials of this minister render him as one of the best environment ministers that this country has ever seen.

On the issue of whales alone, right around Western Australia there are people who make livings from whale watching and dolphin swimming. They are in electorates in regional Australia, electorates that the opposition does not know of or understand. In taking the stand that he has on so many environmental frontiers, he has assured the jobs of very many regional Australians in particular. He brings an energy and an enthusiasm to this portfolio, in utter and stark contrast to the environmental ministers in each of the states of our great country.

I want to draw attention to the fact that in Western Australia we have a scandalous environmental situation. Indeed, it is very timely that Senator Evans has led this debate in taking note of answers to questions. Since 2001, when the Labor Party took over in Western Australia, 4.2 million litres of raw sewage have gone into the Swan River. Not one single charge has flowed from that. This is because the previous environmental minister had absolutely no idea. One thing I can say about Senator Ian Campbell that is very important is that he is responsive to people and communities. That is a concept that, sadly, the opposition have in recent times not come to terms with.

Let me highlight how absolutely stupid the minister in Western Australia was. The minister had an EPA licence for the Midland brickworks.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What does this have to do with parrots?

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This illustrates how good Labor’s environmental credentials are. The minister failed to read the licence properly and allowed the Midland brickworks to emit hydrogen fluoride to a level five times greater than the licence permitted, because she applied the licence across the five kiln stacks instead of to the whole plant. Since 2004 the people of Midland have been exposed to this absolutely outrageous toxicity from the Midland brickworks because the Labor Party’s environmental minister in Western Australia could not read plain English. And the Labor Party have come in here today and said that Senator Campbell is in error!

In Western Australia, under the EPA—which virtually controls and locks up the whole of Western Australia—it takes 13 to 18 months to issue an EPA licence to a local small Western Australian shire to make road alterations. To clean up the verge of a road, you have to have an EPA licence in Western Australia, and it takes the EPA 13 to 18 months to issue that licence.

Let us have a look at the sorts of credentials the opposition bring to the table here. There is a raging debate throughout Australia with respect to the location of wind farms and turbines. One of the most important things that any federal minister can do is listen to community concerns and look at the environmental impact of those developments. Looking at what has happened in Western Australia, heaven help Australia if there were to be the same level of ineptitude, complete stupidity and gross incompetence replicated by having those on the opposite side of this chamber elected to government. It would be absolutely frightening. It would be a nightmare. Thank heavens for Senator Ian Campbell.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of Senator Ian Campbell’s contribution in question time today. If there were any remaining doubt that Senator Ian Campbell has disgracefully abused his position as Minister for the Environment and Heritage, that doubt was buried today under the pile of parrot droppings that the Senate has been subjected to. For months, Senator Campbell has spuriously claimed to be the defender of the orange-bellied parrot. Today, he effectively gave the Senate the bird. He denied the undeniable. He refused to accept that he has been caught out abusing his powers under environmental laws to protect a Liberal Party mate. The facts are now plain for the whole world to see. He has distorted the scientific evidence, he has squandered taxpayers’ money and he has undermined valuable investment in renewable energy.

In the run-up to the 2004 election, the minister, Senator Campbell, made it clear that he would do all he could to protect Russell Broadbent, the endangered Liberal Party candidate for McMillan. Senator Campbell told the voters of McMillan that he had ‘undoubted powers’ to veto the wind farm. He made no mention at that time of the orange-bellied parrot. Nevertheless, Senator Campbell was confident that he would find some legal basis for intervening. He gave voters a nod and a wink—‘Elect Mr Broadbent and I’ll stop this project.’ The problem for Senator Campbell is that the law actually requires the minister to have a reason for intervening that stands up to scrutiny. The need to win a marginal seat for the coalition government just does not cut it. One of his advisers may have told Senator Campbell that he needed an excuse that would fly. Senator Campbell appears to have taken it literally. He latched on to the orange-bellied parrot.

Following the election, Senator Campbell spent 16 months shopping around for some scientific evidence to back the decision he had already made to stop the wind farm. We now know that this evidence was very hard to come by. In December 2004 Latitude 42 Environmental Consultants told the minister ‘any impacts on bird populations appear to be negligible’. Of course, this was the wrong answer for Senator Campbell, so he commissioned another study, from a firm called Biosis. Biosis concluded that blocking the Bald Hills wind farm would have ‘extremely limited beneficial value to the conservation of the parrot’. Biosis modelling found that there could be one parrot killed by the wind turbines every 1,000 years—one parrot every 1,000 years. In March, the minister’s own department told him that the wind farm at Bald Hills posed a ‘negligible threat to the parrot’. The department states that ‘no orange-bellied parrot has been recorded there’, ‘there appears to be no suitable habitat on site’ and ‘it is not considered to be a major migration passage’.

Despite the weight of evidence, Senator Campbell blocked the wind farm. Understandably, the backers of the wind farm instituted legal proceedings against the minister to overturn the decision. Last week, the minister had his day in court—and he was caught out. His parrots came home to roost. The court ordered that the minister’s decision should be set aside and that the minister reconsider the decision according to the law. It also ordered the Commonwealth to pay the costs of the proceedings. That is right: taxpayers will be asked to underwrite Senator Campbell’s blatant political favouritism. Senator Campbell talked today about these being consent orders. The Senate should have no doubt that the minister was well advised by the Australian Government Solicitor on this matter. Senator Campbell agreed to the consent orders because his lawyers knew that his case was doomed.

This case has exposed the corrupt way that environmental law is administered by this minister. This minister’s administration of the portfolio is like something you could expect in a tin-pot Third World country—or from the Western Australia Liberal Party. If you are investing in wind farms in this country, you need not only an environmental impact statement but also a political impact study. It is about time that Senator Campbell paid the price for this. Senator Ian Campbell is not yet a dead parrot, but he is a very naughty boy! (Time expired)

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy’s speech illustrated as nothing else could how desperate the ALP is to grasp and find some niche to attack the government with on its environmental record. The fact is that the Howard government has done more for the environment than any other government in this country’s history has and, in particular, has done more for the environment than that which occurred in the 13 years of the Hawke and Keating governments. Senator Faulkner, for example, was the minister for the environment and achieved almost nothing.

Now, we have a government which has a fine record and has advanced the care of the environment in Australia across the board and made it a very high priority. First of all, this government introduced the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the orange-bellied parrot?

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are looking for something, I know, Senator Faulkner. The ALP is desperate to find something, and they have latched on to the orange-bellied parrot, hoping that the rest of us will not take note of the fact that their record in environmental management was so absolutely dismal and amounted to nothing much at all to place on the record.

First of all, the Howard government introduced the environment and biodiversity act, which, for the first time, gave the federal government a right to intervene in environmental issues. That has meant that it is now much easier for these big projects to be given an environmental assessment, which means that a broad range of environmental issues can be dealt with by the federal government before they get towards their conclusions. Previously, in many cases, the federal government could only be involved if the Foreign Investment Review Board provisions were invoked.

The environment and biodiversity act was the first great achievement of the Howard government in the environment, but of course there have been many more. In particular, we turn to the Natural Heritage Trust, which, Mr Deputy President, you would know about because you are a man of great intelligence and have a great feeling for what the government has done in Queensland with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The Natural Heritage Trust committed $3 billion to the largest and most successful environmental restoration program in Australian history. The trust involves national, regional and local governments, and empowers community organisations in some 56 regions across the country to identify and solve local environment problems.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have mentioned the parrot because we know that that is all you can latch on to. This government’s record on the environment is so impeccable, so strong, that all you poor people on the other side can do is latch on to the poor little orange-bellied parrot.

When it comes to the question of climate change, the Howard government has an outstanding record by world standards. We are meeting our Kyoto targets, even though we regard the Kyoto agreement as a hollow agreement, a meaningless agreement, which will do almost nothing to reduce climate change problems secondary to greenhouse. The Kyoto agreement is something that we are not signing, but we are meeting its targets, and we have a very fine record in that area. Australia, under the Howard government, was the first and only government in the world at that stage to establish a national greenhouse office.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, sit down; you’re embarrassing yourself and your party. Just shut up!

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faulkner, I know you are embarrassed. I understand your embarrassment, and if you feel so embarrassed about the record of the ALP in government over their poor environmental record then perhaps you should leave the chamber.

We have not only introduced the Natural Heritage Trust and looked after the greenhouse effect but we also have programs to manage ocean quality and protect the Great Barrier Reef. This government has a very fine and outstanding record of environmental control. We have introduced a mandatory renewable energy targets program. This government is impeccable in its record on the environment, and for you people to latch on to a small issue like the orange-bellied parrot just states how— (Time expired)

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have just heard the two worst speeches from Senator Eggleston and Senator Johnston, not even attempting to defend Senator Ian Campbell and his ministerial malpractice over the orange-bellied parrot. The orange-bellied parrot affair is not about environmental protection; it is about politics. The orange-bellied parrot affair is not about a threatened bird species; it is about McMillan, a threatened Liberal Party seat in Victoria. In pursuit of that political outcome that Senator Ian Campbell, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, sought, what have we seen? We have seen the environmental assessment processes of this country debauched by Senator Campbell. We have seen the minister reject his departmental advice, the professional advice, the expert advice, the scientific advice, that he received. We have seen Minister Campbell shopping around for new and different advices in the vain hope that he would eventually find one that suited his political objectives on this issue. We have seen a huge amount of public moneys wasted on unnecessary bureaucratic and legal wrangling. And of course, finally, we have seen the utter and complete humiliation of Senator Campbell.

Senator Campbell, as environment minister of this country, is charged with very heavy responsibilities. He is charged with the protection of Australia’s environment and he is charged with ensuring that the use of our natural resources occurs in accordance with strict environmental guidelines. Senator Campbell, as we have heard, is the minister who likes the soft option. He likes grandstanding at the International Whaling Commission to stop the slaughter of whales. He is right about that; every single Australian agrees with him about that. It takes no political courage to stand up on that issue. But it does take political courage and political integrity to balance competing issues in marginal electorates, do what is best for your country and behave with ministerial propriety and integrity. You don’t just do what is best for your party; you have other responsibilities. Minister Campbell has failed that test comprehensively.

It also takes political courage as an environment minister to stand up on tough issues like greenhouse and climate change—courage that Senator Campbell has never demonstrated. He has been missing in action on those most crucial global issues. There are no more important issues facing the world than those. What do we get from this minister traditionally? Temper tantrums, immature behaviour, puerile rants and raves, and political attacks. That is the modus operandi of Senator Campbell, and it is not good enough.

What we have seen from Senator Campbell today is a yellow-bellied performance about the orange-bellied parrot. In any other government in the Western world this sort of performance would end with either a resignation or a sacking. We know the chances of Senator Campbell doing the proper and honourable thing here and the chances of Mr Howard, the Prime Minister, doing the proper and honourable thing in relation to this issue are as remote as the chance of one of Senator Campbell’s parrots in 1,000 years hitting a rotor blade at Bald Hills wind farm. That is the chance of them doing the right thing. But Senator Campbell should resign. This is a resigning offence and he should go.

Question agreed to.