John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

  (a)   notes that:

     (i)   Australia has been a signatory to the Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement since 1974,

     (ii)   Australia has been a signatory to the China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement since 1986,

     (iii)   Australia has been a signatory to the Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement since 2006,

     (iv)   each of these agreements obliges Australia to protect the flight paths and habitats of those migratory birds listed in the agreements, and

     (v)   the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the Act) requires that 'an action will require approval if the action has, or is likely to have, a significant impact on a listed migratory species'; and

  (b)   calls on the Government to ensure it complies with its obligations to the protect the flight paths and habitats of all migratory birds listed under these agreements and the Act, and to refer any project that has, or may have, a significant impact on a listed migratory species for assessment under the Act.

Question agreed to.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for one minute.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to speak briefly to this motion. Of course the Greens support strong environmental laws and their application to all development projects, including wind farms—which I believe is Senator Madigan's chief concern—and habitat clearing from coalmines, which also affect migratory birds. I want to put on the record our concern that there were some small technical factual inaccuracies in the motion. Firstly, there was the contention that governments could refer projects. They cannot. That is what proponents do. Secondly, there was the contention that the EPBC Act obliged flight path protection. It does not. With those caveats, the Greens are happy to support the motion.