Hall, Jill, MP

Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (18:08): I concur with every comment made by the member for Wills. I think the final quote he shared with the House really sums it up. This government is the handmaiden of big business. When it comes to the environment I believe it stands condemned for its lack of commitment to the protection of our environment to ensure that the most valuable asset we have is preserved. Unfortunately, future generations of Australians are going to see that our environment is considerably diminished. The legislation that we have before us today, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, is one of the vehicles that will lead to our environment being diminished, because this government is the handmaiden of big business, of the fossil fuel industry and of the development sector in this country. When we hand the planning powers to the states and local governments it is like giving control of the blood bank to Dracula. I am a member who has been a councillor and a member of state parliament, and I know how those levels of government evaluate and consider various pieces of legislation and developments. When I was a member in the state government I was very fortunate because at that particular time Bob Carr was the Premier of New South Wales, and he had a real commitment to the environment. But, unfortunately, his commitment is not shared by the current government. For the record, this legislation amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to facilitate the delegation of environmental approval powers to the states and local governments. That is what I was alluding to earlier—the simple fact that the states and local governments will be in a position where they can make decisions about developments they are involved in. I really feel this is the wrong way to go. It even includes World Heritage listed properties, nuclear activities and approvals under the water trigger amendment. It is not good enough. It is not ensuring that our environment will be protected into the future. In the last parliament I, along with the member for Wills and many on the other side of this House, was on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts. We conducted an inquiry into Australia's biodiversity in a changing climate. We learnt of the many challenges that our environment faces. We learnt of the many challenges that come before government and the need for the federal government to have a strong voice. During the consultation period, when we were receiving evidence, we had groups come along to us and talk about his very aspect. They said that this is something the Commonwealth must not do. We must not hand responsibility over to the state governments. Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I believe that your predecessor was a member of that committee, and he made an enormous contribution towards the report we handed down. We cannot let the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment abrogate their responsibility and just hand decisions to the state governments about what should and should not be preserved. There is not a state that I would confidently trust to oversee decisions relating to our precious environment. The states do not have the same thorough processes for looking at the adequacy of assessments of threatened species. They do not have the same commitment to that issue. Within Shortland electorate there are many pristine areas that have a number of threatened species. When I was a councillor we looked at issues around threatened species, and we looked at them under the Commonwealth legislation. I did a similar thing as a member of state parliament. The Commonwealth legislation was taken into account. If there is no overarching umbrella that details the way threatened species need to be protected and looked after, then it is really putting a threat to those species. The extinction rate is frightening, particularly on the east coast of Australia, which has the highest concentration of population. I urge the government to rethink its action in relation to this legislation, because it is bad legislation. It is going down the wrong path. In Queensland it is quite frightening to think what Premier Newman has planned for the Great Barrier Reef. The draft strategic assessment underlines concerns expressed by the committee in relation to 'serious decline in the condition of the Great Barrier Reef, including in coral recruitment and reef building across extensive parts of the property' and states that 'a business-as-usual approach to managing the property is not an option'. One of our most valuable environmental assets within this country is the Great Barrier Reef. It is a great tourist attraction; it is a source of biodiversity; and it is a source of great pride to us as a nation. The actions of this legislation will be to hand the protection and the preservation of our reef over to the state government and, even more frightening, to some of the local councils within that area. The report indicated that climate change remains the most significant threat to the long-term health of the reef, and that was highlighted very effectively when the committee was undertaking its inquiry. It concluded that the loss of resilience is not attributed to any one single cause but to the effect of cumulative impacts and of management not keeping pace with these. The proposed dumping of dredged materials from the Abbot Point development is also noted with concern. This is of particular concern because it was approved despite an indication that less impacting disposal alternatives may exist. Mr Hunt: That is false. Ms HALL: We are handing the approval of such projects over to the state government. Mr Hunt: Your government gave 33 preliminary approvals on Abbot Point. Ms HALL: The minister should hang his head in shame. He should be ashamed of the fact that he has no commitment to the environment, that he has no commitment to protect the valuable resources that are placed in his hands. We all know that he constantly gets rolled in cabinet, and we also know that he speaks out of school without getting the permission of his Prime Minister. So he really is just a puppet of the Prime Minister, a puppet of the minerals and development industry and he has absolutely no commitment to the environment. I am constantly being contacted by constituents who tell me how disappointed they are in the Minister for the Environment. They thought he had a bit of backbone. They thought he would get in there and fight to preserve the environment. But unfortunately he does not seem to have the commitment to the environment that we as Australians expect from our Minister for the Environment. Instead, he is happy to abrogate his responsibility, to hand the decision making over to the states and to local government. In many cases they are the very bodies, the very organisations, that are putting forward the proposal for development. It is not good enough. As an Australian government, as a federal government, we should be ensuring that we protect our assets. We should not be handing over World Heritage listings to governments like the Newman government in Queensland, and we should not be allowing World Heritage listing to be wound back in Tasmania. This Minister for the Environment should be standing up for the environment. Instead, he is abrogating his responsibility. The bill goes beyond pro-development state governments; it provides the ability for the same governments to accredit local governments to undertake critical assessment and approval processes. I hang my head. I am ashamed to be part of a parliament that is prepared to allow this to happen to our environment by allowing the states to approve anything, anywhere, without limitations. That is worrying enough without diluting further accountability by putting local government in charge of Australia's major national resources. I would be quite happy for Lake Macquarie council to make decisions about my local environment area—at the moment. But there have been times when that council has made decisions that were not in the best interests of the environment, and there is nothing to say that in the future that will not continue to happen. This legislation creates a definite degree of uncertainty. This legislation, far from streamlining the approvals process, actually dilutes it, fragments it, makes it very convoluted. Giving each state the right to approve projects means that throughout the nation we are going to have different approval processes in different states. This is very worrying indeed. I am concerned with the whole process and the lack of quality and consistency of processes between the states. And it will not get any better. This bill is going to make things worse than they already are. Going back to the Great Barrier Reef, increased attention is needed to complete the required work on reviewing governance of the property and the transfer of decision-making powers from the federal to the state level. It appears premature, until the governance requirements to implement their LTPSD have been considered. It is crucial that the mission recommendations regarding institutional management arrangements in R11 are completed and the eventual governance of the property carries the confidence of the stakeholders. Given the range of significant threats affecting property and conflicting information about the effectiveness of recent decisions and draft policies, the inscription of the Great Barrier Reef onto the list of world heritage endangered sites at the 39th session in 2015 seems imminent. This government and this Minister for the Environment will go down in history as environmental vandals. They are abrogating any responsibility they have to preserve threatened species and they are abrogating any responsibilities that they have to our environment. They stand condemned and future generations of Australians will judge them accordingly.