The 1999 act, which came into effect in July 2000, introduced a series of reforms to Australia’s environmental laws, which had otherwise remained relatively unchanged since the first environmental statutes were enacted in this country in the early 1970s.
Since the introduction of the 1999 act, it has been the cornerstone of Australia’s environmental law. Among other things, the act sets out a framework for assessing the impact that proposed actions would have on the health and wellbeing of the Australian environment. That is, it introduced into Australian law the idea that, when it came to assessing the pros and cons of proposed actions, their impact on the environment had to be taken into account. In particular, the 1999 act makes provisions to assess those actions which have the potential to in some way affect World Heritage properties, the Ramsar wetlands, Australia’s nationally threatened species and ecological communities and its migratory species, the Commonwealth marine environment and places on the Natural Heritage List. The framework introduced by the 1999 act also included assessing the environmental impact of uranium mining.
Whilst the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 fell short of establishing all the necessary environmental safeguards required to protect Australia’s unique biodiversity, it was a welcome step in the right direction for those of us in this place who believe that we need to do much more if we are to succeed in protecting Australia’s fragile environment—not just for our sakes or for our own interests but for the sakes of our children and future generations. The amendments proposed in the 2006 bill which is currently before us in the House undo many of those gains achieved under the 1999 act and spell a significant step backwards for environmental protection measures in Australia. There is in fact very little to commend in this bill, and it is for that reason that I and all my colleagues oppose it.
The government claims that the amendments it seeks to introduce through this bill will make the EPBC Act ‘more efficient and effective to allow for the use of more strategic approaches and to provide greater certainty in decision making’. The 2006 bill is supposed to make the 1999 act ‘more efficient and effective’: by reducing the processing time and costs for development interests; by enhancing our ability to deal with large-scale projects and give priority attention to projects of national importance through the use of strategic assessment and approval processes; by putting in place measures to enable developers to avoid having an impact on the matters of environmental significance protected by the act; by facilitating a greater focus on protecting threatened species, ecological communities and heritage places that are of real national importance; and by clarifying and strengthening the enforcement provisions of the 1999 act.
However, the simple fact is that no matter what language of process and procedure this government chooses to use to obfuscate the reality of what is contained in this bill and no matter what grandiose claims it tries to make in relation to this bill, nothing can hide the fact that the amendments it seeks to make to the 1999 act are a significant step backwards for environmental protection in this country. And nothing can change the reality that this government has shown virtually no regard for, and absolutely no leadership in, the environment and environmental protection since it first took power in 1996.
Australia’s decision not to sign the Kyoto protocol is but one example of the government’s abysmal record of choosing to look the other way when it comes to the environment and its protection. Despite the fact that there is near universal consensus today that global warming has become one of the greatest challenges that our world faces, this government decided quite stubbornly to turn its back on the Kyoto protocol and continues to refuse to sign it. In doing so, it has opted out of the most significant international effort initiated to date aimed at mitigating the effects of climate change. Under the Kyoto protocol nations are required to reduce worldwide carbon pollution by an average of 5.2 per cent below their 1999 levels by the period 2008-2012. To date, 158 countries have ratified the Kyoto protocol, which came into effect as international law in February 2005.
Whilst the Kyoto protocol may not be the answer to all our problems, it does herald a promising start, setting an important precedent for the development of future international efforts aimed at combating climate change. Kyoto set in train and consolidated in international law the recognition that combating climate change is a global effort, one that it is incumbent upon all of us to get behind and support. It lays the foundations for future initiatives whose strength and success will reside in their ability to both gain international support and further facilitate international cooperation. No matter how much the government tries to portray the Kyoto protocol as somehow deficient or a nonsolution to climate change, we must never forget that one of Kyoto’s greatest achievements has been to consolidate the international community around a joint effort aimed at combating global warming. And despite all the hype, we are yet to be presented with a viable alternative to Kyoto either by this government or by other nations who have refused to sign up to the protocol. Despite being two of the highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases, Australia and the United States are the only two major developed countries not to have ratified the Kyoto protocol.
Just as this government has gone missing in action at a time when so many others in the international community have joined forces to tackle the problem of climate change, so this government has gone missing in action on the domestic front, whittling away the environmental protections and safeguards contained in the EPBC Act. The Kyoto protocol is important in the context of this bill because this bill once again reveals the entrenched reticence of this government about tackling the challenges of climate change. In the 409 pages of amendments contained in this bill climate change is not mentioned once. If nothing else, it is conspicuous by its absence and it remains the elephant in the room when it comes to the environmental policies of this government.
Labor has consistently lobbied to have climate change listed as one of the factors or triggers that must be taken into consideration when assessments are made about the environmental impact of certain actions. Under the 1999 act climate change was not listed as a trigger, to ensure that large-scale greenhouse polluting projects are assessed by the federal government—an omission that Labor wants to see amended.
The government has continued to block any attempt to have climate change included as a key determining factor in assessing the environmental impact of proposed actions, and so is the case with this bill. Consistent with the government’s decision to turn its back on the Kyoto protocol, this bill simply ignores the dangers of climate change as if they bore no relevance at all to assessing the impact of proposed actions on the environment. Just as its refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol highlights the government’s multiple failings in the area of environmental protection, this bill highlights the government’s continued failure to ensure that Australia has adequate and effective environmental protection measures in place.
The fact that this government continues to do nothing about climate change, despite all the evidence that now exists concerning the dangers it poses, shows what little importance it attaches to the environment in its list of priorities. The government’s performance when it comes to reducing Australia’s carbon pollution has been nothing short of appalling. In a report released in December 2004, the government’s Greenhouse Office claimed:
Australia is on track to achieve its target of limited greenhouse emissions to 108% of 1990 emissions over the period 2008-12, as agreed to at Kyoto.
If this were the case, the most obvious question to ask is why the government persists in refusing to ratify the Kyoto protocol if indeed it is on track to meet the targets Kyoto sets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, the Australian Greenhouse Office alarmingly predicts that Australia’s carbon pollution will rise rapidly to be 123 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020.
One thing is for certain: this bill does absolutely nothing to tackle the problem of climate change. Instead, it simply chooses to ignore the reality of climate change. Scientists agree that the earth will warm by at least three degrees by 2050 and up to nine degrees Celsius by the year 2100. Most of the warming that has occurred over the last 50 years is the result of carbon pollution from human activity with fossil fuel use being the main source of carbon pollution. Carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases effectively act like a blanket, trapping heat and warming the earth’s surface. The more greenhouse gases we release, the thicker the blanket becomes.
The 10 hottest years on record have all occurred in the last 14 years and, according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, 2005 was the hottest year on record—that is, the hottest we have had since records first started to be kept in 1861. It is now common knowledge that if we continue to do nothing, if we continue to wait and fail to develop national policies that in some way mitigate the effects of climate change, the impact of climate change will be devastating.
For farmers in Australia, it means longer droughts, lower soil moisture, lower yields and poorer crop quality. The effects of that are a significant issue for debate and concern at this very minute. Similarly, climate change poses a significant danger to a number of Australia’s protected national heritage sites, such as the Great Barrier Reef which in the next 25 years could be devastated by regular coral bleaching as a result of the ocean warming. Kakadu also faces an uncertain future. If global temperatures rise by a further two degrees, half of Kakadu’s majestic wetlands will be wiped out.
By 2030, conservative estimates predict that the water supply to both Melbourne and Sydney will drop by 25 per cent as a result of reduced rainfall and higher evaporation from climate change. Added to this is a plethora of other looming disasters attributed to climate change, including the dramatic consequences of rising sea levels and, as such, common sense dictates that each and every one of us in this place is charged with a responsibility to start supporting efforts aimed at reversing the trends of global warming.
There are a number of other concerns that I and my colleagues have regarding this bill. One of the more significant ones is that aspect of the bill which seeks to curtail third-party appeal rights and removes the public consultation processes provided for in the 1999 act. As it stands, under certain circumstances the 1999 act allows for a third party or parties, such as community groups and environmental or business groups, to appeal ministerial decisions especially in relation to the granting of permits. This third-party appeals process covers ministerial decisions regarding permits pertaining to one or more of the following categories: threatened species, marine species, migratory species, wildlife trade permits, whales and dolphins.
Under the 1999 act, third parties have a right to appeal wildlife import and export decisions if made by the minister. This includes the import of species under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, such as Asian elephants and the export of koalas to Thailand. Under the 2006 bill, this right is abolished. By shutting out third parties and abolishing third-party appeal rights, the 2006 bill effectively concentrates all power in the hands of the minister and wipes away all existing avenues for public scrutiny and input into decisions made by the minister. It erodes the system of checks and balances that the 1999 act provides for in relation to ministerial decisions regarding Australia’s threatened species, marine species, migratory species, wildlife trade permits, whales and dolphins. On principle, we cannot support this bill.
The 2006 bill also undermines public consultation processes. Under the bill, the minister will determine key themes for heritage and species protection through a priority assessment list on advice from a scientific committee and the Australian Heritage Council. However, the minister can remove items from the priority assessment list with the only requirement being that he needs to notify the nominee and put the decision on the internet. In addition, the bill removes the five-year review section currently contained in the 1999 act. Under this section, matters of national environmental significance act as triggers in relation to the 1999 act’s framework for assessing the environmental impact of proposed actions. Labor want to see climate change, Australia’s current water crisis, coastal issues and other matters that we on this side of the House consider matters of national environmental significance added as triggers under the 1999 act. In contrast, the government wants to see any possible inclusion of any new triggers stymied by removing the mandatory five-year review process.
The 2006 bill also allows the minister to determine themes for an annual assessment period in relation to heritage and threatened species. This can relate to a specific species, geographical area or heritage theme such as colonial architecture. It opens up the possibility of exploitation and the politicisation of decision-making processes. The Humane Society of Victoria has suggested that the criteria for determining what is a priority have little relationship to conservation. In addition, nuclear actions, including the expansion of uranium mines and nuclear waste dumps, can be exempted from bioregional plans, endorsed policies and conservation agreements.
This bill is not about improving Australia’s environmental protection measures and safeguarding our unique wildlife and biodiversity, rather this bill is about undermining the very processes and procedures that are fundamental to the protection of Australia’s environment. It is a calculated attempt to impede and undermine environmental protection. It is essentially for this reason that I and my colleagues oppose this bill and call on the government to withdraw it.
