HANSARD EXTRACT
|
Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill
(No.1) 2006: Second Reading |
| 19 October 2006 |
Mr HAYES
(Werriwa) (12.10 p.m.)—There
are 409 pages of amendments to the Commonwealth’s major
environmental laws and, would you believe it, there is not one
mention of climate change. Given the attitude of this government to
climate change, I know I should not be too surprised about that. But
this time the government has really outdone itself with the
Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment
Bill (No. 1) 2006.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 is
Australia’s major environmental law. It establishes the framework
for assessing the environmental impacts of proposed actions in
relation to world heritage properties, Ramsar’s wetlands of
international importance, nationally threatened species, ecological
communities, migratory species, nuclear actions, the Commonwealth’s
marine environment and those places which are listed on the National
Heritage List. So it is quite an important piece of legislation.
This government argues now that this bill reduces the process time
and cuts the costs of development interests. It also curtails third
party appeal rights, undermines the public consultation process and
further politicises decision making.
This government has swept the pool on this one.
It has managed to introduce legislation that implements the exact
opposite of what the Australian community wants. This is quite
startling. Not only does it not mention climate change, not only
does it not include a single measure aimed at reducing greenhouse
pollution, but this bill also goes against the desire of the
Australian public. It is staggering. This bill will fundamentally
change the way in which the Australian environment is protected, and
neither the parliament nor the community will have the opportunity
to consider the implications of this bill because, just like
everything else this government wants to achieve, or hide from the
Australian public, the government is going to ram it through this
parliament. It has been rammed through this parliament with very
little discussion, little debate and, worse, little concern from
this government.
This has been an amazing week. Earlier this
week we had a new regime introduced for the regulation of
Australia’s media. That was certainly rammed through this
parliament. Now we have a wholly new regime about protecting
Australia’s
environment. Similarly, it is going to be rammed through this
parliament. It is staggering. The government is elected to
administer public policy, and this is not good public policy.
Most people with any concern about the future
of
Australia’s
environment have long known that the government does not share that
concern. Sure it pretends to when it comes to a marginal seat, when
one of those creatures is at stake, but generally this government
has exhibited an attitude that it could not care less about
protecting the Australian environment.
Over the last decade, while this government has
been in office,
Australia’s environment has been under sustained pressure. Water
resources are under strain and almost gone, to some extent, in
various areas. The amount of land affected by salinity has increased
astronomically, and Australia is facing a plant and animal
extinction crisis. It is not a record that this government often
points to; nevertheless, it is a fact. I doubt that it will make it
into the bevy of material that government members distribute in
their newsletters but, as I said, it is the case and it is certainly
a fact.
Since the government came to office, nearly
every single measure of environmental health has gone backwards. As
I mentioned,
Australia
has a plant and animal extinction crisis. Twenty per cent of our
species are threatened with extinction by the end of this century,
and the number of terrestrial and animal species listed as extinct,
endangered or vulnerable rose by 41 per cent between 1995 and 2005.
Disturbingly, Australia is the world leader in mammal extinctions.
This is a disgraceful record, and the passage of this bill does
nothing to try to address that. Therefore, it does not look good for
our future in that regard.
As I mentioned at the outset, I am stunned that
the government has introduced 409 pages of amendments into this
place without a single reference to climate change. The science
behind climate change is well established. Apart from a small
minority of virtual extremists, it is essentially accepted. Very few
governments in the world persist with the attitude that climate
change is not a reality. Most are not persisting with that dogmatic
attitude to climate change and I would be confident that most
governments, where they have introduced changes to major
environmental laws, would include aspects to combat the effect of
the onslaught of climate change.
Very few people continue to ignore the real and
significant impact that climate change not only will have on our
economy and society but, quite frankly, is already having within our
communities. Many businesses have accepted the need to address the
impact on the economy and have accepted the fact that they need to
address their levels of carbon emissions. But still the
Howard government continues to ignore climate change.
Only three weeks ago
Richard Branson committed $3 billion to abatement measures, and we
have this bill representing 409 pages of the government’s efforts to
do the exact opposite—that is, to ignore climate change itself.
I noted earlier that the science around climate
change is largely accepted. The impact that climate change is having
on our natural environment is, indeed, largely accepted by the
community, let alone the scientific community around the world. For
those who do not believe that change is taking place, you only need
to consider our weather of last week. In addition to the fact that
Australia, in some parts of the country, has just finished the
driest winter on record, we have just had the hottest and driest
August in 106 years and, in Sydney last week, at the start of
October, temperatures were well above 30 degrees. We have already
seen the demand that that is causing with respect to bushfire
brigades and the warnings that were put out last week. It is very
clear that change is already occurring. As much as this government
might want to ignore the fact that this is occurring, as much as
this government might want to avoid its international responsibility
and, indeed, as much as this government might not want to admit that
it has got it wrong, climate change is happening now.
Last week, the Prime Minister marched into this
House and, in effect, admitted to getting it wrong on the skills
crisis. He admitted that to the parliament and, therefore, to the
Australian people. I call upon him to do the same when it comes to
admitting that they have got it wrong on climate change. We know he
can do it because he did it only last week. He even conceded to the
media, when dealing with the skills crisis, that it was better late
than never. With respect, I never took him to task on that. I
thought that, at least, that was somewhat honest coming from the
Prime Minister. He admitted to getting it wrong and, as he put it to
the media, ‘The changes we’re going to bring about are better late
than never.’
Although I have a certain amount of respect for
the comment—and certainly I have some criticism, in that he has
taken 10 years to get to that realisation—I hope we do not have the
same approach taken when it comes to climate change. When it comes
to climate change, it is not an option to be better late than never.
It is not an option that we continue to stick our heads in the sand
and try to pretend that this is not a real phenomenon. For many
people, communities, species, plants and animals, better late than
never will mean never. These changes are occurring now and they do
require the attention of this government.
A better-late-than-never approach may in fact
be too late, as we hear from scientists, for some islands,
particularly Pacific islands. Following the Prime Minister’s recent
comment about gloomy climate change predictions, on the 7.30
Report former US Vice President
Al
Gore said:
He’s increasingly alone in that view among people who’ve really
looked at the science ... The so-called “gloomy predictions” are
predictions of what would happen if we did not act. It’s not a
question of mood. It’s a question of reality.
Mr
Gore
went on to say:
And, you know, there’s no longer debate over whether the earth is
round or flat. Though there are some few people who still think it’s
flat, we generally ignore that view because the evidence has mounted
to the point where we understand that it shouldn’t be taken
seriously.
The Australian people should take the view that this government’s
level of inaction when it comes to climate change should be taken
seriously. It is too serious a problem to ignore and it is certainly
too serious a problem for the government not to show leadership on.
Labor has called on the government repeatedly
to address this issue, to identify and acknowledge that the issue is
real but also to show leadership. After all, a government is elected
not to govern in the present but to make decisions that influence
our future, the future of our kids and the environment that we wish
to bequeath to those who follow us. This is just not occurring.
Labor has shown leadership on this issue of climate change and will
continue to do so. It will be a central plank in our policy. I have
to say that I am very proud that we have shown that leadership
throughout our communities, because it is a reflection of our
ongoing commitment to this country and to the sustained and
appropriate development of industry while having regard to the
sensitivities imposed by the environment.
Labor members understand the importance of the
problem, and that is why Labor has committed itself to ratifying the
Kyoto protocol, cutting greenhouse pollution, establishing a
greenhouse emissions trading mechanism, substantially increasing the
mandatory renewable energy target, the MRET, and establishing a
climate change trigger—which has now been formally rejected by this
government—with the introduction of the private member’s bill by the
member for Grayndler.
This government continues to resist the need to
ratify
Kyoto,
sticking to its alternative, the Asia-Pacific climate pact. If Kyoto
is so bad, you have to ask yourself: why is it that every other
country that is involved in the Prime Minister’s alternative
model—that being the Asia-Pacific climate pact—has already ratified
the
Kyoto
protocol? All countries other than Australia and the United States
have done so. Republican Senator John McCain is someone who
ordinarily would not be a standout for supporting Labor ideals or
anything that Labor has to say. Nevertheless, he said the following
about the Howard government’s position on the Asia-Pacific climate
pact:
The pact amounts to nothing more than a nice little
public-relations ploy. It has almost no meaning. They aren’t even
committing money to the effort, much less enacting rules to reduce
greenhouse-gas emissions.
That is not a bad commentary from a Republican senator in that
regard. But there is more. The Chinese ministry for foreign affairs
said:
This pact has no power for legal restrictions. It is a complement
to the
Kyoto
treaty, not a replacement.
These are the views of some of the major players in the world on
the government’s poor facsimile of the
Kyoto
protocol, and, if this is the calibre of people who are criticising
the Australian government over its lack of action, one can only
conclude that the time for hiding from climate change has well and
truly passed.
Comments made yesterday by the Canadian
environmentalist
Dr
David
Suzuki have been reported pretty widely in our newspapers. He has
commented on the Howard government’s approach to
Kyoto. The member for Throsby made some remarks
about this, but I would like to pick up on one thing that
Dr
Suzuki had to say. He said:
I believe that future generations will look back on the inactivity,
the unwillingness to do anything, as a crime against future
generations.
That is a reasonably strong statement from an environmentalist of
his calibre. Future generations probably will damn us for our
failure to act and to act now.
To say that I am disappointed by some of the
contents of this bill would be an understatement. To say that I am
amazed that in 409 pages of amendments to the government’s major
environmental law there is not a single mention of climate change
would also be an understatement. The Australian people expect more.
The Australian public recognises the real and present danger to our
economy and our society if climate change is not addressed. The
Australian public is doing its bit but it is lacking the leadership
that it expects the government to provide.
The Prime Minister and others continue to argue
that taking action on climate change will cost jobs. I disagree with
that. As anyone who has ever dealt with businesses going through
change will know, businesses look for certainty. Certainty
encourages investment decisions and innovation, as businesses try to
get ahead of their competitors and protect their market share. Give
businesses certainty, introduce measures to address climate change
over a period of time, but set out the markers now. Allow businesses
to understand where the government expects them to be and how they
should achieve that within a reasonable time frame. There is no need
to surprise them and introduce changes overnight. That has not
worked in the past and it will not work here. But to lay down a
series of markers that business can work with will establish
certainty and will contribute a lot to reforming and changing
business practices. Give Australian businesses certainty about what
is expected of them and I am pretty confident that they will move in
new and innovative ways to meet the goals which are established.
I am opposed to this bill. I believe that all
fair-minded members of this place should also oppose it. I am
opposed to it because it will decrease accountability, it will
increase the strength of development interests and it will all but
silence the public in speaking out against development interests
that are not in the interests of their communities. If the National
Party members who come to this place to represent the agricultural
communities really care about those communities, they should be
voting with Labor on this bill—and voting it down. I strongly
support the second reading amendment moved by the opposition.
Return
to Speeches Menu.
