Senator BOLKUS (7:42 PM) —I rise this evening to speak to the Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 and I do so with grave concern about the direction in which the Howard government has taken environmental protection in Australia over the last five years. A little over a year after the debate on the primary legislation before us was gagged, one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation ever to face this parliament—the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—we are now faced with a government whose environment policies are, in one word, shipwrecked. In the last few months we have seen failure in administration accompanied by failure in leadership and failure in commitment. We see the minister's legislation, rushed as it was a year ago, now unworkable and in need of major surgery. The cornerstone of this legislation was intended to be the bilateral agreements with the states. Yet a year after its rushed passage we do not have even one bilateral agreement in place and operating.

As a sign of this government's incompetence, we now have before the Senate a raft of regulations, inadequate as they are, which were introduced at the end of the last parliamentary session. The government introduced them then in order to avoid parliamentary scrutiny before they were intended to come into force. This regulatory failure, this legislative failure, has been accompanied by administrative failure, for we have seen the minister fail to convince his colleagues of the need, in that most important area of government policy, for a greenhouse trigger. In fact, if one were to look systematically at this government's achievements in greenhouse, one would find that they represent five wasted years—five years of a government in gridlock, five years of ministers not being able to agree, and five years of this minister being ambushed by other, less competent, ministers. Furthermore, in more recent days we have even seen the minister fail to halt unregulated broadscale land clearing. He made a promise to the Queensland government to assist with finances and it was a promise that has been overturned by his cabinet colleagues to this day.

Also in recent days, this minister announced that greenhouse gas emissions are some 16.9 per cent above the 1990 levels and are growing at their fastest rate since 1990. As I say, it is a failure of policy, whether it is greenhouse, legislation or administration. It is a failure in leadership that reflects the failure of commitment by this government. Under the Howard government, the environment has suffered massive cuts to core environmental funding across the three key portfolio areas. That cut in funding has been in the order of some 40 per cent. Minister Hill has allowed his department to be eaten away under the guise of the Natural Heritage Trust, leaving an ongoing, long-term administrative mess. To compound it all, nor have we seen any leadership from the Prime Minister on any environmental issue over the last five years—the Prime Minister whom we most clearly and starkly remember taking the Australian Greens for a walk into the forest in 1996 before the election. In essence, he just left them there.

The bill before us now is an attempt to clean up some of the mess that was perpetrated through this parliament just over 14 months ago. It amends the EPBC legislation and the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Act of 1999 with what this government calls:

It is hardly surprising that there were operational anomalies, given the complexity of the legislation and the fact that some 511 amendments were settled behind closed doors and rammed through this Senate in less than 36 hours with absolutely no real opportunity for considered debate. Whilst some aspects of the bill before us this evening could be seen as consequential tidying up of the EPBC legislation, some of the clauses, despite the government's closeting of them and presentation of them as being `minor and inconsequential', go somewhat further in effect and raise legitimate concerns that need to be addressed in this place. We have ongoing, significant concerns with the EPBC legislation for many reasons, but primarily because it devolves national environmental responsibilities to uncertain and inconsistent state regimes. Looking at the regulations that are also probably going to be considered in this place in the not too distant future, one can see that the federal legislation does not in any way ensure that the state regimes are in any way adequate to fulfil the responsibility and the charter and objectives of this legislation.

The environment minister, on the other hand, continues to applaud this new act. He says it clearly defines Commonwealth responsibility in relation to the environment. Well, the only way it could do that is if the Commonwealth had clearly intended to abdicate responsibility in relation to the environment! What the minister does not say is that this legislation also allows a Commonwealth environment minister to delegate responsibility back to the states. These are the very same states that he continues to chastise for their continued failure to deliver on environmental outcomes. For instance, addressing the Insurance Council of Australia only last week, the minister sought to blame the states for his failure to bring greenhouse emissions under control. But what does he set out to do in this legislation and in the primary bill? Even the renewable energy bill that is due to be debated later this week includes an incentive to increase the woodchipping and non-plantation native forests for burning. This is a minister who continues to try to blame the states for his failure to deliver outcomes through the NHT.

We say to the minister as we said a year ago: where are this government's national standards on land clearing? It is no good for Senator Hill to keep on pointing the finger at others without himself pursuing a positive agenda. What is he actually doing to encourage Queensland to enact all elements of their legislation? Where is the money that he promised Queensland in order for them to do the job? That money is still being awaited by the Queensland government. This would be the most important single act this minister could do to ensure a reduction in greenhouse emissions, and he has not been able to do it because the commitment he made is one that he cannot get through the National Party in the federal cabinet. More and more questions fundamental to this debate need to be asked. In going to this particular point, the essential one is: if the states are not delivering on their areas of responsibility, why is this minister setting in place legislation that enables him and the government to give them additional responsibility—to give them more power that they won't utilise? In essence, what we said a year ago about this legislation is true: what the EPBC Act gives to the minister it also allows the minister to delegate away—not just what it gives but also more. The legislation does not provide certainty and never has. It provides uncertainty and inconsistencies. It is short. It provides ineffectiveness.

I would like to spend a little bit of time covering specific areas of concern we have with this bill. This bill as it now stands would have a negative impact on environment protection. It would undermine what little protection is provided to the environment under the EPBC legislation. Not only would it have such a negative impact but this legislation also seeks to subvert the parliamentary process under way on the RFA legislation. At the time the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was passed, the government had envisaged that the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 would be in force by the time the EPBC legislation commenced. As a result, certain forestry terms and exemptions within the EPBC Act were defined with reference to the RFA Bill. However, the RFA Bill has not passed through the parliament. It has not passed because Minister Tuckey has twice refused to accept the Senate's most reasonable amendments—for instance, amendments including the insertion of an objects clause, amendments that ensure a requirement that RFAs signed after 1 March 1999 be subjected to limited public and parliamentary scrutiny—and I must say `limited'—amendments which provide for the clarification of the Commonwealth's compensation liability and that provide for the establishment of a Wood and Paper Industry Council. On the government's motion, these reasonable amendments have not been accepted and the RFA Bill has been set aside. The government now seeks to bypass the proper processes and through a backdoor mechanism—through this bill—it seeks to enact part of its original RFA legislation. This is not acceptable to us and on that basis we will be rejecting those amendments.

The government is also seeking to clarify the circumstances under which previously authorised or continuing activities are exempt from having to gain new approvals under this legislation. Labor supports the intention of these amendments, but we do not think they go far enough in order to ensure the adequate protection that is necessary. So we will move amendments to incorporate indigenous concerns and to broaden the definition of environmental authorisation. We support the government's increasing the range of impacts that can be considered by strategic environment impact assessments under part 10 of the primary legislation. However, we are concerned about the introduction of a defence against the offences of killing, injuring or trading in listed threatened, migratory and other species where that act is provided for, and taken in accordance with, an accredited fishery management plan or fisheries regime. Although we recognise industry activity in the protection of listed threatened, migratory and other species, the legislation as it is currently drafted does not have sufficient minimum requirements for what constitutes a fisheries regime. So our amendments will provide for that definition, that clarity and that certainty necessary under the Fisheries Management Act 1991. We support, for instance, a defence for areas covered by a management plan, but we will seek to restrict the defence for an area not covered by a management plan to a period of two years to enable draft management plans to be developed in this time. We will also seek to remove the defence for intentional or reckless action.

When a management plan is not in operation for a Commonwealth reserve, subsection 354(1) of the primary legislation will not prevent a person undertaking a commercial activity in a Commonwealth reserve if the director of national parks determines that the action is consistent with the proclamation of the reserve. Clauses in this bill widen the scope for commercial activities in a Commonwealth reserve. They have the potential to act as a significant disincentive for management planning, so we do not support those clauses as they stand. We will move amendments to ensure that only pre-existing commercial activities may be permitted and to provide that the Commonwealth reserves without management plans must have them within 12 months. Furthermore, we will require that a pre-existing management plan prevail while new plans are being prepared.

Labor recognises that the reporting requirement placed on the Commonwealth bodies was one of the few positive concessions that the Democrats managed to achieve in their negotiations on this legislation last year. We support the extension of the scope of reporting as proposed in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998. But, even with the amendments I have alluded to, we believe the legislation will not adequately protect the environment or provide an ability for the federal environment minister to provide leadership initiatives of national environmental significance where the minister has delegated that responsibility. We still believe that the legislation is fundamentally flawed, as we expressed in last year's debate. As we indicated then, we are committed to overhaul the legislation when elected to government and to seek to restore Commonwealth responsibility and national leadership. The legislation is now in force and there are elements of the act that cannot wait until we are re-elected to government. In this debate, therefore, we will move a small number of key amendments to provide environmental security in advance of a rewrite of this legislation.

These amendments are all based on the amendments we moved during the debate last year. We hope the Democrats will not reject them twice. We will seek to reintroduce a greenhouse trigger for projects that emit more than 500,000 tonnes per annum. We will reintroduce amendments that ensure that the legislation does not affect the rights or interests of indigenous persons under native title legislation. Our amendments will allow for the assessment of impact on world heritage properties, as well as values under the EPBC legislation. We will move amendments that remove the ability of the minister to delegate approval powers to the states for matters of national environmental significance. Further amendments include a national interest fall-back provision to allow for Commonwealth involvement in matters of national environmental significance. Finally, we will have amendments that will allow for expiry and review of delegated assessment by other Commonwealth agencies after five years—similar to the expiry of bilateral agreements.

In addition to these amendments, we believe that there are a number of other serious flaws with the legislation that Labor would seek to address in government. We will seek to broaden the scope of the legislation in accordance with the COAG agreement of 1992 and to limit exemptions in respect of matters of national environmental significance in order to maintain a meaningful role for the Commonwealth. We will reintroduce the reserve national power to protect the environment. We will strengthen public accountability and transparency of decision making, including by notification, participation and application of the laws of standing which have applied in New South Wales since 1982. Further, we will ensure precision and fairness criteria for the exercise of ministerial discretion and limitation on the scope of delegation by the minister. We will maintain adequate levels of enforcement provisions, including in some circumstances criminal penalties, as we signalled during the debate on the primary legislation. Land clearing is an issue which I mentioned earlier. Land clearing demands a national response. In the committee stage of the debate, we will move an amendment to provide for a national land clearing trigger in this legislation.

We believe that the EPBC legislation, as it now stands, is an ongoing monument to what was a quick, dirty and secret deal conceived between the government and the Australian Democrats. It was not good policy; it still is not good policy. It does not provide adequate environmental protection. It surely does not provide adequate national leadership. It was part of a secret deal which, as well as producing environmental legislation which is porous in its protection, also gave us the inequitable and economically inefficient GST. We believe this legislation needs amendment—more than what the government signalled tonight—and we will do that in two stages: one in this evening's debate and one on our return to government. But I must say for the government to pretend that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999 is minor and consequential in nature is once again one of those situations of Goebbels-speak. It is much more important than that: it tries to amend important legislation through backdoor mechanisms. We will attempt to amend it. Once again, I hope the Democrats do not oppose most of our amendments twice.