federal Environment Minister should
have the final say on destructive
projects when our national heritage
is at stake. Last year, I introduced
a bill to the Senate to remove the
`approval bilateral agreements' sections
of the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act. These
sections are dangerous they allow
the federal government of the day
to hand over national environment
protection to the states, so it can no
longer step in to protect World Heritage
Areas, like our Great Barrier Reef, or
nationally threatened species from
damaging development.
scientists, sustainable businesses and
environment experts all expressed
grave concerns about the severe
consequences of handing federal
environmental approval powers to
state governments. The committee
itself echoed these concerns in its final
report, stating it was "not appropriate
for the states and territories to
exercise decision making powers for
approvals in relation to matters on
national environmental significance".
But sadly, politics and the influence
of big business and mining magnates
got in the way of the Labor-dominated
committee recommending that my bill
should be supported.
for national environment law to be kept
in federal hands.
Conservation Act.
it was introduced in 1999, its track
record has revealed its shortcomings
and highlighted the need for laws that
actually work.
seen the federal Environment Minister
approve risky coal seam gas projects
massive dredging operations within
the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage
Area, huge coal mines, the Gunns pulp
mill, and ongoing logging in old growth
forests. We've seen continued decline
of our threatened species and wild
places, growing threats from invasive
species and ongoing habitat clearing. It
is time for new law that works.
proposals should be considered
are like silos, protecting only eight listed
things - such as threatened species and
World Heritage Areas - and ignoring all
the other environmental impacts of a
proposal. Our current laws don't allow
the Minister to consider the impacts
of proposal on the climate or on the
environment generally, and entire
activities like forestry are exempt from
the laws. The federal Environment
Minister should be able to consider all
the environmental impacts of a proposal.
Our Constitution is broad enough to
permit that, and the environmental crisis
demands a comprehensive national
response. So as not to require every
single development to get federal
approval, only "significant impacts" on
the environment should require the
Minister's consideration. And rather than
considering each project in isolation, the
Minister should be obliged to consider
cumulative impacts the combined
effect of all existing and proposed
development on an area, to avoid the
straw breaking the camel's back.
making with communities having a
genuine say
require genuine community involvement
and best practice decision-making. The
community should have reasonable
time to comment, and their involvement
must be far more transparent and open
to review. All too many communities
around Australia are mourning the
loss of their precious places, or fearing
looming threats. From the fishing spot
you went to with your grandparents
becoming a coal port, to the rapidly
disappearing wildlife near our cities to
massive mines where once beautiful
landscapes existed, we must allow
communities to have a say in what is
important to them.
years to prepare voluminous
environmental impact statements,
local communities have unreasonably
short windows to comment. And all
too often their extraordinary efforts to
comment on highly technical material
comes to nothing with projects steaming
ahead all the same. The refusal of
environmentally destructive projects in
Australia is a rarity. Despite massive
community opposition the previous
environment Minister approved the
Gunns Pulp Mill in the Tamar Valley.
The current Environment Minister has
not yet knocked back one application
for a coal seam gas project despite
community opposition and the unknown
consequences for our land and water
from such projects.
unbiased information
on by Government when deciding
whether to approve major projects
comes from the project proponent
those with the most to gain from
securing a green light for their project.
Government regulators rarely "ground
truth" the accuracy of the environmental
impact assessments (EIA) prepared by
private consultants for their clients. Our
current system fails to ensure that our
decision-makers really know the trade-
offs they are making when they agree
to the destruction of our natural heritage
in return for the vast economic benefit
claimed by proponents. This system
fails to ensure our decision makers
have an accurate picture not only of
the environmental costs of projects, but
also the true social and economic costs
of the projects they are approving. The
claimed "check" in the current system
is community consultation, but it is
wholly inappropriate to expect unpaid
community effort to match the might of
profit-driven project proponents. The