Grievance Debate

Environmental Decisions

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:50): I rise to talk about what has become a disturbing trend with this government and with this Minister for Environment and Water: the trend of neglecting the environment, which is actually the task at hand, and undermining the environmental movement and environmentalists. I will give three examples to illustrate my case. The first one is marine parks.

This government came in with a commitment to hold a review into sanctuary zones, one that I expected and anticipated would tell them that they could rip up some sanctuary zones, but it did not: it did the reverse and endorsed the existing zones. But the government did not release that report and instead went through a process of allowing the commercial fishers and environmentalists to sit down and go through some negotiations without the benefit of a review, without the benefit of a scientific report that would have substantiated that the case the environmentalists were making was sound.

They allowed them to negotiate over a period of more than a year and then promptly decided to cut the sanctuaries to suit what the commercial fishing lobby had asked for and overwrite the wishes of the environmental movement. They then put that into the Gazette. This minister decided that that would become law and did so before the end of last year.

Now there are continued negotiations going on, not thanks to this minister but thanks to Ms Connie Bonaros in the other place, thanks to her giving the cloak of support to say, 'We will allow you to have time to have these negotiations and see if we can come up with a genuine answer that will make sure that the environment is protected.' It is not thanks to this government or to this minister, who has done everything he can to undermine the position of the environmentalists.

The second example is, of course, the mangroves. This morning I was listening to much of—admittedly not all of, because we have very important meetings on this side of the chamber constantly—the interview the minister did with David Bevan about the mangroves and other environmental matters, and there was a lot of hand wringing and a lot of expression of deep concern.

I phoned in and asked, 'How are we going to know that this won't happen again? How are we to know that, if it can happen once under this government, it will not happen again under this government?' particularly as they seem very reluctant to identify what it was exactly that went wrong lest presumably it implied that they made a bad decision.

He said, 'I will be watching carefully. I am deeply concerned, and I will be watching carefully.' Well, why was he not watching last year? How did it happen that we had 10 hectares of mangroves and 35 hectares of salt marsh die over a period of months and nobody on that side noticed, nobody responded to the alarm being raised? That is a disgrace.

The minister was invited to the launch of the alliance of 15 to 20 organisations, including recreational fishers, Kaurna elders and a lot of environmental organisations. He was invited to the launch, just as I was and just as members of the upper house and the crossbenchers were. Did he go along to that? No, because rather than admit that something has gone terribly wrong and wanting to be part of the solution in lockstep with environmentalists, he will not show up. He will not show his face. He was not on the steps of parliament today and he was not at the launch of the alliance.

The third example I want to draw your attention to is Flinders Chase National Park. We heard some very wily words being used earlier about consultation. What happened? This minister approved development that had previously been discussed by the previous government as being close to the track. This minister signed off, 'Yes, you can put them on the cliffs.' If you have the money to stay there, it is a beautiful view—people are able to see them when they are walking—and on very sensitive vegetation that would have required clearance.

That was approved. Tick. The environmentalists take him to court and a horrific fire burnt almost 100 per cent of the park. That is the only reason we are now in another process of consultation—not because the government said, 'No, we couldn't possibly do this. We must listen to the environmentalists and we must consult,' but because there was a fire and because the environmentalists are taking them to court.

He says there is a negotiation going on: 'It's lovely. It's going really well.' Why has he undermined it by making law that this company does not need to obey native vegetation clearance legislation? Why would you undermine the environmentalists in their negotiation by saying, 'You can talk about it, but I'm not going to give you any power. These guys are going to have an exemption.' That is not the act of someone who understands that their job as environment minister is to protect the environment. That is the act of someone who is far more interested in ensuring development first and environment last, and we have to get beyond that if this planet is going to survive.