Environmental Protection (Great Barrier Reef Protection Measures) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

Argued the bill would increase costs of living for ratepayers through expensive sewage treatment plant upgrades, and criticised the lack of scientific modelling and cost-effective alternatives for local governments.

“This legislation is all about cheap political expediency rather than doing something that is based on science and is totally responsive to looking after a world-class asset, the Great Barrier Reef.”— 2019-09-19View Hansard

Supported the bill as necessary to protect the reef and the 60,000 jobs and $6 billion economy it supports, noting that voluntary practices have not achieved sufficient water quality improvements.

“This legislation is forward looking. It acknowledges the importance of the Great Barrier Reef, not just to Queensland but to the entire world.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

As Minister for Environment and the Great Barrier Reef, introduced and championed the bill as a critical response to declining water quality threatening the reef, announcing concessions including a five-year commitment not to change minimum standards and exempting Cape York.

“We are at a tipping point. This is our opportunity to make very sensible responsible changes to protect the future of the Great Barrier Reef and everything that connects to that magnificent area.”— 2019-09-17View Hansard

Opposed the bill as politically motivated with little scientific basis, arguing it grants excessive bureaucratic powers, ignores primary producers and will drive industry from regional Queensland. Supported the LNP amendments.

“A better summary of the bill is that it grants excessive powers to the bureaucracy, has little scientific basis, is rushed, contains exorbitant fines, ignores primary producers, devalues farming, it is at the dictate of a green agenda, and will do little to help the reef.”— 2019-09-19View Hansard

Strongly opposed the bill as destructive to agriculture and grazing, arguing it imposes draconian regulation without consultation and is based on untested science. Said the KAP would move to repeal the legislation within 100 days of forming government.

“This bill should be renamed 'The Destruction of our Agriculture and Grazing Industry in North Queensland (No Consultation) Amendment Bill 2019'.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

As shadow minister for the environment, opposed the bill for handing farming standards to an unelected bureaucrat through regulation rather than parliamentary debate, while acknowledging the need for better water quality practices.

“The main crux of this debate—and I urge every person who makes a contribution to at the very least address this point—is that today we are asking this parliament to blindly hand over powers to set the farming practices of industries throughout this state to an unelected bureaucrat.”— 2019-09-17View Hansard

Strongly opposed the bill as an assault on canefarming communities in Central and North Queensland, arguing reports of the reef's demise are greatly exaggerated. Foreshadowed support for LNP amendments.

“The Great Barrier Reef is still great. Reports of its demise are greatly exaggerated.”— 2019-09-19View Hansard

Opposed the bill on behalf of the LNP, outlined three LNP amendments, and criticised the committee process for ignoring stakeholder concerns. Argued the bill is anti-region, anti-farmer and anti-jobs.

“The LNP oppose the bill.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

Supported the bill as a committee member, arguing voluntary approaches had not worked with only 1% of graziers and 11% of canefarmers accredited under BMP standards, and defending the extensive consultation process.

“It is quite clear that, without further regulation, the reef water-quality targets are unlikely to be met.”— 2019-09-17View Hansard

Opposed the bill as another attack on hardworking regional Queenslanders, arguing the government has not attempted to balance reef protection with fair treatment of farming communities. Called for support of the LNP shadow minister's amendments.

“This bill is horrid. It plans to destroy invaluable regional industries in either an attempt to provide a distraction from the integrity crisis gripping the Premier and Deputy Premier or a further demonstration of posturing to their Labor-Green alliance.”— 2019-09-19View Hansard

Opposed the bill as an overreach and payback to green environmentalists, arguing it ignores the agriculture industry's voluntary best management practices and the technological advances already achieved in farming.

“This bill is simply an overreach and a payback to the green environmentalists who helped many Labor members in South-East Queensland get votes.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

Rejected the bill as another hammer blow to farmers from the worst government in history for agriculture, raising concerns about unknown costs to farmers and the rushed committee process.

“The LNP and I reject these outrageous laws, which are yet again another hammer blow to farmers in this state.”— 2019-09-17View Hansard

Strongly supported the bill, arguing the science on reef water quality decline is clear and universally agreed upon. Defended the government's record of supporting agriculture while insisting stronger regulation is needed to protect the reef and the 60,000 jobs that depend on it.

“We on this side of the House proudly stand up for achieving the balance between economic development, economic prosperity and jobs in our state and ensuring that we have a healthy environment to pass on to future generations.”— 2019-09-19View Hansard

Supported the bill as vital for protecting the reef's $6 billion economy and 60,000 jobs, noting voluntary practices have not been adopted quickly enough. Secured a commitment from the minister for no further changes to minimum standards for five years.

“These minimum standards were set by industry.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

As a committee member, opposed the one-size-fits-all approach, highlighting inadequate funding for farmers and the inconsistency of allowing dredge spoil dumping on the reef while regulating farmers.

“We all want to protect the Great Barrier Reef. All members on both sides of the chamber want to protect the Great Barrier Reef... but the issue I have with this is that the government's whole approach is to blame one sector.”— 2019-09-17View Hansard

Opposed the bill, arguing it unfairly targets farmers to gain political popularity in South-East Queensland seats and exposes the government as a 'Labor-Green left-wing alliance'.

“Quite clearly, this legislation is designed to pick on the whipping boys, the poor old farmers, graziers and those in the agricultural industries.”— 2019-09-19View Hansard

Opposed the bill, arguing the Burnett-Mary region should be excluded as scientific evidence shows its run-off cannot reach the reef due to ocean currents. Said the committee process was a sham and the bill is politically motivated.

“We do not need to introduce draconian legislation. Good government is about allowing those catchments throughout Queensland to work together.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

Supported the bill's intent and the threatened species amendments but raised concerns about inadequate targeted funding for farmers, the siloing of contributors, and the need for an independent audit of the science.

“I support the amendments to this bill and their admirable intent; however, as outlined in my statement of reservation, there must be targeted funding for farmers, streamlining of water quality offset legislation and extra extension officers on site to assist our farmers.”— 2019-09-17View Hansard

Opposed the bill for not allowing parliament to scrutinise the future regulations, which will not be disallowable instruments. Argued the government is gagging parliament and demonising the farming communities needed to implement the legislation.

“When you gag the parliament, not just in this debate but with respect to the future regulations which will be the real power under this legislation—when you do not allow the parliament to ever see the regulations to scrutinise them and to have the opportunity to have transparency and accountability in this parliament—then you gag the voice of the people.”— 2019-09-19View Hansard

Strongly opposed the bill, arguing the reef is healthy and the science is flawed, that the bill will destroy farming communities, and that it gives too much power to the chief executive to change regulations without consultation.

“I completely stand against this bill today because I think it is wrong what Labor is doing to Queensland farmers.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

Supported the bill as a committee member, accepting the scientific evidence on water quality threats and arguing that supporting the reef and supporting farmers are not mutually exclusive.

“In this debate those opposite have tried to set up a false choice between supporting the health of the reef and supporting our farmers and those in the agricultural industries that make a tremendous contribution to Queensland.”— 2019-09-17View Hansard

As minister, defended the bill in reply, citing the government's record $330 million investment in reef protection. Rejected opposition claims that regulations would not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, noting ERA standards must be prescribed by regulation and can be disallowed.

“The science that backs the reasons why we need to think about this makes it very clear that the Great Barrier Reef has two major threats: climate change and water quality.”— 2019-09-19View Hansard

Supported the bill as necessary to address soil erosion and nutrient run-off into the reef, drawing on his agricultural education to explain how farming practices cause sediment pollution in reef catchments.

“This bill makes good sense. It addresses two serious issues for our farmers: loss of soil and loss of nutrients from our valuable farmlands.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

As former LNP environment minister, strongly defended the LNP's reef record and opposed the bill for relying on regulation rather than the partnership-based BMP approach he had championed.

“Sadly, whether it be because of a Greens preference deal or simply a propensity to revert to legislation and regulatory approaches, this government seems incapable of working with our primary producers.”— 2019-09-17View Hansard

Opposed the bill, arguing it blames agriculture for environmental problems to shore up inner-city green votes, and praised industry-led voluntary best management practice programs like the cotton industry's myBMP as the better model.

“This is just another example of the Palaszczuk government trying to blame our state's agricultural industries for everything.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

Opposed the bill on behalf of Bundaberg farmers, arguing the Burnett-Mary catchment had been unfairly included without proper consultation and that the science should be independently verified.

“Labor's reef reforms are excessive, they are unnecessary and they fail to guarantee that the Great Barrier Reef will reap any benefits.”— 2019-09-17View Hansard

Opposed the bill as heavy-handed with only a pretence of consultation, criticising the powers given to unelected bureaucrats and the compulsory data collection regime, and arguing the bill attacks farmers who provide jobs and wealth.

“This bill is heavy-handed. It attacks those who might once, in years gone by, have voted for the Labor Party, but what has happened to that Labor Party? It does not exist anymore. It has turned its back on farmers.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

Supported the bill, highlighting First Nations peoples' connection to the reef and welcoming the minister's announcement to exempt Cape York from minimum standards based on positive water quality results.

“I am delighted that the minister has announced that the government will not switch on the minimum standard in Cape York because of these results.”— 2019-09-17View Hansard

As former environment minister, supported the bill as necessary to create minimum pollution standards, arguing most farmers are doing the right thing but are undermined by the few who refuse to change.

“These laws are about creating minimum standards, about rewarding and recognising those who are doing the right thing for the reef and about lifting standards across industry.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

Opposed the bill for handing regulatory power to an unaccountable bureaucrat rather than using science-based cooperative approaches with industry.

“We are being asked to vote on a massive piece of legislation which hands over blanket powers through regulation.”— 2019-09-17View Hansard

Opposed the bill specifically on the grounds that agricultural ERA standards are set by the chief executive without parliamentary oversight, supporting the LNP shadow minister's amendments to require standards be set by regulation.

“This gives very powerful authority to whoever has the authority to set the terms of the standard. The problem is that there is no vet on that standard; it is simply imposed upon those impacted by their activity.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

As Deputy Leader of the Opposition, opposed the bill as anti-regions overreach that shows the government does not trust farmers, after visiting cane farms in the Burdekin.

“This is overreach at its greatest. It is bureaucratic. It is burdensome. It is unnecessary. It shows that they have no appreciation of farm practices and what small businesses have to go through to survive.”— 2019-09-17View Hansard

Strongly opposed the bill, arguing the science is flawed and manipulated, the peer review process is corrupt, and the reef is in good health. Called for the bill process to be halted pending a federal Senate inquiry.

“This bill is nothing more than an unprecedented attack on agriculture and rural and regional communities.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

Supported the bill to protect the reef-dependent tourism industry and its 64,000 jobs, acknowledging farmer concerns but arguing the macro-level change was not happening fast enough.

“We are at a tipping point. To ensure the future of the reef we must act now. To protect the jobs and the small businesses that rely on the tourism industry we must act now.”— 2019-09-17View Hansard

Supported the bill, citing the scientific consensus statement by former Chief Scientist Professor Ian Chubb and criticising the LNP for its inconsistent positions and refusal to accept the science.

“If 99 engineers tell you that a bridge is about to collapse and one says, 'No, go ahead. It is fine,' do you drive your car on to that bridge believing that one person?”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

Strongly opposed the bill for imposing manifestly huge penalties on farmers and handing considerable powers to government bodies, while both major parties share responsibility through the joint Reef 2050 Plan.

“I am strongly opposed to the bill in its present form.”— 2019-09-17View Hansard

Opposed the bill as clumsy and irresponsible one-size-fits-all legislation that cost-shifts compliance onto farmers who cannot afford it, and called for an independent audit of reef science. Said the KAP will demand repeal in 100 days.

“Queensland is far too big for one set of laws. The government cannot apply this blunt instrument of legislation. It is clumsy and irresponsible.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

Briefly supported the bill as a commitment to the next generation and action on the climate crisis before adjourning the debate.

“No-one should be under any illusion as to the critical importance of acting on environmental pressures and climate change.”— 2019-09-17View Hansard

Opposed the bill, accusing Labor of being 'farmer phobic' and prioritising inner-city Greens preferences over regional communities, and criticised the government for not debating the bill during the Townsville sittings.

“There is no reason this Labor government, so keen to shore up its inner-city Greens preferences, cannot protect the reef and support regional agriculture and jobs.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

Supported the bill as essential for protecting the reef, emphasising the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and water quality threats, and linking the bill to the broader Palaszczuk government clean energy agenda.

“We have to be very clear on what our role is on this fundamentally important issue. We have to end this partisan divide. Future generations depend on it.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

Opposed the bill, arguing it places disproportionate regulatory burden on farming families while ignoring urban and state land impacts, and criticised the delegation of powers to unelected bureaucrats to set farming practice standards.

“This bill is just the latest Labor government attempt to appease its Greens masters, whom we all know it relies on as it clings desperately to power.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

Supported the bill as a necessary step to improve reef water quality and resilience, but criticised both major parties for inaction on climate change and continued support for new coal mining, which he argued is the primary threat to the reef.

“Without action on climate change, remaining coral will die and ocean acidification will continue to intensify. The reef will be lost anyway.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

As a 28-year tourism industry veteran, strongly supported the bill, emphasising the reef's $56 billion value, its role as a tourism drawcard generating 60,000 jobs, and that the undisputed science demands action on water quality.

“As a person who has spent the last 28 years making a living off the Great Barrier Reef, I am proud to commend this bill to the House.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

Strongly opposed the bill as an attack on regional Queensland, citing progress in voluntary BMP uptake in the Burdekin and arguing farmers are exceeding their own targets. Accused the government of treating primary producers with contempt.

“I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our farmers to oppose this bill and I will continue to support them in their efforts for a fair go.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

As a former scientist, supported the bill and defended the scientific process against opposition attacks, arguing that Labor is the party that implements environmental protections while the LNP and Greens obstruct.

“If the standards are not out there then why has every single speaker given examples of farmers doing what is required, implementing new technology and tracking data?”— 2019-09-18View Hansard

Opposed the bill, highlighting impacts on constituents in the Fitzroy catchment who will face dual regulation under reef and Murray-Darling Basin rules, and citing local government and constituent concerns about the rushed process and punitive approach.

“There is no carrot in this legislation. It is all about stick and, in fact, it is a whopping great log used to belt up landholders and agriculture.”— 2019-09-18View Hansard