Hansard debates

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (16:58): I rise to speak on this disallowance motion, which to anyone uninvolved might seem the most obscure of issues, yet it is precisely the lack of public exposure of statutory rules and the limited parliamentary time dedicated to scrutinising them which this government has attempted to exploit. Make no mistake about it: statutory rule (SR) 62/2020 is the latest effort by this government to rescue its failing West Gate Tunnel Project and to ride roughshod over the views of communities, established government practice and existing legal protections. At best the process taken has been inexcusably arrogant. At worst it is deliberately cynical, borderline despotic. These actions would disgrace a Third World dictatorship; it is beyond shameful that we see them here from a Victorian government. We have a chance in this house to put a brake on this process—to force ministers to reconsider, to engage with the communities they have ignored to date and to restore the established environmental and planning protections this SR deconstructs.

This house has once already acted to uphold proper process in demanding the government release documents relating to the West Gate Tunnel Project. The contempt with which that resolution was treated should be a lesson to us, and in this vote today we should recognise that there is no room for ministers to obfuscate or delay. Voting down this SR will have immediate and unavoidable legal effect. Not every government decision can be popular, and large infrastructure projects in particular will create losers as well as winners. But there are processes to be followed to ensure correct decisions are made, communities consulted and mitigation provided. This has categorically not happened in the case of Bacchus Marsh. A decision has clearly been made for reasons of expedience or cost and then every process worked backwards to justify that choice and enable its execution with maximum speed and minimum effort to project proponents. It is one of the worst cases of sustained mistreatment of a community by government I have ever seen—a desperate effort to make a round peg fit a square hole regardless of the environmental, economic and social consequences of the deeply flawed initial decision.

Worse still is the potential pollution, threatening not just schools and houses but prime agricultural land. Had ministers or department secretaries deigned to visit Bacchus Marsh, they could not fail to have noticed the lie of the land—built on hilly, undulating fields. Maddingley Brown Coal borders watercourses which serve some of our state’s finest fruit and vegetable producers. No pollution of their production should ever be countenanced, but the fact it may include toxic PFAS soil, the health effects of which are still imperfectly understood, makes this even more unconscionable.

The scale, the geography, of the physical situation of this project at the heart of Bacchus Marsh are all very wrong indeed. And I am sorry to say that the local reputation of the company operating the facility is extremely poor. Indeed they are currently subject to enforcement action at VCAT, and throughout this process they have done little to reassure local residents that their financial incentive to promote the scheme is mitigated by any real concern for the health and happiness of their neighbours.

Even as an opposition politician, it has been extraordinarily uncomfortable to explain to people just how badly they have been let down by the system which we all represent. This government has cynically failed to consult meaningfully. Where they have consulted, they have ridden roughshod over every objection. My plea, however, is that the people of Bacchus Marsh should not be made to pay for the ineptitude of this government. They cannot be collateral damage chosen as the easiest solution to the problem of toxic soil, which should rightly have been considered at the very beginning of these works.

I have learned that it is wise to look beyond self-appointed pressure groups, however, to get a fuller understanding of a situation in question. In this case, the attitude of Moorabool Shire Council has been revealing. It is incredibly rare, in my experience, to find not just the elected politicians but the professional staff to be unanimous in their view, and it is no wonder. Documents have been denied to them and unreasonable deadlines demanded. There has been a total lack of consultation, let alone the collaboration one level of government should reasonably expect from another. It is appalling that Moorabool Shire Council has been reduced to issuing FOIs to obtain information. They have been shabbily treated, and at every turn, by a government acting with the most shocking disrespect—frankly, contempt—for the elected local government and the dedicated public officials of a Victorian council.

There was no warning this SR was coming—no public announcement made by the EPA or ministers. There was no consultation with stakeholders prior to its making, nor any explanation volunteered afterwards of what the changes meant. They have had to figure out for themselves why this change was made and how the new regime will operate.

The Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 builds in the safeguard of public consultation on ministerial decisions to introduce statutory rules and other legislative instruments which do not require explicit parliamentary approval. In this case, however, Minister D’Ambrosio used a clause of the SLA to exempt this SR from the scrutiny, certifying that there has not been consultation with sectors of the public because no sectors of the public were identified on which a significant economic or social burden may be imposed by the proposed regulations.

The EPA purpose statement says:

Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA) is Victoria’s environmental regulator.

We’re an independent statutory authority …

Yet on 2 September on Neil Mitchell’s 3AW show the EPA’s Tim Eaton said they did not write these regulations. He demonstrated he fundamentally misunderstood the basis on which they were supposed to be made. In reality he demonstrated that the minister’s office wrote this SR, despite the fact it is lawful only if it is the recommendation of the authority.

There should be no doubt that this is a clear abuse of process, nor can the minister argue this is simply a technical change. These regulations are a significant watering down of longstanding environmental protections surrounding the storage of potentially contaminated soil, and this disallowance motion should be supported by all members of this chamber and especially members of the crossbench. I urge them to support this disallowance motion.