Ten years ago, I sat and watched as parliament voted for one of the great steps forward for the Great Barrier Reef.

After years of pushing, the then-Coalition government expanded the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, increasing the amount of protected reef from 5% to a full third, kept safe from resource extraction and fishing.

At the time, this increased protection was roundly celebrated. A precious icon – of which every Australian rightly feels some ownership – was safer. Protected to live on in perpetuity, for us and our children to appreciate forever.



What we didn’t see was a collection of vested interests bemoaning all the “tape” getting in the way. And that’s the point here. While the government today is rabbiting on about “cutting tape”, it is doing no such thing.



Laws that exist to protect the Great Barrier Reef are not mere “tape”. Regulation stopping coal mines dumping runoff into local rivers is not “tape”. Provisions ensuring that mining companies can’t simply turn up on people’s farmland and start fracking are not “tape”.



These are vital protections. They are protections that keep Australians safe and healthy. They keep our air fresh and our water clean.



Protections that stop pollution and the destruction of clean air and water are good for us. Putting laws in the way of vested interests trashing clean water and air is good for us and our country. They help secure the natural comparative economic advantages our country enjoys. These are precisely the protections the government could put a wrecking ball through in its stated aim to “cut tape” and make things easier for business.



Smart changes to environmental regulations are not always a bad thing. Badly written, bloated regulations can be vulnerable to the kinds of changes that leave nature and those who care about it worse off.



One example of such bloated laws being changed to hurt nature was in Victoria. The state government made amendments to the “native vegetation management framework”, changing the name to the “permitted clearing of native vegetation”, which was instructive itself. Previously, the public could challenge efforts to remove native trees. The change meant there would be no need for approval for clearing in the first place. Local Victorians could wake up one day and find the eucalypts outside their window simply gone. All with some subtle changes to legal language.



But this “repeal day”, or perhaps more appropriately “wrecking week”, we’re not seeing smart changes to regulations. What we are seeing is thousands of changes to thousands of laws, a buckshot approach to deregulation triggered by ideological passion. And this is no simple, readable list of things like “remove the provision preventing the dumping of sulphur into the Swan River.”

No, we are presented with the likes of this:

5 At the end of paragraph 3(a)

Add “and”.

6 Paragraph 3(b)

Omit “installations; and”, substitute “installations.”.

7 Paragraph 3(c)

Repeal the paragraph.

8 Subsection 4(1) (definition of approved form )

Repeal the definition.

9 Subsection 4(1) (definition of contravention )

Repeal the definition.

Thousands of lines of this. Who knows what protections are being whittled away? What risks to your health and your lifestyle are hidden in this dust-storm of legalese?

How will this week’s repeal-fest affect places Australians love, like the Great Barrier Reef?

It’s bad enough that the threat of climate change, the related coral bleaching (not to mention allowing the dumping of millions of tonnes of dredged sand being dumped in the Barrier Reef World Heritage Area) are placing the reef under such severe pressure today.

One can only imagine what kind of horrors global mining companies would be subjecting our greatest national icon to without the protections laws have created. These laws are the best chance the Reef has of being around for the next generation of tourists and Australians.

Similar laws may also be the only thing keeping the drinking water for the people of the Galilee Basin clean. The government would do well to bear that in mind.

Governments have an obligation to protect and defend the people from the pollution, and our natural wealth from the unfettered greed and self-interest of big businesses

That is exactly what these kind of protections do. But unlike previous coalition governments, this government appears intent on removing those protections so massive international companies can boost their bottom lines.