Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In relation to the point that is made about having no public consultation, I have seen the consultation process occur on a project on Magnetic Island in Herbert, and the process was unreasonably disgraceful. Two or three people are able to hold up sensible development that has absolutely no impact on the environment or heritage whatsoever—zero—for two years. That is obviously unreasonable, and obviously you have to do something about it. These processes today will do something about it.

In relation to the amendment that the Labor Party put up, the first part says:

(1)

the bill is being rushed through the Parliament without proper consideration or consultation …

Goodness me. If the Labor Party would only act more sensibly in the operations of the parliament, it would stop having these silly quorums when we are trying to have a debate about these things, it would stop wasting the time of the House throughout the sittings of the parliament and perhaps things could be a little bit better. Then I see:

(4)

the bill will increase the Howard Government’s politicisation of environment and heritage protection …

What absolute rubbish. The Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 is not about that at all. The Howard government implemented the most significant environmental protection that this country has ever seen. It funded the largest environmental protection program this country has ever seen. The Natural Heritage Trust has been outstandingly successful. The Labor Party’s answer to all that when the EPBC Act was first proposed was to vote against it.

The Labor Party will claim cutting red tape is just weasel words for reducing environmental protection. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Howard government is not interested in process for process’ sake. Many of the changes in the act before the parliament are relatively minor and of a machinery nature. These all add up to making the act easier to use without changing—and that is a guarantee—the very high level of basic environmental protection. Projects that are likely to have significant impact—for example, the Chalco alumina refinery—will still need rigorous approval under the EPBC Act. But this now provides for quick decisions for straightforward proposals. What is wrong with that? There are projects that trigger the EPBC Act, but these are straightforward and blind Freddy can see that there will not be any impact on the environment or the heritage. So we are reducing the number of mandatory steps and enabling decision points to be handled concurrently along the way. Of course, it provides more tailored assessment guidelines to fit the particular proposal.

I heard the member for Grayndler give an example of the government’s high-handedness in relation to the environment and heritage when he talked about the nuclear waste repository proposed for this country. Governments have to show leadership from time to time. We had all of the state governments saying, ‘Not in my backyard.’ But Australia needs a nuclear waste repository in a proper location, and that is why proper locations were determined. The member for Grayndler seemed to think that a piece of land somewhere in the desert in the Northern Territory used for a nuclear waste repository would somehow or other affect the environment and the heritage of the place. Any reasonable Australian would know that that comment is unreasonable. We cannot have nuclear waste stored in containers in car parks in hospitals. We just cannot. With the Labor state governments, to a person, saying, ‘No, it’s not going to be in our state,’ the federal government showed the necessary leadership and moved on.

The member for Grayndler also spoke about the Kyoto protocol. We hear the Labor Party all the time talking about the Kyoto protocol, but I remind the House that those who are part of the sensible debate on the environment know and understand that Kyoto is a slogan—it is not a solution. Signing the Kyoto protocol is an excuse for not having a proper debate at all. Sensible people in this debate know and understand that. And they know that the direction Australia is heading is a much better way than signing a protocol that is already dead in the water—a protocol that does not include the biggest polluters in the world, a protocol that would damage Australia. Of course Australia is very proud to be one of the few nations in the world that are actually meeting Kyoto targets.

These changes before the House will provide for quick decisions on straightforward proposals. They are going to reduce the number of mandatory steps in the process. They will provide greater flexibility for the process and they will enable the minister to decide that advice to other ministers under section 160 is not required. This is a good result and it is what the country needs. It is appropriate and sensible, after six years of operation of the EPBC Act, to make amendments to further streamline and improve the efficiency of the operation of the act while continuing to protect our very precious environment and heritage. I support the bill.

See this speech in context