Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to hear that it appears that might be stopped at international level, but that decision was consistent with the decision of this government to try to wind back the marine conservation areas introduced—again, for good reason—by the Labor government. This government is trying to wind all of that back as well.

This legislation is dressed up as an environmental cost recovery bill. No-one on this side of the House has any particular problem with that aspect of it. It sounds pretty straightforward. But the truth of the matter is that the transfer of authority and the delegation of authority to the states, perhaps to local government, in order to carry out the work they will then be entitled to be compensated for by charging a cost recovery fee. What are we doing when we transfer the authority to the states or, even, to local government?

Last year in this place I moved a private member's motion which raised my concerns about how conservative state governments along the entire east coast are turning their back on environmental initiatives that had been in place for years and years. We have seen from Queensland to New South Wales to Victoria the grazing of cattle in our national parks and in the alpine regions. We have seen our national park networks cut back. We have seen land clearing in all of those states in areas that were previously protected. We have seen mining and logging being allowed in areas where it had previously been stopped. And earlier this year we saw the example of the shark culling program in Western Australia.

These are just some of the examples we can allude to which highlight the irresponsibility of the state governments, predominantly conservative state governments, in recent times when it comes to protecting the environment. That is exactly why the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was brought in by the federal government and why the federal government, going back to 1973, took responsibility with respect to the environment—because the states were negligent in some cases in upholding the environmental protection standards that Australians across the country expected. What we are now seeing is a government that wants us to return to those days when the responsibility lies entirely with the states. In fact, it might even go to local councils. I have no criticism of either the states or local councils if they are going to do the job right but the truth is their track record is not terribly good. The truth is we have seen only this year the budgets of state governments, with respect to their environmental commitments, being cut back drastically. So even if they wanted to do the right thing, the reality is they are cutting back the very resources they will need to be agents of the federal government in carrying out the assessment processes we are asking them to do. Likewise, I expect that local governments across the country, as a result of having their financial assistance grants frozen by this government—grants that they rely on—will do exactly the same and tighten their belts. In turn, that means things like environmental programs are likely to be the first to go.

That is what concerns me about this legislation: we are asking levels of government that have previously had, at best, a questionable track record and now, possibly, do not have the resources to do the very job we are asking of them. That in turn will lead to poor environmental outcomes, because when the assessments are made they will either be rushed or they will not be properly scrutinised. When they are not properly scrutinised, they are likely to have flaws in them that the community would not be happy with if it knew about them.

One of the issues that is often raised by members opposite is the issue of duplication of process, additional cost and the like. That question needs to be counterbalanced against the environmental benefits that result because of the processes we have had in place in this country now for some time. I understand that in Europe, as a result of the environmental protection measures brought in, the value to the European Union countries has been in the order of €50 billion in recent years. Yes, they come at a cost; but there is also a community benefit to them.

The same applies here in Australia. It does come at a cost to carry out thorough environmental assessments but those assessments are inevitably there for good reason. That good reason is to preserve and protect the environment—which also has a value, something members opposite fail to understand and accept. The environment also has a real value to this country and it will continue to have value.

What is even more concerning is that—at a time when we are seeing report after report showing global warming is real and our climate is changing, which in turn directly puts additional pressures on the environment—we are winding back environmental measures we are in complete control of. Climate change measures are not so easy to manage but the ones we are being asked to change with this legislation are, because they are entirely within the control of this government.

The last point I will make is this: the environment committee of the House is right now looking at issues associated with what is referred to as green tape and the like. I would have thought that, before we transfer powers to the states and local governments, it might be appropriate to report back as a committee—to do the very work that is associated with some of the objectives of the government's legislation that is before us.

Finally, because others have made comments about a one stop shop: this does not create a one stop shop. It creates offices right across the country—in other words, there are now eight offices you will have to deal with, rather than one, and perhaps even more if you bring local government into it in order to get a process cleared. It is not efficient and, quite frankly, this House should indeed be concerned with aspects of this legislation.

See this speech in context