George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, we have gone a long way off the reservation, haven't we, with the Labor party coming in and making statements like that which we have just heard from the member for Griffith. It was not very long ago in this place when the member for Watson, as the then environment minister, was talking about exactly what we doing here today—that is, handing over the Commonwealth approval process and assessment process to state governments and allowing for the streamlining of green tape for major job-creating projects right around this nation. That was taken off the agenda as we neared the election—for the simple reason that Green preferences are needed by Labor around the nation, and they did not want to upset their mates.

I would like to point to another backflip. We have just heard—and I'm sure we're going to continue to hear this throughout the course of this debate from Labor members; certainly from the Greens members—condemnation of the Abbot Point expansion project. I have to say that there was no condemnation by Labor of this project before the election; in fact, the local Labor candidate who ran in my seat—where Abbot Point is located—actually publicly supported the project, and came out and said that the Labor government would approve this—that it would go through the appropriate mechanisms and would then be approved. Now, after the election, we find out the truth: that Labor would never have supported the Abbot Point expansion project—a project that is going to create thousands of new jobs and is going to be an economic boost for the town of Bowen and for the region of Mackay and the Whitsundays, which right now so desperately needs access to new jobs. Other than the repeal of the carbon tax, there is no more important legislation that could be before the parliament to get things kick-started again throughout the economy than this legislation before us here: the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. This bill sets up a one-stop shop for all environmental assessment.

There is a lot of argy-bargy and a lot of point-scoring on this—and some stupid statements; for example, that we are relinquishing our responsibilities, and that we are somehow abdicating ourselves from the process of managing icons like the Great Barrier Reef. But the real criticism there is that somehow, state government bureaucrats are not able to do assessments properly. That is the implied criticism: that somehow we do not trust state government department of environment bureaucrats—the public servants who sit there and go through these assessments. They have all the same credentials as the federal environment department public servants—but somehow we do not trust the state government public servants to go through and do these assessments properly. That is a slight on those public servants in Queensland, and in all of the other states, who actually do a good job, and who do those assessments properly. What the Labor Party is saying by not wanting us to go down this path is basically that they do not trust the judgement of those public servants in Queensland and elsewhere to do these assessments.

I am going to reflect on Abbot Point, which is a major project and which has come up against the green war machine for a lot of criticism and a lot of bagging. But there have also been a lot of lies about it. One thing I can say that is absolute fact is that this project went through the wringer—completely—for months and months; in fact, it blew out to years, in terms of the assessment processes that it had to go through. First it went through the state processes: all of the environmental impact statements they had to go through, and the back and forth with the department wanting them to make sure that all the questions were answered. Then there was the consultation process, where all of the green groups then jumped on and said what they thought was wrong and tried to nitpick it to death. It then went back for further adjustment and finally, when it was right, they got the approval. That took a hell of a long time—months and months and months. Then it had to go through the federal process all over again, and the same thing happened: back and forth between the department until the department was happy with what was before it, then out for public submission and then all the green groups jump on it again and again tried to nitpick it to death. There is a clear strategy about that, too. This is actual factual information—I am not gilding the lily by saying that there is actually an articulated campaign, a documented campaign, that radical environmental groups in Australia run against these sorts of job-creating projects like Abbott Point. It was set out in Stopping the Australian coal export boom by a group calling for the ending of the Australian coal boom. The document was successful over the internet and it talks about the strategies they employ in delaying projects so that it nobbles investor confidence in them, drags out the costs of these projects and eventually kills them off.

We should as a government streamline the process to make sure there is only one assessment that goes through. Surely a state government public servant who is charged with assessing applications against state government environmental plans that are fairly complex documents would be able to do the same assessment at the same time against the federal government posture of his plans. It is not a very difficult task when you put it like that. The person who is responsible at the state level for assessments there could easily do the federal government's assessments. It would be streamlining it and it would be putting, I suppose, a handbrake on those attempts by the green movement to constantly delay job-creating projects, particularly in Northern Australia. That is what we saw with Abbott Point and that is what we continue to see after the fact at Abbott Point because now, given that it has had the tick-off from both the state and federal governments, even though it was such a delay. We had delay after delay after delay from the succession of environment ministers under the previous Labor government. I think originally approval was supposed to come down in early 2013. Actually, I think it was December 2012. Then it was going to be sometime in early 2013. Then it got shifted to July 2013. They couldn't make a decision before the election, because again that would have affected the green groups out there, so it was shifted on until after the election. Finally we made the call when we came to government that this was going ahead—based on all of the sound advice that was provided to us, all of the expert advice, this project could go ahead.

But it could have happened a lot quicker if there was simply a one-stop shop where all of these environmental assessments were done. After the fact the environmental movement do not stop. They have continued to try and nobble this application by taking it to court. I believe there are three different court cases being waged by people. I am not a lawyer, and thank God for that to a degree, but I do not understand how these people like the Mackay Conservation Group—which has never done a conservation activity in its life, mind you; their sole boasting rights is about how they have stopped developments from going ahead—can take job-creating projects like Abbott Point to court to try to have stopped. But what is their legal status? I do not understand how they have any legal status, and they shouldn't have any legal status to be able to do that. Who do they speak on behalf of? Their membership base is very limited. There are a minority group in the community like Mackay, even, let alone Australia, and yet they claim to stand up in court for the environment, for the Great Barrier Reef and for the Australian people! Who gave them that right? Who elected them? Who gave them that authority? It bewilders me. I think governments are going to have to have in the long-term at this continual legal appeal approach to disrupting and delaying job-creating projects right across this nation. We are going to have to get serious on that front.

I go back to the bill. It is the way forward. If we want new jobs, if we want new opportunities, we are going to have to have a streamlined approach. That is not just George Christensen saying that as the member for Dawson or as a member of the Liberal-National coalition government; that was actually the assessment of the Productivity Commission. They did two major reports, one into the non-financial impediments to the resource sector; and the other one in how to fast-track the approvals processes for major projects within Australia. Both of those reports highlighted the need for a streamlined assessment process—a one-stop shop—which is what this bill is actually delivering. And you know what? Both of those Productivity Commission reports were asked to be delivered by the former Labor government. So I asked the question of the Productivity Commission: 'What can we do to get the mining sector firing again? What can we do to help fast-track major projects that are being undertaken in this country?' And the umpire, the Productivity Commission, came back and said that you must fast-track them, you must set up a single assessment point and you can do that by getting state governments to assess against the federal regulations and rules. And yet today we have Labor member after Labor member disagreeing with that umpire's call. It is not the coalition's call; it is something that has come from the Productivity Commission—the agency charged in Australia with ensuring that our policy framework as a government and as a nation is conducive to the best economic outcomes for the nation. Yet, they are going to argue against it. That says a lot about the Australian Labor Party today, which is wedded to the Greens—which is what we saw under the last government—and which is still clinging on to the carbon tax—at least here in the parliament they are. They do not want us to remove the carbon tax. They are effectively blocking the removal of the carbon tax in the Senate.

At the same time, they are going out there now—and I see the shadow environment minister has gone out there—saying that the Labor Party has turned a new leaf, and they are thinking of jettisoning their policy for an emissions trading scheme. That is a big shift. It is thankful. I congratulate the Labor Party on moving away from these punitive measures to try and change the temperature of the globe; but they could take some real action by voting with the government to get rid of the carbon tax and restoring confidence in the economy by streamlining these processes in supporting this bill.

I am sure that right now we would not be dealing with court cases against the major job creating project at Abbot Point that so many people in my community desperately want to see go ahead. The little town of Bowen is on its knees. It is nearly dead. There are so many businesses that have had to shut down. People have gone out the back door and are shifting, because there is no movement in the economy. They are all waiting for this Abbot Point expansion to go ahead. If this system had been in place a number of years ago, we would not be talking about it in court, the jobs would be created, the jobs would be there, that town would be pumping again and the economy would be restored. Abbot Point would be going ahead with all of the environmental safeguards in place, because it would have been through an assessment process that had looked at both the state guidelines and the federal guidelines and made sure that the project complied with both of them. That is what we are talking about. It is not something radical. It is not something that is going to harm the environment. It is something that is simply going to get rid of the useless green tape and time-consuming approach that we currently have with environmental assessment in Australia. I would say to the opposition: listen to the Productivity Commission. You asked them for an answer. They gave you one. Support this bill.

See this speech in context