Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. Essentially, this bill will ensure that one of the government's key environmental commitments at the last election to create a one-stop shop for environmental approvals will be implemented efficiently. In reality, this bill is required to be passed because of Labor's addiction to red tape and bureaucracy.

We on this side of the House are committed to freeing local small businesses and economy-boosting organisations from red tape and bureaucracy. That is why we are creating the one-stop shop for environmental approvals. All too often I hear stories from businesspeople who are frustrated by the hoops they have to jump through, the hundreds of forms they have to fill out, and the number of government bodies they have to speak to in order to get environmental approvals for development and business activities. Deputy Speaker, do not get me wrong, I want to place on the record that I think environmental approvals are essential and required to assist in the conservation of our great natural beauty. But when that effort to protect our environment is duplicated on a state and federal level, the compliance and administrative burden on our businesses and community are not only unnecessary, they also delay and add costs onto projects. The original EPBC Act was intended to streamline approval processes and the coalition government is now delivering this for our community. This legislation will ensure that the high environmental standards under our existing national environmental law will be maintained while delivering benefits for business and the community.

I want to quote the Minister for Environment from his second reading speech on this bill as I think it goes to the heart of what this issue is all about. He said:

When the policy is fully implemented, state and territory governments will, for the first time, be able to make a single approval decision that accounts for both state matters and matters of national environmental significance. This will dramatically simplify environmental approvals and remove unnecessary bureaucracy, while maintaining the high standards set out in the EPBC Act.

Our environmental credentials are strong, and in fact our environmental credentials will be strengthened by this legislation. The one-stop shop will promote greater sharing of environmental information between businesses, governments and community thus reducing the need to duplicate the provision and collation of information. Red tape is not this government's friend. We were not elected to tie up investment nor were we elected to reduce the effectiveness of our existing environmental standards. We were elected to make it easier to do business in our nation. As the Prime Minister has stated before, 'Australia is open for business.'

One way we can encourage investment and development in our nation—hamstrung by the Rudd-Gillard governments over the past six years—is to open up our doors and make it more efficient and effective for businesses to deal with government. The role of government should not be to stifle those who want to provide jobs and investment but to make it as efficient as possible to do just that—provide jobs and stimulate the economy. We need to unlock the potential of this nation. Lower costs, faster approvals and more certainty for investors are all ways that businesses will benefit from the one-stop shop for environmental approvals. Faster approvals will be a real, measurable benefit from this legislation. Typically, delays for approvals are between 30 to 40 days or even longer! This is simply unacceptable. Progress should not have to wait for next month.

Those on the other side have been talking about the so-called 'water trigger amendments' that this legislation proposes. I would advise those on the other side that they should take the time to read the bill and understand the EPBC Act. If they did this, they would know that with these amendments there will be no change to the environmental standards currently required under the act. All that will change is that, instead of businesses having to deal with state and federal governments, with separate approval processes for projects with the water trigger, they will now only have to deal with state and territory governments.

On that point, I want to respond to the member for Newcastle, who in her speech made comment about the capacity of states and territories and particularly the agencies that administer the relevant legislation within those jurisdictions, who in fact also have to take into account the Commonwealth legislation. All of the public servants that I have ever interacted with who have responsibility within this field of operation have been highly competent and highly considered in the decisions they make and in the processes they require those who are proponents to developments to go through. At no stage have I ever seen them relinquish their capacity nor diminish their responsibility in ensuring that the environment is a high priority in the consideration. And I think that we should never underestimate that at the state and territory levels we have people who are highly capable of making the same decisions that are required of any Commonwealth structure that addresses the requirements of the act.

In essence, the minister can accredit state and territory processes to approve projects that involve the water trigger, and I know my colleagues within my own jurisdiction would be very mindful of both the responsibility of the state minister for the environment and of course that of our federal minister. Currently, this is different from how all other matters of national environmental significance are treated; now, as a result of this legislation, it will be treated in the same way. This is a real example of how this government is committed to consistency, efficiency and effective environmental management.

Again, the difference between this government and the previous one is stark when it comes to consultation. Gone are the days when policies of national significance were designed on the back of napkins on the Prime Minister's plane. We have worked and continue to work collaboratively with states and territories to ensure that high environmental standards are maintained across the nation. This government believes that we should not overstep our bounds. Australia is a federation, and within this model, as framed in our Constitution, the state and territory governments will work with the Commonwealth to implement the one-stop-shop. Indeed, the responsibility of land and water management rests with the state and territory governments, and that is where it should stay. Those who have listened to me speak in the House before know of my commitment to preserving our natural environment as well as my strong dislike for red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy. I used to work in the bureaucracy; I know how it works. This legislation will rid the community of layers upon layers of red tape that clogs up the time of the public service. Why should we request information that has already been requested? Why should we duplicate the work that someone else is already doing on the state and territory level? It does not make any economic sense or time sense to replicate work that has already been done and should be available; and to enable those who have that process of ticking off and approving not to have to go back and seek a second process that requires additional work and additional resources.

However, that is exactly what the previous Labor governments have done time and time again. I say that this is symptomatic of Labor. However, I note that in April 2012 Prime Minister Gillard committed to fast-tracking the development of approval of bilateral agreements with the states and territories, with final agreements to be in place by March 2013. This arose out of the states and territories making a representation that there was a need to streamline the process to enable development to occur without impacting on the environment in a detrimental way. But surprise, surprise—the Gillard government backflipped on this commitment and abandoned the reforms. And now they are still opposed to the bilateral agreements. What happened? Did those opposite get a whiff of efficiency and sensible economic reform and get a little bit scared? This is even despite the fact that every state Labor government has signed up to achieve this important reform. We on this side of the house are doing what we said we would do through legislation: we are reducing the unnecessary red tape while maintaining environmental standards.

Overall, I have faith in the local community, faith that those people on the ground will continue to be equally vigilant and that government will ensure that our environment is protected for many years to come. The member for Newcastle referred to 'the places you love alliance'; I think they become an active voice in ensuring that those places that all Australians love are looked after and protected and that the consideration that needs to be given in the tiers of government is enforced through the relevant legislation. But that does not prevent us from looking at efficiencies by having the one-stop-shops to which proponents of development can go to, follow a process and seek the approvals required.

I am proud to support this bill and look forward to working with the Minister for the Environment to achieve real environmental outcomes while working efficiently and effectively for the local community and industry. And certainly I think that within our period of time as this bill takes effect we will see the gains made from that. We will certainly see that the protection that is accorded to many of our national iconic sites and those that are of importance to the communities in which they live continue to be protected and will continue to be valued by those who live within those communities.

I would also say that there are another set of eyes that need to be focused on the environment, and that is all of us in this chamber, who have a role as members of our electorates in representing constituents to ensure that we also are advocates within that process to protect those environmental areas that are important to the people who live within our electorates, who live within the state or more importantly, who live within this nation. Because the environment is something that, once lost, cannot be regained in its pristine form, and certainly there is an impact when man does not follow a process that considers the interrelationship between development and that of the environment.

See this speech in context