Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to endorse the government's approach to creating one-stop shops for environmental approvals. I note that the member for Melbourne and the previous shadow minister seemed to miss the whole point of this bill; they could benefit from a close reading of it, because it was the Labor-Greens government who had already proposed that we go to one-stop shops and that we have bilateral agreements. And if it is good enough for the previous government to come up with this idea and to work towards these goals, then it is certainly good enough for the government to follow through and ensure that the job gets done, that it gets done properly, and that we reduce the duplication and unnecessary waste between layers of government in getting approvals.

Of course, if it was up to the member for Melbourne, there would not be any approvals. He would seek to stop all major economic activity, and that is the well stated and understood policy of the Australian Greens. The rest of us have to have a system where we have legislation that is strong in protecting the environment but allows for the proper conduct of economic activity and business. It is the case today that there is too much duplication between state and federal levels, in terms of environmental approvals, for no environmental benefit. The shadow minister in particular, who is a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment—of which I am the chair—would benefit from coming to our current hearing into green tape and one-stop shops. In fact we have a hearing on this Friday, which I would invite the shadow minister to attend, because when you hear from industry groups and other organisations—and we are still conducting our inquiry—it is good to hear the direct feedback and the experiences of people putting forward major economic activity at state and federal level and the duplication and the waste that they go through for what you have to say is very little environmental benefit at all.

In examining the provisions of this bill it is very significant that there will not be a weakening in environmental standards. The member for Melbourne seems to be very concerned about it and just says, ergo, any state government is an environmental vandal—just because he says so! Yet we know that that is not the case. State and territory regimes in relation to environmental protection have very strident protections—in some cases, too strident. In some cases they are appropriate and in many cases they are doing what the Commonwealth does as well. So it is not the case just to say that states will be bad for the environment and the Commonwealth will be good for the environment. It is not a logical argument and it does not make a lot of sense; it is quite a lot of hyperbole and hysteria from the member for Melbourne. In fact, by working very closely with the states and territories the Commonwealth can ensure that high standards under the EPBC Act are maintained.

When you look at the provisions of this bill, particularly if we have concerns about the water trigger, the government is moving an amendment here to make sure that the latest science and independent science is examined. The amendment that is being proposed by the minister—to have an independent scientific committee on coal seam gas and large coal mining development—is a good one. It ensures that comprehensive environmental assessments can continue and they include that robust and independent science. That should allay the fears of the member for Melbourne, if he is being genuine in the claim that he actually wants to see good environmental legislation. Having an independent scientific committee will ensure that the latest science is delivered through to the states to make sure that the best protections are maintained.

It just simply is not the case that local councils can approve nuclear facilities under these proposed amendments. It is absolute hysteria again from the member for Melbourne to make that suggestion. We have seen a lot of scare campaigns on nuclear science. The member for Melbourne lectures us regularly in this House about listening to science. Even though he knows nothing about science himself, he is a self-appointed scientific expert when it comes to climate change. But we are not allowed to look at nuclear science, of course, and the great benefits of nuclear science, because he doesn't agree with it. Simply because he doesn't agree with the science he wants to be a nuclear sceptic. But he will lecture us at other junctures about climate science at his own leisure. The injection into this debate about councils having the ability to approve nuclear facilities is completely unwelcome. It is completely untrue.

This bill is providing a series of technical amendments to facilitate implementation of bilateral agreements and provide for the highest possible standards. When you look through those technical amendments, it will give that certainty that proponents need about the practical operation of bilateral agreements. It does remove the need for proponents to make those referrals to the Commonwealth. But at the same time it can also then take into account changes in state jurisdictions' legislation and policy plans for the environment, recognising that regularly they are updated in accordance with the latest science, which is something member for Melbourne should welcome in relation to the flexibility of these technical amendments provide. That is, there will not need to be a whole stalling of the process between the Commonwealth and states when new science and environmental standards are incorporated by states. If they are consistent with the protections under the EPBC Act then that flexibility will allow for easier delivery of that scientific standard and that improved policy and that accreditation process through these technicalities rather than constant delay and uncertainty for business.

It is important to provide ongoing certainty to the community about the operation of these bilateral agreements. I think it is important that the minister in particular has gone out of his way to ensure that environmental protections are maintained under the EPBC Act and that the latest science is included in relation to decisions made under any bilateral agreements. The bill demonstrates the government's ongoing commitment to implementing genuine reform. It is good that the previous government started this. If you listened to the shadow minister's speech you would have thought that this was some crazy notion of the Abbott government. Of course we know that the previous Labor-Greens government was also looking at this very closely, improving one-stop shops and bilateral agreements with states to deliver environmental decision making. That is welcome. Their role in opposition is not just to oppose every single thing that comes through this chamber just for the sake of it, and the shadow minister really gave a speech that was along those lines.

This is a good bill. This makes good improvements, allowing for the Commonwealth to facilitate bilateral agreements with the states which will enable better cooperation between the Commonwealth and states delivering better outcomes for the environment and for business. So I implore the Labor Party and the Greens to simply stop opposing for the sake of opposing and recognise that they had looked at this work as well; recognise that this is good for relations between the Commonwealth and the states; that this will be good for business and economic activity and also environmental standards, delivering more flexibility in relation to her standards between the states and the Commonwealth; it also recognises that, with the latest science being incorporated into many things like the water trigger, this will produce a better outcome.

The member for Melbourne also expressed his concerns about the water trigger, saying how much detailed work and what a long process he went through. Unfortunately for him, those of us who were here in last parliament remember the process in relation to the water trigger amendment and the obscene haste with which the former government changed its position at one minute to midnight, when the former government was against the water trigger. Let's be very clear: the former government knew the water trigger was not a good idea and they knew it would lead to duplicate processes for minimum environmental benefit. The last government was holding out against the Independents on this. There was a last-minute reversal where the water trigger was adopted at the very last second, even though the former government really did not want to accept the water trigger. Every one of us here in that parliament remembers that. I think the Australian community should remember that.

It is important to note that this bill provides significant protection with the assessment and accreditation processes through this and that important referral to the independent scientific panel so the latest science and the independent advice about coal-seam gas and the water science that is available around it will be available for decision makers. You cannot do better than that. As the member for Melbourne regularly implores us, we should listen to the science. This bill will make the necessary amendments to ensure that these bilateral agreements can be delivered between the states and the Commonwealth, and I strongly recommend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context