Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The member for Moreton knows that I was talking about the Labor Party generally, but I will take much more of an interest in his speeches from now on and make sure that I call him to account for many of the things that he says that many on this side of the House find unconscionable.

But, when I say that Labor puts the interests of the CFMEU ahead of Australian workers when it comes to issues like the free trade agreement, consider that CFMEU campaign at the moment which is disavowing the clear benefits that would come from the China-Australia free trade deal. Here we are, astride the Asian century, between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, with the middle class in that region growing from 500 million to 1.7 billion people. Tremendous opportunities will arise, and what we get is Labor pushing against those benefits by backing this mendacious CFMEU campaign.

There is no doubt Labor also puts its relationship with the Maritime Union of Australia ahead of measures that would help to revitalise coastal shipping. At every turn it blocks our efforts to roll back Labor's 2012 coastal shipping laws. You may have heard the Deputy Prime Minister say yesterday that the fleet of major Australian registered ships over 2,000 deadweight tonnes with coastal licences has halved during six years of Labor. The carrying capacity of the major coastal trading fleet declined by 60 per cent, and there are other statistics I can provide there.

That is why I am saying with confidence that the Labor-Green partnership endures in opposing not only this bill but also our efforts to pass the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, which would better protect workers and the hard-earned union dues they pay. This demonstrates that the Labor-Greens partners would rather back the worst excesses of the union movement and those who mishandle and misuse members' funds—not the low-paid workers whose funds are squandered. By contrast, we will back the trifecta of free trade deals negotiated by Minister Robb in the last year. We will stand with the hardworking businesses of Australia who have the most to gain from enhanced access to growing Asian markets. We will stand for better protecting Australian workers and their union dues from corrupt unions who use their hard-earned money so inappropriately. We will stand for rolling back Labor's coastal shipping laws which have so badly damaged states like Tasmania. We stand for this bill, which provides a sensible legal framework that protects our environment but finds a more appropriate balance in fostering sustainable development. Our intent must be to ensure that we not only protect the environment but provide certainty to those projects that have satisfied our high environmental standards. We have worked hard since coming to government to act on that laudable objective.

I congratulate the member for Flinders, Minister for the Environment Greg Hunt, for establishing a one-stop shop for environmental assessments with all states and territories which has had the outstanding effect of reducing the approval time for projects by 50 per cent. I also congratulate the member for Flinders for presiding over the environmental approval of projects valued at $1 trillion and for clearing the backlog of projects that had been deferred or delayed by the previous Labor-Greens government. I particularly congratulate my ministerial colleagues for addressing the threat of activist gaming of the legal system which inappropriately threatens investment in jobs. There is no doubt that these legal tactics are designed to disrupt and delay and to increase investor risk, to make potential investors think twice about Australia as a destination for their hard-earned capital.

Even when investors have satisfied our world-class environmental standards, these tactics are designed to wear them down and to make them worry about endless legal process. In my home state of Tasmania, federal environment ministers—both Labor and Liberal, I might say—have been constantly challenged by green groups on their approval decisions relating to forestry and mining in particular. That is why I am so flabbergasted that Labor's speakers today back the Greens and their litigious activist mates by acting against the intent of this bill.

Sadly, in this parliament it is not only in this place that parliamentarians cheer on the activists. Consider the actions of Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson in the other place, who, with Labor's support, launched a Senate inquiry into the Tasmanian salmon industry. What a pointless waste of taxpayers' money and parliamentary resources! Senator Whish-Wilson called for the inquiry and then refused to accept its evidence-based report because it did not support his deeply flawed perspectives. The inquiry did not find anything wrong with Tasmania's salmon industry—the most valuable primary industry in my state, based on value of production. It is an industry that turns over $1 billion, is looking to double production, and currently employs over 5,000 Tasmanians either directly or indirectly. The committee found:

The Committee acknowledges the more-than-adequate management systems, and effective industry proactivity, in the sustainable management and continuous improvement of the Tasmanian fin-fish aquaculture industry.

In essence, this was a clean bill of health for the Tasmanian salmon industry, which did not align with Senator Whish-Wilson's misconceived, minority, ideological views. So, having put the taxpayer to all that expense, Senator Whish-Wilson chose to write his own dissenting report. He could have saved the community a great deal of time and money by simply publishing his own unsupported views on the industry. I am staggered that any Tasmanian—even a Greens senator like Senator Whish-Wilson—should seek to damage what is a vital, growing and environmentally sustainable industry that benefits Tasmanian workers and the Tasmanian economy.

In Queensland, we have heard similar examples of endless legal process being used to stop three major Galilee Basin projects. Former Labor Treasurer Keith De Lacy has said in the Brisbane Courier-Mail:

… green activism had increased the costs of developing a mine by up to 10 times.

… a development that took just over a year in 2008 would now take up to five years as companies get weighed down by litigation.

It was never the intent of the EPBC Act to be used to disrupt and delay much-needed infrastructure developments across our great country. And, as we know, the intent of this legal activism is not to help but to hinder. In 2011, the people behind this deplorable legal tactic boasted about their goal of 'increasing investor risk' in Australia.

These are groups, by the way, that often receive considerable taxpayer-funded charitable status and taxpayer funding. Think about that for a moment—taxpayer funds being used to make Australia a much riskier place to invest. It just beggars belief. Groups involved include Greenpeace, the New South Wales and Queensland Environmental Defenders Offices, Lock the Gate, Beyond Zero Emissions, GetUp and a range of other organisations, including The Australia Institute.

And Labor continues to back them today, as we heard from their speeches. What a disgrace! Even the Labor Party unions like United Voice were involved in this document's production. Think about that for a moment: union dues from hardworking union members are being applied to a strategy that makes investment harder and stops the creation of new jobs for new workers. It is scandalous. If we look at the stated intent of these groups on page 3 of their so-called strategic document, it is to:

… 'disrupt and delay' key projects and infrastructure while gradually eroding public and political support for the industry …

In section 4.1 of their document, they say:

Legal challenges can stop projects outright, or can delay them in order to buy time to build a much stronger movement and powerful public campaigns. They can also expose the impacts, increase costs, raise investor uncertainty, and create a powerful platform for public campaigning.

They are all about running legal challenges that delay, limit or stop major infrastructure projects that create jobs for people in our country. It is little wonder that, in the correspondence that I have received on this issue, many people use words like 'disgusting', 'sabotage,' 'treason' and 'un-Australian' to describe what it is going on.

It is an intent that is also entirely at odds with the EPBC Act, which says that, if you meet our high environmental standards, you will certainly be able to proceed with your investment. Nowhere in the conception of the EPBC Act did they say that its intention was to increase investor risk and to make Australia a less desirable place to invest. The people behind this lawfare, these jobs-destroying tactics, are not community based grassroots campaigners. They are engaged in a US style approach—and we know that Australians hate that 'sue at the drop of a hat' mentality that they are often exposed to in the United States. So we will act to amend these provisions to ensure that only those with a genuine, direct interest in a matter, like landowners or farmers, have legal standing. We will not allow those who are often far removed from these environmentally-cleared projects to retain their current freedom of action to frustrate, undermine and increase costs and uncertainty for ideological reasons and green zealotry. We will not let them undermine the core intention of the EPBC Act. It is important to note that nothing in this bill prevents those who may be affected by an EPBC decision from seeking judicial review. This right will be maintained and protected.

Through this bill, the government wants to achieve a pragmatic balance between harmonious environmental and economic compatibility, and efficiency. In a real, practical sense, it seeks to be the strongest champion of both. The bill supports not only our environment values but also a revised regulatory framework that protects investment, innovation and sensible risk-taking, which is so essential to the future economic prosperity of my state and our country. The dovetailing of these two imperatives protects the environment and grows the economy. On that basis, I strongly commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context