Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I open these comments by saying I support the amendments put forward by the opposition. I've become increasingly concerned that Australian environmental evangelists are intent on shutting down our economy. Australia has one of the world's highest standards of living, and I think it behoves us to reflect on how we got there.

I have a farm. In an average year it probably produces around 3,000 tonnes of grain. It would never have been there if we hadn't cleared the trees. We kept 10 per cent as shelterbelts, but you simply cannot develop a country unless you are prepared to accept a footprint. I would say on every level we have improved the country in so many ways. Who would want to drive through our country if it was just kilometre after kilometre after kilometre of trees? We've changed Australia and we've made it a productive place. That's why it supports 26 million people.

The environmental warriors, much to my concern, have taken advantage of and misused Indigenous peoples to lodge claims for land title to further frustrate investment and development in Australia—and today we're discussing more mechanisms that will place even greater burdens on those intent on contributing to our sovereign capacity. In my local area, it means we've had projects like a desalination plant proposed by the state government for Port Lincoln frustrated by the claims of Indigenous groups, backed by environmental groups. That plant needs to be completed by 2027 or it's envisaged we'll have severe water restrictions on the Eyre Peninsula. In my home town of Kimba, we've seen the same thing happen with the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.

In the wider context it means that, in Australia, resources industry projects like the Scarborough, Narrabri and Barossa projects have all been frustrated within the court system by claims that are nothing more than attempts to delay or derail the developments. Last week, when I was in the western half of my electorate, I had meetings with four councils, and three of them raised native title as a concern. That's because they have communities that have within them or are surrounded by Crown land, and what is now a consultative labyrinth has become a huge impediment to their ability to negotiate and progress approvals. And in that time the government withdrew the native title respondents' funds, so they're feeling like they're under siege. So employers and businesses are at their wits' end as they grapple with getting approval for ports, for the removal of vegetation, for mining, for transport, for labour hire—you name it. Could we in Australia possibly make life any harder for them?

You mightn't know this, Deputy Speaker Vasta, but I'm an amateur musician. I'm a great David Bowie fan, and David Bowie sang, 'It ain't easy to get to heaven when you're going down.' That's what Australian businesses feel like. It's pretty hard to get to the top when somebody's trying to drag you down the whole time.

Already in Australia we have seven state and territory environmental protection agencies, and the Minister for the Environment and Water is intent on establishing yet another, even though Professor Samuel highlighted the problem with the EPBC Act is that it duplicates state and territory processes for the development of assessment and approval. In fact Professor Samuel did not recommend the establishment of a federal EPA.

Despite the minister promising at a first press conference that not a minute would be wasted in saving the environment, it seems that two years later the minister is conflicted between her head and her heart, and that's why so little has happened. Now she knows not where she wants to go but is determined to make some kind of statement. So we have this, 'We will have the formation of a federal EPA and another agency to go with it,' just to be seen to be doing something.

I have raised in this place before, the trend in Australia for the divestment of ministerial responsibility. The public has a view that they elect their members to come to Canberra and they will somehow be able to have a say in the regulations that affect Australia. As a farmer, I can remember saying many times, 'Why do they do this? Why do I have to fill out that bit of paper? Why does this all happen? Why do I have to do this for somebody who wouldn't know anything about my business?' And, of course, when a newly elected member gets here they're quite surprised to find that none of this stuff happens in Parliament House. It's all being farmed out to faceless bureaucrats, as a rule, whether it's compliance in the workplace, the road rules or heavy vehicle regulations. There's also accreditation on everything, whether it's operating aged care or operating child care.

Then we've got this government proposing that businesses on the ground will have to deal with scope 3 emissions. Does anyone in the government have any idea of how scope 3 emissions will affect small businesses in Australia? Whatever someone makes, they will have to provide documentary evidence of the embedded carbon within their inputs. How will they compile that? How will they determine what the embedded carbon was in their inputs? There's no other way. Their suppliers will have to provide their own documentary trail. And that's how it will find its way right down the food chain to the smallest producer of anything that ends up in the pie, as it were.

Here, I'll take us back 30 years. Let's go back to John Hewson's birthday cake. I don't know what kind of cake it was. I like chocolate cakes myself. But I do know that it would have needed flour, eggs, milk and sugar. Or perhaps you could even buy a packet mix. It might come from Sara Lee. So if Sara Lee is trying to put together the packet mix, they will have to account for the embedded carbon of the ingredients. What do you make flour out of? Wheat. Let's go back to the farmer. How much fuel did you use? Was the chemical made from oil? Did you have to work your paddock more than once? It is an impossible conundrum. They'll have to go to the dairy and ask what the cows have been eating when they had a night off on Saturday night. They'll have to go back and check out what happened with the sugar and the eggs. Are they free range eggs? Perhaps they were barn laid eggs. Perhaps that will make a difference. Perhaps the feed mix will make a difference. This is just an impossible conundrum for Australian producers to deal with.

Now, on top of the creation of the federal EPA, the minister also wants to establish yet another government committee—Environment Information Australia—as a separate body, and even more regulations, more reports, more accounting and more expense. About the only growth industry around here is going to be accounting. I wonder why our per capita productivity in Australia has fallen off a cliff. There was a 3.7 per cent decline in per capita productivity last financial year, and it is difficult to believe at the moment that it has improved since that time, I'd have to say.

As to the policing of these new rules, the enforcement of all these regulations is outsourced to a multitude of committees made up of bureaucrats with little understanding of what it's like to run a business. I will put a question—a theoretical question: what's the best kind of day for a bureaucrat? I can tell you: it's a day when nothing goes wrong. A perfect day is when nothing goes wrong—or, at least, nothing that can be attributed to them. Sadly, this is what leads to nothing much getting done. Decisions are delayed, and the consequences are that it just gums up the whole system. Decisions inevitably resemble an enigma wrapped in an obfuscation inside a box of conundrums. It is just impossible for people trying to run profitable businesses to keep their head above water. They feel like they are under siege.

This proposal puts the CEO of the proposed EPA beyond the reach of the minister. A person with the power to stop any project, anywhere, at any time, at their discretion, is beyond the reach of the minister. What a perfect handball for people who do not want responsibility! As I've said, it's the divestment of ministerial responsibility. A reasonable question would be: Why on earth do we need a minister at all? Why get yourself elected to parliament if you want to palm everything off? I got elected to parliament because I actually wanted to have a say in these decisions.

Since this government was formed, in those two years, there has been almost an industry of referrals, of new regulations, of new committees, to govern the way in which we live here in Australia. Nothing was more obvious. This proposal, like so many of the government's recent decisions, was discussed with very few indeed, and then behind closed doors.

We've heard this recurring theme, as with the vehicle emission standards, where the major importers were told, 'Shhh! Don't tell anyone!' and with the safeguard mechanisms and the religious discrimination proposals. I think one of these mobs—I can't remember which one it was—had to leave their phones at the door, for crying out loud! We were told that the bishops of Australia couldn't discuss with each other the proposals for the religious freedom bills.

This week we've seen it again, with the vaping laws that the government announced that are going to put the sale of vapes into every chemist's shop. That came as a great surprise to the pharmacists, just as the double dispensing debacle did eight months ago or whenever it was.

On every level, this legislation is a lemon. It can do nothing but gum up investment and confidence in Australia. It'll be successful at that, but not at too much else.

We, in opposition, are right to oppose it. We are right to campaign for Australia's future—to try and keep us in that top handful of countries with the highest living standards in the world and not to drive our productivity through the floor. It is why the opposition has taken the stance in the last week to say that we back nuclear energy in Australia, because we do not want to see the industries, the manufacturers, the people that actually provide the jobs in the economy in Australia, driven to the wall. We do not want to see them driven out of the country.

This kind of legislation will only drive investment in Australian projects offshore. The projects won't happen. You'll get companies like BHP and Rio Tinto—those big investors in Australia that have fully mobile capital—going to where they'll get the best returns. We do have the advantage in Australia, normally, of having what we call a solid political pathway, where there's not too much variation—where governments don't penalise companies that invest by changing the rules on them. Sadly, that is changing. The Australia of the last two years is a changed place; people no longer have confidence in it. It's why we've seen the collapse, for instance, of exploration and approvals in the gas industry. That is coming home to roost with a raft of other industries, and I just briefly touched on the energy suppliers in Australia.

So this is bad legislation. The shadow minister has put up some amendments which we believe will make the sow's ear a little more attractive, but, at the end of the day, it ain't gonna be a purse.

See this speech in context