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

This is a good opportunity to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2014 as it gives me the chance to speak about the government's deregulation agenda in relation to green tape and the one-stop shops that the Minister for the Environment and the government are pursuing.

It is a shame that the shadow minister for the environment is still not here. He was in the chamber when he moved his amendment to the proposed bill, which included what I see as the problem with the Australian Labor Party's approach to environmental protection and indeed cost recovery. In one breath he said that he agreed with the inherent concepts in this bill of cost recovery for the assessment acts of the federal government in relation to environmental approvals. Then, in the same breath, he moved an amendment, very emotionally and subjectively, condemning the Abbott government's hideous record on the environment over the last eight months, opening up this debate to an entirely different interpretation and construct. It was really in the same vein as the Australian Greens, who continuously argue that, since the election of the Abbott government, the planet has somehow got warmer, that somehow things in the environment are so much worse off and under threat because of the election of a coalition government, which of course is absolute nonsense, given that we are not even able to effect our key election commitment of abolishing the carbon tax. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed in relation to the environment or approvals and yet the shadow minister had the hide to refer to—and these are his direct words—'environmental atrocities'. But of course he did not go on to outline any environmental atrocities. He did not have anything to refer to. The colouring of this debate, the constant language used by those opposite and the subjective nonsense that has no correlation with anything in reality demeans the debate about the protection of the environment.

There is no doubt that, when you look into the layers of regulation that overlay environmental approvals in Australia, you see we have duplicate regulation. We have state and territory and Commonwealth legislation that overlaps, that slows down legitimate business, pro-environment business, responsibly conducted business for the environment, with no meaningful benefit for the environment. That is why the government is moving to a one-stop shop model. The one-stop shop will provide certainty, which will then allow for us to introduce a bill such as this for legitimate and proper cost recovery for Commonwealth environmental assessments. There will be greater certainty that, if you go through one rigorous process of assessment for your project, you will not have to then go through other hoops and other layers of government regulation. That certainty will allow for legitimate cost recovery.

This bill will specifically allow cost recovery for environmental impact assessments and approvals. I note that the EPBC Act in its original form was supposed to have that provision in there. I think that is a very interesting point. When the legislation was introduced, provisions for cost recovery should have been included but were not. We are delivering on the original intent of the act, as it was originally introduced. I think that is a key point because this is not, as some have been claiming, an onerous expansion; it is part of the government's green tape deregulation agenda. We have been signing memorandums of understanding with each of the willing states. The bilateral agreements and assessments are well underway and agreement on the bilateral approvals is within 12 months. Most of the jurisdictions which have already signed are well along the pathway to meeting all of those deadlines and requirements. By eliminating this unnecessary duplication of regulation we are going to ensure a more timely approval and assessment process and enable businesses to expedite their work and, importantly, maintain the current high standards of environmental protection.

I also chair for this House the House environment committee and we are currently conducting inquiry into the green tape and one-stop shop situation and the adequacy of regulation in Australia. Without pre-empting any of our discussions or findings at this stage, I would say that we are receiving lots of evidence from businesses, from environmental bodies, peak groups, all around the nation that highlights many examples—many ridiculous examples, if I were to put them to this House today—of overregulation and jumping through the same hoops for no environmental benefit. It is not unreasonable to say we want to streamline these approval and assessment processes so that everybody understands what basis they are applying on, what the rules are, what the protections need to be and improve the outcomes for business.

I note that the shadow minister for the environment, who moved the amendment regarding the Abbott government's record in its very short tenure in government, is from South Australia. He is a member of the South Australian Left. He spoke about the Franklin Dam and the great work there but he did not speak about the Olympic Dam in his home state. He did not speak about how Olympic Dam had been lost by a Labor government which he supported because of the length of time it does take in this country to often get key investment projects like big mines approved. We lost that massive investment for a state like South Australia. The shadow minister might look at this fact rather than talking about environmental atrocities, that youth unemployment is peaking in North Adelaide at 20 per cent, the state's finances are a mass and the government is doing nothing to encourage the investment needed and is taking this subjective language approach that the shadow minister takes, that there are environmental atrocities going on since Tony Abbott got elected. What a complete load of nonsense. What emotive and irrational material is the Labor Party bringing to this chamber.

This is a cost recovery bill about streamlining green tape approval so that we have one rigorous assessment process in Australia. It is a good measure. It is a measure that the shadow minister himself said he was taking credit for. He said, 'Yes, we were already working on this.' He is very right about that. They had thought about it, they had done a little bit of work on it. But of course as usual with a Labor government nothing happened: there was no meaningful progress towards an outcome that would benefit the environment and business. So the Abbott government is simply moving at a strong pace to ensure that we do have one-stop shops. We have signed these agreements with willing states and the bilateral agreement process is well underway.

When you look through the provisions of this bill it is good to note that the shadow minister agrees in particular with the intentions of it, so there was no need to move an amendment saying this is the worst ever government for the environment. That is a ridiculous amendment. It is pious, it is a load of nonsense. It is not the case that in the very short tenure of this government any environmental protections have been removed or any changes have occurred that are detrimental to the environment. Streamlining duplication in legislation is not removing environmental protections. That is no protection at all, it just clogs up our business and commercial activity for no environmental benefit. So it is a ridiculous move for the shadow minister to introduce it. He said he wanted to proceed with bipartisanship. Let us proceed with bipartisanship on this important area and let us not talk about environmental atrocities without naming any. 'Environmental atrocities' is really an unacceptable term for him to use in the same breath as 'bipartisan' and he should revisit his approach.

When you look through these provisions you do see that the minister and the government have well thought through the different regulations and the structure and the scheme that will apply to cost recovery. It is important to note, as the minister pointed out, that environmental impact assessment fees will be specified in the regulations except for those fees in relation to assessment by an inquiry or a strategic assessment. The bill will provide for a process for proponents to apply for a reconsideration of the way in which a method was used to calculate fees, again a reasonable and balanced approach to cost recovery which allows for the proponents to have an opportunity of anything they considered to be unfair or they do not understand the calculations.

I think this is a well-considered set of measures. I am a strong supporter of the government's approach in relation to one-stop shops and improving the assessment process at the Commonwealth and state level, particularly ensuring that our key industries and businesses do not have to jump through the same hoops for no environmental benefit, slowing down our economy and slowing down job creation. It would well behove the Labor Party if they do support cost recovery as a simple mechanism of government in relation to important areas like environmental protection that they simply support it, not try and move these silly, subjective, nonsensical amendments that say this is a worst ever government for the environment. It demeans the debate, it adds nothing to our national polity and I think it also detracts from the important work of this government in ensuring that we have single assessment processes for business in relation to environmental protection. I strongly support cost recovery and this amendment to the act.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to support the shadow minister's second reading amendment. Let me observe that the principle of this bill is sound. It allows for proponents of development to contribute to the cost of assessment and development of the application process by the Commonwealth. Fees can be charged on a cost-recovery basis for regulatory activities undertaken by the environment department and the Minister for the Environment. The full suite of regulatory activities to which this applies will be specified, along with the fee schedule or formula, in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations. The bill will enable the regulations to specify administrative process and requirements for applications, payments, refunds, exemptions and waivers. The provisions of the bill, and even more so the second reading amendment moved by the shadow environment minister, invite us to look at how effective the EPBC Act has been. In the first place, I draw to the attention of the House the objects of the act, in particular sections 3A(c) and (d), which provide:

(c) the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations;

(d) the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making;

Unfortunately the reality is that these objects have not been realised in practice.

Everywhere you look our unique and beautiful wildlife is in decline. Whether it is our albatrosses and other seabirds in decline from longline fishing or our migratory shorebirds in decline from the destruction of coastal habitat both overseas and here, whether it is koalas in south-eastern Queensland being belted by urban sprawl, whether it is native animals in northern Australia disappearing as a result of fires or cane toads, or whether it is woodland birds disappearing from land clearing and fence-to-fence agriculture, right around Australia our wildlife is in decline.

Not long ago I outlined to the parliament the sad fate of a dozen of Australia's brilliantly coloured parrots and cockatoos, reduced to numbers so low we can count them individually—some in the hundreds, some even less than 100. In total, with almost 1,200 plant species and 343 species of animals considered endangered or vulnerable, the rates of species extinction in Australia are amongst the worst on the planet. The most recent Commonwealth State of the environment report2011 showed the highest numbers of threatened species occur in the more densely populated areas, particularly the east coast and the south-west of Western Australia. Since European settlement 18 species of endemic mammals have become extinct, representing seven per cent of the total. About 100 species of plants have become extinct, the majority having occurred in areas cleared for farming.

It is astonishing to me, given this unhappy picture, that the government is looking to water down and reduce environmental protections. It regularly throws around disparaging terms like 'red tape' or 'green tape' to undermine the only things standing between many of our most beautiful species and extinction. One of the things the government intends to do is to delegate as many environmental approvals as it can to the states. Given this intention, a key question is: how adequate are the state environmental laws to do the job the EPBC Act is supposed to do, as I outlined earlier, to ensure that the health and diversity of the environment is maintained for the benefit of future generations?

In answering this question I am indebted to work prepared by the Australian Network of Environmental Defender's Offices for the Places You Love Alliance, which was provided to me by Saffron Zomer of the Australian Conservation Foundation. This extensive analysis concluded that the state environment protection laws are not being effectively implemented. Interim conservation orders and management plans are not being utilised in Victoria. No native plants have been declared prescribed species on private land in South Australia. No critical habitats have been listed and no interim protection orders have been declared in Tasmania. No essential habitat declarations have been made in the Northern Territory. Across the board, key provisions are often discretionary. Critical tools such as recovery plans and threat abatement plans are not mandatory. Time frames for action and performance indicators are largely absent. Key weaknesses include inadequate resourcing for recovery and threat abatement planning; excessive ministerial discretions; and threatened species considerations can be overridden by state planning and development laws.

Given these serious shortcomings of state environmental protection legislation, the Commonwealth has no business—repeat, no business—delegating environmental assessments or approvals to the states. We will be failing in our duty to our children and grandchildren if we vacate this field.

I recently met with UNESCO World Heritage staff and expressed the view to them that the Liberal government's attempts to amend the World Heritage boundaries should be rejected. It was with some relief that I heard the World Heritage Committee has been advised to reject a bid by the federal government to delist 74,000 hectares of forest in Tasmania. Last year 172,000 hectares was added to Tasmania's World Heritage area under the state's forest peace deal. But the federal government said the boundary extension had been rushed through and was therefore not valid. It wanted 74,000 hectares delisted, claiming it had been degraded from past logging and should be opened up to forestry.

But a draft decision released in Paris on 16 May recommended the World Heritage Committee not approve changes to the boundaries. That draft decision is based on two reports by conservation bodies. The first is from the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which said the federal government's submission to the World Heritage Committee contained 'no detailed justifications or explanations' and only 'simple statements' that the area had been logged. Its report said that just 10 per cent of the area in question had previously been logged. The World Heritage Committee was also advised that, if the boundaries were reduced, important Aboriginal heritage could be excluded. This is a humiliating slap in the face for the Liberal government, as it should be, as the claim was always fraudulent that this area had been degraded.

Australia has been among the strongest supporters of the World Heritage convention for 40 years under governments of different colours, so the Liberal government's efforts to trash our reputation in this area are truly astounding. The request of the Liberal government is environmental vandalism of outstanding universal value forests and presents a danger to the environmental integrity of the whole Tasmanian World Heritage area.

The government has claimed that 74,000 hectares of the 170,000 hectares inscribed last year are not of outstanding universal value because of the extent of the damage from past logging. However, only 10 per cent of the 74,000 hectares proposed for removal has been disturbed and less than four per cent of the area has suffered major disturbance from logging. I have been advised that 90 per cent of the area is in excellent condition. In fact, provision was made by the previous, Labor government for the restoration of these disturbed areas to maximise the outstanding universal value of the forested extension. The provision to include restoration areas in World Heritage sites was welcomed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the World Heritage Committee.

A prominent World Heritage consultant, Peter Hitchcock, who was a key adviser on the original Tasmanian World Heritage nomination back in 1989, has questioned the claim that some of it is not worth protecting, saying that about 90 per cent of the land is outstanding eucalyptus forest that has never been logged. He said:

'Some of it is some of the most outstanding forests in the country, if not in the planet …

'So the great majority of the area that is being proposed to be removed from the World Heritage Area is in fact unlogged forest, and much of it with important conservation values.'

As I indicated earlier, Labor does not support in any shape or form the process in train under this government to delegate approval of environmental matters to the states or to local governments. As the Places You Love alliance points outs—and I was pleased today to part of a briefing by environmental law expert Adjunct Professor Rob Fowler on these matters—for more than 40 years, the Australian government has led the way on environmental protection. Indeed, the Howard government's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 was created because Australians expect the federal government to protect our great natural places and wildlife, and their quality of life.

Furthermore, what is being referred to as a one-stop shop is actually an eight-stop shop involving each of the states and territories. This approach will undoubtedly create uncertainty for business and eventually undermine investor confidence. This fundamentally flawed policy will give us eight separate and different outcomes. There will be bilateral agreements between the federal government and each individual state and territory that rely on their inadequate and completely different legislative and regulatory regimes. The accreditation of state or territory laws that do not meet minimum requirements will put at risk matters of national environmental significance, could well breach our international obligations and will possibly expose the Commonwealth to legal liability. The stated intention of this policy is to reduce the regulatory burden but, in fact, it does the opposite, increasing regulatory obligations for business and increasing risk for all.

In addition, state and territory governments do not assess development proposals with the national interest in mind. Conflicts of interest are of great concern. States are reliant on royalties and other income from large development projects and, in some cases, are the actual proponents of them. The states do not have the capacity to adequately assess projects that include matters of national environmental significance, and there is ample evidence that the states and territories fail in even the most basic elements of ensuring that environmental compliance is delivered. The dereliction of state governments is highly pertinent. If it were not for the Hawke government back in 1983, the pristine Franklin River in Tasmania would now be a dam. If it were not for that national government, we would have had sand mining on Fraser Island; the Daintree rainforest would have been logged; and the Great Barrier Reef would have been drilled for oil.

The Australian community expects the federal government to safeguard our environment for present and future generations. The eight-stop-shop model is neither efficient nor effective. It creates unreasonable risk for government, unreasonable risk for business and, most importantly, unreasonable risk for the environment and the community. I urge the House to support the shadow minister's second reading amendment.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2014. The cost recovery bill will amend the EPBC Act to allow cost recovery for environmental impact statements and approvals, as the title suggests. Cost recovery will help to ensure the Department of the Environment is adequately resourced to undertake efficient environmental assessments. Cost recovery for environmental assessments was included by the former government in the 2013-14 budget, with a commencement date of 1 July this year. In his budget-in-reply speech in 2013, the now Prime Minister accepted all charges and savings measures other than those that were specifically excluded. Cost recovery was not specifically excluded. Cost recovery will help to ensure that there are adequate resources to undertake efficient environmental assessments that meet the statutory time frames, and cost recovery will only be applied to projects assessed by the Commonwealth. In conjunction with the one-stop shop, impacts on industry will be minimised.

The member for Wills made a few allegations about this being an eight-stop shop. This is a one-stop shop. Let us be clear about that. It is going to create a whole range of efficiencies. It will slash red tape and help to increase jobs and investment whilst maintaining or improving environmental standards. Duplication of federal, state and local government processes adds to the complexity and cost to businesses of environmental approvals across the country—and, later on, I will give a whole range of examples in my electorate of this overlapping of approvals. The one-stop shop for environmental approvals is aimed at reducing this duplication by streamlining and simplifying the environmental assessment and approvals process. I stress that the high environmental standards under national environmental law will be maintained, but the benefits of the simplified approvals process will flow through to businesses and the community.

When fully implemented, the one-stop shop will have a single entry point at the state level for approvals. This will be through bilateral agreements with each state and territory under the national environment law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. I was in the parliament when the then environment minister, Senator Robert Hill, brought this act in and I blindly voted for it, as everybody did. In fact, all three members on this side of the chamber currently were there at the time. We waived it through, thinking it was marvellous. But it has been a nightmare for many of my constituents, people trying to do business in my electorate and people around Australia, because the Commonwealth deemed since then that it would intervene on just about everything that was raised at a local level—unnecessarily. Why would the Commonwealth, for example, want to impose itself on the expansion of the Dawesville Catholic Primary School's school oval—3,000 kilometres away from that school oval—and they did. It was a costly venture.

Provisions to allow for the creation of a one-stop shop have existed in the EPBC Act since it was introduced. These provisions were in the 1999 act but never really used. The coalition government is delivering on that original act. The government will achieve the one-stop shop through a three-stage process and it will be done by: the signing of a memorandum of understanding with each of the willing states on the key principles of confirming cooperation and achieving a single process; the agreement on bilateral assessments and updating those which have already been in place; and agreement on bilateral approvals within 12 months.

And that is important. Some of these approvals have been bogged down in the federal department for years and it was not until the new minister for the environment in this place, Greg Hunt, decided to get on with some of these approvals that have been sitting there for many years while people have been trying to get on with the business of having them approved. This eliminating of duplication will deliver more timely approvals and allow businesses to expedite their work while maintaining the current high standard of environmental protection.

The Commonwealth will maintain an important role.    We will remain accountable for obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, including international treaties. We will retain an approval role for actions in Commonwealth waters, on Commonwealth land or by Commonwealth agencies. We will have an ongoing role in ensuring that commitments under the bilateral agreements are met. The one-stop shop process will expedite these approval processes and increase certainty for investors, reduce costs and boost productivity, and some of this will help to create jobs.

Areas of savings for business will include: lower costs as business will need only one application and assessment process—one instead of two; faster approvals as business will no longer engage with the Australian government or wait for approval to follow a state or territory approval. This will typically save 30 to 40 business days. There will be more certainty for investors with a simpler, streamlined regulatory system, which is good for Australia's international investment reputation.

I feel uncomfortable now for having just waived through this 1999 act, because of the heartaches that it has caused people trying to do business. Unfortunately, this department has been infiltrated by the green movement, for want of a better word. The greenies in the federal department have taken over and become obstructive and intrusive, unnecessarily so. The caftan-wearing, bead-wearing, hairy bib-and-brace overall brigade has really put its stamp on this department and slowed down a whole lot of approval processes in this country so that it has not only been a cost to business, it has also been an imposition on anyone trying to do business. For example, in my electorate I have seen unnecessary delays with regards to the environmental approvals process in particular with regards to the possible effects on the habitats—and possible habitats—of black cockatoos, including the Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo, Baudin's Black Cockatoo and Carnaby's Black Cockatoo.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's easy for you to say!

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am getting my tongue around, aren't I! Yes. Some of the developments and businesses in my electorate affected by this particular element of environment approval include, for example, Tuckey Cove—and members here would be very aware of that name, Tuckey. Believe it or not, the Tuckeys—and I notice that the member for Moreton is suddenly excited, hearing that name—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The horror!

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

were one of the first original families in Mandurah when it was just a little beachside hamlet. That is where they settled and that is where they spread out from. Florida Estate is another case in point. I have already mentioned the Dawesville Catholic Primary School and Mandurah Junction.

At the onset, I want to make it clear to this House and anyone listening that I am 100 per cent interested in the protection of black cockatoos, but I do not want to see an overly bureaucratic, business-hampering process based on 'maybe' and a minority opinion from activists from the department.

I will give you the example of Tuckey Cove. This was something that had been enacted while we were in opposition, and in government we have tried to bring some sense to it but it was too far down the track. The Tuckey family have owned land in Mandurah for generations and consider themselves responsible, environmentally aware corporate citizens.    They essentially develop land for residential habitation by way of subdivisions.    

The process of subdivision often requires the removal of native bushland. During the process in gaining the necessary environmental approvals for one of their developments, their town planners informed them that the development proposal had potential to impact upon the Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo, Baudin's and Carnaby's Black Cockatoos. Apparently, this was instigated by a local bird-watcher following observations at the one-plus hectare site—so we are talking about something just over one hectare. Following on from this, the area for subdivision was declared a 'controlled action' by the department and became subject to negotiation for offsets.

Offsets are where you have got to go and buy a massive amount of land somewhere else if you want to develop the land where you are. Offsets are meant to compensate for the residual impacts and after mitigation measures are taken. The developer then in good faith worked with the environment department to negotiate an outcome for the purchase of land containing suitable native habitat in other areas. The area of Gingin was suggested. For those in this House who do not know where Gingin is in Western Australia, it is about 200 to 300 kilometres from Mandurah, so the black cockatoos had better be good at flying to find their habitats a couple of hundred kilometres away.

Following an initial offer of $50,000 towards the offsets, it became apparent to the developers that more was expected.    The developers agreed and were subsequently given approval.

The land in question which 'may have' impacted on black cockatoo species was, in the end, able to be developed, providing native vegetation was maintained somewhere else. The developers said to me, 'The whole process was slow and involved far too many layers of government. We acknowledge the need for conservation and we are willingly involved in the required planting of the appropriate tree varieties. However, the next step is to front up with $100,000 to the Department of the Environment.' So it went from $50,000 to $100,000! And we are talking about a development, as I said, of just over one hectare. They said, 'Whilst we have budgeted this amount, it is simply extortion.'

From a developer's perspective, these types of costs—particularly in this case which is just for the one development—cannot always be absorbed by the developer and will eventually be passed on to the homebuyer in the cost of land.

In the short period of time that I have left I will deal with another case in point: NLG Sand Supplies in Dawesville, a bit further down the road in Mandurah. NLG Sand Supplies wanted to expand their sand pit. They had to do a habitat survey because it was another controlled action. It cost them tens of thousands of dollars for this environmental survey. If you really wanted to get into the right side of business over the last few years you became an environmental consultant and ran around finding out if there were any trees that were suitable for nesting for black cockatoos.

On this particular site, as the NLG people told me, there was no evidence of black cockatoos ever having nested there. But the department had said, 'Well, there is a potential that there could be a tree that eventually would grow big enough and have an interior hole that is big enough to be a nest. Not only that: you could actually plant trees that would be suitable later on to become a nesting site for black cockatoos.' It is just the most ludicrous thing to do to somebody who is trying to get on with their business of supplying yellow sand for the building industry in that particular area.

We are dealing with the Florida Estate at the moment, and it looks like it is getting there. This is where the developers had a commercial lot and Coles decided to buy the larger portion of that subdivision. But, of course, there were going to be smaller commercial lots around. They entered into the offsets and all the processes. They had one of the best environmental experts on the job—Bernadette Van der Wiele. She came back with all the approvals, but the stalemate then was who then was responsible for the ongoing maintenance under the orders given to this particular commercial lot. Is the developer, even after he has sold the land? Or is it Coles, as the major tenant? Or can you then assign the ongoing environmental obligations to the other tenants on the smaller lots? Thank goodness, the minister's office has been negotiating with the department on this and some common sense is heading towards a resolution. But there are a whole lot of environmental time bombs out there because the Commonwealth deemed, 3,000 kilometres away from this commercial development in Mandurah, that they would interfere with that business.

There is a whole range of people who are affected by this. Common sense needs to be brought into it. What I really need to say in summing up on this bill is that even though it is about cost recovery for the department, with assessments et cetera, if the one-stop-shop program works as it should do and is intended to, there will not be many people having to spend much money at all. It will have gone to the state department in conjunction with the federal department, where they are given a time frame and they will not be subject to these massive amounts of environmental studies and compliances. Hopefully, this bill will not require raising a lot of money because you will not have that massive amount of federal interference overlapping approval processes through federal, state and local governments and then people can get on with their businesses as they should. I thank the House.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking on the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2014, I support the amendments moved by the member for Port Adelaide and shadow minister for the environment. I will begin by repeating what those amendments are:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House notes:

(1 ) the government’s poor environmental record;

(2)    the importance of protecting Australia’s rich and diverse environment;

(3) the need to fully examine the range of changes proposed to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act since September 2013; and

(4) the lack of assurance from the government about the future management and protection of our natural environment.”

Any legislation relating to the environment brought into this place by the Abbott government should ring alarm bells, and this legislation certainly does. It may appear to be simple legislation associated with cost-recovery, but the reality is that it goes to far more than that. One has only to look at the Abbott government's track record since coming to office with respect to the environment to understand why this legislation should be of concern, and I am going to go to some of the track record of the Abbott government since coming to office.

Budgets do not lie because budgets effectively enable governments to put their money where their mouth is. The money that is allocated in a budget clearly identifies a government's priorities and its long-term plans for the country. And if you look at the budget that was handed down only this month and carefully look at the expenditures that were cut from the environmental initiatives within that budget you get a very clear picture of what this government's priorities are, and how low a priority protecting the environment has.

Firstly, there is the $1.3 billion cut to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which not only cuts thousands of jobs, expertise and innovation, and perhaps pushes them offshore but it undermines our competitiveness. This is the competitiveness that would enable us to in the future perhaps compete with other nations in respect of clean environmental programs, clean energy and the like. Most countries around the world are doing exactly that today—spending more money on innovation and technology with respect to green energy projects, rather than less. But Australia is going in the opposite direction.

I talk about energy programs because they are directly related to the environment. Carbon emissions and global warming have a direct impact on the environment, so when you affect those programs you directly affect our ability to manage the environment. Then there are other cuts, such as the cut to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. What I do not understand about cutting the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—which also funded many of the initiatives I just referred to in relation to new technology and projects to enable us to remain energy sustainable and efficient as well as using the green energy innovations that are now available to us—is that the corporation was making money for the government. Closing down a corporation that is actually making money for the government highlights the disdain that the government has for the environment. You would not do it if you were not somehow trying to stop government investment in and protection of the environment. Even if you did not support that particular corporation on ideological grounds, you would think the fact that it was making money for the government, returning money to the government coffers, would mean that the government that claims we have a budget crisis would keep it. But, no, because it was an initiative linked to the environment, the government wanted to cut it.

The government then reduced the funding for the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships Program as well as for the National Low Emissions Coal Initiative—again, two important environmental programs. The Australian Climate Change Science Program, which replaced an earlier program, will be cut by $21.7 million. The Caring for our Country program has been cut by the $483 million and the Environmental Stewardship Program has been cut by $25.8 million. The National Water Commission is to be abolished and the Office of Water Science is also to be abolished. The water buybacks for the Murray-Darling Basin will be capped at 1,500 gigalitres and there have been $168 million in cuts to water funding programs, as well as $239 million of cuts to infrastructure project spending to make water use in the Murray-Darling Basin more efficient.

These are all cuts that go to the heart of programs and projects that were there to try and protect our environment, which was the indirect benefit and outcome of many of those programs. Going to direct funding, there have been funding cuts to environmental organisations across the country. These are organisations such as the Environmental Defender's Office, the Conservation Council of Australia and so many others that have been doing much of the good work in analysing and reporting back to the broader society on how our environment is going and on the general state of the environment. These are not-for-profit organisations that rely on government assistance. Unlike business organisations that have their own funding streams, these organisations rely on government support, yet that support has been entirely cut out, just as government support has been cut for the national wildlife corridors initiative.

Other cuts include: cuts to the CSIRO of $111 million; the cooperative research centres, $80 million; the Australian Research Council, $75 million; and cuts to the Australian Institute of Marine Science. Again, these are all government organisations that provide invaluable research work with respect to our environment. It is their research work that so many government departments, community groups and industry rely on in making environmental assessments. It is their work that enables us to understand the environmental changes and trends that are occurring throughout Australia and throughout the world, for that matter.

My friend the member for Wills quite properly alluded to the Abbott government's push to delist about 74,000 hectares of the Tarkine forest area in Tasmania from World Heritage listing.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, not the Tarkine.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to hear that it appears that might be stopped at international level, but that decision was consistent with the decision of this government to try to wind back the marine conservation areas introduced—again, for good reason—by the Labor government. This government is trying to wind all of that back as well.

This legislation is dressed up as an environmental cost recovery bill. No-one on this side of the House has any particular problem with that aspect of it. It sounds pretty straightforward. But the truth of the matter is that the transfer of authority and the delegation of authority to the states, perhaps to local government, in order to carry out the work they will then be entitled to be compensated for by charging a cost recovery fee. What are we doing when we transfer the authority to the states or, even, to local government?

Last year in this place I moved a private member's motion which raised my concerns about how conservative state governments along the entire east coast are turning their back on environmental initiatives that had been in place for years and years. We have seen from Queensland to New South Wales to Victoria the grazing of cattle in our national parks and in the alpine regions. We have seen our national park networks cut back. We have seen land clearing in all of those states in areas that were previously protected. We have seen mining and logging being allowed in areas where it had previously been stopped. And earlier this year we saw the example of the shark culling program in Western Australia.

These are just some of the examples we can allude to which highlight the irresponsibility of the state governments, predominantly conservative state governments, in recent times when it comes to protecting the environment. That is exactly why the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was brought in by the federal government and why the federal government, going back to 1973, took responsibility with respect to the environment—because the states were negligent in some cases in upholding the environmental protection standards that Australians across the country expected. What we are now seeing is a government that wants us to return to those days when the responsibility lies entirely with the states. In fact, it might even go to local councils. I have no criticism of either the states or local councils if they are going to do the job right but the truth is their track record is not terribly good. The truth is we have seen only this year the budgets of state governments, with respect to their environmental commitments, being cut back drastically. So even if they wanted to do the right thing, the reality is they are cutting back the very resources they will need to be agents of the federal government in carrying out the assessment processes we are asking them to do. Likewise, I expect that local governments across the country, as a result of having their financial assistance grants frozen by this government—grants that they rely on—will do exactly the same and tighten their belts. In turn, that means things like environmental programs are likely to be the first to go.

That is what concerns me about this legislation: we are asking levels of government that have previously had, at best, a questionable track record and now, possibly, do not have the resources to do the very job we are asking of them. That in turn will lead to poor environmental outcomes, because when the assessments are made they will either be rushed or they will not be properly scrutinised. When they are not properly scrutinised, they are likely to have flaws in them that the community would not be happy with if it knew about them.

One of the issues that is often raised by members opposite is the issue of duplication of process, additional cost and the like. That question needs to be counterbalanced against the environmental benefits that result because of the processes we have had in place in this country now for some time. I understand that in Europe, as a result of the environmental protection measures brought in, the value to the European Union countries has been in the order of €50 billion in recent years. Yes, they come at a cost; but there is also a community benefit to them.

The same applies here in Australia. It does come at a cost to carry out thorough environmental assessments but those assessments are inevitably there for good reason. That good reason is to preserve and protect the environment—which also has a value, something members opposite fail to understand and accept. The environment also has a real value to this country and it will continue to have value.

What is even more concerning is that—at a time when we are seeing report after report showing global warming is real and our climate is changing, which in turn directly puts additional pressures on the environment—we are winding back environmental measures we are in complete control of. Climate change measures are not so easy to manage but the ones we are being asked to change with this legislation are, because they are entirely within the control of this government.

The last point I will make is this: the environment committee of the House is right now looking at issues associated with what is referred to as green tape and the like. I would have thought that, before we transfer powers to the states and local governments, it might be appropriate to report back as a committee—to do the very work that is associated with some of the objectives of the government's legislation that is before us.

Finally, because others have made comments about a one stop shop: this does not create a one stop shop. It creates offices right across the country—in other words, there are now eight offices you will have to deal with, rather than one, and perhaps even more if you bring local government into it in order to get a process cleared. It is not efficient and, quite frankly, this House should indeed be concerned with aspects of this legislation.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not planning to speak on this legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2014 and amendments, until I heard the contribution from the member for Wills. I remind the member for Makin opposite that, in fact, in respect to the Tasmanian World Heritage extension—an extension of 100,000 hectares under the government's proposal; that is something we should all celebrate—the Tarkine has nothing to do with it. The Tarkine—I should say the so-called Tarkine—is nothing to do with the proposed extension of the existing World Heritage area. What is proposed to be extended is a number of areas that have been working forests not for 50 years, not for 100 years, but for over 150 years in some instances. In certain cases—and I can name locations in the Liffey, which falls within my electorate of Lyons—the only heritage value is that of the remains of the industrial log-hauling equipment that are quite well preserved in these forests, surrounded by what were supposedly forests that have been destroyed. They are now, in an irony that is not lost on many, worthy of listing as part of the World Heritage estate.

The World Heritage extension was born out of a failed Tasmanian forestry agreement process. It was based entirely on politics, not on good policy or science. It was negotiated by an industry that was hijacked—an industry that was on its knees by virtue of a political coincidence when my state was held ransom in the state parliament by the Labor Party, which had formed an alliance with the Greens. This coincided with a federal parliament that was also beholden to and dependent upon the Greens for their support and their survival. The final piece of that puzzle was that the minister responsible at the time, the member for Watson, was quite happy to be there for the fight. He was supporting the initiatives and proposals being put forward by the environmental movement in my state.

I stand here for only one reason. I was prepared to speak up. The community of Lyons believed that the former member would stand up for something that he had been a strong supporter of for many years. He was there for all those years but, when finally his vote was going to count for something, where was he? He was nowhere to be seen. His vote counted for nothing. He was not prepared to stand up for the communities that had supported him for 20 years.

The damage that has been done to my state as a result of this coincidence of misfortune is nothing less than palpable. I feel for the young people. We are doing everything we can. Many of the measures we have announced over the last six months are entirely directed at helping the young people and the regional and rural communities that make up the electorate of Lyons, which I am proud to represent. They are in desperate need and we are doing what we can to restart the engine in Tasmania.

This process and the process demanded by the World Heritage Committee—and it is a principle of this whole process—involves community consultation. It involves consultation with the broader community and it involves particularly consultation with adjoining landowners. We have now private landowners surrounded by areas that are proposed to be listed as World Heritage who had no consultation. They were completely ignored in this process. ICOMOS, one of the advisory bodies to the World Heritage Committee, in fact confirmed this when they raised concerns about the listing in the initial stages because there was no consultation with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community. What fixed that? The promise of half a million dollars from the member for Watson, who at the time was the responsible minister. I do not know what happened to that half a million dollars. I will follow that up. They were prepared to do anything. This was a political process only.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, while this is a very broad-ranging discussion and you have given a lot of latitude, it is germane for the speaker to make reference to the cost recovery aspects of this bill and to address the terms of the bill in his speech.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for the point of order. There is no point of order. The member will continue on the bill.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are costs to my state. Indeed, the one-stop shops will provide efficiencies. It is unquestionably about the process for addressing and making sure that the environmental approvals, where appropriate, are conducted in a more efficient way that enables confidence and businesses to look at opportunities, done with the appropriate safeguards and checks in place. It is indeed important.

I remind the House that Tasmanians are truly proud. I, no less than anyone else, am truly proud of the estate. I have seen much of it. Many people who reside in Melbourne and Sydney who have very strong views about what should and should not be done in my state have never seen these places. I, for one, have walked these places. I have been and I have seen. I am proud that 50 per cent of my state is in World Heritage areas, national parks or formal reserves. That is something that I as a Tasmanian am justifiably proud of.

The threat to the World Heritage estate was raised by the Wilderness Society in 2009. They believed that forestry practices and forestry management in Tasmania were presenting a risk to the outstanding World Heritage estate in south-west Tasmania. In 2009 the Wilderness Society asked inspectors to come to Tasmania to view this. At the time Mr Garrett was the responsible minister. Once that information had been collated and the report was presented to Minister Garrett, he rightly rejected the extension of the World Heritage area at that time because it was not in any way under threat by the world's best forestry standards that are applied in managing Tasmania's working forests.

It beggars belief. Within the electorate of Franklin—and I say this with all due respect to the good people of the Huon Valley—I suspect they have a slightly different view of the world. The electorate of Denison effectively encompasses the capital city of Tasmania, Hobart. In the recent state election under the Hare-Clark system, which has multiple members per seat, 10 people were elected to represent the seat of Franklin and the seat of Denison. Five of them were Liberals, three were Labor and two were Greens. Basically, it was business as usual. In regional Tasmania—in the seats of Lyons, Bass and Braddon—it is not business as usual, because they are hurting, and that was reflected in the vote at the recent Tasmanian state election. Out of the 15 seats, 10 went to the Liberals, four went to the Labor Party and only one went to the Greens. As was the case in the federal election prior, we went clearly to the people asking them to respond to what had been a process that was, frankly, corrupt. They rejected this utterly.

It is also important to remember that the people who have this agenda will never be happy. They have an agenda to close down an industry that has for generations sustained communities, businesses and families. The political situation that occurred in the last few years has done such enormous damage.

I call on the World Heritage Committee, which is going to meet very soon, to consider the minor boundary adjustment that the federal government has recommended, which will remove 74,000 hectares from the 174,000 hectares proposed under the previous government. And I remind the House that it will add 100,000 hectares of Tasmanian forests to the existing World Heritage area. That is something that we should celebrate. It is something that as a state we should celebrate; it is something that as a nation we should celebrate. The environmental movement should cut their losses, move on and listen to what the people have said in the past eight months. They have utterly rejected this proposition, and I call on the World Heritage Committee to listen clearly to what the Tasmanian people did twice. They did it in September last year; they did it again in March this year: they utterly rejected this.

Our concern primarily is (a) communities that are affected the most by this listing were never consulted, which absolutely goes against the notion of community ownership of World Heritage areas, and (b) this outstanding estate, of which all Tasmanians and all Australian should be truly proud, is potentially being compromised. It is the Tasmanian wilderness World Heritage areas. These areas, by any definition of the word 'wilderness', are simply not wilderness areas. These have been working forests for generations. These are forests that have sustained communities in my electorate, and I call on the World Heritage Committee to utterly reject what was not based on science, what was not based on fact, but what was instead based on a political imperative and a political coincidence. Thank you.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2014. I have a few things to touch on in this speech, but to convince people in my electorate about some of the challenges facing us over the environment, I should just send out the member for Lyons' speech. That will be a vote winner for me, well and truly. I thank him for his—let us call it a 'contribution'. I thank the temporary—I mean the current—member for Lyons for his contribution.

I want to refer to the member for Port Adelaide's amendment to the legislation, and I will refer to it in detail. It suggests:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

… the House notes:

(1)   the Government’s poor environmental record—

as demonstrated in the member for Lyons' speech—

(2)   the importance of protecting Australia’s rich and diverse environment;

(3)   the need to fully examine the range of changes proposed to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act since September 2013; and

(4)   the lack of assurance from the Government about the future management and protection of our natural environment.”

The EPBC Act enables the Australian government to join with the states and territories in providing a truly national scheme of environment and heritage protection and biodiversity conservation.

It is interesting to see it through the prism of a little bit of history, I guess—that is, noting how we came to this stage where the Commonwealth parliament is talking about the environment. We can actually go back to the Chifley and Menzies eras and that great surge of migration after World War II when seven million people came to Australia. Because the Commonwealth government were so involved with that and with getting the town and country planning out there, they said to the local government areas: 'You need to have a bit of consistency. We just can't let it be all higgledy-piggledy for the 700 local governments and states and territories; we need to have a bit of consistency.' That is where it started. Then you obviously move up to the seventies and Gough Whitlam's changes, where we brought in the environment act. And I guess since the 1970s there has been that cooperative federalism, where basically the states and the Commonwealth have worked together reasonably harmoniously—I am sorry the member for Lyons is not here; I mean, we did have to send an F111 down to Tasmania to sort out a few things, but mostly we have worked things out cooperatively, as a federation should.

Sadly, things have changed. That great piece of legislation, the EPBC Act—a John Howard piece of legislation that has served Australia well and has done so much in making sure that we protect the environment and protect endangered species—is now being trashed. In fact, for the first time in 40 years there is no intergovernmental forum that is dealing with the environment and water. For the first time in 40 years! It is a very retrograde step, and I am sure all current and former and shadow environment ministers would agree that is a crazy thing to do. No standing committee on environment and water exists at the moment.

We have this linguistic artifice, I guess, where we are saying: 'Oh no, it's all about states' sovereignty. It's all about states making decisions in the nation's interest.' This is a trashing of the historical development in Australia of caring for the environment. We have an environment minister missing in action—

Mr Hunt interjecting—

definitely!—who basically should take a pay cut. He is abrogating his responsibilities as an environment minister to the dodgy white shoe brigade down in George Street in Brisbane and he is subcontracting his responsibilities to the local governments of Australia. How can Porpoise Spit type people make decisions that are in the nation's interest? Local governments make decisions that are in local governments' interests. That is what they do. States make decisions based on the interests of their state, that is what they do. They make economic and other electoral decisions—all sorts of decisions. They even make decisions based on the donations given to their political party, as has been suggested by ICAC in New South Wales. How can an environment minister in this parliament stand up and look the Australian people in the eye and say that these local governments and these state governments will make the best decisions for the future of our endangered species and our environment?

I will take you through a couple of examples. After Campbell Newman was elected Premier, the very next day—on the Sunday—the Deputy Premier, who had not even been sworn in, came out and said, 'We should make the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park smaller.' That was the day after the election! That is the sort of government we have got in Queensland. Campbell Newman might have great environmental credentials because his dad was instrumental in the Fraser government making the Fraser Island national park a reality. Campbell Newman and the people he has surrounded himself with will always make decisions that are based on the best interests of Queensland, whatever they see them to be. A national government—a government that believes in doing the right thing for Australia—will always have that broader view.

I say this on a day that the State of Origin match will occur. I proudly wear a maroon tie. I am a Queenslander, proudly, but my heart is a green and gold heart. I believe that I am an Australian first. Games of football are important but the national interest is so much greater than the considerations of states, so much greater than the considerations of some of those local governments.

For 40 years the Australian government has been the leader on environmental protection. Now we are taking retrograde steps. John Howard would be ashamed of this government and what they are doing—not in terms of this particular piece of legislation, as cost-recovery is something that we do agree with and we do support. We do agree with that side of it. There are other aspects of it that are problematic. For a start, massaging it to say that it is going to be part of a 'one stop shop' is a furphy. We know you are creating eight stops—eight states and territories are now going to have input into this process. So stop this this 'one stop shop' claim. Just because something rhymes doesn't mean it is noble and good. In this case it is going to be undermining the Commonwealth. It is going to be undermining the flora and fauna of the future that are going to be endangered.

Read back the speeches of the member for Canning and the member for Lyons and you will see that they do not care about the nation's interests. They do not care—that will be the reality. You will see that accreditation in many of the state and territory laws will not meet the requirements of the EPBC Act. That will mean that there will actually be greater costs, greater uncertainty and there will be legal liability—great work for lawyers, but not so great for the plants and animals of Australia that will be at risk. It will also be a breach of our international obligations. You can see that. They come in here saying that they going to reduce the regulatory burden, but this policy does the complete opposite; it is going to increase regulatory obligations on business and increase the risks associated with major projects.

Let us have a look at these state and territory governments who do the assessing of development proposals. The reality is—and I can only speak for Queensland—that they have been gutted. All the talent has either been sacked or gone. That is the reality. Of the people that we are now asking to do extra work to make extra decisions and extra assessments that are in the nation's interest, all the good people are gone or going. In an atmosphere where we have a Commonwealth environment minister that does not value what they do, they will not be able to do their job properly.

For the last 40 years—or maybe 50 years if we go back to the Green Bans—we can see that the Australian people do care about the environment. However, their trust in governments, be it Labor or Liberal, is plummeting. That is the reality. We have seen Labor and Liberal governments make short-term decisions based on the electoral cycle, whereas the environment is forever. We need to do things that are in the best interests of this nation—crazy things like putting a price on carbon, for a start! But that is a piece of legislation for another day. This current proposal will basically give too much power back to the states and territories. It is a furphy to suggest, as the member for Canning did, that this red tape is going to be a great cost on business. When you are looking at billion-dollar projects, the environmental investigations are minimal.

The modern mining industry has a great record when it comes to rejuvenating mine sites. I do know that. But let us look at what is going to happen. You will have local governments making decisions about water resources and that trigger with CSG. Local governments making decisions about nuclear actions, including uranium mines, is a possibility. The Townsville Shire Council making a decision about whether or not at uranium mine should go ahead, or local government making decisions about World Heritage in an area or whether they are federally listed species and ecological communities? That will be an absolute environmental disaster. It is a very short-sighted and myopic view from this minister, who is subcontracting out his responsibilities to the dodgiest people in the business—those who are not able to make those national considerations.

I have no problem with the cost-recovery elements of this legislation at all, but this one-stop-shop policy, the platform they have come into this parliament on, is to be opposed on every occasion. We need to have legislation that is effective in protecting our most threatened wildlife and places. We have environmental vandals like the member for Lyons coming in saying that he knows a bit about environmental areas because he drove past a couple of trees once! I have a bit more faith in our scientists. I know that the Prime Minister said today in question time that shaving $100 million of the scientific budget is nothing to worry about. I think he said it was 'small fry' or something like that, whereas I actually have a lot more faith in our scientists and what they can deliver, especially for the future. I am one of those people who believe in making national decisions for the future of Australia, not just something based on the short-term electoral cycle. This government, more than any other government in Australia—not the 700 local governments or the eight states and territories that make decisions based on their interests—this government, this chamber, needs to make decisions that are in the best interests of this nation. Saying that there is too much red tape when it comes to mining projects and development projects is very short-term indeed. As I said before, the cost-recovery elements of this legislation are not something that we have a problem with.

But let's go back to the proud history that Australian governments have—Labor and Liberal; I need to stress that—from Whitlam to Fraser, Keating, Howard, Rudd and Gillard. We have all done things that have been in the best interests of this nation.

I note that the member for Wentworth was the environment minister that declared a marine park so that it could be preserved for the future. Sure, he voted against it last year, when it came up in parliament. Nevertheless, when it came to be disallowed by one of the motions the member for Wentworth voted against that. When he was minister he was able to declare that part of the world so that it was saved for the future of Australia and the globe.

We need to do what we can to protect our environment. Australia was the first country in the world to introduce environmental impact assessments in the 1970s. That is the proud tradition we have. Many of these initiatives came out of Sydney and the green bans and people caring about their environment and about urban renewal. We have learnt so much from them.

So the Commonwealth government needs to be doing what it can to protect our endangered species and to protect the environment and make sure that we have sufficient biodiversity. Who knows what will be found in those forests that the member for Lyons was so quick to send the bulldozer through! We might even find a cure for cancer. I know it has been claimed by every man and his dog in this parliament recently, but who knows what will be found in those environmental areas.

Australian governments—Labor and Liberal—have a proud record when it comes to protecting the environment. Some of the aspects of this legislation before us are adequate but the Abbott government needs to have a look at the poor environmental record it has started with. It needs to look at our children and say, 'We can do better.' We need to protect our rich and diverse environment, particularly as we are the driest continent in the world, with some species that are found in no other country. More work needs to be done by this government and I give it a D—a fail.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me begin by responding to the member for Moreton. He set out the proposition that the Labor Party would never support one-stop shops. He said that the Labor Party could never have supported one-stop shops and would never agree with that concept—as did the shadow minister, the member for Port Adelaide. I am sorry to do this to the member for Moreton, but in April 2012 the Labor Party, when it was in government—the member might want to stay for this!—committed at COAG to:

… fast-track the development of bilateral arrangements for accreditation of State assessment and approval processes, with the frameworks to be agreed by December 2012 and agreements finalised by March 2013.

In other words, we have just had 15 minutes of ad hominem based on a complete untruth and falsity. That, sadly, sums up much of what we have heard from the other side. Those on the other side of the chamber have agreed to support this bill, but in the meanwhile they have argued against the very concept which was the centrepiece—the heart, the fundamental, the soul—of the April 2012 COAG agreement announced by then prime minister Gillard. It was not announced just once; it was announced on six occasions—three times in terms of major press releases or announcements and three times in terms of joint statements between the Prime Minister and the business community and the Prime Minister and the premiers. So this was a fundamental tenet—a fundamental belief—in a reform which they said was absolutely necessary, but which they not only reject but which they deny they ever supported in the past. It has a certain resonance.

Against that, let me turn to two matters with regards to this bill. One is the essential element. The second is the fundamental reform of which it is part. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2014 is, in essence, a Labor Party bill. This was a measure announced in the 2013 budget, and it was a measure accepted in the budget-in-reply speech, which the then opposition leader, now Prime Minister acknowledged at that time. In other words, they proposed this cost recovery measure and we accepted it.

We accepted it for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is right and appropriate that those who seek to engage in development processes from which they could potentially make a profit, contribute to the appropriate cost recovery. We agreed with the principle. It is also right and proper because this government is setting out to ensure that the $240 billion of debt which was racked up during the life of the previous government is dealt with. That is something that is fundamentally necessary. This is a modest measure but it is an appropriate measure.

I set out, at the second reading speech, the reasons for it and I do not want to rehearse all of those now. But I will make this point. One of my colleagues, the member for Wannon, raised in discussions the need to ensure that there are appropriate exemptions for individuals and small businesses or for activities that are being undertaken in the public good—such as by councils engaging in cleaning up roadsides, reducing fire hazards, reducing the risks of damage by bushfires, and other such activities. Consistent with those principles there will be a ministerial discretion to ensure that public good activities or minor activities by individuals can be exempted from cost recovery.

The second principle is one that I want to raise, particularly in the presence of the Minister for Communications—a former Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. He is one of Australia's two greatest ever environment ministers. I will let each environment minister believe that it may have been him. The member for Wentworth set out a series of reforms in relation to protections for the environment—most notably in terms of water. That was about simplification and the market. This reform is in the tradition established and developed not just within the coalition but, most particularly, by the now Minister for Communications then Minister for the Environment and Water. His great reform was the Murray-Darling Basin, but that was one of many initiatives.

So this one-stop-shop reform, which is the broader construct in which the current initiative is being set out, is very simple. We will be ensuring that right across the country instead of a 720-day average time for the process we are working towards a nine-month time frame of a one-stop shop for environmental assessments and approvals. It is not something which has just appeared out of nowhere. It has been a long-held view of both sides of parliament that this reform was necessary. At the commencement of this speech I noted that the central theme, the central announcement of the April 2012 Council of Australian Governments meeting, by the then Labor government in conjunction with a series of other Labor governments as well as Liberal state governments, was for this theory reform.

At the moment, South Australia and the ACT—Labor governments—are strongly supporting the one-stop-shop reform. There is not a government in Australia, federal or state, which opposes that. The only people opposed to this reform are the current members of the federal opposition. When they were on the other side of the chamber, less than two years ago, they were supporting it. It was to be achieved within a year. Unfortunately, it never happened and then they mysteriously forgot they supported it. We will deliver and are delivering the one-stop shops. We already have one-stop shops operating in Queensland and New South Wales. We have made enormous progress and have published the agreements with South Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory. We have today published the agreement with Western Australia. I am delighted to announce that to the House. We are, in short order, likely to be in a position with Tasmania and Victoria to have one-stop-shop agreements, and the approval agreements have already been published in draft form for New South Wales and Queensland.

We are perhaps six months ahead of where we intended, so we are about six months ahead of schedule. We will achieve those one-stop shops progressively around the country, and I thank the state governments and I also want to thank those in the Department of the Environment. In relation to this cost-recovery measure, I particularly want to thank the officials from the environment department, Kushla Munro and her team, and from my own office, Rachael Dehosson, Sarah Meredith and, at an earlier stage, both Wendy Black and Jared Newton, who contributed to the development of the one-stop shop policy. They have been involved jointly on a very important exercise. I commend this legislation to the house.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Port Adelaide has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. With there being no further speakers, the immediate question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bill.