Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prior to the interruption of the debate, I was addressing the House about my opposition to the bill. From my perspective as a Queenslander, my primary concern is that I cannot imagine anybody in their right mind wanting to make it easier for the Newman government to have control over our natural resources; I could not imagine supporting a bill that facilitates delegating approvals for environmental matters to the Newman government. As I said before, matters of national environmental significance should remain matters for the Australian government and for the country as a whole to consider. I was particularly speaking about the Great Barrier Reef, one of the great natural wonders of the world and a place where I spent a lot of time as a child. I hope that many others have the same opportunity, but the Newman government's track record, when it comes to environmental protection, is very poor.

A number of people have raised concerns about handing over environmental approval powers to the Newman government. Friends of the Earth Brisbane have written to me raising concerns about this issue, along with others. As I said earlier, the Cairns Post only today printed an article, began with:

Tourism leaders say the Far North's reputation as a top holiday destination will take a dive if the Great Barrier Reef loses its World Heritage status.

I am not sure if the pun was intended. The article went on to quote Tony Baker, the managing director of the Quicksilver Group—which is one of Cairns' long-established tourism operators—as saying that the

…decision to list the Reef as "in danger" would harm the Far North's reputation.

Of course, he was speaking there of the risk that the UNESCO World Heritage Committee would proceed to list the reef as 'World Heritage in danger'. We know that the UNESCO World Heritage Committee is currently meeting and that it will consider a draft decision expressing concerns about the very subject matter of this bill—the transfer of delegation arrangements from the federal to the state government—being premature and about dumping and dredging, among other things. The Queensland environment minister has gone to Doha to try to argue a case against listing the World Heritage area of the Great Barrier Reef as 'World Heritage in danger'.

We are right to be concerned about that, because as Tony Baker told the Cairns Post:

"I think from our perspective it would be disappointing," he said. "I certainly hope the state and federal governments have done enough to ensure this doesn't happen.

"As a company and an ­industry, we're working very hard to ensure the health of the reef is maintained as best as it can be."

Given that the Queensland government asserts that the tourism industry is one of the four pillars of the Queensland economy, people are right to have grave concerns about the threat to tourism in the event that there is a listing of the Great Barrier Reef as a World Heritage in danger site.

There is a lot of concern in the community about how the UNESCO World Heritage Committee is going to look upon the work that has been done in Australia, and particularly in Queensland, on the reef. The state and industry are hoping that a Queensland government report card on the reef will assist. The report card relates to the reef's water quality and protection plan. Queensland's environment minister is travelling to Doha in the hope of persuading the committee that a reduction in pesticide run-off meets their concerns. I do not intend to diminish or dismiss the work that has been done to reduce pesticide run-off—I congratulate everybody concerned—but that by itself is not enough. On Friday the Fight for the Reef campaign representatives released a new and independent score card that showed the Australian and Queensland governments had gone backwards in addressing the World Heritage Committee's major concerns about the Great Barrier Reef.

The scorecard analysed how the government's track record stacked up against recommendations that the UNESCO World Heritage Committee had made 12 months ago. Particularly of concern to UNESCO—and you can see it from the draft decision that has been published in respect of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee's considerations—is the government's decision to allow dredging and dumping in the vicinity of the Great Barrier Reef. That is of great concern for obvious reasons when you are talking about a beautiful pristine marine park and coral reefs. Accordingly, when the scorecard was released on Friday, WWF Australia CEO, Dermot O'Gorman, said:

The federal government's decision to allow the dumping of three million cubic metres of dredge spoil in the Reef's waters off Abbot Point means it has failed its international responsibility to protect the Reef.

He then went on to criticise the changes that are the subject of this bill, saying:

Since this decision—

and he was talking about the dredging and dumping decision—

the Australian Government has moved quickly to transfer environmental approval powers to the Queensland Government despite that Government's poor environmental track record.

And, of course, that is a reference to this bill, to the bill that was before the Queensland parliament last week, and to the bilateral agreement. He said:

The World Heritage Committee wants a long term plan and concrete action to protect the Reef and instead the Australian Government is washing its hands of responsibility for this national icon. It's a huge concern in the lead up to Doha.—

of course, this statement was made last week—

Our assessment shows the Australian and Queensland Governments have failed to make "good progress or complete" a single one of UNESCO's requests.

Great Barrier Reef Campaign Director with the Australian Marine Conservation Society, Felicity Wishart, said at the same time that the budget cuts announced since January also flew in the face of the World Heritage Committee's recommendations. She said:

At a time when UNESCO is advising Australia to increase investment to protect the Reef the Federal Government has cut funding to the Environment Department and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

The Queensland and Australian Governments are risking the Reef's World Heritage status. The Reef provides 63,000 jobs and $6 billion to the Queensland economy. A decision to protect the Reef is a decision to protect our tourism industry and the Queensland economy.

As I have said, the Newman government has made a point of saying that the tourism industry is one of the four pillars of that economy. The campaign representatives said that they were 'calling on the Australian and Queensland governments to address the most serious concerns of the World Heritage Committee to avoid a possible listing as "in danger" in 2015'. The state environment minister has said that the concerns about dredging and dumping are really coming from green groups, but that is obviously not the case, given that UNESCO itself has in its draft decision specifically raised the concern about dredging and dumping. It is crystal clear that the last thing this parliament should be doing is facilitating the delegation of power to state governments.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, we have gone a long way off the reservation, haven't we, with the Labor party coming in and making statements like that which we have just heard from the member for Griffith. It was not very long ago in this place when the member for Watson, as the then environment minister, was talking about exactly what we doing here today—that is, handing over the Commonwealth approval process and assessment process to state governments and allowing for the streamlining of green tape for major job-creating projects right around this nation. That was taken off the agenda as we neared the election—for the simple reason that Green preferences are needed by Labor around the nation, and they did not want to upset their mates.

I would like to point to another backflip. We have just heard—and I'm sure we're going to continue to hear this throughout the course of this debate from Labor members; certainly from the Greens members—condemnation of the Abbot Point expansion project. I have to say that there was no condemnation by Labor of this project before the election; in fact, the local Labor candidate who ran in my seat—where Abbot Point is located—actually publicly supported the project, and came out and said that the Labor government would approve this—that it would go through the appropriate mechanisms and would then be approved. Now, after the election, we find out the truth: that Labor would never have supported the Abbot Point expansion project—a project that is going to create thousands of new jobs and is going to be an economic boost for the town of Bowen and for the region of Mackay and the Whitsundays, which right now so desperately needs access to new jobs. Other than the repeal of the carbon tax, there is no more important legislation that could be before the parliament to get things kick-started again throughout the economy than this legislation before us here: the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. This bill sets up a one-stop shop for all environmental assessment.

There is a lot of argy-bargy and a lot of point-scoring on this—and some stupid statements; for example, that we are relinquishing our responsibilities, and that we are somehow abdicating ourselves from the process of managing icons like the Great Barrier Reef. But the real criticism there is that somehow, state government bureaucrats are not able to do assessments properly. That is the implied criticism: that somehow we do not trust state government department of environment bureaucrats—the public servants who sit there and go through these assessments. They have all the same credentials as the federal environment department public servants—but somehow we do not trust the state government public servants to go through and do these assessments properly. That is a slight on those public servants in Queensland, and in all of the other states, who actually do a good job, and who do those assessments properly. What the Labor Party is saying by not wanting us to go down this path is basically that they do not trust the judgement of those public servants in Queensland and elsewhere to do these assessments.

I am going to reflect on Abbot Point, which is a major project and which has come up against the green war machine for a lot of criticism and a lot of bagging. But there have also been a lot of lies about it. One thing I can say that is absolute fact is that this project went through the wringer—completely—for months and months; in fact, it blew out to years, in terms of the assessment processes that it had to go through. First it went through the state processes: all of the environmental impact statements they had to go through, and the back and forth with the department wanting them to make sure that all the questions were answered. Then there was the consultation process, where all of the green groups then jumped on and said what they thought was wrong and tried to nitpick it to death. It then went back for further adjustment and finally, when it was right, they got the approval. That took a hell of a long time—months and months and months. Then it had to go through the federal process all over again, and the same thing happened: back and forth between the department until the department was happy with what was before it, then out for public submission and then all the green groups jump on it again and again tried to nitpick it to death. There is a clear strategy about that, too. This is actual factual information—I am not gilding the lily by saying that there is actually an articulated campaign, a documented campaign, that radical environmental groups in Australia run against these sorts of job-creating projects like Abbott Point. It was set out in Stopping the Australian coal export boom by a group calling for the ending of the Australian coal boom. The document was successful over the internet and it talks about the strategies they employ in delaying projects so that it nobbles investor confidence in them, drags out the costs of these projects and eventually kills them off.

We should as a government streamline the process to make sure there is only one assessment that goes through. Surely a state government public servant who is charged with assessing applications against state government environmental plans that are fairly complex documents would be able to do the same assessment at the same time against the federal government posture of his plans. It is not a very difficult task when you put it like that. The person who is responsible at the state level for assessments there could easily do the federal government's assessments. It would be streamlining it and it would be putting, I suppose, a handbrake on those attempts by the green movement to constantly delay job-creating projects, particularly in Northern Australia. That is what we saw with Abbott Point and that is what we continue to see after the fact at Abbott Point because now, given that it has had the tick-off from both the state and federal governments, even though it was such a delay. We had delay after delay after delay from the succession of environment ministers under the previous Labor government. I think originally approval was supposed to come down in early 2013. Actually, I think it was December 2012. Then it was going to be sometime in early 2013. Then it got shifted to July 2013. They couldn't make a decision before the election, because again that would have affected the green groups out there, so it was shifted on until after the election. Finally we made the call when we came to government that this was going ahead—based on all of the sound advice that was provided to us, all of the expert advice, this project could go ahead.

But it could have happened a lot quicker if there was simply a one-stop shop where all of these environmental assessments were done. After the fact the environmental movement do not stop. They have continued to try and nobble this application by taking it to court. I believe there are three different court cases being waged by people. I am not a lawyer, and thank God for that to a degree, but I do not understand how these people like the Mackay Conservation Group—which has never done a conservation activity in its life, mind you; their sole boasting rights is about how they have stopped developments from going ahead—can take job-creating projects like Abbott Point to court to try to have stopped. But what is their legal status? I do not understand how they have any legal status, and they shouldn't have any legal status to be able to do that. Who do they speak on behalf of? Their membership base is very limited. There are a minority group in the community like Mackay, even, let alone Australia, and yet they claim to stand up in court for the environment, for the Great Barrier Reef and for the Australian people! Who gave them that right? Who elected them? Who gave them that authority? It bewilders me. I think governments are going to have to have in the long-term at this continual legal appeal approach to disrupting and delaying job-creating projects right across this nation. We are going to have to get serious on that front.

I go back to the bill. It is the way forward. If we want new jobs, if we want new opportunities, we are going to have to have a streamlined approach. That is not just George Christensen saying that as the member for Dawson or as a member of the Liberal-National coalition government; that was actually the assessment of the Productivity Commission. They did two major reports, one into the non-financial impediments to the resource sector; and the other one in how to fast-track the approvals processes for major projects within Australia. Both of those reports highlighted the need for a streamlined assessment process—a one-stop shop—which is what this bill is actually delivering. And you know what? Both of those Productivity Commission reports were asked to be delivered by the former Labor government. So I asked the question of the Productivity Commission: 'What can we do to get the mining sector firing again? What can we do to help fast-track major projects that are being undertaken in this country?' And the umpire, the Productivity Commission, came back and said that you must fast-track them, you must set up a single assessment point and you can do that by getting state governments to assess against the federal regulations and rules. And yet today we have Labor member after Labor member disagreeing with that umpire's call. It is not the coalition's call; it is something that has come from the Productivity Commission—the agency charged in Australia with ensuring that our policy framework as a government and as a nation is conducive to the best economic outcomes for the nation. Yet, they are going to argue against it. That says a lot about the Australian Labor Party today, which is wedded to the Greens—which is what we saw under the last government—and which is still clinging on to the carbon tax—at least here in the parliament they are. They do not want us to remove the carbon tax. They are effectively blocking the removal of the carbon tax in the Senate.

At the same time, they are going out there now—and I see the shadow environment minister has gone out there—saying that the Labor Party has turned a new leaf, and they are thinking of jettisoning their policy for an emissions trading scheme. That is a big shift. It is thankful. I congratulate the Labor Party on moving away from these punitive measures to try and change the temperature of the globe; but they could take some real action by voting with the government to get rid of the carbon tax and restoring confidence in the economy by streamlining these processes in supporting this bill.

I am sure that right now we would not be dealing with court cases against the major job creating project at Abbot Point that so many people in my community desperately want to see go ahead. The little town of Bowen is on its knees. It is nearly dead. There are so many businesses that have had to shut down. People have gone out the back door and are shifting, because there is no movement in the economy. They are all waiting for this Abbot Point expansion to go ahead. If this system had been in place a number of years ago, we would not be talking about it in court, the jobs would be created, the jobs would be there, that town would be pumping again and the economy would be restored. Abbot Point would be going ahead with all of the environmental safeguards in place, because it would have been through an assessment process that had looked at both the state guidelines and the federal guidelines and made sure that the project complied with both of them. That is what we are talking about. It is not something radical. It is not something that is going to harm the environment. It is something that is simply going to get rid of the useless green tape and time-consuming approach that we currently have with environmental assessment in Australia. I would say to the opposition: listen to the Productivity Commission. You asked them for an answer. They gave you one. Support this bill.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. This bill seeks to amend the EPBC Act to facilitate the delegation of environmental approval powers to state and local governments. The bill, along with the bilateral agreements being developed, means that particular activities relating to environmental consents could potentially be placed in the hands of state governments and on some occasions local governments. I have grave concerns about both of these issues and I will detail them throughout this speech. Potentially, it could include issues like World Heritage listed properties, activities like uranium mining or even approvals under the water trigger amendment. These could be given to the control of state governments. We have heard many speakers on this side talk about why that would be a concern.

This bill paves the way for the Prime Minister and his environment minister to irresponsibly hand over those environmental approvals to the states and local councils. The bill would allow the states and local councils to approve developments in some of Australia's most precious environmental ecosystems, which could undoubtedly have disastrous effects on local environments and important tourist attractions. It is a real concern. We looked at those state governments who have no regard for environmental protections. As it is, in my home state of New South Wales, we have a state government that has no concern about environmental protections. In fact, they are environmental vandals.

If we look to some of the changes that could happen, we could firstly look to Queensland, where we could have Premier Campbell Newman potentially approving dredging and dumping in the Great Barrier Reef. That is terrifying. We could have Western Australia Premier Colin Barnett in charge of the Ningaloo reef. Remember that this is the man responsible for the shark cull in Western Australia. That he may potentially have final oversight over some very important issues there really is a great issue of huge concern to people in my electorate. We could also look to Tasmania, where Premier Hodgman and his government could be in charge of Tasmania's iconic World Heritage listed forests. This is again a rather frightening idea. Most alarmingly for my electorate is that, in New South Wales, we could have Premier Mike Baird and the North Coast National Party having total and final control of approvals for all coal seam gas mining applications. I see this element of the legislation as the most terrifying. It is one that many people have raised with me. This legislation is very important to the constituents of Richmond in terms of the effects that it will have on the future approvals of coal seam gas mining developments.

The North Coast state National Party have demonstrated time and time again their pro-CSG agenda and a total disregard for the community and our opposition to harmful coal seam gas mining and unconventional gas mining on the North Coast. Time after time, the state National Party MPs like Don Page, Thomas George, Geoff Provest refuse to listen to our community and to oppose the rollout of the unconventional gas industry on the North Coast. We are seeing the National Party ridiculing those who oppose coal seam gas mining. This past weekend, the New South Wales Nationals had their conference at Queanbeyan. One of the things that was brought up were comments made by the Deputy Premier and the National's leader, Andrew Stoner, the minister for the North Coast—which is quite ironic—about the protesters at the recent blockade. Mr Stoner was reported as having said of those at the blockade:

It broke my heart that some of those professional bludgers thought they had a win.

How appalling is that! There were also these comments reported in a tweet by Jenna Cairney, Deputy Editor of The Land newspaper. In another tweet by Ms Cairney, Mr Stoner was reported to have said:

Mark my word we were prepared to go head to head with that protest group.

I think that is really a reflection of what we see from the New South Wales Nationals. There has been widespread condemnation of the Deputy Premier's comments in relation to that. Of course, what he was referring to at Bentley is the site near Lismore, where exploration for unconventional mining was due to start last month; but, because of massive community opposition, they were forced into a backdown in relation to that. Today, we are hearing that a review of the suspension of Metgasco's licence is due by 25 June, so this is causing more concern on the North Coast. The community's view is very clear. We had thousands of people out at Bentley, protesting Metgasco's licence for that area. It really is quite offensive to have the Deputy Premier making these comments. As I say, it has been widely recognised.

The fact is that the New South Wales state government and the North Coast National Party cannot be trusted when it comes to significant environmental approvals. They cannot be trusted. They have demonstrated that they are not interested in protecting the unique environment of the North Coast from harmful CSG mining. That is one of the many reasons I do not support the handing of environmental powers to the states.

As I have said many times before in this House, Liberal-National governments at many levels tend to be environmental vandals, in contrast to us in the Labor Party. We have a strong history of protecting the environment. This was seen in our amendment to the EPBC Act in 2013 in relation to the water trigger. The water trigger as part of the amendment to the EPBC Act meant that for the first time water resources could be considered as a matter of national environmental significance in relation to environmental approvals. The intention of the amendment of the process relating to water was specifically in relation to coal seam gas and large coalmining developments of national significance. It has become known as the water trigger. It means that coal seam gas and large coalmining developments require federal assessment approval if they are likely to have a significant impact on a water resource. So to a hand full approval power for large and potentially harmful coal seam gas mining projects back to a state government which is essentially an environmental vandal is, quite frankly, reprehensible.

Looking to the New South Wales government, I would like to respond to some of the comments of the member for Gippsland. He will be very interested in this. Remember that this is a government that after winning office in 2011 renewed all the current licences. That is right: they renewed all the current licences when it came to CSG mining projects. The Liberal-National Party own these licences, but the people of the North Coast are fully aware of the National Party spin and deception. The people of the North Coast know that handing over environmental approvals, including the water trigger, to the states is, indeed, irresponsible madness. That is what they are saying—that it is irresponsible madness.

Even worse, in some cases the federal government would be handing environmental approvals over to councils. I would like to refer to a local example. The majority of our councils on the North Coast—such as Tweed, Byron, Lismore, Ballina and Kyogle—are opposed to harmful coal seam gas mining. They have made that very clear and have stood with their communities. But if we turn to the Richmond Valley Council—where the town of Bentley is—they are very pro CSG. So it would be really concerning if you had a councils like that and a National Party mayor such they have in Ernie Bennett out there ticking off on coal seam gas mining. If Mayor Ernie Bennett was responsible for the licence in Bentley, there would be a big tick for that one. He is totally opposed to all the other councils on the North Coast and how they feel about that. I will get to more information about the councils later on.

The risk of contaminating our water resources is not the only concern involved in handing environmental approvals back to the New South Wales state government. A further example of risk is in the Kings Forest development in my electorate of Richmond. This development comprises 4,500 lots on 880 hectares on the Tweed Coast and runs right through known Koala habitat. Upon its completion, Kings Forest will include housing for around 15,000 people and related public infrastructure. Many fantastic local conservation groups, such as Team Koala, have called for a dog ban, speed limits, corridors and overpasses in the housing development to protect koalas living there. This development has been referred to the federal environment minister for approval under the EPBC Act, having already been approved by the New South Wales state government. It goes without saying that for an important and endangered species like our precious koala an extra layer of approval and oversight is essential for their protection.

We are waiting for a decision on this. I have raised this in the House many times. The people in my electorate are very concerned about the outcome of the determination by the minister because they are concerned about having in place adequate protection for the koalas in Kings Forest. So I again call on the Liberal-National Party government and the environment minister to act to protect those koalas in their final development consent in relation to Kings Forest.

Federal oversight through the EPBC Act is also necessary as each state and local government surely has a different perspective on environmental issues. This is exactly why national oversight is required. This bill lacks clarity and it lacks cohesive structure to ensure adequate environmental protection at a national level. When it comes to the environment, some states simply do have any priorities. As I said, when you look at the New South Wales State government's record on CSG mining in my community and their lack of regard for our precious environment, how can they be trusted on anything else of national environmental significance? The fact is that, of course, they cannot be trusted on matters of environmental significance. They just cannot.

This bill goes further than just handing approval powers over to the state governments. It provides the avenue to accredit local government and shire councils to undertake critical assessment and approval processes. This would effectively put local government in charge of the environmental responsibilities of some of Australia's major natural assets. It is simply quite unfair for the federal government to expect local government and shire councils to take on the environmental work of much larger departments that handle this work with often thousands of experts and scientists at their disposal. It is unreasonable to expect shire councils, who do not have at their disposal all of those adequate departmental resources, to make decisions of an environmental nature that are potentially of national significance. The environmental risks associated with this move are quite astounding. It should never be the burden of local government to take on the work that is essentially the responsibility of a state or federal government. That level of pressure would be unduly unfair on our local councils and the resources they have. As I said earlier, we have a perfect example in my electorate with coal seam gas mining of where having a pro-CSG mayor and council is just devastating. So I have grave concerns across a whole range of levels about these powers being delegated to local councils

In conclusion, since 2011 it has been abundantly clear to the people in my electorate of Richmond that the state government of New South Wales that we currently have, the Liberal-National Party government, is not the best custodian of our unique environment. In many cases they have been all too happy to sell off land, subdivide where they want and pollute whatever resources we have, whether that is koala habitats, water resources or precious forests. These are the people who have allowed shooting in our national parks as well. I have said many times that they are environmental vandals. We keep seeing examples of that time and time again. No doubt they will be held to account next March when we have our state election because people have a lot of worries about the extent of that environmental vandalism. Indeed, for us, the issue of coal seam gas mining will be one of those major issues. That is why I do not believe these powers should be delegated to the state governments.

I would also like to take the opportunity to commend the many great groups in my electorate that work very hard to raise these environmental concerns. We have heard speakers from the other side of the House condemning those groups. I want to congratulate a lot of those groups. These people put a lot of time, effort and energy into making sure these concerns across a whole variety of different developments are raised. I have mentioned Kings Forest before and I have mentioned in the House before the community fight to preserve Lot 490 at Kingscliff and preserve that pristine piece of coastal land. That is a major concern there. Also, I commend the people in relation to opposing the West Byron development, which again is a major over-development within our area.

The people in my area really understand about getting the balance right. They understand how important it is to preserve our unique and beautiful natural environment. The reason people move to what is essentially the best address in Australia, the Far North Coast of New South Wales, is that they appreciate our beautiful diversity, our hinterland, our beaches and our remarkable villages and towns. It is an absolutely stunning part of Australia—the best indeed. People are working very hard to preserve that and preserve their beautiful surrounds and the quality of life in the area they have chosen to live in. That is why people are so passionate and concerned about this.

I would like to congratulate all of those groups that work incredibly hard to maintain their position across a whole range of different environmental issues. We have never seen such a strong example of that as the thousands who came together at Bentley to stop that exploration licence. At its peak we had thousands of people there and thousands more were prepared to come out. They were camping out that weekend just before the licence was suspended. I say that it is a real concern now, because in the coming two weeks we are going to have a review of that. I can assure the House you will see the same situation, with thousands of people out there defending our community's right to stop inappropriate and over-scaled harmful exploration and coal-seam gas mining.

I believe the federal government ultimately has a responsibility to protect Australia's precious environment, and the EPBC Act in particular accounts for this. By delegating all of these responsibilities, the Abbott government is showing that it has no interest in protecting Australia's environment for the future. Whilst I understand that there may be a need to look at streamlining, that is fine. In some ways streamlining may be effective, but complete delegation of all these powers to the states—who, as we have said, are environmental vandals—is very irresponsible and reprehensible. The end result of it could be potentially dire for some of our most environmentally significant areas right throughout the country. They could be devastated because of this decision.

It is for these reasons that I do not support this bill. I think the consequences could be dire. People in my electorate have certainly raised with me the fact that they do not want this to happen. They do not want those powers delegated, particularly to our state governments, but also to our councils. I think it is wrong that this government has taken this plan of action. I think it will be devastating for our environment, and the repercussions will be very widespread.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. I might just makes some comments about the speech of the previous speaker, the member for Richmond. What we have just heard is base political activity. The member for Richmond was not speaking for the people of her electorate. You might be interested to know that the member for Richmond has probably the lowest primary vote of any member in this place—33.5 per cent. The Greens in the seat of Richmond had a vote of 17.6 per cent. So the member for Richmond was actually appealing to the 17.6 per cent of people in her electorate who voted Greens, and not to the 50 per cent of people who did not.

In the last election she ran a vicious anti-CSG campaign, in an electorate that I might add has no CSG. There is CSG in adjoining electorates, but the member will not dispute the fact that there is no CSG in Richmond. She is appealing to 17 per cent of people. I agree with the member for Richmond that it is a beautiful part of the world. But she is appealing to the people who go up there, clear their half acre of rainforest and then make sure that absolutely no-one else can do the same thing. They want to be the last house built in Richmond. It is the greatest area of nimbyism in New South Wales. You only have to look to Tasmania to see what Greens preferences have done to a resource-rich state of Tasmania. It choked them. That matter needed to be addressed.

The fact is that those licences were given out willy-nilly by the Labor Party. I know there are people from my electorate listening today. I might say that there has been a lot in the news about the Leard State Forest and the Pilliga. The reason we have extractive industries in those areas goes back to Bob Carr and his relationship with the Greens. He was so hell-bent on shutting down the timber industry and taking out the sustainable industries of the Pilliga and closing down the sawmills at Gwabegar, Baradine and Gunnedah and places like that. He was so hell-bent on closing down the timber industry in order to get Greens preferences that he allowed extractive industries in there. If the people of the Pilliga now have an issue dealing with extractive industries, they can thank Bob Carr. In fact, my state colleagues have gone from having a policy-free zone on extractive industries, when they came to power three and a half years ago, to now having the strongest environmental laws anywhere in Australia, if not the world, to control these industries.

Turning to the bill, what we have here now is a one-stop shop. I say to the people from my electorate listening to this speech that this is not a dilution of the environmental laws. This is a simplification, a streamlining, a remove of green tape, so that processes can get underway. This is not just for extractive industries. This also concerns the land management laws in the state. At the moment we have a real issue in parts of my electorate with the federal environment laws, with the threatened species act, and with the state laws. It is very confusing for landholders to undertake proper management of their land. Indeed, in about a half an hour the mayor of Walgett will be in this building to meet with various ministers to talk about the fact that the Walgett Shire is only 20 per cent developed. Green tape has choked up the good farmers of the Walgett area with regard to developing their properties, which would not only maintain the environmental efficacy of the region but also maintain its productivity.

So, the assessment and approvals process will be simplified, but in no way are the standards of the physical assessments being diminished. The federal government will be entering into bilateral agreements with state and territory governments across the country under national environmental law. It may not be widely known, but there have been provisions for a one-shop stop in the EPBC Act since its inception. The coalition is taking this opportunity to increase productivity while maintaining environmental approvals—contrary to scaremongering we have seen in this chamber today from the member for Melbourne and other members, who rely on scaring and misinformation rather than dealing with the facts.

The Commonwealth government will remain accountable for its obligations under the EPBC Act and will have an ongoing role in ensuring that the commitments reached by other bodies under the bilateral agreements are met. As a part of the process for establishing the one-stop shop the state and territory governments must demonstrate their ability to meet the high standards set out by the EPBC Act. In some cases, if the existing assessment process has not been of a high enough standard, it will be strengthened. That is a key point. In some cases, this bill will actually strengthen the environmental legislation that protects our landscape, and that is a very, very important point. Those opposite and others who are on this bandwagon will try to play this as some sort of dilution of the environmental laws. It is actually a strengthening of the environmental laws, but it is also a streamlining.

I would now like to speak for a moment about the water trigger. Water resources will continue to be included as an item of national environmental significance under the one-stop shop. There are no changes to the environmental standards under the EPBC Act. Under this legislation, the minister will be able to accredit state and territory processes for approving projects involving the water trigger. However, the important thing is that the minister will make this accreditation only if those high standards are maintained. I would like to point out that unfortunately, as we are seeing now and in previous times, this water trigger has been used in this place for political purposes. Very rarely have environmental laws been the friends of the farmers, and I would say that also to the people who are listening to this in my electorate at the moment. The environmental laws have the ability to be extremely detrimental to farming operations. So, while we need to maintain the high standards, we need to maintain the water trigger, we also need to make sure that farmers do not get caught up in the web of environmental green tape any more than they already are.

As a former farmer I understand the importance of water in our regional communities; I absolutely do. However, I will not use water as a political football, as some people in this place choose to do. I believe that having the right assessments and the high environmental standards is essential in a project that may affect water as a matter of national significance.

I have always supported the establishment of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development. I believe that this independent group of experts in the field are the ones who should make the recommendations as to any project put forward. The coalition now seeks to make available to the states and territories the advice from the committee. This sharing of information and access to scientific advice is a useful step to help ensure that the right decisions are being made throughout the approvals process. Independent science is an essential part of this process.

Under this legislation there will be greater transparency into decisions being made and access to information. There will be greater community involvement, which I believe will be welcomed by my community. There will be state and territory audits and transitional and five-yearly reviews of the bilateral agreements and the reporting mechanism. The minister will be checking to ensure that the standards are maintained and that the high standards for environmental assessments remain. Under this legislation the minister still holds the power under the EPBC Act to cancel or suspend an agreement. That is a very important point. The minister has not abrogated his obligations as the final arbiter. But, in cases where the streamlining of the state and federal processes can be done under the highest standards, that is the process. The minister still holds the power under the act to cancel or suspend an agreement.

I have said many times that further environmental legislation that interferes with agricultural practices is not in the best interests of the farmers in my region. And I will close on that point. There is information coming around regional Australia at the moment that is designed to misinform and scare farmers with regard to their relationship with extractive industries, and it is important to note that thanks to this legislation and thanks to the work of my colleagues in New South Wales we now have strong environmental legislation that protects our environment. But the only result that the groups that are driving this will be happy with will be the complete removal of extractive industries. And you have to remember: in New South Wales, if you go back to the Hansard in New South Wales and look at speeches made by the Greens back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it was the Greens who were advocating for coal seam gas industries as a clean alternative to coal. And Bob Carr complied, with the help of Bob Devis, to make those changes. That is history. We now have to deal with the situation that Labor has placed us in, and this legislation will strengthen our environmental oversights but also reduce the strangling green tape that many people in Australia deal with on a daily basis.

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

It is interesting that we are debating the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 when simultaneously the Standing Committee on the Environment of this House is inquiring into this very issue under the heading that we refer to as Inquiry into streamlining environmental regulation green tape and onestop shops.

In other words, the very substance of this bill goes to the heart of the inquiry that is currently underway by the Standing Committee on the Environment of the House of Representatives. At this stage it has not concluded its inquiry or presented any recommendations or findings. One might have thought that it would be appropriate, given that there is a standing committee of the House inquiring into this matter, that we might await the findings of that committee before we proceed to change the current rules relating to who carries out assessments.

In fact, why did the minister give the green light to the committee to proceed down the path of an inquiry when the minister was going to bring in legislation simultaneously that effectively makes the inquiry a waste of time? If nothing else, I believe that it is being irresponsible on the part of the government and it is being irresponsible with taxpayers' funds. Hopefully, this legislation will not get through the Senate right now and therefore it might have to come back either amended or to be debated at a later time when that committee has concluded its work and brought some recommendations back to the House. That would seem to me to be the logical time to debate these very matters.

It is interesting that right now, this week, I understand that the World Heritage Committee is meeting in Doha as part of its 38th session. It, too, says that it believes that decisions in respect of referring assessment powers to other levels of government—and I am using my own language here—are premature and should be postponed to allow further consideration.

In getting back to the legislation itself: it clearly exposes the Abbott government's lack of commitment to the environment. Contrary to what other speakers on the government side have said, this legislation clearly highlights that the Abbott government has no commitment to the environment and nor has the minister. Since coming to office, the Abbott government has sought to dismantle every environmental protection measure that was in place, including measures put in place by previous coalition governments. It is motive for doing so has been that it wants 'to eliminate green tape, streamline processes, avoid duplication and speed up the approval times'. The government claims that that, in turn, will make development projects costs much lower, will make projects become viable and will enable Australian developers to compete with their overseas counterparts. If only those claims were true.

The government goes on to talk about how green tape is stifling investment and Australia's future. Can I just point members opposite to what has happened in this country over the last 20 years or so under both coalition and Labor governments? There was no lack of project developments across the country. Indeed, it has been claimed that this country has benefited from the boom in development projects—mainly mineral and gas projects and mining more broadly. If all the regulations that we have in place are so bad for this country, how did all of those projects come to be? The truth is that those regulations were all put in place for a good reason, and that is to ensure that we protect the natural environment whilst at the same time we allow projects to be developed responsibly in this country. In making them responsible, the proponents benefit from them and so does the broader community.

One might be persuaded by this government's arguments about the need to remove green tape if their environmental credentials were all sound. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. This legislation is merely one of several measures the Abbott government is taking to relegate the environment to the point of making it irrelevant. The reality is that this government does not simply want to streamline decision making, avoid duplication and reduce development costs it wants to eliminate environmental obligations altogether. And whilst environmental obligations may exist in law under this legislation, in reality they will be emasculated.

I will go through some steps here to outline what is wrong with this legislation. Firstly, by delegating environmental assessment to the state governments the process is immediately flawed. State governments have a vested economic interest in every development in their state, so immediately their primary interest will be in approving developments. By cutting funding to the states, as the Abbott government has done in its 2014-15 budget, the states are now even more desperate to generate funds from developments and are even less likely not to back any developments that they are asked to assess. That is why the Commonwealth, which does not have a vested interest in the individual projects of the states and which would be seen as an independent assessing authority, should continue to provide the environmental assessments that are necessary.

Secondly, the states have made cuts to their own budgets with respect to environmental funding. Indeed, I understand that the cuts to environmental budgets by some of the state governments have been very severe. I understand why they are doing that; it is because they have had their own funds cut by the federal government, so they, too, have to make cuts. And yet, right now, at a time when they are making cuts to their own environmental departments, they are being asked to do more with much less funding.

The inevitable outcome is that short cuts will be taken in the assessment process, that mistakes will be made—not deliberately, but they will be made simply because short cuts will be taken and there will be fewer resources to carry out the processes—and, in turn, the assessment processes will not only become less reliable but, frankly, I see them as becoming more open to challenge. I see them as being more open to challenge both by proponents who want to do things even more cheaply and by others who have an interest in the outcome of that development. It is only logical that if you have fewer staff employed in a department, they will have less time to do more work. That in turn means that their ability to carry out the job they have been asked to do will be put under pressure.

It is often said that developers ultimately have to bear the costs of environmental impact assessments. That may well be true—that they will bear the cost one way or another. The states, however, still have the responsibility to scrutinise those assessments once they are in hand and to ensure that they comply with all requirements. That scrutiny also requires resources and time. Just as importantly, the states will inevitably still be held accountable, and possibly open to challenge, if they have not conducted the process thoroughly. So they are being asked to conduct the process thoroughly in order not to be held liable, perhaps, in a court, but at the same time they have fewer resources with which to do it. I am not sure that too many of the states would be jumping up and down about this transfer of responsibility.

It is inevitable, given all of these applications, that conditions will be applied. The problem with conditions is that, unless they are monitored—and monitored properly—they become useless. Again, a scantly funded state environment department is unlikely to devote sufficient resources to the inspectorial work once an application has been approved. What makes it even more complicated and more difficult is that many environmental impacts do not arise, or are not detected, until many years later. The responsibility to assess and monitor projects is not just a one-off responsibility for these departments; it continues for many years. Because it happens over a period of years, it is often difficult to pinpoint what the cause of a specific environmental problem was. Just as concerning is that poorly funded state environment departments are very unlikely to launch what they know are going to be difficult, complex and costly legal proceedings against well-resourced developers, often multinational, if a breach does arise. So there are a whole range of reasons why this legislation should be of concern.

I will go to the delegation of responsibility to local government. Again the question is: does local government have the necessary expertise and resources to thoroughly undertake the assessment processes required? Even if they do now, this year's budget freezes grants to local government for the next three years, costing local governments some $920 million. As with state governments, they will be making cuts. Where are those cuts likely to be made? They will probably make them in areas where they think they can do so without getting too much resistance from local communities. That means that if they have an environment department, that will probably be one of the first areas cut.

To take away environmental protections from the community, as the Abbott government has done by withdrawing funding from community environmental organisations, including Environmental Defenders Offices, highlights how little regard this government has for the environment. Indeed, when you look at all of their decisions collectively, you clearly see a clever, cynical attack on the environment. Who will be the major beneficiaries of this legislation? The winners will predominantly be big mining companies—85 per cent of whom, I understand, are foreign owned and most of whom are taking far more from Australia than they give back. Now they want to take even more. The government boasts about having approved some $400 billion of development investments in this country since it has come to office. I do not know what the figures are, but I suspect most of that $400 billion is for mining developments.

The harder the government tries to shut down the voices of communities who want to raise environmental concerns, the more determined, I believe, those communities will become. That is what we are seeing with coal-seam gas objectors around Australia, particularly in New South Wales. It makes more sense to have open, transparent and inclusive processes. It makes more sense to bring affected communities into the discussions. These communities often include people with extensive expertise, whose opinions and knowledge should not be ignored. As a member of this House's Committee on the Environment, I have spoken to countless people with extensive environmental expertise, expertise that has been useful in the past and will be useful in the future. We should listen to these experts when they identify environmental problems and their expertise should be utilised in finding solutions to those problems. But the Abbott government simply does not value the natural environment, the biodiversity within it or the expertise of the people within our communities.

I will close on this note. The environment, and the biodiversity within it, sustains our health and wellbeing. It underpins our economy, especially primary production. Australia and the rest of the world have experienced significant and unsustainable loss of biodiversity over the years. More than 50 species of Australian animals are believed to have become extinct in the past 200 years and many others are functionally extinct. The environment and its biodiversity are already under serious threat from climate change. The Australian government has an obligation to the people of Australia and it has an obligation to give effect to international conventions to which we are a signatory, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The EPBC Act is the instrument by which the federal government exercises its environmental responsibilities. The EPBC Act is the Australian government's principal piece of environmental legislation. It is designed to protect the national environmental assets of this country. To delegate powers from within that act, when it was specifically designed to put those powers into the hands of the federal government, is irresponsible indeed.

Nickolas Varvaris (Barton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. Firstly, the coalition is absolutely committed to environment protection and economic responsibility. We do this in a win-win scenario. I absolutely reject the premise used by the opposition that the coalition does not care about our environment and that this bill is a retrograde mechanism to harm the states and the environment. This bill is not about negatively affecting the promotion of conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources. It will serve to ensure an efficient, timely and effective process for assessment and approval actions and, importantly, to minimise unnecessary duplication in bureaucracy at state and federal levels.

What the bill proposes is that states and territories commit to the agreement with the Commonwealth to ensure that objectives of the EPBC Act are met and environmental standards are fully and completely maintained, and in some instances further increased, whilst actively allowing faster approvals and a simpler process which will deliver benefits for all. Importantly, the coalition firmly believes that a single entry point at state level for approval can maintain environmental standards and allow businesses to get on with things.

The coalition is a staunch advocate, and rightly so, of a one-stop shop for environmental approvals so that only one environmental approval that covers both Commonwealth and state requirements is needed for an action. The Commonwealth, state and territory governments are committed to working together to achieve this. Crucially, the Commonwealth will maintain an important role and remain accountable for its obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, including international treaties. The Commonwealth will retain an approval role for actions in Commonwealth waters, on Commonwealth land or by Commonwealth agencies and, lastly, the Commonwealth will have an ongoing role in ensuring that commitments under bilateral agreements are met.

Before I proceed, allow me to put some things into context. The current situation we find ourselves in is a direct result of the former government's hasty arrangements with the former Independent member for New England in a resulting minority government. These hasty arrangements of a supposed one-stop shop were permitted for all arrangements but strictly excluded what was known as 'water trigger' projects, those such as coal seam gas and coal mining believed to have adverse impacts on water resources. Consequently, organisations wanting to undertake such projects were subjected to lengthy assessment and approval processes at state, territory and Commonwealth levels. This meant businesses would grapple with a multitude of overlapping regulatory burdens which was immensely time consuming, involving jumping through hoops and processes which could go on for weeks and months, sometimes years. For a business that has no certainty and contracts with pending results for weeks and months on end, that can be disastrous.

The opposition's argument thus far has been the logic that regulatory burden enables better environmental control. No, it enables the control of businesses being buried with red tape and strangled with paperwork, but the impact on the environment is disputable. The coalition understands the need for scrutiny and accountability for environmental protection by ensuring all projects carried out by organisations meet environmental standards. Because the coalition has Australian businesses and jobs at the forefront of decision-making processes, the coalition absolutely understands the urgency for reducing red tape and having a streamlined regulatory and administrative process in a unified framework, whilst allowing all other stakeholders to get on with their role. State and territory governments have responsibility for land and water management in Australia. This is not new and has been in place for some time now.

One of the key achievements of this bill is enabling the removal of the duplication across jurisdictions and creating an efficient, effective process. When fully implemented, this bill will allow for a true one-stop shop for environmental approvals that has a single entry point at the state level for approvals. This is achieved through three parts: (1) signing a memorandum of understanding on key principles and confirming cooperation; (2) updating on bilateral agreements for those already in place; and (3) agreement on bilateral approvals within 12 months. Eliminating duplication means Australian businesses can expedite their operations whilst the Commonwealth not only maintains but strengthens environmental standards.

It will strengthen environmental standards because, prior to entering a bilateral agreement, states and territories must demonstrate that their environmental assessment and approval processes meet the high standards set up by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The states and territories are accountable for matters that would produce adverse outcomes for the environment. Having a one-stop shop also means there is more transparency and access to information on the environment, and stakeholders can review as necessary. Should there be any issues or disputes, an escalated resolution process will be on hand. Finally, the environment minister will retain the ability to further assess or approve a project.

The suggestion that this bill will give too much power back to states and territories is a woeful and even insulting premise. The state and territory governments are perfectly able to make informed environmental impact assessments for such projects and should have the autonomy to proceed as they see fit. This bill will abolish the metaphorical hand-holding by the Commonwealth which only serves to create a bloated bureaucracy and inefficiency. If we backtrack two years, the one-stop-shop reform was actually introduced by the Labor Party, devised by the Gillard government, in early 2012 with the mechanism in operation by March 2013. The idea was to allow key decision making to be the responsibility of the most appropriate level of government, through the states and territories. Unfortunately, by December 2012 the former government changed their minds. Now Labor still stand opposed to an agreement that was first devised by them and that their state counterparts had all signed up to. It is a little confusing.

The coalition understands that for major resource projects concerning coal seam gas and large coalmining it is crucial to have measures in place that would not minimise standards or lessen environmental sustainability. However, the overwhelming duplication in question has not actually produced quantifiable environmental benefits or outcomes. Again, the streamlining, the creation of a one-stop shop and the removal of the unnecessary deadweight regulatory burden are completely sensible—in fact, it would be illogical not to do so. It is possible to produce and allow robust environment assessments of these actions, delivered through a single assessment and approval process that benefits everyone. Importantly, this is good news and a relief for Australia's international investment reputation.

I understand environmental concerns surrounding coal seam gas mining and coalmining development projects, but it is important to highlight that this can be done without the purported disastrous consequences to the environment, while still creating jobs and economic benefits. The coalition is committed to ensuring that the states have access to the necessary information before making important decisions in relation to these water trigger projects so that environmental standards are upheld against high standards. To ensure state and territory bodies can seek the correct advice before approving projects, the coalition will increase the role of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development to provide their expert opinion.

The coalition absolutely notes the legitimate concerns of electorates with coal seam gas mining and coalmining, but there should be common sense when we are enforcing regulation. Again, it will allow the states and territories to make appropriate decisions in their respective areas, where they are across the issues on the suitability of such projects. This reinforces the coalition's commitment to streamlined processes, smaller governments and the reduction of unnecessary bureaucracy, which businesses and the community simply do not need.

Simplifying and streamlining approvals is the way forward that will end the unnecessary red tape, which does nothing except waste time and taxpayer money. Jumping the same hurdles over and over is counterproductive. Giving businesses certainty as to the requirements and time frames of prospective proposals prior to undertaking this process will streamline this important process and contribute enormously to employment and economic prosperity.

This bill will recognise that states and territories have set up their processes in ways that work best for them in their respective state or territory. Furthermore, the new provision to provide ongoing certainty to the community about the operation of the agreement is important for businesses and governments alike. It is actually possible to have economic development alongside environmental protection. Members opposite will have you believe otherwise because they honestly seem to think that regulatory burden, red tape and excessive statutory control will lead to cleaner air, greener grass and bluer skies. It does not. It will not. What it will do is strangle businesses and resources and prevent benefits from flowing on to important constituents and stakeholders.

Labor will have you think that their key achievement in environmental reform was the political masterminding of the abhorrent carbon tax with the Australian Greens, which has become the world's most notoriously expensive program, with no results. The only genuine impact is that consumers pay through the roof in utility bills, businesses lose market share and foreign investment withers away as Australia has reduced investor opportunities and loss of economic potential.

The coalition has taken an important major step in reform through the reduction of governmental red tape and multiple regulatory obstacles facing businesses. We are allowing the states and territories to have the autonomy to approve projects with stringent criteria set to a national regulatory framework. This framework will be enforced and will ensure that the environment will not only be protected but even strengthened and that businesses can also have a fair go. We are safeguarding both the environment and Australia's economic prosperity.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill will deliver better standards, faster processes and streamlined regulation, which are all part of the coalition's commitment to a wider environmental regulatory reform policy agenda and our key audit of existing environmental regulation.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to oppose the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, which is before the House. This bill amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to facilitate the delegation of environmental approval powers to state and local governments. The delegations allowed within this bill include World Heritage listed sites, nuclear activities and approvals under the water trigger amendment.

Divesting the Commonwealth government of its responsibility to protect environmental areas of national significance is not good policy. It is not good for the health and wellbeing of our planet and it is certainly not good for future generations. In practice, this bill will allow state and local governments to determine the level of protection we afford to nationally significant environmental and heritage sites across Australia. It hands over the power to approve developments in some of Australia's most iconic and sensitive natural areas—including the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park and Fraser Island—to the cash-strapped states and local governments. Handing Commonwealth power to the states would endanger some of our most sensitive natural areas and threaten biodiversity protection across Australia.

Only the Commonwealth has the mandate and capacity to consider the needs of the whole of Australia when approving projects that could affect the environment. A state government has no motivation to put the national interest before its own state interest when approving development within its own state. This bill puts major environmental decisions in the hands of the current 'everything is for sale' state governments. We will have Campbell Newman, Premier of Queensland, waving in the ships to dredge and dump on the Great Barrier Reef. He will probably try and find a way to sell the reef while he is at it. Colin Barnett, Premier of Western Australia, a strong supporter of the controversial shark culls in WA, will now be in charge of the Ningaloo Reef. We will have Will Hodgman, Premier of Tasmania, axe and saw in hand, overseeing Tasmania's iconic World Heritage listed forests. These are premiers and state governments who have already proven that they do not have the capacity to make sound environmental conservation decisions. We most definitely should not be giving them more approval power to make decisions about our environment and sites of national significance.

These are state governments who are under significant budgetary pressure following the actions of this Abbott Liberal government. State governments have not held back from criticising this government for the cuts it has made to their own budgets—$80 billion of cuts to health and education, and many other cuts, including to concessional programs for seniors. New South Wales Premier Mike Baird, for example, has warned that New South Wales 'cannot absorb these cuts'.

With the federal government backing away from funding the states, governments across the country are looking for other ways to raise revenue and are selling our assets. In my electorate of Newcastle, the New South Wales Liberal government has recently sold our port, our greatest public asset, to the highest bidder as an immediate revenue-raising measure. And just last week the New South Wales Liberals opted to privatise New South Wales electricity networks. The Abbott Liberal government is actually encouraging them to sell more assets by offering financial incentives to do so. State governments—who have a selling, planning and development onus, rather than a conservation focus—should not be making development decisions that could affect areas of natural environmental significance. This responsibility should remain with the Commonwealth.

This bill goes to something beyond the current pro-development, 'for sale' state governments that view the environment as nothing more than a resource to be exploited. It provides the ability for these same state governments to accredit local government to undertake critical assessment and approval processes. Allowing the states to approve anything, anywhere, without limitation is worrying enough, without further diluting accountability by putting local government in charge of Australia's major natural assets. Do not get me wrong, the Cairns Regional Council should have input into any proposal to develop within their council boundaries; however, they have neither the resources nor the capability—nor should they—to be making major environmental decisions about the Great Barrier Reef. Similarly, the Shire of Exmouth council should have a say in what happens in and around Ningaloo Reef within their boundaries; but, again, they should not be the determining body. Shires and councils play an important role as stewards and custodians of our natural environmental treasures and areas of environmental significance; however, to suggest that they are the appropriate body for the management of major developmental approvals is misguided. It is the federal government's responsibility to oversee and protect areas of national significance. Major developments impacting on areas of national significance should go through a robust process at a federal level that is consistent, not through the inconsistency of town halls across the nation.

Another of Labor's concerns with the divestment of approval power is the lack of quality and consistency in processes between the different states and territories. It has been identified in the past as an issue. Without national oversight, the consistency and quality of processes would likely deteriorate further. Labor does support the streamlining of environmental assessment processes for major projects, but final approval on matters of national environmental significance absolutely should remain with the national government. As part of an investment into streamlining processes, in 2012, when in government, Labor did in fact start the process of negotiating with states and territories to establish agreements to reduce regulatory double up. However, throughout these negotiations and investigations, it became clear that some states could not be trusted with Australia's unique environment. It was clear that a national oversight—with national processes and approvals over the entire country, not just within state boundaries—would ensure the best environmental results.

This bill itself specifically mentions the current inconsistencies across states and territories, but does not actually do anything to address these inconsistencies. It acknowledges different systems and standards in each state, but ignores any issues that this might present. Rather than create simplicity and certainty for applicants through the cutting of so-called green tape, this bill will actually create additional levels of bureaucracy, more complexity and increased uncertainty for industries, which will ultimately undermine investor confidence. The stated intention of this policy is to reduce regulatory burden, where in fact the policy does the opposite: requiring business to now deal with up to eight separate state or territory jurisdictions, each with their own set of conditions. The conditions to be met for a development application in New South Wales may vary greatly to the conditions in Queensland or Victoria. Applications that involve cross-state boundaries may further confuse the process, and that is before you even start to deal with the intricacies of the 560 individual shire and council processes if this bill were to progress.

Australian environmental groups have banded together against this bill in record numbers. They believe that the threat to our nation's environmental heritage is so great that they have formed what is perhaps the biggest environmental alliance in our country's history. The Places You Love alliance is a group of organisations who are leading protectors and conservationists in Australia and, in some cases, the world. Representing more than 1.5 million Australians through their membership, the 41 groups within the alliance include: the World Wildlife Fund, the Humane Society International, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, Greenpeace, the National Parks Australia Council, and the Climate and Health Alliance, as well as some smaller but no less dedicated groups like: the ACT Conservation Society, the Australasian Bat Society, BirdLife Australia, Environs Kimberley, Environment Tasmania and the Wilderness Society. Every state and territory is represented in the alliance and their view is clear: do not hand assessment and approval powers for matters of national environmental significance to state and territory governments. The alliance of environmental experts firmly believes that state and territory governments do not have the capacity to make approval decisions and would be severely conflicted in making any decisions due to their reliance on royalties and other income from large development projects.

Aside from headline sites like the Great Barrier Reef, there are a number of less known, but no less important, areas of environmental significance that would be affected if this bill were to go forward. My electorate of Newcastle is home to a site of international environmental significance, the Ramsar-listed Hunter wetlands. The Hunter wetlands is one of 65 Ramsar sites in Australia that cover more than 8.3 million hectares. The fact that the Hunter site exists today is itself an inspiring story of conservation. Until the mid-1980s the site had been used as a rubbish dumping ground, railways and even sporting grounds leaving only fragmented patches of remnant wetlands of what was the massive Hunter Wetlands Estuary system, known as the Hexham Swamp. Through the determination and persistence of the local community and a number of far-sighted organisations, the former dump has been transformed into a vibrant wetland ecosystem that is today bursting with life. The site has been protected under the Ramsar convention on the protection of wise use of wetlands since 2002, and has received numerous national and international awards. A major highlight was in 2005 when they received the International Ramsar Convention Award for Education. Building on this award, Labor invested further in the Hunter wetlands and in 2011 funded and opened a new $2.5 million education facility at the centre. The Hunter wetlands and the 64 other Ramsar sites need environmental protection at a federal level, not a state or regional council level. Their collective futures are important to the nation's future. This argument is shared by conservation groups.

Humane Society International are so concerned of the possible effects on Ramsar sites under this bill that they have written to the secretariat of the Ramsar convention at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature in Switzerland. Their major concern for the sites is that this bill before the House weakens the capacity for Australia to fulfil its protection obligations under the Ramsar convention by moving the onus of conservation and wise use of wetlands from an agency focused on environmental conservation, that is, the environment minister, to state agencies who have a more localised planning and economy based approach to natural resource management and who also have less obligations to conservation through their state legislature. These Ramsar sites must continue to be protected at a federal level.

Labor opposes this bill because we believe the national government is responsible for matters of national environmental significance. We continue to support streamlining environmental assessment processes for major projects, but final approval on matters of national environmental significance should remain with the national government. The Australian government has a responsibility for protecting Australia's precious environment and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act in particular accounts for matters of national environmental significance.

The Abbott government has no interest in protecting Australia's environment for the future. We have seen this through the Prime Minister claiming, 'We have quite enough national parks' in relation to the Tasmanian forests and, when elected, one of the first things this government did was approve dredging in the Great Barrier Reef, a decision that I note is currently subject to much discussion at the UNESCO World Heritage committee that is meeting as we speak in Doha. Since coming to government the Prime Minister and the Minister for Environment have made bad decision upon bad decision about our environment, but this is the furthest they have gone in terms of putting our environment at risk of irreparable damage by leaving decisions of national environmental significance to the state premiers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. I note that today is 16 June. I know, Deputy Speaker Kelly, you are aware of this date. I know also that you are a mad-keen literature fan and would know that today is Bloomsday. It is also my brother Simon's birthday, so happy birthday to my brother.

It is also the day that the Queensland government officially declared the Galilee Basin State Development Area. The SDA is designed to facilitate rail corridors between proposed new mines in the Galilee Basin and the Abbott Point Coal Terminal, right on the Great Barrier Reef. This basically gives power to the state government to compulsorily acquire properties to build rail lines under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act, irrespective of whether the farmers on that route object to that.

This point illustrates perfectly some of the problems that come with being a federation. When Australia's Constitution was drafted, the environment was not considered a significant national issue, so the government was not given any explicit power in the Constitution to make laws about environmental matters. The attitude of the time was, 'Conquer, clear and carve up into productive, economic farming units.' Even though we were an urban country at the time the Constitution was written, and are now, there has been a gradual progression when it comes to environmental law.

As a result of this constitutional silence, there has been some confusion over the years about the division of responsibility for environmental protection between states, the federal government, local governments and local communities. Many of the ad hoc national laws in relation to the environment have been introduced to give effect to Australian obligations, triggered by over 90 international environmental agreements that the government has ratified. These agreements or treaties cover topics such as the World Heritage area., which is important for Queensland because we have the Great Barrier Reef, but also for Tasmania and many other areas.

I note the member for Franklin is sitting at the dispatch box. She would be very passionate and aware of the history, in terms of environmental protection afforded Tasmania under those treaties. I think she might have had an F111 fly over at one stage—just to work out what was going on—a few years back, under Prime Minister Hawke. Other topics are climate change, marine pollution, the recording of pollutants, the remediation of land and biodiversity management, particularly preventing the extinction of species. I

In an attempt to clarify confusion between state and federal environmental powers and to make sure that Australia complies with its international obligations, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill was introduced to take on responsibility for developments that had the potential to impact upon matters of national environmental significance. It is very important that everyone in Australia understands that this parliament is concerned by the EPBC with the matters of national environmental significance.

The EPBC was introduced in 1999 as a piece of fundamental environmental legislation for Australia by the Howard government. I commend them for it. Australian state and territory governments undertook shared responsibility for protecting our natural resources. After more than 10 years with the current legislation, negotiations began about the readiness to negotiate the transfer of environmental approval powers. At COAG, in December 2012, Prime Minister Gillard made the right decision to delay that transfer, indicating that more work need to be done to progress such bilateral agreements. Obviously we need to get it right. When we do not get it right, species disappear, habitats are destroyed and we breach our international treaty obligations.

One reason cited by Prime Minister Gillard for the government's hesitation is the need to ensure that high environmental standards will be consistently maintained across all jurisdictions. We would hate to have nine applications and nine sets of red tape that only confuse businesses. Now, without proper consultation and recognition of the severe consequences that come with handing over the decision-making power to state and territory governments, the Abbott government will remove federal protection of our native flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places, such as the Great Barrier Reef, effectively taking a step back to the bad old days.

My major concern about this legislative amendment is that the states and territories are overly dependent on royalty revenues from the extractive sector, the mining sector. So the proposed bilateral agreements could mean the business sector would face an even more complex regulatory environment, due to the significant variations in different states' environmental regulation frameworks. The one-stop-shop model that was behind this legislation in the first place, that the Abbott government is putting forward, will harm the natural environment. It gives powers to states and territories that will see reduced protection for our nationally threatened species—our World Heritage regions, our wetlands, our migratory species and Commonwealth marine parks, including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in my home state of Queensland.

Throughout the 1960s the Bjelke-Petersen government in Queensland advocated oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef, the largest living structure on the planet and one of the most complex ecosystems. In 1973 the Whitlam government passed the Seas and Submerged Lands Act, which gave the Commonwealth authority over the states in matters concerning seas surrounding Australia. This legislation was used to block the Bjelke-Petersen government's plans to allow oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. Whilst the Queensland and New South Wales governments challenged this legislation in the High Court, the court found that the Commonwealth powers were constitutionally valid. In 1975 the Whitlam government created the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and created an authority to manage it for future generations. The organisation continues to perform this function today and by 1983 the marine park had been progressively expanded, becoming the largest marine park in the world. What a great legacy for a government—a Labor government, of course.

I am sad to say that the day after the LNP government was elected in Queensland—in March, two years ago—the Deputy Premier announced that he wanted to see the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park contract, become smaller. He did not mention it in the lead-up to the election, but it is part of that LNP tradition. I will quickly list some of the other things the LNP government has done—there are 21 items. They removed laws to protect urban areas from mining. They axed future conservation areas. They bulldozed tree-clearing laws and released millions of litres of contaminated mine water. They cancelled every renewable energy project. They limited rights in terms of appropriate development. They commenced logging in state reserves, expanded oil shale extraction and production, opened up national parks to grazing and partnered with the mining industry. They introduced pay-to-damage laws. They affected bats. They removed riparian vegetation protection and sacked hundreds of public servants, especially in the environmental department. They defunded the Environmental Defenders Office. They axed wild river protections, abolished the waste levy, cut funds to koala organisations, gutted the coastal protection laws, recommenced uranium mining and extended sand mining. They fired up dormant coal-fired power stations and removed the need for local councils to account for sea-level rises in their planning laws. That is just a snapshot of what the state government of Queensland has done.

Obviously handing approval powers to the states, like Queensland, will not lead to more efficient or effective processes. The already stretched resources of state governments, particularly where they have had public servants sacked—especially the more experienced ones with the corporate knowledge—will mean that the approval process will be convoluted, unpredictable and unreliable. Earlier this month the Newman government in Queensland announced five so-called megaports would be allowed along the state's coast under this blueprint for dredging programs near the reef. Abbot Point near Bowen in the state's north, one of the world's biggest coal terminals, was declared a Port Development Priority Area under the Queensland Ports Strategy, along with Gladstone, Hay Point, Mackay and Townsville.

A recent report by UNESCO found that the Newman government cannot be trusted with the protection and management of our greatest natural asset, the Great Barrier Reef—great consequences for tourism! The UNESCO report raised significant concerns with the health and management of the Great Barrier Reef and has recommended it be considered for listing as World Heritage in danger at its next session. UNESCO will make a ruling at the World Heritage Committee meeting in Doha, and I hope that this warning will be a wake-up call for the current governments at both a national and state level. The first thing the Newman government should do is take back responsibility for enforcing, monitoring and reporting on water quality in the Great Barrier Reef catchment, which it abandoned soon after coming to government—providing a licence to pollute, effectively.

Some environmental groups have noted that the changes to the EPBC Act would lead to a culture of litigation in the environmental movement, creating a situation in which developments are caught up in an increasing number of lawsuits as communities go through other avenues to protect their wildlife and land, whereas the EPBC Act was all about making it simpler.

The situation on the Great Barrier Reef is telling. According to the Australian Institute of Marine Science, 50 per cent of the coral on the Great Barrier Reef has been lost since 1960. We all know that state governments have a direct stake in major developments, particularly when it comes to the money they will receive from mining royalties—especially in a budget where the federal government has cut off much of their funding; $80 billion was cut overnight in the budget a few weeks back. Without federal intervention there would be oil rigs on the Great Barrier Reef and a dam on the Franklin River. With half of the Great Barrier Reef's coral lost already, we are on the cliff of an unprecedented and massive port and shipping expansion that could turn the reef into an industrial highway for supertankers. In fact, it could be an increase of 480 extra ships a year if the Carmichael mine reaches full production; not just a few more ships—we are talking about a projected 7,000 supertankers passing through the reef every year. As I said, the Newman government has just granted approval for the Galilee Basin coalmine despite serious environmental concerns raised by experts appointed by the Commonwealth. The $16.5 billion Carmichael project would add to that in terms of producing about 60 million tonnes of coal a year—a mine covering 200 square kilometres. It is incredible.

The EPBC Act was put in place to protect matters of environmental significance and the federal government should have oversight of this. They should protect matters of national interest so we can fulfil our World Heritage, Ramsar and other international obligations. When it comes to international obligations, the Australian public do not have confidence, sadly, in our state governments—be they Labor or Liberal or anything in between. One reason for this is that it should not be one state alone that decides whether a matter that is of national—or international—significance should be protected. This is why the EPBC Act was put in place in the first place, after the Tasmanian dam case.

Given the evidence of how state laws and state capacities are not adequate to fulfil national and international environmental obligations, environment groups, environmental lawyers and the Australian public do not have confidence that this process should go ahead. In fact, in a recent Queensland Audit Office report—this is a Queensland government entity—regarding mining and waste-resource industries in Queensland and how effectively they are being managed by the department of environment in Queensland, there was the following statement:

EHP (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection) is not fully effective in its supervision, monitoring and enforcement of environmental conditions and is exposing the state to liability and the environment to harm unnecessarily.

That is from the Queensland government's own audit report into how effective it can be as the police officer on the beat. This is from the Queensland Audit Office. It actually reports to the Queensland government. This shows that there is an inability of the state government to effectively protect our national natural resources.

I, like the rest of the Labor Party, oppose the bilateral agreement's implementation in its current form and the hand-down of powers to states through the EPBC Act amendments presented to the House. I would ask the LNP members who are able to, to vote according to their conscience—particularly the Queensland members of parliament with the Great Barrier Reef at their doorstep such as the member for Herbert; I am sure he will be able to be a freethinking individual and make a decision that benefits his community, which is heavily reliant on tourism. He will know that we should be doing all we can to protect the Great Barrier Reef—to protect the reefs off Magnetic Island and the tourism connected with that. I would ask the LNP—all of the LNP, but particularly those Queensland LNP members—to consider their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren and do likewise. Just say no: you know it makes sense. LNP members are able to make an individual decision any time they want when it comes to a piece of policy. I have only seen two or three of them actually have the guts to cross the floor when it came to a piece of policy.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many Labor members have crossed the floor, big man? How many?

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

The Labor Party is bound by caucus rules. You would have to be an idiot not to know that the Labor Party is bound by caucus rules, but Exhibit A speaks up.

The reality is the environmental protection legislation before the chamber does not protect the environment. It undermines the very piece of legislation that John Howard and other environment ministers were proud of. I can speak with some authority on what goes on in Queensland and the reality is we do not have a state that is effective when it comes to policing its own environmental laws. It has no chance of making the right decision when it is bound to the profits from royalties from the mining industry.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no question at all that the lack of harmonisation and the duplication of federal, state and local environmental approvals processes adds complexity, cost, frustration and a lack of certainty right across the country. The intent of this legislation is to maintain the high environmental standards under national environmental law while delivering benefits for the community and business through a single approvals entry point at the state level. The provisions for a one-stop shop have actually existed since the EPBC Act was introduced. The Commonwealth will remain accountable for its obligations, including international treaties, under the EPBC Act and has an ongoing role with commitments under bilateral agreements. The Commonwealth will also retain an approval role for its actions in Commonwealth waters and Commonwealth land or by Commonwealth agencies.

I note that the states and territories have to demonstrate to the minister that their environmental assessment and approvals processes meet the high standards in the EPBC Act. When people think about the management of the Australian environment, they often underestimate the commitment of coalition governments. I have confidence in the state governments, particularly the Western Australia government. It was the Charles Court led Liberal government of Western Australia that from 1974 to 1983 took major steps towards the conservation of the natural heritage of the state, more than doubling the amount of land set aside in national parks to 4.5 million hectares.

Sir Charles was also the first to call a halt to the indiscriminate clearing of agricultural land, which until his time had actually been a requirement of landholders acquiring freehold or leasehold title. His Liberal government took the brave but necessary decision to enforce clearing bans in the Collie River catchment in my electorate because they had identified the growing and ominous threat of salinity. Salinity in the Collie catchment is still an area of grave concern. The Wellington Dam, a 156-gigalitre water asset held by the state government, remains stranded with a total dissolved salt level of over 1,000 parts per million. This is twice the potable drinking water standard, and some critical and possibly lateral thinking is required to achieve the best productive use of this water resource.

Sir Charles also identified the impending threat of Phytophthora dieback in WA's native forests. His government took the tough decision of quarantining three-quarters of a million hectares of jarrah forest from logging to protect this valuable and iconic natural asset. The history of environmental care and protection by the Liberal Party in Western Australia is a long and detailed one—which is why I have that level of confidence—and it is still going on. The current Liberal led government in Western Australia has invested in a range of conservation programs, significantly adding reservations created as part of the state's Kimberley Science and Conservation Strategy.

Another area of considerable focus has been in marine conservation. The WA state government created a new reserve in Camden Sound to protect the internationally renowned whale breeding area there and formalised the 124,000 hectare Ngari Capes Marine Park off the south west of Western Australia in the state marine zone within three nautical miles of the coast off the electorate of Forrest. The proclamation of the Ngari Capes Marine Park in 2012 was a highlight of marine conservation in the region. Unlike the Commonwealth marine planning process that was occurring concurrently under federal Labor, the state process was inclusive and scientifically valid.

The State of Western Australia has a great record in environmental conservation. Practices have evolved over the years. Having federal oversight in the 1930s to 1970s would not have stopped the overclearing that occurred throughout the WA Wheatbelt leading to the salinity and acidity issues that exist today because, in fact, both state and federal governments supported it. But, as our knowledge base grew and the consequences became known, both levels of government have supported action. I do note that where there was an active timber industry, especially in the South West and in the Forrest electorate, forests were valued and retained. Where they were not harvested and managed to retain a future resource, forests generally disappeared. Those who love the iconic jarrah and karri forests of the South West can in part thank the timber industry for their ongoing existence.

It is with this recognition of the history of the ecology in Western Australia that I support the bill before the House today. I also note that, at a federal level, it was a federal coalition who appointed the first minister for the environment and, of course, it was the Howard government who introduced the EPBC Act in 1999. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill recognises that the states and territories are actually the land managers defined in our Commonwealth Constitution. It also recognises that in those states and territories they have the knowledge, the skills and the on-ground experience to make good decisions for local ecosystems and local communities through this legislation, administering both state and federal acts in a one-stop shop process.

There remains an important role for the Commonwealth: that of oversight, but only where it is empowered by Commonwealth legislation to do so. There are times and conditions where circumstances will demand a federal response. Under the system proposed by the Minister for the Environment in this bill, there is ample opportunity for the Commonwealth to engage with state environment departments throughout the assessment process. This is an opportunity for improved interaction and communication between state and federal bodies, with a greater potential for an efficient, effective process and better outcomes. Of course, in areas of Commonwealth legislation jurisdiction the federal government retains the power and the right to intercede in a more direct manner. This is completely appropriate as well. There may be times ahead where the Commonwealth government needs to call in the assessment and/or the approval of a project. Working in concordance but with the power to disagree in individual cases will be the fallback that is needed to make this system work based on scientific evidence.

The minister has the power under the EPBC Act to suspend or cancel an agreement. This is part of the comprehensive assurance framework. The transparency around decisions and access to information ensure that the broader community can be part of the monitoring process for the one-stop shop. State and territory audits, transitional and five-yearly review of bilateral agreements and reporting mechanisms are further parts of this, as is an escalated dispute resolution process to resolve any issues.

This legislation is part of the answer to the issues of streamlined but safe approvals. I hope it will see an end to approvals taking five to seven years, as has happened in my electorate in the south-west of Western Australia to mineral sand miners. And that is just one example. But it is repeated again and again.

Having an outcome take so long, putting vestments, jobs and the economy of the region at risk, clearly demonstrates why this legislation is a step in the right direction. The need for a complementary and more unified process is highlighted by the approvals process as it exists in my Forrest electorate. The process in my electorate can generally be described in most applications by using two words: 'possums' and 'cockatoos'. These two vulnerable species—the western ringtail possum and Carnaby's black cockatoo—are the focus for endangered species in my area. This is especially the case along the coastal plain leading to the edge of the scarp. These species are picked up by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act federally, which can significantly slow down the approvals process.

However, the experts on the western ringtail possum and Carnaby's black cockatoo are in the state Department of Environment and Conservation. So it makes sense—it is common sense—that that department should lead both the research and the response to the ringtail possum and the Carnaby's black cockatoo. The one-stop shop will promote the sharing of environmental information and data between business, governments and, importantly, the community. I believe that the government and the minister are both to be commended on this initiative.

As I said, this is certainly a step in the right direction for harmonisation to reduce the levels of complexity, the cost, the frustration and the lack of certainty that exists across the country.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to let the member for Richmond know that she owes me when she does get to the chamber! I would like to make a couple of points in relation to this. The first is that I support the legislation. I will tell you why. A couple of issues have arisen in Townsville. One is with respect to the delay of a major development of a residential estate. The cause for the delay has always been the black-throated finch. They spent about $5,000 getting the approvals from the local government. They spent about $50,000 getting approvals from the state government. They were up to about $1.6 million still trying to get approvals from the federal government during the last parliament, when we at last saw some movement on that. So when you look at what has to be done with the three levels of government you see the complications arise.

The other issue arose in relation to a sandmining lease down at Cungulla. Friends of mine have bought a sandmining lease between two operating sand mines, and with exactly the same purpose. Two small business men bought this lease with their superannuation. The sandmining lease had on it a poplar gum. The poplar gum was the only known food source of the bare-rumped sheathtail bat. Yes, the bare-rumped sheathtail bat! No-one has ever seen one in north Queensland but they had to prove that this thing could not come back because it was the only known food source for it. It was like trying to disprove a potential alien landing site.

These guys were held up by the federal end of the legislation for over 12 years, even though they were between two existing businesses doing exactly the same thing. That is why we have to have this legislation. It is not about the federal government abnegating or moving away from imposing federal laws; it is about giving ordinary business people opportunities to have simple processes and a one-stop shop. You still have to pass federal legislation, and all the things that the federal legislation does, but you only have to do it in one place; you do not have to keep going back, finding things more and more complicated. That is why I support this legislation. I think the minister, Greg Hunt, has done a fantastic job in getting this thing done.

We have cause for concern when we do not have the right people in the right jobs. A uranium mine is being discussed around Townsville. We have to make sure that it is still going to be looked at and that it is going to be taken very seriously. It still has to pass federal legislation; it is just that it is a one-stop shop. That is what members opposite seem not to understand. I was holding the fort, so I thank the House.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Herbert for getting up on his scrapers and doing his bit while we got our acts together. I am not sure I agree with everything he said, but that is beside the point. I am pleased that he was able to do the right thing.

This Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 will, among other things, allow states and territories to be accredited for approval decisions on large coalmining and coal seam gas developments that are likely to have a significant impact on water resources; ensure that all states and territories are able to be declared, under the EPBC Act for the purpose of requesting advice from the independent expert scientific committee; clarify that proponents do not need to make referrals to the Commonwealth for actions that are covered by an approved bilateral agreement and, significantly—these are described by some as minor miscellaneous amendments—allow approved bilateral agreements to include approvals made by any person or organisation authorised by the state or territory, such as local governments, rather than only entities that meet the EPBC Act definition of the 'state' or an 'agency of the state'. The bill further clarifies that approval of bilateral agreements could apply to projects that had been approved before the minister accredits the state or territory process as long as the action was approved in accordance with the relevant accredited process; they clarify that the minister can take into account all matters that the minister considers relevant when deciding whether to accredit a management arrangement or authorisation process; and ensure that bilateral agreements can make reference to the most current version of the instruments and policy documents.

I will come back to those in a moment but in summary I would like to say that, while on the face of it allowing state and territory governments to be a one-stop shop and do the business sounds attractive, in its substance, when you examine it, it has real difficulties. I say this as someone who has had the luxury, in a way, of observing the interaction between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory government over a generation. Seeing how the former Northern Territory CPL governments have interacted with the Commonwealth over environmental issues, specifically in the first instance of the declaration of Uluru National Park. I remember very vividly the campaign that was waged by the then chief minister of the Northern Territory opposing the declaration of the national park, which subsequently became a World Heritage area. What drove him was not what was best for the community or best for the nation, but his own political self-interest. What worries me about these proposals is that the political self-interest of individuals may override the best interests of the nation. I said earlier that one of the more minor miscellaneous amendments was clarifying that the minister can take into account all matters that the minister considers relevant when deciding whether to accredit a management arrangement or authorisation process.

There have been a couple of issues recently in the Northern Territory which raise serious concerns about the capacity of ministers to do the right thing by the community. I want to refer to a proposal around the Sherwin Creek iron ore project, where the Northern Territory minister, through either ministerial approval or delegation to the Department of Mines, authorised the bulk sampling of 200,000 tonnes of ore that was exported to China and 200,000 tonnes of ore stockpiled on Stylo Station, owned by the former CLP candidate in the last federal election, Mrs Tina McFarlane. This was done without informing the NT Environment Protection Agency and, when the EPA examined the Sherwin iron ore project, it said that this was inappropriate and in contravention of the principles of ecologically sustainable development. Further, it said that such a decision could create precedence for the quality of environmental management on mine sites when government continues to be challenged by legacy mines that require costly remediation. I am talking about the Mount Todd mine, just north of Katherine, and Redbank. It further said that the Roper Highway must be upgraded to an appropriate standard, preferably a dual-laned, fully-sealed road to at least secondary highway standard before approval by the Department of Transport to proceed beyond one million tonnes per annum ore transport and that the proponent must contribute proportionally to this upgrade.

I ask you to consider what I have just said. The current Northern Territory minister—of a government we are proposing through this legislation to give an authority over environmental matters and to act on behalf of the Commonwealth—gave an approval to a mining company to extract 400,000 tonnes of ore without any environmental or transport approval. Let me talk about that transport approval for a moment: the Roper Highway is a single-lane public road, which now has multiple ore road trains travelling along it. There was a report on ABC television last week explaining how dreadfully dangerous it is. The mining company has not put one red cent into expanding or developing this road—nor has the Northern Territory government. They are putting people's lives in danger. On the one hand, we have a potential environmental disaster of allowing a mine like this to proceed without any environmental safeguards in place and, on the other hand, we have the real possibility of fatalities on that road—an important public road—because of the commercial interests of a mining company that has not invested $1 in helping mediate the risk of transporting their ore along this public road. The Northern Territory government irresponsibly has done absolutely nothing to ensure this public road is properly dealt with.

We know that when the EPBC Act was first passed in 1999, it was legislation to avoid the mistakes of past governments over the previous century. Here we have a current mistake. Just look at the history of the Northern Territory since the first overlanders—and may I say many of the carpet baggers that followed in the footsteps of John McDouall Stuart and others—to see the environmental and cultural damage that has occurred in the name of investment and jobs without appropriate consideration of environmental standards or environmental management.

What is required is to have processes in place for evaluating the environmental impacts of development proposals, consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. This legislation refers specifically to the idea of coalmining and to the use of water. I understand also that the Northern Territory government is currently receiving submissions into fracking across several regions of the Territory. I believe that the period for making submissions has been extended, given the large number of anti-fracking submissions that have been received. Only last weekend, I was at the Burunga Festival—a great festival—south of Katherine and the topics of fracking in the Katherine region and the processes for the Northern Territory government to approve drilling were raised by a number of community groups; by individuals—both from the pastoral industry, who have a very efficient beef cattle export industry, and also from the community; and by people who you would associate with the environmental movement. There was a broad cross-section of support. In Alice Springs, there is a similar community group beginning to activate to oppose fracking in the southern part of the Territory. The Arid Lands Environment Centre, a community based environmental group, is taking the lead on the issue. Never mind the fact that, as a result of both the Northern Territory government's budget and the Commonwealth government's budget, they will lose $100,000 of funding.

People are asking very basic questions of not only the Northern Territory government but also the Commonwealth government, in terms of this fracking process. How many millions of litres of water per frack? How many fracks per well? How many wells are proposed across the regions of the Territory? I have heard that it could be up to 60,000 wells. Where will the water come from? What chemicals will be blasted into the hole with the water to frack a well? What are the health risks? We obviously need to consider the toxic effects. What are the impacts on flora and fauna? Will there be waste water ponds at the wells? What evaporation process will take place? What residue gases will end up in the atmosphere? What is the process for sealing the wells? And when will all of this be done? These are just questions that the community want answered. Yet, to date, they are not getting answers.

I mentioned attitudes of government and, potentially, considerations of ministers; we know that there has been a lot of speculation around issues to do with water in the Top End. During the lead-up to the last election, one large farm in the Northern Territory—again, owned by a CLP candidate; the then CLP candidate—was given a licence for 5,000 megalitres of water and, when asked in a recent interview on the ABC what this water would be used for—what she intended to grow, and how she intended to use it—her response was that she did not know. Now this is a supposedly responsible Northern Territory government—making water allocations based on what? Yet we are asked in this place to cede to the Northern Territory government the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Commonwealth—when we know full well that the current Northern Territory government is acting irresponsibly, and in their own political interest, and appearing—at least from my perspective—to be rorting the system to help their mates. Most recently, a CLP fundraiser—someone who has never grown a thing in his life—except perhaps his hair!—received 21,000 megalitres in the Daly region: eight times more than our serious farmers are using now. This is a person who has never grown anything, a CLP donor, who has subsequently resigned from the CLP because he is a magistrate. What does that tell you about the way in which the CLP is operating in the Northern Territory in terms of the allocation of water?

We in this place have a right to be concerned. If the current government wants to provide the capacity for state and territory governments to act on its behalf, we need to have the confidence that they will act responsibly. I have absolutely no doubt that the responsible departmental officials in the Northern Territory will operate as they should—very professionally—and provide appropriate advice. But it is clear that, in the context of the Northern Territory, advice does not matter, and science matters even less.

A number of people have been arguing that the Northern Territory government should have a dam on the Daly River. We know that when the Northern Territory Chief Minister was asked about such a dam, he did not have a response which was anywhere near appropriate. We need to understand that if we are to look after, in this case, the fragile environments of Northern Australia, we need to be very careful about the responsibilities we give to state and territory governments to act on our behalf. The current Northern Territory government and previous CLP governments have shown that they have acted irresponsibly—not in the best interests of the environment but in their own political interests; and not in the best interests of either the Northern Territory community and its people or the Australian nation. So I question very seriously the proposals that are now before us in this bill—particularly that element that, ostensibly, allows the Northern Territory minister to take political considerations into account in any decisions which are made.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 This is a bill that cannot be supported by anyone who takes seriously the regulatory role of the national government in respect of the environment we all share and the environmental values and biodiversity which we have a responsibility to protect for future generations. This bill represents another instalment of this government's 'anything goes' approach to development and big business, and follows the pattern set in their capitulations to big polluters on the issue of climate change, and to big miners on the issue of a fair share for all Australians of the profits derived from the resources that belong to all Australians.

Essentially, this government wants to scuttle out of the way and let the brute and unequal forces of the market do as they will. It wants to take issues of the greatest environmental importance and sensitivity, and have them determined by state and local governments, removing some key protections when it comes to World Heritage, endangered species and water resources, and failing even to ensure that this devolution of environmental protection authority will result in consistent processes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. That change, in particular, is not just bad for the environment but bad too for the certainty of development prospects and proposals.

This goes to the fundamental difference between Labor and the coalition. We understand that representative government derives its authority and owes its duty to the people, not to corporations, and we understand that representative government is obliged to act on the peoples' behalf in protecting community values, assets and resources against what can be the contrary interests of large companies. Those opposite believe that government simply needs to get out of the way, to vacate the field and hold open the gate in the onrush of market forces and profit motives. There should be little wonder whose interest that approach suits best.

In Western Australia we do not need to be too creative in imagining the kind of shortcuts and process failures that might be involved through the proposed derogation of the Commonwealth's environmental responsibility. We have seen the Western Australian EPA get itself into terrible knots over the environmental assessment of the proposed Kimberley gas hub at James Price Point, a situation where four of the five board members involved in that critical decision had to withdraw through conflicts of interest, having already participated in aspects of the determination, and where the chairperson nevertheless saw fit to deliver the final determination and approvals alone. Thankfully, in August last year the Supreme Court of Western Australia said the approvals were unlawful and invalid.

But is that the kind of process we are now going to see for all manner of critical environmental assessments around this country—from the Kimberley to the Great Barrier Reef, from the Tasmanian forests to the Coral Sea? Is that the kind of process people in my electorate can expect in relation to the proposed bisection of the Beeliar wetlands by Roe Highway stage 8? Are we going to see WA's flawed environmental assessment process determine the fate of a rare and fragile wetland whose ecosystem is of great environmental, Indigenous and community significance and which supports migratory birds protected under treaty?

The Labor government introduced special protections in relation to coal-seam gas development in recognition of the legitimate concerns that exist around the contamination of groundwater. We introduced a water trigger and we ensured that coal-seam gas and large-scale coal extraction developments could not be the subject of an approval bilateral. That protection is taken away with this bill and I know, having received a great deal of correspondence from my constituents and from people around Australia on this issue over the last year, that this is a step that will be widely condemned. It has to be recognised that there is a checks-and-balances aspect to the existing system that should not be weakened in the manner that is proposed. There is a place for approval bilaterals in certain circumstances and upon proper constraint, but the approach taken here is moving towards a blanket and dangerous abdication of federal responsibility. Common sense tells you that the precautionary principle should apply and that community expectation in the area of coal-seam gas development, in particular, is that the highest standards of scrutiny and regulation be maintained.

I suspect that every member in this place would both acknowledge and be proud of the fact that Australia is a continent of environmental treasures. Most of us would have some kind of personal connection to a piece of coast, forest or a wetland in our home state if not in our electorates. In WA for me personally there are many, many places like that, and I have spoken in this place about a range of natural wonders on land and in the ocean in remote parts of Western Australia and right in the heart of my electorate of Fremantle. It may be that some members are not aware that the entire south-west of Western Australia comprises an ancient granite slab known as the Yilgarn Shield, and that this dry continental plateau, with its poor soils and heat and low to moderate rainfall, is nevertheless home to an utterly remarkable range of diversity of life. Indeed the south-west botanical province is one of only 34 recognised international biodiversity hotspots. More than half the region's 12,000 plant species are not found anywhere else in the world. Within the Fitzgerald River National Park, which includes 70 kilometres of unbroken coastal reserve and is classed as a UNESCO biosphere, there are 1,900 unique plant species, 300 more than exist in all of Britain.

The vast reaches of Western Australia, north and south, are not barren ground, even when they seem low and dry and lightly populated by humans. On the contrary, right across this continent are examples of natural beauty and biodiversity that can be put at risk by inappropriate development. That is not to say that economic activity or resource development is inherently damaging to our environment. Indeed, an effective system of environmental planning and regulation will generally provide outcomes that protect the environment, enable development and ensure a balance between economic activities like mining and tourism or fishing and other kinds of recreational ocean use. The EPBC Act properly constituted and administered with the appropriate resources has been the bedrock of a system in which the protection of critical environmental values are paramount but through which economic activity is enabled through a careful and consistent process Australia wide.

I would just like to say a couple of things on the topic of 'green tape'. In short, I would suggest that anyone who thinks 'green tape' is a clever way of reducing the issue of environmental protection to something trivial and annoying, something that people might want to get rid of, should think again. If you explain to someone that 'green tape' is a shorthand way of describing the high-quality and high-standard environmental assessment and protection of our oceans, forests, rivers, wetlands, reefs and endangered species, and then ask them if they believe the government should provide less of the stuff, they will ask you whether you've taken leave of your senses. If you had a box of 'green tape' with you at that point, they would ask you for some. They would probably suggest the tape should be wider. They would probably tell you to get bigger rolls of the tape and more of it, and that it should be as sticky and strong as 21st century tape technology allows. So if those opposite think that the weakening of environmental protection contained in this bill—or in other reforms—will be welcomed by the Australian community because it amounts to so-called 'green-tape' reduction, think again.

On that point, I want to recognise the enormous community engagement in the Places You Love campaign, whose slogan says it all: 'Protect the laws that protect the places you love.' In addition to the 1.5 million Australians who have joined the campaign to protest against this government's dismantling of environmental protection, there is a cavalcade of groups who are similarly committed to arguing against the changes that this bill contains. For the record, and as an indication of the strength of the opposition to these measures, I will list those organisations: ACT Conservation Council, Arid Lands Environment Centre Australasian Bat Society, Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Marine Conservation Society, Australian Rainforest Conservation Society, Bat Conservation and Rescue Queensland Inc., Birds SA, BirdLife Australia, Cairns and Far North Environment Centre, Climate and Health Alliance, Colong Foundation for Wilderness, Conservation Council of South Australia, Conservation Council of Western Australia, EDO Victoria, Environment Centre NT, Environs Kimberley, Environment Tasmania, Environment Victoria, Friends of the Earth Melbourne, Greenpeace Australia, Hope Australia, Humane Society International, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Invasive Species Council, National Parks Association of the ACT, National Parks Association of NSW, National Parks Australia Council, Nature Conservation Council of NSW, Queensland Conservation Council, Queensland National Parks Association, Rainforest Rescue, Sunshine Coast Environment Council, Tasmanian Conservation Trust, Tasmanian National Parks Association, The Nature Conservation Society of South Australia, Total Environment Centre, Victorian National Parks Association, The Wilderness Society, Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, and WWF Australia. I thank all of these organisations for the fine work they do in protecting and advocating for Australia's unique environment.

The national government rightly has a specific role in assessing development proposals whose potential impacts include matters of national importance or relate to conservation outcomes that are guaranteed by international agreements. The national government is rightly placed to determine proposals which, in many cases, involve clear conflicts of interest for the states and territories, whose revenue is dependent on development royalties. The provision of consistent, high-level and high-standard environmental protection and biodiversity conservation is the responsibility of the Australian federal government, and the proposed slashing of the protections that have served such a valuable purpose is irresponsible and will likely have consequences that we, our children and their children may well seriously regret.

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

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 is the latest instalment in a series of breathtaking and relentless attacks on a whole range of attempts to protect Australia's beautiful, unique and fragile environments—a progress which was achieved with the blood, sweat and tears of many who love this land we call Australia. The rollcall of Commonwealth regression in environmental matters by this government is a long one. There is the proposed repeal of the carbon price legislation, and its proposed replacement by what is called a 'Direct Action Programme'. There was the designation on 26 March as repeal day for the purpose of repealing more than 1,000 'redundant' federal laws and some 9,500 regulations, including measures relating to the agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines approval process, the regulation of ozone depleting substances and synthetic greenhouse gases, permit and levy processes for sea installations, repealing section 255A of the Water Act—which relates to the assessment of mining operations in the Murray Darling Basin—and then there is the review of the Renewable Energy Target and the proposed abolition of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

There is also the attempt to have 70,000 hectares of Tasmanian world heritage forest delisted by the World Heritage Committee. There is the refusal of the government to include climate change or the environment on the agenda for the G20 meeting in Brisbane, despite strong urgings from the USA and the EU. There was the recently announced review of the Howard government's Water Act in relation to the Murray Darling Basin, the approval of extensive dumping of sediments in the Great Barrier Reef in connection with a major expansion of port facilities at Abbot Point in Queensland to allow exploitation of the Galilee Basin coal deposits. There was the abandonment of the management plans for Commonwealth designated marine parks, thereby removing protections from fishing and sanctuary zones within these parks. There was the termination of the National Wildlife Corridors Plan, the termination of funding for the national system of the environmental defender's offices, which was established back in 1995. There was the termination of the grants funding scheme for environmental non-government organisations, which was established as far back as 1973, thereby threatening the continued existence of many small environmental organisations and a number of state conservation councils.

Further, there is the proposed extinguishment of a number of national bodies addressing environmental matters, including the Climate Commission, the National Water Commission and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. There is the introduction of legislation to repeal the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program. There is the reduction of funding for Landcare by $484 million, and there was the referral by the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, to the Australian Law Reform Commission of a reference to inquire into the incursion into freedoms, for example property rights, by particular types of laws, including environmental laws.

This is the most sustained, concerted attack on the environment. But, in a field which is crowded with contenders, I think there is a case that this is the worst piece of environmental legislation that this government has introduced, because it turns back the clock on some 40 years of Commonwealth involvement in environmental protection. We should not mince words about this. Under the approach proposed by this bill, Fraser Island would have been mined; the Franklin River would have been dammed and the Daintree River would have been logged. We might have even seen the Great Barrier Reef explored for oil. In each case, state governments were prepared to see outstanding natural assets of national significance—arguably of global significance—trashed for economic advantage.

Rob Fowler, who is the adjunct professor at the law school at the University of South Australia, has set out something of the history of Commonwealth involvement in environmental matters, and he says:

Since the dawning of environmental awareness in early 1970's, the Commonwealth government has steadily increased its involvement in environmental matters, through legislation, policies and programmes that have largely been developed on a cooperative basis with the states and territories.

He goes on to say:

…the recently elected Commonwealth government appears to be intent on dismantling much of this Commonwealth fabric, masking its apparently ideological retreat from involvement in environmental protection behind an oft-repeated mantra of "red tape/green tape reduction". The pinnacle of this assault is the government's "one stop shop" programme. I want to suggest to you that this seemingly technical exercise involving odd instruments called bilateral agreements, which might not be expected to attract the attention of the ordinary person in the street, is in fact a matter of the most profound importance and concern in terms of the future protection of the Australian environment.

I believe he is absolutely correct.

I point out that this is not some Rudd-Gillard government legacy which is being trampled over; this is a Howard government one. This is an act of 1999 which is being gutted by the most hostile national government to the environment in nearly 50 years of national government involvement in environmental questions.

I want to draw to the attention of the House the objects section of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, section 3A. Subsections (c) and (d) refer to:

(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 …

When we look at that background, we can see that the present legislation is of real concern. The Places You Love alliance has pointed out that this is not so much a one-stop-shop proposal as an eight-stop-shop proposal. It is an approach that will create uncertainty for business and undermine investor confidence. It will result in eight separate and different outcomes. There will be bilateral agreements between the federal government and each individual state and territory, relying 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 and may well breach our international obligations. While the stated intention of this policy is to reduce regulatory burden, the policy does the opposite, increasing regulatory obligations for business and increasing risk for all.

The alliance also make the point that state and territory governments frequently do not assess development proposals with the national interest in mind and that conflicts of interest occur because states are reliant on royalties and other income from large development projects and, in some cases, are the actual proponents of those projects. They further point out that the states do not have the capacity to adequately assess projects that relate to matters of national environmental significance. The eight-stop-shop model is neither efficient nor effective. It creates unreasonable risk for government, business and, most importantly, the environment and the community. When they have spoken with MPs around the parliament they have made the point that you can talk about red tape but you need to look at things like the health benefits of environmental legislation and regulation. For example, the United States Clean Air Act amendments resulted in benefits which exceeded the compliance costs by a factor of 30 to one and the European Union has calculated that the annual benefit to the European Union of environmental regulation is some 50 million euros per annum.

The Places You Love alliance, comprised of more than 35 environment groups, commissioned a report by the Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices. One of the things that report examined was the various state environmental legislation arrangements to look at and assess the adequacy of threatened species and planning laws in Australian jurisdictions. Their analysis found that no state or territory meets all the core requirements of best practice threatened species legislation, that while the laws in some jurisdictions look good on paper they are not effectively implemented, that there are a number of important legislative tools available for managing and protecting threatened species that are simply not used—for example, interim conservation orders and management plans are not utilised in Victoria, no critical habitats have been listed and no interim protection orders have been declared in Tasmania and no essential habitat declarations have been made in the Northern Territory—and that many of the provisions referred to 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 and effective implementation is also hampered by a lack of data and knowledge about the range and status of biodiversity across Australia. So their conclusion is that the state laws are simply not up to the task of protecting matters of national environmental significance.

They also make important points about the state of biodiversity in Australia—that, with almost 1,200 plant species and 343 species of animals considered endangered or vulnerable, the rate of species extinction in Australia is amongst the worst on the planet and that the Commonwealth State of the environment 2011 report showed that the highest numbers of threatened species occur in more densely populated areas, particularly the east coast and the south-west coast of Western Australia, and this significant rate of decline is particularly noticeable with mammals. Since European settlement, 18 species of endemic mammals have become extinct and about 100 species of vascular plants have become extinct as well. When we look at this situation overall we can see that it is a grim one, and we certainly do not want to see legislation which will make it worse, which is what this legislation will do.

I will return to some comments from Rob Fowler concerning the campaign against the Commonwealth's involvement in environmental approvals by the resources sector. He said:

There is nothing new in the current campaign … The mining industry railed against the application of the EPIP Act to its activities constantly from the time of its adoption in 1974, especially after the Fraser Government took the unexpected step of using the Act to prohibit the export of mineral sands extracted from Fraser Island. It was joined in this opposition for many years by the forestry industry, culminating in proposals in the early 1990's to introduce so-called "resource security" legislation.

He said:

The current 'green tape' propaganda is simply the latest stanza in an enduring campaign against Commonwealth involvement in environmental approvals by the resources sector … Underlying this campaign is a far larger issue with respect to the future of those involved in the fossil fuel industry in Australia. The coal oil and gas industries have a great deal at stake in the face of the growing pressure to shift Australia's energy generation from fossil fuels to renewables in response to the challenge of climate change. They have found a willing ear in the current coalition government, and it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the question of what is an appropriate role for the Commonwealth in environmental approvals has been captured by a much larger contest involving the future choice between fossil fuels and renewable energy in Australia. In short, the coalition government has become the handmaiden of the fossil fuel industry and is vigorously promoting its cause.

I conclude with the words of Ross Garnaut, in his John Freebairn lecture delivered in Melbourne on 20 May:

Big business has never been so directly influential with government, and senses that it might be a winner which takes all on environmental matters.

I urge the House to reject this legislation.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have to concur with every comment made by the member for Wills. I think the final quote he shared with the House really sums it up. This government is the handmaiden of big business. When it comes to the environment I believe it stands condemned for its lack of commitment to the protection of our environment to ensure that the most valuable asset we have is preserved.

Unfortunately, future generations of Australians are going to see that our environment is considerably diminished. The legislation that we have before us today, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, is one of the vehicles that will lead to our environment being diminished, because this government is the handmaiden of big business, of the fossil fuel industry and of the development sector in this country. When we hand the planning powers to the states and local governments it is like giving control of the blood bank to Dracula.

I am a member who has been a councillor and a member of state parliament, and I know how those levels of government evaluate and consider various pieces of legislation and developments. When I was a member in the state government I was very fortunate because at that particular time Bob Carr was the Premier of New South Wales, and he had a real commitment to the environment. But, unfortunately, his commitment is not shared by the current government.

For the record, this legislation amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to facilitate the delegation of environmental approval powers to the states and local governments. That is what I was alluding to earlier—the simple fact that the states and local governments will be in a position where they can make decisions about developments they are involved in. I really feel this is the wrong way to go. It even includes World Heritage listed properties, nuclear activities and approvals under the water-trigger amendment. It is not good enough. It is not ensuring that our environment will be protected into the future.

In the last parliament I, along with the member for Wills and many on the other side of this House, was on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts. We conducted an inquiry into Australia's biodiversity in a changing climate. We learnt of the many challenges that our environment faces. We learnt of the many challenges that come before government and the need for the federal government to have a strong voice. During the consultation period, when we were receiving evidence, we had groups come along to us and talk about his very aspect. They said that this is something the Commonwealth must not do. We must not hand responsibility over to the state governments. Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I believe that your predecessor was a member of that committee, and he made an enormous contribution towards the report we handed down.

We cannot let the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment abrogate their responsibility and just hand decisions to the state governments about what should and should not be preserved. There is not a state that I would confidently trust to oversee decisions relating to our precious environment. The states do not have the same thorough processes for looking at the adequacy of assessments of threatened species. They do not have the same commitment to that issue.

Within Shortland electorate there are many pristine areas that have a number of threatened species. When I was a councillor we looked at issues around threatened species, and we looked at it under the Commonwealth legislation. I did a similar thing as a member of state parliament. The Commonwealth legislation was taken into account. If there is no overarching umbrella that details the way threatened species need to be protected and looked after, then it is really putting a threat to those species. The extinction rate is frightening, particularly on the east coast of Australia, which has the highest concentration of population.

I urge the government to rethink its action in relation to this legislation, because it is bad legislation. It is going down the wrong path. In Queensland it is quite frightening to think what premier Newman has planned for the Great Barrier Reef. The draft strategic assessment underlines concerns expressed by the committee in relation to 'serious decline in the condition of the Great Barrier Reef, including in coral recruitment and reef building across extensive parts of the property' and states that 'a business-as-usual approach to managing the property is not an option'. One of our most valuable environmental assets within this country is the Great Barrier Reef. It is a great tourist attraction, it is a source of biodiversity and it is a source of great pride to us as a nation. The actions of this legislation will be to hand the protection and the preservation of our reef over to the state government and, even more frightening, to some of the local councils within that area.

The report indicated that climate change remains the most significant threat to the long-term health of the reef, and that was highlighted very effectively when the committee was undertaking its inquiry. It concluded that the loss of resilience is not attributed to any one single cause but to the effect of cumulative impacts and of management not keeping pace with these. The proposed dumping of dredged materials from the Abbot Point development is also noted with concern. This is of particular concern because it was approved despite an indication that less impacting disposal alternatives may exist.

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

That is false.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are handing the approval of such projects over to the state government.

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

Your government gave 33 preliminary approvals on Abbot Point.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister in the chair should hang his head in shame. He should be ashamed of the fact that he has no commitment to the environment, he has no commitment to protect the valuable resources that are placed in his hands. We all know that he constantly gets rolled in cabinet, and we also know that he speaks out of school without getting the permission of his Prime Minister. So he really is just a puppet of the Prime Minister, a puppet of the minerals and development industry—

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

You just said completely the opposite in the last sentence.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and he has absolutely no commitment to the environment. I am constantly being contacted by constituents who tell me how disappointed they are in the Minister for the Environment. They thought he had a bit of backbone, thought he would get in there and fight to preserve the environment. But unfortunately he does not seem to have that commitment to the environment that we as Australians expect from our Minister for the Environment. Instead, he is happy to abrogate his responsibility, hand the decision making over to the states, hand the decision making over to local government—in many cases the very bodies, the very organisations that are putting forward the proposal for development. It is not good enough. As an Australian government, as a federal government, we should be ensuring that we protect our assets. We should not be handing over World Heritage listings to governments like the Newman government in Queensland, and we should not be allowing World Heritage listing to be wound back in Tasmania.

This Minister for the Environment should be standing up for the environment. Instead, he is abrogating his responsibility. And the bill goes beyond pro-development state governments; it provides the ability for the same governments to accredit local governments to undertake critical assessment and approval processes. I hang my head. I am ashamed to be part of a parliament that is prepared to allow this to happen to our environment by allowing the states to approve anything, anywhere, without limitations. That is worrying enough without diluting further accountability by putting local government in charge of Australia's major national resources.

I would be quite happy for Lake Macquarie council to make decisions about my local environment area—at the moment. But there have been times when that council has made decisions that were not in the best interests of the environment, and there is nothing to say that into the future that will not continue to happen. This legislation creates a definite degree of uncertainty. This legislation, far from streamlining the approvals process, actually dilutes it, fragments it, makes it very convoluted. Giving each state the right to approve projects means that throughout the nation we are going to have different approval processes in different states. This is very worrying indeed. I am concerned with the whole process and the lack of quality and consistency of processes between the states. And it will not get any better. This bill is going to make things worse than they already are.

Going back to the Great Barrier Reef, increased attention is needed to complete the required work on reviewing governance of the property and the transfer of decision-making powers from the federal to the state level. It appears premature, until the governance requirements to implement their LTPSD have been considered. It is crucial that the mission recommendations regarding institutional management arrangements in R11 are completed and the eventual governance of the property carries the confidence of the stakeholders.

Given the range of significant threats affecting property and conflicting information about the effectiveness of recent decisions and draft policies, the inscription of the Great Barrier Reef onto the list of world heritage endangered sites at the 39th session in 2015 seems imminent.

This government and this Minister for the Environment will go down in history as environmental vandals. They are abrogating any responsibility they have to preserve threatened species and they are abrogating any responsibilities that they have to our environment. They stand condemned and future generations of Australians will judge them accordingly.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak in opposition to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. As previous speakers have noted, this bill amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to facilitate the delegation of environmental approval powers to state and local governments. This delegation would include world heritage sites, wetlands of international importance, migratory species, endangered species in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, nuclear activities and approvals under the water trigger amendment.

I think, for the record, it is worth highlighting the initial purpose of the substantive act, which is aimed at assisting a cooperative implementation of Australia's international environmental responsibilities—responsibilities that I note that this government does not seek us to walk away from formally—to provide for ecologically sustainable development through the protection of the environment. Such a focus is, regrettably, absent in the legislation before the House now. This is focussed on the Commonwealth interest in the nine matters of national environmental significance that are set out in the act.

The act provides that projects which are likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance—a controlled action—are subject to an assessment and an approval process by the Commonwealth environment minister. Project proponents must refer their proposals to the minister, who will then decide whether the proposal is a controlled action within the terms of the act. Where this is the case, the minister must choose how the impacts of the proposed action are to be assessed. This is how the Commonwealth performs its vital role in ensuring that Australia's obligations under international environmental treaties are met.

In respect of this bill, the minister baldly asserted:

State and territory governments … have processes in place for evaluating the environmental impacts of development proposals consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, …

The minister offered no evidence then, and no evidence has been offered subsequently in this debate, to substantiate this assertion. I suspect this is so because there is none.

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

Queensland has legislated changes!

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Queensland has, yes. There has been some work done in exploring this issue lately and, of course, there is the current reference to the House environment committee. Proponents are yet to offer much in the way of persuasive evidence about the costs of so-called green tape.

There is a pattern here. The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee's March 2013 report found:

While the committee heard claims that the Commonwealth approval process was causing inefficiency, that processes between the Commonwealth and the states and territories were duplicated, and that project proponents were labouring underneath the weight of uncertainty,10 there was no substantive evidence presented to support these claims.

Admittedly, the minister is part of a government that has a curious relationship with evidence. Where there is evidence of climate change, it ignores it. Where there is no evidence of state and territory, and now local governments, of having appropriate processes in place—I have to state for the minister's benefit—it pretends that these exist.

I suspect that this minister, in his heart of hearts, knows this but, like the Minister for Industry, it seems that he is held hostage by others in the government. One need only note the untimely execution of the coalition's much vaunted 'one million solar panels policy' the subject of so much sad commentary this week.

There is some precedent for the coalition not wanting to debate ideas that contrast with its own. I note that when this present act was originally debated in this place in 1999, it was done so on the same day as the GST tax package. Debate for both was gagged and rammed through the parliament. There was, as was pointed out then, a deal with the Australian Democrats. This was done with undue haste then, and we are seeing a similar devil-may-care attitude by those opposite now.

The premise of this bill is that the Commonwealth should take a back seat on matters pertaining to the environment. This is an outdated view. There is a well-established precedent for the Commonwealth to take a leadership role when it comes to the environment. You could say that it is part of our 'knitting' in the terms of our Prime Minister. Since the Tasmanian dams case in 1983, Australians have expected, and continue to expect, the Commonwealth government to stand up for the environment against the behaviour of state and territory governments when actions are detrimental to our natural heritage. There has been a settlement with the Australian people about this. It is a settlement system that does allow for development and protects the environment.

This is always a tricky equation, especially as it is so hard to quantify environmental impacts and so to strike appropriate balances in every case. Since successive High Court decisions in the evolution of our system over the years—our system of federation—the nature of state and local governments today is that they have vastly reduced options for raising revenue independently. No doubt, this is a matter being discussed at the Australian Local Government Association conference down the road as we speak. This makes these governments more readily inclined to approve projects for easy access to cash without taking the longer-term view of the impact on the environment.

As then Prime Minister Paul Keating said at a premiers conference in 1990, 'Never stand between a state premier and a bucket of money.' It seems that the current government does not have the courage or the convictions of Keating to look such premiers in the eye and tell them 'no' or, at least, not without putting in place proper protections.

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

But this was your policy! Julia Gillard brought it in!

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it was a very different policy and we will go to the history in a minute, minister! I look forward to hearing that, and I wish the minister was as assertive around the cabinet table as he has been today in this debate!

The environment should, of course, be seen as more than just a blockage to accessing buckets of money. State and local governments and the community in general have an important role to play in the decision-making process when it comes to projects affecting the environment. But final decisions for matters of national significance—matters going to our international obligations—should rest with the Commonwealth government. We only have one Great Barrier Reef, one Daintree rainforest and one Kakadu. The list of such places goes on for now, but once they are gone they are gone forever.

These landmarks should not be subject to the budgetary whims of state and local governments—or indeed any vested interest. It is worth noting that state, and particularly local, governments do not always have the resources or, in the case of various coalition state governments, the will to conduct thorough assessments of environmental impacts. There are obvious conflicts of interests in the many instances where a state government is also a project proponent. We have seen evidence of that sort of conflict of interest with the Western Australian government's shark cull and with the Victorian government's cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park.

Of course state governments have their own environmental departments, but, when these same governments are advancing a certain position, their department's advice is often under question. So an uncompromised Commonwealth government taking a dispassionate decision—away from the instant concerns—is no bad thing. Under this government's changes, Premier Newman will be able to approve dredging and dumping on the Great Barrier Reef; Premier Barnett, of shark cull fame, will have the final say over the Ningaloo Reef; and Premier Hodgman will be in charge of Tasmania's iconic World Heritage listed forests. Talk about putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank!

I note recent comments from UNESCO, in relation to the Great Barrier Reef, about these proposed changes:

The GBRMPA draft SA—

'SA' stands for 'strategic assessment'—

underlines concerns expressed by the Committee regarding serious decline in the condition of the GBR, including in coral recruitment and reef building across extensive parts of the property, and that a business as usual approach to managing the property is not an option.

It further indicates that climate change remains the most significant threat to the long-term health of the reef. The SA concludes that the loss of resilience is not attributable to any single cause but to the effect of cumulative impacts and that management is not keeping pace with these.

In relation to the Abbot Point expansion, also in Queensland, UNESCO stated:

The proposed dumping of dredged material from the proposed Abbot Point development is also noted with concern. Indeed, this was approved, despite an indication that less impacting disposal alternatives may exist …

Increased attention is needed to complete the required work on reviewing governance of the property and the transfer of decision-making powers from the Federal Level to the State Level appears premature until the governance requirements to implement the LTPSD—

that is the long-term plan for sustainable development—

have been considered.

UNESCO's concerns should be heeded. They should be treated with the utmost seriousness.

In government, Labor sought to work with state and territory governments to streamline this process while maintaining our commitment to meeting environmental safeguards. Throughout these negotiations it became clear that some states could not be trusted with Australia's unique environment. Labor remains in favour of streamlining environmental approval processes for major projects—but only where final approvals on matters of national environmental significance remain with the Commonwealth government. The Australian government has a responsibility to protect Australia's precious environment. The EPBC Act, in particular, accounts for matters of national environmental significance and our international obligations. But the Abbott government has no interest in protecting Australia's environment for the future.

Since coming to government, the minister and our recently self-described 'conservationist' Prime Minister have made bad decision upon bad decision, hurting our environment. These bad decisions have generally been based on no evidence. This is a government that does not mean what is says. On the one hand, the act binds the Australian government to various world treaties to protect the environment. On the other hand, this amendment bill installs a mechanism to effectively undermine these commitments. This amendment bill puts our environment at risk of irreparable damage by proposing to leave decisions of national environmental significance to state premiers.

I agree with the Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Office that a real priority for an environment minister in the Australian government should be a mature examination of how environmental laws can respond to the pressing concerns of this century—challenges such as biodiversity loss, land use change and climate change responses—and fulfil our national and international obligations while getting the balance right and ensuring that we maintain Australia's high quality of life. As an aside, I note that the environmental defenders offices around Australia have had massive funding cuts—$10 million—another symbol of this government's threadbare environmental credentials.

Going back to the challenge that we should be facing, our environmental management challenge of the 21st century: streamlining can and should be a part of this where we are certain we have the balance right between removing barriers to economic growth and protecting our natural environment. I emphasise the words 'where we are certain'—because all too often there will not be a second chance to get things right. Now is the time to carefully consider the evidence, not to reflexively lower environmental standards and roll back protections.

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

I am delighted to respond to the comments of the various members of this House in relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. Let me begin by addressing, front and centre, the claims made by many members of the opposition with regard to the very notion of one-stop shops. This was a proposal which we discussed publicly throughout the early part of 2012. The then government, led by then Prime Minister Gillard, responded in the April 2012 Council of Australian Governments meeting by making the creation of one-stop shops the central platform of that COAG meeting. The fundamental reform, trumpeted across the nation by the Labor Party when they were in government—led by Prime Minister Gillard, supported by the now Leader of the Opposition—was a one-stop shop process.

Lest there be any doubt whatsoever, I will read from the communique of the 13 April 2012 meeting of the Council of Australian Governments. The communique said:

First Ministers reaffirmed COAG's commitment to high environmental standards, while reducing duplication and double-handling of assessment and approval processes. To achieve these commitments, our governments will work together 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.

Let me explain to the House what this means. It means that in the Council of Australian Governments, with unanimous support from state and territory governments of both persuasions, under the leadership of the then Labor Prime Minister, the Labor Party, at both federal level and at state level, committed themselves to one-stop shops. They demanded that these reforms be approved, both the reforms relating to state assessments and those relating to state approvals. In other words, precisely the reforms we are undertaking now were outlined as being fundamental—were outlined as being able to be done with higher environmental standards and were outlined as being absolutely necessary—by the then ALP government.

We hear today that this is in some way a derogation from the long history of bipartisan support for federal environmental laws. That is not just false; it is a blind eye to what has clearly and absolutely been ALP policy for some considerable time. There is a degree of passing hypocrisy which might just perhaps cause some on the other side to reflect about the course of events over the last two years, when they championed the one-stop shop, when they called for the one-stop shop, when they demanded the one-stop shop and when they denounced anybody who would oppose the one-stop shop. And now they pretend that that history never occurred. They have airbrushed the last two years of Australian parliamentary history. That, in short, is simply unacceptable—and it is not exactly especially mature for a political party to imagine that a Council of Australian Governments communique does not exist and that the history of support for one-stop shops does not exist.

Let me also deal with some of the other arguments made by the ALP during the course of this debate. The ALP also claimed that in some way this derogates from federal standards—wrong, false, untrue and incorrect. There is no change to federal standards. Indeed, agreements have been negotiated with a series of states and territories which will lift standards. Queensland, for example, is actually legislating better standards in response to these agreements. In addition to that, we also hear that the bill in some way changes the position in relation to local councils. Let me be absolutely clear: the act which Labor itself has championed already allows for that accreditation under certain circumstances. What we are doing is ensuring that no process will be accredited unless the highest environmental standards are achieved and maintained. In other words, we are establishing a standards based process.

Then there is a claim that matters of national environmental significance must remain the province of the national government regardless of which government is in place at the state or territory level. It is very interesting: each and every state has signed a memorandum of understanding. Each and every state has already signed an assessment agreement or is progressing an assessment agreement. That means that the Labor state of South Australia, the former Labor government in Tasmania, and the Territory government here in the ACT have all committed to the one-stop shop process and have all actually signed it. When in government, the federal ALP supported it. Around the country, state ALPs support it. They are standing in the way of their own state and territory governments.

From there what we see is that state processes can be enshrined in policies and guidelines rather than legislation. They make a complaint. But what we are doing here is making it absolutely clear that those approaches must meet the national standards required under the EPBC Act. These are powers and provisions which have existed since the day the EPBC Act came into force. The ability to allow for state assessments and for state approvals has always been contained within the legislation. Indeed—guess what—the ALP helped develop some of those in relation to individual states and territories. They ignore their own history of supporting this one-stop shop. They ignore their own history of enacting one-stop shops.

I also want to make this point: there has been a question in relation to the timing of the long-term plan for sustainable development with regard to the Reef 2050 Plan. I have committed, and I will recommit, that the final agreement with Queensland will not be signed until after the draft long-term plan for sustainable development has been released for public comment. That clearly fulfils our international obligations. There has been much said during the course of this debate which is neither fair, nor accurate, nor reflective of the history which has been the ALP's history for the last two years.

Against that background let me make these general comments. We are maintaining the water trigger in federal legislation. It was not there previously. It is there now. We are committed to maintaining it. We are maintaining it. But what we are doing is ensuring that there is not duplication. The same standards that apply to all matters of national environmental significance will apply here. To pretend otherwise is false, untrue and incorrect. The purpose of these amendments is to allow for full and complete one-stop shops. The water trigger will remain. It will simply be subject to the ordinary considerations of all of the other matters of national environmental significance. In order to do that we have been consulting with the community.

I want to note that the member for Page will be moving an amendment later on today, something which he has discussed with me, which we have discussed with the community. That is, the water trigger amendments which he proposes come from community consultation. They have my full support. Most particularly, they mandate that states will have to seek the advice of the independent expert scientific committee and that the federal minister will be able to seek advice on any matter under consideration by states over the course of the period between now and the completion of all bioregional assessments. The member for Page has been exceptionally active in raising the concerns of his community. We have worked together on these amendments. These amendments, I think, should bring additional comfort to rural communities. I would hope that all members in the House can support the amendments, which he will produce with the full support of the government.

Having said that, this bill is about ensuring that there is one standard for all matters of national environmental significance, that the task proposed and started by the previous government is completed and that there should be no situation where anybody in this House on the government or the opposition side can do other than support a process which all of the state Labor governments support and which the previous federal Labor government supported. For those reasons, I thank the speakers to this legislation and I commend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 to the House.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that this bill be now read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after 8 pm.

Debate adjourned.