Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in opposition to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. We do that because this bill does nothing either for environmental protection or for biodiversity conservation, a theme that people have come now to expect from this government—doing nothing for environmental protection or biodiversity conservation.

Over the weekend, or very late last week, the Prime Minister, during his whirlwind tour on climate change politics in Europe and North America, described himself as a conservationist. This was a tour on which I hope the Prime Minister received a reality check about where his policy stands—where it sits in the context of a very fast-moving set of international developments on climate change policy. While in Canada, the Prime Minister tried to verbal, frankly, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, countries with very highly developed carbon trading policies, as members of some new 'coalition of the unwilling' led by the Prime Minister and the Canadian Prime Minister to seek to stymie international efforts to develop a strong, ambitious agreement around climate change at next year's Paris agreement. The New Zealand Prime Minister was very clear that he had not been consulted by the Australian Prime Minister on this so-called coalition of the unwilling. He was caught completely unawares, apparently, by the Prime Minister's statement in Canada. And the United Kingdom's response was to reiterate its strong commitment to taking strong and sensible action on climate change both domestically and as part of a growing coalition for change in the lead-in to the Paris negotiations next year.

But the Australian people judge Prime Ministers and all of us in this House on their actions, not on their words. So, no matter how many times the Prime Minister might describe himself as a conservationist, anyone who pays even cursory attention to this government's policies and this Prime Minister's actions knows that the contrary is true. Indeed, the Independent newspaper in the United Kingdom in February this year got it much more closely right than did the Prime Minister in his self-description. That newspaper, on 4 February, posed the question that has been on so many Australians' lips when it asked:

Is Tony Abbott's Australian administration the most hostile to his nation's environment in history?

That is a question that is on so many lips in Australia, particularly the lips of those Australians who hold our natural environment so dear.

This is not something of which the Prime Minister seems particularly ashamed—this growing reputation, not only domestically but internationally, that his administration, his government is the most hostile to Australia's extraordinary natural environment in Australian history. The only words this Prime Minister can conjure for his environment minister is to quote the number of mining developments the minister has approved. Now, that is indeed a role of the environment minister under the existing legislation, and Australia is a jurisdiction that is resources based. But the environment minister must be more than assistant minister for resources. The environment minister must be more than a minister who simply ticks off on mining developments. Surely this many months into the environment minister's tenure the Prime Minister could think of something that this government had done that actually involved protecting the environment, that actually involved conserving Australia's extraordinary biodiversity.

But there is not a single achievement. The only record this government has is a long, long record of winding back environmental protections. I am just going to mention a few to give some shape to the debate on this particular piece of legislation. We found in the budget, notwithstanding a very clear commitment from the environment minister and I think also now the Minister for Agriculture, that Landcare funding and Caring for our Country funding would be maintained in full by an incoming coalition government. In spite of that commitment, we found through the budget that Landcare funding had been slashed by a third. That is around $500 million lost by natural resource management bodies and landcare organisations who for years have been doing extraordinary expert work revegetating, cleaning up our waterways and dealing with the damage that has been done over past decades and centuries to Australia's environment. It is yet another broken promise from a government that has broken so many promises.

Very early on in its tenure, the new government came in to this place with no notice, as I recall it, and decided to delist the Murray-below-Darling area, an area that had been listed as a threatened ecological community following expert scientific advice from the threatened Species Scientific Committee, an application that had been before that committee for some years and had been the subject of public consultation, particularly in the Basin communities. The government came in to this place with no notice and simply delisted it, on the back of a pretty baseless scare campaign, frankly, stoked by the coalition in the Murray-Darling Basin communities.

This followed a decision that the new government initiated in this parliament to roll back the management plans of the world's largest system of marine reserves. It is proper that the largest system of marine reserves in the world be in Australia, an island nation with extraordinary ocean environmental assets from the Great Barrier Reef to the Coral Sea right around through the Southern Ocean and the Indian Ocean on the west and the Pacific Ocean on the east. This was an extraordinary piece of work that was, again, done over a very extended period of time with stakeholders, with communities. But, again, it elicited nothing more than a baseless scare campaign from the coalition. Communities on the coast of Queensland, for example, were told that their recreational fishing activities would be interrupted by these reserves, notwithstanding that the reserves in Queensland are hundreds of kilometres off the coast. But for this government this was yet another great notch on the belt for environmental protection.

This government has also been very clear about its views on clean energy. We saw the Prime Minister in his Stetson over the weekend in Houston, talking about the importance of affordable and reliable energy. No-one can disagree with the importance of affordable and reliable energy for households and for businesses in Australia or frankly anywhere else in the world. But you will never hear this Prime Minister used the words 'clean energy'. You will never hear this Prime Minister have a third pillar to Australia's energy policy that Australia's energy should not only be reliable and should not only be affordable for households and for businesses but should also, as far as possible, be clean. Instead, all you have seen from this government in its short tenure so far is attack, after attack, after attack on Australia's clean energy sector and, again, this is nothing short of a series of broken promises.

The Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment were not willing and did not have the courage to go to the Australian people before the election and say, 'We don't support clean energy. We don't support the development of renewable energy in Australia. We want to tear down the renewable energy target. We want to abolish Australia's renewable energy agency.' They were not courageous enough to say that before the election. Indeed, what they did say, including in the election campaign, was that the renewable energy target—the large-scale generation target of 41,000 gigawatt hours by 2020—was a completely bipartisan position, extending the bipartisan nature of renewable energy policy in this country to four elections.

For four elections the two major parties in Australia have had the same policy on the renewable energy target. And so it was in September 2013 when, during the election campaign, this minister's parliamentary secretary reiterated the coalition's support for the renewable energy target at a Clean Energy Council conference during the actual campaign. What we have seen since is the Prime Minister and other ministers crab walk away from that commitment—yet another broken promise by this government that has broken so many promises.

This morning, we see in the newspaper that the backbench is no longer feeling at all constrained about its attacks on the clean energy policies of Australia; no longer feeling at all constrained about talking down this environment minister. They are quite happy to go on the record and contradict the environment minister and his statements on clean energy; contradict a clearly stated election policy of the coalition made in September 2013.

In addition to that, we have seen over the last couple of days—just to start to round out the debacle around clean energy policy under this government—the solar roofs debacle. Yet again, another—presumably a cabinet minister or someone in the finance part of the government—has leaked to the newspapers over the weekend against the environment minister, saying that he had no authority to go out and talk to the Australian community about their solar roofs policy. The so-called 'one million solar roofs policy' was going to cost $500 million. People had puzzled for months over where that money was coming from, after MYEFO—after the midyear economic and fiscal outlook. People wondered whether maybe ARENA, the renewable energy agency, was going to have to stump up the half a billion dollars because the Minister for the Environment kept reiterating, time and time again, that the 'one million solar roof households policy' was still government policy.

Now, over the weekend we had someone apologising for doing the Minister for the Environment over in the ERC and in cabinet. They said, 'Well, the minister had no authority to go out and talk to the people about this,' that this was a 2010 election commitment that they were not bound to implement after the 2013 election. The problem is that that ignores the fact that this minister had talked incessantly about this policy between 2010 and 2013. Indeed, he had talked incessantly about it after the September 2013 election campaign. So instead of $600 million supporting Australian low-income households to get PV solar panels on their roofs; instead of supporting solar towns and solar schools, also to be able to put PV solar on their roofs; and $600 million of commitments made time and time again by this minister, what do we get? We get $2 million; instead of $600 million we got $2 million.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Less than one per cent.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot work it out. I think it is about 0.3 per cent. So we lost 99.97 per cent of the election commitment that he made, hand on heart; as a so-called supporter of clean energy he lost 9.97 per cent of his election commitment in the Expenditure Review Committee.

Again, just to round this out: the now government, when in opposition, assured the Australian community that the renewable energy agency was a bipartisan supported body. The important work that this agency does in supporting emerging renewable energy technology—solar thermal technology, wave technology and geothermal technology—the important work that ARENA has done, was supported by the coalition, as it was by the Labor Party. It was something where they put their hands on the hearts and said to the Australian people that it would not change if there were a change of government. This is yet another broken promise, because what did we find out? In MYEFO in December—the midyear economic and fiscal outlook—the Treasurer cut more than $400 million from ARENA's budget.

Again, we puzzled: how were they going to deliver their solar roofs commitment? The clear answer to that was that they were not going to deliver the solar roofs commitment. But then in the budget, not only did they take money from ARENA they announced that the promise they had made to the Australian people about ARENA was going to be broken, and they were simply going to abolish the body altogether.

Not happy just with changing all these policies and breaking all these promises this government has also started to shut down community voices. We have seen them shut down strong, independent voices in the climate policy area. They have abolished the Climate Commission, which I am happy to say is able to continue its important work supported by Australians putting in money to the new Climate Council. We have seen this government attempt to abolish the Climate Change Authority, thus far unsuccessfully, because this government would not want strong, independent and objective advice from a group of experts on climate policy when it can make its own up in its ministerial offices.

But perhaps most egregiously, they have shut down community voices. They have completely stripped funding from the Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices. This is an organisation that does not provide legal support to the very big environmental NGOs. They can afford their own lawyers. The EDOs are there to provide pro bono legal advice and legal representation to small community groups; to communities who have decided that they want to have a voice about a development in their area—near their houses, near their children's schools and near their workplaces. The EDOs have been there for 20 years, supported by the Keating government, supported for the whole duration of the Howard government and supported through the Rudd and Gillard governments. But this government cannot support them because they have a fundamental integral problem with there being strong independent voices out there in the debate other than their own.

Before I come to the specific impacts of this bill, I want to highlight—this is a prominent issue right now given that the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO is meeting over the course of this fortnight—how this government has sought to delist, to remove, 74,000 hectares from the Tasmanian World Heritage area. This places Australia in refined company indeed. In the more than 40-year history of the World Heritage system, there have been only two such applications—one by Oman and one by Tanzania. This is an extraordinary application for this government to make. Happily, it got short shrift from the World Heritage Committee secretariat, which has provided a draft report to the committee that rejects the government's application outright.

It is an application built on a falsity. It is an application built on some notion that these 74,000 hectares are degraded and not worthy of World Heritage listing. I have been there—I have been to the Upper Florentine areas in particular—and they are pristine. They are typical of the extraordinary wilderness you see in Tasmania, particularly on the western side of the state. They were the subject of strong, independent, expert advice to this government and to the World Heritage Committee. While Senator Colbeck might have some happy snaps which he claims show otherwise, I know which side of the debate our party will fall on. We will defend the listing of those 74,000 hectares.

Against that background, this bill is the crowning glory for a government intent on winding back Commonwealth environmental protection. It effectively just hands it all over. They are seeking to make the biggest structural change to environmental protection in Australia for 30 years. In the Franklin dam case the High Court, after the decision of the Hawke government to protect the Gordon and Franklin areas, affirmed the Commonwealth's role in protecting matters of national environmental significance. The court affirmed that the national government, the Commonwealth government of Australia, had a role in protecting certain aspects of Australia's natural environment and its biodiversity. From that decision and what followed under that government, Australia's environment became a national and international issue. Under the legal framework that followed the Franklin dam case, we saw the listing of that part of Tasmania. Subsequently, that listing of Tasmania's wilderness area was expanded. In addition, we saw World Heritage listing of Kakadu in the Northern Territory, the Daintree Wet Tropics in Far North Queensland and other areas as well.

Following that, it must be stated, the current legislation was put in place by a Liberal minister—a South Australian, Robert Hill, a longstanding senator for the coalition and a one-time leader of the coalition in the Senate. He was a coalition member of parliament who genuinely cared deeply about the environment. There are many things that you can argue about in the EPBC Act framework. There are many things that people who love Australia's natural environment would like to improve or change about this legislation. But it has a number of very good characteristics—and it was put in place by the Howard government. This bill, though, seeks to just throw over that legacy of the last 30 years. Whether it is the legacy of the Hawke and Keating governments, which achieved World Heritage listing for parts of Tasmania, for the Daintree, for Kakadu and for other areas, or whether it is the coalition's own legacy—the legacy of its own environment minister, Robert Hill, who put this framework in place—this government cares not a jot. This government cares not a jot and is willing to throw the whole thing overboard.

We thought that they were just going to hand over the Commonwealth's environmental protection powers under the act to the state and territory governments, but we find, having looked at the legislation, that they also intend to hand such powers over to local councils. I am a big supporter of the role of local government in Australia, as is everyone on this side of the House. But there are question marks over the capacity of some local councils—and, frankly, some state and territory governments—to handle the scale of application that comes before the Commonwealth under the EPBC Act.

The scope of this handover is extraordinary. What this government is doing is handing over responsibility for Australia's World Heritage areas—the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu, the Daintree, the Tasmanian wilderness area, Ningaloo and many others—to the state governments and to local councils. This could see local councils along the Queensland coast having legal responsibility for the protection of one of the seven natural wonders of the world. You could see World Heritage areas handed over. You could see nuclear matters handed over. You could see local councils having responsibility for considering applications for uranium mines or for other nuclear issues which are currently under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth government. You could see the handover of the water trigger for coal-seam gas applications and large coalmine applications that might impact on Australia's water resources.

This government has not—not that I have seen at least—even tried to pretend that this bill will advance in any way the protection of Australia's natural environment. I have not heard one comment from the Minister for the Environment, the Prime Minister or anyone else saying that this is about improving the protection of Australia's natural environment. The only thing they say is that this is a response to lobbying from the business community. The business community is completely entitled to have a view about this, but there must within this debate—even on the side of the government—surely be some consideration of whether or not this is actually good for Australia's natural environment. Frankly, it is not.

The Labor Party is on the record, from when we were in government under Prime Minister Gillard, as having looked at these questions and been very concerned about the level of duplication in environmental approval processes at state and Commonwealth levels. That is quite clearly on the record. Our government had a very strong record under the Seamless National Economy reforms of removing duplication of regulation wherever possible—in the areas of health and safety, food regulation and so many others. I think it was 16 or 17 areas—the shadow Treasurer who is here will remember—but certainly 15 to 20 areas of very important regulation were streamlined under the Labor government, so our record is quite clear. But our view after working through a process—talking with state governments, the business community, the environmental NGOs and the Australian community more broadly—was that it was not appropriate to hand over approval powers to state and territory governments. Certainly that would have been our view if we were asked to hand them over to local councils.

We are still more than willing to look at ways in which state and territory governments, on the one hand, and the Commonwealth can look at removing duplication of assessment processes because, at the end of the day, it is the assessment process that takes the time and involves the expenditure of substantial sums of money by proponent companies seeking a development. It is the assessment, not the approval, that involves the time and money.

There are opportunities in a sensible discussion to look at ways in which you could have one environmental impact assessment process, one EIS, agreed with terms of reference that reflect the Commonwealth requirements and the state and territory requirements. There are circumstances in which you could agree to simply having one public consultation process instead of two. These are the things that take the time; these are the things that take the money from proponent companies. We are more than willing to continue to look at that. But at the end of the day we take as a matter of principle the view that matters of national environmental significance—which is the scope of matters covered by this legislation—must remain the province of a national government. That is not a party political perspective. Whether it is a national coalition or national Labor government and whether it is state Labor or state Liberal governments, our view is the same: the Commonwealth should have responsibility for matters of national environmental significance, for a whole range of reasons that I have tried to outline.

I will refer to one more illustration of the problem involved in this legislation, and that is the question of downstream impacts. Some applications will involve impacts that cross state boundaries. There can be downstream impacts particularly sometimes dealing with water resources. The Great Artesian Basin, for example, is not conveniently located in one jurisdiction and the Murray-Darling Basin is not conveniently located in one state or one territory. Under existing legislation the minister must have regard to downstream impacts—something which a state minister simply could not do. This is just one illustration of the impracticality, from an environmental protection and biodiversity conservation point of view, of this legislation.

I will finish by referring to the timing of the debate on this bill in this parliament. As I have indicated before, the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO is meeting this fortnight and dealing with two very important matters that concern Australia. The first is the status of the Great Barrier Reef as a World Heritage property. The other, which I referred to earlier, is whether or not the 74,000 hectares in the Tasmanian wilderness area should be kept on the register or delisted. Draft reports for both matters have been provided by the secretariat of the World Heritage Committee to committee members. We do not know what the final decision will be, obviously, as they are independent members of that committee, but the draft reports give some indication at least of the thinking of UNESCO.

In relation to the Great Barrier Reef, this is a very serious matter. I think we can all agree that the Great Barrier Reef not only is one of the seven natural wonders of the world but underpins literally billions of dollars of economic activity in the Queensland area and the work of 60,000 employees, largely in the tourism industry. This is an incredibly important matter for Australia from an environmental, social and economic perspective. The possibility that the reef would be put on the 'in danger' list would have very serious ramifications for Queensland's tourism industry, as much as it would reflect the very serious state of crisis that the reef finds itself in environmentally. The draft report provided by the secretariat to World Heritage Committee members refers expressly to this bill, to the idea that the Commonwealth's environmental protection powers would simply be handed over to the Queensland government. The secretariat's report provides that the draft recommendation to the committee considers:

… the transfer of decision-making powers from the Federal Level to the State Level … premature—

and should be postponed to allow further consideration. This is a draft report and the committee may well take a view that is different from that. But what is concerning is that I have not heard a jot about this from the environment minister. I have not heard a single response from the government about the interaction between this parliamentary debate and what is happening at an international level at the UNESCO meeting, particularly in light that very clear recommendation from the World Heritage Committee. For all those reasons I have outlined, the opposition will not be supporting this legislation.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, may I say from the outset that this bill is part of the government's wider program of deregulation and red tape reduction. It seeks to amend the EPBC Act 1999 to allow states and territories to be accredited for approval decisions, where states and territories can demonstrate that they will maintain the high environmental standards required by the EPBC Act. Memoranda of understanding will be signed with states and territories establishing a single system for environmental approvals under the EPBC Act. No longer will a separate Commonwealth assessment and approval under the EPBC Act be required where an accredited state approval is in place.

This bill also introduces a range of technical amendments to ensure the process can operate effectively and efficiently, providing much-needed certainty to industry. Although this bill is specifically targeted at developments which are likely to have a significant impact on water resources, the broader principle of removing the two-tier approvals system applies. In effect, it will create a single point for environmental approvals. It is designed to remove the duplication of federal and state approvals processes, which currently involves multiple layers of bureaucracy, creating uncertainty and delays. Delays to large projects of economic significance are adversely impacting industry, diminishing Australia's international competitiveness and holding back economic growth.

In commercial terms, securing private sector investment in development projects is the sustainable way to create economic growth, rather than relying on government spending. It is typically the case that securing the necessary planning approvals for major development projects can take more than six years, at the very least, which represents more than two federal election cycles. By contrast, the approvals processes in many emerging nations in our region are considerably timelier, placing Australia at a competitive disadvantage in terms of attracting private investment capital for major projects. In addition, there is the element of increased holding costs, planning consultants' costs, and the opportunity cost of delays. Australia now faces increasing competition for investment capital from emerging economies in Asia, Africa and South America. Therefore, government must implement reforms to create a more efficient planning approvals system to enable Australian industry to maintain its strategic competitive advantage.

In the 15 years that the EPBC Act 1999 has been in operation, a number of multimillion dollar projects have been delayed, costing the Australian economy billions of dollars in lost opportunity. One such example is the Ocean Reef Marina development in my electorate of Moore, which has encountered several years of delays in negotiating the highly complex planning approvals process. Delays are costly in terms of the opportunity cost of forgone revenue and amenity, as well as holding costs. It is estimated that the project will generate $800 million of investment that includes a mix of residential, commercial and retail uses, as well as provision of moorings for 850 recreational boats. The local community is overwhelmingly supportive of the concept plan.

The marina proposal covers 91 hectares in total, with 57.8 hectares of land based development and 33.6 hectares of development off the coast or on reclaimed land. Unfortunately, the marina project is required to be assessed under a two-tier system of state and federal approvals processes, which has considerably delayed progress since 2004. The project was determined a controlled action under the EPBC Act on 13 July 2009 due to potential impacts on listed threatened species and communities, and listed migratory species. While the project was a controlled action, it was not possible to determine the appropriate assessment approach under the EPBC Act until the Western Australian government had decided on its assessment approach under state legislation. Similarly, the complex and bureaucratic approvals process must deal with issues relating to the Marmion Marine Park, Bush Forever, and Carnaby's Black Cockatoo.

At a state level, in July 2013 the City of Joondalup submitted a Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission, together with technical information, including detailed studies on the environment, water quality, landscape, traffic and transport. The amendment is required to rezone the area from parks and recreation purpose to urban, to create additional waterways zones and to create new parks and recreation reserved lands.

In May 2014 the City of Joondalup referred the marine based components of the development to the Environmental Protection Authority for assessment under the state Environmental Protection Act 1986. The referral is in line with the Western Australian Planning Commission's referral of the land based components to the EPA as part of the initiation of a Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment to enable the development. The city's referral, under section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act, is based on detailed environmental studies. It is difficult to accurately predict time frames for this complex project; however, the concurrent review of both the environmental components and the MRS amendment will allow for consideration of the social, economic and environmental factors via a holistic planning and environmental assessment process.

The environmental and planning assessment processes are consistent with the memorandum of understanding that the City of Joondalup signed with the state government in 2012. The planning process is ongoing, and it would greatly streamline the Ocean Reef Marina project if the approvals process could be managed by the Western Australian state government with minimal federal involvement.

A second example of a major project within the Moore electorate affected by delays is the Neerabup Industrial Area. It is a 1,000-hectare site which represents the second largest industrial complex in the Perth metropolitan area, second only to the Kwinana Industrial Area. When fully developed the industrial area is expected to create 20,000 new direct jobs, which are forecast to add $7.9 billion to gross state product and generate a further 24,000 jobs off site, for a total economic impact of $13.3 billion. Although there has been some significant investment since 2008, including the $436 million Newgen gas-fired power station and the $110 million Wesbeam manufacturing plant, development in the industrial area has been delayed due to the same bureaucratic two-tiered environmental approvals process and the need to provide infrastructure such as road access, scheme water and telecommunications.

An application was lodged by the West Australian land authority, LandCorp, under the EPBC Act in June 2012. It was determined a controlled action on 10 July 2012 due to potential impacts on listed threatened species, namely the Carnaby's Black Cockatoo and the Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo. The clearing of 202 hectares of bushland is required to enable the construction. On 11 October 2012 the delegate of the minister determined that the proposed action would be assessed through preliminary documentation and requested further information, including how the proponent proposed to mitigate impacts prior to and during construction and proposed environmental offsets. The planning approvals process for the Neerabup Industrial Area is ongoing and progress has been very slow. The process has taken more than a decade, which has delayed economic development and impacted on the employment self-sufficiency of the wider region, which is one of the fastest growing areas in Australia.

In both cases there is significant merit for the environmental approvals processes to occur at a more decentralised level, with the state government being accredited to issue the necessary approvals, as distinct from the case being determined centrally. Local decisions are best made locally with the benefit of specific local knowledge. Similarly, there is merit in removing the two-tiered system of both federal and state involvement in the assessment and determination process. One level of government is sufficient.

This bill is part of the government's wider commitment to deregulation and red tape reduction. Currently, the cost of compliance with government legislation and regulation continues to be a major impediment for business across Australia. If our domestic industry is to be competitive then the administrative burden of excessive bureaucracy must be lifted. Business leaders have raised concerns that their operations are being restricted by an increasingly complex multitiered regulatory system that is often so complex and technical that it is necessary to engage specialist consultants to achieve compliance. Those affected range from small businesses to large corporations engaged in multi-million dollars projects. The cost of compliance, coupled with additional holding costs imposed by delays, has a detrimental effect on the financial viability of both business operations and key economic development projects.

The coalition government has introduced legislation in this parliament to repeal approximately 10,000 items of legislation and regulations equating to some 50,000 pages of text removed from the statute books. The repeals are wide-ranging across all ministerial portfolios, including the departments of the Attorney-General, civil aviation, defence, education, employment, environment, finance, foreign affairs and trade. The estimated cost saving to the economy is in the order of $719 million per annum.

An efficient system of planning approvals is required to maintain the productivity and competitiveness of the Australian economy in the face of intensifying competition from emerging economies in our region. Industry needs more certainty and clarity when submitting planning applications for development approval. Competition for project finance within the market can be intense. In order to attract investment capital, it is desirable to reduce the element of risk. The government is committed to reforming the planning and environmental approvals system to make our economy more competitive.

The issue of affordability of land for housing and commercial purposes is very topical on the national agenda. The available supply of land zoned for development is directly impacted by the efficiency of the planning and environmental approvals process. Therefore, it must be a priority for government to reform the current system to make it more responsive in the interests of promoting greater land affordability for all Australians.

In summary, this bill is designed to replace the current two-tiered system of duplication of federal and state approvals processes, which currently adds multiple layers of bureaucracy, creating uncertainty and delay. It seeks to amend the EPBC Act to allow states and territories to be accredited for approvals decisions, where states and territories can demonstrate that they will maintain the high environmental standards required by the EPBC Act. In effect, it creates a one-stop shop for environmental approvals, which in turn promotes productivity, competitiveness and economic development. I commend the bill to the House.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. Most people in this country want our precious environment protected. People look at icons such as the forests in Tasmania, the Great Barrier Reef and our waterways and they want them protected, not only for future generations but also for the livelihoods of the many people who depend on them. People also know that the federal government, with strong federal protections, is very often the best place to protect the environment, because you do not need to look very far to see that state governments can be very quickly captured by developers, by mining interests or by logging interests, with the environment coming a poor second. For example, if we did not have the federal government able to step in and protect the environment, then the Franklin would have been dammed. You do not have to look much further than the New South Wales state government and what is going on at the moment in ICAC with the current and previous governments to understand at a state level just how closely interconnected ministers and decision makers are with the interests of those who would threaten the environment. It is for that reason that most people would support the idea of there being strong national protections for the and would support decisions about enforcing those protections being made at a national level. Unfortunately, what we have seen under the previous Labor government and under this government is an attack on that principle. Towards the end of the last government, as the shadow minister suggested, the possibility was floated that some of the decisions about protecting iconic places should be shifted to state governments. The Greens stood side by side with the community to fight that proposal off, but it is now coming back again on steroids from this government. This government is perhaps the most hostile government towards the environment, and this Prime Minister is the most hostile prime minister towards the environment, that this country has ever seen.

This bill would allow not just state governments but also, in some instances, even local governments to determine the level of protection afforded to some of the most precious places in this country, including places that are World Heritage listed. This bill puts the fox in charge of the hen house. It gives away the administration of, for example, federal protection for water from significant impacts of coal or coal seam gas—the water trigger. It gives away that protection to state governments who, as we have seen, cannot make coal seam gas roll out quickly enough. It allows state processes to be accredited to take the place of federal approvals, but also allows those processes to be in guidelines, plans or policies—that is, not even enshrined in laws. So the protections now will not just be devolved from the federal to the state governments, but the state governments will not even have to put those protections in legislation. In short, this bill makes former Prime Minister John Howard's environmental legislation even weaker and takes away the Minister for the Environment's main job, which is supposedly to protect the environment—not that we have seen a lot of evidence of that.

This government has launched itself down the environmentally reckless path of handing responsibility for these places to state and territory governments. They have already embarked on it, even before this bill, by signing draft approval bilateral agreements with the New South Wales and Queensland governments to see these critical national responsibilities palmed off to Premiers Newman and O'Farrell—and they are well known for their staunch protection of the environment. They hope to have agreements finalised with all states and territories by September 2014. If this plan proceeds, the federal government could not protect World Heritage areas from big mines nor threatened species from being sent to extinction by state governments approving major developments in key habitats. It would mean that the federal government could not have stopped the Franklin River being dammed; nor could it have stopped oil rigs in the Great Barrier Reef. This so-called one-stop shop for business sells out our environment and overturns 30 years of gradually increasing and greatly needed Commonwealth involvement in environmental protection. If it proceeds, it will put in my home state of Victoria Premier Denis Napthine in sole control of whether to put cattle in the Alpine National Park. It will put Premier Campbell Newman in Queensland in sole control of the world heritage great Barrier Reef; and it will put Premier Mike Baird in New South Wales in sole control of whether to send koalas to extinction.

The draft bilateral agreements say there will be a reserve call-in power for the federal government to step back in, but this test is higher than the current protections the act gives and, with staff being slashed from the department—and from assessment in particular—the likelihood of call-ins is remote. The EPBC Act, the main legislation that is being amended, already only applies to the worst proposals which have the biggest impact on the environment and already affects only a sliver of projects, and this bill proposes to lessen it further.

As I have alluded to, this bill rolls back crucial federal water protections from coal and coal seam gas that were established in the last parliament, where the Greens worked together with rural Independents and the government to make sure that state and territory governments did not have the final say over the proposals which are potentially damaging to our water resources. This bill hands off that water trigger, which was designed to create federal protection for our water resources in response to legitimate and strong community concern, to state or territory governments to administer. But the federal government stepped in because the states had done such an atrocious job of letting coal seam gas run rampant. This now allows those very same state and territory governments to have the final say. As I have said, we are putting the fox in charge of the hen house, but we are now adding water to the long list of other nationally significant matters that the states will be in charge of—matters such as the World Heritage Tasmanian forests and the Great Barrier Reef and, crucially, nationally listed threatened species. In my home state of Victoria, we are on the verge of making our faunal emblem—the Leadbeater's Possum—extinct, because state governments of various stripes over many years have seen it as a greater priority to destroy forests in which these species live for short-term gain and for very little economic return—in fact it has to be subsidised—and in return we will wipe out our faunal emblem. The federal protections are the one last hope; we are going to see threatened species handed holus-bolus over to state governments. This will also apply to our Ramsar wetlands; we sign up to an international convention to protect our wetlands and then we allow not only state governments but also potentially even local governments to have the final say over them.

Crucially, nuclear actions are also covered by this legislation. I cannot believe that this government proposes that we should allow a local council to have the final say over whether protections enshrined in federal law relating to nuclear activity are going to be met! But when this government says the country is open for business, they mean it. You can have any kind of business, anywhere you like, and if there are any federal protections—just go and have a chat with the local council and you can sign yourself out of them. Deputy Speaker, these environmental protections that you see in our legislation—and people would think, 'well, good; we have got some protections there, protecting our World Heritage listed places'—will not be worth the paper they are written on—because all a developer has to do is go and sign up a local government or a state government, and they can contract out of those protections: everything from threatened species to nuclear actions.

In addition, we have seen the gutting of the national water project—on top of what is an environmental disaster of a budget. The water trigger question is crucial; there is a reason that so much some time was spent in the last parliament debating it. People are, rightly, worried that we do not yet know what the impact of coal seam gas mining, or coalmining, or fracking, is on our water tables. But we are proceeding as if everything is going to be fine. What you are seeing, Deputy Speaker, is that right around the country, people—and not just those in the inner city who might have voted for me but also people in rural areas who might otherwise have voted for another party—saying, 'well, hang on: something is fundamentally wrong if we are allowing coal seam gas mining and fracking right next to, or in, our water tables, and we don't know the effect of it'. In the last parliament, we spent a lot of time working out how to deal with that, and we put in place the water trigger that I have referred to. That gives a minimum of protection to those communities, and to everyone who relies on our water tables and on our aquifers. It gives a minimum of protection before coal seam gas mining and coalmining can take place. The Greens would like to see it go a lot further; but we do not want to see it go backwards—and the community does not want the protections to go backwards. I think the community is increasingly horrified at the attacks that this government is perpetrating not just on people but also on the environment.

It is not just state and local governments; the bill allows the minister to accredit any agency to make a decision under this act. So decisions on impacts could be made by bodies which are wholly unqualified and under-resourced. It is very clear from this bill that the government does not care which agency makes the decision—state, local, or any other. The government is washing their hands of their responsibility to protect internationally significant environmental icons.

These accredited processes can be enshrined in policy or in guidelines, rather than in legislation, which, potentially, makes them even unenforceable. If this bill passes and these processes are not even required to be in state laws, we can have absolutely no confidence that federal environmental standards will be maintained. It is no surprise when you think about who backs and who bankrolls the party sitting in government, but the government seemingly do not understand the concept of conflict of interest. They are ignoring 30 years of environmental reform, and the vast track records of states as environmental vandals—and all the while claiming that environmental standards will be maintained. Amazingly—and because they do not understand the concept of conflict of interest—the government is proposing to hand off powers to approve development where the state government itself is the proponent. So, despite the statement by the minister, Greg Hunt, in an interview on 13 September 2013 on ABC Radio in which he reiterated that the government would keep powers where states were 'likely to have a significant conflict of interest', they have now gone back on that as well: another backflip from the Minister for the Environment, and from this government. The state government will say, 'we want to build this project'—and the state government will be in charge of determining whether that project does or does not meet the environmental protections in federal legislation. The state government will be able to write its own ticket to proceed. And there is nothing the federal government can do about it, because the state will be the only one determining whether or not that project is able to go ahead. Anyone who has watched what state governments do in their approach to development will shirk from this bill in horror.

We will not be supporting this bill. I am pleased it is going to be defeated, at least in this Senate, and I hope it will be defeated in the next Senate.

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

The question is:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is a pleasure to rise to oppose the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, which—as my colleague and namesake, the shadow minister has pointed out—has nothing to do with protecting the environment or conserving biodiversity. This bill does nothing for either of those things. It amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to facilitate the Australian government delegating environmental approval powers to state and local governments.

Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, coming from Queensland, as you do, I strongly oppose this move. I do not want Campbell Newman, Jeff Seeney or the Queensland Coordinator-General having the power to approve developments in the Great Barrier Reef. This bill, along with the bilateral agreements being developed, will mean that World Heritage sites, nuclear activity—such as uranium mining—and species protected under international treaties will be put in the hands of state governments, including the Newman government.

Labor oppose this bill, because we believe the national government is responsible for matters of national environmental significance. 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, unfortunately, has no interest in protecting Australia's environment for the future. I was as surprised as anyone to hear the Prime Minister refer to himself as a conservationist, in recent days, given that the track record appears to point to the opposite conclusion. Since coming to government, Mr Abbott and Mr Hunt have made bad decision upon bad decision that have hurt our environment. This bill is the furthest they have gone in terms of putting our environment at risk to irreparable damage by leaving decisions of national environmental significance to state premiers and their ministers and, in the case of Queensland, to unelected persons as well.

The Newman government is an example of why state governments should not be trusted with managing our environment. Last week, the Queensland parliament considered rushed changes to the environmental approvals laws of the state which are complementary to the changes in this bill. The Newman government has attached the changes to a bill about a much less controversial topic. As my state colleague the member for Mackay has said in that debate:

There is no need for the legislative changes to give the Queensland government power to issue federal environmental approvals—

to be attached to that much less controversial bill. He continues:

These changes could have been in a stand-alone bill and scrutinised in its own committee inquiry. The attachment of the legislative changes to give effect to the Abbott-Newman deal to hand federal environmental approvals to the state is sneaky and underhanded. The rush to effect these legislative changes is unnecessary.

That was what he had to say in respect of the complementary legislation in the Queensland parliament last week. During the same debate, my colleague the state member for South Brisbane said:

The EPBC Act is the most important piece of environmental legislation in Australia. The matters of national environmental significance that the EPBC Act protects are: matters of World Heritage, national heritage, wetlands of international importance … threatened species and communities … migratory species, protection of the environment from nuclear actions, the marine environment, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the protection of water resources from CSG and mining.

It is particularly important to note that the member for South Brisbane said the following in relation to the Newman government's record when it comes to the environment:

We are privileged to live alongside some of the greatest natural wonders in the world … Sadly, the Newman government has proved it cannot be trusted to protect our natural environment. The Newman government has systematically stripped away vital environmental protections, leaving our precious natural heritage at risk.

She then went over the following list:

They overturned Labor's 23-year ban on uranium mining in Queensland. They ended the moratorium on shale oil mining and refinement … They extended sandmining on North Stradbroke Island up to 2035 … They introduced legislation … to repeal wild rivers declarations. They scrapped a world-class coastal management policy. They encouraged interstate companies to dump waste in South-East Queensland landfills. They stripped away statutory protection for native vegetation … They have made it harder for community groups to appeal environmental approvals.

As my colleague said:

The fact that the Abbott government has looked at this record and still decided to hand over its powers to the Newman government is a shocking indictment of its own environmental credentials.

As you can see from what the member for South Brisbane had to say, there is cause for concern about handing over powers to the Newman government when it comes to the environment. She is not the only person who is worried about their record. The Friends of the Earth in Brisbane wrote to me with particular concerns about handing over powers with respect to uranium, but with concerns also more generally about the bill and the handover of powers. The Newman government's record on the environment has been slammed by its own Auditor-General, who, in a report tabled in April, has said that the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection:

… is exposing the state to liability and the environment to harm unnecessarily.

We cannot trust the Newman government, given its track record. That is particularly so when it comes to the Great Barrier Reef. It is one of the great wonders of our natural world. Like lots of Queenslanders, as a child I visited the reef on a number of occasions. I want others to be able to have the same experience. I fear that, with the Newman government in charge, people will not be able to have that same experience. I am not alone in my concern.

I congratulate WWF-Australia and the Australian Marine Conservation Society for their joint campaign Fight for the Reef. They and many of my constituents are greatly concerned about the way that developments are affecting the reef. The campaign is presently focused on the UNESCO World Heritage Committee's upcoming decision about the reef. The committee has commenced its meeting from 15 to 25 June, which is being held in Doha. It is considering a draft decision that explicitly warns Australia that the changes to be made by the bill that we are debating today are premature. It also states that the committee is concerned about dredging and dumping near the reef. The relevant provisions of the draft decision that the committee is considering are as follows:

The World Heritage Committee … Requests the State Party to ensure the full completion of the independent review of the institutional and management arrangements for the property, as recommended by the 2012 reactive monitoring mission, as a key input to the LTPSD—

Long Term Plan for Sustainable Development—

and considers that the transfer of decision-making power from Federal to State levels, before the vision, framework with desired outcomes and targets, and governance requirements to deliver the LTPSD have been adopted, is premature, and should be postponed to allow further consideration …

Those are not my words; they are those of the UNESCO World Heritage committee, and we ought to consider them. The committee also expressly recorded its concern about the government approval for dumping three million cubic metres of dredge material inside the property, which is very near the reef, prior to having undertaken a comprehensive assessment of alternative, potentially less impacting development and disposal options.

The draft decision is crucial. The committee has put Australia on notice. We need to do better when it comes to the reef. Specifically, the committee has warned us that if there is not substantial progress on the key issues they have identified, they may include the reef on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Newman government claims that tourism is one of the pillars of the Queensland economy. If the reef is listed as World Heritage in Danger that will be a blow to tourism. Just today TheCairns Post published an article from journalist that said:

TOURISM leaders say the Far North's reputation as a top holiday destination—

(Time expired)

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.