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

On behalf of the Standing Committee on the Environment, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Streamlining environmental legislation: inquiry into streamlining environmental regulation, 'green tape' and one stop shops,together with the minutes of the proceedings.

In carrying out this inquiry into streamlining environmental regulation, 'green tape' and one-stop shops, the committee has been keen to identify efficiencies in Australia's environmental assessment and approval framework. Importantly, it has undertaken to do so without any reduction in appropriate protections for Australia's unique and invaluable environment.

The committee adopted this inquiry in February last year and spent several months gathering evidence. The inquiry received 83 submissions, 13 supplementary submissions and 29 exhibits. The committee held six public hearings, both here in Canberra and also in Sydney and Melbourne. We heard from industry representatives, community groups, government departments, environmental practitioners and advocates, legal experts and interested members of the public. We are grateful to all those witnesses for taking the time to send us written submissions or to meet with us and express their views at public hearings.

The inherent value of preserving our environment is something we can all agree on, and that is on top of the economic and social benefits that our environment brings. However, throughout this inquiry, the committee was presented with numerous examples of environmental regulation that is duplicative, ineffective, confusing, impractical, contradictory or otherwise inefficient. We saw that some environmental laws were creating delays and significant compliance costs for business without actually delivering any environmental benefit at all. I would recommend to members examining some of that evidence the specific examples where business was unable to have any environmental benefit despite great cost or regulatory burden.

For example, according to the Department of the Environment's annual report, in the last financial year alone, 304 separate actions were referred to the Commonwealth for assessment and approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The majority of these referrals involved activities such as commercial and residential development, mining and exploration, natural resource management, and transport—activities vital to the strength and the resilience of our economy. Significantly, the vast majority of the activities referred to the Commonwealth would have already been assessed by the relevant state or territory's authorities, who also have responsibility for assessing and mitigating the environmental impact of developments—highlighting the duplication in this sense that existed in the past in Australia.

Through the inquiry, I was therefore pleased to hear about the government's one-stop-shops initiative—and the progress that is being made by the government in the one-stop shops—which is seeking to reduce the duplication of these processes by accrediting relevant state and territory processes. This will ensure that the Commonwealth's environmental obligations are fulfilled without requiring industry and community groups to jump through the same set of hoops twice, reducing cost and burden on industry and society. I am pleased with the progress that has been made to date, and I look forward to the government finalising bilateral agreements with states and territories in due course.

Following on from evidence from stakeholders, the committee identified opportunities to enhance the one-stop-shop system and has made two recommendations for bilateral agreements with states and territories going forward to enhance those arrangements. Those recommendations relate to statutory time frames and risk based terms of reference for environmental impact statements, a common theme of proponents being risk based assessments.

The inquiry also received a great deal of evidence about environmental regulation beyond just the EPBC Act and the one-stop-shop proposal. The evidence related to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, areas for harmonising legislation between jurisdictions, and the Department of the Environment's communication with regulated communities.

The committee examined some of the energy related programs and regulations, including the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act, theNational Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme, the renewable energy target, and the Commercial Building Disclosure Program under the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act. I am pleased to note that some of these programs have either been discontinued or were in the process of being reviewed during the committee's inquiring and reporting process. Where matters remain outstanding, the committee has made recommendations for change and looks forward to receiving the government's response.

Some of the other areas in which this report has offered very practical, sensible recommendations for change include a national approach to the listing of endangered and threatened species, and better sharing of environmental data between jurisdictions, including environmental data gathered by project proponents in the course of preparing environmental impact statements.

This has been a timely inquiry. Following on from the Productivity Commission's work in 2013 on major project approvals processes, and in the context of the government's effort to reduce the regulatory burden on business and the community, I am confident that the committee's findings and recommendations can help pave the way for further reforms. The recommendations made by the committee are practical and will help reduce duplication and make for more efficient administration of environmental regulations.

Australia's precious environment must be protected. But where regulations are inefficient, unnecessary, and produce no environmental benefit, they must be reconsidered.

Once again, I thank organisations and individuals. I thank the committee secretariat, including Peggy Danaee. I thank the member for Makin, the deputy chair, and I thank all my colleagues on the committee for their contributions to the inquiry and the report in general.

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

Firstly, I thank the Chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment, the member for Mitchell. I also appreciate his remarks with respect to the report Streamlining environmental legislation: inquiry into streamlining environmental regulation, 'green tape' and one stop shops. Can I also thank the committee secretariat for their work and also all of those people who either made submissions or appeared before the committee in the course of the inquiry.

The Labor Party members of the committee prepared a dissenting report. I should highlight that, in doing so, there is indeed much that we agree on, albeit there are some matters that we disagree on. Indeed, on most of the 13 recommendations, we have very few points of difference. In presenting our dissenting report, Labor members of the committee do not believe that the committee report fairly reflects the divergent submissions presented in the course of the inquiry. Nor are several of the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report supported by the evidence presented to the inquiry.

The report makes positive mention of the balance between environmental and regulatory concerns but evidences no consideration of potential benefits arising from delaying projects to allow for proper and thorough consideration of applications that may cause permanent harm to matters of national environmental significance. Any changes to environmental regulations that simplify assessment processes, reduce time and costs and create uniformity across all jurisdictions should always be balanced against the importance of maintaining sound environmental protections. In our view, the report does not address the social and economic values of the natural environment and how these values are indeed measured.

Labor members note the position of the UN's World Heritage Committee in June 2014, which held that the delegation of approval powers on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area to the Queensland government was premature. Labor members agree that opportunities for streamlining state and federal assessment processes should be pursued but only in a way that ensures that existing standards will be retained or strengthened. While Labor continues to support streamlining environmental assessment processes for major projects, final approval on matters of national environmental significance should remain with the national government. In particular I refer to World Heritage Properties, National Heritage places, wetlands of international importance, listed threatened species and ecological communities, migratory species, nuclear actions, Commonwealth marine areas, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and a water resource in relation to coal seam gas development or large coalmining development. Labor members note that, should the report's recommendations be applied, the approval of World Heritage sites, nuclear activities such as uranium mining and species protected under international treaties will be put into the hands of state governments.

In respect of delegation of powers to state governments Labor members note that the Abbott government is also attempting to allow state governments to accredit local governments to approve developments that have an effect on matters of national environmental significance. This would further delegate environmental protection powers, meaning that the environmental matters which are the subject of international treaties could be considered by local government.

Labor members reject paragraph 4.70 on page 49 of the committee report. This is the paragraph that refers to the one-stop shop policy. Labor does not support the one-stop shop policy of the government. Labor members also note that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 has not passed the Senate, leaving bilateral agreements with states and territories in limbo. Labor does not believe that the evidence provided to the committee supports the view that the one-stop shop approach will lead to greater consistency or efficiency across jurisdictions. Finally, in respect of the recommendations, Labor members believe that under recommendation 2 the term 'risk based terms of reference' should also be defined.

In summary, Labor does not believe that the case has been made to support the one-stop shop proposal, nor do we believe that there has been an adequate amount of evidence or weight put on the value of our environment to the benefit of the whole community. Nevertheless, there are 13 recommendations in that report, many of which we agree with; and, if there are ways of simplifying processes, Labor is always welcome and supportive of doing that.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The allotted time for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Mitchell wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?

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

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.