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

I rise to speak to the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment, Streamlining environmental legislation: inquiry into streamlining environmental regulation, 'green tape', and one stop shops. I start by thanking the chair of the committee, the deputy chair and indeed the secretariat for their hard work over the course of this inquiry. I also acknowledge all of those who made submissions and gave evidence before the inquiry.

In speaking to this report, I want to make clear the reason Labor members of the committee felt compelled to author the dissenting report, which forms part of the report I am now addressing. This is due to the report of the majority not fairly reflecting the divergent submissions presented in the course of the inquiry in two critical respects. Firstly, and at a general level, it does not reflect a due appreciation of the value of the environment to the Australian community today and, importantly, into the future. Secondly, and more specifically, on any fair reading of the evidence presented in the course of the inquiry, the case for the one-stop shop has simply not been made out, so we reject paragraph 4.70.

Labor members believe that any changes to environmental regulation 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. It is this concern that has not been satisfied in relation to that proposal. While the report makes a positive mention of the balance between environmental and regulatory concerns, it evidences no consideration of potential benefits arising from delaying projects—for example, to delay the proper and thorough consideration of applications that may cause permanent harm to matters of national environmental significance. I note that there has already been a report into so-called green tape, which found no empirical evidence to support the argument that Commonwealth involvement has been impeding environmental assessment. In our view, nothing has changed since that report.

As mentioned in the dissenting report, the OECD released a very important report of its own in December last year entitled Do environmental policies matter for productivity growth? This report makes for compelling reading. This report found:

… the strictness of environmental policies has "increased significantly" in all the countries—

all OECD countries—

over the past two decades. But that increased stringency has not harmed productivity growth or productivity levels. In fact, new green regulations "may translate into a permanent increase in productivity levels in some industries."

The OECD further found:

… new regulations have pushed firms to operate more efficiently than would otherwise have been case – the green tape has encouraged innovation and investment that has allowed firms to do things better. The improvements triggered by stricter environmental rules have more than offset the costs.

In other words, green tape is not necessarily detrimental to productivity if the regulations are well-designed.

That is, if:

stringent environmental policies can be implemented while promoting strong competition.

The report stated that market-based environmental policies, like the one this government dumped last year, 'tend to have a more robust positive effect on productivity growth'. I would urge members to consider this report in having regard to the matters traversed in the report we are discussing today.

In concluding my very brief remarks on the report before us, I acknowledge that it contains many valuable recommendations, but Labor members are seriously concerned that, in key respects, the majority report prefers ideology to evidence, and this places our precious natural environment at risk. We cannot support such a recommendation.

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

I am pleased to rise to support the recommendations—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 10:05 to 10:26

As I was saying, I rise to support the recommendations made in this report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment. Like the previous speakers, I want to acknowledge the work of the chair and thank the secretariat, who, as we all know in this place, do an extraordinary amount of work. I also want to thank the witnesses who came along and gave evidence.

The holy grail of environmental management is to make good decisions about environmental approvals efficiently and effectively. We want to protect the environment and stimulate development in the economy to create jobs and support communities, particularly those in rural, regional and remote areas. It might be considered by some that to be able to achieve both in a timely manner is impossible. But that is the ideal that we should always be aiming for, and streamlining the environmental legislation is part of that process.

In hearings, the Department of the Environment stated:

The Commonwealth has national standards to be considered prior to entering into an agreement. The standards are based on the requirements of Commonwealth law and facilitate the maintenance of strong environmental outcomes through the one stop shop … The reform will maintain high environmental standards while delivering an improved means to achieve better outcomes for business.

The environmental approval system being rolled out by the Commonwealth in the form of the one-stop shop program also recognises that the states and territories are land managers as defined in our Commonwealth Constitution. It recognises that it is those states and territories that have the actual knowledge, the skills and the on-the-ground experience—something that is often overlooked—to make good decisions for local ecosystems and local communities. In particular, they have the expertise that the Commonwealth Department of the Environment does not. It makes no sense to have the Commonwealth Department of the Environment trying to replicate that knowledge and expertise in replicating an environmental assessment process. The Commonwealth, as we know, simply does not have the capacity to do so—unless it invests billions in replicating state and territory environment departments. So an eminently sensible outcome is for the states and territories to do what they do best already, to conduct those on-the-ground environmental assessments as part of this.

There remains an important role for the Commonwealth, that of oversight. But only where it is empowered by Commonwealth legislation to do so. As a committed federalist, I understand the importance of the division of powers in relation to the roles and responsibilities of the states. There are times and conditions, however, where circumstances demand a federal response. Under the system proposed by the Minister for the Environment in legislation, there is ample opportunity for the Commonwealth to engage with state environment departments throughout the assessment process. Nothing in the government proposal prevents this. The Commonwealth is not abandoning its responsibilities for environmental management. It is simply defining them and cooperating to deliver the outcomes.

We heard consistently throughout the hearings about the costs, delays, frustration and inefficiency associated with the duplication of the requirements and processes of the current system. We also heard about projects in Australia that take 3.1 years for approval and about projects of a similar nature in other countries that take 1.8 years for approval. We heard about delays of seven months for environmental approvals in 2002 and of 18 to 36 months in 2012. We heard that the LNG industry has to comply with 150 statues and 50 government agencies—that has particular interest for those of us from Western Australia. Of particular importance was the evidence from the Department of the Environment, which commented:

The reform will maintain the high environmental standards of the EPBC Act. The Australian Government is committed to improving environmental standards over time cooperatively with the states and territories. To ensure this outcome continuous improvement will be a key feature of agreements with State and Territory governments.

That outlines what the Commonwealth is intending. I note that the Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices said in their evidence:

ANEDO supports efficient and effective environmental regulation. We do not support unnecessary or duplicative laws. … We do not believe in regulation for regulation's sake but in using the appropriate regulatory tools to ensure ecologically-sustainable development and the protection of the Australian environment.

On that basis, I commend the recommendations and the report to the parliament.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Forrest because she, as a farmer, understands the importance of preserving the environment but at the same time ensuring that social and economic implications are always considered. I rise to speak on the report of the Standing Committee on Environment Streamlining environmental legislation: Inquiry into streamlining environmental regulation, 'green tape', and one stop shops. In doing so, I acknowledge the fine work done by the chair of that committee and the work that went into compiling the report.

I note from the report that quite a bit of logistics went into preparing this report. The inquiry received 83 submissions, 13 supplementary submissions and 29 exhibits. The committee held six public hearings here in Canberra and also in Sydney and Melbourne. I do note with some disappointment that there were no regional hearings. I appreciate the fact that it is logistically very hard to get some of the committee hearings into regional areas, but I would say that for many of the reports of this and many of the other inquires conducted by the parliament it is a shame that we do not get into regional areas more often to hear the words of wisdom of those people who have very much a stake in these matters. It is not always easy for those people to get to the capital cities, but it would be good to hear from those people in regional areas their input, discussions and concerns about these sorts of things. I note that the member for Mitchell in his speech to the parliament on 23 February said:

… throughout this inquiry, the committee was presented with numerous examples of environmental regulation that is duplicative, ineffective, confusing, impractical, contradictory or otherwise inefficient. We—

that is, the committee—

saw that some environmental laws were creating delays and significant compliance costs for business without actually delivering any environmental benefit at all.

That is why this inquiry was conducted. That is why it has produced a very good report. It is a shame that it did not receive the unanimous approval of the committee. I note the Deputy Chair, the member for Makin, in his contribution on the same day as the Chair's speech on the report, said that 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. I would urge Labor members to just sometimes end your relentless negativity and get on board with some of the programs and some of the policies—not all; I appreciate there are divergent views between the two sides of the parliament—of the government. I would urge them to work through the committee chairs, to work through the committee process and to just sometimes get on board with what this government is trying to do to build prosperity and wealth and to pay down a lot of the debt and deficit that we have inherited.

I hark back to the committee that I was on, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia Committee, headed by the former Independent member for New England, Tony Windsor, when we conducted an inquiry into the Murray-Darling Basin. I note that there were very similar sorts of arrangements to this report—environmental concerns. The Water Act 2007 is unfortunately an environmental document. We should note that and also remember there is a triple bottom line approach with economic and social concerns that very much need to be at the forefront of anything to do with the Murray-Darling Basin. Sure, we had some very interesting discussions. We went very extensively into regional areas right throughout Australia to hear from key stakeholders. Even though there were very different opinions held by members on that committee—we had Labor members, an Independent, Liberal members and me as a National Party member, and obviously Mr Windsor was holding a very controversial government in place with his important number in the House of Representatives—we actually reached a unanimous verdict on the Of drought and flooding rainsreport. There were 21 recommendations, which, had the parliament adopted, I think we would be in a much better position than we are now with the Murray-Darling Basin. Of course, we all need to ensure that the Murray-Darling Basin remains environmentally secure but, at the same time, we need to protect those farmers and those river communities along the way. I am pleased that we will be getting a water buyback cap and legislate for it, hopefully with the support of the Labor members and particularly those in the Senate, to ensure that the cap on buyback of 1,500 gigalitres is passed.

Getting back to this report, I think it is interesting to note that Labor members of the committee prepared a dissenting report. Although there were areas of agreement—which is good, and I acknowledge that—Labor members of the committee did not believe that the committee report fairly reflected the divergent submissions presented in the course of the inquiry. Labor does not support the government's one-stop shop policy, and that is a shame. The majority of the committee's recommendations—that is, those endorsed by the government members—propose to task the Department of the Environment with further reviews or inquiries to try to further streamline processes. That is essential.

I note that, since coming to government, the coalition has been working hard to resolve a large number of important environmental decisions. We have been getting on with the task of cleaning up the mess left by Labor. To 14 January 2015, 355 referral decisions and 145 final approval decisions have been made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. You ask me: what might that present, what might that produce for the nation as a whole? The 145 approvals decisions represent greater than—wait for it—$1 trillion of economic value. That is crucial in getting this country ticking again. That is crucial in creating jobs, in creating opportunity and in creating wealth. Those 145 projects include many of the things that had remained mired in the stalling process that Labor so eagerly embraced, because they were in partnership with the Greens to keep government under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. Last October in my electorate of Riverina I announced, in conjunction with the state member for Wagga Wagga, Daryl Maguire, a Liberal, funding of $27½ million each—that is, $55 million of federal and state money—going to a very important project to replace the very old Kapooka Bridge: a pinch point in the Olympic Highway, and a road which stopped so much of the very valuable freight transport getting from Victoria to New South Wales. I note that the project has been delayed by months—just getting the excavators into operation and just getting the whole project underway has been delayed—through environmental concerns. Now, we all need to preserve and protect the environment. From the National Party perspective, I appreciate that. I represent a lot of farmers and they are the best environmentalists. Make no mistake. They have to be—because if they ruin their rivers, or if they ruin their soil, they are not going to have a future. Far too often, we see farmers maligned in this place, and maligned in the media, for the jobs that they do. They are not environmental vandals; they are the people who are environmental protectors.

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

On the ground!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the ground; absolutely, the member for Forrest. Getting back to the Kapooka Bridge, it has been delayed for months. They are busy building nesting boxes and doing all those sorts of things to protect wildlife, which is important. But why does it take months? This is a project which has been decades in the making, absolute decades, and it is being held up through, I would argue, unnecessary environmental concerns. And it is an important project, because that new bridge will save lives. It will save lives, and it will improve and protect the livelihoods of those people who use that road as a freight corridor.

This is a very good report. I commend the committee for its diligent work. I commend the one-stop-shop process. I think that was an excellent decision by the coalition government, and an excellent decision by the Minister for the Environment, who understands the need to preserve and protect our environment whilst at the same time ensuring that we have the economic growth to make this country not just great but even greater; indeed, the greatest country on earth.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 10:42