Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for her answer, although it does beg the question: if it is so different, if it is so in need of a different approach, if it is such an issue where it was clear that such agreements should not be entered into, then why was that not in the government's original legislation? Why did it require Mr Windsor to bring it to the government's attention? Why is it that these matters simply came about in the dying stages of the debate in the House of Representatives? It is convenient, I would say, for the government to now argue that there is a whole different set of circumstances that apply in this area and that it is not able to put in place appropriate conditions and standards as to how assessments and approvals could be undertaken. It is convenient in the extreme, because this was not the government's approach. This was not their policy. This was an acquiescence to Mr Windsor in the dying stages of the debate on this bill in the House of Representatives.

So I accept and understand the arguments that the minister is making, but, when you look at the reality of the sequence of events in the evolution and development of this bill, and when you look at the changes and the amendments that were put in place in the other place, it is quite clear to any observer that this has come about not because the government foresaw a particular need for it but because it very clearly was the case that the government was giving in, giving ground, to Mr Windsor at that time. That is the government's right. That is the way this government has operated for much of the last three years—doing deals on the side with different crossbenchers to keep them all happy. This was the deal that had to be done in this instance to keep Mr Windsor happy. It also had, of course, the convenient political side effect of creating a difficulty, potentially, for the opposition when it comes to implementing our policy, should we win the next election.

So there are political pluses on all sides, and good luck to the government in that regard if they managed to take advantage of those political opportunities that presented themselves to the government. But when you look at the types of conditions that are put in place in the existing referrals powers in the EPBC Act, and what could have been put in place in relation to the water trigger, there is no doubt that you could have had similar types of conditions put in place. You could very easily have had similar types of provisions put in place that ensured that, where a bilateral agreement was entered into, whether state and territory, it only was entered into if the minister was satisfied that the impact and the assessment on water resources was to be improved by the undertaking of such assessment and approvals by a state or territory.

You could have put that type of condition in place because, frankly, you would start with the confidence of knowing that the skill set, the knowledge and the systems are already in place in most of the states and territories to have a high level of approvals understanding and assessment understanding when it comes to looking at these types of developments because they have been doing them for some period of time, because they, like the Commonwealth, are equally informed of the findings and views of the independent expert scientific committee. That committee is not an exclusive committee of advice to the Commonwealth; it provides its advice just as freely on equal terms to the state governments, which will be just as well informed in the future, with or without this legislation, by that committee under the terms of its establishment by the parliament.

So there could easily have been the types of conditions that we see in relation to the other matters of national environmental significance developed and applied and imposed in the legislation to set a standard for referrals as to this new trigger. The government overlooked it. The government decided not to provide such potential referral powers or conditions, but, equally, did not seek originally to ban them, either. It is just a convenient argument to come along later in the piece having done so on the whim of an Independent and then say, 'We had to do so because it was new, because it was different, because we do not have the information or the evidence yet.' That just does not stack up.

Again I come back to the overarching point of this: these provisions, the provisions in section 53 that I read out at length to the chamber before, have never been used. Never have they been used, but the capacity to use them exists in the act for a time when a government believes it can meet those conditions and can manage to get the right environmental and efficiency outcomes in terms of the application of environmental legislation.

There is no reason as to why the standards—yes, they are broad in their nature—could not have been developed to a similar standard to those that are in the bill, in terms of having confidence that water resources will be protected and having confidence that proper processes of assessment are being undertaken. They are not highly technical standards that are put in place; they are standards, however, that exist to provide a benchmark and a threshold for the minister to clear. That is for the minister to have complete confidence that the state is doing its job, as well as the minister would expect, and the good officers of the Commonwealth department are doing their jobs.

Now, I understand that the government clearly is not about to recognise that it erred in accepting the Windsor amendment in the House of Representatives. They are clearly not about to back down in relation to this matter. That is a great disappointment. I would have hoped that the voices of common sense within the government would have been heard and would have made their views known. I know that some of them have, from those that have communicated that to the opposition. They have expressed their concern about this anomaly that we are now putting into the EPBC Act, where we are treating this different area of the act in a completely different way when it comes to how approvals and assessments could occur.

But, ultimately, in the government's rejection of the coalition's amendments here and the government's rejection of our invitation to correct their errors the House of Representatives, the real concern comes back to the cost impact that it has on business and on industry. That potential total gain to society—were we to manage to reduce delays, to reduce duplication and to ensure that we can have a better streamlined operation of our environmental laws—from the Deloitte Access Economics' report was $1.19 billion. That was solely looking at the existing areas of the EPBC Act. Because, when that cost-benefit analysis was done in 2011, this legislation was not even foreseen. This legislation was not even really foreseen in 2012. This legislation came about as an absolute last-minute dash by the government simply to make some difference in this regard.

The cost that comes from these measures, like the measures that the coalition is seeking to have removed from this bill, is a real cost. It is a real cost to the industry and it is a real cost to the competitiveness of Australian business. It is a real cost, therefore, to the number of jobs and opportunities that ultimately exist in Australia. Because every time we lay another level of red or green tape across industry, we know—from that day on—that it makes Australia that little bit less competitive when it comes to attracting investment and when it comes to growing business opportunities here.

We know from the earlier stages of this debate, and from the estimates questioning that was undertaken, that we saw some $38 million of costs recognised in the budget, purely for the administration of this bill that is before us tonight. That is, purely for the administration of Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013. It is only 17 pages. In legislative terms and in terms of the weight of things that come through this place, it is a rather meagre level of legislation. But its impact and its cost is real. Its cost to the government, just to administer it, is $38 million over the forward estimates. That is a very real cost for taxpayers to have to wear and for the government.

It comes at a time of great budgetary stress, as we all know, and comes from the government that has failed chronically to meet any of its budget forecasts. It has chronically overspent; it has run the biggest record deficits in Australian history. It is a government that has a very sad fiscal and budgetary legacy to its name; $38 million just over the forward estimates to administer these 17 new pages of legislation, and 50 new Commonwealth public servants are required to be employed to administer these 17 pages of legislation. It is a reminder that the decisions we make in this place have a real impact.

When we go to the Public Service, whichever the government of the day is, and say to them, 'We need to squeeze another efficiency dividend out of you. We need you to do things with less money,' the public service rightly often responds to the minister of the day and says, 'But we have all of these statutory requirements that we have to fulfil.' Parliament passes the laws and somebody has to implement them. Those somebodies are the good and hardworking people of the Commonwealth Public Service.

So when we pass legislation like this, we need to know that it comes at a very real cost. But it is not just a cost to the taxpayer and the government in terms of administration—though that is real—it then multiplies through the economy. The concern in this case is that we have cost multiplication happening at both a state and a federal level. The states have long had environmental approvals laws—particularly in relation to mining developments, which are developments like those covered by this bill. Large coalmines have always had to clear state environmental hurdles. Coal seam gas development activities have always had to clear state environmental development and assessment hurdles.

These are very clear legislative hurdles that have had to be cleared for a long time and for all of these sorts of projects. That is forever, essentially, when it comes to coal seam gas development. We are now applying a very specific additional layer of federal legislation on top of that. Now, it is a prerogative of this parliament to do so, but we should do so with our eyes wide open and know that there is a level of duplication that occurs from that. So, therefore, we have not just one set of costs imposed on the industry, but two sets of costs imposed on the industry.

Provisions exist elsewhere in the EPBC Act to try to bring those two sets of costs back to one, by virtue of referring those Commonwealth powers to the states. Those provisions should be replicated and should continue to be available in relation to this new trigger, so that when a government decides—through the proper processes of working with the states—that it is physically possible and that it is possible within all the terms of the legislation to reach an agreement with the states—as the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, had promised to do last year—and refer some of these approvals processes to the states, the power exists and the way in which to implement it is there. Ms Gillard previously said it could be done; sadly, she abandoned that mission. But that is not to say that a future prime minister will not be stronger in their resolve to reach an agreement with the states. That is why these provisions inserted by the House of Representatives should be removed. I would urge the committee, and the government, to reconsider its support for these provisions in the bill and to support the opposition's motion to have them removed.