John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is very difficult when you hear the rubbish coming from them. It is very hard to ignore them. I will take your advice and I will ignore them. The background of this bill:

Amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 in relation to bilateral agreements by providing that: states and territories can be accredited for approval decisions on large coal mining and coal seam gas developments likely to have a significant impact on a water resource; all states and territories can be declared under the Act for the purposes of requesting advice from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee (IESC); states and territories undertake to seek and take advice from the IESC for approval bilateral agreements which may have a significant impact on a water resource; the IESC provide advice to the Commonwealth about the operation of a bilateral agreement in relation to large coal mining and coal seam gas developments likely to have a significant impact on a water resource; an approval process can be completed when an approval bilateral agreement is suspended, cancelled or ceases to apply to a particular action;

I will repeat that so the Greens can hear it:

… an approval process can be completed when an approval bilateral agreement is suspended, cancelled or ceases to apply to a particular action; state and territory processes that meet the appropriate standards can be accredited for bilateral agreements …

We went to the election promising a one-stop environmental shop. It is called reducing red tape, reducing green tape and reducing costs. The coalition's commitments to high environmental standards remain. I will give you an example: the Green Army Program of $300 million over four years. Just a couple of weeks ago, I met EnviTE, which is revegetating coastline at Byron Bay. It is part of the Green Army Program carrying out environmental improvements.

This legislation is about the establishment of a one-stop shop and slashing at red tape and at cost. If a business wishes to put in a plan for a development, why should they go through paper after paper and questions after questions, then feed it to the federal government, do the same thing to the state government and then, in many cases, also do the same thing for the local government? It is triplication—that is what it is. It costs time; it costs money. It has no benefit in the long term because the one-stop shop can go through the whole process of every issue. No-one in this place is about destroying the future for our children—no-one. That is why we, on this side of the parliament, are adamant that the high level of standards of environment protection must be maintained.

A report in 2012 found that 44 per cent of businesses spend between one and five hours a week complying with government regulatory requirements—sitting there filling out forms, applying for forms, reporting business activity and completing compliance forms. Seventy two per cent of business said that the time they spend on red tape had increased in the preceding two years. Cost to business is cost to our nation. Never forget it: it is a fact that we live in a free-enterprise economy and our nation's wealth is derived through the private sector. Governments do not have money; we take money off the people. John Laws has been telling me that on the radio for 40 years—governments do not have money. The stronger the private sector, the stronger the whole nation.

If you want to look after the environment, the first thing you need is money. That is why I suggest people have a look at a map of Australia. I do not know exactly how much is in the hands of farmers and graziers, but I will have a guess of 50 per cent plus. How can they look after the environment and how can they be green when so many are so far in the red? That is the issue. And I take you back to the banning of live exports of cattle. What an absolute disgrace. Those people did not have enough money to pay their bank interest every month, let alone look after the environment. If you fill the farmers' pockets with money, they will spend that money on preserving their land for future generations. That is the most vital thing.

I bought a small block of land of 400 acres 12 months or so ago. The first thing I did was get the bulldozer in. That was the first thing—and I get a laugh from Senator Rhiannon, or whoever, on my right. I rebuilt the contour banks. I pushed them up four or five feet high so that, when we get a thunderstorm, that valuable topsoil is not going to be washed away. The greatest asset of our nation is our topsoil. You must have good, healthy soil to grow healthy food. If you have soil washed down a river, it is gone forever. That is the first thing I did, for environmental reasons—to protect the soil. It is vital, but we give little attention to soil. We give more attention to trees, in many respects—and those on my right are having a bit of a chuckle over there. 'Trees are more important,' they say. Look around us; everything we see in this building either comes from trees—the timber I am touching now—or is dug out of the ground. The big difference is this: what is dug out of the ground is finite. It will finish; the hole will be emptied. The tree is renewable; it is a renewable resource. Just like growing a wheat crop and harvesting a wheat crop, timber is the same.

I was amazed when I went to Pilliga state forest just a few weeks ago. There is an area left for timber milling. All the poor, twisted, inferior timber is for the timber mills to mill. It is useless. The good timber is locked up in the national park. Well, we know what is going to happen to that. It is going to burn—nothing surer. As sure as I stand here, it will burn.

Fifty four per cent of those people in business said that complying with government regulations had prevented them making changes to grow or expand their business. We talk about jobs, but you need to grow your business. First of all, you need to maintain your business so that you do not go broke. Then you need to grow your business to employ people. Fifty four per cent said that complying with government regulations had prevented them making change to grow and expand their business. Red tape stifles jobs, investment and expansion. We are committed to cutting red tape and green tape. This was an election promise that we stand by—a one-stop shop to remove the cost on business and to see the environment is protected, no matter what application it is.

As I said, this legislation is about cutting duplication of federal, state and local processes. It is keeping it simple by simplifying the environmental approvals process with a single entry point. It is just simple—one lot of bookwork and one lot of approval, but stringent regulations with a high bar as far as environmental approvals go. The business and community benefits from these simple procedures of simply reducing the time and the cost of filling in forms. The cost is a big saving to business. The Commonwealth maintains an important role under the one-stop shop. That is a fact—the Commonwealth maintains that important role. The Commonwealth remains accountable for its obligations under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, including international treaties. It retains an approval role for actions in Commonwealth waters, on Commonwealth land or by Commonwealth agencies. It has an ongoing role in ensuring that the commitments under the bilateral agreements are met. States and territories must demonstrate their approval processes and meet the high environmental standards set out in the EPBC Act. I will repeat that: states and territories must demonstrate that their approval processes meet the high environmental standards set out in the EPBC Act.

The one-stop shop will also promote sharing of environmental information and data between business, government and the community. That is important. When you gather the information, it is important to share it so that all can learn more and maintain that high level of environmental standards.

Transparent and accessible environmental information will improve our collective ability to understand and sustainably manage our environment. Eliminating the dual state-federal approval process will mean that businesses will not have to jump over the same hurdle multiple times, but the same high environmental standards will be maintained. The one-stop shop will also promote the increased use of strategic approaches to improve the environment, such as strategic environmental assessments under the EPBC Act.

Strategic assessments consider the cumulative impacts of environmental pressures and plan for better environmental outcomes. Business will have lower costs. There will be certainty for investors. It will boost productivity and create jobs. There will be a fast approval process, and transparency will mean that the environment will be protected.

There will be a five-yearly review of agreements and an escalated dispute resolution process to resolve any issues. The federal environment minister can still call in the assessment and/or approval of a project. That is most important. In extreme circumstances the minister has the power under the EPBC Act to suspend or cancel an agreement. That is also important; I will repeat it. In extreme circumstances the federal minister has the power under the EPBC Act to suspend or cancel an agreement.

This is simply a case of reducing costs and red tape and green tape paperwork. It delivers on an election promise to develop a one-stop environmental shop. It does not lower the bar one bit for environmental standards. Sure, many around me oppose mining. I get quite amazed about that. What should we do? Should we drive around in cars made of tree leaves or ironbark off an ironbark tree? No; the things we have these days are made from stuff that comes from the ground. I know that many opposite me in this place would like to return us to the Stone Age. With a bit of luck that will probably not happen, unless they happen to get their way. I do not include you, Senator Bullock. I delete you from that comment.

I commend this bill. It is about cost reduction, paperwork, red tape, green tape and an election promise. That is why this bill should be supported.