Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

One day, I hope, the Greens might understand standing orders and what a point of order is. I repeat: the Queensland Labor government, which was in power because of the Greens political party—the Greens keep giving second preferences to the Labor Party, putting them in power—approved the Abbot Point project and the Greens mumbled a basic support with a couple of objections but did nothing about them. But if it is a Liberal-National Party government who does it, you get the sort of trash that you heard earlier in this debate.

Abbot Point is a great example of where a most rigorous process was embarked upon by the then Queensland Labor government. It was approved subject to many conditions and then, lo and behold, when the proponents, the Queensland authority, started to do the work, they then found out that they had to go through exactly the same process yet again with the Commonwealth government. That is just one example. I have been involved over many years in trying to help some constituents of mine—actually they are not from my state—who wanted to invest in aquaculture in my state. They went through the most rigorous process of environmental approval with the then Labor state government. They spent literally millions of dollars—I saw their EIS; it was a pile of paper three-quarters of a metre high. But they eventually got the approval from the Queensland government. They did that because the Queensland government, together with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, established a set of guidelines for discharges from the prawn farm into the Great Barrier Reef. That was an expensive process. It was endorsed by the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency and GBRMPA and it cost $4 million or $5 million. When everything was approved and ready to go, we found that this organisation had to turn around and go through the same process again with the Commonwealth government, who then imposed a different set of rules.

This process would employ something like 200 young people in rural North Queensland, where I live. Are the Greens interested in jobs for those 200 young people? No, they are among those who want to stop any aquaculture development in Australia. Recently, there was a proposal—this is fairly well known—to have a major new aquaculture venture in Australia so we would not have to import foreign aquaculture seafood product and so we would not put undue pressure on the wild stocks in Australia. But, when the Greens and their mates got going and raised all of these hurdles, what happened to that foreign investor? They said, 'It is all too hard in Australia; we will go overseas.' So someone overseas gets the jobs for their young people and then they import that product into Australia. The hypocrisy of the Greens political party is abjectly palpable.

If we are going to have a prosperous Australia and if we are going to give meaningful jobs to our young people, we have to have the type of development that is proposed by the aquaculture farm or by North Queensland Bulk Ports. I only mention those two because they spring to mind immediately. Senator Waters had a list. I could go through a list as long as this chamber. With bureaucracy, red tape and lies they have stopped development in Australia for no environmental gain. Senator Waters has talked about the carbon tax. We all know about that farce. Not only did it send Australian jobs overseas but it did not do a thing for the world environment—1.4 per cent of carbon emissions come from Australia. The Greens wanted the world's biggest carbon tax to reduce that by 5 per cent. That would not have made one iota of difference to the world's environment or the world's climate, yet the Greens were determined to have that carbon tax and ensured that Ms Gillard broke her promise to introduce such a measure. The hypocrisy—nothing achieved for the environment but everything achieved to the detriment of Australia and Australian jobs.

This bill has all the protections. Contrary to what Senator Waters has said, it does not do away with Commonwealth environmental requirements. What it does do is get one authority, one body, to assess both the state and Commonwealth requirements. So, if the Commonwealth does have requirements, they will still be in place. They are not being abolished by this, in spite of what Senator Waters has said and what other Green senators who might speak on this might say—might try to mislead you about. This one-stop shop will simplify the processes and will improve the environmental protection. But it will mean that those proposing these developments can do so at a reasonable cost and not spend the same money twice over, not go through the same hoops again. The prawn farms I talked about, which would have been the saviour of youth unemployment in my part of rural North Queensland, has been delayed yet again. It has been going, to the best of my knowledge, for more than 10 years now. These could have been jobs for our young people. It could have been product that Australia was not only producing for Australians but exporting overseas. But because of this red tape—not the environmental conditions so much as the delays and the cost of doing these things—we are losing investment and losing jobs for young people.

I want to emphasise that the Commonwealth will retain an important role under the one-stop shop proposals. The Commonwealth will remain accountable for its obligations under the EPBC Act, including international treaties. It will retain an approval role for actions in Commonwealth waters, on Commonwealth land or undertaken by Commonwealth agencies. It will have an ongoing role in ensuring the commitments under the bilateral agreements between the states and the Commonwealth are met. If a Labor state—it would only be a Labor state—wants to do the wrong thing by the agreement between the states and Commonwealth, then the Commonwealth has the power to call those agreements in.

This shows that by eliminating the dual state-and federal-approval process businesses will not have to address the same hurdles a number of times, but the same high environmental standards will be—and must be—retained. This provides for a simpler, faster assessment-and-approval process for business. If it is not going to meet the approval of the different agencies, the state and the Commonwealth, then it will not get approved; it does not matter who the assessment agency is. This is the point the Greens political party would have you believe.

It is typical, again—I want to emphasise this—of the hypocrisy of the Greens political party. They work on the basis that you can tell any lie you like as long as you achieve your ends, at the end of the day. The ends of the Greens, at the end of the day, are to shut down any development, any process, in Australia that builds employment and our standard of living—notwithstanding that they continue to be very willing participants in the wonderful standard of living we have in Australia.

I have been in the Senate quite some time. The thing people have approached me about most often since I have been in the Senate has been this ludicrous provision of dual agencies dealing with the same process, whether it be in education, health or—most importantly, in the context of this debate—the environment. I emphasise to those who might be listening to this debate, there will be no lessening of the Commonwealth standards of the environment. It is the Liberal and National parties in this chamber that have always been at the forefront of protecting Australia's environment. We will continue to do so, because we understand that our environment and natural assets are very important to Australia, and we certainly do not want them trashed.

We will continue to maintain the sorts of standards introduced by Liberal and National party governments and eventually supported by all other political parties. Because the Greens have a philosophical hatred of anyone who is not from the left of politics, they will continue to distribute misinformation about anyone who happens to have a different view from them, on any subject.

I congratulate Campbell Newman and his environment minister, Andrew Powell, on some of the initiatives they have undertaken since being in power. They are initiatives that did not do anything to protect the environment but actually helped the development of my state of Queensland, which was being crushed under a $95 billion debt left to them by the previous Labor government. Campbell Newman is an honourable man, a most honest and rigorous man. The suggestion that he took money from anyone is just so outrageous as to be unbelievable—unlike the Greens political party and its leaders, who take lots of money from Mr Wood and others to pursue their process.

Campbell Newman has done a wonderful job in Queensland. After almost 20 years of Labor rule, something had to be done to get our state out of the doldrums. I am delighted that Mr Newman has done that. I am delighted that he has done it in a very careful and balanced way, particularly when it comes to the environment. He and Mr Powell have been proactive in ensuring the protection of our natural assets. I am delighted that my state has come on board with the Commonwealth in this one-stop-shop process, which will continue careful management of our natural assets but will do so in a more competitive way that builds upon Australia's standard of living.

I certainly support this bill, which has been a long time coming. It is a bill that was very much a part of our last election commitments, which were overwhelmingly endorsed by the Australian public. It is the sort of initiative that must happen. I certainly hope that senators will support the bill when it comes to a vote.