Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to continue my remarks on this particular piece of legislation, which I began remarking on just over a year ago. I make it very, very clear that we are not sacrificing environmental standards; I want to be very, very clear on this. We are not altering our government's solemn promise—our solemn commitment—and the long history of coalition governments' commitment to high environmental standards and environmental integrity. We are improving it. We are creating an easy system—one system instead of two complex ones. We are asking this: if there are nearly 250,000 applications lodged each year and just 400 are seen by the federal government, then why should there not be a streamlining of processes to create a more effective and efficient system?

Our states and territories will have to step up. They will need to ensure that their environmental protection laws are of a high standard and that there is a synergy across our nation, where some state governments—and I am thinking in particular of certain Labor governments' environmental approval standards around particular mining practices over the past decade—could have done with little leg-up. I hope that is why the opposition will be supporting our moves to ensure that state governments' environmental protections are going to be significantly increased as a result of stepping up to this legislation's hopes.

Some states have already begun working on how to improve their environmental legislation, but it must be noted that our government is not sacrificing environmental standards for a simpler system. The federal environment minister will still retain the right to have the final call in the assessment or approval of a project and may even be able to suspend or cancel the agreement if it is an extreme example. We are not fully relinquishing power; we are simplifying it. That has to be the key message here.

We are implementing a comprehensive assurance framework that will ensure that we have a transparent system. We want the environmental information to be public so that the broader community—including the Greens; it is great to have three of them in the chamber today—can be part of the monitoring processes involved. We are proposing audits during transition stages and then every five years, as well as consistent reviews of agreements and new reporting mechanisms.

Furthermore, we want an escalated dispute resolution process, where only the necessary questions will be asked so that we can be called to address extreme issues. The states and territories themselves have fully supported this. Every state and territory has signed up to the one-stop shop because they understand what Australian businesses and projects—and the significant amount of local jobs associated with that investment into Australia and particularly into regional Australia—stand to gain from a much simpler process.

A project that stands to gain is one in my home state of Victoria. With the Port Phillip channel we can see a classic example of how overly complex our system is. The Port Phillip Channel Deepening Project was specifically examined by the Productivity Commission. There are over 70 pieces of environmental legislation and policy relevant to the Port Phillip Channel Deepening Project. Do not worry, Madam Acting Deputy President—I know you have a strong interest in environmental legislation, but I will not go through all 70. I will name just a few. The key regulatory frameworks governing this project are the Victorian 1995 Fisheries Act, the Victorian 1975 National Parks Act, the Victorian 1978 Crown Land (Reserves) Act, the Victorian 1988 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, the Victorian 1975 Wildlife Act, the Victorian 1989 Water Act, the Victorian 1994 Water Industry Act, the Victorian 1994 Catchment and Land Protection Act, the Victorian 1958 Land Act, the 1997 Victorian biodiversity strategy and the 2002 Victoria’s native vegetation management: a framework for action. It can cost a major but necessary project like the Port Phillip Channel Deepening Project $25 million—that is a lot of jobs—to meet these regulatory requirements. It can mean as many as 4,000 meetings, a 1,200-page report, and being subject to 1,200 state conditions, 300 Commonwealth conditions and as many as 800 subconditions.

The Productivity Commission heard that one company needed to employ—wait for it—50 new staff over two years just to meet the environmental standards. Jobs should be created in the process of building the projects rather than in the administration of them. In the same report, the Productivity Commission recognised that this is ridiculous, stating:

Australia’s federal system of government, where responsibilities for matters (such as environmental protection) span all levels of government, gives rise to overlap and duplication, which the Commission considers can be greatly reduced without lowering the quality of environmental outcomes.

That is the key phrase here. What the Productivity Commission recommended, and what the government has studiously sought to implement with this legislation, is that we get rid of the overlap and duplication but do not compromise our environmental outcomes. First and foremost we will not compromise them. I believe that this legislation goes to the very heart of ensuring that that can occur. Some of the states and territories are going to have to work very hard to make sure that their environmental protections are up to standard. Do not forget that the federal environment minister does have the power to intervene if deemed necessary. What we are getting rid of is that overlap and duplication.

If you are parties that represent bureaucrats or the majority of white-collar workers, then you would want to see paper-pushing jobs protected rather than the jobs of working-class Australians who will be building projects like the channel deepening project in my home state of Victoria and who will be building dams around Australia—the projects that are subject to these overlaps and duplications between the state and Commonwealth environmental legislation frameworks when it comes to protecting our national environment. The significant problem with overlaps is that they cause delays in the process. Getting approval by state and federal governments on the 70 pieces of legislation would not have been a timely process for the Port Phillip Channel Deepening Project. An assessment of the federal government's Office of Best Practice Regulation found that the savings from implementing a one-stop shop could be more than $420 million. That is a cost incurred purely because of delays.

The Productivity Commission also looked into the implications of delays, examining two different scenarios of delays—one and two years respectively. It found that by 2025 Australia's real GDP would be 1.5 per cent higher, or $32 billion higher in today's dollars, if the average delay in project approvals were reduced by one year. This GDP gap would increase to 2.4 per cent, or $51 billion in today's dollars, if the average delay were reduced by two years. That has got to be good for us. It has to be good for either side of this Senate to have billions more dollars to dedicate to education, to health and to ensuring that the taxpayer's dollar is targeted to those in the very greatest need, whilst at the same time ensuring projects worth billions of dollars are employing many more Australians. Over the 12 years from 2014 to 2025, the cumulative real GDP gains would be $160 billion and $280 billion respectively.

Although I do not expect the Labor Party to know this, a major infrastructure project should run on time. I have so many examples from my home state, including the desalination plant, but I will not go through them because I will run out of time—and I have so much more to say on this legislation. Infrastructure projects should run on time. As a federal government, we are often asking the same environmental questions that state governments have already asked. Why not streamline the process? Infrastructure is so crucial, especially in areas like Port Phillip. It provides employment, stimulates investment and offers benefits to the wider community. All these processes, forms and applications are restricting Australia's future growth. It is not just major projects that have been impacted by these unnecessary processes. Farmers and people in regional areas have to adhere to these complex systems. They cannot afford to hire 50 new staff to help them out. The National Farmers' Federation has fully supported our decision to move to a simpler process, claiming:

Navigating regulatory requirements in relation to environmental approvals is difficult and cumbersome.

The NFF identified that there are too many duplicated processes, especially for irrigators. They identified that, because of requirements for rural water authorities to provide information and data to state and national irrigators, irrigation farmers bore—pardon the pun!—an enormous cost that was passed on directly to them. Just at the Commonwealth level, rural water authorities are required to report information to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, to the Bureau of Meteorology, to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and to the National Water Commission. Each regulator requires similar information to be provided in different formats for different timescales. These are just the Commonwealth requirements. These irrigators still need to report to the state government.

Why are we imposing such costs on those who cannot afford it when we are asking for information similar to that which state governments already request? How can a local farmer provide employment in community or supply the community with goods when they must pay additional costs to meet environmental standards? We would like to see a much simpler process. The NFF have provided us with advice saying:

… the one-stop shop model must address not only those areas where there is direct overlap of Commonwealth/State regulation. Full harmonisation is required so that the current ambiguity created by different Commonwealth and State regulations can be clarified.

It is interesting that the Australian farming and business community today has come out reiterating its support for the one-stop-shop approach to environmental approvals. The important reforms are strongly supported by the farming and business community, including the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association, the Business Council of Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia, the National Farmers' Federation, the Property Council of Australia and the Urban Development Institute of Australia. They state that:

… one of the biggest drags on Australia's international competitiveness is lengthy and costly delays in securing project approvals.

These delays stem from the duplication of Commonwealth and State processes and impact a wide range of industry sectors, including agriculture, minerals, oil and gas, property and construction.

… … …

The Commonwealth Department of the Environment has reported that Australia's average time for project approvals is 37 months.

The Productivity Commission reports that even a one-year delay in a project costs $51 billion. Wouldn't we like to have an additional $51 billion in our economy, flowing through to business and workers? They further state:

The Department has also shown that implementing the One-Stop Shop for environmental approvals would provide economic benefits to Australian business in the order of $426 million every year.

That is a lot of jobs and that is a lot of people employed as businesses can stop paying for paper pushers, when they can streamline that process of getting environmental approval through for their projects.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Instead of paying for paper pushers to get the same environmental outcome, you know what they can do? They can employ more Australians. That is what I want to see. You would think, as a former union organiser, that that is exactly what you would like to see too—more Australians employed, building those massive infrastructure projects, wealth-generating projects, so that our nation can go from strength to strength without any decrease in our very strong track record as a nation of protecting our very, very unique and very, very precious environment. Nobody wants to see the level of environmental integrity decreased in this country, but what we want to do is ensure that our businesses and our farmers are as internationally competitive as they can be, because that means that they are going to be employing more Australians. You would think that that would be a good thing, but no—those opposite are not interested in assisting businesses to employ more Australians.

Reducing the duplicative processes will bring a substantial economic benefit over a wide period of time. I commend to the Senate: what we want to see is one application, one assessment, one approval process and one decision; not the multidimensional confusing and expensive model that currently exists.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

We want to create an economic efficiency that Julia Gillard could never achieve. It was her idea; we are just trying to bring it to conclusion, Senator Cameron. We believe that governments have a responsibility to the wider community as well as to the environment, which we protect. This bill is here to ensure that the integrity of our environmental standards is maintained whilst looking out for our economy and community.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

You once supported it. We believe that by streamlining the process, projects like the Port Phillip deepening project will have to face fewer hurdles, ensuring they can reduce costs. We want to stimulate investment. (Time expired)

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise proudly to oppose the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 and to rebut some of the rubbish that we have heard spouted in this chamber by the previous speaker, who is trying to claim that this will not have any deleterious environmental impacts whatsoever. In fact, this is all about doing over environmental protection in this country and thereby ensuring that the rights of big mining, big property, big developers, big forestry, the big dam builders and the big frackers are prioritised over the rights of our ecology, which ultimately underpins the rights of future generations in this country.

Make no mistake: this is all about ripping off future generations and denying them the opportunities for prosperity that we are so lucky to have in our lifetimes. This is undoubtedly a massive step backwards in environmental regulation and environmental protection in this country. What we are talking about here is the government proposing to hand the power to protect the precious places of Australia—the ecologies and all of the creatures and plants that rely on those ecologies—over to state and territory governments, who, quite frankly, have an absolutely appalling record of environmental protection.

To illustrate what I am talking about, I want to go to a story about something that happened in Tasmania during my time in the Tasmanian parliament. This is in relation to the pulp mill proposed for the Tamar Valley by the company formerly known as Gunns Limited. Gunns are in administration at the moment, and I am very pleased about that. When they were a publicly listed company they submitted their proposal for a toxic pulp mill in the beautiful Tamar Valley in northern Tasmania. They submitted it to the peak planning authority in Tasmania, then known as the Resource Planning and Development Commission—now known, I should state for completeness of the record, as the Tasmanian Planning Commission. The then Resource Planning and Development Commission undertook a reasonably comprehensive, it has to be said, assessment of Gunns Limited's pulp mill. However, it became clear towards the end of that process—this information became public because I put in freedom of information requests to the RPDC—that they were moving towards a finding that Gunns Limited's pulp mill proposal was 'critically non-compliant', as stated by the RPDC.

What happened then? The head of the Department of Premier and Cabinet made a phone call to Gunns Limited. They tipped Gunns Limited off that the RPDC was in the process of concluding that Gunns Limited's pulp mill proposal was critically non-compliant. We then had some toing and froing between senior levels of government—by that, I mean then Premier Paul Lennon and the then CEO of Gunns Limited, John Gay. As a result, the project was ripped out of the hands of the RPDC and instead subjected to an extremely dodgy, extremely unacceptable parliamentary approvals process. I will not go into the many, many deficiencies of that process, but suffice to say that moved it from a supposedly independent planning authority into a highly politicised environment within the Tasmanian parliament. We saw bullying, we saw intimidation and we saw lies told to the Tasmanian parliament by the proponents. We saw consultants to that process who abjectly failed to conduct themselves in anything like an impartial way. As a result, disappointingly for Tasmania, parliamentary approval was granted, with only the Greens and a few brave members of the upper house willing to stand up for proper process and to stand up for the Tasmanian environment.

I place that on record because this is the kind of attitude to environmental protection and the kind of attitude at the political level in Tasmania that you are proposing to reward by handing over certain powers and authorities through the processes of this legislation. Let me be clear about this: Tasmanian governments have starved for resources environment departments and other assessing authorities in Tasmania. The honourable exception to that was in the four years between 2010 and 2014, when the Greens did ensure that extra resources went into some of these areas. But, apart from that period, state governments of both Labor and Liberal persuasion have starved bureaucracies in those areas of resources. There is simply no way, in Tasmania at the very least, where my expertise lies, that assessments can be done comprehensively and adequately, particularly of major projects where there is political interest, because I simply do not trust the Labor or Liberal parties in Tasmania to not politically interfere in the assessments of those projects as they so corruptly did in the assessment of the Gunns Limited pulp mill.

We know that there are a number of deficiencies in the legislation currently before us. One of the most frightening aspects of this legislation is in the area of the approval powers. These changes do not actually reduce duplication, which is the furphy that has been peddled in relation to this legislation. What they basically do is give authority to state and local governments to tick off on many projects which simply should not proceed because of their impact on the ecology and therefore on the welfare of future generations. It has to be clearly stated here that the current system is a separation of powers and responsibilities; it is not a duplicate system. As I said, this is the big furphy here. It is entirely reasonable to separate out powers and responsibilities—it is what happens in a federation. What is not reasonable is to describe a separation of powers and responsibilities as duplication, because that is not factually accurate.

This bill, very disappointingly so, will allow state and territory governments—and, extraordinarily, local councils—to make decisions about matters of national and, in some cases, international environmental significance without any expert advice from federal government departments. Again, this is another step in the ongoing emasculation of Commonwealth government departments that are there to protect the environment and to deliver intergenerational equity in this country.

I want to make the point about local governments that there are local governments in Tasmania that have less than 5,000 ratepayers in their municipality. They have trouble assessing carports, let alone the difficulty they are going to have assessing larger, more potentially environmentally destructive projects. So when you struggle, because of your very low rate base, to deal with applications for house extensions, for the building of decks, for garage extensions and carports, you are certainly going to struggle on major, more environmentally impactful projects.

So, unfortunately, what we are dealing with today in this Senate is a bill that will basically allow Commonwealth standards not to be reflected in state laws, and that alone makes a mockery of the claims that standards will be upheld. This is all about reducing protection for the environment. How do we know that, and how do we know that we have had an effective admission from the government that that is the case? It is because they talk about 'jobs, jobs, jobs' as their highest priority, they talk about efficiencies, and, in the context of this legislation, they talk about savings from what they describe as 'pen-pushers'. Well, one person's pen-pusher is another person's environmental protector.

Alone of the parties represented in this place, the Greens understand very deeply that we need to protect our ecological processes. We need to protect our climate. We need to protect our environment, for the benefit not only of all the humans and all the creatures on the planet now, but in fact for future generations. Apart from anything else, this bill clearly fails the intergenerational equity test. So, clearly, this bill should not proceed through this chamber of the Australian parliament.

Now I want to address something that the government, as I understand it, has claimed here, when they say, 'We've got some draft agreements coming down the line with the states, and don't worry—we've got call-in powers in those draft agreements.' We need to understand, as my colleague Senator Waters said in her contribution, that this is in fact a highly prescribed test for when the Commonwealth minister can have a state of mind where he or she 'knows' that something problematic is going on at the state level and call it back in. But it has to be before the state has already issued the approval. So the question quite correctly posed in this context by Senator Waters is: how on earth is the Commonwealth minister going to know that something problematic is going on at state level before the approvals are issued? Of course, the only answer to that question is that it will be somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible for the Commonwealth minister to know. So we are not satisfied at all with those call-in provisions, particularly as state governments right now—and I will speak again from my experience in Tasmania—are quite frankly prepared to do or say anything to get developments up in their state. And it does not matter to them that those developments compromise the environment or future generations, because that is outside the electoral cycle that is the only thing that the current state government in Tasmania is focused on. They are focused every day—as are the Labor and Liberal parties in the Australian parliament—primarily on one goal, and that is: winning the next election. And this legislation is abundant proof of that and fits very squarely within those strategic imperatives.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suppose you'll never have that problem.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron suggests that the Greens will never have that problem, and I can respond by saying that it is my experience in the Greens that we genuinely ask ourselves the question: 'What are people in 50 or 100 years going to think about the decisions that we make today?' and I am proud that we ask ourselves that question on a regular basis—very proud indeed.

In the short time that is left to me in this debate, I also want to talk about prosperity in the context of environmental protection and environmental remediation. You can see Tasmania as a classic example where, as to our protected areas—those areas where, as a state parliament, and, at times, as a Commonwealth parliament and, in fact, at times, as far up as the United Nations—we have said, 'No; there are certain things that you cannot do in some of our higher-status protected areas, like our World Heritage area and like our national parks.' We have said: 'No, you cannot develop in those areas, if you are a private developer; you cannot log in some of those areas or mine in some of those areas.' And look at our tourism industry now. Do you know what the primary driver of that is? This is from Tourism Tasmania research. Do you know what the primary reason is that people make a decision to visit Tasmania? It is our wilderness. It is nearly double the next most relevant reason why people choose to visit Tasmania. It is our protected areas that are underpinning our tourism boom at the moment. We have gone from a time when the then Liberal Premier Robin Gray described the Franklin River as 'a brown, leach-ridden ditch' to a time now when our wilderness areas and our protected areas are underpinning the fastest-growing industry sector in Tasmania. I remind members that, when the Greens were predicting over previous decades that tourism was going to be one of our foundation economic sectors, we were laughed at loudly by the Labor and Liberal parties of the day.

This choice between jobs and environmental protection that is put to the Australian people so often by particularly the conservative side of politics is a false one. We do not have to make that choice because there are many circumstances in which environmental protection, extended out to environmental remediation, can generate many, many thousands of jobs in this country—and it has. This is not about jobs; this is about developers. This is about the big mining companies that this current government is so beholden to. It is about the big forestry that certainly the Tasmanian government is so beholden to. It is about the big frackers and a range of other people whose primary objective is to profit from environmental destruction.

One day—and it will be a great day when this occurs—there will be a majority of members in this chamber who actually understand that it is a false choice we are presented with between jobs and environmental protection. They will understand that environmental protection and environmental remediation go hand in hand with prosperity and meaningful work. They will understand that, rather than allowing developers to run rampant over our environment, destroy our ecology and compromise opportunities and prosperity for future generations, it is the job of this parliament to stand up for environmental protection in Australia and make sure that our children and grandchildren get a fair crack at the prosperity that so many of us are lucky to have today.

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

It is a pleasure for me to enter into this debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 following a speaker from the Greens political party and from Tasmania, no less. You only have to think of what the Greens political party, with their Labor allies, did to the economy of Tasmania over the last 10 or more years to realise that the ideas and visions of the Greens political party in the things that they convinced the Labor Party in Tasmania to be part of have just decimated the economy of that state and made it a completely mendicant economy, relying on—

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I am sorry. I have just been informed that you have already spoken on this bill. This is a very old bill and my information is that you have spoken on it before.

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

What a pity. The Senate will have to be the poorer for not having my arguments—

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can sit down, Senator Macdonald, thank you.

(Quorum formed)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 because this bill finalises the implementation of the Australian government's one-stop shop policy. You will know, Madam Acting Deputy President Lines, that for a very long time I have been committed to reducing bureaucracy. The Australian people deserve a fairer, more effective means of dealing with the issues that they face. By removing the bureaucracy—the multiple steps that people have to go through to achieve decent outcomes—we are enhancing not only the productivity but also the effectiveness of our government and the private sector. Make no mistake—

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I believe the clock has been reset during that process.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you are correct, Senator Canavan. Senator Bernardi, please sit down while I seek the guidance of the Clerk. Order! Senator Bernardi, we would like to hear your full 20 minutes.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is just as well that I had a 22-minute speech prepared. I was going to cut some out. I am absolutely delighted to be speaking on this bill. As I was saying, reducing bureaucracy and regulation of course enhances the operation of government while reducing the cost of government, but it also enhances the private sector by getting meaningful outcomes—positive environmental outcomes, as well as business outcomes. By consolidating the various bodies that have previously dealt with these questions into what is colloquially known as the 'one-stop shop' policy we are going to be on a winner.

The bill amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to ensure that existing bilateral agreements with each of the states operates efficiently and effectively. Madam Acting Deputy President, I would hate you to be under any illusion that I do not believe that in our federation states should be free to pursue the issues that are of importance to their constituents. I do firmly believe that government that is closer to the people often better reflects their determinations—whether that comes down to, say, local government where communities can have their issues resolved or state governments. I do believe firmly that they have an important role to play. But the federal government also has a very important role to play and in this case it is about streamlining environmental assessments and approvals. It removes unnecessary duplication; it means effectively that you do not have to fill in the same forms again and again and speak to multiple bureaucrats to resolve the same sort of issue. It removes unnecessary duplication between the Australian government and the states and territories.

I make this point to the Senate: the Office of Best Practice Regulation has estimated that the full implementation of the one-stop shop policy in regard to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 2014 would save businesses over $426 million per year. That is money they can put towards employing more people and investing and developing their businesses. As they make more money, they will pay more tax. It is a win-win-win—a $426 million triple bottom line win there. We will all be familiar with the BAEconomics report, which was commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia. They estimate the reform will add $160 billion to national output by 2025 and create 69,000 jobs across the whole economy. Let me remind the Senate that the Abbott government is all about jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs and increasing productivity—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whose job? Tony's job—Malcolm is coming!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

so Australia is better off and better prepared for the future. That is why this bill is so important. It is another step along the way towards greater efficiencies, more jobs, more productivity and making Australians much better off. But do not take my word for it; the BAE report said exactly that. The Office of Best Practice Regulation, whom we all respect, said it exactly that. This important reform will not only have a direct economic benefit, it will also maintain high environmental standards.

I challenge anyone in this Senate to have more regard for the environment than I. I am absolutely committed to a sustainable environment, because I am interested in the next generations, as so many of us are. There will be no compromise on high environmental standards. We are simply looking for opportunities to increase the productivity whilst maintaining high environmental standards. That is why the high standards of the EPBC Act will be incorporated into state approvals processes. What more could you ask for? You will get increased productivity and the high standards of the EPBC Act into the state approvals processes.

Thanks to the fierce lobbying of those committed environmentalists like myself, the absolute and fundamental principle of this reform is that our high environmental standards will be maintained. One of my colleagues may have said this previously: no state or territory will be accredited under the one-stop shop unless they meet the standards set out in the Australian governments' Standards for Accreditation of Environmental Approvals under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. As a result of that absolute pledge that no state or territory will be accredited under the one-stop shop program, we have already seen some states and territories lifting environmental standards. That is what this federal government does—it lifts the states and territories to perform at a higher level; it lifts productivity; it creates jobs; it creates hundreds of millions of dollars in increased productivity; and it delivers billions and billions of dollars of extra output for Australia. It does all that by simply removing the bureaucracy that was created by the other side of the chamber.

This is a one-stop shop that has the triple bottom line: it has $426 million in savings for businesses; it will add $160 billion in national output by 2025; and it will create 69,000 jobs across the whole economy. That is the triple bottom line for the economy—and it will have a massive win for the environment, because we are already lifting the standards.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I hear the interjections on the other side, and it galls me to think that somehow they are opposed to higher environmental standards and increased economic output. It galls me, and I regret that I only have four seconds in which to conclude my response—

Debate interrupted.