David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present an interim report of the Red Tape Committee on the effect of red tape on environmental assessments and approvals, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This report considers the issue of environmental regulation.

Ironically, the origin of the term 'red tape' is generally attributed to the 16th century administrative system of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, which used red tape for priority documents which required immediate action.

Given that red tape is now considered to be pernicious, corrosive and difficult-to-eradicate regulation, it seems highly appropriate that Charles V is more notable for his army spreading syphilis across Europe and thence to the rest of the world!

In its efforts to cure the Australian economy of its own administrative social disease, the Red Tape Committee has made a number of recommendations which we hope, not to mince words, will beat the clap out of environmental overregulation!

The committee's first recommendation responds to the many concerns expressed regarding the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The committee recommends the Australian government expedite its review as required under section 522A of that act, by bringing it forward to 2018.

The committee further considers the inclusion of uranium mining as a matter of national environmental significance in the EPBC Act is duplicative and unnecessary and recommends it be removed.

The committee noted that only three states or territories—Northern Territory, South Australia and Queensland—permit uranium mining in their jurisdiction, and all have well-established assessment and approval processes to which Commonwealth involvement adds little value, if any.

In fact, duplication between the Commonwealth or states and territories was a major focus on the committee's inquiry.

Currently, states and territories conduct environmental assessments and propose conditions of approval which must then be approved by the Commonwealth under the EPBC Act.

This dual regulation perpetuates duplication, inconsistencies, high implementation costs and extended delays.

The Productivity Commission and the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee have supported the establishment of a one-stop shop concept, and this is something that the Red Tape Committee strongly supports. The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA, provides a model by which this might be achieved.

On the question of the method of environmental regulation—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Leyonhjelm, I might stop you there for a moment. Could you take your seat. Senator Bernardi, are you holding that file up for any particular reason? No? Okay. You may resume, Senator Leyonhjelm.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Senator Cameron?

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

Point of order. I think Senator Bernardi should remove that folder, consistent with the standing orders in this place.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Senator Bernardi, it would be useful if you would.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would highlight the rainbow folders saying 'love will win' on the Greens side that make their way into everything. There's nothing wrong with that. Mr Acting Deputy President, it would be extraordinarily inconsistent for you to rule that this is inappropriate when you did what you did yesterday.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that on board. Thank you, Senator Bernardi. I will also ask you, Senator Rice, to take down your rainbow flag. We'll be consistent about this. Thank you.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President.

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Senator Bernardi, would you mind having a chat over there, please? I can't speak.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that is a very good idea, Senator Leyonhjelm. Thank you.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA, provides a model by which this might be achieved.

On the question of the method of environmental regulation, witnesses urged Commonwealth, state and territory governments to adopt a risk-based approach. The Minerals Council of Australia, for example, argued that the increasingly risk-averse approach of governments has resulted in unnecessary and lengthy environmental assessments, whose information requirements have no regard to materiality or level of risk.

The committee learnt that, in contrast with this norm—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Leyonhjelm. A point of order, Senator Cameron?

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

Point of order. We have two senators sitting in close proximity to the speaker. I have got a problem hearing the speaker properly. Could you ask them, if they are going to speak, to actually leave the Senate or at least go to their own seats?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron. I was relying on Senator Leyonhjelm to let me know if it was an issue, but I will ask senators, as a courtesy, to perhaps take your conversation outside the chamber if it's not necessary.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the question of the method of environmental regulation, witnesses urged Commonwealth, state and territory governments to adopt a risk-based approach. The Minerals Council of Australia, for example, argued that the increasingly risk-averse approach of governments has resulted in unnecessary and lengthy environmental assessments, whose information requirements have no regard to materiality or level of risk. The committee learnt that, in contrast with this norm, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's Environmental Assessment and Management Risk Management Framework follows a risk-based approach. The committee supports the broader adoption of a risk-based approach as a means of reducing unnecessary, expensive and burdensome red tape.

COAG has previously agreed to explore adopting trusted international standards or risk assessment processes and the committee supports this approach, particularly using a risk-based approach—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask you to resume your seat. Senator Ruston and Senator Bernardi, I have asked you once to please go outside the chamber and remove your conversation.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi, I will make this very clear, before I take your point of order. It is distracting to other senators in the chamber. They have brought that to my attention. I have asked you to take your conversation outside the chamber.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just on your point of order, it wasn't distracting to the speaker who is in the closest proximity. I would make the point that, if you're not being a disturbance in the chamber, you are fully entitled to have a conversation, just as the minister and the Labor member of parliament is over there. The minister sitting close to you is unable to hear us, by her own volition. We are not being disorderly at all.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Bernardi. You can take your seat. I've made my ruling. It is being a distraction to other senators in the chamber. They've brought that to my attention twice. I am asking you to take your conversation outside the chamber. Senator Cameron, on the same point of order?

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

Yes, on the same point of order. I don't have any problem with senators having a discussion in their seats or at sufficient distance so that the speaker is not distracted and other senators are not distracted. It's highly unusual, in all the time I've been here, for a frontbench minister and a crossbencher to be sitting so close to a speaker, certainly at this time of night. It's just bizarre that it has to be done in that area. You've brought that to his attention, and you should—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your point has been noted as a point of order. If you can, Senator Leyonhjelm, please resume. I'll watch it closely.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

COAG has previously agreed to explore adopting trusted international standards or risk assessment processes and the committee supports this approach, particularly using a risk matrix based on international standards, with capacity to incorporate general and specific risks.

The committee found that environmental red tape heightens the potential for activists to challenge assessments and approvals, thereby imposing significant burdens on project proponents and job-destroying, economy-stalling roadblocks to developments. Efforts to sabotage the development of the Adani Carmichael mine in Central Queensland by environmental activists are a prominent example of this.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat, Senator Leyonhjelm.

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

I've got to say to you, if a frontbench minister is not prepared to take any notice of a reasonable request from the chair, I think that's outrageous. A frontbench minister should have more respect for the chair than is being shown.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron. Senator Leyonhjelm.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The IPA estimated that this anti-development—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, you're going to get very fit today by getting up and down, Senator Leyonhjelm. Can I ask you to resume your seat. Minister?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, can I apologise to Senator Leyonhjelm for the distraction that has been caused to him while he has been trying to give his report on a very important document. Could I please draw to your attention, and the attention of the chamber, that I was not having a conversation when Senator Cameron called the point of order. I was sitting quietly in a chair at the other end of the chamber. Senator Bernardi was not speaking to me, and I wasn't speaking to Senator Bernardi. I ask you to draw to the attention of Senator Cameron that he's making a very frivolous point of order not based on fact.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not a point of order, Senator Ruston. Perhaps we should let Senator Leyonhjelm finish his speech. All show Senator Leyonhjelm the courtesy, and let him finish his speech.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That would be much appreciated. The IPA estimated that this 'anti-development activism' has caused delay and disruption valued at more than $1.2 billion over the past 17 years. Some projects never go ahead due to heightened risk of legal challenges and consequent higher capital costs.

The committee found that section 487 of the EPBC Act is clearly being misused. Given that other legislative and judicial processes already provide an avenue for legitimate appeal at the state/territory level, the committee recommends the government repeal this.

The committee also heard a range of concerns relating to the adverse effect of native title regulations on project developments, the manipulation of land councils by environmental activists, and the causal effect of this on the impoverishment of Aboriginal people.

Accordingly, as a means to materially assist both Aboriginal development and economic development more broadly, the committee recommends the government amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to remove the ability of land councils to arbitrarily veto applications for exploration and/or mining licences.

The committee also urges that Commonwealth, state and territory governments develop guidelines to assist with the clear identification of the costs and benefits of proposed projects to landowners and other stakeholders. That includes shared economic benefits such as royalties.

The committee identified that Queensland landholders received $238 million compensation as at 30 June 2015 for land access by the onshore gas industry. This clearly demonstrates the industry's ability to compromise with landholders, something which, according to the letter of the law, they do not have to do.

In particular, the committee urges that state and territory governments consider whether landowner royalties might facilitate environmental assessment and approval of projects.

The red tape committee found overregulation at the early stage of securing land tenure. Leasehold title in particular was identified as being a key problem for project proponents, with even more complicated regulatory pathways than freehold title.

In an effort to respond to these concerns, the committee recommended that state and territory governments review land access policy and identify opportunities to facilitate the conversion of leasehold title to freehold title. The committee also recommended that regulatory oversight of activities on leasehold land be removed, to put it on the same basis as freehold.

Throughout the inquiry, the committee heard again and again that environmental red tape is excessive and that, thanks to this, project approval processes are complex, convoluted and confusing.

The committee heard that the Roy Hill iron ore mine in the Pilbara required more than 4,000 licences, approvals and permits for its preconstruction phase. And the Adani Carmichael coalmine in Central Queensland spent seven years in the approvals process, fighting more than 10 legal challenges and having to prepare a 22,000-page environmental impact statement.

The Commonwealth government has previously pledged to make legislative amendments to clarify, simplify and streamline environmental regulation, but, like so many solemn commitments of our current government, this too has proved a fizzer.

No wonder Australia is ranked poorly by the World Bank in terms of the ease of doing business!

Environmental red tape is not a virtue, just because it has the word 'environment' in its name!

Like its venereal legacy of the great pox— (Time expired)

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Leyonhjelm, do you seek leave to continue your remarks?

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.