28.5.14 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2014

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (16:18): This is a good opportunity to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2014 as it gives me the chance to speak about the government's deregulation agenda in relation to green tape and the one-stop shops that the Minister for the Environment and the government are pursuing.

It is a shame that the shadow minister for the environment is still not here. He was in the chamber when he moved his amendment to the proposed bill, which included what I see as the problem with the Australian Labor Party's approach to environmental protection and indeed cost recovery. In one breath he said that he agreed with the inherent concepts in this bill of cost recovery for the assessment acts of the federal government in relation to environmental approvals. Then, in the same breath, he moved an amendment, very emotionally and subjectively, condemning the Abbott government's hideous record on the environment over the last eight months, opening up this debate to an entirely different interpretation and construct. It was really in the same vein as the Australian Greens, who continuously argue that, since the election of the Abbott government, the planet has somehow got warmer, that somehow things in the environment are so much worse off and under threat because of the election of a coalition government, which of course is absolute nonsense, given that we are not even able to effect our key election commitment of abolishing the carbon tax. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed in relation to the environment or approvals and yet the shadow minister had the hide to refer to—and these are his direct words—'environmental atrocities'. But of course he did not go on to outline any environmental atrocities. He did not have anything to refer to. The colouring of this debate, the constant language used by those opposite and the subjective nonsense that has no correlation with anything in reality demeans the debate about the protection of the environment.

There is no doubt that, when you look into the layers of regulation that overlay environmental approvals in Australia, you see we have duplicate regulation. We have state and territory and Commonwealth legislation that overlaps, that slows down legitimate business, pro-environment business, responsibly conducted business for the environment, with no meaningful benefit for the environment. That is why the government is moving to a one-stop shop model. The one-stop shop will provide certainty, which will then allow for us to introduce a bill such as this for legitimate and proper cost recovery for Commonwealth environmental assessments. There will be greater certainty that, if you go through one rigorous process of assessment for your project, you will not have to then go through other hoops and other layers of government regulation. That certainty will allow for legitimate cost recovery.

This bill will specifically allow cost recovery for environmental impact assessments and approvals. I note that the EPBC Act in its original form was supposed to have that provision in there. I think that is a very interesting point. When the legislation was introduced, provisions for cost recovery should have been included but were not. We are delivering on the original intent of the act, as it was originally introduced. I think that is a key point because this is not, as some have been claiming, an onerous expansion; it is part of the government's green tape deregulation agenda. We have been signing memorandums of understanding with each of the willing states. The bilateral agreements and assessments are well underway and agreement on the bilateral approvals is within 12 months. Most of the jurisdictions which have already signed are well along the pathway to meeting all of those deadlines and requirements. By eliminating this unnecessary duplication of regulation we are going to ensure a more timely approval and assessment process and enable businesses to expedite their work and, importantly, maintain the current high standards of environmental protection.

I also chair for this House the House environment committee and we are currently conducting inquiry into the green tape and one-stop shop situation and the adequacy of regulation in Australia. Without pre-empting any of our discussions or findings at this stage, I would say that we are receiving lots of evidence from businesses, from environmental bodies, peak groups, all around the nation that highlights many examples—many ridiculous examples, if I were to put them to this House today—of overregulation and jumping through the same hoops for no environmental benefit. It is not unreasonable to say we want to streamline these approval and assessment processes so that everybody understands what basis they are applying on, what the rules are, what the protections need to be and improve the outcomes for business.

I note that the shadow minister for the environment, who moved the amendment regarding the Abbott government's record in its very short tenure in government, is from South Australia. He is a member of the South Australian Left. He spoke about the Franklin Dam and the great work there but he did not speak about the Olympic Dam in his home state. He did not speak about how Olympic Dam had been lost by a Labor government which he supported because of the length of time it does take in this country to often get key investment projects like big mines approved. We lost that massive investment for a state like South Australia. The shadow minister might look at this fact rather than talking about environmental atrocities, that youth unemployment is peaking in North Adelaide at 20 per cent, the state's finances are a mass and the government is doing nothing to encourage the investment needed and is taking this subjective language approach that the shadow minister takes, that there are environmental atrocities going on since Tony Abbott got elected. What a complete load of nonsense. What emotive and irrational material is the Labor Party bringing to this chamber.

This is a cost recovery bill about streamlining green tape approval so that we have one rigorous assessment process in Australia. It is a good measure. It is a measure that the shadow minister himself said he was taking credit for. He said, 'Yes, we were already working on this.' He is very right about that. They had thought about it, they had done a little bit of work on it. But of course as usual with a Labor government nothing happened: there was no meaningful progress towards an outcome that would benefit the environment and business. So the Abbott government is simply moving at a strong pace to ensure that we do have one-stop shops. We have signed these agreements with willing states and the bilateral agreement process is well underway.

When you look through the provisions of this bill it is good to note that the shadow minister agrees in particular with the intentions of it, so there was no need to move an amendment saying this is the worst ever government for the environment. That is a ridiculous amendment. It is pious, it is a load of nonsense. It is not the case that in the very short tenure of this government any environmental protections have been removed or any changes have occurred that are detrimental to the environment. Streamlining duplication in legislation is not removing environmental protections. That is no protection at all, it just clogs up our business and commercial activity for no environmental benefit. So it is a ridiculous move for the shadow minister to introduce it. He said he wanted to proceed with bipartisanship. Let us proceed with bipartisanship on this important area and let us not talk about environmental atrocities without naming any. 'Environmental atrocities' is really an unacceptable term for him to use in the same breath as 'bipartisan' and he should revisit his approach.

When you look through these provisions you do see that the minister and the government have well thought through the different regulations and the structure and the scheme that will apply to cost recovery. It is important to note, as the minister pointed out, that environmental impact assessment fees will be specified in the regulations except for those fees in relation to assessment by an inquiry or a strategic assessment. The bill will provide for a process for proponents to apply for a reconsideration of the way in which a method was used to calculate fees, again a reasonable and balanced approach to cost recovery which allows for the proponents to have an opportunity of anything they considered to be unfair or they do not understand the calculations.

I think this is a well-considered set of measures. I am a strong supporter of the government's approach in relation to one-stop shops and improving the assessment process at the Commonwealth and state level, particularly ensuring that our key industries and businesses do not have to jump through the same hoops for no environmental benefit, slowing down our economy and slowing down job creation. It would well behove the Labor Party if they do support cost recovery as a simple mechanism of government in relation to important areas like environmental protection that they simply support it, not try and move these silly, subjective, nonsensical amendments that say this is a worst ever government for the environment. It demeans the debate, it adds nothing to our national polity and I think it also detracts from the important work of this government in ensuring that we have single assessment processes for business in relation to environmental protection. I strongly support cost recovery and this amendment to the act.