Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Queensland has, yes. There has been some work done in exploring this issue lately and, of course, there is the current reference to the House environment committee. Proponents are yet to offer much in the way of persuasive evidence about the costs of so-called green tape.

There is a pattern here. The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee's March 2013 report found:

While the committee heard claims that the Commonwealth approval process was causing inefficiency, that processes between the Commonwealth and the states and territories were duplicated, and that project proponents were labouring underneath the weight of uncertainty,10 there was no substantive evidence presented to support these claims.

Admittedly, the minister is part of a government that has a curious relationship with evidence. Where there is evidence of climate change, it ignores it. Where there is no evidence of state and territory, and now local governments, of having appropriate processes in place—I have to state for the minister's benefit—it pretends that these exist.

I suspect that this minister, in his heart of hearts, knows this but, like the Minister for Industry, it seems that he is held hostage by others in the government. One need only note the untimely execution of the coalition's much vaunted 'one million solar panels policy' the subject of so much sad commentary this week.

There is some precedent for the coalition not wanting to debate ideas that contrast with its own. I note that when this present act was originally debated in this place in 1999, it was done so on the same day as the GST tax package. Debate for both was gagged and rammed through the parliament. There was, as was pointed out then, a deal with the Australian Democrats. This was done with undue haste then, and we are seeing a similar devil-may-care attitude by those opposite now.

The premise of this bill is that the Commonwealth should take a back seat on matters pertaining to the environment. This is an outdated view. There is a well-established precedent for the Commonwealth to take a leadership role when it comes to the environment. You could say that it is part of our 'knitting' in the terms of our Prime Minister. Since the Tasmanian dams case in 1983, Australians have expected, and continue to expect, the Commonwealth government to stand up for the environment against the behaviour of state and territory governments when actions are detrimental to our natural heritage. There has been a settlement with the Australian people about this. It is a settlement system that does allow for development and protects the environment.

This is always a tricky equation, especially as it is so hard to quantify environmental impacts and so to strike appropriate balances in every case. Since successive High Court decisions in the evolution of our system over the years—our system of federation—the nature of state and local governments today is that they have vastly reduced options for raising revenue independently. No doubt, this is a matter being discussed at the Australian Local Government Association conference down the road as we speak. This makes these governments more readily inclined to approve projects for easy access to cash without taking the longer-term view of the impact on the environment.

As then Prime Minister Paul Keating said at a premiers conference in 1990, 'Never stand between a state premier and a bucket of money.' It seems that the current government does not have the courage or the convictions of Keating to look such premiers in the eye and tell them 'no' or, at least, not without putting in place proper protections.

See this speech in context