Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Hansard source

I am delighted to respond to the comments of the various members of this House in relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. Let me begin by addressing, front and centre, the claims made by many members of the opposition with regard to the very notion of one-stop shops. This was a proposal which we discussed publicly throughout the early part of 2012. The then government, led by then Prime Minister Gillard, responded in the April 2012 Council of Australian Governments meeting by making the creation of one-stop shops the central platform of that COAG meeting. The fundamental reform, trumpeted across the nation by the Labor Party when they were in government—led by Prime Minister Gillard, supported by the now Leader of the Opposition—was a one-stop shop process.

Lest there be any doubt whatsoever, I will read from the communique of the 13 April 2012 meeting of the Council of Australian Governments. The communique said:

First Ministers reaffirmed COAG's commitment to high environmental standards, while reducing duplication and double-handling of assessment and approval processes. To achieve these commitments, our governments will work together to … fast-track the development of bilateral arrangements for accreditation of state assessment and approval processes, with the frameworks to be agreed by December 2012 and agreements finalised by March 2013.

Let me explain to the House what this means. It means that in the Council of Australian Governments, with unanimous support from state and territory governments of both persuasions, under the leadership of the then Labor Prime Minister, the Labor Party, at both federal level and at state level, committed themselves to one-stop shops. They demanded that these reforms be approved, both the reforms relating to state assessments and those relating to state approvals. In other words, precisely the reforms we are undertaking now were outlined as being fundamental—were outlined as being able to be done with higher environmental standards and were outlined as being absolutely necessary—by the then ALP government.

We hear today that this is in some way a derogation from the long history of bipartisan support for federal environmental laws. That is not just false; it is a blind eye to what has clearly and absolutely been ALP policy for some considerable time. There is a degree of passing hypocrisy which might just perhaps cause some on the other side to reflect about the course of events over the last two years, when they championed the one-stop shop, when they called for the one-stop shop, when they demanded the one-stop shop and when they denounced anybody who would oppose the one-stop shop. And now they pretend that that history never occurred. They have airbrushed the last two years of Australian parliamentary history. That, in short, is simply unacceptable—and it is not exactly especially mature for a political party to imagine that a Council of Australian Governments communique does not exist and that the history of support for one-stop shops does not exist.

Let me also deal with some of the other arguments made by the ALP during the course of this debate. The ALP also claimed that in some way this derogates from federal standards—wrong, false, untrue and incorrect. There is no change to federal standards. Indeed, agreements have been negotiated with a series of states and territories which will lift standards. Queensland, for example, is actually legislating better standards in response to these agreements. In addition to that, we also hear that the bill in some way changes the position in relation to local councils. Let me be absolutely clear: the act which Labor itself has championed already allows for that accreditation under certain circumstances. What we are doing is ensuring that no process will be accredited unless the highest environmental standards are achieved and maintained. In other words, we are establishing a standards based process.

Then there is a claim that matters of national environmental significance must remain the province of the national government regardless of which government is in place at the state or territory level. It is very interesting: each and every state has signed a memorandum of understanding. Each and every state has already signed an assessment agreement or is progressing an assessment agreement. That means that the Labor state of South Australia, the former Labor government in Tasmania, and the Territory government here in the ACT have all committed to the one-stop shop process and have all actually signed it. When in government, the federal ALP supported it. Around the country, state ALPs support it. They are standing in the way of their own state and territory governments.

From there what we see is that state processes can be enshrined in policies and guidelines rather than legislation. They make a complaint. But what we are doing here is making it absolutely clear that those approaches must meet the national standards required under the EPBC Act. These are powers and provisions which have existed since the day the EPBC Act came into force. The ability to allow for state assessments and for state approvals has always been contained within the legislation. Indeed—guess what—the ALP helped develop some of those in relation to individual states and territories. They ignore their own history of supporting this one-stop shop. They ignore their own history of enacting one-stop shops.

I also want to make this point: there has been a question in relation to the timing of the long-term plan for sustainable development with regard to the Reef 2050 Plan. I have committed, and I will recommit, that the final agreement with Queensland will not be signed until after the draft long-term plan for sustainable development has been released for public comment. That clearly fulfils our international obligations. There has been much said during the course of this debate which is neither fair, nor accurate, nor reflective of the history which has been the ALP's history for the last two years.

Against that background let me make these general comments. We are maintaining the water trigger in federal legislation. It was not there previously. It is there now. We are committed to maintaining it. We are maintaining it. But what we are doing is ensuring that there is not duplication. The same standards that apply to all matters of national environmental significance will apply here. To pretend otherwise is false, untrue and incorrect. The purpose of these amendments is to allow for full and complete one-stop shops. The water trigger will remain. It will simply be subject to the ordinary considerations of all of the other matters of national environmental significance. In order to do that we have been consulting with the community.

I want to note that the member for Page will be moving an amendment later on today, something which he has discussed with me, which we have discussed with the community. That is, the water trigger amendments which he proposes come from community consultation. They have my full support. Most particularly, they mandate that states will have to seek the advice of the independent expert scientific committee and that the federal minister will be able to seek advice on any matter under consideration by states over the course of the period between now and the completion of all bioregional assessments. The member for Page has been exceptionally active in raising the concerns of his community. We have worked together on these amendments. These amendments, I think, should bring additional comfort to rural communities. I would hope that all members in the House can support the amendments, which he will produce with the full support of the government.

Having said that, this bill is about ensuring that there is one standard for all matters of national environmental significance, that the task proposed and started by the previous government is completed and that there should be no situation where anybody in this House on the government or the opposition side can do other than support a process which all of the state Labor governments support and which the previous federal Labor government supported. For those reasons, I thank the speakers to this legislation and I commend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 to the House.

See this speech in context