House debates

Monday, 23 February 2015

Committees

Standing Committee on the Environment; Report

10:13 am

Photo of Tony ZappiaTony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, I thank the Chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment, the member for Mitchell. I also appreciate his remarks with respect to the report Streamlining environmental legislation: inquiry into streamlining environmental regulation, 'green tape' and one stop shops. Can I also thank the committee secretariat for their work and also all of those people who either made submissions or appeared before the committee in the course of the inquiry.

The Labor Party members of the committee prepared a dissenting report. I should highlight that, in doing so, there is indeed much that we agree on, albeit there are some matters that we disagree on. Indeed, on most of the 13 recommendations, we have very few points of difference. In presenting our dissenting report, Labor members of the committee do not believe that the committee report fairly reflects the divergent submissions presented in the course of the inquiry. Nor are several of the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report supported by the evidence presented to the inquiry.

The report makes positive mention of the balance between environmental and regulatory concerns but evidences no consideration of potential benefits arising from delaying projects to allow for proper and thorough consideration of applications that may cause permanent harm to matters of national environmental significance. Any changes to environmental regulations that simplify assessment processes, reduce time and costs and create uniformity across all jurisdictions should always be balanced against the importance of maintaining sound environmental protections. In our view, the report does not address the social and economic values of the natural environment and how these values are indeed measured.

Labor members note the position of the UN's World Heritage Committee in June 2014, which held that the delegation of approval powers on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area to the Queensland government was premature. Labor members agree that opportunities for streamlining state and federal assessment processes should be pursued but only in a way that ensures that existing standards will be retained or strengthened. While Labor continues to support streamlining environmental assessment processes for major projects, final approval on matters of national environmental significance should remain with the national government. In particular I refer to World Heritage Properties, National Heritage places, wetlands of international importance, listed threatened species and ecological communities, migratory species, nuclear actions, Commonwealth marine areas, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and a water resource in relation to coal seam gas development or large coalmining development. Labor members note that, should the report's recommendations be applied, the approval of World Heritage sites, nuclear activities such as uranium mining and species protected under international treaties will be put into the hands of state governments.

In respect of delegation of powers to state governments Labor members note that the Abbott government is also attempting to allow state governments to accredit local governments to approve developments that have an effect on matters of national environmental significance. This would further delegate environmental protection powers, meaning that the environmental matters which are the subject of international treaties could be considered by local government.

Labor members reject paragraph 4.70 on page 49 of the committee report. This is the paragraph that refers to the one-stop shop policy. Labor does not support the one-stop shop policy of the government. Labor members also note that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 has not passed the Senate, leaving bilateral agreements with states and territories in limbo. Labor does not believe that the evidence provided to the committee supports the view that the one-stop shop approach will lead to greater consistency or efficiency across jurisdictions. Finally, in respect of the recommendations, Labor members believe that under recommendation 2 the term 'risk based terms of reference' should also be defined.

In summary, Labor does not believe that the case has been made to support the one-stop shop proposal, nor do we believe that there has been an adequate amount of evidence or weight put on the value of our environment to the benefit of the whole community. Nevertheless, there are 13 recommendations in that report, many of which we agree with; and, if there are ways of simplifying processes, Labor is always welcome and supportive of doing that.

Comments

No comments