Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

Perhaps I can help Senator Ludlam by providing an answer to his repeated questions to Senator Conroy. I am sure that Senator Ludlam, deep down, knows the answer to his questions but is trying to get a genuine policy rationale from the government as against what the real answer is. The real answer, Senator Ludlam, as to why the government has defined it this way—and, I am pleased to see, is at least not accepting your amendment—is politics.

We all know this bill has been brought to the parliament purely to satisfy the wishes of the member for New England. That is the real reason it is urgent. It is not urgent, as the minister proclaimed before, because of the pending election, necessarily; it is urgent because the member for New England said it was urgent. The real reason that it covers coal seam gas and large coal developments and not shale gas developments is because there are coal seam gas and large coal developments in the electorate of New England; there are not shale gas developments in the electorate of New England. These are the reasons the government has brought this legislation on; these are the reasons the government has defined it as it has; and these are the reasons the government is opposing your amendments, Senator Ludlam.

Of course, the problem is that the government has been making this up as it has gone along, every single step of the way. That is because, with this bill, the government is suddenly and urgently—so Senator Conroy has outlined—enacting changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that it had previously, repeatedly, argued against and said were unnecessary. In arguing against those changes, it repeatedly said that they were unnecessary because state governments already had laws that covered these types of issues and that the state approvals processes already addressed the concerns around water.

Already, in this debate, we have heard from Senator Conroy that the government expects to rely in its assessments and approvals upon information provided to state governments for their own assessments processes. So the loop has already been closed in terms of the argument about this duplicating process already. It is very clear that these amendments will simply duplicate what is already going to occur at the state level. So the government has rushed in this legislation—legislation that does things the government previously said did not need to occur—to keep the member for New England, Mr Windsor, happy; to ensure his vote in the House of Representatives; for the confidence of the government; for the supply of the budget; and to prop up the very shaky leadership of the Prime Minister, to make sure it remains intact. That is what this is all about.

The government has rushed it in, waving it past and exempting it from the usual regulatory impact assessment processes. So the RIS has been forgotten about and cast to one side, because the government has made it up as it has gone along. It has made it up so much as it has gone along—it has been running on the spot and changing so dramatically—that in the House of Representatives it reversed not just its arguments that this bill was unnecessary, but also its previous arguments that the Commonwealth should retain the opportunity to engage in bilateral approvals with state governments. It adopted, in the House of Representatives, amendments from Mr Windsor that fly in the face and go directly against what the Prime Minister herself was seeking to have implemented for the bulk of last year, in terms of bilateral approvals regimes with state governments.

So we can have little doubt here that this legislation—the process of its development and the approach it seems to have to amendments today—is all driven by politics of how the government needs to keep the member for New England happy. And that is disturbing. It is disturbing to hear there is no regulatory impact statement; because we hear that the cost to government and to taxpayers of administering this bill is one extra trigger to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act at a cost of around $10 million, which is a significant additional cost. The budget papers indicated $38.5 million extra was being budgeted over the forward estimates; additional bureaucratic costs for the administration of the EPBC Act, with around 50 additional staff required per annum to administer these changes.

Now, the minister comes in here and tries to suggest—despite the absence of a regulatory impact statement—that there is no real cost to industry, because the government will just rely on the assessments, processes and information already contained at the state level. It just beggars belief to think that a new piece of regulation—a new piece of legislation and an expansion of this act to cover a new area—would somehow cost the government $10 million per annum to administer, yet it does not really cost industry anything to comply with it. That just flies in the face of all logic or common sense. Obviously, there would be costs to industry. If the government had done a regulatory impact statement, we would have had some understanding of what those costs may be. But they did not do that, they skipped on that because—of course—they needed to adhere not just to the demands of Mr Windsor of what should be legislated, but they also needed to adhere to his demands of how it should be legislated.

So we end up with this very unseemly and messy process where the government rushes in ill-considered legislation and pushes it through. You, Senator Ludlam, rightly pick up on the fact that there may be discrepancies in some of the definitions; certainly, I have concerns about some of the others. But the coalition does not support your amendment and I will tell you the reason we will not support your amendment: it is because we think it would be terribly unfair of the Senate to—at the eleventh hour of debating legislation like this—expand the definition of what sectors are encompassed with zero consultation, zero opportunity for engagement with those sectors and zero chance for those sectors to comment on what the implications for them would be.

Despite the rushed nature of this bill, despite the absence of a regulatory impact statement and despite the fact there was no real consultation with industry on the measures within it, at least it has gone through the proper parliamentary processes. At least it was subjected to a Senate inquiry where those in the coal industry and those in the coal seam gas industry could make their submissions, give their evidence if they so wished and have their voices heard. At least those affected by it could have a say at some point, thanks to the parliamentary processes, even if the government ignored their views and snubbed them along the way.

If we were to adopt your amendment to now include shale gas, we would be roping in another sector of industry at the eleventh hour without giving them any opportunity to have a say and without giving them any chance to tell you, me, Senator Conroy or anyone else in this place what the impacts on their sector would be, and what are the concerns and problems they may see in this regard. So, if you want to expand the definition of this, then by all means bring in a private member's bill. Once this bill is passed, as I expect it will be, bring in a private member's bill to expand the definition of what sectors are encompassed. But we are not going to support, on the floor of the House, measures that would expand coverage to sectors who have no forewarning in any serious way that they can expect to be included, and who certainly have had no proper process to be consulted or engaged in decision making about their inclusion in this definition.

Senator Ludlam, your concerns about these definitional issues go very much to the heart of the problems with the type of approach the government is taking here, because it is changing dramatically the intent and the approach of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This act has previously treated matters of national environmental significance in a uniform way across industries and across sectors of the economy, whatever they may be. The eight matters of national environmental significance under the jurisdiction of the EPBC Act are: world heritage sites, national heritage sites, wetlands of international importance, nationally threatened species and ecological communities, migratory species, Commonwealth marine areas, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and nuclear actions. Only the last one could be said, even remotely, to be singling out an industry for treatment. All of the others—and it does not matter whether you are mining coal or coal seam gas, whether it is iron ore or whatever it might be that you are digging out of the ground; it does not matter whether you are building a tourism development or dredging something for a harbour; it does not matter what the industry, what the action, what the sector you may come from is—have to comply with the EPBC Act as matters of national environmental significance.

This bill, if passed, will change the fundamentals of the EPBC Act by making amendments that will ensure two industries are singled out for one particular new trigger, the so-called water trigger, which will apply exclusively to coal seam gas and to large coal developments—just those two industries. And you make the point, Senator Ludlam: 'Well, what about shale gas?' Others will no doubt come into this place and say, 'Well, what about X, Y or Z?' The Farmers Federation has rightly expressed concerns, saying that water is a pretty important fundamental in a lot of farming practices—it is worried that the precedents set by this legislation will potentially open it up so that down the track somebody will one day say: 'Hmm. Perhaps we should have a water trigger, as it applies to the farming sector as well'. And they will come in here—as you have just done, Senator, for shale gas—and argue to expand it into that sector too. These are the principles under which the EPBC Act has been developed and which are being undermined by the approach taken in this legislation of singling out certain industries.

Senator Ludlam, those are the reasons why the coalition opposes your amendment—and I have given you the reasons, I think, why the government opposes your amendment as well, at that pure political level. However, I do welcome the fact that the government has at least decided to oppose this Greens amendment. In the time that is remaining, I would invite the minister to put to bed the suggestions in the media that the government is looking to embrace other Greens amendments—in particular, the suggestions in the media that the government is looking to embrace the amendments that would prohibit bilateral agreements on a far wider scale, or the amendments in relation to national parks—because these amendments would expand the scope of this legislation quite dramatically. These amendments, frankly, are a Trojan Horse for far wider reform to the application of the EPBC Act than what is before the chamber. This goes way beyond coal seam gas, large coal developments or the impacts on water; how these amendments would operate would instead mean a far more significant impact across the entire economy. And so, Minister, the opportunity is here for you to make clear to all and sundry that the government will not be supporting any of the Greens amendments, in particular those two, and for you to ensure that there is certainty, going through this debate, that at least this bill only goes as far as what is on the paper in front of us.