Senator HILL (Environment and Heritage) (11:13 AM) —Yesterday I suggested that an orderly way to proceed with this might be that I move all of the government amendments in relation to chapters 2 and 4. Last night I did not get leave to proceed in that manner. I again seek leave to proceed in that manner. Unless you, Madam Temporary Chairman, can suggest a better course of action that may be open to us, it would seem to me that within a limited time frame it would be better to deal with the batch of amendments which have to be voted on at 11.30 a.m.

Leave not granted.

Senator HILL —I move the first government amendment in my name:

(10) Clause 11, page 8 (line 19), omit paragraph (c).

I also want to respond to a few of the points made by Senator Bolkus in what seemed to be a slightly abbreviated rerun of his second reading debate speech. In actual fact he is quite wrong. This is a major reform of Australia's environmental laws that has been recognised by academics, including the one to which he referred, as long overdue. I do not think I have come across anyone who has objectively and carefully looked at Australia's environmental laws at the Commonwealth level and not found that they are significantly wanting. They are really outdated. They are not in fact immediately triggered by environmental issues at all; they are triggered by actions that might be taken by the Commonwealth government that have no direct relationship to environmental matters at all.

This is the point that I was seeking to make last night: it makes no difference to environmental consequence if the funding of a particular project is funding from overseas that requires a FIRB approval, as opposed to funding internally. It is a nonsense to now say that the Commonwealth should have a responsibility only where it related to the overseas funding and not where it related to the domestic funding. The test, of course, for the Commonwealth—and for Commonwealth intervention—should be whether it concerns a matter of national environmental significance. It seemed to the government—and it actually seemed to others before we came to government—that that was the logical way in which to progress a reform of environment laws in this country. This is bearing in mind that, in the federal system in which we operate, what makes sense is to define what should be the Commonwealth responsibility and, as a consequence of that, to make it clear what remains a state responsibility—from an assessment point of view and also from the point of view of responsibility—and then to put in place procedures that allow for an interrelationship of the two to achieve a better national outcome.

The Labor Party was aware—as I know when I came to government—of these issues and of these representations from the type of academic to which Senator Bolkus has referred. But in their 13 years in government unfortunately they found it too hard, like so many other things, such as the new taxation system that we are going to be debating for the remainder of this week. It remained in the too-hard basket, therefore it did not ever get to the chamber. We acknowledged that the reform was long overdue and that we should tackle it, even though it was complex and politically difficult. We are well aware that there are a range of stakeholders in these debates—industry being one, obviously the states being another, conservation groups another, indigenous groups yet another—and often it is not easy to find a formula that can meet the satisfaction of all.

Notwithstanding that political difficulty, we decided the time had come and that we should tackle it. We said that the logical starting point was to seek to negotiate with the states on where that dividing line should be between Commonwealth responsibility and state responsibility so that it is much more meaningful to the community than what currently exists. Thus we sought to define—and I mention this in particular because this is part of the clauses that we are debating, between chapters 2 and 4—matters of national environmental significance, and there has been considerable debate as to where that line should have been drawn.

We have heard, in the early parts of this debate, the Labor Party list a whole range of other issues that they say should have been included as primary Commonwealth responsibility—for example, land clearing. But land clearing was not included because in our view the primary responsibility on issues of natural resource management, such as land clearing, does and should remain with the states. That does not mean that there is not a national interest, and that does not mean that the Commonwealth will not take an active interest in the matter. In fact, as you would know, Madam Temporary Chairman, this government is investing substantial sums of taxpayers' money to revegetate Australia and to protect remnant bushland. This is pursuant to agreements that have been reached between the Commonwealth and the states whereby the states have agreed that they will ensure that action is not taken within their jurisdiction that threatens endangered species or ecological communities and also that they will work towards a reduction of overall land clearing in this country.

The fact that there is still too much land clearing and that overclearing has caused very significant environmental damage—in particular its linkage to dryland salinity and the like—is not in dispute, and the response must therefore be partnership between the Commonwealth government, the state government and the community. But the primary responsibility in terms of the regulatory response for land clearing must be that of the states: some states have introduced appropriate regulations as a safety net, and some states are still yet to do that. We did not see that the Commonwealth should, in effect, take over that primary role of the states in that regard; the pressure should remain on the states to make sound decisions and the role of Commonwealth should be to support the states and, through them, the community to achieve better outcomes in that very important environmental area.

So that is an example of an issue that is of national importance, but we have not defined it as a matter of national environmental significance in terms of a Commonwealth trigger. By a `trigger', I mean where the Commonwealth is primarily responsible for assessment and approval of an action that might have a detrimental consequence upon that matter of national environmental significance. Our definitions at this stage are more limited than that but they are very significant. I think the most significant one of all is in fact that of endangered species, because it demonstrates a change of attitude by the Australian community. There was a time when endangered species were seen as primarily the responsibility of the states. There is a species in South Australia on the verge of extinction and there is no doubt in my mind at all now that all Australians regard that as a matter of concern to them; a matter in which they expect the involvement of their Commonwealth or national government. We have listed matters of endangered species as a matter of national environmental significance, so an action that might have a detrimental effect upon such a species would require assessment and approval at the Commonwealth level.

That takes us to the other important part of these chapters. Whilst we acknowledge that the Commonwealth should take primary responsibility for these areas of national environmental significance, such as endangered species, world heritage, Ramsar internationally listed wetlands and the like, it is also not always appropriate for the Commonwealth to carry out the assessment process itself. This is because the states are physically closer to the action for which the consent is being sought. They have the bureaucracies on the ground that are often better able to carry out this work than the Commonwealth. Therefore, it seems to us, again in a system where we have a cooperative relationship between the different tiers of government, that there will be circumstances when it will be better for the state to carry out an assessment process for the Commonwealth. It might surprise some in the chamber to learn that that actually occurs now, but it occurs on an ad hoc basis.

What we are more interested in is putting in a process that can give the public confidence that, when the state is carrying out that assessment process for the Commonwealth, it is carrying it out according to best contemporary practice. So we have developed this concept of bilateral agreements between the Commonwealth and the states that will allow the states, in certain circumstances, to assess for the Commonwealth the consequences of a particular action and, in even more limited circumstances—but there is no surprise in that because we have said it to the states all along—to even make an approval for the Commonwealth, pursuant to bilateral agreements.

There was concern—and I concede that concern—by some that this might mean, in practice, a passing of responsibility from the Commonwealth to the states. A number of the amendments that we have before us in these parts that we are debating today are to ensure that the responsibility of the Commonwealth is not passed while we pass the administrative role. It was never our intention that that responsibility pass but, nevertheless, we accepted that the community has a right to be confident beyond our assertions to that fact. We are building in with these amendments a number of processes of public participation, greater transparency and, in certain limited instances, even the capacity to disallow by this body.

On the issue which is more likely to happen in practice—the state carrying out an assessment for the Commonwealth—it may not be that that bilateral agreement will be through regulation that will set out the benchmarks, although that will be our goal and we will be heading down that path forthwith upon the passage of this bill. But if it is impossible for us to get the agreement of the chamber to that bilateral agreement—in other words, if it were disallowed—we would still be able to proceed. We are confident that we can get an agreement of best practice in relation to assessments that can be put in the form of regulation and that will not be disallowed. But we have the two fall backs, and I think this is important to industry. Those fall backs are that we can proceed under the state agreement, if we have made our best efforts, and we always have the alternative of being able to carry out the assessment ourselves.

In relation to approvals, which are of even greater concern to some conservation groups, as I said, there are further restrictions. That is not surprising, because when the responsibility is passed to the Commonwealth by legislation it would be an unusual experience indeed for a Commonwealth minister to say that the state minister can make the decision—that is, the decision rather than the process—for the Commonwealth minister. We have demonstrated, particularly in relation to Shark Bay, that it is possible under management agreements that have been approved by the Commonwealth minister, that meet the best contemporary standards, that within such limited circumstances that responsibility can be passed. But we have said, as an extra safeguard, that that will be disallowable in this place. Of course, if it is disallowed, although I do not think it will be, it will revert to the Commonwealth responsibility. So industry does not miss out in that it is not delayed, and also the system will work.

Why do I say that this will be unnecessary? It is really because what we are planning in the development of the bilateral agreements is a transparent process. We want the involvement of the community in that process; we want the involvement of parliamentary parties. That is why we sought to negotiate these amendments with the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens, but neither were interested. If after the passage of this bill they do want to be involved—I hope the Australian Democrats will also be involved in the development of these bilaterals—to ensure that we are adopting best international practice, we would be very pleased to engage their participation. (Time expired)