Senator BARTLETT (6:13 PM) —I would like to speak briefly to this report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, a committee chaired by my Democrat colleague Senator Allison. This is quite a significant report, and I rise to speak on it mainly to try to emphasise the significance and importance of it. Many times in this chamber we are overwhelmed by paper, reports, responses, documents and all sorts of things. At this time of the week, when we are going through them all at a great rate of knots, it demonstrates how many different types of reports and documents there are around, and often some of the very significant ones can get a little lost amongst the crush. So I think it is important to single this one out as being a significant report on a significant issue.

For many years, the Democrats have called for a stronger and more coherent approach on environmental issues at the national level. In the Democrats' view, environment issues are too significant to be left to the vagaries of individual state or local government regimes. That does not mean there is no role for state or local governments—indeed there is a crucial role, particularly for local government, in my view—to ensure that there is better environmental protection. There was an example in the speech I gave in this place yesterday in relation to the Gold Coast City Council and an issue they were facing which had quite significant environmental impacts. But it does need, and we do need, in the Democrats' view, a stronger and more coherent overall set of uniform national standards, a more clearly identifiable set of powers and powers that are strong enough to be able to be used easily, clearly and effectively so that the very significant environmental obligations our country has are met. This committee report, which came at the end of a fairly comprehensive and significant investigation of the issues, does go into that in a significant degree of detail and it provides some very good recommendations.

It was coincidental but nonetheless quite relevant and symbolic, if you like, that not long after this report was tabled the Senate considered and passed the Environment Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Bill, a bill of some controversy. But one of the key aspects of that bill and of the changes that were made to it—with the amendments that the Democrats achieved in getting passed—was to ensure that there was not a weakening of Commonwealth environment powers. There is some dispute about that amongst some people, but the Democrats are of a belief that we have managed to achieve that. Obviously, we will see, as the act comes into operation and starts being utilised, whether we are accurate in that belief. Certainly, we believe that is the case. It is something we paid a lot of attention to.

It is not simply a matter of saying, `The Commonwealth is good and the states are bad.' I think that is a trap and a piece of rhetoric that people often fall into. I have probably been guilty of it myself. Coming from Queensland and having endured many years of National Party government, it is probably not surprising that I have a bit of an aversion to giving too much power to state governments. Clearly, any sorts of government at state and federal levels can be good or bad, and there is nothing necessarily inherently better about either level. What is important is that there is a clear set of uniform standards and a usable set of legislative powers. That is not to cut the states out of their role. We believe that balance was achieved with the amendments made to the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Bill. Most important, and where it jells with this report, is the ability, with that bill being passed, for ongoing work and improvements. The Democrats certainly do not believe that we now have the perfect act, that everything is fine; we think there is a hell of a lot of room for improvement still. But the framework is now in place for more effective improvements to be built on the foundation that is there in a much easier way than using the various disconnected acts that were in place or that currently exist that will be replaced by the new act when it comes into force next year.

We have moved some way down the track. This report, in broader terms, talks about why it is important that we do move further down that track. There are recommendations about how to do that and what sorts of definitions and boundaries of Commonwealth environment powers we need to have. I think it is an area that needs specific attention. The Democrats—as all people would now be aware—have moved into a stronger position in the balance of power in this chamber than we have had for a few years. Certainly, as the party's environment spokesperson, I am very keen to ensure that we use our position in that balance of power, where we are able to—

Senator Conroy —You don't have the balance of power; you are in coalition with the government,

Senator BARTLETT —to ensure that environmental issues are put back much more at the top of the political agenda than they have been in recent years under both the coalition government and also under the previous Labor Party government whose record on environmental issues—despite the great green credentials of people such as Senator Conroy, well-known tree saver that he is—nonetheless had a lot of room for improvement. The Democrats are very keen to use our role now with the balance of power to ensure that environmental issues are put much more on centre stage. We hope that we will be able to do that. I urge people to examine this report, because it is an important one. For that reason as well, I think it appropriate that it stays on the Notice Paper , so I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.