To answer your questions:
1. Good regulation is required. Bad regulation is not. For example. State and Federal and Local governments all have duplication of environmental regulations. Environmental regulation is required (once), having two extra layers with the same aim and outcome is not required. Therefore, it is bad regulation.
2. One would hope the government would not rush into things (unlike the recent past) and get appropriate feedback from stakeholders as to the possible negatives effects.
Yes, good regulation is good, and bad regulation is bad.
As for the environment, if there is to be only one level of environmental impact assessment, why should it be at a State level? Does the Great Barrier Reef belong to the Qld govt or to all Australians?
Since you raised the Great Barrier Reef as an example. Let's list the associated legislation.
- The GBR Marine Park Act 1975
- The GBR Marine Park (Environmental Charge-Excise) Act -1993
- The GBR Marine Park (Environmental Charge-General) Act - 1999
- The GBR Marine Park Regulations 1983
- The GBR Marine Park (Aquaculture) Regulations -2000
Those are on top of other relevant federal laws:
- The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act - 1999
- Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act -1981
- Protection of the Sea (Prevention from the Pollution of Ships) Act -1983
- Sea Installations Act - 1987
There are also International Conventions too.
- Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 (Qld)
- Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld)
- Fisheries Act 1994 (Qld)
- Marine Parks Act 2004 (Qld)
- Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993 (Qld)
- Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld)
- Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld)
- Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995 (Qld)
- Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 (Qld)
Do we need more or less regulation of the reef? How much duplication is in these documents? I could not be bothered at all to look. But when the government talks of deregulation, it is this sort of duplication that they are referring.
A quick summary from Tim Blair:
They are a joke.In 2010, just prior to that year’s election, then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard promised that there would be no carbon tax under her government. Then, in 2011, Gillard announced that there would be a carbon tax under her government.
Later in 2011 Gillard and Kevin Rudd kissed in celebration after the carbon tax legislation was passed. Then, once he’d regained the Labor leadership in 2013, Rudd said that Labor did not have a mandate to introduce the carbon tax. Last July, the then-Prime Minister announced: “Today we’ve taken the decision to terminate the carbon tax.”
Earlier this month, Labor senator Louise Pratt told parliament: “We are committed to scrapping the carbon tax.” But yesterday Labor voted in the senate to keep the carbon tax.
And that’s where we are now. Labor is keeping a tax they were committed to scrapping after promising not to introduce it before it was terminated. Simple.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!