Plans to remove the carbon and mining taxes and cut environmental regulation are central to the Coalition's latest policy on cutting red tape.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-08/coalition-releases-plans-to-cut-red-tape/4807046

This is a shocker!

Senior public servants will be required to reduce red tape. They will be required to water down the very purpose the existing regulations.

I see this as an absolutely disgusting policy platform. Abbott and the Coalition are so incredibly strongly biased towards improving productivity and the prosperity of businesses in the short term, and basically don’t seem to give a hoot about why the various regulations have been implemented.

In fact, their position really is quite extremist and very alarming for one who wishes to see a healthy balance between environment and human activity, and for us to head towards a stable and sustainable future.

Good idea
How will they do it from opposition?
Not non-core promises are they?

Ludwig,
You should have a look at what Labor is spending heaps & heaps of your dollars on in very far Nth Qld. I think even you & Belly would denounce it if you saw it. How about a job that was offered to be done for nothing by a firm yet the ALP Government finds it moral to spend half a million on it for consultants & other hangers on.

The cost on business to comply with the vast array of regulations is enormous. Considering that Labor promised to reduce red tape, yet has introduced 22000 new regulations to burden businesses, it will once again fall on the coalition to act responsibly.

The only red or green tape cut will be those concerning the environment.
Abbott gets his ideas from CN.
3G telecommunications will go to i suppose just like CN did. Thats one way of making a quid, get people to bye new phones.

SM, it would be great if they’d act responsibly. But Abbott’s comments would appear to be all about doing everything possible to reduce costs for business with no regard for the environment, and not at all about streamlining the current regulatory processes while upholding the essence of those regulations.

Yes Doog, if Newman’s example with the Vegetation Management Act is anything to go by, then Abbott is set to do enormous damage.

Doog,

Your year 3 level spelling, grammar and logic indicate that you are well equipped to be a labor supporter.

Lets not be surprised if Turnbull makes a bid for the job within a week.
Abbott will cost the poll results dearly, his attachment to CN is clear.
I wonder if the rest of the coalition know about his latest statements.

Ludwig,

So as with labor, you are a supporter of multiple levels of bureaucracy?

For example, presently for a company to get environmental approval for a project, it has to apply for environmental permission from the local council, the state and the commonwealth, all with different agencies, and who while applying the same rules ask for different things essentially dependent on which official is appointed. This is a massive waste of time and money.

One assessment against all the criteria, by one agency will save business many millions at no risk to the environment.

Doog,

Well done for using spell check, now try reading some current affairs. Turnbull is not standing for re election and is retiring. A position that is difficult to mount a challenge.

If Turnbull doesn't get the leadership, he probably will retire. It was stolen from him by Abbott, with one vote.
There is no time left for foot in mouth disease.
The scene is set for instability. What Mr Abbott should have had is a ventriloquist a long time ago.
I used to favor him, but the level of conversation is not there. it's stupid to persist with him. Like many others i would rather vote for Turnbull

What disappoints me as a conservative voter and a business man is the lack of policy to help small business in particular.
When I pointed this out to a Liberal candiadte in Melbourne recently the reply was, "well it's up to small business to do something about it. They must drive change."
Small business is gone unless someone stops the huge costs and social responsability forced on us in order to appease the socialist agenda.
And what are the Coalition doing to help. Nada!

A big shift going on with small business, with many going for online trading. I don't really think anything will stop that. It's what the people are wanting.
There must be big cost cutting savings with it also.
Abbott is not for the coalition, he is a copycat politician, and his job was finished two years ago.
You should talk to the socialist govt; to get some support, they are good at making everybody equal.
Just like Newman in QLD The more you sack the bigger your debt rises.
If you can't afford to buy goods, that is no good for small business

<< So as with labor, you are a supporter of multiple levels of bureaucracy? >>

SM, in an ideal world where we had a Federal government that genuinely assessed projects with the right sort of balance between human benefit and environmental protection, we would only need one level of assessment.

But where we have one level of government that is inclined to be strongly biased towards their big biz buddies or towards the short-term profit motive and appeasement of all concerned, then a second level of assessment is a damn good idea. Likewise with a third level.

Given the inherent biases in our government at all levels, multiple levels of assessment as inefficient as they are, probably work in the favour of the environment, and of our long-term prosperity.

No, I don’t favour this. I favour a one-stop assessment. But alas, not one done by either an Abbott or Rudd Federal government!

<< One assessment against all the criteria, by one agency will save business many millions at no risk to the environment. >>

You can’t possibly say ‘at no risk to the environment’!

Senior public servants will be required to reduce red tape.
Ludwig,
Now that is definitely disgusting ! Do they actually mean that bureaucrats be accountable ? No union will accept that. it's totally against their agenda. You can't dare stop the bandwagon can you ?

Ludwig,

So what you are saying is that every layer of government is incompetent, and the environment is best served by preventing business doing anything?

No wonder business despairs of working with Labor.

SM, why do you insist in so often grossly overstating things?

You didn’t reply to my response to your last overstated comment. I said:

You can’t possibly say ‘at no risk to the environment’!

Obviously even with two or three layers of assessment, it is far from a case of business not being able to do anything. Lots of businesses of all sorts, which have some sort of environmental impact, still get the go-ahead. And the environmental criteria that they are required to meet aren’t stifling. If they were, then the directors of those businesses would not proceed with their projects, right?

While Labor is biased towards short-term business prosperity and against long-term environmental and societal wellbeing, the Coalition is clearly considerably worse!

Luddy old mate, I've spent probably as much time in the bush as anyone, often at places only accessible by a fair sized boat. I think I can claim to love it as much as you or anyone else, but come on, this greenie thing has gone far too far.

People walking out their back door & finding crocks in their pool is ridicules. Telling me I can't ride my horse through a national park because I might damage it, while it is over full of wild pigs gets right up my nose.

Fining people who shoot a wild goat in a national park, then spending millions on a goat eradication program is just the sort of stupidity that gets me at loggerheads with greenies, particularly when they are given any sort of authority. Just like Labor, they don't know how to handle it. A few seconds looking at the US EPA should convince anyone of that.

It is time to tame that damn fool "wild rivers" legislation, Anna used to sure up the green vote, & use the bloody things for what ever they are useful for.

Newman should probably throw out the whole lot & start again, but I suppose he doesn't have 5 years to spare.

To some extent I have to agree with Ludwig.
After what has been happening in NSW, with mining and CSG interests taking precedence over significant legitimate agricultural, health and environmental concerns, I have no faith in the NSW State government in such matters.
And, from what I understand, Queensland State governments have not demonstrated any better environmental credentials than NSW. Not sure about the other States and Territories.

Foreshadowed action by both major Federal parties to abrogate their responsibilities for ensuring appropriate environmental, health and agricultural interests are properly taken into account in the evaluation of all major projects, is a matter of great concern.

However, given that requirement to take proper account of potential impacts on water quality as part of the assessment of mining and CSG proposals was only implemented at the Federal level at the instigation of The Greens, we have to ask ourselves if either of the major parties, at State or Federal level, can truly be trusted to maintain the sort of environmental standards we would like to see maintained.

In my assessment, a line has to be drawn regarding the protection of significant environmental, health and agricultural interests, across the whole of Australia, and this could only be achieved by Federal legislation and oversight.
Therefore, I believe major project environmental assessment has to be at the Federal level.
The Greens are dead against the handing of environmental impact assessment to the States, and I for one believe their stance and their concerns are solidly founded.

As for 'Red' tape, I suspect Tony Abbott will have much work to do.

Rudd is intent on eliminating Fringe Benefits, and may reasonably be expected to move on to eliminate Negative Gearing and Superannuation taxation concessions, and to increase Capital Gains Tax.
For what? To reduce budget deficit, and to steamroll forward with social reform at the expense of retirees, small business, the auto industry, private investors and local and foreign major investment in developmental projects.
Heaven protect us from Labor; and thank heaven for some considered 'Greens' and Independent 'balance' in Federal politics.

Ludwig,

The environmental standards are no secret, neither are the requirements for consultation and investigation. When the federal agency or the state agency look at an application, the rules are the same.

If the commonwealth has to check the state's evaluation, then the assumption can only be that the state is incompetent or corrupt. and vice versa. If neither are corrupt or incompetent, then two checks is a waste of time and money, which either kills jobs or increases costs that are passed to consumers.

Similarly, why does the commonwealth need a dept of education when it does not run a single school? Why do daycare centres spend as much time filling out paper work as looking after kids?

All the paperwork that labor loves costs business which either ends up as lower wages, higher prices or jobs moving overseas.

<< …the rules are the same >>

SM, no they aren’t! There are different rules/legislation/bylaws/etc that each level is beholden to uphold. And each level of assessment is only beholden to the particular rules that apply at that level, yes?

There are also different levels of interpretation of the same rules, by governments at the different levels and successive governments at the same level.

It would be great if all the rules were incorporated into one assessment and that this assessment was done by the Feds, in full consultation with the states, local authorities and communities….. if of course the Feds could be trusted to properly assess these things in an environment free of the bias of big business, property developers and the like.

But they can’t be trusted. So I will maintain that multiple levels of assessment is not simply the time-consuming expensive doubling- (or tripling-) up process that you so strongly decry, but rather that it does actually have a strong positive element to it.