<< 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.