Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on the sheet revised 2 July 2024, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 170, page 30 (before line 7), before subsection 515AAA(1), insert:

Delegations

(2) Schedule 2, item 170, page 30 (after line 25), after subsection 515AAA(3), insert:

Publication requirements

(4) An instrument of delegation under subsection (1) or (2) must be published on the Department's website as soon as practicable after it is made.

(3) Schedule 2, item 170, page 30 (after line 25), at the end of section 515AAA, add:

Quarterly reporting requirements

(5) If a delegation under subsection (1) of a power or function of the Minister under subsection 74B(1), 75(1) or 133(1) (a reportable provision) is in force in a reporting quarter, the Minister must prepare a report containing information on each decision made in the reporting quarter under the reportable provision either personally by the Minister or by the delegate.

(6) The report must be prepared as soon as practicable after the end of the reporting quarter.

(7) The Minister must arrange for the report to be published on the Department's website.

Definitions

(8) In this section:

reporting quarter means a period of 3 months ending on 31 March, 30 June, 30 September or 31 December.

The creation of Environment Protection Australia is an important step in the right direction. There are many welcome changes within the package of bills before the House, but there are also significant issues that need to be fixed. These issues go to transparency, accountability and the independence with which the new EPA will operate, and they should be addressed before the bills proceed to the Senate. The House should be a place where legislation is improved, not just rubberstamped.

One of the main reasons for having an EPA is to take important environmental decisions out of the hands of politicians. We want to have independent experts assess projects in an unbiased and even-handed way, free from political interference and lobbying by special interests. This independence must be at the core of the new EPA. I accept that in some special cases the minister should retain the prerogative to make a particular decision. The minister and the government are the only ones who are ultimately accountable to the Australian people, so it is appropriate that the minister retains the right to call in a particular project which they may have previously delegated to the independent EPA. However, what is not appropriate is for the minister to call in a project and not tell the Australian people that they have done so. If the minister wants to make a captain's call, they need to be upfront about it. Unfortunately, this transparency is not provided for in the bill.

The bill allows the minister to delegate certain functions to the EPA, but there is no requirement for the details of that delegation to be made public. As a result, we may have no idea which types of decisions will be delegated to the EPA and which ones the minister will keep for themselves. This is despite extensive consultation on ministerial call-in powers over the past year and clear feedback from a range of stakeholders about the need for transparency over what is delegated to the EPA and what is not. Unfortunately, this lack of transparency creates the risk that environmental approvals will be shrouded in the same secrecy as the flawed system of the past.

My amendments would address this lack of transparency. Amendments (1) and (2) require that the instruments of delegation are made public so that we know which decisions a minister is handing over to the EPA and which the minister is designating for themselves. These amendments are constructive and common sense and respond to feedback provided by the environmental community, by the business community and by experts in environmental law. They do not place an unnecessary burden on the government; they merely require transparency on things that the public have a right to know.

My team and I have worked constructively with the minister on these amendments. It is disappointing, therefore, that the government has decided not to support them. I understand the government no longer believe it is necessary to make the changes set out in my amendments because they already intend to provide a similar level of transparency. If this is the case, there should be no issue in providing for this transparency in the legislation. There should certainly be no problem in committing to make the instruments of delegation publicly available. Whilst I take the minister at her word and I know she wants to do the right thing, she cannot guarantee that all future ministers would act with the same degree of integrity. These transparency measures should be included in the legislation, and I urge the government to accept the amendments.

See this speech in context