Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wentworth for this thoughtful group of amendments, and I rise in support of her on this work. The Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 allows the minister to delegate decision-making powers to the CEO of the EPA. Most environmental approvals will be made by the EPA, but the minister will still hold powers to make some decisions themselves—for example, for large-scale renewable energy or fossil fuel projects.

I want to be really clear. I understand that in some cases a democratically elected representative should make these decisions. Under our Westminster system, the importance of ministerial decisions is clear, valid and critical. But the EPA bill as currently drafted gives the public no line of sight on when and why the minister gets to make those decisions instead of the EPA CEO. In doing so, it gives me pause as to whether the new EPA is truly independent, as the government claims. Again, I take some comfort from what the member for Wentworth has just said about the assurances from the minister, and I don't doubt the integrity of this minister. Again, I like to vote for legislation where it's clear, in black and white, just where these powers lie and that they are futureproofed for all our generations to come.

The member for Wentworth's amendments address the shortfall here really well, I think. They would require instruments of delegation, when the minister delegates her powers to the EPA, to be made public. The amendments would also require the minister to regularly publish reports listing decisions she has made and decisions the EPA CEO has made. I think these amendments are sensible, I think they're simple and I think they would provide much greater transparency on whether the minister's decision-making power is being used to subvert the role of the independent EPA.

The current lack of transparency under the bill creates a risk that the environmental approvals would be shrouded in secrecy and that decisions would be made behind closed doors. When this happens, the public start to question if the decision made is the right one. It comes down to an issue of trust, really. They wonder if a minister has been politically influenced rather than having based their decisions on evidence. The public might start to lose that trust in the ability of decision-makers to actually protect Australia's environment.

Both the 2021 Graeme Samuel review into the state of the environment and the government's own Nature Positive Plan found that a significant factor contributing to the community's lack of trust in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is a lack of transparency around environmental decision-making. Transparency of ministerial versus EPA decision-making is vital in restoring public trust in our environmental laws. We so need to do that. The public care deeply about these decisions. These decisions impact their communities; they impact on the places where they live.

My constituents of Indi care about the things that may not directly impact them as well. They care about protecting native wildlife, like the Leadbeater's possum, the swift parrot, Sloane's froglet and the Macquarie perch—all endangered species found in Indi. My constituents are frequently contacting my office and stopping me in the street, concerned about the threats to these species and the high rates of extinction. The public want to and should understand how environmental decisions are made and by whom. I urge the government to support the member for Wentworth's amendments.

See this speech in context