Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Youth) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, the first of seven bills, which will now be considered separately, on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. As I've said from the very start of this process, when I became the shadow minister for the environment, environmental reform is too important to get wrong. I speak to mainstream Australians about this, about the things that impact them, and there are many things wrong with this reform from those opposite. The importance of getting this right should not be understated. Without balanced reform that ensures the best possible outcome for industry, productivity and the environment, we are simply greenlighting offshore investment. What does that mean to mainstream Australians? That means job losses.

The minister has done the rounds of the press gallery, spruiking these bills as balanced reform, but nothing about this legislation is balanced. It's going to send productivity backwards. But hang on—don't those opposite have a so-called productivity agenda? What about the Treasurer's productivity roundtable, which was crucial for jobs, business and growth? Those opposite must have a pretty short memory, because in their current state these reforms are guaranteed to halt productivity in its tracks. That is saying something, because, as Australians have noticed, Australia already has a productivity problem. Economists warn, as reported in the Australian Financial Review late last September, that lagging investment by Australian businesses in research and development is contributing to a plunge in our country's productivity. Our global productivity ranking has literally tanked under this government. It has tanked absolutely. Australia's productivity growth is ranked second-last amongst OECD countries, beating only Mexico. The proof is in the pudding, with a sluggish 0.2 per cent productivity growth in the June 2025 quarter, and in the last financial year labour productivity fell by 0.7 per cent.

A lack of investment in resources has significantly contributed to this downturn. It's largely owing to the copious amounts of red and green tape under Labor's first term—not in this term, not what they're doing now, but what they did in the last term. We've seen more than 5,000 new regulations—not 500—tying mainstream Australians in knots. We agree something needs to change and to be done to amend these outdated environmental laws to speed up the lack of growth under Labor's watch. Australia needs to create jobs. We need to encourage investment and opportunity for her citizens, not imperil our nation's wealth and our future under this government. If we don't do something now, those opposite risk major repercussions, major flaws, major oversights and major damage.

The way they're tracking, AUKUS is potentially at risk. The Prime Minister's shiny new key critical minerals deal with the US is absolutely at risk. They risk sending jobs and investment in resources and mining offshore with this legislation. I can assure you, we're much better off keeping those here in Australia than in other countries with a far worse track record on polluting our environment. We need to look to preserve our environment and mitigate the risk posed to our native threatened species.

The government has been working on environmental reform for three years now. We saw Minister Plibersek's friendless proposal fail to deliver last term. After Minister Watt was appointed, he said, 'It is my intention to deliver these reforms within the next 18 months.' So why, all of a sudden, did this become the great race—the great Melbourne Cup race—to get this legislation passed before Christmas? Why? Why give stakeholders, proponents, and those that will be affected by this legislation just a smidge over the finish line of three weeks? That's what the minister is outlining. Expecting stakeholders to sift through 1,459 pages of the biggest legislative reform to the act since its inception is an absolute joke. It's an insult to Australians, and it's an insult to stakeholders.

The coalition has known the importance of this environmental reform. We've long known about it, since it was introduced by Robert Hill back in 2001, when he said it would last only 10-15 years. Now, here we are in year 26, and still no reforms. When we were in government, the Leader of the Opposition, then environment minister commissioned the Graeme Samuel review—a review with recommendations that are largely proving to be the reference point to these key legislative changes under the reform. As environment minister, the Leader of the Opposition introduced legislation to reform this bill. Labor and the Greens blocked it. Now, Minister Watt—the Prime Minister's Mr Fix-It—is coming to us with his tail between his legs, needing us to strike a deal.

The coalition believes environmental laws, when done right, can be a great, balanced outcome for business and the environment. We have a strong record on the environment. In fact, we have a proud Liberal history on the environment. The Great Barrier Reef was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981 during Malcolm Fraser's time as Prime Minister. Fraser and his government had already taken steps to protect the reef, including the prohibition of oil-drilling in the area. During the Howard government, great Liberal warrior for the environment Robert Hill declared the Great Australian Bight a marine park. In 2000 the Lord Howe Island Marine Park was proclaimed, also under the Howard government. When the Leader of the Opposition was the minister for the environment, the Christmas Island Marine Park was declared, as was the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Marine Park. In that same year the coalition announced $1 billion for the Great Barrier Reef fund, and our $280 million Recycling Modernisation Fund drove a $1 billion transformation of the waste and recycling sector. We invested billions in threatened species, habitat restoration, marine conservation and environmental projects. We have the environmental credentials on action. I believe in good environmental policy and investment that delivers great outcomes for business and nature. I believe in protecting the environment for Australians. I believe in investing in the environment for Australians.

As I mentioned earlier, we know Labor has failed to deliver any reform in the last three years. Labor has a history of failure to deliver and that remains true, as evidenced by this reform. When the member for Sydney was the minister, her proposed legislation would have made productivity worse. The laws were so bad that the Western Australian premier had to run an intervention, and the Prime Minister pulled the pin on the reforms the night before they were due to be voted on in the chamber. These were desperate messages followed by desperate actions during desperate times for this government. Since then, we've seen the distance—call it a wedge, if you like—between Minister Plibersek and the Prime Minister. The question is: why has Roger Cook been silent on the current proposed reforms, especially when business is telling us the current proposal before the House is completely unworkable? Is there another intervention coming from the west to save some of those FIFO workers from their jobs? Is it disappointing that Labor's proposed reforms are not workable for business in their current state and do not fix productivity? We've heard that not only are these proposed reforms unworkable; some stakeholders are even going as far as to say that these reforms are worse than the current legislation—worse than 26-year-old laws that we all agree are broken. That's saying something.

In a further blow to industry groups and business, they've been providing feedback to the minister on these reforms—indeed, the minister has been spruiking just how much engagement he has been undertaking—but none of their most significant contributions have been included in these reforms, to the point of Labor now producing something absolutely unworkable for Australian businesses. This is in stark contrast to the minister's message claiming that his reforms are balanced and 'a demonstrable gain for business and the environment'; that was his claim. If business and investors are turned away or if applications take too long to approve, jobs are foregone and lost, and it's the green light for investment to go offshore. This current proposal does not work for Australia's best interests. It does not encourage investment and it is a bill that falls short.

We have significant issues with the Environmental Protection Authority, the EPA. The Graeme Samuel review recommendations did not include an EPA as a baseline. In fact, he recommended that a commissioner be appointed and that it be limited to compliance, assurance and audit—which means assessments and approvals should absolutely not be part of the EPA. Labor has absolutely overreached here, all because of the Prime Minister's 2022 election promise committing to a federal EPA. It's imperative that assessments remain in the department, and, as per the Samuel review, as per our Westminster system, decision-making and approvals must remain with the minister.

The coalition also has significant concerns pertaining to the appointment and functions of the CEO of this proposed authority. The minister cannot answer how many new employees the authority will have, after saying at the National Press Club that he's not fan of inflated bureaucracy. The EPA CEO must have a binding statement of expectations and must report to the minister, and there must be parameters within those expectations around dismissal by the minister for failure to comply and for underperformance. Really? No key performance indicators for the CEO of the EPA? As it stands, the EPA's CEO can only be dismissed by the Governor-General, and there is no requirement for a binding statement of expectations. The fact that Labor has not firmly legislated a formal requirement for a statement of expectations and that the CEO is not accountable to the minister is another massive red flag. Let's talk about some of the other red flags, because we all know how much Labor loves a red flag.

We've seen time and again the unnecessary duplication within this legislation. You cannot go past the scope 1 and 2 emissions reporting duplication. I thought the whole purpose of this government and its environmental reforms was to reduce red and green tape, not to add to it. That's exactly what's happening here. Remember, I said there were 5,000 new regulations, and here are some more coming at you. Emissions reporting is currently already dealt with in the safeguard mechanism legislation, and rightly so, because climate and emissions belong within climate and energy legislation, not environmental legislation. This duplication is completely unnecessary, and it's got to go. Including these parameters within the proposal opens up a whole new can of worms in the legal sphere. It opens the door to severe legal action and consequences for organisations, for governments and for jobs. It risks additional conditions and parameters for proponents to adhere to on their projects. Ultimately, it duplicates the role of the climate change and energy minister. More process and more time equal fewer jobs. We've already seen that under this government. Business doesn't want the duplication. It doesn't want the unnecessary red and green tape thrust upon it, especially when it's something that businesses already report on in a different piece of legislation.

Throughout this legislation, there are 37 different definitions of unacceptable impacts—37. I thought we were supposed to be cutting red tape, not covering proponents in it. With these 37 definitions, it's guaranteed that almost no projects will be approved. What does that mean for this government's housing targets? Have they actually thought all of this through? What about Minister Bowen's reckless renewables-only plan? Say goodbye to your wind turbines and solar farms. What we need to see is one overarching definition of unacceptable impacts, with the rest removed and regulated under the minister's environmental standards.

Let's move to Minister Watt's 'nature positive' rebrand. That's another concern. We know Minister Plibersek's 'nature positive' laws and how well they were received by everyone. They were reported as 'friendless'—not one friend in the stakeholder realm. The minister has chosen to go with 'net gain' instead this time, taking out 'nature positive' and putting in 'net gain'—same old definition, new name. How is that for this government's transparency? The definition of 'net gain' absolutely needs greater clarity, with guardrails in place to ensure certainty for industry and certainty for the environment. In their current form, the definitions of 'net gain' and 'unacceptable impacts' are completely unworkable. Our stakeholders across the spectrum of industry and environment agree. Again, this is in stark contrast to the minister's message claiming that his reforms are balanced and are a demonstrable gain for business and the environment.

In terms of the environment, the coalition has a strong track record of protecting the environment and will take that lens when working on amendments to this reform—amendments that ensure the environment is protected.

It is not that this Labor government has a good track record on protecting the environment. Two recent failures come to mind. Labor have failed South Australians, with a lack of support on the devastating algal bloom. Can I send a shout-out to Bart Butson, who's here in the House from South Australia. He's a fisher who I met on two trips down to South Australia, one with the Leader of the Opposition, to talk to the fishers down there about the government's flat-footed response on the South Australian algal bloom. While communities were crying out, while fishermen didn't have any work and while their environment was being decimated, the federal and state governments—both under Labor—ignored the community.

Labor have failed Australians with another native species extinction. That's the next fail. The latest victim of this government is the Christmas Island shrew, which is now listed as Australia's 39th extinction, as declared by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Australia leads the world—it's not a good thing—in mammal extinctions and ranks second for loss of biodiversity. After more than three years in government, what a monumental failure. Shame on this government, especially as the minister spruiked no extinctions in his speech just last week.

Coming back to environmental failings on this bill, the bill refers to 'a threat abatement plan'. Instead, they should be referred to in the plural, as threat abatement plans. That could be a change. That could be an amendment to this bill.

This bill requires so many amendments, even from Labor's own activist group in its caucus. They want amendments to this bill, as was reported just after question time today. But, as I said, this bill is unworkable, and there are so many issues that need to be addressed in order for this reform to proceed.

This reform consists of seven individual bills and is nearly 1,500 pages long. Stakeholders have said they need time to go through this very large, very important piece of legislation that impacts every Australian—as does any effective member of parliament. Thinking that this will be a done deal when only giving 3½ weeks to read it is wishful thinking from this minister. To comb through this legislation would take around 40 hours from the front to the back—and 60 hours to read through the explanatory memorandum. Then you have to consult, provide feedback, get lawyers involved and understand how the new legislation interacts with the current legislation. This is a process that—if the minister wants this done effectively—cannot be rushed. It should not be rushed. Minister Watt always said this process would take 12 to 18 months to get done. Now it's time to give the coalition and stakeholders the time to carefully go through this legislation and be constructive and critical. It's too important to get wrong.

I absolutely support an inquiry in the other place and I welcome engagement with the government to work through the current failings of this legislation. My door is open, as it always has been—since the start of these good-faith negotiations that we entered into with the government. We look forward to working with the government on these amendments, because we must ensure our environment and productivity do not continue to go backwards. I thank those with whom I've met and engaged with from industry and from environmental stakeholders, and I welcome their continued conversations. Similarly, thank you to my parliamentary colleagues for their engagement. I look forward to continuing to work with you through our partyroom processes as we proceed through this bill.

Australians need these reforms to work for them and for the environment. So, when we say the government is again rushing through complex, untested legislation, we absolutely mean it. They've had three years now, and they are fast-tracking reform in three months, drip feeding limited details along the way, which is unhelpful for everyone. Not only has the drip fed approach been unhelpful; so too is the detail within the legislation—completely and utterly unhelpful. Industry and environmental groups can back this up. The Business Council of Australia has been flying the flag for its members and advocating fair and balanced reform. Chief executive Bran Black said, 'Business still has many concerns that need addressing if we want the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act system to support growing the economy.' Labor has taken more than three years, with two different ministers, to deliver completely unworkable parameters that would send industry, jobs and livelihoods backwards. Alarm bells should be ringing for Australians, and Australians should, rightly, be concerned that Labor's proposed environmental law reform would hold back the growth that Australia needs and that Australians deserve.

Even more concerning is the thought of Labor doing a deal with the Greens to pass these laws. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Australians should be scared if the Labor Party enters into an agreement with the Greens on these reforms. The Greens wants all coal and gas fields prohibited. If Labor and the Greens join forces, Australians will be locked into a deteriorating economy with no future prosperity.

This legislation in its current form will put billions of dollars of investment and thousands of Australian jobs at risk. Instead of speeding up decisions, they're creating a system that will stop projects dead in their tracks. We need certainty, we need to be able to unlock faster approvals for resources and we need to unlock more homes. Currently, under Labor, more than 26,000 homes are waiting for approval under the EPBC Act. But that's just what we're hearing from those opposite. Industry estimates suggest that the figure could be well over 40,000 homes. Meanwhile, house prices are going through the roof and young people can't afford to get into a home. We simply cannot continue to operate with the legislation in its current form, and we cannot wrap industry up in additional red and green tape.

The coalition remains committed to achieving a balanced outcome for jobs, for productivity and for the environment. This legislation put forward is worse than the current outdated laws—imagine, those laws that were introduced under Robert Hill in 2001! These laws that the Labor Party are putting forward could be worse. Labor has given us no choice but not to support this bill. It does not deliver a balanced outcome to protect the environment, to improve productivity and to provide certainty for job-creating industries. The coalition cannot support this bill and the related bills in the form that they are currently in. I look forward to hearing all of the contributions of members across the House, particularly on the coalition side, when they outline the holes that are in this bill and put the spotlight on Labor for their failures.

See this speech in context