Leon Rebello (McPherson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The coalition believes stop-work powers must be time limited, appealable and transparent. Otherwise, they threaten investment confidence and local jobs. I can only imagine the consequences for my community on the southern Gold Coast. A stop-work order on a small civil worksite could hold up dozens of tradies, including apprentices, concreters and electricians—everyday people trying to make a living. A prolonged suspension on foreshore renewal projects or surf club upgrades could leave construction zones fenced off through peak tourism season. This would hurt local cafes, surf shops and accommodation providers. Even a short delay in approvals for new housing estates would send ripple effects through supply chains. Timber yards, surveyors and local suppliers would all feel the pinch in my electorate. That's not protecting the environment; that's punishing local jobs and small-business confidence.

The second major concern is the sheer scale of penalties that are buried in this legislation. We're talking about fines reaching hundreds of millions of dollars—in some cases up to $825 million—for breaches that might include administrative oversights. For large corporations, it's another cost of doing business, but, for smaller tourism and eco businesses in McPherson—boat operators, local quarries and community groups—these penalties could destroy livelihoods overnight. To make matters worse, the bill includes strict liability provisions, meaning intent doesn't even have to be proven. That's not fairness; that's a trap for honest Australians trying to do the right thing.

Environmental protection should be about partnership, not punishment, yet Labor's reforms send a chilling message: 'We don't trust you.' It's a system designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats, not for the people who actually build our nation. The Business Council of Australia has said plainly that we need clarity, consistency and common sense in enforcement, not overreach. The government's approach will make compliance so costly and complex that small business operators will simply give up. We need an enforcement model that encourages cooperation, educates small operators and focuses penalties on deliberate, environmental harm, not paperwork errors. That's how you build a responsible environmental culture.

For my community, the consequences of these reforms are real and immediate. We are home to small developers, tourism operators, surf-lifesaving clubs and marine industries that rely on clear, consistent environmental approvals. Under the proposed Labor plan, projects will face longer assessment times, compliance costs will skyrocket and the uncertainty created by indefinite stop-work powers will stall investment on the southern Gold Coast.

We've already seen industry confidence waver. The Business Council of Australia CEO, Bran Black, warned, 'Without significant changes, this bills risks embedding a system that's even slower, more complex and lacking the clarity and the certainty needed for investment.' He's right. These reforms more red tape than reform.

Every extra month of delay on an approval means another month that builders can't start, apprentices and tradies can't work and businesses can't expand. For my seat of McPherson, what does that mean? It means fewer local jobs and slower growth. Small business confidence is already fragile. These reforms would tip the scales against investment in tourism infrastructure and green energy projects that our region depends on. Even local councils could be caught up in compliance uncertainty when trying to deliver coastal protection works or new projects. This isn't just theoretical; it's real impact on real people right in my community on the southern Gold Coast.

Another alarming feature is the creation of an unaccountable EPA CEO, answerable not to the minister but effectively to no-one. The CEO can issue binding orders, halt operations and impose massive penalties, yet cannot be dismissed by the minister. Where is the accountability? This is consistent with what we're seeing across this 48 Parliament from this government. What we've seen, as I've said previously, is a sense of 'emboldenedness' from the election result turning into a sense of arrogance. It's a dangerous concentration of power and one that Professor Graeme Samuel's review never recommended.

I know that before me was a speaker who time and time again referred to Professor Graeme Samuel. That review never recommended this set up. He called for a commissioner a model: accountable, transparent and limited to compliance and enforcement, not an agency that acts as judge, jury and executioner. If we look at other statutory bodies—the ACCC, the eSafety Commissioner and even the Ombudsman—they all operate within clear frameworks, answerable to ministers and the parliament. They have key performance indicators, reporting obligations and a chain of accountability.

The EPA model in this bill has none of that. It's an agency with unchecked power and the ability to impose decisions that can cripple industries across the country, including in my seat of McPherson. And there is no real avenue for appeal either.

Australians deserve environmental oversight that is effective, not authoritarian. Accountability is not a barrier to environmental protection. It's the foundation of public trust. We all agree the environment matters, and my community takes pride in our conservation efforts, but environmental law must protect nature without strangling opportunity. The coalition has always believed in balance between protection and productivity, and between sustainability and jobs. Our contribution in this debate is about ensuring that that balance is maintained.

Under the previous coalition government, Australia achieved record renewable investment while cutting waste, improving recycling and protecting threatened species. That's the model that works—practical action, not ideological overreach. Under the coalition, Australia had the world's highest uptake of rooftop solar, with one in four homes producing their own clean energy. We delivered the $250 million Recycling Modernisation Fund that turned waste into opportunity and invested in reef protection and threatened species. Again, that's practical action, not ideological overreach. These were outcomes achieved through cooperation not confrontation, working with industry not against it. That's the difference. Our approach is collaborative, and it builds capacity and confidence. All Labor's does is build bureaucracy.

Labor's bill fails on multiple counts. It undermines natural justice through unlimited stop work powers. It cripples enterprise through excessive penalties. Our local industries and environment groups deserve better. The government must go back to the drawing board, consult properly, remove the overreach and deliver balanced reform that supports both jobs and the environment.

In McPherson, on the southern Gold Coast, we do not believe that prosperity and protection are opposites. We believe they can and they must work together. This is not about choosing between growth and greenery, between jobs and biodiversity. It's about having the courage to design laws that do both—protect what we love and enable what we need as a community, as a state and as a country. I know the people of the southern Gold Coast. They are practical, forward looking and deeply connected to the land and sea around them. They want fair laws not fast politics and, importantly, they want results not rhetoric. They want us to do what the government should—bring industry and community together and get it right for the next generation.

So I say to the minister and to the government: scrap the rushed timelines, fix the flaws and start listening. Start listening to the people of Australia. Start listening to those on this side of the House that represent a very large cross-section of the Australian community, from the cities to the regions. Don't just listen to the Greens but listen to those Australians whose livelihoods depend on these decisions. Let's get serious about reform, not about red tape. Let's protect our environment while protecting our future. We can do both. There is this fallacy that seems to be spoken about by the opposition where we can't, but we can. McPherson deserves a government that balances both, not one that sacrifices our prosperity to appease ideology.

(Quorum formed)

See this speech in context