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

Our environment is in crisis. Nature is one of Australia's most precious assets—internationally recognised, deeply loved, and a source of solace, wellbeing and joy for so many—but it is in rapid decline.

The 2021 State of the environment report found that over 1,700 species and ecological communities are now threatened or at risk of extinction. Species loss is accelerating. Our oceans are warming and acidifying. Since that report was tabled, we've seen more extreme weather events, more fossil fuel projects and still no major overhaul of our broken environmental laws.

It's not just nature that's hurting. Business leaders, economists and investors are increasingly calling for stronger, clearer environmental legislation. They know that uncertainty and delay in project assessments come at a cost, including delaying renewable energy projects critical to combating climate change. They know that degraded ecosystems create risk, not resilience. They know that protecting the environment is essential to long-term productivity, liveability and prosperity. As former treasury secretary Ken Henry put it in his recent address to the National Press Club:

Boosting productivity and resilience relies on environmental law reform, but the biggest threat to future productivity growth comes from nature itself. More particularly, from its destruction.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act reforms have been coming for a long time. First created in 1999, this act established a legal framework to protect, manage and preserve nationally and internationally significant flora, fauna, heritage sites and ecosystems. In 2020, Professor Graeme Samuel AC's statutory review found that our nature laws were outdated, ineffective and not fit to address future or current environmental challenges. It was damning.

Since my election in 2022, I have called for a stronger EPBC Act, which will finally fix our broken environmental laws. However, these reforms were overdue three years ago; they were overdue two years ago. Last year they were overdue, and they're overdue now. While I welcome that the government is finally acting, I'll be honest: the process is not appropriate. It is unacceptable to bring a bill, with 1,500 pages of legislation, into the House and expect that the House should vote on this complex legislation within less than seven days. I can't in good conscience say to my community of Wentworth that I have full confidence in this bill and all its contents within this time frame. These reforms are complex. The devil is in the detail, and they require full scrutiny.

But let me tell you, there are positive things about the reform, and I do want to acknowledge that. There are parts that represent real, albeit overdue, progress, starting with higher standards. Higher, stronger standards—national environmental standards—are the cornerstone of the Samuel review's recommendations. This bill's introduction of new powers to create these standards and to require that decisions made by the minister responsible for the new Environmental Protection Agency align with them is a welcome and necessary reform. But while this mechanism is promising, its impact depends on the strength of the standards themselves. I understand that they sit outside the act. Transparency is limited. But if government wants to rebuild trust, the standards must face this sort of scrutiny.

Secondly, I believe we're going to get stronger enforcement through this law. One of the most welcome elements of the government's proposed EPBC reforms is the establishment of a new National Environmental Protection Agency with the authority and independence to enforce our environmental laws properly. The new agency will have the power to issue environmental protection orders, to require harmful activities to cease, to initiate both directed environmental audits and new compliance audits, and to use real-time tools to monitor breaches and respond effectively.

These powers go to the heart of ensuring that the environmental protections are more than just words on paper. Equally important is the strengthening of penalties. Under the proposed reform the agency will be empowered to seek to substantially increase fines, including civil penalties, up to—this is really significant—$825 million in the most serious cases. I think these are important, for the environment and also for business, on the basis that bad actors in business make it worse for everybody. If some businesses are trying to do the right thing and follow the laws and other businesses can get away without doing the right thing, you just encourage good businesses to behave badly. Having stronger penalties and clear standards is a way to actually get better action and make sure those bad actors can't run a lower-cost of business model because there aren't significant penalties. This long-overdue shift sends a clear message: environmental harm will bring serious consequences.

Let's talk about what it does for business, particularly around faster time lines. I welcome the government's introduction of a new streamlined assessment pathway under this legislation. It replaces an overlapping, confusing stream with one coherent pathway, cutting duplication and delay. If implemented well, this streamlined model will help accelerate project time lines, provide greater certainty for proponents and deliver stronger environmental outcomes—an essential balance in today's economic and ecological context.

Secondly, let's talk about the assessment process. We have the opportunity in these laws to have less ambiguity about approvals and assessments. For instance, a clearer definition of what constitutes an unacceptable impact can be beneficial to the environment and to business. Businesses needs certainty to invest. They need certainty to put in all the effort to put forward an investment case. If unacceptable impacts are very clear, that makes it easier for businesses to make decisions. For instance, under unacceptable impacts, if an impact would seriously impair the viability of a species or cause significant irreparable damage to habitat that is critical for species' survival, approval cannot be gained.

I believe these are sensible changes. They give a clear understanding of the boundaries while also strengthening environmental protections. Importantly, the government has also committed to introducing bioregional planning as a key part of the new environmental system, and I look forward to seeing these take shape. These regional plans will provide strategic context for decisions at a landscape scale, proactively identifying areas that are suitable for development, those that are environmentally sensitive and those where restoration is really needed. If done well it could, again, provide greater certainty and transparency for businesses, improve conservation outcomes, and help reduce delays and duplications in assessments. Stronger, clearer standards can benefit both nature and business alike.

Let me move to my concerns with the bills. Whilst I commend the government on the introduction of the reforms and for engaging both with environmental groups and business groups—many of whom I have spoken with in the last week and who have been, on the main, very appreciative of the constructive engagement that they have had with the government—there are still some very significant sticking points that could seriously harm the integrity of this legislation and actually create harm for the environments that the laws are seeking to protect.

Firstly, let's start with national interest approvals and proposal pathways. There are two provisions in these bills for national interest. The first national interest exemption allows for approval of projects subject to conditions in a specific timeframe as an expansion of an existing power. The minister can consider our national security or a national emergency. I understand this is a 'break glass in case of emergency' clause, with a statement of reasons published whenever it is used. This appears to be appropriate to me.

However, I hold deep concerns about the new power for national interest approvals or proposal pathways. This power allows the minister to determine that if an action is in the national interest, it need not satisfy the three approval tests or can be exempt altogether. My concern—and this has been echoed by others on the crossbench and also by the environmental movement—is that this definition is too broad, too discretionary and open to exploitation. This definition covers defence, security, strategic interests or international agreements and then explicitly says, 'This does not limit the matters the minister may consider.' This is, again, a broad definition of national interest. I have a definition and I'm sure someone else has a different definition. There are all sorts of things that we may or may not agree are in the national interest, but I think having this broad power in these bills creates a significant loophole and a great deal of uncertainty in the legislation. There could, as Ken Henry recently warned, be a 'conga line of developers' lobbying for this carve-out. Again, this ambiguity is not good for business.

The second concern shared widely across Wentworth and the country is the continued exemption for continued native forest logging and the continuous use exemption allowing land clearing without federal approval. Currently, logging covered by the regional forestry agreement is exempt from the EPBC Act. This exemption remains unchanged in this legislation. This is deeply disappointing. RFAs are not adequately protecting threatened species and I believe the government knows this. The Forestry Corporation of New South Wales was recently taken to court for breaching its state's laws. We know that, without proper regulation, species like the greater glider, the koala and the grey-headed flying fox are heading for extinction.

Since the EPBC Act commenced in 2000, more than 11.5 million hectares of land have been cleared, including three million hectares of remnant native vegetation. A University of Queensland study this year found most land clearing occurs without assessment of environmental impacts, worsening both the biodiversity and climate crises. Even though forests are home to threatened species, and logging and land clearing can wipe them out, these exemptions persist. I do not believe the government should have introduced these laws without dealing with these exemptions. I think they know that. I think they're leaving these exemptions open as a negotiating ploy, potentially, with the Senate. That is another reason why it is not appropriate for that to not be included in these bills before the House.

My next concern relates to transparency and independence. I'm pleased to see the NEPA—the National Environmental Protection Agency—established, but I have real concerns about its independence. The minister retains decision-making power and may delegate to NEPA, whose CEO will be appointed by the minister of the day. That's not independence. The Samuel review explicitly recommended against retaining such ministerial discretion. It undermines trust, transparency and enforcement. The NEPA must truly be the tough cop on the beat—independent, transparent and free from political influence. I do not think that, in its current form, such independence is guaranteed, and it therefore may not provide the enforcement that our environment needs.

My next concern relates to the offsets proposed restoration fund. The Samuel review criticised the overuse of biodiversity offsets, which should be used as a last resort. Instead, they've become the default. The new restoration fund risks creating a pay-to-destroy model, letting developers offset destruction with a cheque and shifting responsibility to the government. The New South Wales Biodiversity Offsets Scheme has shown the pitfalls of this approach, with the funds accumulating but not being effectively spent. Western Australia's Pilbara region has seen similar issues. There is an argument, and I see the argument, for having some sort of fund here. But the use of offsets needs to be strictly controlled and only genuinely used as a last resort, not as a licence to destroy critical habitat.

Finally, on climate, I'm disappointed climate is not properly considered in these reforms. Climate change remains the single greatest threat to Australia's biodiversity and nature, from rising ocean temperatures to floods, fires, droughts and extreme weather. While proponents must disclose their emissions and mitigation plans, they aren't required to be considered by the minister or the EPA or be independently verified. In fact, the legislation explicitly prevents the minister from considering anything beyond the set approval tests. The government argues this is unnecessary because emissions are managed under the safeguard mechanism, but that's not managed effectively. The safeguard mechanism is relied on heavily here, yet it is not effective enough in its current form to carry the burden. It needs to be expanded and fit for purpose. If the government were truly serious about recognising the climate impacts on nature, they would strengthen the safeguard mechanism alongside these bills to make sure those protections are really there—but they are missing.

Finally, I acknowledge that the business community, who I've spoken to, also have a number of concerns or changes they would like to see in this legislation. I don't have time in this speech to go through them, but I think some of these are very valid and thoughtful concerns and they should be addressed in the drafting of these absolutely mighty bills. I understand a number of constructive amendments have been put forward via the crossbench to identify and manage some of the loopholes. I will also be moving some amendments.

In conclusion, I am really torn, I'll be honest, whether to support these bills in their current form. The reforms are urgent to protect nature, to enable clean energy and to support productivity. I have been consulting widely with business and environmental groups, and they are telling me, to a person, that the laws matter and we have to get them right. I believe, on balance, that these bills are better than what we have now—but, given the short time I have to consult on this, it's honestly hard for me, hand on my heart, to tell that to my community with absolute certainty. There are opportunities to seriously improve the bills, and I urge the government to engage seriously with the crossbench amendments that have been put forward in good faith and engage across the parliament; I think there's an opportunity. I also urge the coalition, the Greens and all the other parties in the parliament to work on these bills to make them better and get them passed. They are urgent, they are important but they still have a way to go.

See this speech in context