Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to address the grave concerns that many constituents, stakeholders and industries in Capricornia and beyond have about the proposed changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. While reform may sometimes be needed, what is before us is crippling industries that are pillars of our region and our nation. It places too much power in the hands of ministerial discretion, it duplicates regulation, and it threatens fairness and productivity. I speak today on behalf of regions that rely on resource development, mining, minerals and heavy industries—companies like Boral, Glencore, BHP and QMAG. They are not faceless corporations. They are employers. They are economic drivers. They unlock the wealth of our nation and give back to the community through grassroots, community activities.

They are telling me clearly that the tighter green tape proposed under this bill is strangling their ability to operate in Australia—let alone compete internationally, where other countries offer far more favourable conditions. I back our mining companies. I back them because their success is our success, but under this bill we risk entering dangerous territory. We risk picking winners and losers by regulation, where those aligned with the government agenda are favoured with subsidies while others are left to struggle under burdens they never asked for. If we continue down this path, some may ask whether we are edging towards a system where government grants or regulatory favour determine what survives, rather than competitiveness and merit. That risks are chilling resemblance to state controlled economies, where approvals are less about fairness and more about who has influence.

One of my deepest concerns with the proposal is around 'unacceptable impact' as a legal test in the bill. As per the recommendations from the Graeme Samuel review, the intention may have been well meaning—to protect matters of national environmental significance more strictly—but the drafting we see is deeply subjective, loaded with ministerial discretion and lacking clarity. A project may be held up or refused not because it fails to meet clear standards but because someone considers the impact unacceptable. That test is open to interpretation, which could then attract legal challenges and lengthy delays. For mining companies I've spoken with, the fear is real. What happens when that test becomes a bureaucratic hammer rather than a guidance tool? What happens when companies are being held responsible for impacts outside of their control, which they cannot reasonably mitigate? That is not fairness; that is regulatory overreach.

Furthermore, in my consultation with the Queensland Resources Council, they flagged that the bill's establishment of a federal environmental protection agency with assessment, compliance and enforcement roles duplicates existing Queensland arrangements. That duplication will slow approvals, increase costs and reduce productivity in resource dependent electorates like Capricornia. In Queensland we already have a state environmental regulatory regime. To overlay a federal regime with parallel obligations—sometimes inconsistent, sometimes overlapping—is inefficient. It burdens project applications with increased compliance costs and delay. Energy-intensive or resource-intensive projects often depend on timeliness and predictability. When timing is uncertain, investment is re-evaluated, jobs are delayed, or lost, and growth is stunted. It is a bit rich for a Labor government that is big on talking up productivity to be tying down industry with this legislation.

In addition to reduced productivity, Queensland has more projects overlapping with matters of national environmental significance than any other state. Our Great Barrier Reef catchments, our threatened species, our migratory habitat corridors and our flood plains coincide with resource activity. That overlap raises the risk that even projects which meet high environmental standards could be refused or delayed because of new definitions, like that of 'unacceptable impact'. This is a risk to mining, to infrastructure and to the economic future of regions like Capricornia.

Let me also raise a concern around balance and fairness. I draw your attention to Noel Pearson's framing: 'It is not in the public interest to permanently deny regions such as the Bowen, Galilee and Surat basins their chance for economic development, while historically developed or urban areas retain privilege.' When legislation adopts blanket tests or criteria that don't consider regional equity, Indigenous participation or adaptive management, we risk entrenching disadvantage outside of our major metropolitan centres. That is why the Queensland Resources Council has recommended that the 'unacceptable impact' element be retained only as a case-by-case assessment, guided by standards that factor in regional equity and Indigenous participation and allow adaptive management, rather than imposing rigid definitions that may choke off legitimate investment.

Another critical point is that the bill gives the minister and regulatory authorities discretionary power to override or veto approvals. On paper that sounds like speeding things up—giving executive veto power—but in practice it concentrates risk in the office of the minister rather than in transparent independent criteria. That creates uncertainty for business. It invites political discretion rather than statutory predictability. Projects that comply with best environmental, safety, health and workplace standards and have robust rehabilitation plans may be delayed or refused if they do not align with some subjective view of 'priority' or 'unacceptable standard'.

Meanwhile, projects that have less community support but are more politically popular may receive prioritised treatment. I point to a concerning example: in my own electorate and surrounding regions, proposals such as the Clarke Creek Wind Farm have raised community concern. Unchecked renewable energy approval may be ticked off under this bill, while mining or infrastructure projects that follow industry best practice and rehabilitation standards may be delayed or blocked. That is not equitable treatment of economic development and environmental protection. The balance is wrong when greenfield renewable proposals are favoured over tried, regulated and best-practice industries simply because of political design, not merit.

The bill is supposedly intended to speed up approvals, improve environmental outcomes and provide certainty. But, as it is currently drafted, it may very well do the reverse: slow approvals, increase litigation risk, reduce investor confidence and deter capital from regions that most need it. Moreover, our industries are under pressure globally. Mining, energy, critical minerals and building materials must compete on cost, quality and timeliness. If other jurisdictions offer clearer pathways, fewer risks and more certainty, companies will invest elsewhere. That cost is paid by regional communities in terms of fewer jobs, fewer royalties and less growth.

This is not an argument against environmental protection. We want strong environmental outcomes, and resources companies in particular already adopt world's best practice. We want protections for habitat, for water quality and for threatened species. But protection must be fair, transparent and efficient. It must recognise that economic development and environmental stewardship can and must coexist. When legislation shifts the burden onto project proponents in ways that exceed reasonable control, when definitions are vague or subjective, when duplicate regulations slow things down and when approval power is concentrated in ministerial discretion, we undermine that coexistence.

I would like to see more consideration given to the following: clearer statutory definitions of unacceptable impact; adaptable management and case-by-case assessment so regional equity is built in; that, where possible, we avoid duplication of assessment regimes between state and federal, recognising existing approval frameworks rather than superseding them; that discretion be limited; that ministerial vetoes do not substitute for predictable, transparent statutory criteria; and that projects that meet practice, environmental, safety, rehabilitation and community engagement standards are not penalised simply because they are resource based or operate in regional Australia.

If we do not get that balance right we risk chasing an illusion of perfect environmental protection at the cost of real economic impact, real job losses and real regional decline. I urge the government to listen to those on the ground—to Capricornia, to resource communities, to First Nations and to industries—and to redraft this legislation so that it protects the environment and supports sustainable, productive economic development. I'd like to see balance and fairness restored to this legislation. I commend my words to the House.

See this speech in context