Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

For our government, the six months since the election have been all about delivery—delivering the policies that the Australian people voted for on 3 May: cutting student debt by 20 per cent; making it easier to buy a home, with five per cent deposits; protecting penalty rates and overtime pay; delivering real help with the cost of living through cheaper medicines; and, of course, starting last Saturday, the biggest boost to bulk-billing since Bob Hawke's government created Medicare.

Right across the board, delivery is what drives our government, and these reforms are all about delivery—building new homes, connecting new energy, creating new jobs, providing the certainty to catalyse new investment, unlocking our critical minerals and rare earths not just to dig up and export but to refine and process and make more things here in Australia, and boosting productivity across our economy all while protecting and restoring our environment for future generations, because Australia doesn't have to choose between a strong economy and a healthy environment. We don't have to choose between creating jobs and cutting emissions. We can do both; indeed, we must do both because each one depends on the other. These reforms are central to meeting the challenges facing our nation here and now, and they're vital for Australia to seize the profound opportunities that are right ahead of us.

The starting point for this legislation is a simple fact that people across this parliament know, understand and have said is the case. And people outside the parliament know, whether that's environmentalists concerned about the state of our natural environment or business trying to get things done and create jobs. They all say that the current laws are broken. They were written by the Howard government for a very different Australia, and they haven't just become obsolete; they've become an obstacle. They're not working for the environment and they're not delivering for business. They are a barrier to jobs and investment across our nation, and in many cases they overlap with or duplicate state and local government processes.

All of this costs money, it creates uncertainty and it wastes time. Back in 2000, the median wait time for project approval was 48 weeks. Today it's 118 weeks. Far too often, those delays mean investors simply walk away, regional and remote communities miss out on good jobs, growing suburbs don't get the new homes they need, and business, industry and households miss out on cleaner, cheaper energy. Projects get passed back and forth between different levels of government or are tangled up in layers of process.

This problem isn't new. It has been five years since the Leader of the Opposition, the then environment minister, received the review that was commissioned by the former government into the EPBC Act. It was commissioned, of course, from Professor Graeme Samuel. Professor Samuel's review laid out a clear plan for changes that would deliver better outcomes for our environment and better outcomes for our economy. On receiving the review the opposition leader said this:

It is time to find a way past an adversarial approach and work together to create … reform that will protect our environment, while keeping our economy strong

That's precisely what this legislation does, and Professor Graeme Samuel has been very clear about his support for this legislation. He said this just last week:

At long last, almost five years to the exact date of delivery of the report, Minister Watt has produced legislation which implements the totality of the report in substance, in a way that I could not possibly have imagined back in 2020 … I cannot possibly imagine why anyone would want to now oppose it.

But, of course, we have circumstances where the now opposition commissioned a report, they received the report and we have legislation that's based upon the report, but now they're opposed to it. We got an insight, perhaps, into why that's the case from the member for Wright just this week when he said, in justifying not even having a housing minister or any housing policy for most of the period they were in office: 'Oh, it wasn't needed. It wasn't needed at that time.' They think that everything that happened prior to 2022 is just forgotten and that there weren't issues there until the change of government by the Australian people in 2022. In fact, Australians know, for example, when it comes to housing approvals that, if you have a major project that is delayed for year after year after year—and there are examples of projects that have been delayed for more than a decade—that increases costs, it reduces supply and someone pays the bill for that delay, because the asset is held but the capital is not spent in improving the value of that asset, and someone has to pay. And who pays? The consumer. Who pays? The entire Australian public, because that is one of the things that boost inflation.

Now, you can't say you're concerned about any of these issues and then vote against this legislation, because this legislation does deliver on the vision of Graeme Samuel. This bill is about driving better, clearer and speedier decision-making, making it easier to get an answer from government sooner—a quicker yes or a quicker no, providing that certainty. That is the key to encouraging investment in our economy.

Every bit as important as encouraging investment in our economy is ensuring there's a better system of protections for Australia's precious and unique natural environment—firstly, by giving the minister the power to make national environmental standards, which simply aren't there at the moment: clear, enforceable expectations around offsets, engagement with traditional owners and matters of national environmental significance. This isn't just about conserving our natural heritage and assets; it's also about repairing any damage that is done. The repair could be done either directly—through delivering an offset, such as planting more trees and providing essential habitat for unique Australian species—or by contributing to a restoration fund, managed by an independent statutory officer in the department.

This idea of an independent restoration fund, to build back not just what was there but to build back better and to make an improvement to our natural environment, makes enormous sense. It's a practical measure going forward. Rather than doing, for example, 10 trees here or 20 trees somewhere else to make a difference and alleviate the impact of a project, by having a national restoration fund managed independently you can pool the contributions and do something really significant that makes a much bigger difference to our environment: a net gain for Australia's environment.

This bill will give clear guidance about protecting threatened species and important habitats, which are not there in the current laws. It will impose tougher penalties for significant breaches of environmental law. In order to build confidence in these decisions and strengthen the enforcement of these laws, at the centre of this legislation is the creation of Australia's first national environmental protection authority, honouring a commitment that the Australian people have voted for not once but twice. The independent national EPA will have stronger powers to impose tougher penalties, but, importantly, the final responsibility will remain with the minister of the day, because in our democracy ultimate responsibility should belong to the elected representatives.

The government has worked tirelessly to consult about these laws across the community. The broad engagement we have undertaken is reflected in the broad support for these reforms, from the Property Council to the Australian Industry Group to the Smart Energy Council. The opposition and the Greens political party in the Senate both acknowledge that the current laws are broken, so their choice is very clear. We had legislation in the former parliament that couldn't receive support in the Senate, so the existing laws just carried on. I want to make this very clear: the government is determined to have this legislation carried this year. If that doesn't occur, the opposition and the Greens political party will both be responsible for the existing laws—that they themselves say are not fit for purpose—continuing on. That is what we are dealing with. That is the choice that people have.

We have said that we're up for dialogue and up for sensible propositions, if there are improvements that can be made. But this is the time. This has gone on for long enough. Five years after the reception of the report from Graeme Samuel, it is time to get things done. So their choice is clear. They can talk about the problem, or they can vote for the solution. That is the choice that will be before the Senate.

The government's position is clear. This week, we'll pass this legislation through the House of Representatives. We'll be voting for jobs, we'll be voting for housing, we'll be voting for new energy. We'll be voting for new projects and new industries across regional and remote Australia, and we'll be voting to pass on a better environment to our children and our grandchildren, for a stronger economy and a healthy environment. That's why it's not surprising that people are being asked to leave the House, to leave the chamber, so that political games can be played rather than actually engaging in debate. I say this to the opposition and to the Greens political party. This is good for jobs and good for industry, but it is also good for the environment. You have an opportunity to be part of the solution instead of continuing to be a part of the problem. The Australian people had something to say about the 'noalition' and their tactics of blocking—

See this speech in context