Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (10) and (12) to (15) together, as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 228, page 96 (after line 26), after subsection 134(3AC), insert:

(3AD) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (2)(b), the Minister must not attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of a restoration contribution charge in relation to a residual significant impact of the action on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect if the Restoration Contribution Holder has advised that it is not likely that restoration actions directed towards protecting, conserving or restoring the affected matter in the bioregion where the affected matter is located can be delivered and will result in a net gain.

(3AE) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (2)(b), the Minister must not attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of a restoration contribution charge in relation to a residual significant impact of the action on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect if the matter is on the excluded matters list.

(2) Schedule 1, item 230, page 97 (after line 27), after subsection 134(3G), insert:

Conditions requiring payment of restoration contribution charge

(3H) In deciding whether to attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of restoration contribution charge, the Minister must:

(a) consider whether it is feasible to instead attach a condition requiring the holder of the approval holder to instead deliver restoration action to compensate for the damage cause by the action; and

(b) if the Minister considers that that is feasible, attach a such a condition.

(3J) In deciding whether to attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of a restoration contribution charge in relation to a residual significant impact of the action on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect, the Minister must seek advice from the Restoration Contribution Holder on whether it is likely that restoration actions directed towards protecting, conserving or restoring the affected matter in the bioregion where the affected matter is located can be delivered, and will result in a net gain.

(3) Schedule 1, page 97 (after line 27), after item 230, insert:

230A After section 134

Insert:

134AA Excluded matters list

(1) The Restoration Contributions Holder must:

(a) develop a list of matters protected by a provision of Part 3 for which no general restoration actions are likely to be available due to the scarcity of the affected matter; and

(b) make the list available for public inspection on the Department's website.

(2) The list is to be known as the excluded matters list.

(4) Schedule 1, item 291, page 137 (after line 19), after section 157A, insert:

157AA Production or extraction of fossil fuels

Despite section 157A, the Minister must not determine that the taking of an action is a national interest proposal if the action involves the production or extraction of:

(a) petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006); or

(b) coal.

(5) Schedule 1, item 291, page 139 (lines 23 to 35), omit subsection 157D(2).

(6) Schedule 1, item 291, page 141 (lines 10 to 22), omit subsection 157F(2).

(7) Schedule 1, item 292, page 143 (after line 7), after section 157H, insert:

157HA Production or extraction of fossil fuels

Despite section 157H, the Minister must not grant an exemption for an action from a provision of Part 3 or this Chapter if the action involves the production or extraction of:

(a) petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006); or

(b) coal.

(8) Schedule 1, item 292, page 145 (line 33) to page 146 (line 11), omit subsection 157N(2).

(9) Schedule 1, item 292, page 148 (lines 20 to 32), omit subsection 157R(2).

(10) Schedule 1, item 323, page 212 (after line 32), after paragraph 177CP(1)(f), insert:

(fa) to provide advice for the purposes of subsection 134(3J); and

(fb) to maintain the excluded matters list; and

(12) Schedule 1, item 432, page 234 (after line 29), after section 302A, insert:

302AA Production or extraction of fossil fuels

Despite section 302A, the Minister must not grant an exemption for an action from a provision (including a regulation made under a provision) of this Part if the action involves the production or extraction of:

(a) petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006); or

(b) coal.

(13) Schedule 1, item 432, page 258 (line 30) to page 259 (line 8), omit subsection 302F(2).

(14) Schedule 1, item 432, page 261 (lines 19 to 31), omit subsection 302J(2).

(15) Schedule 1, item 612, page 364 (after line 11), after the definition of environment protection order in section 528, insert:

excluded matters list: see subsection 134AA(2).

I commend the government for taking on the difficult task of reforming our national environmental laws. It has been more than two decades since the EPBC Act was passed, and it's well overdue for an update. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore trust, protect nature and deliver faster, fairer decisions for business. But that promise will fall flat if the reforms create new loopholes that make these reforms irrelevant, because even the strongest framework means little if you can simply step around it.

Under the current EPBC Act, the minister has what's known as a national interest exemption—a break-glass power, designed for genuine emergencies like natural disasters. It's a tool used rarely—only 31 times since 2000—and mostly in good faith. It's not perfect, but it's understood: it exists for extreme situations, not convenience.

The new reforms go much further. They introduce a new pathway—a national interest proposal or approval that allows the minister to bypass almost all environmental safeguards whenever they decide a project is in the national interest. Unlike the original exemption, this one isn't limited to emergencies. It could be used for anything from housing to energy projects, with no clear limits on what the minister can take into account. That means a minister could approve a project even if it causes unacceptable impacts, even if it pushes a species to the brink of extinction. Every environmental safeguard in this bill—the mitigation hierarchy, the net gain standard and the unacceptable impact test—could be waived by the stroke of a pen. This isn't a safeguard. It's a shortcut, and it undermines the integrity of the entire system. It's bad for the environment, and it's not great for business either. Investors can't make long-term decisions on the hope that they will be deemed to be in the national interest. They need certainty, not ministerial discretion. Let's be clear. You can't streamline approvals by cutting out the environment. This national interest pathway is an admission of failure, a way of saying, 'We can't balance environmental protection with economic development, so we'll just make it optional.'

The amendments that I'm putting up today would put some safeguards around this power. First, if the government insists on keeping the new pathway, fossil fuel projects must never qualify. It would be absurd to claim that new coal or gas projects are in the national interest when science tells us they are fundamentally against it. Second, there must be full transparency whenever this power is used. The current bill would let the minister redact the statement of reasons, hiding the rationale for bypassing environmental law. If a project truly is in the national interest, the government should have the courage to explain why. Ideally, this new pathway should be removed completely, but the legislation is complex, and in the time given I haven't been able to draft a complete removal of this new pathway.

Another major weakness in this package is the offsets fund. On paper, it's a neat idea—the Restoration Contributions Holder. When a project can't fully avoid environmental damage, the developer pays into a central fund that delivers restoration projects on their behalf. In theory, it creates efficiency. In practice, it's risky. We've seen this model before in New South Wales, in Queensland and in the Pilbara, and it consistently underdelivers. Developers destroy habitat, pay into the fund and walk away. The fund then struggles to find suitable offsets, and nature ends up footing the bill. That's the pay-to-destroy problem—a cheque is written, the project proceeds, and the promise of restoration fades into paperwork.

Without strong guardrails, this fund risks becoming the single point of failure for the entire reform package, so I'm introducing a series of amendments to increase the likelihood it actually works for business, for government and, most importantly, for nature. First, limit the use of the fund. It should be the last resort, not the default, and my amendments ensure that there is another layer to the mitigation hierarchy. Proponents must seek to offset directly where they must follow principles such as like-for-like and net gain before using the fund, which does not have to follow the same principles. Second, ensure suitable offsets actually exist before money is accepted. The fund should have to advise the minister whether it can realistically deliver an offset. There should also be an excluded matters list, because you can't destroy the last of something and call it an offset. Thirdly, we need to price offsets accurately, and that's dealt with in another bill. Fourthly, there must be transparency around success and failure of projects, which we've already discussed. There also needs to be scientific oversight so that the advisory committee includes scientists who understand biodiversity, not just balance sheets.

This reform package could really deliver what Australians have demanded, but that promise depends on integrity—integrity in how powers are used, how offsets are priced and how results are reported. The national interest shouldn't be a loophole, and offsets shouldn't be a licence to destroy. We must build a system that restores rather than excuses, that protects nature and that delivers real outcomes to the Australian people. I commend the amendments to the House.

See this speech in context