Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting these amendments. To provide some of the reasons, I'll provide information that's been provided by the Minister for the Environment and Water on each of the two issues raised in turn. First of all, the proposed national interest approval provision in the bill is directly responsive to a recommendation from the Samuel review. It's a provision that is to be rarely used and has significant guardrails, including a statement of reasons, where there is an overwhelming national interest outcome at stake. The national interest approval will not switch off the new environmental protections in their entirety. The approval must still be consistent with our international obligations, including for World Heritage and Ramsar wetlands. The minister must also make sure that the tests are met as far as is possible without preventing the national interest outcome. This means that projects that fall short of the new tests can only be approved where it is truly crucial to do so. Proponents will not get a free pass just because their action is in the national interest.

In terms of the amendments that relate to the independent Restoration Contributions Holder, the government's environmental reforms will deliver better outcomes for the environment and the industry. The bill's reforms will introduce new options for offsetting. Project proponents can either deliver an offset themselves or pay for the government to do it via a restoration contribution payment, or a combination of both. The new independent Restoration Contributions Holder will be able to use the funds to strategically deliver offsets to have greater environmental offsets, including through pooling funds for similar projects. We do not support these amendments because new rulings powers under the act fulfil the role of enabling the minister to determine that restoration contributions in all or particular circumstances are not appropriate as compensation for a particular protected matter. This mechanism provides for flexibility and responsiveness by the minister as new information becomes available, including any advice of the Restoration Contributions Holder.

The proposed amendments would also remove flexibility and limit the environmental benefits of larger strategic restoration actions—for example, increasing connectivity or creating wildlife corridors. This approach is better for the environment and better for business. We know that the current offsets regime isn't currently working for industry or for the environment. We need to be able to do something differently to improve the system and deliver restoration at scale. The bill strikes a balance in allowing that to happen while learning the lessons from other offsets approaches that haven't worked.

See this speech in context