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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1 and amendment (1) on sheet 2 as circulated in my name together:

SHEET 1

(1) Schedule 1, page 94 (after line 6), after item 218, insert:

218A After section 131AB

Insert:

131AC Minister must obtain advice from Climate Change Authority in relation to designated large facilities or potential designated large facilities

(1) This section applies if an action is likely to result in:

(a) an increase, in the financial year in which the action is proposed to be taken or future financial years, of scope 1 emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of a designated large facility for the financial year in which the action is taken; or

(b) a new designated large facility for the financial year in which the action is proposed to be taken or a future financial year.

(2) Before the Minister decides whether or not to approve, for the purposes of a controlling provision, the taking of the action, and what conditions (if any) to attach to an approval, the Minister must obtain advice from the Climate Change Authority in relation to:

(a) the accuracy of emissions estimates provided by the person proposing to take the action, including the consistency of the methods for making those estimates with methods prescribed by the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007; and

(b) the impact that the action would have on safeguard emissions for the financial year in which the action is proposed to be taken and future financial years; and

(c) the impact that the action would have on the safeguard outcomes; and

(d) whether the action would place a safeguard outcome at risk; and

(e) what conditions (if any) it would be appropriate to attach to an approval if the Minister were to approve the action; and

(f) how the person proposing to take the action plans to mitigate emissions caused by the action, including:

(i) committed, time-bound measures to mitigate gross emissions; and

(ii) reliance on expected or potential future measures and technologies; and

(iii) feasibility of proposed strategies.

(3) In this section, the following expressions have the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007:

(a) designated large facility;

(b) safeguard emissions;

(c) safeguard outcome;

(d) scope 1 emission.

(2) Schedule 1, page 98 (after line 20), after item 235, insert:

235A After paragraph 136(2)(fa)

Insert:

(fb) any relevant advice obtained by the Minister from the Climate Change Authority in accordance with section 136AC; and

(3) Schedule 1, page 156 (after line 3), after item 317, insert:

317A At the end of Division 7 of Part 11

Add:

170CB Publication of reasons

Despite any other provision of this Act, if the Minister makes a decision under this Part the Minister must publish the reasons for the decision on the Department's website.

_____

SHEET 2

(1) Clause 2, page 3 (after line 8), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) A notifiable instrument made under subsection (2) must be consistent with the principle that the amendments made by this Act in relation to assessment pathways should take effect gradually over the 3 year period beginning on the day fixed by Proclamation for the purposes of item 2 of the table.

As I outlined in my second reading speech, reform of our Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act is long overdue—for our environment, for our economy and for our country. However, serious loopholes remain. The bill leaves too much ministerial discretion over what constitutes the 'national interest', retains exemptions for native forest logging and land clearing, and risks entrenching a pay-to-destroy model through the new restoration fund and overuse of biodiversity offsets. These weaknesses threaten to undermine the very purpose of the reform and the protection of Australia's biodiversity.

I'm rising to speak on amendments that will strengthen this bill, both for nature and for business. Climate change remains the single greatest threat to Australia's biodiversity and ecosystems—from rising ocean temperatures to floods, fires and droughts. While proponents must disclose their emissions and mitigation plans, these are neither required to be considered by the minister or the EPA nor required to be independently verified. The government argues that this is unnecessary because emissions are managed under the safeguard mechanism. But they are not managed effectively. The environment minister is only required to notify the climate change minister and authority after a project is approved. The safeguard is not effective enough to carry that burden. Without an upfront assessment, new projects can add pressure to the mechanism, forcing others to cut more deeply or rely on offsets that may never materialise.

I want to see a clear link between the safeguard mechanism and the EPBC process. My amendment will require the Climate Change Authority to assess any action that would allow a new facility to the safeguard mechanism or increase emissions from the existing one; independently verify proponents' emissions estimates; consider the likely impact on the safeguard's overall emissions trajectory and objectives; advise whether the action risks undermining those objectives and recommend appropriate conditions, such as declining annual emission caps; and provide that advice to both the climate change and environment ministers.

While this advice would not be binding, it would ensure that emissions data and abatement plans are used meaningfully in assessments, not left to another minister after approval. Approving major emitters first and hoping another minister cleans it up later is poor governance. The amendment would enable upfront consideration of climate impacts and prevent avoidable harm. It would also provide the government with useful data to inform future safeguard policy and to set conditions needed to mitigate a project's impact on the mechanism.

My second amendment concerns transparency. It would require the minister to publish a statement of reasons for all decisions, particularly approvals or rejections under the EPBC Act. At present, both the minister and NEPA must publish notice of a decision but not the reasoning behind it. While the current minister generally does so voluntarily, this requirement should be embedded in law for all future ministers. Publishing reasons is vital for accountability, public trust and better decision-making. It also helps business proponents better understand precedents and improve future proposals.

I have also moved a matching amendment to the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill to ensure NEPA operates with the same level of transparency.

I had a constructive conversation with the minister's office in relation to these amendments, but particularly this one. It is my hope that, while the minister, at this stage, has indicated that they will not be supporting this amendment, it will still be considered as part of any future amendments that go through in the Senate.

Finally, I wanted to move an amendment in relation to some of the business groups I've consulted—and that is to sunset the removal of three project assessment and approval pathways over a three-year period. Part of the importance of this bill is to make sure that projects can move swiftly through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act's approval process if they are warranted to. I think the government has, appropriately, introduced a new streamlined process that should, hopefully, speed that up. I very much support that.

However, I am aware that, when government sets up new things, it takes some time to bed them down. Things don't always go faster in a new process; they sometimes can go slower. What I'm urging the government to do in this case is provide a sensible transition period so that, perhaps, those businesses that are familiar with the current available pathways are able to use them until the new pathways are established, precedence is set and people are able to understand what is actually going on. I think this could not only achieve what the government wants to do—which is move to a streamlined mode overall—but also make sure that we do get faster approvals, when things deserve to be approved, straight off the bat and there isn't some unnecessary delay, which everybody, I think, is genuinely seeking to avoid. I do believe it balances the need for reform with the need for certainty and fairness during implementation. Again, I've spoken to the minister's office about this, but I recognise that this was circulated relatively recently, so I would urge the minister and others to consider that in the Senate.

See this speech in context