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

I thank the member for Indi, both for the content of the issues she's raised and the manner of the casting forward of the continued conversations. I'll deal with the three issues in reverse order. We're not supporting the amendments, and I'll just go through the reasons.

First of all, with respect to minor or preparatory works, the change that we have in our legislation is a small but important change to address uncertainty about when certain parts of an action can commence. It enables proponents to undertake certain minor or preparatory parts of an action that are not likely to have a significant impact on protected matters, with the minister's agreement, while the larger action is being assessed. It allows for the making of regulations on the matters that the minister is to be satisfied of. Therefore, the constraints that are there in the legislation as presented do not guarantee an approval. That risk is borne by the proponent, and it's a practical measure to improve productivity.

With respect to high-value agricultural land and drinking water catchments, I respect the issues that have been raised and acknowledge that, for the member for Indi as well, these are issues that would be regularly raised in her electorate. The EPBC Act specifically regulates significant impacts on the nine matters of national environmental significance. This amendment would overlap with matters that are appropriately for states and other legislation to regulate and matters that are regulated by the EPBC Act. It would introduce uncertainty and additional complexity into the system.

Insofar as the issues around public consultation are concerned—and I acknowledge that the member for Indi has also raised this issue personally with me and in question time as well as in the meetings she's had with the minister—the public consultation requirements are aligned with other consultation requirements under the act. It's important that communities have their say on projects, and it's sensible to have a consistent time frame across the act. In the context of making bioregional plans, the consultation time frame in the bill relates only to the statutory consultation step. Bioregional plans will also have significant prior community consultation through processes facilitated by state and territory governments as we work with them to develop their regional plans.

I know how important listening to the community is, and the minister has asked me to specifically repeat that he's very keen to keep engaging with the member for Indi on the development of a standard for community consultation. But those standards cannot exist unless the legislation itself finds its way through.

See this speech in context