Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 191, page 82 (line 20) to page 83 (line 8), omit paragraphs 84A(2)(a) and (b), substitute:

(a) a reasonable estimate of the likely amount of scope 1 greenhouse gas emissions of the action; and

(b) a reasonable estimate of the likely amount of scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions of the action; and

(2) Schedule 1, item 191, page 83 (line 15), at the end of subsection 84A(2), add:

and; (e) the climate-related disclosures reported in accordance with Australian Standard AASB 52 Climate-Related Disclosures.

(3) Schedule 1, page 93 (after line 28), after item 215, insert:

215A At the end of section 130

Add:

Duty of care

(6) In exercising a power under this section, the Minister has a duty to act with reasonable care not to cause harm to future generations.

(4) Schedule 1, item 223, page 95 (after line 15), after subsection 133(7B), insert:

Duty of care

(7C) In exercising a power under this section, the Minister has a duty to act with reasonable care not to cause harm to future generations.

(5) Schedule 1, page 95 (after line 27), after item 224, insert:

224A After section 133

Insert:

133A Action must not hold an unacceptable climate-related financial and transition risk

(1) Despite any other provision of this Part, the CEO must not approve an action, if CEO is satisfied that:

(a) disclosures under section 84A(2)(e) would demonstrate an unacceptable climate-related financial and transition risk; and

(b) as a result, the action could materially impact matters of national environmental significance.

(2) The CEO must consider the greenhouse gas emissions information for the action for the purposes of subsection (1).

(6) Schedule 1, item 551, page 307 (after line 7), after section 474D, insert:

474DA Appeal against environment protection order

(1) A person against whom an environment protection order is made may appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction against the making of the order.

(2) The lodging of an appeal does not, except to the extent that the court otherwise directs in relation to the appeal, operate to stay action on the order appealed against.

(3) After hearing an appeal, the court may:

(a) confirm the order, or

(b) modify or rescind the order.

(4) In making a decision on an appeal, the court is to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development and the public interest.

(7) Schedule 1, item 588, page 343 (line 4), after "Part 3.", insert "In determining whether an impact is an unacceptable impact, the cumulative effect of multiple actions that are regulated under this Act must be taken into account.".

The amendments seek to integrate the existing climate-related financial disclosure into project assessment and approval processes. I should note these are disclosures that have been legislated by the government. So this is something they have supported and advocated for in other contexts.

Fundamentally, we cannot have an environmental legislation that is separated from climate impacts of proponents. Inherently the two are interconnected. The Albanese government's insistence on claiming that climate impacts are not relevant to protecting the environment and biodiversity in our environment—that they are with dealt elsewhere through other legislation—is simply wrong and highlights that it is not serious about protecting the environment and arresting biodiversity loss.

Nature does not experience climate and environment separately, neither should our laws. Every decision on our land, water and biodiversity is also a decision about the impact on our climate, which is then also an impact on our environment. Financial regulators APRA, RBA and the Climate Change Authority have all warned of climate risks to the economy, such as stranded assets and rising insurance costs, yet environmental assessments under this bill proposed by the Albanese government ignore these realities.

My amendments would require proponents to include climate-related financial disclosures in their applications, something that businesses are already familiar with; and require decision-makers to ensure projects do not pose unacceptable climate-related transition or financial risks—that is, become stranded assets. This is a financial viability consideration, not a climate consideration.

Amendments (3) and (4) would embed duty of care into our environmental protection legislation. It would introduce a legislative duty of care to protect children and future generations from the impacts of climate change. This follows the case of Sharma v Minister for the Environment, where the court initially found the minister owed such a duty, though it was overturned on appeal due to the legislation. This amendment fixes the problem.

The proposal responds to public support for the reform, including the duty of care bill which attracted over 400 supportive submissions. The amendment clarifies that, under the EPBC Act, the minister must act with reasonable care not to cause harm for future generations when approving projects. Enshrines the principles that today's decisions must not endanger tomorrow's citizens.

Amendment (7) would ensure that cumulative environmental impacts are properly assessed under the EPBC Act. It seeks to prevent the project fragmentation that we see too often, where large developments are split to avoid scrutiny and proper assessment of their true impact. The amendment would ensure an evaluation where the combined projects collectively cause unacceptable harm—that is, habitat loss, water degradation. The change reflects recommendations from the Samuel review, which found the EPBC Act's project by project approach insufficient.

By including the requirement in primary legislation, it ensures it cannot be delayed or weakened later. The amendment aims to halt the incremental degradation of ecosystems and enable informed, transparent and responsible decision-making.

Amendment (6) would introduce and establish a clear right of appeal for any person subject to an environmental protection order. This is important for business. The amendment adequately balances efficiency with accountability and procedural fairness so that businesses and proponents can gain certainty and a fair process if they need to challenge a stop work order.

In summary, these amendments aim to embed climate accountability into financial environmental approvals, to establish a duty of care towards future generations, to strengthen environmental governance by considering cumulative impacts and to provide a fair appeals process for environmental protection orders. Collectively, they promote a sustainable, transparent and responsible framework for decisions-making that aligns economic development with Australian environmental and climate goals.

It's disappointing to see how little participation in this process members of government have engaged with. To all MPs, especially members of LEAN who go to their communities with claims of being here for climate and protecting the environment: I urge you to consider the amendments that are being debated today. They are all seeking to improve legislation that is inadequate and will fail in its stated purpose to protect the environment. It is essential that, in this place, we have an informed debate and we test this legislation. It is disappointing that the government is choosing to ignore so many people trying to improve this legislation, but I hope that in the other place improvements will be made.

See this speech in context