Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on the matter of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025. The bill adjusts the EPBC Act, specifically in relation to our Commonwealth national parks, including the iconic and deeply loved Kakadu National Park, the alluring Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and the beautiful Booderee National Park. The board management plans for two of these three national parks are due to expire—one later this year, in November, and one early next year, in February—with no new management plans yet approved or implemented prior to the expiries. What that means is that the respective boards will be unable to make any decisions from that period. I'd like to remind the House that these board management plans have, in fact, a 10-year life span. So it does beg the question: why has it taken this government so long?

They've been in office, of course, for three years, as Australians are fully aware, and they have overseen the failure of not one but two new board management plans, so the government knew that this was coming. They had three years notice to deliver these new plans. Again, the question is: what have they been doing? To what extent is this legislation just a bandaid solution? It's a bandaid on the incompetence of the Albanese Labor government, some would say, but I would say that you'd need a very large bandaid—I'd go so far as to say that you'd probably need a bandage—to cover up the gaping wounds of Labor's failure to deliver.

This isn't the first example of the government's failure to deliver when it comes to the environment. We need look no further than the harmful algal bloom in South Australia, which I've been talking about in this place for some months now. These coastal communities have been completely and utterly let down by this government. It failed to act early and it failed to contain the bloom. Now the bloom is double the size of the Australian Capital Territory, and it can be seen on satellite images from space.

Walking on Australian beaches year round is a luxury many of us enjoy; I think 85 per cent of Australians live on the coastline in our great country. But, for South Australians, this luxury has not existed for months and months. The beaches are closed, and warnings are in place to stay clear, with big signs that I've seen for myself on the two visits that I've made to South Australia. The community has been devastated. I met with fishers and members of the community during the two trips. On the first one, I went down to Flinders University and spoke with the scientists there. I also went to the Yorke Peninsula and spoke with the fishers. I also met with heads of industry from Port Lincoln during the first trip, who told me all of their concerns—the fishers who haven't been able to make any income over the period but also the fact that they are devastated. They are devastated for their ecosystems and how long it's going to take them to come back.

On the second trip, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Grey—for a second time—and Senators Ruston and McLachlan, senators for South Australia, accompanied me to see the bloom again and to engage for a long period of time. We walked on the jetty at Ardrossan; I myself walked the jetty twice with the member for Grey. The Leader of the Opposition walked the jetty at Ardrossan, but what we didn't see was this Labor government turn up and walk the jetty in Ardrossan. Instead, there was a dash down to South Australia to have a press conference to announce a modest amount of funding. Now there are fresh health concerns for asthmatics. There are members of the community walking their dogs on the beach who have to wear a mask and whose eyes are getting puffy because of the algal bloom. When it's windy, the bloom comes off the ocean and affects their health.

My point is that this has become an environmental event that deserves national attention, and it deserves stronger leadership. The Albanese government were very flat footed on this issue. They were late to the party. They were the last to the party. The Prime Minister had a very quick dash down to Kangaroo Island—he didn't tell the press he was going—and announced a very small amount of extra funding, $5 million, to assist. It's not good enough. The scientists that I talked about wrote to the government almost two years ago. What was the government's response to their requests for support to monitor the algal bloom so that they could understand when the bloom was going to pop up, how big it could become and where it would move to and so that they could have and understand baseline data in order to compare it with new data that they could have collected to see what the bloom would do? The government's response to the requests from those scientists almost two years ago was complete and utter rejection. They denied those scientists funding under two ministers—first under Minister Plibersek and now under Minister Watt.

I want to say to Australians that this government speaks big on its environmental credentials and loves to harp on about the science. This time they ignored the science. They were late, because they ignored the science again in March when the dead marine animals were washing up on the beaches. They ignored the scientists again when scientists and businesses asked for assistance. They were denied twice. Only after the repeated calls and the pressure applied by those on this side of the House—I've already listed them. The member for Grey was instrumental in that. The new member for Grey is doing a fantastic job speaking up for his community, who were being ignored by this government in South Australia. He spoke and advocated for his community, and what did he get? He got the shadow minister for the environment there, he got senators involved, and he got a visit from the Leader of the Opposition. Two weeks before—or, let's say, a week before—the Prime Minister arrived in South Australia.

The funding that was outlined was absolutely welcome, but, as the fishers told us during our two roundtables with them, it's too hard to apply for, it's too little, and it's too late. Those scientists and businesses—and the Red Cross, I might add—are still asking for assistance and still asking for funding from this government. If it were happening on the Great Barrier Reef, if it were happening in Bondi, Freo or Geelong, there would be an outcry, an uproar. If there were a bushfire, or if there were a cyclone or a flood, there's no doubt that the government would have been tripping over themselves to get there and to support those communities.

In June, the Marine death toll was at 14,000. It's heartbreaking to now report that that number is at 34,000. It has more than doubled in three months. This number will continue to climb, and there's no end in sight. They now think that the algal bloom may go into spring and then on into summer, which is devastating for the local communities. I'm very concerned about how many more thousands—if not tens of thousands—of animals will die and more marine creatures will wash up dead by Christmas. The impact on our precious Great Southern River ecosystem is indeed devastating. The ongoing pressure on South Australians and their businesses, industry, tourism, beaches, communities, local caravan parks, fish-and-chip shops—you name it. They are all under pressure, and it is heartbreaking.

The Albanese government has let this algal bloom blow out of control. There's no way to sugarcoat that. International scientists have now weighed in, and they declare it's one of the worst algal blooms they've ever seen. So buyer beware, because South Australians were ignored when they were asking this government for help. They were failed by this government.

This Albanese Labor government continues to fail. They promised to reduce your power bills; they failed. They promised to build more homes; they failed. Whilst blaming broken and outdated EPBC laws, they failed to address the last term as the reason why they're behind on their housing targets. They promised you'd only need your Medicare card to see a doctor. Australians know there's a co-payment. They know they will be out of pocket; they need two cards. You're still paying, and you're still waiting. It's no wonder that Labor have had to bring forward the EPBC board management bill, because they are now forecasting their own failure on managing the environment and the management of our Commonwealth reserves.

Labor also has a track record of failure when it comes to environment legislation. It's true. When the coalition was in government, we began the reform of the EPBC Act, under the Leader of the Opposition, who was then the minister. It was the coalition that commissioned the Graeme Samuel review, under the Leader of the Opposition, who was then the environment minister. It was the coalition that introduced legislation to reform the EPBC Act, under the Leader of the Opposition, then the environment minister. There was also legislation commissioned by the Leader of the Opposition that Labor blocked in the Senate.

For the last three years, Labor has failed to deliver any environmental reform. During the last term, then environment minister, the member for Sydney, proved completely unable to deliver Labor's promise to overhaul the EPBC Act. She promised multiple times that this overhaul would be finalised by the end of 2023, but we saw deferral after deferral. Her agenda and her proposals were labelled as friendless. The stakeholders didn't agree. Nobody would agree, to the point where the Prime Minister had to step in and stop all reforms prior to the election for fear of losing out when Western Australians hit the ballot box—because, of course, the election was imminent.

What we are left with is a long approval process full of red and green tape, resulting in Australia becoming a much less attractive nation for investment, and now we are dropping in the ranks for countries to invest in under this government's watch. We are losing out on jobs, industries and economic activity, and former treasury secretary Ken Henry recently said Australia's environment protection laws 'have both failed to stop the degradation of Australia's natural environment and held back economic growth, and they are undermining productivity'.

Businesses putting in applications for environmental approvals under the EPBC Act are happy to do so. They are all very proud and accepting of doing their bit for the environment. They want to contribute, but what they need is certainty. They need to know what the rules are. However, the challenges and roadblocks they face are with the time, the cost and the duplication, along with uncertainty associated with the approvals process. It's important to have an effective process that conserves our environment—which is degrading; we need to conserve our environment—and one that looks after the economy with a sensible balance front of mind.

Under Labor, the average time to have an application processed is—wait for it, drum roll!—more than three years! The North West Shelf final application is still pending. Labor are completely divided on whether they support the jobs and wealth created for our nation by the resources sector. They put off a decision on the North West Shelf until after the election. Now, the new minister has provided a preliminary approval for the project. Whilst we welcome the extension, negotiations on the applications of environmental conditions have taken way too long.

Three years seems to be the common theme, because it also took them three years to approve the 100 wind turbine projects on Robbins Island in Tasmania, placing a whopping 88 environmental conditions on that project, including potentially stopping the wind farm from operating for certain periods of the year. It shouldn't take three years to get a decision. The list of delays and missed opportunities keeps growing under this government. Let's face it; this is the statement. Environmental reform is too important to get wrong for our future generations. Getting it right is critical for the environment, and it's important for businesses and for jobs.

The coalition stands ready to work with Minister Watt and the Albanese government to achieve the sensible reform that Australians want to see and that stakeholders want to see. My door is open, and I welcome the opportunity for engagement on delivering the right reform. I have extended the same offer to the Premier of Western Australia. My door is open to not only parliamentarians on this matter but also stakeholders—the dozens and dozens of stakeholders that I have been engaging with. I've been meeting with them across industry but also across states and territories. They are passionate; they want to be active in this reform agenda. Industry and environmentalists understand the desperate need, the urgent need, for reform that is well overdue, and they understand that we need to strike the right balance for the environment and for business.

There is a clear pathway ahead between the government and the coalition. Stakeholders are united on reform taking place to reduce the timeframes for application outcomes, to reduce costs and to deliver certainty. We need a bipartisan approach to this legislation. Having the major parties of government come to the table on EPBC reform would produce the best outcome for our nation. The overwhelming majority of stakeholders are calling for us to work on this together to ensure that approval powers remain with the federal minister and that duplication with the states or other federal legislation be mitigated or removed altogether.

On the other hand, there are two outcomes on EPBC reform that would be devastating for our nation. The first would be if Labor were to do a deal with the Greens. This would thwart economic activity and have significant consequences for investment in our country. It would cost Australians their jobs and it would reduce productivity. The Western Australian premier knows it, which is why he made a dash to Canberra last week to speak with the minister. The second devastating outcome would be more EPBC paralysis. We need to get approval processes moving more efficiently. We don't want it to continue the way it has been under the Albanese Labor government in the last three years. We need to get productivity moving, and we must attract investment; create jobs; and conserve, preserve and look after our environment for future generations.

I stand ready to work with the Albanese government on EPBC reform; I cannot be clearer. My door is open. It is very important to fix these loopholes in the EPBC board management bill, but it's even more important for the government to do its job and deliver on its environmental responsibilities.

Trish Cook (Bullwinkel, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's terrific news that the opposition are pro environment after all. I'm new to the parliament, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it was the Liberals that voted against the nature-positive laws in the Senate last year, saying that they went too far, and the Greens voted against them because they didn't go far enough. But it's great to hear that the shadow minister for the environment is very concerned about the environment at long last, and I hope that those changes will come in the near future.

Today I rise to speak to the amendment of the existing Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The act is from 1999, of course. It is old and outdated. But this amendment bill is just to tweak an area which is of considerable importance.

As the member for Bullwinkel my passion for the environment isn't just a political position; it is a deep seated personal commitment. It comes from time spent on frequent bushwalks, appreciating the ancient jarrah forests and the delicate ecosystems in our beautiful Perth Hills. That intimate connection to the land is what fuels my advocacy for our community. It's what drove me, during my time as a local volunteer, to establish the Darlington Community Garden from which my constituents still benefit today. It also drove me to champion the Darlington Wetland Rehabilitation Action Plan, as well as the friends of the native triangle group, trying to protect and restore our local bushland. Labor is the party that will deliver environmental protection, and this bill is just the beginning.

As the member for Bullwinkel, I hold deep respect for our natural environment and the rich cultural heritage that defines our lands and waterways, and I've only lived in this region for 17 years. My electorate encompasses the lands of the Whadjuk and Ballardong peoples of the Noongar nation. It's a place where the connection between land, culture and community is tangible, and that connection has existed for over 65,000 years. It's a relationship that we, in this place, have a responsibility to honour and strengthen. I saw this connection between lands and Indigenous cultures firsthand when I worked as a remote area nurse in the remote Kimberley.

The bill before the House today, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025, is an amendment to the existing act. It's a time-critical measure that will allow continued significant and positive management of our most precious Commonwealth environmental reserves. The bill directly aligns with the Albanese government's commitment to provide traditional owners with greater control and genuine authority over the management of their country. It is a small but crucial step that supports the improved relationship between the Australian government, the Director of National Parks and the traditional owners of our jointly managed Commonwealth reserves, which is a priority for this government.

To understand the necessity of the bill, we must first understand the unique governance model of our jointly managed Commonwealth reserves. These places are of immense national and international significance—Kakadu National Park, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Booderee National Park. In these reserves, the land is owned by the traditional owners who then lease it to the Commonwealth to be managed as a national park. At the heart of this is a joint management model and a board of management. This isn't just a committee. It's a genuine partnership where traditional owners have a decisive voice. These boards are appointed by the minister and, crucially, are comprised of Indigenous people, as a majority, who are nominated by the traditional owners themselves. Through these boards, their knowledge, wisdom and deep connection with the country informs every decision about its management.

Under the current legislation, the boards of management are empowered to make decisions in line with a formal management plan. The problem is that these management plans have a finite life span. When a plan expires, so too does the legal authority of the board of management to make decisions. The decision-making functions cease, and a governance vacuum is created.

This bill addresses that very specific and very significant problem. It is simple yet powerful, an easy fix. It amends the EPBC Act to allow the boards of management for these jointly managed Commonwealth reserves to continue to make decisions regarding the management of the reserve after a management plan has expired. The only condition is that those decisions must remain consistent with the most recently expired management plan. It's an administrative fix. This is a measure of common sense and respect. It ensures there is no gap in decision-making authority between the expiration of one management plan and the commencement of the new one. Without this bill a board could be rendered powerless at a critical moment, unable to make a decision on an urgent matter such as fire management, a biosecurity threat or a necessary change to visitor access. Such a delay could have serious implications for the health and public safety of people visiting the area.

This bill will support the effective participation of Indigenous people in matters relating to the management of their own country. It will ensure the continuity of decision-making, allowing for seamless governance. It doesn't change the role of the Director of National Parks or any existing arrangements; it simply removes an unnecessary bureaucratic roadblock that hinders the very partnership it seeks to foster.

In essence, this bill is an acknowledgement. It is an acknowledgement of the enduring leadership of traditional owners and their rightful place at the centre of conservation. It is an acknowledgement that the knowledge and wisdom that they've passed down for generations is not just history; it is a living, breathing guide for the sustainable management of our lands. In my own electorate and across Western Australia, I have seen the powerful outcomes that are possible when we empower traditional owners and work together in genuine joint partnerships, and this bill is a reflection of that principle. It's about trusting Indigenous leaders and ensuring that they have the tools to continue to care for country, even when a document has reached its expiry date. This is a straightforward bill with enormous purpose. It is about closing a loophole, strengthening a partnership and empowering the people who have been the rightful custodians of this land for millennia. I commend the bill to the House.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On one level, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025 is straightforward. On another level, it tells a far more compelling story of the enduring connection to country, of land and purpose, of Indigenous Australians and of our modern management. Every nation has a story. Some are born in revolution; others are born in conquest. Some, like ours, are born in the quiet but profound weaving of traditions old and new into a single tapestry of purpose.

In Australia we are blessed not with one creation story but with many. The oldest continuous culture in the world, our First Nations people, give us the Dreaming—a spiritual and moral framework that grounds land, law and life in sacred connection. It speaks of custodianship, of songlines etched into the earth and the soul and of belonging, not as ownership but as obligation. As a nation also built on other traditions, including the Enlightenment and the values of Judaeo-Christian tradition, we carry the stories of Genesis and the covenant of God, who calls humanity not to dominion but to stewardship and who asks not for sacrifice but for righteousness and justice.

You could look at the Dreaming and the Book of Genesis and see that they're worlds apart. But, if you look closely, you can see that they speak to eternal truths. Land is not just geography; it is sacred. Time is not just linear; it is also moral. People are not just individuals; they are community. What we see in this legislation is the embodiment of the moral and legal framework of those enduring traditions lived out in what we seek to govern for this country. Yes, it is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025, but what we're actually talking about is how we care for our land. How do we make sure that those who have custodianship of it in an enduring way continue to care, to have ownership and responsibility and to use it for the betterment of future generations?

Every day, we start in this parliament with a number of things, one of which is the acknowledgement of the traditional owners, and there is also, of course, a prayer. We do so because we understand that continuing connection and enduring purpose of country, in different ways to different people, but we understand our stewardship, our custodianship and our responsibility. It's so important that we get the framework of law around that custodianship right. But, in addition to that, it's so important that we also get our sense of responsibility as individuals and as community right.

I'm bit of a radical on some of these things. I believe very strongly in property rights, not just in contemporary or modern concepts of fee simple but even in some issues around the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to be able to utilise their land for economic development. In a former professional life as Australia's human rights commissioner, I worked with the then social justice commissioner Mick Gooda on the important work of reform around native title to enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to use their land for economic development. When we talk about the great issues that confront our First Nations people today, so many of the challenges come from the disruption of connection to country, not just the physical separation but the separation from culture, connection and place, but then also ownership of land and the capacity to use it, ultimately, for economic development to improve their material wellbeing. That cascades on to their economic advancement, to being able to support families and, of course, community and create the nucleus of economic advancement for the wellbeing of people. The more we seek to get that framework of law right, the more we create the operating environment for families and communities to thrive.

Unfortunately, I don't think we've been as courageous as we need to be on these issues. We've done great work between both sides of this chamber at different points in our history, but there is a long way to go. My hope is that we get to see more work done in this space and that we sometimes step beyond the traditional comforts that have dominated these discussions. That will mean having some challenging conversations in this place—to stand up and say the direct connection of Indigenous people to their land to use for economic development will be a material pathway to improvement and advancement, not just addressing their economic welfare but their social welfare as well. That, in many ways, is one of the things that disappoints me most out of the failed referendum a couple of years ago. I wasn't in this parliament to discuss those topics, and I will have something to say about that in this parliament yet, because I consider it to be one of the greatest moral failings in this nation's history, by this government, and I really mean that. We took the social solidarity of our most marginalised communities, put it to a ballot paper knowingly and had this government burn it to a crisp. In the absence of that, the burden and responsibility on this government to address and redress the issues that are left behind, that still remain unaddressed, and the wounds that need to be healed is so great.

When we look at this bill, it is, in one sense, a simple administrative kind of rollover. But it is also an opportunity for rebirth, if we have courageous leadership, to stand up and do the right thing. Of course, this bill does have embodied in it an opportunity. It has an opportunity in it such that this government can turn around and say, 'These plans can be delivered to manage these national parks, to put them in a better position to be stewarded better by custodians for future generations.' We can turn around and call people to a greater sense of obligation and action so that our natural assets are handed down to future generations in a way that we have not always lived up to with our greatest expectations in the past. We can look at this bill and say it's an opportunity for rebirth, for a relationship with traditional owners, and say how we can be better as a nation in addressing their concerns and also calling them to a greater sense of responsibility to the land that they are custodians to. Of course, we can also make sure that we look to each other and say, 'There is a great project for this country that we all need to be part of the journey of.'

There is important work from this bill yet to be done. Too often in the space of the journey towards a greater reconciliation so that this nation can have one destiny and one future together—and we still have a way to go on that; there's no argument about that—and have that one sense of unity, destiny and purpose, we need more than the talking points and the signalling that we have had from this government to date. We need a sense of moral commitment as a people towards a shared destiny. What we've seen too often is that Labor has promised much but delivered little. We have seen this across lots of different areas of policy, but there has never been a time—sadly, I say—where it felt like this country had ever been more divided. This is not just something that relates to the issues in the context of this bill but that relates to the context of the soul of the country, where we've had more and more Australians turning against each other rather than to each other.

At the end of the day it's incumbent on everybody in this place, but particularly those who have the great privilege of sitting on those benches opposite, to call our country to that greater sense of purpose and to stand up for the type of country we want to be—to lead, to call people to a greater sense of moral purpose about who we are to and to stare into the future with a sense of clarity, direction and leadership so that we do so as a people without fear. I'm not going to try and suggest that this legislation alone is going to solve that problem. It isn't. But, in the way that this government is conducting itself, it isn't rising to that challenge.

I've spoken many times about the great gift this government has been afforded. This government has been afforded a supermajority on a scale that has rarely been seen in this nation's history. When you are gifted such enormous privilege, responsibility and trust, you have a responsibility as a government to use that trust—yes, with caution—but, more importantly, to help steer the future direction of this country in a way that your children and grandchildren would be proud of: to use it to define the future of the country and to build Australia's future. It is very hard to say at this point, at this time, that this government is doing anything other than squandering that opportunity.

We have a government that lacks a sense of clarity and purpose about who they are and what they want to do. They might have fallen over the line and they're seeking to figure that out, and they still have a couple of years to decide that sense of purpose. But the nation are looking on, and they're wondering when it is that the government are going to stand up. No matter how many times they carry on in question time, it isn't being realised in their legislative agenda or the policy agenda they're seeking to drive.

But one of the things they can do is redress the damage that they did in the last term of this parliament, because, when it comes down to it, after the election of 2022 when the Prime Minister stood up on election night and made a commitment to have a referendum on an Indigenous voice in the Constitution, what he did was set an aspiration for so many Australians—whatever your view on the issue was—that the government would achieve something for our country that would change the character of the country in a way that would enable some people's dreams and visions to be realised.

What we saw, through a mixture of a failure of leadership, an arrogance and an unwillingness to listen to the human consequences of the proposals that he was entertaining, was that, over time, support progressively declined. At that point, that was the moment where the Prime Minister had the moral responsibility to turn around and say to the Australian people, 'I don't think that this can go ahead because I don't think it'll get up.' That's what a leader does, because he doesn't govern for just one section of the community; he governs for the entirety of the Australian community. But, instead of being a leader, standing up for the type of country we want to be and steering a nation through difficult times, the Prime Minister went full throttle ahead because he saw it as essential to his own political survival and his own political achievement, and in the process he did huge damage to the social solidarity and reconciliation for this country to come together.

Now, I'm not the best person to speak about that; I'm the first person to say that. It's the silence of so many Indigenous Australians who still don't talk about these issues and still don't know what their place is on our national stage as a legacy of that. The scars are not healed, and it is up to this government to show the leadership to fix them. My hope is that they rise to that challenge, because it's not going to be done just through government expenditure—that would be part of it, of course. It always must be part of making sure that good work is done. It is a part of making sure that property can be used in a way that can enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to use the full value of their assets to recognise the important role of culture and languages as part of the enduring connection not just to land but to celebrating history, culture and achievement, and as part of the connection into the future of our country and weaving it in as part of the enduring connection and culture of our country. But it's to actually recognise, and start to understand that there's a need to recognise, the damage that was done as well.

This bill will no doubt go through this parliament, because there's an important administrative matter to address, but it is not the end of either the conversation on the substantive issues that are raised by it or the broader conversation on what we need to do as a country. It will go through. My hope is that it will go through in a way that raises the legitimate issues that need to be addressed and that this government will rise to that challenge.

Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First Nations peoples have been the custodians of this great land for tens of thousands of years. Today we meet on Ngunnawal and Ngambri country, and I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. My electorate of Sturt is on Kaurna land, the traditional lands of the Kaurna people of the Adelaide Plains. The Kaurna people have been the custodians of this land for 60,000 years. This land stretches from Cape Jervis in the south to Crystal Brook in the north and from the Mount Lofty Ranges all the way to the coast of the Gulf of St Vincent. The Kaurna people have a deep and lasting spiritual relationship with this land and its waters. Their cultural heritage, belief and relationship with the land continue to be important today. So, to any Kaurna people here today, I say niina marni and ngaityalya.

First Nations knowledge of the land, of land management and of sustainability is more important than ever. This knowledge includes ecological knowledge, medicinal knowledge, environmental management knowledge, and cultural and spiritual knowledge. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have cared for this country and have played, and continue to play, a momentous role in sculpting the environment and supporting the incredible, distinctive and unique biodiversity we experience in Australia today. The knowledge of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, their connection to place and their cultural practices have long contributed to the positive environmental outcomes that benefit all Australians.

Our jointly managed Commonwealth reserves—Kakadu National Park, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Booderee National Park—are located on Aboriginal land. Kakadu National Park is a protected area in the Northern Territory of Australia. South-east of Darwin, it covers an area just shy of 20,000 kilometres, which is actually the size of the country of Wales. Kakadu is the second-largest national park in Australia. It is highly diverse from an ecological and biological perspective, hosting a wide range of habitats, flora and fauna. It is home to four major river systems: the East Alligator River, the West Alligator River, the South Alligator River and the Wildman River. It also includes a rich heritage of Aboriginal rock art, including highly significant sites such as Ubirr. Aboriginal people have been the custodians of Kakadu for 60,000 years. Kakadu is fully protected by the EPBC Act and is listed on the UNESCO World Heritage List.

Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park is also in the Northern Territory. It is a protected area that is home to Uluru and Kata Tjuta. It is almost 2,000 kilometres south of Darwin and 440 kilometres south-west of Alice Springs. It covers just over 1,300 square kilometres and is also listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site. One of Australia's most iconic landmarks Uluru is a focal point for the world's acknowledgement of Australia's Indigenous culture. The Anangu people are the traditional owners of the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, where, for thousands of years, they have cared for the rare and endemic flora in the park as well as the now rare and endangered species there.

Booderee National Park is located in Jervis Bay and is managed as an Indigenous protected area. Located just three hours from both Sydney and Canberra, it is a park with unspoilt beaches, incredible flora and fauna and hundreds of kilometres of walking tracks. Booderee really is one of Australia's most stunning national parks, where crystal clear waters meet beautiful white sandy beaches and high cliffs and historic relics overlook the majestic Pacific Ocean.

The traditional owners of the remarkable lands I have described, Booderee National Park and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Kakadu National Park are actively involved in the protection of the environment through participation in the management of their land. They are spaces which both sustain and share the experience of Australia's biodiversity and cultural landscapes. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025 on which I speak today operates to affect a minor amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It is not part of the broad and far-reaching environmental law reform agenda that the Albanese Labor government is working on and deeply committed to delivering.

During the election campaign for the seat of Sturt, my fellow candidates and I participated in five candidate debates. It was illustrative that, as well as the cost of living, the most frequent questions asked of us as candidates related to the environment, including about reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and, importantly, the role of First Nations knowledge of the lands on which we live and work and how that must be deployed in ongoing initiatives to sustain our environment.

The minor amendment this bill proposes would allow a board of management for a jointly managed Commonwealth reserve such as Booderee, Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Kakadu to continue to make decisions regarding the management of the reserves after a management plan expires. These reserves are managed by the Director of National Parks under a lease with the traditional owners and through a board of management. A board of management is appointed by the minister and comprises a majority of Indigenous people nominated by traditional owners. Each of the boards of management is currently chaired by a traditional owner, and these boards are responsible for making decisions about the management of the Commonwealth reserves. However, the ability to make decisions stops when a management plan expires. Management plans are legislative instruments that outline how a Commonwealth reserve is to be managed and protected and expire after 10 years, unless revoked earlier.

Without this bill, when a management plan expires, the decision-making functions of the board will cease. If that occurs, the role of traditional owners in the decision-making process is compromised, reducing that critical involvement in the management of their land. This bill will bridge any gap between a management plan for a jointly managed Commonwealth reserve expiring and a new management plan coming into effect. The bill, therefore, will allow the board to continue making decisions after a management plan expires, provided those decisions are consistent with the expired management plan—just as they would have been consistent with the management plan whilst it was afoot.

This is a sensible and reasonable change that will maintain the board's decision-making ability until a new management plan comes into effect.

The bill aligns with the Albanese Labor government's commitment to provide traditional owners with greater control over management of their country. It supports the improved relationship between the Australian government, the Director of National Parks and traditional owners of jointly managed Commonwealth reserves, which remains a priority for this government. The bill will support the effective participation of Indigenous people in matters relating to the management of their country, support continuity of decision-making and enable consistency of governance arrangements for Commonwealth reserve management.

We know that First Nations knowledge of land management has been curated over tens of thousands of years. We know it was and continues to be developed by observing country, including cultural burning, traditional fishing, water management, plant harvesting and rock-wall construction, in order to regenerate ecosystems and manage resources. We know that land management is not just environmental but deeply spiritual. It's about health and wellbeing of country but also the health and wellbeing of those who are privileged enough to live on country. We know that land management also involves threat management, which is traditional methods that are effective in managing threats like feral animals and weeds that threaten native plants and creating fire breaks, which protect land, people and threatened species.

The Burnside city council, located in my electorate of Sturt, is home to several public sculptures, including the newly unveiled Burnside Tamikuru Sculpture by artist Allan Sumner. Allan is a descendent of Ngarrindjeri people, who come from the lower Murray and the lakes of the Murray River along the Coorong of South Australia. I was fortunate to be able to attend the unveiling of this sculpture in June 2025 as part of Reconciliation Week, which had the theme 'Bridging Now to Next', reflecting the ongoing connection between past, present and future. I was able to meet Allan, who is a prominent artist in Adelaide with his meaningful work displayed across the electorate of Sturt, at the Morialta adventure playground and in the Kensington reserve, as well as at Burnside. Allan's work also adorns football and soccer jerseys and can even be seen on the side of Adelaide Metro buses. Allan's art celebrates connection to country and celebrates First Nations knowledge and care of country.

At the Burnside Tamikuru Sculpture unveiling, I also met Rayne Simpson, who is the Regional Coordinator for Kaurna, South Australia, for an organisation called Firesticks. Firesticks is an Indigenous led not-for-profit enterprise and registered charity that supports a growing national network of Indigenous communities and practitioners by promoting the revitalisation and use of traditional knowledge systems and practices, particularly culture fire-burning to improve country and community health and wellbeing. Rayne has a background in the banking industry, but, after doing that for 15 years, he decided to start a journey that was much more meaningful to him—a journey which has its foundations in revitalising traditional land-management practices within his community. Embracing the teachings of elders and collaborating with fellow Kaurna men and women, Rayne has integrated traditional fire-management techniques into his approach to work and life. Rayne explained to me that Indigenous knowledge of fire-management techniques is such that, in preparation for bushfire season, a cultural burn is conducted using small, low-intensity fires, known as 'cool burns', to clear undergrowth, reduce fuel and manage the landscape. This technique of low and slow cool burns creates natural fire breaks that allow animals to escape and that promote biodiversity by encouraging the regrowth of plants and then the return of animals to their natural habitat. This low and slow cool burn technique of gentle and managed fires that can halt the spread of larger, uncontrolled fires and cool the earth has been practised for thousands and thousands of years.

The continued promotion and meaningful utilisation of First Nations knowledge and land management is absolutely critical in protecting and managing our environment. It is critical for sustainability and for the future of our country. Although a minor amendment on paper, this bill is significant in its acknowledgement and continued support of the unquantifiable value of First Nations knowledge of how to care for country.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard the member for Sturt mention the eradication of feral pests. This is a debate, after all, and I acknowledge that in her contribution. I well recall when I took then prime minister Scott Morrison to parts of Queensland to look at the drought. We're always in the country of drought. Indeed, as Dorothea Mackellar quite correctly pointed out in her poem, 'Core of my heart', we are a nation of flooding rains and droughts. At any given point in time, somewhere in Australia will be beset by drought. The member for Sturt is quite correct about what she points out about feral animal eradication.

The dingo and dog fence that was funded by the former coalition government led to an increase in lambing rates in those parts of Queensland, and elsewhere where we rolled out that fence. Farmers were reaping the benefits. When it comes to the environment, that is a practical means to be able to protect the environment and increase farmers' wealth. When we do that, we're doing a good thing for and on behalf of all Australia.

The member for Sturt is from South Australia, quite obviously, and it's really important that, when we look at the context of a bill such as this—a non-controversial bill, perhaps—we look at history. The explorer Charles Sturt made three expeditions exploring the river systems of south-eastern Australia. Quite often, the boats or canoes were carried on people's backs rather than being used to float down the Macquarie, Murrumbidgee and Darling rivers to the Murray River and then on to Lake Alexandrina and the mouth of the Murray River in South Australia.

Much has been made, in recent years and decades, of the river system we have in Australia. Unfortunately, there are some in this country who would think of our river systems and think of a European situation. Our river systems are not that. They are very much ephemeral rivers—they'd probably call them streams in other countries—and Australia is not Europe. It is not. We have a situation where we have flooding rains followed by droughts, and we can't convert our river systems, particularly the ones in South Australia, and pretend as though they are a European system, because they are not.

In 1828, Sturt followed the Macquarie River through the Macquarie marshes to the Darling River. In 1829-30, he backed it up by tracing the Murrumbidgee River—Murrumbidgee meaning 'deep or wide water'—to its junction with the Murray River and continued down the Murray to its mouth at Lake Alexandrina. It was a crucial discovery that showed that the western-flowing rivers of New South Wales discharged into the Murray River—in good times. In dry times, many of the river systems that Sturt explored were in fact dry gulches or dry river beds.

His third expedition of 1844-46 set out to explore the interior of Australia, travelling along the Murray and Darling rivers before the expedition headed north. He crossed the Sturt Stony Desert and pressed on into the Simpson Desert—he was a tough fellow—before being forced to turn back due to extreme conditions and ill health. Once upon a time schoolchildren in Australia were taught about this. I'm not so sure they are now. I speak often to the former Liberal senator Bill Heffernan. He can quote chapter and verse where any river system in Australia flows and how it flows. We have good discussions, but these days I find that children don't know as much as they should about the river systems upon which our nation depends.

I see the shadow assistant minister at the table. His communities, like mine, are very reliant on the Murray-Darling system. We have this perception in Australia that, when it comes to the environment, our river communities must cede. But our farmers are the world's best environmentalists; they are. Thank you for nodding, Deputy Speaker Chesters. I know that, at Bendigo, you, too, are very much in the Murray-Darling system. You've got farmers who are very reliant on having sensible policy not just from this place but from our states as well, and I'm not quite sure that our irrigators have benefited all the time from sensible policy from this place.

Again, I state that our farmers grow the very best food and fibre, and at times they have been demonised and maligned by the Greens. Thankfully, we have only one representative—probably one too many—in this House of Representatives now. The Greens have bedevilled our farmers. The Greens, by their very policies, want every drop of water to run through our river systems and out the mouth of the Murray, and that's just not how it should be. That's just not how nature was meant to work.

Our farmers need that water. They are allocated that water and—here's a thought—they pay for that water. Who would have thought it? They actually pay for that water, and they pay a lot of money to be able to access that water, use that water and work for and on behalf of those people in this country who—wait for it—eat. I don't think that we give them the credit that they deserve. When it comes to our river communities, when we go and buy back large parcels of water and bank them for environmental purposes—and, let me tell you, the government, through the CEWH and other means, is the biggest owner of water in the system—we also take away productive water which can then no longer be used for productive purposes. The EPBC Act is important. The environment is important. But so, too, is making sure that those river communities are functioning. They will do so in an environmentally sustainable way.

We sometimes forget our explorers. John Oxley, when he went out to the land beyond Griffith, came out with the statement that no European man—that's what he said; I'm not being a misogynist—would ever see fit to use that land, because it is just beyond use. It was our soldiers who were then sent out to soldier settler blocks, and they turned a virtual desert into a Garden of Eden and grew food. They did so through a channel system. Later on they did so through the decades of the Snowy Mountains Scheme, which was an irrigation system. Those dams were built for irrigation; hydroelectricity was just a benefit of the scheme. They did so with the Barren Jack Dam and, as it later became known, the Burrinjuck Dam, turning what Oxley described as an 'inhospitable environment' into something quite special that we should be very, very proud of. I think sometimes we all take too much consideration of the environment at the expense of those people who eke out a very meagre existence, and it's their relatives, the people who have followed in their family lines, who continue to make sure that the Murrumbidgee and Coleambally irrigation systems are vital to our nation.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025 does acknowledge that the Commonwealth reserves—namely, Kakadu National Park, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Booderee National Park—are located on Indigenous land. We understand that. We understand the importance of our Aboriginal people in the context of this particular debate, but we must also not go too far. We must not have overreach. I appreciate people are now forbidden or discouraged from climbing Ayers Rock, Uluru. But these days it's going to cost you money to take a photo of Ayers Rock to post a holiday snap online. Anyone wanting to shoot content at Uluru national park needs to pay for a photo permit. It cost $20 a day for commercial photography or $250 a day for filming. Some might see that as fine. I appreciate that the Indigenous rangers and people who look after the park need to make the most of their investment and their labours; I get that.

But the ban that the Victorian government has placed on some of the rock climbing in that state is getting to the point of overreach. It actually is. People who do this as an adventure sport are now forbidden to climb on the various landscapes they once enjoyed. We just need to be a little bit careful about overreach. We absolutely do. When it comes to overreach, nobody does it better than the Victorian state government. I appreciate they've got a mandate to govern, but goodness gracious they do go a bit beyond where their governance should go. This government is currently planning reforms to the wider EPBC Act to be introduced into the parliament apparently in November. I could say I look forward to seeing what that entails, but 'looking forward' would not be probably the correct terminology, because while this bill is not controversial, what may come about possibly is.

Even though this government has got a massive mandate in the House of Representatives, 51 seats, it doesn't necessarily have that wide a mandate over in the other place, in the Senate. They have to take legislation through the Greens, and the Greens are a worrying lot. If they were just an environmental party, you could understand it, but these days they have much more of a 'Let's change Australia's social fabric' remit. That's the Greens. That's their mantra. They don't always come with good intent. Once upon a time, under Bob Brown, they wanted to solve the world's environmental problems and the climate et cetera. You knew where they were coming from. These days they want to solve the Middle Eastern situation, they want to cut out traditional sports such as horseracing—and where will it stop? I don't know, but it is a concern.

This particular legislation is crucial if it goes through the House—and it will, because the government has a big majority, and we're not objecting to it. But it's also important to note that in government, whilst those opposite might tell you that this is not the case, we had a good record when it came to the environment. The Great Barrier Reef was going well under our government, under the policies that we put forward and under the funding we gave.

Don't shake your head, Member for Hughes; it's absolutely true. But when you've got decisions being made like the McPhillamys goldmine near Blayney being put on hold for no good reason, you start to worry about—I won't say the environmental credentials or the Indigenous credentials—the commonsense credentials of those opposite, if I may, because that was not stopped for any good reason. You've got a situation where winemakers, like Darren de Bortoli, are pulling up vines and where river communities are put on hold because of the Murray Darling Basin Plan. You've got decisions being made by a government that, yes, does have a mandate. But they don't have a mandate to pull apart regional Australia. I know that I, the member for Nicholls and the member for Lyne will fight the government every step of the way if they try to do that.

Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great honour and privilege to be in this place. But, I must say, it is an absolute sight to behold something so rare: the member for Goldstein and the member for Riverina joining together in unity to express the one thing they do agree on, which is to fill their policy vacuum with their hatred of the Labor Party. I'm not sure of the relevance of some of their speeches, but I digress.

I rise today in support of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025. This bill is small in size but significant in impact. It's about continuity, respect and responsibility. It's about making sure that the way we manage jointly held Commonwealth reserves never misses a beat, even when the paperwork runs behind. Right now, under the EPBC Act, when the management plan for the jointly managed reserve expires, so too does the decision-making authority of the board of management. That means that, overnight, the board goes from being an active, trusted voice to a body unable to make decisions. This bill closes the gap. It allows the boards of management to keep working in line with the most recent plan until the new one is finalised. In plain terms, it keeps the lights on, the wheels turning and the decisions flowing.

These boards are not faceless committees; they are made up of people appointed by the minister. Where reserves sit on Indigenous land, as is the case for Kakadu, Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Booderee, traditional owners nominate the majority of its members. That matters. It means decisions are grounded not just in legislation but in culture, knowledge and lived custodianship. It means the people with the deepest connection to country continue to shape how that country is cared for. Without this bill, when plans expire, that authority dissolves. The risk is not abstract. It could mean delays in fire management, cultural site protection or visitor safety. Continuity isn't red tape; it is respect for the land and for the people who have cared for it for millennia.

The EPBC Act is the backbone of our national environmental law. At the heart of the act, management plans set out how each reserve will be cared for. They cover everything from heritage protection to weed control, tourism and research. These plans take years to prepare and must be reviewed every decade. Sometimes a plan expires before a new one is ready. That is the gap that this bill closes. This bill ensures Indigenous voices remain central, uninterrupted and authoritative in the management of jointly held reserves. It is about participation but also trust—trust that governance is consistent, respectful and reliable. And it is about stewardship, because good governance is not just paperwork. It is firebreaks cut, sacred sites protected and knowledge applied in real time. It is the everyday works that keep our heritage safe.

This bill does not change the role of the Director of National Parks. That role remains as it is today. This is a targeted, standalone fix to a very specific problem. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, I understand the importance of getting governance right. Sometimes the fixes are big—new frameworks and new standards. Sometimes they are small and precise, like this one. Both matter. Both make a difference.

In committee hearings, we repeatedly hear from traditional owners and local communities about the need for certainty. Certainty builds trust. Certainty delivers continuity. This bill provides exactly that. Let me stress that this bill is not tied to the broader EPBC reform agenda expected later this year. Those reforms—national environment standards, an EPA and more transparency—are moving on their own track. This bill is separate, urgent and about the here and now.

In my electorate of Moore, we don't manage Kakadu or Uluru, but we do know the value of continuity. While this bill speaks directly to Kakadu, Uluru and Booderee, it also speaks to us in Western Australia. Our state has led the way in joint management agreements with traditional owners at Karijini, Kalbarri and Purnululu. Even closer to home, the Pinnacles in the Nambung National Park sit just north of Moore and are one of WA's most iconic tourism drawcards. Visitors come through Moore and, on their way, are staying in Joondalup, eating in our restaurants and fuelling up in our suburbs.

The confidence that these treasures are well managed underpins not just environmental protection but also local jobs and businesses. Whether it's a sports club, a lifesaving patrol or a conservation group, if leadership stops abruptly, things fall through the cracks. Safety suffers, heritage suffers and people lose faith. I think of the surf clubs at Trigg, Mullaloo and Sorrento, where volunteers show up, rain or shine, to patrol our beaches. If their authority stopped the moment paperwork expired, lives would be at risk. That is how absurd it would be. Continuity is not bureaucracy. It is safety.

Take our conservation groups caring for Lake Joondalup, Yellagonga Regional Park and bush corridors through Craigie and Padbury. If leadership suddenly lost its ability to act, you would see weeds spread, fire risk climb and gains unravel. People in Moore understand that stewardship is ongoing. You do not stop caring for country because a date has passed. In Moore, that principle is lived daily on Whadjuk Noongar country. Traditional owners remind us that stewardship is continuous, not episodic. Whether caring for Yellagonga wetlands, protecting cultural sites or passing knowledge to the next generation, there is no pause button. This bill reflects that reality, not just in Kakadu but across Australia, where Indigenous custodianship guides management.

I think, too, of our bushfire brigades across the northern suburbs. When a fire breaks out, no-one checks whether a committee's mandate has lapsed. They just get to work with skill, with courage and with continuity. Having worked for the United Professional Firefighters Union, I know how vital that is. I've seen the risks when coordination falters and I've seen the professionalism that keeps us safe. Fire does not wait, and neither should governance. That is what this bill reflects: uninterrupted responsibility.

It's not just in emergencies. At Whitfords Nodes Park, groups run coastal rehabilitation year after year. At the Joondalup Community Coast Care Forum, locals share knowledge about protecting beaches and dunes. At Hillarys Boat Harbour, where tourism and environment are finely balanced, continuity is essential. These groups know from experience that gaps in leadership undo months of effort. One group that embodies this principle is Friends of Sorrento Beach and Marmion Foreshore. Week after week, season after season, they care for our coastline.

It is fundamentally about continuity of care for the places we love. Just as these groups in my electorate cannot down tools because a meeting is delayed, boards should not lose powers because a plan has expired. The same is true of Friends of Yellagonga Regional Park, caring for wetlands and bushland around Lake Joondalup. They know that weed control and habitat restoration cannot pause. If those efforts stop, even briefly, damage spreads. Friends of Yellagonga Regional Park understand continuity because their work follows natural cycles. That rhythm of stewardship is what this bill protects.

I want to acknowledge the young people who live this principle. At Ocean Reef Senior High School, students are encouraged to study marine and environmental science in a hands-on way. They understand that ecosystems need constant care and that continuity is the difference between thriving and declining. These students are the next generation of stewards. Their teachers remind them, as I remind this House, that you cannot press pause on caring for country. The lesson is simple: continuity matters, whether on the sand at Mullaloo, in the seagrass at Marmion, by the lake at Yellagonga or on the escarpments of Uluru. This bill makes sure continuity is never lost.

The heart of this bill reflects the values that guide this government and guide me. Fairness means traditional owners stay at the table. Respect means management of country continues seamlessly. Responsibility means we fix the gaps before they cause harm. These are the same principles I hear echoed back at home in Moore. From parents coaching sport in Currambine to volunteers planting trees in Iluka, and the groups preserving bushland and ocean reef, people know the value of continuity, respect and responsibility. As someone who began his working life as an electrician, I know what happens when continuity is lost. On a job site, when the plan is unclear, mistakes are made. People get hurt. Continuity of leadership is not a nice-to-have; it is essential.

Later, as a kidney transplant recipient, I learnt that continuity in care is the difference between life and death. You do not want treatment to stop because a file expired. You need steady, reliable stewardship. That lesson applies in health, in trades and in environmental management. Continuity also matters in policy. When we talk about the cost of living, Australians do not want one-offs; they want certainty. That is why this government delivered direct energy bill relief and is investing in long-term reforms to keep prices down.

When we talk about the clean energy transition, Australians want continuity so that, as industries change, new jobs and training are ready. When we talk about skills, continuity in training and apprenticeships gives young people in Moore the confidence to plan a career, whether it's a young sparkie at North Metro TAFE or a nurse in training at ECU Joondalup, continuity turns dreams into futures.

The truth is that environmental stewardship is not a stop-start exercise. Country does not wait for paperwork. Fires do not wait for paperwork. Visitors do not wait for paperwork. Government must keep pace with reality. Some might ask why this matters so much. It matters because places like Kakadu, Uluru and the Pinnacles are not only national treasures; they are also cultural treasures. They are living landscapes cared for by traditional owners for generations. Interrupting governance interrupts that partnership; it interrupts respect.

These parks are also of international significance. Millions of visitors travel from around the world to witness their beauty, history and spirit. When tourists stand before Uluru at sunset, they are experiencing a living story woven into the identity of this nation. Governance gaps put that experience and that responsibility at risk. Environmental management is already complex. Plans take time. Consultation takes time. Balancing ecological science, cultural heritage, tourism and community needs takes time. This bill ensures that, while that work continues, governance does not stop. It is practical lawmaking. It is careful, considered and respectful. It does not overreach. It simply closes a gap that should never have existed, and, in doing so, it strengthens our partnership with traditional owners. It honours the principle that those who know the land best should always have a voice. It affirms the government's commitment to walk alongside Indigenous Australians.

Sometimes we risk treating amendments like this as technicalities. But this is not a technicality. This is about fairness, respect and responsibility. Fairness means ensuring boards can continue their work. Respect means recognising the authority and knowledge of traditional owners. Responsibility means governance does not falter because of a loophole. These values are not abstract; they are lived every day in Moore. They are lived when families in Joondalup support a neighbour, when students at ECU or North Metro TAFE gain skills for a clean energy future, when seniors in Duncraig preserve community spaces, when children at Mullaloo learn about the coast, when volunteers in the Friends of Sorrento Beach and Marmion Foreshore protect our shoreline, when members of the Friends of Yellagonga Regional Park restore wetlands and when students at Ocean Reef Senior High School learn that stewardship is continuous. Continuity, respect and responsibility—these shape both our local life and our national governance.

This bill ensures that boards remain empowered even when plans expire. It preserves Indigenous leadership in jointly managed reserves. It keeps governance steady, respectful and consistent. It does all of this without changing the director's role or delaying broader reforms. As someone who has spent his life moving between the tools, the law and now this parliament, I have learnt that sometimes the smallest adjustments keep the system working. This is one of those adjustments. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.