Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill, the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, and the related bills come as we grapple as a nation with tumbling productivity. Under Labor productivity is down five per cent. Green tape has been identified as a major impediment to major projects going ahead. On this side of the House we are concerned this bill package is introducing even more green tape, not less.

I'll talk further about productivity in a moment, but I want to begin by talking about what the Nationals put forward on Sunday, just days ago, as sensible energy and, in turn, environmental policy. As part of our proposal for cheaper, fairer and better energy, we will do environmental stewardship our way. We will reward landholders for regenerating their land. We will strengthen Australians' connection to nature through use, not locking farmers out. We will expand access to nature for recreation, hunting and fishing. We will empower local communities to lead real environmental action. The Nationals will bring back the Emissions Reduction Fund, which rewarded farmers, landowners, communities and industries for finding smart ways to cut emissions, such as planting trees and improving soil. The potential to store carbon through these initiatives is significant and can alleviate the burden of our energy system to reach better environmental outcomes.

We all know Labor can't reach their 2030, 2035 or 2050 emissions reduction targets—it's fantasy. Labor are throwing regional Australia under the bus so the Prime Minister and the climate change minister can strut at an international climate conference. There's no problem for Aussies at home, apparently. Those opposite like to paint regional Australians as dopey, but I surveyed over 5,000 of my Mallee electorate voters, and they have worked this government out. A total of 67 per cent of them oppose net zero by 2050, while 82 per cent do not want to pay more than $50 a year for it. Well, what they don't understand is that they're already paying far more than that every year.

Net zero has been a drag on our productivity because energy is the economy—we keep saying it. It is not the cheapest form of electricity, and a rapidly growing number of Australians know it. On productivity, today the Reserve Bank of Australia kept interest rates on hold and we saw the RBA recently downgrade its productivity estimates to 0.7 per cent a year, rather than one per cent. The RBA advice from August, which they put in bold type, said:

Productivity is the key driver of growth in living standards over time.

The cry I hear all the time from every sector is to 'please reduce red and green tape'.

Yet this bill package comes with pages that are double the size of this year's budget papers. Can you imagine? Is it workable or does it create a lawyer's picnic—or, let's face it, a banquet—where lawfare already bogs down our productive economy? It's a rhetorical question. We're also being asked to debate this bill package today, despite an approximate 1,500 pages to consider, and a bill introduced on 29 October, just six days ago. The government wants this bill package through this House and passed by the end of the year, even though a Senate inquiry is underway and will not report until March 2026. Just to be clear, we have one week and two days left of sitting.

In my electorate of Mallee, I've had to repeat myself until I'm blue in the face that farmers are environmentalists. They care about their local environment. They are not the villains that others make them out to be in the environment debate. Concerning this package of bills, on 30 October the National Farmers' Federation said:

Farmers manage more than half of Australia's landmass. They live and breathe environmental stewardship every day …

Their budget depends on it. The welfare of their animals depends on it. Their crops depend on it. In fact, farmers and regional community members have come to me very upset about the destruction of migratory bird, snake and other habitats—in the name of what? Saving the planet, would you believe!

When it comes to the environment in Mallee, we have seen the environment thrown under the bus because of Labor's reckless renewables-only energy approach to reach unattainable energy targets, creating immense environmental, social and economic harm—and I've spoken to two farmers this evening about this very fact. In my home state of Victoria, in the electorate of Mallee, we have seen community concerns about the environment tossed to one side because the Allan Labor government—who are delusional about the future of gas in our energy mix—claim there's no gas onshore. They gaslight Victorians that it's renewables or bust. It isn't. And who's busting under Labor? It's regional Australians, their concerns about the environment set to one side, with the minister wielding enhanced powers to sideline proper planning processes in order to force transmission lines, wind turbines and blanket solar panels onto regional communities. And that's without adding in mining.

I refer again to the NFF statement on 30 October. They say:

Concepts like bioregional planning, offsets, net gain and 'unacceptable impact' tests need to be properly explained and practically tested. Otherwise, we risk creating confusion and unintended consequences. Further, we are very concerned about fast-tracking renewables, critical minerals or housing developments that could target agricultural land.

Any push for projects impacting agriculture must come with genuine consultation with farmers and regional communities. We must get the balance right between achieving environmental outcomes, social licence and keeping farmland in production.

Well, how sensible is that!

I want to zero in on key phrases there that get lip-service from those opposite: social licence and genuine consultation. Labor's track record on this front is absolutely abysmal. Labor's version of consultation on their reckless rollout of renewables is a toot of the horn, if you're lucky, before the policy bulldozer comes rolling through your gate and onto your property—and farmers in my electorate know this.

Make no mistake. We need to reform the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. As a coalition of parties that represents and listens to regional committees, small businesses and Australian businesses, the coalition are the best agents to reform the act. That's why, when she was Minister for the Environment, the now leader of the opposition commissioned the Samuel review in 2020—to frame the debate. The home truths about the need to reform environmental laws in the name of productivity and jobs have claimed one minister, Minister Plibersek, and now have the current minister for the environment and water, Minister Watt, hoping he doesn't get rolled by a Labor premier like Premier Cook in Western Australia—as his predecessor did.

I was in Western Australia last month, and, let me tell you, they are very happy that the resources industry is getting a fair go. A woman in Broome, quite unprompted, urged me to crack on with Woodside opening up development in the state. She believes it will deliver more jobs and opportunities for all Western Australians.

I have to add that we also have a serious fuel security problem. Productivity is one thing; our national security is another, and that is why a workable, national interest test through this legislation is critical. Australia's fuel reserves are critically low, with a reported 28 days of petrol left, according to reports last month, and just one months worth of jet fuel or diesel in storage. Leaving aside the existing contractual arrangements for fuel exports, we need to ensure we have a domestic fuel supply chain. Much as Minister Bowen might cross his fingers and hope otherwise while he throws eye-watering amounts of subsidies at Australians who can already afford to buy an EV, the reality is EV take-up targets will not be met. Labor are absolutely hopeless at picking winners. Consumer demand is not enticed by the subsidies. They want hybrids or diesel vehicles, particularly the latter in regional Australia.

We need to fully investigate biofuels, not just for our aviation sector but as a potential addition or even substitute for petrol or diesel. Tractors, harvesters, mining machinery and many more types of productivity-driving machinery cannot abide the glorious coming of Bowen's batteries. Productivity depends on fuel, and we have dangerously small amounts of it on shore.

Coalition governments understand productivity and job creation, and the resources sector is the economic golden goose in Western Australia that delivers them marvellous royalties and relative economic security. The construction on the Burrup Peninsula is a marvel to see, and it's an economic miracle that development has proceeded given the lawfare engaged in by groups like the disgraced Environmental Defenders Office, which Labor to this day continues to fund with taxpayer money. What a disgrace—an estimated $15 million by the end of this decade. Labor has not fully investigated the significant funding that the EDO receives from donors around the world and whether its connections to any of a vast network of international donors have breached Australia's foreign interference laws.

In January 2024, the Federal Court outed the EDO for its conduct and activities in a Federal Court case relating to Santos's pursuit of its Barossa gas pipeline project—the infamous songlines case. Justice Natalie Charlesworth found that the EDO's legal team disgracefully manipulated and coached a number of witnesses and fabricated evidence in the case, and their claims were so lacking in integrity that no weight could be placed on them.

Given Labor's form with the EDO, it is a worry that it might enable a potentially activist new National Environmental Protection Agency, if the vetting process isn't up to scratch, to be unaccountable to the minister. As one major stakeholder told me on Friday, constant unjustified lawfare is the No. 1 enemy of industry, with endless lawsuits and stop-work orders making industry unviable. We need to be vigilant when the prospect is a Labor-Greens slapdash deal before Christmas. The last thing Australian productivity and job-creating businesses need is more green tape, not less.

On this Melbourne Cup Day, Labor has a shocking record for picking winners, and I won't apologise for holding this Labor government accountable so we get this right in the national interest. The last thing Australia needs is for Labor to claim they have a winner because they hobbled the productivity horses. Basically, this legislation can only be described as a 6-7.

Julie-Ann Campbell (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My electorate of Moreton is home to some areas of absolutely outstanding natural beauty and diverse habitats. The Brisbane River, known locally and affectionately as the Brown Snake, meanders its way past Oxley, Corinda, Sherwood, Graceville, Chelmer, Tennyson, Yeronga and Fairfield, supporting a variety of freshwater, estuarine and marine-tolerant fish. There are beautiful parks—like the Sherwood Arboretum, one of only three botanic gardens in our city—dotted along the river's route, many of them currently adorned with jacarandas. Soon, poincianas will cover the parks with a blaze of red.

A bit further afield, the Archerfield Wetlands encompass 150 hectares of eucalypt forest, open grassland, fresh water, wetlands and creeks. The federal government are providing funding to rehabilitate these habitats after decades and decades of industrial use, and they now support over 170 different bird species.

Another of my favourite places to visit is Oxley Creek Common. There are four kilometres of walking tracks where, if you're lucky, you can spot some unique bird species such as the magpie goose or the black necked stork.

And, of course, there is Toohey Forest. Toohey Forest is home to a diverse range of wildlife, from koalas and echidnas to wallabies, frogs and reptiles. Work on the federally funded fauna crossing—$3 million to a fauna crossing—is due to start by the end of the year. I'm delighted that this will help wildlife move safely between habitat areas within the forest.

Being outdoors and enjoying our green spaces is core to the Australian way of life. It's core to who we are. It's core to our family memories. It's core to our future. And I am certain that this is something that all of us in this place want future generations to enjoy. We know that to make this possible we need environmental law reform, and we need it now. That is what the Albanese Labor government's suite of environmental protection reform bills is focused on. We need to ensure that we deliver stronger protection of the environment while balancing the requirements of efficiency, housing and renewables.

Five years ago Professor Graeme Samuel, commissioned by the Leader of the Opposition, led an independent review into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This bill addresses the critical issues that were identified by Professor Samuel in his report—critical issues that were ignored by the opposition when the report was handed down. The focus areas are stronger environmental protections, more-efficient project assessments, and increased accountability and transparency around that decision-making process. These are the areas where it is clear that the current Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is failing. It is not meeting the needs of the environment, it is not meeting the needs of business and it is not meeting the needs of our community. It is an outdated piece of legislation. It's over 20 years old, and it is no longer fit for the purpose for which it was originally created. That is why it needs reform.

This bill is all about better outcomes for the environment and faster decision-making. Fixing these issues will help us advance key national priorities, including protecting the environment, building more homes, creating more jobs, transitioning efficiently to renewables and achieving economic prosperity while doing it. Surely these are priorities that the opposition and the Greens can get behind, especially after the feedback they received in May from the Australian people—voters who were tired of legislation being blocked, voters who don't want to see this bill split, voters who want to see a sensible balance and voters who want action on the environment and on housing and on future prosperity.

As Professor Samuel recently said of the coalition's posturing:

It's bitterly disappointing because it says to me there are potentially political games being played, or posturing, which we should be putting aside.

When it comes to political games, we know where that road leads. We've seen this movie before. We know what the outcome will be, because we saw it with the CPRS when the Greens and the coalition teamed up. We saw it in the last parliament, with the EPA, when the Greens and the coalition teamed up. It's been five long years since the Samuel report was handed down, and it hasn't been able to go through the parliament yet, because of the political games that Professor Samuel himself is so concerned about.

This is the opportunity to change that history. This is the opportunity to take action. This is the opportunity to make a change that is real and to make a change that will make a difference. This is the opportunity not to block, not to play politics, but just to do something about it. What this bill means in practice is seeing more environmental protections and more restoration of critical national habitats while benefiting from more transparent and efficient housing approvals. It also means faster progress on renewable energy infrastructure and on the critical minerals projects that are vital for Australia's future.

Labor is committed to establishing a strong and independent National Environmental Protection Agency. The agency will ensure that rules are followed without any political pressure and that the same standards apply across the country. The National Environmental Protection Agency will, as it's been described, be a tough cop on the beat. The National Environmental Protection Agency will be empowered to audit the assessment and approval processes of the states, keep track of environmental impacts and share that information openly. Companies that keep breaking environmental rules will receive tougher penalties. This may include taking the profits of a company that has been found to be breaching the rules. The bill will implement new environment protection orders to ensure urgent, risky and damaging situations can be managed quickly, and there will be enhanced audit powers to improve monitoring and compliance.

Another key element of the reforms is the introduction of a new ministerial authority to establish national environment standards. These standards will define the parameters for decision-making across the act, ensuring that outcomes for the environment are improved. They will provide clarity, giving business predictability and lifting the quality and consistency of regulatory decisions. They will drive economic investment. They will drive job creation at the same time as protecting the environment. Labor is prioritising the development of these standards, working on draft versions for matters of national environmental significance and environmental offsets and further drafts concerning First Nations engagement and environmental data. Once the legislation is in place, consultation on all standards will continue.

Professor Samuel emphasised that reform must go beyond protection; it must also drive restoration of habitats. That's why the new laws will legally require projects to avoid, minimise and repair environmental damage wherever it's feasible. Where significant residual impacts remain, they must be fully offset, delivering a net gain for the environment. This is a crucial step beyond the current no-net-loss approach. This approach places the environment front and centre and enables a more strategic large-scale investment in biodiversity and ecosystem repair.

The reforms will also define, in law, what constitutes an unacceptable impact on the environment. Currently, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act includes a 'clearly unacceptable' category but does not provides a definition. The new criteria will provide upfront clarity on what cannot be approved, making it clear from the start whether a project is viable and enabling faster, more transparent decisions. The legislation will also empower the minister to issue protection statements, guiding decision-makers on how to safeguard threatened species and ecological communities, including where unacceptable impacts or critical habitats are identified.

The current assessment and approval process leads to lengthy delays, with companies having to deal with duplicated processes across federal, state and territory jurisdictions. The act will remove three of the six existing assessment pathways and introduce a new and efficient streamlined assessment pathway for project assessments and approvals. This will reduce both duplication of processes and time, cutting the process from the current 70-day statutory period to 50 days or less.

There are also provisions for bilateral agreements with states and territories to apply Commonwealth assessment standards to projects, ensuring consistency and efficiency. This accreditation will be audited every five years to ensure that the new national environmental standards are being met.

The measures in this bill follow a proud Labor history of environmental protection. Labor governments created the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Labor governments saved the Franklin River from being dammed, and Labor governments protected the Daintree and Kakadu. In its first term, the Albanese Labor government protected over 95 million hectares of land and sea. Fifty-two per cent of our oceans are now protected, and Labor tripled the size of the Macquarie Island Marine Park. This was the biggest act of environmental conservation anywhere in the world in 2023 and was backed up by $1.2 billion of investment to save the Great Barrier Reef.

This government has also forced big polluters to cut their emissions. As part of our commitment to achieve net zero by 2050, as part of this journey, we have committed to 62 per cent to 70 per cent emissions by 2035. We have approved 111 renewable energy projects. That's enough to power 13 million homes. Renewable energy generation in Australia is at its highest level ever, up in volume by around 30 per cent since Labor came to government. At the end of 2024, 46 per cent of the national energy market was provided by renewables, and we are working towards 82 per cent renewables by 2030.

This forward-thinking bill includes regional planning to streamline development in areas where it will have less impact on the environment and to protect critical habitats of vulnerable species. The current legislation focuses on a project-by-project assessment basis, whereas regional planning will enable a thorough view of the environmental impacts on a regional basis, protecting areas of high conservation priority. The Minister for the Environment and Water has consulted widely on the bill, holding over 100 meetings, roundtables and forums, and the result is a comprehensive, meaningful, sensible and balanced environmental law reform.

I urge the opposition, the Greens political party and the crossbench to support what may be our only chance in a generation to enact the protections our environment needs, because, contrary to what people say, you don't have to choose between protecting the environment and boosting jobs. You don't have to choose between protecting the environment and investing in housing. You don't have to choose between protecting the environment and the economy. And that's what this bill does.

This, right here, is a moment. It's an important moment because it's the moment that we get to change history when it comes to environmental policy. Instead of repeating the mistakes of the past, this is the moment to get things done. This is the moment to put the reform into place. This is the moment to pass these laws.

Nicolette Boele (Bradfield, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the end of the last century, 1999 to be exact, the nation was experiencing the long-term millennium drought, or the 'Big Dry', which was starting to worsen. That was the same year that Prime Minister Howard and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, introduced the coalition's signature climate change policy, the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program. It was also that year, in March, that Cyclone Vance, one of the most powerful cyclones to hit the mainland of Australia, crossed the coast, causing significant damage in WA. For me, I started work at the Australian Conservation Foundation as their very first climate change campaigner, and I found myself thrown into the deep end of negotiations around laws to reform water rights in the Murray-Darling Basin and environmental reforms that we now know today as the EPBC Act—all 19 syllables of it.

Twenty-five years young, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—when originally birthed—was intended to provide a national framework for protecting the environment and conserving biodiversity, especially matters of national environmental significance, like our reefs, our precious forests and our Ramsar wetlands. It aimed to clarify the roles of the federal government and improve cooperation between states and territories.

How effective have these laws been in protecting the places that we love? Let's go to my happy place, science, and then straight to a less happy place, the facts. Australia's biodiversity has declined significantly over the last 25 years between 2000, when the EPBC Act was enacted, and today. Threatened species' populations have dropped, on average, by two to three per cent per annum. Key threats include habitat loss, invasive species and climate change.

While some conservation efforts have shown success in slowing decline, these have been insufficient to reverse the overall downward trend. Overall, threatened species' populations have declined—birds by 61 per cent on average, with terrestrial birds seeing the steepest drop at 62 per cent; amphibians have seen a 97 per cent decline in relative abundance; and plants have seen a 68 per cent decline in relative abundance. The number of species listed as threatened has increased significantly, with 130 species added in 2023 alone, bringing the total to 2,098; 741 species have been added to the threatened list since 2000. That's a 53 per cent increase. In my beautiful electorate of Bradfield, threatened species have almost doubled, from 40 to 79 in the short period between my two runs for public office in 2022 and 2025. What have been the main drivers? It's habitat loss, it's invasive species, and it's climate change.

Let me go to the first of these: habitat loss. In the 25 years since 2000, Australia has lost 9.22 million hectares of tree cover, about 22 per cent. While not all of that is old-growth forest, roughly 37 per cent of the loss is considered permanent deforestation resulting from land use changes, like agriculture and infrastructure. The remainder is from other disturbances, like logging and wildfires, that may not be permanent but degrade forests. One would think that any amendments to the laws here in 2025 would most certainly seek to address this calamity, like, for example, removing the exemption for large-scale logging in New South Wales, which is still possible under regional forestry agreements.

Now I go to the second main driver of species loss: climate change. Let me stress, climate change—or, more precisely, the inadequate management of rising average global temperatures and the impacts that this brings to habitats and species survival—has been one of the main drivers of Australia's threatened species list blowing out. The average global temperature between 2000 and 2025 has shown a significant upward trend, with the 20-year period of 2001 to 2020 warming by approximately one degree Celsius, relative to 1850 to 1990 averages. The last decade, 2014 to 2023, is the warmest on record, at about 1.2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Recent data indicates that the most recent 12-month period, July 2024 to June 2025, was 1.55 degrees Celsius warmer than 1850 to 1900 averages.

We are breaking records here, and not in good ways. It's almost as if our environment, the places we love, have gotten worse since we introduced the laws enacted to protect them. It's little wonder that there are so many people interested in the success of these laws, including, I bet, future generations and the natural world on which we all depend. As it was drafted, passed and gazetted, the EPBC Act 1999 gave the minister for the environment the powers to intervene in decisions of national significance for our environment. Yet this happened only once over that entire period. All the while, literally hundreds of new coal, gas and fracking projects were approved, causing—rather than ceasing—habitat degradation and destruction and climate change impacts.

The government is at pains to tell us that this reform is once in a generation, and that means we truly need to get our skates on. It's very difficult for me not to be drawn into a joke about the Macquarie skate right here, but I shall not, because it's a bit too serious to joke about. We've already heard that the law is not working for nature. It's not working for renewable energy, for housing or for anyone. But I can tell you who it is most likely working for. That's the fossil fuel industry—literally hundreds of new approvals over those 25 years.

I am, by nature, a very positive individual. The glass, for me, is usually half full, so let me turn to the elements of the government's amendments that deserve a gold star. These include a shift in focus from a law based around process to one that makes outcomes clearer. That's why the codification of national environmental standards in these laws is so useful. All stakeholders will know and understand what good and bad look like. This also gives the consent authorities, be they future state and territory governments, the National EPA or the minister, a consistent yardstick against which to measure the merits or the shortcomings of a given project.

The second is stronger penalties for proponents who intentionally and persistently damage areas of high biodiversity and conservation value. The truth is that we can't put a value on platypus or Baudin's black cockatoo habitat, but we can use pricing signals to deter harmful behaviour. Stronger penalties will go some way to helping with that. But we are going to need a well-capacitated, independent regulator to prosecute. That's where the third gold, or rather silver, star comes in, with the establishment of the National EPA. In principle, this is a laudable amendment. We need to depoliticise decisions that have been made in the last 25 years under this law. The minister, in a political position which is more easily influenced by special interests, needs to be removed from as many of these decisions as possible. A competent, tightly codified and well-resourced, independent national EPA is most likely to be able to deliver for nature and industry.

You may have noticed that there was a silver star there, and perhaps I've been a little too generous, because this takes me to the frowny-face stamp, which is around the wide discretion provided for the minister to make decisions not in favour of nature but possibly against it. I'm referring to the national interest exemption, where the minister may consider Australia's national interest, be it defence, security or emergency needs, when ignoring the protections of nature. So far, the proposed law fails to define what projects could qualify for this exemption to protect the places we love. The acting CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation said that he was deeply concerned with the proposed exemptions, arguing its application was wide open to interpretation and could easily be misused. He said:

Too often the national interest is falsely conflated with the coal and gas industry and their commercial interests.

And, if it's not the intention of this government's environment minister to misuse it, what about that of a future government's environment minister?

To be clear, we've had laws that, for 25 years, have given the minister the power already to intervene to protect nature. This has only been flexed once, to my knowledge, and that was arguably more about politics than it was about nature. So, if the government is seeking to broaden the discretion provided to the minister to weigh in on decisions, then hold tight for even more decisions that favour industry over nature. As I've said before, if these laws don't protect nature, then which laws will? The way these amendments are drafted, there remain major loopholes, and restrictions on approving unacceptable impacts via ministerial discretion is just one of them.

What about the specifics? The proposed new laws do nothing to end land clearing or old-growth logging. The RFA and continuous-use exemptions and the failure to address large-scale deforestation remain, and this is despite knowing that habitat loss is one of the three main reasons for species extinction.

Despite the government's rhetoric on understanding the science of nature, there is very little regard, if any, for climate in these nature laws. There's no requirement that major polluting projects be assessed for their climate impacts, contrary to international law and the recent ICJ opinion. Nor is there a requirement for natural systems or ecosystem services to be assessed for their contribution to helping address climate impacts, be that in mitigation, adaptation or recovery. This is despite climate also being one of the top three reasons that Australia—and, in fact, the globe—has a species extinction crisis. The government is quick to criticise the coalition for not understanding the severities of the climate crisis, but the lack of climate consideration in these proposed nature laws makes me want them to take a look in the mirror. How is it possible that in 2025 strong nature laws are drafted without any consideration for the human induced climate crisis in which we and future generations must live?

Finally—because I'm running out of time, not because I'm running out of amendments to critique—I want to talk about the process of drafting and creating the national environmental standards. We won't see them before the bill is passed, and the Samuel review into the EPBC Act could not have been clearer that the NES is the fulcrum, the foundation, of reform. To quote the minister, this is a 'once-in-a-generation opportunity' to do what we can for nature. When we do, we help not just other species and future generations; we help ourselves here in this lifetime.

I support the intention of strengthening our nature laws. The government has made a good start, but, given the size of the crisis at hand and the responsibilities given to me by the people of Bradfield, I won't be supporting the amendments to our nature laws as proposed. My hope is that when these laws go to the Senate, our house of review, they will return here to this chamber with some additional safeguards attached, particularly for forestry protection, ministerial discretion and climate. When I see movement on these issues, I look forward to supporting the bills as amended, because our communities, our nation and our planet are depending on it.

Renee Coffey (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every generation gets only a few chances to do something significant that truly lasts. For ours, this is one of them—to renew the laws that protect the only home we have. These reforms are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect and restore our natural world and to pass on an Australia that is cleaner, greener and fairer than the one we inherited. In Griffith, we don't have to look far to see what's at stake. From the mangrove edges of Norman Creek to the summit views at Whites Hill Reserve, our community is stitched together by green corridors that give life and character to our suburbs. At dawn, rowers cut through the Brisbane River as mist hangs over the water. By dusk, lorikeets return to the canopies in our many bush corridors. These rhythms are part of who we are. Every weekend, I meet locals who tell me how much they treasure these places—people who walk our bush trails in the Seven Hills Bushland Reserve, kayak the reaches of the Brisbane River or volunteer with our many local conservation groups. Their work is quiet, local and deeply powerful. They plant, they restore, and they remind us that protecting the environment starts right here in our own backyards. The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 honours their work and gives Australia a framework that finally matches their local efforts.

The current EPBC laws date back to the Howard era in 1999, more than a quarter of a century ago. We all know these laws are simply not fit for purpose. They're outdated and broken. Across Australia, too many species are in decline, too many habitats are shrinking, and too many communities are weighed down by processes that are slow and inconsistent and lack the transparency that our communities rightly demand. Independent experts have urged us to act. In 2020, Professor Graeme Samuel's review told us the truth. The system is failing the environment and the people who depend on it. He has been plain about the urgency, saying this has been urgent for decades. From an economic perspective, as Dr Ken Henry warned at the National Press Club in July, policy paralysis must be unacceptable. These reforms answer that call. They bring our environmental laws into the 21st century, making them balanced, robust and forward-looking laws that protect what's precious while giving our communities and industry the clarity and rulebooks to support our local and national needs.

As you can see, there is a lot in these bills, all necessary to deliver a comprehensive overhaul of our existing regulatory landscape. The first is setting clear national rules. We will put in place national environmental standards—simple, enforceable rules so decisions are consistent across the country and everyone knows the bar they have to meet. The second is creating a strong, independent umpire, a national environmental protection agency, who will do the day-to-day regulating, assessing, licensing and enforcing, with the powers to make the rules stick. The third is ending the profit-from-pollution model. Penalties go up, and ill-gotten gains can be stripped so doing the wrong thing never pays. The fourth is making restoration real. If a project causes harm to nature, it must deliver a genuine net gain, leaving the environment better than before, not just promising to offset the damage on paper. The fifth is drawing hard lines. Some impacts are simply unacceptable. This bill makes those red lines clear so irreplaceable places and species are not put at risk. The sixth is speeding up good projects, not bad ones. If you bring strong information and meet the standards, your assessment pathway is streamlined—faster, clearer and less duplication. The last is shining a brighter light. Better data, open reporting and transparent decisions mean communities can see what's proposed, what's approved and why and hold us all to account. Put together, this is a fair system that rewards those who do the right thing, stops the shortcuts and rebuilds public trust while protecting the places we love.

Protection also means looking after the living neighbours we share our suburbs with. Our koalas still move along the green corridors of Norman Creek and Bulimba Creek, across Whites Hill Reserve and through the remnant bushland that stitches Camp Hill, Coorparoo and Holland Park together. In summer, flying foxes crisscross the night sky, powerful owls haunt tall eucalypts and water dragons sunbathe behind local sporting ovals. Along the riverbank, mangroves filter and protect, quietly doing the heavy lifting that keeps our city livable. In the melaleuca wetlands in Cannon Hill, the paperbarks offer shade and birdsong reminds us to take a moment to slow down. But these places are more than scenery; they are working habitat corridors. When we strengthen them, koalas have safer passages to feed and breed, urban heat is lowered by canopy and stormwater has somewhere to slow and settle. When we lose them, we don't just lose species; we lose the resilience, amenity and natural character that makes Griffith feel like home.

Yes, some of the most distinctive locals are the bush stone-curlews, the long-legged night watchers whose calls have startled more than a few new residents of Coorparoo and Camp Hill. It's a majestic bird that was undeniably robbed of the honour of being the Australian bird of the year; 2026 will be the curlew's year. Australian bird of the year or not, our job is to make sure the curlew still has safe places to nest and raise its young, just as these reforms strengthen protections for koala feed trees, creek-line vegetation and the mangroves that shelter juvenile fish.

That is at the heart of this reform—practical steps that protect and restore the flora and fauna that define our ecosystems. Clear national standards, genuine restoration requirements and a strong independent regulator mean local bush care is backed by national law. Approvals will respect science and community, and the net-gain approach will leave nature better than we found it. If we do this well, the next generation will inherit healthier creeks, thicker canopy and continued birdsong at dusk, living proof that our nature is not just surviving but thriving.

Conservation decisions outlive us. The Franklin, the Daintree and Kakadu endure because previous generations acted with courage. Koongarra, Ningaloo, the Murray-Darling and our oceans stand protected because leaders chose to protect what we love. I'm proud to be a member of the Australian Labor Party, the party that has delivered every single major environmental reform in our nation's history. When Australians think of the moments we chose protection over short-term convenience, they remember Labor governments taking responsibility and acting with courage. In the seventies, it was under Gough Whitlam that we established the first federal department of the environment, blocked drilling plans in the Great Barrier Reef, ratified the World Heritage Convention, and passed the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. In the eighties, it was under Bob Hawke that we used World Heritage powers to protect wild rivers, returned Uluru to traditional owners, launched Landcare, led the international push to ban mining in Antarctica and adopted greenhouse gas reduction targets. In the nineties, it was under Paul Keating that we protected K'gari from logging and mining and introduced the Endangered Species Protection Act and the Indigenous protected areas process. In the 2000s, it was under Kevin Rudd that we ratified the Kyoto Protocol within days of taking office, launched Caring for our Country, a major landscape-scale biodiversity investment, and provided long-term funding to the Working on Country Indigenous rangers program. In the 2010s, it was under a Gillard government that we established the Climate Change Authority for independent advice, forged the Tasmanian forestry agreement to protect high-value native forests and expanded the Commonwealth marine parks to 3.1 million square kilometres, making it the largest network in the world.

And now, under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, we have signed the Leaders Pledge for Nature, adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and moved on the Nature Repair Act to create a framework for private biodiversity investment. We've protected an extra 95 million hectares of Australian oceans and land, extending marine parks around Macquarie Island and Heard Island and McDonald Islands. We've established Environment Information Australia to give the public and businesses easier access to the latest environmental data. We've doubled funding to better look after our national parks, including Kakadu, doubled the Indigenous Rangers Program, invested over $600 million to protect threatened flora and fauna and tackle feral animals and weeds, and invested $200 million to clean up our rivers. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it demonstrates our courage to rise to the challenge and do the work to put in place effective laws that protect our natural environment.

While those opposite are tearing themselves apart and wanting to take Australia backwards, this bill continues this proud Labor story—looking forward, not backward. These reforms are the product of years of listening. I want to acknowledge the scientists, conservationists, renewable energy advocates, farmers, planners, local councils and industry groups who have shared their expertise and passion.

I want to thank the Labor Environment Action Network, LEAN, whose persistence and vision have helped keep environmental reform on the national agenda. I've been a proud member of LEAN for many years, part of a grassroots movement of Labor members and supporters working to ensure the environment remains at the centre of our politics. As an ALP national conference delegate, last year I supported a motion from LEAN about the proposed development at Moreton Bay's Toondah Harbour. The development would have had an absolutely unacceptable impact on the Ramsar-listed wetland and on threatened species, such as the critically endangered eastern curlew. With my support, this motion was passed at National Conference in August 2024. Shortly following this, Minister Tanya Plibersek proposed rejecting the development due to its unacceptable environmental impact, and the proposal was soon withdrawn. It meant a lot to me when I was identified as a LEAN climate and environment champion nationally, and, now, as a member of this place, I am proud to continue this agenda.

Since coming into office I have met with climate action and environment groups, in my electorate of Griffith and nationally, to listen to their concerns and to share important messages from the government. In these first few months, I have met with more than 20 groups and local constituents to discuss climate change and the environment, and I want to acknowledge their advocacy. The groups have included the Griffith Australian Conservation Foundation and Wilderness Society groups, and their federal counterparts; the Australian Youth Climate Coalition; Parents for Climate; WWF Australia and many more. We have also hosted a roundtable with local environmental and climate change groups, with the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Josh Wilson, and doorknocked local residents in my community alongside the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Murray Watt.

Environmental reform sits at the centre of nearly every challenge our nation faces. Whether it's building homes or transport, securing clean and reliable energy, supporting farmers and fishers, protecting water systems and preparing for a changing climate, all of it depends on the health of our environment and the rules that approvals are pinned to. These reforms give clarity to those who build, who invest, who grow and who care for the land. They ensure progress does not come at the expense of nature but in partnership with it. This is not about saying no to development; it's about saying yes to doing it better. When we get that balance right, we build not just environmental protection; we build national resilience, confidence and pride.

I want to acknowledge Professor Samuel for his excellent work in delivering recommendations that were supported by environment, First Nations and industry stakeholders alike. This is our moment to show courage and leadership together. Australians want us to act. The scientists and ecologists, planners, catchment managers and community volunteers and Professor Graeme Samuel have told us clearly what is needed. He has urged cooperation across politics and reminded us: 'don't let perfect be the enemy of good'. He has said:

What we are talking about here is the future of nature for our children, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

He has also been clear that this package reflects the totality of his review's recommendations. There is no variation, in any significant or, indeed, any small way, from the recommendations of the review. As Dr Ken Henry concluded in his National Press Club address, 'We have had all the reviews we need.' As he said: 'It is now up to parliament. Let's just get it done.'

So to every member of this parliament—government, opposition and crossbench: let's meet this moment. Let us work across differences and pass the reforms our experts have asked for and our communities deserve. Many commentators and politicians want to frame this legislation as a tug of war between the environment and the economy; they assert a false choice that you can have one but not the other. This is plain wrong. You don't have to choose between the environment and jobs and business. You can protect and improve our environment while removing duplication and speeding up decisions. That was at the heart of Professor Samuel's report. In the same way that we moved beyond the notion that you could act on climate change or have jobs, we must move beyond this false choice when it comes to nature.

When we think of Australia's great environmental victories—the Franklin, the Daintree and Kakadu—they were never easy, but they still endure. And, in this moment, our communities and experts are asking us to choose progress over protest and outcomes over outrage—to work side by side, to deliver for the environment, to support business to deliver the homes and clean energy that we need, and to hand on a healthier environment to the next generation. Let us not miss this chance.

The House transcript was published up t o 20:55 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Lawrence ) took the chair at 12:38, a division having been called in the House of Representatives.