Leon Rebello (McPherson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition believes stop-work powers must be time limited, appealable and transparent. Otherwise, they threaten investment confidence and local jobs. I can only imagine the consequences for my community on the southern Gold Coast. A stop-work order on a small civil worksite could hold up dozens of tradies, including apprentices, concreters and electricians—everyday people trying to make a living. A prolonged suspension on foreshore renewal projects or surf club upgrades could leave construction zones fenced off through peak tourism season. This would hurt local cafes, surf shops and accommodation providers. Even a short delay in approvals for new housing estates would send ripple effects through supply chains. Timber yards, surveyors and local suppliers would all feel the pinch in my electorate. That's not protecting the environment; that's punishing local jobs and small-business confidence.

The second major concern is the sheer scale of penalties that are buried in this legislation. We're talking about fines reaching hundreds of millions of dollars—in some cases up to $825 million—for breaches that might include administrative oversights. For large corporations, it's another cost of doing business, but, for smaller tourism and eco businesses in McPherson—boat operators, local quarries and community groups—these penalties could destroy livelihoods overnight. To make matters worse, the bill includes strict liability provisions, meaning intent doesn't even have to be proven. That's not fairness; that's a trap for honest Australians trying to do the right thing.

Environmental protection should be about partnership, not punishment, yet Labor's reforms send a chilling message: 'We don't trust you.' It's a system designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats, not for the people who actually build our nation. The Business Council of Australia has said plainly that we need clarity, consistency and common sense in enforcement, not overreach. The government's approach will make compliance so costly and complex that small business operators will simply give up. We need an enforcement model that encourages cooperation, educates small operators and focuses penalties on deliberate, environmental harm, not paperwork errors. That's how you build a responsible environmental culture.

For my community, the consequences of these reforms are real and immediate. We are home to small developers, tourism operators, surf-lifesaving clubs and marine industries that rely on clear, consistent environmental approvals. Under the proposed Labor plan, projects will face longer assessment times, compliance costs will skyrocket and the uncertainty created by indefinite stop-work powers will stall investment on the southern Gold Coast.

We've already seen industry confidence waver. The Business Council of Australia CEO, Bran Black, warned, 'Without significant changes, this bills risks embedding a system that's even slower, more complex and lacking the clarity and the certainty needed for investment.' He's right. These reforms more red tape than reform.

Every extra month of delay on an approval means another month that builders can't start, apprentices and tradies can't work and businesses can't expand. For my seat of McPherson, what does that mean? It means fewer local jobs and slower growth. Small business confidence is already fragile. These reforms would tip the scales against investment in tourism infrastructure and green energy projects that our region depends on. Even local councils could be caught up in compliance uncertainty when trying to deliver coastal protection works or new projects. This isn't just theoretical; it's real impact on real people right in my community on the southern Gold Coast.

Another alarming feature is the creation of an unaccountable EPA CEO, answerable not to the minister but effectively to no-one. The CEO can issue binding orders, halt operations and impose massive penalties, yet cannot be dismissed by the minister. Where is the accountability? This is consistent with what we're seeing across this 48 Parliament from this government. What we've seen, as I've said previously, is a sense of 'emboldenedness' from the election result turning into a sense of arrogance. It's a dangerous concentration of power and one that Professor Graeme Samuel's review never recommended.

I know that before me was a speaker who time and time again referred to Professor Graeme Samuel. That review never recommended this set up. He called for a commissioner a model: accountable, transparent and limited to compliance and enforcement, not an agency that acts as judge, jury and executioner. If we look at other statutory bodies—the ACCC, the eSafety Commissioner and even the Ombudsman—they all operate within clear frameworks, answerable to ministers and the parliament. They have key performance indicators, reporting obligations and a chain of accountability.

The EPA model in this bill has none of that. It's an agency with unchecked power and the ability to impose decisions that can cripple industries across the country, including in my seat of McPherson. And there is no real avenue for appeal either.

Australians deserve environmental oversight that is effective, not authoritarian. Accountability is not a barrier to environmental protection. It's the foundation of public trust. We all agree the environment matters, and my community takes pride in our conservation efforts, but environmental law must protect nature without strangling opportunity. The coalition has always believed in balance between protection and productivity, and between sustainability and jobs. Our contribution in this debate is about ensuring that that balance is maintained.

Under the previous coalition government, Australia achieved record renewable investment while cutting waste, improving recycling and protecting threatened species. That's the model that works—practical action, not ideological overreach. Under the coalition, Australia had the world's highest uptake of rooftop solar, with one in four homes producing their own clean energy. We delivered the $250 million Recycling Modernisation Fund that turned waste into opportunity and invested in reef protection and threatened species. Again, that's practical action, not ideological overreach. These were outcomes achieved through cooperation not confrontation, working with industry not against it. That's the difference. Our approach is collaborative, and it builds capacity and confidence. All Labor's does is build bureaucracy.

Labor's bill fails on multiple counts. It undermines natural justice through unlimited stop work powers. It cripples enterprise through excessive penalties. Our local industries and environment groups deserve better. The government must go back to the drawing board, consult properly, remove the overreach and deliver balanced reform that supports both jobs and the environment.

In McPherson, on the southern Gold Coast, we do not believe that prosperity and protection are opposites. We believe they can and they must work together. This is not about choosing between growth and greenery, between jobs and biodiversity. It's about having the courage to design laws that do both—protect what we love and enable what we need as a community, as a state and as a country. I know the people of the southern Gold Coast. They are practical, forward looking and deeply connected to the land and sea around them. They want fair laws not fast politics and, importantly, they want results not rhetoric. They want us to do what the government should—bring industry and community together and get it right for the next generation.

So I say to the minister and to the government: scrap the rushed timelines, fix the flaws and start listening. Start listening to the people of Australia. Start listening to those on this side of the House that represent a very large cross-section of the Australian community, from the cities to the regions. Don't just listen to the Greens but listen to those Australians whose livelihoods depend on these decisions. Let's get serious about reform, not about red tape. Let's protect our environment while protecting our future. We can do both. There is this fallacy that seems to be spoken about by the opposition where we can't, but we can. McPherson deserves a government that balances both, not one that sacrifices our prosperity to appease ideology.

(Quorum formed)

Emma Comer (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia's biodiversity is one of the richest and most extraordinary on Earth. From our ancient rainforests and our vast deserts to our coastal wetlands and coral reefs, we are home to species and ecosystems found nowhere else. This diversity is not just a source of national pride but also the foundation of our national strength.

Healthy ecosystems support our economy, our communities and our way of life. They filter our air and water and protect our coastlines from erosion. They provide the natural resources and services that sustain agriculture, tourism and industry, and, for many of us, keep a steady flow of water from our taps, whenever we need it—something that's often taken for granted. Without birds, and bees and insects transferring pollen from one plant to another, our crops would fail. Without wetlands filtering and storing water, our rivers would run dry. Without our riparian zones, urban and agricultural run-off would pollute our waterways, leading to algal blooms and species loss. Without forests absorbing carbon, our climate would be harsher and more volatile. Without forests, our climate is further dysregulated and our soils are poorer. These ecosystem services are the quiet workhorses of our economy. They save us billions of dollars every year by doing what no technology can fully replicate. Protecting them is not just good environmental policy; it is sound economic policy.

We also know the benefit of natural spaces to our mental and physical health. Parks, trails and gardens give people places to connect with nature, to exercise and to find calm. They bring shade and lower the temperatures of our suburbs. They make our cities more liveable and resilient to heat. Our beaches are a quintessential part of our identity as Australians. Ensuring that we can continue to enjoy these spaces is vital.

That is why restoring and protecting nature must go hand in hand with building homes and infrastructure for the future. That is the principle at the heart of these reforms. For far too many homes in Australia, it takes longer to get an approval than it takes to build. That captures one of the biggest challenges our nation faces. A system meant to balance growth and environmental protection has, instead, become a barrier to both. It is holding back housing supply, making it harder for Australians to own a home and slowing the renewable energy infrastructure needed for our future.

That is why the Albanese Labor government is reforming Australia's national environmental laws to make them stronger, fairer and more effective—because protecting our environment and building the homes Australians need are not competing priorities; they are connected goals. Healthy environments create healthy communities, and thriving communities need affordable, sustainable housing. Both depend on good planning, clear rules and a system that delivers outcomes rather than obstacles.

In August this year the government announced that it would fast-track 26,000 homes currently under environmental assessment. That builds on our ambitious $43 billion housing agenda—the most comprehensive housing plan in a generation. But, on its own, fast-tracking only treats the symptom. The measures in this bill tackle the underlying cause of delay while delivering greater protections for nature.

The reforms before the House are the most significant overhaul of our environmental laws in nearly 25 years, which were first introduced when I was five years old. It is time for reform. When the EPBC Act was first introduced in 1999 its aim was to protect matters of national environmental significance while supporting sustainable development. Over time the system became bogged down with complexity, duplication and delay. Assessments drag on for years, proponents face uncertainty and communities lose trust that environmental protections are enforced. In that vacuum, homes and habitats both suffer. That is why this government has gone back to first principles to build a system that protects nature while supporting reasonable growth.

These reforms rests on three pillars: firstly, stronger environmental protections and restoration not just to look after our special places but to regenerate them for future generations; secondly, more efficient and robust project assessments and approvals, enabling faster, better decisions on national priorities like renewable energy, manufacturing and housing; and, thirdly, greater accountability and transparency, delivering on our election commitment for a national environmental protection agency. Delivering on these pillars is critical to building the housing we need.

We have heard loud and clear from industry, communities and experts that the current system is not working. Assessments under the EPBC Act are unpredictable, take too long and create uncertainty across the economy. That is not good for builders, buyers, workers or investors and is not good for the environment. The slow and inconsistent system does not protect nature; it leaves projects proceeding without the strategic planning and restoration frameworks that these reforms will deliver.

These changes address the challenge head-on. By working cooperatively with states and territories while maintaining strong Commonwealth standards, by adopting landscape-scale approaches to environmental restoration and approvals, and by streamlining assessment pathways so that good projects move forward quicker and bad projects are stopped early, these changes together will create a system that is faster, fairer and more predictable without compromising environmental standards.

We reject the idea that we must choose between a strong environment and a strong economy. Our natural environment underpins our long-term prosperity. A well-designed regulatory system can and must deliver both. These bills are not a tug-of-war between protecting nature and addressing our housing shortage; they are about designing a system that does both, protecting our most precious natural assets while unlocking the homes and infrastructure Australians need.

The coalition have made it clear that they are not interested in how these reforms will help solve the housing shortage. In fact, they're not interested in housing at all. They checked out of housing for nine years in government. For most of that time they did not even have a housing minister. In opposition they have voted against new homes at every opportunity. Just this week the member for Wright said they didn't have a housing problem back when the coalition was in government, further proving how out of touch they are. The opposition have shown that they are only interested in saying 'no' to progress, to solutions, to responsibility and to each other. They have a choice this term: continue to play political games or work with us to tackle this generational challenge. Australians have seen through opposition for opposition's sake. The coalition should heed the message and work constructively with the government to reform Australia's environmental laws and help fix the housing crisis.

The same goes for the Greens. When it comes to housing, the Greens too often choose politics over progress. Australians are tired of slogans; they want solutions. The Greens should heed the same message as the coalition and work with the government to deliver these long overdue environmental reforms.

For our part, the Albanese Labor government has been clear and consistent. We are getting on the job of fixing a system that has failed for too long. We are rebuilding the foundations of a fair and sustainable housing market and restoring integrity and accountability to environmental decision-making. Communities should trust that projects meet the highest standards. Industry should know that if they do the right thing they will be treated fairly and efficiently. That is why establishing the National Environmental Protection Agency is so important. For too long, decisions have been clouded by uncertainty and mistrust. The new agency will provide independent oversight, ensure that standards are applied consistently and enforce the law when breaches occur. Australians deserve confidence that our environment is being protected and that our laws are being upheld. We are living in the era of unprecedented change. Climate change, biodiversity loss and population growth demand a more integrated approach that will help unlock the homes and communities that Australians need to thrive.

I want to acknowledge the people who have fought tirelessly to see these changes come to life. Back in 2018, more than 500 Labor branches voted for stronger national environmental laws. In my electorate, branch members are tireless in their environmental advocacy. I want to thank the rank-and-file branch members who have pushed for this legislation, the people who know that real reform starts in communities, not in Canberra. This is community led, ground-up policy. They recognise that our environment is not a political issue but a shared responsibility. I want to thank the environment minister, Senator the Hon. Murray Watt, for his tireless work on this reform. I also want to acknowledge the contribution to these reforms by the previous minister for environment, Minister Tanya Plibersek.

Our natural environment is one of the greatest gifts we can pass on. The next generation deserves to inherit clean rivers, thriving forests and protected coastlines. They also deserve to inherit cities and towns where they can afford to live, to raise a family and to build a life. We can do both, we must do both, and we will do both. As with nature, everything is connected, and this government believes that good policy is not choosing one priority over another but finding a way to advance both. That is what these reforms will do. We need to get this done. It's time to act, to deliver on what Australians put us here to do. Every day we delay is a day the environment is degrading further. Every day we delay is one that we could be building the renewable energy and the housing that we need for the future.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to say we have a dilemma in the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. I know the timber industry and other areas definitely want to have security. They know that, if we do not come to some form of agreement, so many jobs and a vital industry for our nation will be put at risk, because it forces the Labor Party to deal with the Greens, and what a dilemma that is! What we see here and what I've been part of, as a person who lives in the country and lives on the property I was born on, is the continued encroachment into private property rights, which is a fundamental of a safe, secure, Western, free democracy. If you want something, we work on a very fair principle. If there is a community benefit that is desirous of a certain aspect that will be enforced by a caveat or exclusion, then you buy it. You offer a price and buy it. You don't just implicitly, from a government position, steal it. This is how we see it. If I were to say in your house that I'm going to pass a piece of legislation that says that you can only go into your kitchen on Tuesdays, that the third bedroom is not allowed to be used and that you can use your lounge room but you can only sleep on the right-hand side of your bed, you would say, 'That is a massive diminishment of the value of my house.' You would say, 'I expect to be paid for that, if that's what you really want.' But you're doing that to our farmland. You're doing that to our farmers.

The only reason we're meeting these targets, such as the Kyoto target—and I'll say at the start that the Liberal Party and the coalition were responsible for stitching us up in that, because they got the states to do the dirty work—is that people on the land have had to pay for them with the exclusion of their rights, the exclusion of their capacity to manage vegetation, manage regrowth and manage grasses. At my place, which is owned by me and my wife, we woke up one day, and our whole place was coded yellow or orange. That means that I can't even chop up a dead tree. I'm not allowed to. I have to get permission. I don't think you will see that in an urban environment. I don't think you could comprehend what a massive intrusion into our lives that is and how we feel that we've had it stolen. After working very hard to pay something off—and we did pay it off; we bought it and paid it off—it's been taken back off us. And it's not just for the trees; it's for the grasses and for the shrubs. It is insanity. The only part on the map that I'm allowed to touch is my lawn. That is it—the lawn. It is a fact.

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it shows how ignorant you are. That's the problem we've got. You're completely ignorant of the facts, and that's why you stand so boldly behind this legislation. You really don't understand the effect of it. On this side, we can't just stop this ratcheting to the left and then say, 'Well, it won't go any further to the left under us.' No. It's got to go back. You've got to reinstall property rights. Who ultimately becomes the beneficiary of this? It's the bureaucracy that polices it.

In the past, my father worked for the department of agriculture. He worked for the government. His job was to assist people to get a better outcome from their land, to get a better outcome from their animal husbandry, to deal with viruses and to deal with pathogens. He was a clever man, dealing with microdoses and strain 19s. Bodies like that one have gone from assisting farmers to policing farmers. The only time they turn up—and it is a major fine—is for criminal convictions for doing what we've always done for generations on our property.

I shouldn't have to say this. From the aerial maps, you can see there are vastly more trees on our place than there were in 1969. We've got no problems with that, but we don't like being looked at by satellites and by AI. There's a fear all the time: 'Maybe I've done something wrong to my own land—my own property.' What we see with this is a dilemma in this legislation. I've been speaking to workers from the timber industry in electorate of Lyne, and they've been saying: 'You've got to cut a deal, because this affects our area. Please do not force them to the Greens.' I said, 'But hang on—then we've got to comply with this form of socialism that's coming in.'

Socialism, ultimately, is the primacy of the state over the rights of the individual. Every time we do this, we reinvest in the primacy of the state over the rights of the individual. On our side, we believe in the primacy of the individual over the state. The state is there for very important requirements—for health, for education and for defence—but it's not supposed to have excessive stewardship or ownership of my private asset, and that is what has been happening with this. All these incremental caveats that are placed on our assets always come with some apparently quasi-benevolent form. It's climate change. It's biodiversity. It's this. It's that. It's salinity. They're all plausible in their first iteration, but the solution is always a loss of property rights, another caveat on what we can do.

I know little about lots, but I know lots about politics, and I sense in the public a dynamic pushback against this. I see it even in issues which identify a catalyst of where issues are. In the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin this morning, there was a poll on coal fired power. It found 9,300 people in support and 142 against. I think that's reflective of an overall cynicism that people have about the whole process, and it's being expressed in that issue. People are saying: I think I'm going to call rubbish on a lot of this stuff because all I can see is the government getting bigger, the nation getting broker, industry leaving, farmers being dispossessed of their assets, people becoming poor and pensioners becoming poorer.

And for the benefit of whom? Cui bono? Who benefits? Bureaucrats? I know it's some sort of Zeitgeist that I really don't know the numbers of. Is it billionaires—people who are smart, who put themselves up as the white knights of the environmental movement, from their corporate jet? You'd probably find that their tax affairs were based in Singapore and they were resident in Monaco. The beneficiaries of the wealth of all of these caveats on things such as your electricity—your swindle factories—don't reside in Australia; a lot of them reside overseas. So, in some of these things, I just wanted to show you how perverse some of these offsets are.

You talk about a housing crisis—and the member for Parkes did a brilliant speech before, and I recommend it to those who want to see some of the examples of how ridiculous this is. At Denman, I'm trying to help with an aged-care facility. They are going to extend it into a paddock. It is rubbish country, with a couple of dead trees—a rubbish country paddock. They had to spend—

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They gave them $13 million or $11 million—

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take the interjection from the member for Hunter. As he well knows, they had to put $3½ million to offsets to build aged-care units. So you know what they did? They didn't build as many units, which means that people didn't go out of their houses, which means that other people didn't have houses to go into. In a very specific example, it shows you how obscene this policy is, in that you would say to people, 'No, we're not going to have aged-care units. We're going to send your money off to'—I don't know—'Ningaloo Reef for some environmental offset.'

Right now we have tens of thousands of acres in the Upper Hunter where the cattle have been removed and they're just going to plant trees—

Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Cooplacurripa.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Cooplacurripa, in the seat of Lyne, they used to have 8,000 head of cattle. Eight thousand head of cattle—they're gone. That means there's pressure coming on the jobs of the meat workers who used to cut up the 8,000 head of cattle. That means the trucks that used to transport those 8,000 head of cattle are losing out. That means those shops that used to make money out of the people who had cattle on Cooplacurripa will lose out—the hairdresser; the tyre business. And for whom? For the Zeitgeist. And do you offer anything back? No. You give nothing.

Unless we are going to evolve into a higher form of termite, this is not much use to us. And that is happening to place after place after place. This is perverse! We are actually putting up a policy to reduce the production of food, so that, after we've absolutely butchered the electricity market, we're going to butcher the food market. Why would we do that?

Hand in glove with that, we're always seeing that they no longer believe in coal-fired power stations—they're evil—and they're always, with a wink and a nod, having a shot at the coalmining industry and coalminers. It's always the case that they're running down the blue-collar workers that the Labor Party was born to look after. That is who you were supposed to look after—blue-collar workers. But you've given up on them. There's only a handful—two or three—blue-collar workers left in the Labor Party. Mostly they're bureaucrats or staffers or whatever, but they're not people who've worked with their hands; they're not people who've worked outside. They just don't exist anymore. That's an item of history—that that section of the Labor Party was there.

You say you got a lot of votes. You got about 34 or 35 per cent of the primary.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More than you got!

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More than us, I grant you that. But I'll tell you what: I would be really careful of that vote! I'd be careful of standing behind that vote.

Here's another example. We were going to run out of water for the city of Tamworth. We had only 40,000 megs in the storage, and, when we applied to increase the storage—which I got—we had to break the offset laws, because of the Booroolong frog. I thought that frogs lived in water; I thought the frogs would be happy. But apparently they weren't. And it was serious. People got terribly upset, because their investment in the Booroolong frog was more important than 70,000 people in the city of Tamworth having water to drink. It is almost a sort of Kafkaesque and alternative universe that we have created—this mad type of philosophy which works at complete odds to not only the regional areas but to the rights of the farmer, to the prosperity of small regional towns and villages, to the strength of our nation and to the maintenance of what is fundamental. We talk about a housing crisis, and you shut down the timber industry. We talk about the cost-of-living crisis, and you shut down the coal-fired power stations and say you've got to use the most expensive form of electricity in the world, as shown—which is intermittent power. We say we believe in pensioners—yet you make them pay multiple millions of dollars in the small country towns for environmental offsets. Then you go to some sort of branch members' meeting and everyone's bleeding all over the place about how important this is for the environment. Go up to Denman and explain to the aged-care facility why you are taking $3.5 million dollars off them for a paddock. Why would we do this? Why do we do this?

This brings us to the question of where we go from here. Once more: the timber industry is very important. It's very important for the member of Lyne's seat. It's not so important for mine, but it definitely has a role. We somehow have to get sane people to cut a deal that helps industries such as timber and allows more of a streamlining so that we are not completely tied up in red tape. But we also have to, in that process, start putting some ring-roads around the intrusion into our private property rights that you have dealt us. The member for Hunter says it's the state governments; the state governments do it to us because they don't have to pay just and fair compensation. But the Commonwealth government is the source of the primary legislation and the primary targets, with all the international targets they want to meet. They're the beneficiaries. The state governments are the implementers, and we are the poor bunnies who pay the price.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is nothing more distinctively Australian than our stunning natural environment, and there are few places more iconic than the Three Sisters in the Blue Mountains—a World Heritage area in my electorate. In fact, it's the 25th anniversary of the declaration of the area as a World Heritage area on 29 November. This is an area that gets four million visitors a year. They come because we are known around the world for our wilderness in Sydney's backyard. We need to protect it. Our environment and economy are intrinsically linked. For the Blue Mountains, our tourism relies on a healthy natural environment. It matters in the Hawkesbury and along the Nepean too. For the Hawkesbury especially, the agricultural sector relies on a healthy natural environment. Australians want governments, businesses and environmental groups to work together to protect our environment and to reap the economic benefits of sustainable development.

This last election, people put their trust in Labor. They clearly rejected the extremes of politics on both sides. We know it's really important to build connections from all sides. That goes to the type of government Australians have told us that they want. We need to be able to accept the science and to build coalitions across the community while solving the problems and keeping the lights on. This Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, and cognate bills, delivers modern, fit-for-purpose national environmental laws that ensure big gains for both the environment and for business. The Albanese government is committed to reforming our environmental laws to deliver stronger protections, reduce duplication and boost accountability and transparency in decision-making.

The legacy of every Labor government in my lifetime has been to improve the environment for future generations. That is an endless task. In June 1987, Bob Hawke went to the Daintree to announce that he was going to seek World Heritage listing for that site. I flew with the prime minister that day, as a young journalist, to report on the announcement. It was incredible to witness history. That decision and announcement in the election campaign that year, came on the back of the Hawke decision to save the Franklin River from being dammed a few years earlier.

The Keating government began the establishment of Indigenous Protected Areas, which now cover 112 million hectares of land and sea. Rudd signed us up to climate action through the Kyoto protocol, and Gillard continued that work. The Albanese government is aiming to protect and conserve 30 per cent of Australia's land and 30 per cent of our marine areas by 2030. And we've committed more than $1 billion in funds for that plus the Indigenous Protected Areas Program to protect critical biodiversity areas, as well as our ambitious plan to stop species extinction.

One of the projects we've done in Macquarie is a million-dollar grant for the Hawkesbury Environment Network and incredible platypus work by Western Sydney University researcher Dr Michelle Ryan and her colleagues. And a new koala project will soon begin with Science for Wildlife and the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute, worth nearly $3.5 million, to research and look at land and threat management to help establish a koala stronghold in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. This has the potential to support 20 per cent of New South Wales koalas.

So, Labor makes a difference to the environment. We protect it, and Australians endorsed the Albanese government's policy agenda at the election. That agenda involved protecting jobs and the environment. That includes making sensible reforms to protect our environment and deliver certainty to business. It's been five years since Graeme Samuel tabled his report for the former environment minister, currently the Leader of the Opposition, and our laws remain fundamentally broken. They aren't working for the environment or for industry. These new laws are a targeted and balanced package of reforms to the EPBC Act, centred on three pillars. No 1. is stronger environmental protection and restoration. No. 2 is more efficient and robust project approvals. And No. 3 is greater accountability and transparency in decision-making.

These are stronger environmental protection and restoration laws that won't just deliver better protections for our special places but also will restore and regenerate them for future generations. There will be more efficient and robust project assessments and approvals that will allow us to better respond and deliver on national priorities like the renewable energy transition and the housing that we need. There will be greater accountability and transparency in decision-making to give all Australians confidence that good decisions are being made.

Let's work through some of the changes. First of all is the National Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA. Under the proposed reforms we'll establish the first ever national EPA, delivering on an election commitment that was proudly campaigned for by my branch members and by many other people in my community: the Labor Environment Action Network, or LEAN; the Blue Mountains Conservation Society; Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action; the Australian Conservation Foundation in my local area; the Macquarie Alliance for Climate; the GetUp members in the Macquarie electorate; and the Hawkesbury Environment Network. They all want to see this change.

The EPA would exercise a range of powers independently of the minister, such as compliance and enforcement of the laws and project conditions and the auditing of state and territory processes for project assessments and approvals against the new national environmental standards. What are they? Well, reforms will allow the minister to make national environmental standards that set boundaries for decisions so they deliver improved environmental outcomes. Their aim is to protect, conserve and restore important environmental areas and species to genuinely make up for the environmental damage that's done and deliver a net gain for the environment to support better decision-making and to help the public understand and comment on projects.

We recognise that some impacts can't be approved unless the project is in the national interest. The reforms include a new definition of 'unacceptable impact' specific to each protected matter. Among other things, they'll provide a safeguard against impacts that cause irreversible loss of Australia's biodiversity and heritage and clearly define what types of environmental harm must be avoided and cannot be offset. That includes World Heritage areas like the Blue Mountains. It includes threatened species and it includes wetlands of international importance. Significantly, this bill ensures that projects must leave the environment better off by introducing the concept of net gain for environmental offsets. This is a shift from the current rules, which focus on no net loss. Projects will be required by law to avoid, mitigate and repair damage to protected matters wherever possible. Any residual significant impacts on nationally protected matters must be fully offset to achieve a net gain for the environment. That's the improvement. The net gain can be achieved either by the proponent directly delivering an offset or through an upfront financial contribution to a restoration fund. This shifts the dial towards avoided impacts and restoration, giving our native populations the opportunity to regenerate, recover and become more resilient.

I want to give a bit more detail about environmental offsets. Sometimes, projects can harm the environment in ways that can't be avoided. When this happens, this is how we offset to compensate or make up for the damage. Under the proposed changes to the EPBC Act, it will require project managers to avoid harm in the first place—that's No. 1—and then offset that remaining impact to deliver the net gain. The proposed changes will allow certain biodiversity certificates issued under the nature repair market to be used for environmental offsetting. So project proponents have some options. They can deliver an offset themselves, they can pay for the government to do it via a restoration contribution payment, or they can do a combination of both. A new restoration contributions holder will manage the funds to deliver the net gain and ensure transparency.

The reforms also introduce new emissions disclosure requirements. In keeping with Professor Samuel's recommendations, there's no climate trigger in this bill, but major emitting project proponents will be required to disclose estimates of scope 1 and scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions as part of gaining federal environmental removal. Proponents will also be required to disclose their plans to reduce those emissions and explain how those measures are consistent with government laws and policies.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me. Have you ever planted a tree?

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This legislation is not a tug of war between the environment and the economy. I've heard the coalition, the Greens and some Independents each argue that you can have one but not the other. That isn't true. These reforms deliver a balanced package while delivering more efficient and robust project approvals, which means more renewables projects will be approved more quickly—

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you ever planted a tree?

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Kennedy will cease interjecting.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and that will help people with their energy costs and lowering emissions. But we will also be delivering the strongest environmental protection and restoration laws that Australia has had. It won't just deliver better protections for our special places but restore and regenerate them for future generations.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wonder whether people in this place ever did a history lesson in their lives. I asked the lady who was just speaking whether she'd ever planted a tree. In every single environmental meeting I have ever been to—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy will refer to members by their proper title.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know what her proper title is.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the member for Macquarie.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Macquarie—I simply asked her if she'd ever planted a tree. Could I ask you again? Have you ever planted a tree?

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've planted dozens of trees.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She has planted thousands of trees! Where?

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I live in the World Heritage Blue Mountains.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, both members on both sides. I'm not going to have banter between both sides. It's through the chair that you ask the questions, and you're speaking through the chair.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll move on. What is happening here is about my ownership of land and the undermining of our freedoms, our integrity, our 'comfortableness' and our ease. They are being taken away and given to a bunch of bureaucrats sitting on their backsides in air conditioned comfort in Canberra. They're going to tell me what I can and can't do with my land. Who is better qualified to look after the land—a fifth-generation grazier, or fifth-generation cane farmer, or some beggar sitting on his backside here who's a fifth-generation public servant in Canberra? Who'd know more about it? Why is he living in Canberra in air-conditioned comfort, and why is he or she living out there in the wilderness? It's because they love the wilderness. That's why they're living there. Why are you living in Sydney? It's because you're terrified of the wilderness! You don't understand it. You've never set foot in it. You've never lived there. You've never aspired to make your country better off than it is.

It would be just wonderful if these people read some books and had an understanding of history. The authoritarian government in Britain said, 'I own your land,' to the people of America, and the Americans said: 'Hey, wait on a minute. I own my land. That's my farm. That's where I run my cattle. That's my land!' The authoritarian government in England said, 'No—we own the land!' That's exactly what you're saying today: 'We own the land, not you. We, the authoritarian government, the ruling class, own the land.'

I pose the question again: who would know more about the land—love it and protect it? Would it be the people who live on the land or the person sitting on his shiny backside here in Canberra? Your proposition is that the person sitting on his shiny backside here in Canberra knows best, rather than the person that's living there.

I'll tell you your collection of achievements. You brought in some bugs to solve a problem that was there. The bugs ran amok and created enormous problems, so you brought in the toads, to get rid of the bugs. The toads were eaten by the dingoes and by the goannas, so now there are no dingoes or goannas. You took away the predator—for example, crocodiles. There was a balance of nature. A mother crocodile has 60 eggs. My forebears, the blackfellas, took the eggs—a lot of them, not all of them. There was a balance that had been there for 30,000 years, but you took the balance away. You took away the human beings that were taking the eggs. Now, with 60 eggs a year—you imagine if every woman in Canberra had 60 babies a year. We'd solve our underpopulation problem very quickly! That is what is happening out there with the crocodiles.

Then there are the pigs in the national parks. In the good old days in Queensland, the Labor Party and its successor, the Country Party—it was dominated by Labor after the split—allowed you to go hunting. There were no pigs in the rainforest, because hunters went in and shot them. Then you removed the hunters. You removed my forebears, the old blackfellas, who used to take a lot of the crocodile eggs, so now the crocodile numbers are exploding everywhere. Now there are no fish in the rivers, because they're being eaten by the crocodiles. You think you know about nature and you start fooling around with it, but all you've done is disaster after disaster after disaster. Since you took the shooters out of the national parks—which is about half of North Queensland, I might add, with all the jungle—the pig numbers have exploded and now the cassowaries are doomed. There is no way that the cassowary can survive with the pigs taking their eggs, and there's no way that the turtles can survive the explosion of pig numbers. Are you doing anything about the pigs? Yes, you are; you've got traps—400 traps for about three million pigs!

In a pub, in the real world, where people like myself sort of live—I put on the record that when I said 'in the real world, in the pubs' they burst out laughing. They think it's funny that Australians still go down to the pubs and talk to each other. They are laughing at it. I'll tell you where Labor Party was founded and formed: in the pubs of North Queensland. As a published historian, I can speak with some considerable authority. As the great-grandson of one of the major financial creators of the Labor movement, I can also speak with authority.

I speak with authority when I say I am watching the cassowaries—the trademark of most of the councils in Far North Queensland—vanishing as the pigs take the eggs, and no-one is doing anything about the pigs except for 400 traps. Please excuse me for laughing. If you would license the shooters to go into the national parks, they would take out the pigs and, in 30 years' time, we would have cassowaries and we would have turtles. But, thanks to you people, there will be no cassowaries and no turtles. For those of us that live in this country, we love our cassowaries and we love our turtles. That's why we live in the bush. That's why we live in North Queensland. It's because we love the land that we choose to live there. You don't choose to live on the land; you choose to live in Canberra. That is the complete opposite to the people of North Queensland and their value systems.

There is a second thing happening here which is very troubling indeed. I don't say it by way of skiting, but speaking as a published historian, you don't get to publish a book unless you know an awful lot about history. They won't simply publish your book. Believe me, I've tried that. Knowing a little bit about our history, I think about the Mandarin class that ran China for about 400 or 500 years. Once you have a class of people whose children go into positions of power and their grandchildren go into positions of power—that is Canberra: five generations of power people. They haven't had to make a quid out of selling some beef, some cattle. They haven't had to make quid out of cutting cane by hand. They haven't had to make a quid milking dairy cows. They have made a quid by milking the Australian people. That's how they make a quid and you want to give them the power.

Well you want to read about the history of China and find out how the Mandarin class went against the property respecting countries like America, England, France and the European countries that had this institution called private property. When they got that institution going and speeding up, they became the rulers of the world, for good and for bad—and I won't go into good or bad. I'm just saying that that created the enormous power of the Mandarin class, as they were called, in China.

That is what is happening today. I lose my land rights, as a person that loves the land and has lived in the land all my life, and they're given to someone down here. My wife is from a city background. She got 15 acres of land in Charters Towers and put a thousand trees on what was land without a single tree upon it when she went there. You can multiply her by half a million in North Queensland, because we are the group of people who plant trees. We are the group of people that love nature. That's why we live there. You are the group of people that don't plant trees and don't live in nature. There's another one laughing. He thinks that's funny. He thinks it's funny that a Mandarin class should rule Australia and have all the power, and the people that live on the land should have no power at all. He thinks that's funny with his very peculiar sense of humour.

Honourable members interjecting—

There you go. They're laughing again. That's very curious to me, very curious indeed. Let me name a name: a gentleman called Daniel Messina—a hell of a good young bloke. He worked in the mines and was captain of the rugby league team in Cloncurry. He comes from Gordonvale near Cairns. He saved his money and bought a small block of land. Then he bought another block of land. And then he bought 100 acres of very prime agricultural land, and he wanted me to see it. He insisted on me coming down to see it. I said, 'Daniel, why do you want me to see it?' He said, 'Just have a look at the ground.'

Every single square inch of that ground was covered in Singapore daisy and another weed—the name's escaping me at the present moment. The entire land was covered by them. That's what he wanted me to see. Two gentlemen that had lived there together were greenies, and they wanted to return to nature. So they took all the agriculture out and returned it to nature. And, within 25 years, every square inch of that land was covered in Singapore daisy and this other introduced species that I can't think of. You are naive if you think that you just step away and it'll go back to being nature. No, it won't. The most powerful of the plants will take over. When you have a country that now has tens of thousands of plants coming in each year, whether we like it or not, then the most powerful plant will prevail. Invariably, amongst those 10,000 plants you brought in, there will be some very aggressive plants.

Sadly, that is what is happening in North Queensland—except on the land that people in North Queensland occupy. They live there because they love the trees, they love the jungle and they love the environment. That's why they live there. So they're going to protect it, and they're going to keep those weeds and bad guys out. There are no pigs in sugarcane lands, on the farms or in the areas where we're grazing cattle on the coast. There are no pigs there because we get rid of them. But on your land—the land that you look after, the national parks—there are 3½ million pigs estimated to be living on your national parks. You're breeding the pigs. We're trying to shoot them out, but you're breeding them.

There, again, he laughs! He thinks it's funny that there are 3½ million pigs destroying all environmental native flora and fauna. He thinks that's funny. He keeps laughing at it—a very peculiar sense of humour.

There's the other issue of authoritarian rule, the Mandarin class: 'We are the rulers, and we know what is best for you. You don't know what's best for you, but these people down here do.' The incredible arrogance of the presumption that is built into this bill is breathtaking. And I commend Barnaby Joyce for his words earlier on in this area. I'll tell you how to look after North Queensland. The Forty Mile Scrub is the most iconic national park in North Queensland—completely wiped out by fire! (Time expired)

Matt Smith (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My name is Matt Smith, and I'm of the Far North. The member for Kennedy is correct. The story of the north is told by farmers over generations, be it cane, bananas or cattle. It is told by the songlines of 60,000 years, celebrating the country, culture, sea and air. It is told by the tourism industry that delights people from all over the world as they visit our two World Heritage areas. We support industry and mining. We have tungsten, zinc, bauxite and silica, the tools required for the energy transition. All of it is in abundance in my beautiful part of the world, which is a place I'm very proud of and a place I know the member for Kennedy is very proud of. He speaks of it passionately. Nobody loves the land like a farmer. Nobody loves the reef like the tourism operators. Nobody loves country like mob. There is no better place to demonstrate why this bill is needed than Leichhardt, because we need to give our industries, including our farmers and our tourism industry, the surety that they need to continue business, continue to bring wealth to the area and continue to drive jobs and economic development in my region, but we also need to protect the natural assets that allow us to do so. Our farmers need to be able to keep farming. Our tourism operators need a healthy and thriving reef. The reef and the Daintree are symbiotic. One cannot exist without the other. They have to be protected. We need to have regulations that work both for environmentalism and the industry. Otherwise, we hang out electorates like mine to dry.

I hear multiple arguments that we're going too far or not going far enough, but the balance is critical. Without the balance, I'm losing one or the other, and I can't lose one or the other. You would destroy the far north. We cannot go without our mining. Our mining will drive the energy transition—the silicon in the solar rooftops, the tungsten in the wires and the aluminium that is powering basically everything in this building.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've got the best silicon deposits in the world.

Matt Smith (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy agrees. Our beautiful natural wonders—all of it is critical. Seventy-seven thousand jobs are connected to the Great Barrier Reef. Over $90 billion it is worth to this nation. That makes it the biggest employer in the country by a not-insignificant margin. It is a great thing to have and a great thing to protect, and that's what these laws are about—making sure we can have one and the other. It is not binary. It never has to be binary, and to argue that it is is a fabrication.

These reforms will deliver better protection for everyone. The Business Council of Australia accepts this. I've been meeting with mining companies. I've been meeting with environmental groups. Everyone understands the desperate, desperate need for these laws so that there is understanding and clarity moving forwards. Clarity is fine. Clarity is what anybody wants at all times: 'Give us the superstructure and we can work within it.' But, at the moment, it is higgledy-piggledy. They don't know whether they're coming or going. It makes it hard. Investors lose billions of dollars on projects that go nowhere. This will give our investors surety. Environmentalists are pushing for the protection of areas that don't require it, because they don't understand the nature of it all. The far north is wild—some of it pristine, some of it not so much. Some of it can be mined; some of it cannot. Some of it is prime agricultural land, and it needs to stay that way. We need to give that protection to our people.

So this will give us, as led by the review by Professor Graeme Samuel, stronger environmental protection and more efficient and robust project assessment, with greater accountability—'accountability' being the keyword. It always has to come. The buck needs to stop somewhere. I'm sure that people have different views. We're going to hear from many of them. But this bill works for Leichhardt. It works for my area, and it will work for the rest of the nation too. Not everywhere has the same sort of balance that I have to maintain, but trust me: on some level you certainly will.

If we look at the content of the bills, we see the first national EPA, a clear Labor commitment, which will bring the regulatory functions and natural environment laws into a single independent agency. That's the accountability we're talking about. It provides transparency in the decision-making. It allows people confidence. We will ensure that a new ministerial power to make national environmental standards will be inserted into the EPBC laws to give more certainty for environmental laws, and we'll deliver improvements in the offsets framework to get a net gain that ensures environmental offsets support restoration rather than just mitigating harm. Restoration is great; going further is better.

As to the risks that people talk about for the food bowls, they will remain. Farmers will remain farmers because farmers want to remain farmers. If they make a commercial decision elsewhere, that's good for them; they're doing what is good for their family, the way every single Australian should, and it's their right to do so. We are giving them more options.

The assessment pathway will be streamlined, with the removal of three to six existing pathways and the introduction of a new streamlined assessment pathway providing a fast approval process for proposals, which will provide better information upfront. The member for Kennedy would know—he comes from a mining area—that sometimes things get bogged down, get buried or go sideways. This is going to make it easier—track projects and get them started, get us jobs and get us minerals that are going to make us not just a power but a superpower in renewable energy. We have that potential. That one measure alone, of streamlining proposals, is estimated to save as much as $7 billion. That goes back into those companies—more R&D, more research, more product, more jobs. There will be a clear set of enforceable rules. Once you know the rules you can always play the game.

The renewable energy transition is upon us. Minister Bowen gives us an update daily, much to the joy of those of us on this side of the House. Living in a unit, I was thrilled to know that I will now get three hours of free power because I don't have access to my roof. We are bringing it further even faster—69 projects generating more power, and 15 providing energy storage such as batteries. This government has given the green light to 29 projects to support the energy transition, including four hydrogen power projects that help set up Australia's renewable future. The Albanese Labor government has a clear plan to replace our ageing coal generators with cleaner, cheaper renewables and is making huge progress.

This is about creating jobs and creating our future. We on this side want Australia to thrive in a modern economy in a modern world that is heading towards net zero and is embracing renewables, and we have the technology, the space, the minerals, the resources and, frankly, the people to get it done. We should be proud of what we're putting forward today. We should be proud of the clarity we're giving business and the environment, and the ability that we're giving people to move forward and move this great country forward as well. We will fight for these reforms to deliver better environment protections and more certainty for business. Nobody wants broken environmental laws, which is, by unanimous consent, what we have had for the last 20 or 30 years.

We can get this done and delivered to the people of Australia. We can do what we were put here to do and guarantee our nation's future. Every day we delay, we degrade our environment and we make it harder for business to succeed. We deserve better.

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing and Sovereign Capability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If good policy is met with greater prosperity, this government seems intent on salting the soil. After three years of promises, backflips and bureaucratic composting, Labor has finally planted its so-called Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and six associated bills. Make no mistake, this isn't a plan to make Australia greener; it's a plan to make Australia slower, poorer and tangled in so much red and green tape that no-one can tell where the vines begin or end. These bills, around 1,500 pages long, are a legislative jungle. They were dropped on the parliament floor like a storm-felled tree. Now Labor wants to rush them through before anyone has had a chance to read the warning signs carved in the bark.

The coalition cannot and will not support these reforms in their current form because, instead of protecting the environment, they threaten to choke our economy. This is the most significant environmental overhaul in a generation, yet the government is trying to push it through in just weeks. Stakeholders from the Business Council to the mineral sector, from farmers to housing developers, have all asked for more time to read, analyse and consult. They want to make sure this reform is workable.

The Business Council of Australia has been crystal clear: without significant changes, we risk embedding a system that is even slower, is more complex and lacks the clarity and certainty needed for investment. In other words, Labor's so-called reform is not fertilising growth; it's strangling it. Yet, after four years and two elections, Labor still haven't delivered the environmental protection agency they keep promising. They've had more false starts than a wind farm without wind.

In the last parliament, Minister Plibersek attempted to push through ridiculous reforms. They were so extreme left that the Premier of Western Australia contacted the Prime Minister, and overnight those bills were stopped. Wow! That's saying something when it's too left for the Premier of WA. That historical failure is a cautionary tale. It shows what happens when reforms are rushed and sets the context for why Australians should be rightly concerned today.

The coalition supports strong, sensible environmental laws, and we always have. When the Leader of the Opposition was minister of the environment, she commissioned the Samuel review, a practical road map for modernising the 1999 EPBC Act. It was based on balance—protecting nature, while enabling responsible development. The coalition government began the reform process by introducing streamlining pathways and bilateral agreements to cut the duplication between Canberra and the states. Labor blocked that reform, then rebranded it and called it their own. We say: 'Fine. If you want to recycle our policies, at least read the instructions before you throw them in the green bin.'

Let's be clear about what's wrong here. Firstly, there's the environmental protection authority. Under Labor's model, the EPA's CEO will hold enormous powers, including the ability to stop projects indefinitely, without clear accountability or ministerial oversight. That is absurd! There is no binding statement of expectations, there are no performance measures and there's no capacity for the minister to terminate the CEO for failure to deliver. That's not accountability; that's bureaucracy on autopilot. Graeme Samuel's review was explicit: the EPA's role should be compliance and enforcement only, while assessment and approvals remain with the department. Labor ignored that. They created a body that is both regulator and referee. And that's not environmental management; that's environmental mayhem.

Secondly, there's scope 1 and scope 2 emissions reporting. Labor's bill requires proponents to report their emissions under the EPBC process, duplicating the existing safeguard mechanism. But nowhere in the bill does it clearly say that this information cannot be used for decision-making or for imposing conditions. That omission is a lawyer's paradise and a miner's nightmare. It opens the door to endless green lawfare. Industry groups have told us that they could live with the reporting if there were guardrails, but in this version the guardrails are gone. It's a slippery slope straight to a climate trigger by stealth.

Thirdly, there are 37 definitions of 'unacceptable impacts' spread over eight pages—37. That's not law; that's a complicated maze. Even existing projects that were once approved could be ruled out under these new standards. Industry says the definition should be removed from legislation and placed in flexible standards, not set in stone. If Labor does not fix it, it could block development faster than a landslide on a rural road.

Fourthly, there are the penalties and stop-work orders. The bill allows fines of up to $825 million—nearly $1 billion—for a penalty regime with no appeal rights and no proportionality. The EPA could issue an environmental protection order on the flimsiest grounds, shutting down operations indefinitely—no checks, no balances, no sunset clauses. That's not justice; that's a kangaroo court with a green backdrop!

These bills are sold as protecting the environment, yet they risk opening the door to green energy projects in places that should never be touched. Imagine wind farms on the Great Barrier Reef—an icon of Australia's natural heritage—in the name of emissions reductions that would barely move the needle on global emissions. Across Queensland, fertile farmland is being swallowed up by massive solar arrays. This is land that should be used for feeding Australians but, instead, is being turned into industrial deserts of solar panels. Koala habitats are under threat. Wind farms are being built in areas critical to the survival of these iconic species. Wind turbines that barely spin due to inconsistent wind are causing more environmental destruction than benefit. How many ecosystems, how many more species and how much more farmland will be lost in the name of hitting this arbitrary emission target?

The government wants Australians to believe that more wind and solar equals better environmental outcomes, but the reality is that uncontrolled, poorly sited projects are causing irreversible damage—all this destruction for emission reductions that are almost meaningless when Australia contributes just one per cent of global emissions. Yet our landscapes and our livelihoods bear the cost. If the minister truly cared about protecting our environment, we wouldn't be bulldozing ecosystems. We must ask ourselves: where does this destruction end? If the goal is net zero at any cost, Australians, their land, their water and our wildlife are being sacrificed with zero meaningful global impact. These bills, in their current form, fail to protect what Australians truly care about. They incentivise environmental damage under the guise of progress, and that's why these bills cannot be supported.

These reforms were sold as part of Labor's so-called productivity agenda, yet every serious economist knows they'll do the exact opposite. They'll drive up costs, slow down approvals and scare away investors. Let's talk about productivity. Australia has now fallen to second last among OECD nations. Only Mexico ranks lower. Labor says we need reform to fix productivity, then proposes legislation that makes it harder to invest and harder to build, mine and manufacture. It's like telling a farmer to grow more crops but locking the gate to his paddock.

In the last financial year, mining companies contributed $59.4 billion in taxes and royalties—money that pays for hospitals, schools and roads. Yet these are the industries Labor is happy to sacrifice to appease the Greens, and a deal with the Greens is a deal to turn off the lights on Australia's economy. Let's remember that, when the coalition introduced reforms to streamline approvals, Labor said no.

Australians can see through this spin. If the government were serious about environmental reform, it would bring industry, farmers and conservationists together. Instead, Labor has divided them. The coalition believes in practical environmental policy grounded in science, not slogans. We support ministerial decision-making remaining with the elected government, not unelected bureaucrats. We support no climate trigger. We support forestry exemptions under regional forestry agreements because our forestry industry is sustainable, world class and essential to regional jobs. We support reducing duplication between state and federal systems, and we support a proper national interest exemption because sometimes projects are just too important to delay with ideology. That's what balanced reform looks like.

So why the rush? Why the mad dash to get through this before Christmas when even Labor's own minister said back in June that the legislation wouldn't be ready until next year? Because the government wants to declare a political victory, not a practical one. They think passing a 1,500-page bill before Christmas will prove that they can get things done, but getting things done isn't the same as getting things right.

Our nation's wealth was built on natural resources, innovation and hard work. Mining, agriculture, manufacturing—these are the roots of our prosperity. Labor's reforms dig up our roots and replace them with bureaucracy. This isn't environmental protection; it's economic deforestation—and, when the canopy falls, it's everyday Australians who are left in the shade. We want environmental laws that protect our biodiversity and our competitiveness. We want clean air, healthy soils and flowing rivers, but what we also want is factories that hum, farms that thrive and jobs that stay right here in Australia. That's not too much to ask. It's what every sensible Australian expects.

This parliament has a choice. We can nurture growth with balanced, sensible reform or we can let poor ideology fill the garden of prosperity with weeds. The coalition will work constructively to prune what doesn't work, graft in accountability and clarity and ensure the final product is something Australians can live with and live from.

Environmental reform shouldn't come at the cost of national prosperity. It should be about balance, not bans; stewardship, not strangulation; and a greener future that doesn't leave our workers, our industries and our regions out in the cold. Until that happens, the coalition will not support these bills, because, when it comes to Labor's environmental reform, the only thing growing right now is a list of the reasons to vote against it.

Carol Berry (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was extremely fortunate to grow up in the magnificent Blue Mountains, west of Sydney. During my childhood I spent countless hours with my parents and sisters bushwalking, camping or just being outdoors in nature. These experiences cultivated in me a lifelong love of nature and a deep desire to protect it. Australia's national parks, rivers, creeks, beaches, forests and incredible wildlife and landscapes are so unique and breathtakingly beautiful. It's never been so important for us to act swiftly to protect our natural environment, and I've heard from thousands of people in my electorate asking our government to act decisively to protect nature for current and future generations.

Labor has delivered all of Australia's major environmental reforms. This includes the establishment of Landcare, saving the Franklin River, protecting the Daintree and Kakadu, protecting the Great Barrier and Ningaloo reefs, building the largest network of marine parks in the world and taking meaningful action to address climate change.

As the member for Whitlam, I'm particularly proud of Gough Whitlam's legacy in relation to environmental conservation. The Whitlam government was one of the first governments in the world to support and ratify the World Heritage convention in 1974. This was a seminal moment which confirmed the role of the Commonwealth government in protecting the immense natural and cultural heritage of Australia. Whitlam recognised that protecting the environment was part of a global responsibility that required courage and leadership on the part of the federal government.

This leadership role was confirmed when the Hawke government stopped the damming of the Franklin River in Tasmania in 1983. This was a defining environmental decision that cemented Australia's commitment to safeguarding wild rivers and World Heritage landscapes. This landmark decision also set an important precedent for the leadership of the federal government regarding environmental protection and enshrined in the Australian consciousness that some places are too precious to lose.

Since Gough Whitlam—and for every Labor prime minister since—protecting the environment has been core to Labor's promise, and we owe gratitude to these former leaders for their foresight and courage. I'm therefore proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government and to have the opportunity to speak in support of the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the suite of amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Five years ago, Professor Graeme Samuel AC delivered his independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to the then minister for the environment, Sussan Ley. This review concluded that our national environmental law is fundamentally broken and outdated and that it's failing both the environment and business. Professor Samuel laid out a blueprint for reform, and this package is faithful to the review's recommendations. It is not a case of choosing one or the other, the environment or the economy; we can deliver for both. These reforms are underpinned by three key pillars: (1) stronger environmental protection and restoration, (2) improved productivity through more efficient and robust project approvals and (3) greater accountability and transparency in decision-making.

The first pillar, stronger environmental protection and restoration, includes the creation of a new ministerial power to make national environmental standards. These standards were the centrepiece of the Samuel review, and they set the boundaries for decisions to ensure they deliver improved environmental outcomes. Importantly, they also provide certainty and guidance for business by setting clear and enforceable expectations and uplifting the quality and consistency of decision-making. The Samuel review stressed that reforms to the law must not just protect our precious natural environment but also restore it. That's why, under these reforms, projects will be required to avoid, mitigate and repair damage to protected matters wherever possible. Any residual, significant impacts on nationally protected matters must be fully offset to achieve a net gain for the environment. This is an important improvement on the existing policy of no net loss.

The reforms will also clearly outline in legislation what is an unacceptable impact on the environment. The new definition of 'unacceptable impact' is specific to each protected matter. This will set clear and upfront criteria for impacts that cannot be approved unless the project meets the national interest test. It will increase transparency, consistency and certainty of decisions and provide a safeguard against impacts that cause the irreversible loss of Australia's biodiversity and heritage. There will be higher penalties for the most significant breaches of environmental law as well as environment protection orders for use in urgent circumstances to prevent and respond to major contraventions of the law. Overall, the reforms under the first pillar deliver more protection for the environment and, importantly, also focus on restoration and recovery.

The second pillar underpinning these reforms relates to productivity and efficiency. The system requires navigation of multiple assessment and approval processes across federal, state and territory jurisdictions. This creates lengthy delays while delivering no benefit for the environment. Central to the Samuel review were recommendations around reducing duplication between state and territory processes and Commonwealth processes, and this package of reforms seeks to improve the operation of bilateral agreements with states and territories, making the framework more responsive to change and more durable in the long term. Another way in which productivity will be boosted is through a new streamlined assessment pathway.

This significantly reduces the assessment timeframe for proponents who provide sufficient information upfront and design their proposals in line with the environmental requirements and other requirements of these reforms. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water has calculated that the streamlined assessment pathway reforms alone will deliver annual savings of at least half a billion dollars and potentially up to $7 billion to the national economy. The bills before the House adopt Professor Samuel's recommendation that the EPBC Act should include a specific power to be used in rare circumstances that are in the national interest for one minister to make a decision that is inconsistent with the national environmental standards. Any such decision would be accompanied by a statement of reasons which includes the environmental implications of the decision.

The third and final pillar of this package enshrines greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision-making. The key to achieving this outcome is the establishment of Australia's first national environmental protection agency. This will be a proud Labor legacy, delivering on our election commitment. The new National Environmental Protection Agency will be a strong, independent regulator with a clear focus on ensuring better compliance with and stronger enforcement of Australia's new environmental laws. The reforms also introduce new emissions disclosure requirements that require major emitting project proponents to disclose estimates of scope 1 and scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions as part of gaining federal environmental approval. Proponents will be required to disclose their plans to reduce those emissions and explain how those measures are consistent with government laws and policies.

Since winning government in 2022, the Albanese government has passed strong laws to enforce big polluters to cut emissions so Australia gets to net zero carbon pollution by 2050. We've committed to 82 per cent renewable energy electricity by 2030 and approved 111 renewable energy projects, producing enough electricity to power more than 13 million homes. We've protected an extra 95 million hectares of Australian ocean and bush and expanded marine parks around Macquarie Island as well as the Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands, increasing the proportion of Australia's marine waters under protection to 52 per cent. We've invested over $600 million to better protect our threatened plants and animals and tackle feral animals and weeds that are devastating our native species. And we've increased funding for national parks and Indigenous rangers.

Under the Albanese government, renewable energy generation has reached new Australian records, up in volume by around 30 per cent since we came to government and reaching 46 per cent of the national market at the end of 2024. Last month, around half of all electricity in the national grid came from renewable sources, the highest monthly rate on record. On 11 October, for part of the day, nearly 80 per cent of electricity was generated by renewables. We are making strong progress to deliver 82 per cent renewable electricity by 2030, driven by our Capacity Investment Scheme, our Rewiring the Nation Fund and our Cheaper Home Batteries Program.

I've outlined just the highlights of the Albanese government's environmental achievements. The Environmental Protection Reform Bill, combined with a range of amendments to the EPBC Act, will build on this legacy by delivering reforms that benefit both the environment and business. These reforms incorporate a balanced package featuring: (1) stronger environment protection and restoration laws that won't just deliver better protections for our environment but restore and regenerate these special places for future generations; (2) more efficient and robust project assessments and approvals that allow us to better respond and deliver on national priorities, like the renewable energy transition, a Future Made in Australia, and the housing we need; and (3) greater accountability and transparency in decision-making to give all Australians confidence in these laws.

These reforms are long overdue. They're in the national interest and they are firmly in the spirit of the Samuel review. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build on Labor's legacy by reasserting the federal government's leadership role in protecting our shared heritage and placing the protection of the environment at the centre of our decision-making, not just for our generation but for generations to come. I commend this package of reforms to the House.

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

Our environment is in crisis. Nature is one of Australia's most precious assets—internationally recognised, deeply loved, and a source of solace, wellbeing and joy for so many—but it is in rapid decline.

The 2021 State of the environment report found that over 1,700 species and ecological communities are now threatened or at risk of extinction. Species loss is accelerating. Our oceans are warming and acidifying. Since that report was tabled, we've seen more extreme weather events, more fossil fuel projects and still no major overhaul of our broken environmental laws.

It's not just nature that's hurting. Business leaders, economists and investors are increasingly calling for stronger, clearer environmental legislation. They know that uncertainty and delay in project assessments come at a cost, including delaying renewable energy projects critical to combating climate change. They know that degraded ecosystems create risk, not resilience. They know that protecting the environment is essential to long-term productivity, liveability and prosperity. As former treasury secretary Ken Henry put it in his recent address to the National Press Club:

Boosting productivity and resilience relies on environmental law reform, but the biggest threat to future productivity growth comes from nature itself. More particularly, from its destruction.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act reforms have been coming for a long time. First created in 1999, this act established a legal framework to protect, manage and preserve nationally and internationally significant flora, fauna, heritage sites and ecosystems. In 2020, Professor Graeme Samuel AC's statutory review found that our nature laws were outdated, ineffective and not fit to address future or current environmental challenges. It was damning.

Since my election in 2022, I have called for a stronger EPBC Act, which will finally fix our broken environmental laws. However, these reforms were overdue three years ago; they were overdue two years ago. Last year they were overdue, and they're overdue now. While I welcome that the government is finally acting, I'll be honest: the process is not appropriate. It is unacceptable to bring a bill, with 1,500 pages of legislation, into the House and expect that the House should vote on this complex legislation within less than seven days. I can't in good conscience say to my community of Wentworth that I have full confidence in this bill and all its contents within this time frame. These reforms are complex. The devil is in the detail, and they require full scrutiny.

But let me tell you, there are positive things about the reform, and I do want to acknowledge that. There are parts that represent real, albeit overdue, progress, starting with higher standards. Higher, stronger standards—national environmental standards—are the cornerstone of the Samuel review's recommendations. This bill's introduction of new powers to create these standards and to require that decisions made by the minister responsible for the new Environmental Protection Agency align with them is a welcome and necessary reform. But while this mechanism is promising, its impact depends on the strength of the standards themselves. I understand that they sit outside the act. Transparency is limited. But if government wants to rebuild trust, the standards must face this sort of scrutiny.

Secondly, I believe we're going to get stronger enforcement through this law. One of the most welcome elements of the government's proposed EPBC reforms is the establishment of a new National Environmental Protection Agency with the authority and independence to enforce our environmental laws properly. The new agency will have the power to issue environmental protection orders, to require harmful activities to cease, to initiate both directed environmental audits and new compliance audits, and to use real-time tools to monitor breaches and respond effectively.

These powers go to the heart of ensuring that the environmental protections are more than just words on paper. Equally important is the strengthening of penalties. Under the proposed reform the agency will be empowered to seek to substantially increase fines, including civil penalties, up to—this is really significant—$825 million in the most serious cases. I think these are important, for the environment and also for business, on the basis that bad actors in business make it worse for everybody. If some businesses are trying to do the right thing and follow the laws and other businesses can get away without doing the right thing, you just encourage good businesses to behave badly. Having stronger penalties and clear standards is a way to actually get better action and make sure those bad actors can't run a lower-cost of business model because there aren't significant penalties. This long-overdue shift sends a clear message: environmental harm will bring serious consequences.

Let's talk about what it does for business, particularly around faster time lines. I welcome the government's introduction of a new streamlined assessment pathway under this legislation. It replaces an overlapping, confusing stream with one coherent pathway, cutting duplication and delay. If implemented well, this streamlined model will help accelerate project time lines, provide greater certainty for proponents and deliver stronger environmental outcomes—an essential balance in today's economic and ecological context.

Secondly, let's talk about the assessment process. We have the opportunity in these laws to have less ambiguity about approvals and assessments. For instance, a clearer definition of what constitutes an unacceptable impact can be beneficial to the environment and to business. Businesses needs certainty to invest. They need certainty to put in all the effort to put forward an investment case. If unacceptable impacts are very clear, that makes it easier for businesses to make decisions. For instance, under unacceptable impacts, if an impact would seriously impair the viability of a species or cause significant irreparable damage to habitat that is critical for species' survival, approval cannot be gained.

I believe these are sensible changes. They give a clear understanding of the boundaries while also strengthening environmental protections. Importantly, the government has also committed to introducing bioregional planning as a key part of the new environmental system, and I look forward to seeing these take shape. These regional plans will provide strategic context for decisions at a landscape scale, proactively identifying areas that are suitable for development, those that are environmentally sensitive and those where restoration is really needed. If done well it could, again, provide greater certainty and transparency for businesses, improve conservation outcomes, and help reduce delays and duplications in assessments. Stronger, clearer standards can benefit both nature and business alike.

Let me move to my concerns with the bills. Whilst I commend the government on the introduction of the reforms and for engaging both with environmental groups and business groups—many of whom I have spoken with in the last week and who have been, on the main, very appreciative of the constructive engagement that they have had with the government—there are still some very significant sticking points that could seriously harm the integrity of this legislation and actually create harm for the environments that the laws are seeking to protect.

Firstly, let's start with national interest approvals and proposal pathways. There are two provisions in these bills for national interest. The first national interest exemption allows for approval of projects subject to conditions in a specific timeframe as an expansion of an existing power. The minister can consider our national security or a national emergency. I understand this is a 'break glass in case of emergency' clause, with a statement of reasons published whenever it is used. This appears to be appropriate to me.

However, I hold deep concerns about the new power for national interest approvals or proposal pathways. This power allows the minister to determine that if an action is in the national interest, it need not satisfy the three approval tests or can be exempt altogether. My concern—and this has been echoed by others on the crossbench and also by the environmental movement—is that this definition is too broad, too discretionary and open to exploitation. This definition covers defence, security, strategic interests or international agreements and then explicitly says, 'This does not limit the matters the minister may consider.' This is, again, a broad definition of national interest. I have a definition and I'm sure someone else has a different definition. There are all sorts of things that we may or may not agree are in the national interest, but I think having this broad power in these bills creates a significant loophole and a great deal of uncertainty in the legislation. There could, as Ken Henry recently warned, be a 'conga line of developers' lobbying for this carve-out. Again, this ambiguity is not good for business.

The second concern shared widely across Wentworth and the country is the continued exemption for continued native forest logging and the continuous use exemption allowing land clearing without federal approval. Currently, logging covered by the regional forestry agreement is exempt from the EPBC Act. This exemption remains unchanged in this legislation. This is deeply disappointing. RFAs are not adequately protecting threatened species and I believe the government knows this. The Forestry Corporation of New South Wales was recently taken to court for breaching its state's laws. We know that, without proper regulation, species like the greater glider, the koala and the grey-headed flying fox are heading for extinction.

Since the EPBC Act commenced in 2000, more than 11.5 million hectares of land have been cleared, including three million hectares of remnant native vegetation. A University of Queensland study this year found most land clearing occurs without assessment of environmental impacts, worsening both the biodiversity and climate crises. Even though forests are home to threatened species, and logging and land clearing can wipe them out, these exemptions persist. I do not believe the government should have introduced these laws without dealing with these exemptions. I think they know that. I think they're leaving these exemptions open as a negotiating ploy, potentially, with the Senate. That is another reason why it is not appropriate for that to not be included in these bills before the House.

My next concern relates to transparency and independence. I'm pleased to see the NEPA—the National Environmental Protection Agency—established, but I have real concerns about its independence. The minister retains decision-making power and may delegate to NEPA, whose CEO will be appointed by the minister of the day. That's not independence. The Samuel review explicitly recommended against retaining such ministerial discretion. It undermines trust, transparency and enforcement. The NEPA must truly be the tough cop on the beat—independent, transparent and free from political influence. I do not think that, in its current form, such independence is guaranteed, and it therefore may not provide the enforcement that our environment needs.

My next concern relates to the offsets proposed restoration fund. The Samuel review criticised the overuse of biodiversity offsets, which should be used as a last resort. Instead, they've become the default. The new restoration fund risks creating a pay-to-destroy model, letting developers offset destruction with a cheque and shifting responsibility to the government. The New South Wales Biodiversity Offsets Scheme has shown the pitfalls of this approach, with the funds accumulating but not being effectively spent. Western Australia's Pilbara region has seen similar issues. There is an argument, and I see the argument, for having some sort of fund here. But the use of offsets needs to be strictly controlled and only genuinely used as a last resort, not as a licence to destroy critical habitat.

Finally, on climate, I'm disappointed climate is not properly considered in these reforms. Climate change remains the single greatest threat to Australia's biodiversity and nature, from rising ocean temperatures to floods, fires, droughts and extreme weather. While proponents must disclose their emissions and mitigation plans, they aren't required to be considered by the minister or the EPA or be independently verified. In fact, the legislation explicitly prevents the minister from considering anything beyond the set approval tests. The government argues this is unnecessary because emissions are managed under the safeguard mechanism, but that's not managed effectively. The safeguard mechanism is relied on heavily here, yet it is not effective enough in its current form to carry the burden. It needs to be expanded and fit for purpose. If the government were truly serious about recognising the climate impacts on nature, they would strengthen the safeguard mechanism alongside these bills to make sure those protections are really there—but they are missing.

Finally, I acknowledge that the business community, who I've spoken to, also have a number of concerns or changes they would like to see in this legislation. I don't have time in this speech to go through them, but I think some of these are very valid and thoughtful concerns and they should be addressed in the drafting of these absolutely mighty bills. I understand a number of constructive amendments have been put forward via the crossbench to identify and manage some of the loopholes. I will also be moving some amendments.

In conclusion, I am really torn, I'll be honest, whether to support these bills in their current form. The reforms are urgent to protect nature, to enable clean energy and to support productivity. I have been consulting widely with business and environmental groups, and they are telling me, to a person, that the laws matter and we have to get them right. I believe, on balance, that these bills are better than what we have now—but, given the short time I have to consult on this, it's honestly hard for me, hand on my heart, to tell that to my community with absolute certainty. There are opportunities to seriously improve the bills, and I urge the government to engage seriously with the crossbench amendments that have been put forward in good faith and engage across the parliament; I think there's an opportunity. I also urge the coalition, the Greens and all the other parties in the parliament to work on these bills to make them better and get them passed. They are urgent, they are important but they still have a way to go.

Gabriel Ng (Menzies, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In Menzies, the electorate I am honoured to represent, we are blessed with a beautiful natural environment. The mighty Yarra River forms the northern boundary of the electorate. It runs through Warrandyte, where you can swim in the river or hike on the Goldfields Track. It runs around the beautiful Westerfolds Park, around the gardens of Heide Gallery and Banksia Park. We've got great tracks for cycling and jogging like the Koonung Creek trail and Gardiners Creek trail. We also have fantastic green spaces, like Ruffey Lake Park, Box Hill Gardens and Wurundjeri Walk, that are well loved by the community.

People in Menzies care deeply about the environment and the climate. Every Wednesday, people stand outside my electorate office holding signs and calling for stronger action on environmental protection. Groups like Menzies for Climate and the Australian Conservation Foundation Eastern Rosellas have become familiar faces in Menzies. They care deeply about the land, the rivers and the future we will leave behind for our children and grandchildren.

During the election campaign, you would see people like Sally, from Menzies for Climate, everywhere. She fights the good fight because she believes in protecting the environment. For her, it's personal. It's about the generations that follow, about her children and grandchildren. That is why I've always welcomed her and her group into my office to share their concerns and ideas. I've invited them to meet with the Special Envoy for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience, the member for Jagajaga, Kate Thwaites, so their voices can be heard at a national level. While we might not always agree, we have a shared commitment to the future of Australia's environment. That is why it's important to make sure that people like Sally know that the Labor Party is the party for the environment. Every major environmental reform in Australia's history has been led by the Labor government. It was Labor that created Landcare, Labor that saved the Franklin, Labor that protected the Daintree and Kakadu, Labor that built the largest network of marine parks in the world and Labor that took real and measurable action on climate change. And once again, it is a Labor government that is taking the next great step to reform our national environment laws so that we protect nature for generations to come.

Our current environmental laws are outdated, inefficient and ineffective. They do not work for nature, they do not work for business and they do not work for communities. This was made clear in the Samuel review delivered five years ago to the then minister for the environment—who is now the opposition leader. The review laid out a comprehensive set of recommendations to fundamentally reform how environmental impacts and approvals are managed in this country. The coalition government sat on the review. Then they teamed up with the Greens and the Liberals to block reform when we brought it in the last term of government.

We know that reform is needed—and we're acting. The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and six associated bills are not just about protecting the environment; they're about safeguarding Australia's future and creating a system that can protect nature while supporting the economic projects that our nation needs. This package of bills remains faithful to the spirit of the Samuel review. It is built around three key pillars.

The first pillar delivers on the central recommendation of the Samuel review: enforceable national environmental standards. The minister will be able to set clear, legally binding standards for matters of national environmental significance. These standards will apply to every decision under the EPBC Act. The goal is consistency, certainty and continuous environmental improvement. Businesses will know the rules, communities will know their rights and the environment will have guaranteed protection under law. To make sure the standards are never watered down, these bills include a 'no regression' rule. The bills also make it clear that some damage is simply unacceptable. Projects that cause unacceptable harm to protected matters will not be approved. These impacts cannot be traded away or offset. They must be avoided or mitigated before approval is granted. For those who ignore the law, there will be consequences. The bills introduce higher criminal penalties and a new civil penalty formula based on corporate law models. They establish new environmental protection orders that can be issued in urgent situations to prevent or remedy serious harm. They expand audit powers to allow both compliance and directed national environmental audits, and they strengthen the ability of courts to impose proportional and meaningful penalties. The bills also introduce a new principle: projects must deliver a net gain for the environment—not just 'no net loss', but real improvement. Proponents with residual environmental impacts must compensate those impacts to a net positive outcome. They can do so by either delivering their own offsets or paying a restoration contribution into a new Commonwealth fund. That fund will be used to deliver large-scale restoration projects that achieve the best outcomes for the environment. This approach is better for nature and it's more efficient for business. It allows for strategic and pooled investment in areas that most need restoration.

The second pillar focuses on fixing a system that has become slow, inconsistent and confusing. Under the current EPBC Act, project assessments can take too long, with duplication between Commonwealth and state projects. These delays hold back investment in housing projects and in renewable energy projects, and they do not deliver better environmental results. These bills introduce large-scale bioregional planning. Instead of assessing projects one by one, we will map entire regions to identify development zones, conservation zones and areas in between. In development zones, projects will be able to proceed after registration with the minister. In conservation zones, projects will be prohibited unless a specific exemption is granted. By working in close partnership with states and territories, bioregional plans will provide faster approvals and better outcomes at a landscape scale.

These reforms will also streamline assessment pathways. Six outdated pathways will be replaced with one modern and efficient process supported by a simplified environmental impact statement pathway. The new system will reduce the approval timeframes by up to 20 days, cutting the statutory period from 70 days to 50 days or fewer. This will save businesses time and the economy an estimated $500 million each year.

The bills will also provide flexibility for urgent national interest projects. This includes emergency situations, such as natural disasters like bushfires, when land clearing may need to take place to protect further destruction. It may also be used in rare circumstances where a project is clearly in the national interest and the minister provides a public statement of reasons. Approval can proceed even if all environmental standards are not yet met. It maintains accountability for the minister, but it ensures there is some flexibility for exceptional circumstances.

The third pillar delivers one of Labor's central election commitments: the creation of Australia's first National Environmental Protection Agency. I was out doorknocking in Surrey Hills on the weekend just past in my electorate of Menzies, talking to people about the need for an independent EPA. Again and again, people agreed it was a reform that Australia needed, a reform that was overdue. This new, independent regulator will be responsible for compliance, enforcement and oversight across key environmental laws. The EPA will have statutory authority to issue permits, licences and enforcement actions. It will act independently of governments in its regulatory functions, ensuring that decisions are based upon law and science, not politics. For the first time, Australians will have a national watchdog focused solely on protecting the environment.

The EPA will also play a proactive role in helping businesses and the community understand their obligations. It will provide education and guidance, ensuring that compliance is achieved through support as well as enforcement. The EPA will also oversee the implementation of national standards under bilateral agreements with the states and territories, ensuring consistency across all jurisdictions. The bill also strengthens First Nations engagement in environmental decision-making. Traditional owners will be incorporated into environmental assessment and conservation planning. The Indigenous Advisory Committee will be formally consulted on the development of national environmental standards relating to First Nations engagement.

This package of bills is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform our environmental laws. It builds on decades of Labor leadership and responds directly to the Samuel review's call for comprehensive reform. The Greens and the coalition have a choice about whether to play a constructive role in protecting the environment and improving efficiency for projects of national significance. The Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job of reform. I commend the bills to the House.

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

We've all attended those functions in our electorates, often on Australia Day—one of our most important national days—where we've gathered together and sung 'I am Australian', that 1987 Bruce Woodley from The Seekers and Dobe Newton from the Bushwackers hit which unites us all and makes us feel really patriotic. The second verse goes like this:

I came upon the prison ship bowed down by iron chains.

I cleared the land, endured the lash and waited for the rains.

I'm a settler.

I'm a farmer's wife on a dry and barren run

A convict then a free man I became Australian.

The way we're going, we're going to have to change a verse or add a verse, and it'll go something like this: 'I was elected on the back of a whole heap of Greens votes. I sip lattes, weave baskets and welcome illegal boats. I'm a protester. I'm a tree-hugger on land that was once farmed, a dissident who bludges off the taxes of hard-working Australians.' That's where we've got to.

We hear members opposite from the Australian Labor Party, the party that once represented those hard-working Australians, come in here and use words in the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. There will be consequences and strong enforcement—stronger enforcement. It's almost as if they want to take the big wack, the big stick, to those farmers, who we celebrate in that song, 'I am Australian'. Heaven help if my father, the late Lance McCormack, were still alive, because I know when he took over the farm in the 1960s he dynamited trees out. He was one of those people who cleared the land, and he did it so that he could grow wheat. He did it so that he could help feed a hungry nation. Our farmers not only feed Australians; they feed many others besides.

I love this book. It's called Water Into Gold. It's the seventh edition, from 1946. It was written by Ernestine Hill, and she was a great Australian—1899 to 1972. She was a journalist, a travel writer and a novelist. She was known for her various travels across Australia and her writings about diverse landscapes and cultures in the country. In this particular book, which, coincidentally, ironically perhaps, is water damaged, in chapter 4—I want to read this into Hansard, because it's so, so good—under the heading 'Apostles of Irrigation', she writes:

'In the early eighties'—that's the 1880s—'the fiery breath of a terrible drought seared the land. Western New South Wales and north-western Victoria became barren wastes. Even the meagre 10 inches of rain a year that are heaven's tender mercies in this part of the world were denied. Day after day, for five years, the sun was a copper gong in cloudless skies, earth cracked with thirst and pallid with heat. Green had faded to brown, and little enough of that. The puny wheat withered on the stalk, and the stock were famished. On the Murray and Darling stations, the sheep died in their tens of thousands, perishing out on the plains, lying in rotting heaps on the very riverbanks, bloated with water and too weak to climb again for the feed they could not find. Skeleton poverty had the pioneers in its grip, and settlers everywhere were leaving their farms—stark madness to send others to follow them.

And, as though drought were not enough, a pharaoh's plague of rabbits descended. The five fluffy, lovable little English rabbits that Captain Phillip had brought in a hutch to Port Jackson in 1788 had become 500 million. An army of occupation marching west to the conquest of a continent, eating it bare as a billiard ball, honeycombing it to nightmare and multiplying all the way along. At dawn and at twilight, the sheep pastures were a moving blur of rabbits. Every blade of hope went down before them. They demolished the leaves of the shrubs and the bark of the trees. They burrowed into the sandhills to devour the roots of the few cast-iron tussocks that held them together, leaving a trail of starvation and [inaudible] of blowing sand.'

That was the 1880s. And yet we've managed the rabbit infestation. It wasn't just Captain Phillip; I think he probably gets a bad name there. A fellow called Thomas Austin also brought a whole heap of rabbits in for sport later on, in the 19th century. But the point is this: we have politicians in this place, and in Macquarie Street in New South Wales, in particular, at the moment, who think that they can turn a land of droughts and flooding rains into something that resembles Europe all the time—of green hills and running rivers. We know that Australia has ephemeral streams. We can't turn Australia into something that it wasn't designed to be. Nature will always have its way—'her way', I should say; it's Mother Nature—and she will always beat any efforts of Australians. We could do a whole lot more. We can build a whole lot of more dams. I tried that. I built one in Tasmania with the good help of the then Liberal—and still Liberal, thankfully—Tasmanian government. Thank you to Michael Ferguson and others for helping me in that task. Trying to get other states, mainland states, to go with me on that journey was in fact, unfortunately, a lost cause. But the point is this: we've got a country where we now think it's wise and sensible to lock up and leave it to feral pests, rabbits and weeds, all in the name of nature.

We've also got this propensity, whenever we build something in this nation—and we used to be a nation of builders—to think we have to have these offsets which perhaps aren't just covering the piece of land that is being taken up by the actual infrastructure we're constructing but indeed a whole heap more. It is just a nonsense, because what we're actually doing with these offsets is punishing companies, developers and people who want to construct such things as, heaven help us, aged care homes by having offsets somewhere that's not even in proximity. In this piece of legislation, if they don't do that, well, as the Labor members say, there will be consequences! Stronger enforcement will follow. It's like the Labor Party don't want to build anything. They've got a housing minister who talks about the prospect of building a million homes. Good luck with that! At a state level, they're preventing every forestry company and developer from ever trying to succeed.

I resumed representing the Snowy Valleys Council in the Riverina electorate in May this year, having represented it previously between 2010 and 2016. Seventy per cent of the economy in the Snowy Valleys Council area—Tumut, Talbingo, Tumbarumba—is underpinned by forestry. But, if Labor have their way—they're totally against forestry. Why? I don't know. How are they going to build a million homes if we can't have our own successful, reliable, consistent and sustainable forestry industry providing the timber for those homes? Under Labor's policies, they'd have it all imported from overseas. To hell with the rainforest wherever it's coming from. To hell with Indonesia or whatever country that, quite frankly, is going to provide those imports to build those million homes. What a fantasy! What a fallacy! A million homes, really? Come on. Get real!

Then, of course, we've got this legislation before the House which talks about offsets, and then we've got green activists. Green activists! They are blocking every single project, whether it's gas, iron ore or forestry. No matter what project is proposed in this country, there are activists who want to stop it, activists who want to abolish it and activists who are just loving this sort of legislation, because it's right up their modus operandi.

And we see in the Daily Telegraph only today that almost $11 million of taxpayers' money—that's all our money that could otherwise be spent putting in more aged-care beds, beds in hospitals, potential desks in classrooms to be filled by students and all those sorts of things that once were important—has been ploughed into the activist Environmental Defenders Office, helping fund bids to scuttle multibillion dollar gas and gold projects. Labor, how do you feel about that waste of money? This legislation before the House tonight ain't going to stop that! It's not going to prevent that!

We're seeing professional protesters everywhere, and they're protesting about everything. The previous speaker was talking about these wonderful people who came outside his electorate office. He invited them in, and good on him—I've done the same with the protesters that used to be 'Climate for Fridays' and then became 'Peace for Sunday' or 'Sundays for Peace'. They stopped protesting about the climate when Labor took office in May 2022 because, apparently, the climate became a whole lot better when that occurred. Now the same people—they're just Greens—are protesting about Gaza. Now they think that, on Fitzmaurice Street in Wagga Wagga, we can solve a problem that has been going on for decades, if not centuries, in the Middle East. Some of their actions have been, quite frankly, despicable. But we move on. What I would say to the previous speaker is that he perhaps ought to tell those protesters who turn up every week outside his office, 'Here's a thought: why don't you spend a few hours volunteering your time at a soup kitchen, at a Carevan, at St Vinnies or doing something like that instead of wasting your time outside the—

Debate interrupted.