Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and cognate bills. I rise to defend nature and I rise to stand up for the engines of our nation's prosperity. I rise to speak to one of the most important topics in the country: the land itself. It is a land that my parents fell in love with more than 50 years ago. It is a land that I fell in love with and a land that I worked on, just like my old man. 'Stunning country' is how I describe the childhood hometown where I grew up, Kambalda, and my birthplace, Kalgoorlie. The goldfields of Western Australia are not just a source of mineral treasures; they are a source of natural treasures too. The ecosystem systems are complex and intensely alive, and anyone who has looked at our deserts and only saw red dirt and flies did not look hard enough.

One of the things that I would like to do as I rise today as a Western Australian engineer who has worked on the mines is dispel some myths and falsehoods. One of the myths is that people that take part in the resource sector do not like nature or the great Australian outdoors and also that being an environmentalist means that you're always anti economic prosperity. We live in a world where we need to both look after the environment and use our resources wisely for our prosperity. We need the critical minerals, and we need to look after the land, and the world needs Australia. Not only do we need this legislation; we need leadership. We need leadership from our government, we need leadership from the Greens, and we need leadership from the coalition. Our goal is to strike the balance and to safeguard what is precious and for Australia to continue to be an amazing nation.

So some might be surprised to learn of the love of the land from those that have worked on the mines. The mines, of course, run 24/7. When you work on the mines, you actually plug into the land more than you do in an air conditioned office. Imagine seeing a mob of kangaroos at the edge of a mine site at dusk or hearing at dawn the chorus of desert birds. I bring to this chamber 18 years of experience as a chemical engineer, as someone that was born in a goldmining town, who grew up in a nickel-mining town and who is the daughter of a fitter and turner. I am a woman who followed in my dad's steel capped boots into the male dominated resource sector, and I was determined to use my love of science and also harmonise industry with sustainable practices. In the town where I grew up, Kambalda, when the houses were built, they removed the footprint of where the houses would go, but what that meant was that everyone had gum trees in their back yards and their front yards. I also grew up learning how to rehabilitate mine sites. Mr Woolard was the environmental leader that worked on the mines there, and he taught us as students that you could heal the land after you extracted the minerals that you wanted.

So, as someone who has walked, driven and flown across the country to mine sites and commissioned and worked in continuous improvement and even energy efficiency and emissions reductions, what I would say is that I have seen instances where the resource sector has done best practice, and it has been very impressive at those times. I've been immensely proud to call myself an engineer that has worked on the mines. But there have also been times when there have been questionable practices and sometimes, frankly, sloppy work. The thing that we're trying to do today is lift the standards, have a new benchmark and set what we expect across Australia. This is what this legislation is doing, and we have important structures that we're putting in place. This includes the National Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Information Australia, the restoration contributions holder and also, importantly, a better, faster, smarter approval system.

This is a massive effort by a Labor government, prepared to do the work to safeguard what matters. Begun by the former minister for the environment, the member for Sydney—thanks to her hard work, the current Minister for the Environment hit the ground running and has not stopped. Forget the term 'fixer'; I think of him as an endurance athlete because this has been a marathon—a marathon of consultation, conservation and conversation. I am proud to be part of a Labor government that is determined to keep decarbonisation and housing and nation-building projects moving at the pace required, at the pace we need to safeguard not just our prosperity but our children's prosperity. And do you know what? Industry wants clarity. Take it from an engineer. Sometimes, that means a quick no, because the sunk costs of waiting on approvals are disastrous for a project.

Here's another line: if a project harms our most precious environmental assets, it won't get the green light. Don't waste your time. As the Minister for the Environment and Water put it, no, you can't mine Uluru, and it shouldn't take a bureaucratic run-around to say a quick no. We're also empowering industry to do their bit by setting standards based in science. Priority 1 is avoiding harm. For cases where harm is unavoidable, we have introduced the concept of net gain. This updated offset framework ensures that any environmental damage is more than compensated. Net gain means that projects that do harm must leave nature better off than before. Protection statements will make it easier for decision-makers and proponents to understand what is required.

This bill honours the deadly Australian bush, and, like the deadly bush creatures we all love, this legislation has teeth. Stronger penalties and enforcement powers will ensure that environmental harm is taken seriously. You will not profit from the destruction of nature in Australia. The incentive to move fast while breaking things, copping just a slap on the wrist, will be history. Put simply, if you wreck our environment, whatever you make from your wrecking, you will pay.

There was genuine constructive public debate about finding the right place for emissions, and I thank the Labor Environment Action Network, who, like many groups, came to the table in good faith. No-one on this side of the House is deluded about climate. Climate change threatens the planet. It is indeed anthropogenic, meaning it is caused by mankind, and we need to act on it. This bill requires the disclosure of emissions, both scope 1 and scope 2, and aligns with Australia's safeguard mechanism. Proponents will also be required to disclose associated emission mitigation measures and abatement targets, along with their estimated emissions. This supports our climate goals. Environmental approvals must be considered with broader decarbonisation efforts.

We attempted this bill once before, but the Liberals and the Greens teamed up and blocked its pathway. What a disappointment. The Liberal Party is supposed to be the party of business, but not supporting this legislation will bring business to a halt. It's one thing to stand by a future Ley government, or even a future Wilson government, but not standing by business—are the Liberals so far from their values that they can't even remember what to do for business? As for the Greens, in the last term we never saw a 'green for go' or even a 'yellow for go slow'; it was red lights all the way. What Australia saw was blockers, not builders, and at the last election Australia gave them the red light. I hope the Greens have left that blocking era behind them. It's getting a bit old and a bit like a broken traffic light.

I want people to recognise that the EPA is nothing to be afraid of. The US, Canada, New Zealand and the UK all have their own versions. An independent national environmental protection agency will ensure that rules are enforced fairly and transparently. It will educate and guide industry and communities. Companies will be held accountable for the damage they cause, promoting better compliance and deterring future breaches. This is excellent progress.

We also want Australians to understand the state of the environment. That's why we will also have the Head of Environment Information Australia, to improve access to reliable data. We want to support evidence based decision-making. This aligns with global best practice in environmental regulation, and our world-renowned natural wonders deserve nothing less.

A streamlined pathway will reward well prepared proposals and reduce delays, saving billions across the economy while maintaining strong environmental standards. We want an ecosystem of intelligence, not a pipeline of problems. This is a collaborative approach by a mature government, and we are working both with community groups and with industry. If industry does its homework and comes to the table in good faith, clarity will be rewarded with clarity. Efficiency means empowering awareness through our systems.

This is very exciting legislation. We can get the balance right. We can do right by future generations. Australians reject extremism and division, as we saw at the last election. Now let's show it in the parliament. Let's do the work for the country that we all love.

  (Quorum formed)

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address the grave concerns that many constituents, stakeholders and industries in Capricornia and beyond have about the proposed changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. While reform may sometimes be needed, what is before us is crippling industries that are pillars of our region and our nation. It places too much power in the hands of ministerial discretion, it duplicates regulation, and it threatens fairness and productivity. I speak today on behalf of regions that rely on resource development, mining, minerals and heavy industries—companies like Boral, Glencore, BHP and QMAG. They are not faceless corporations. They are employers. They are economic drivers. They unlock the wealth of our nation and give back to the community through grassroots, community activities.

They are telling me clearly that the tighter green tape proposed under this bill is strangling their ability to operate in Australia—let alone compete internationally, where other countries offer far more favourable conditions. I back our mining companies. I back them because their success is our success, but under this bill we risk entering dangerous territory. We risk picking winners and losers by regulation, where those aligned with the government agenda are favoured with subsidies while others are left to struggle under burdens they never asked for. If we continue down this path, some may ask whether we are edging towards a system where government grants or regulatory favour determine what survives, rather than competitiveness and merit. That risks are chilling resemblance to state controlled economies, where approvals are less about fairness and more about who has influence.

One of my deepest concerns with the proposal is around 'unacceptable impact' as a legal test in the bill. As per the recommendations from the Graeme Samuel review, the intention may have been well meaning—to protect matters of national environmental significance more strictly—but the drafting we see is deeply subjective, loaded with ministerial discretion and lacking clarity. A project may be held up or refused not because it fails to meet clear standards but because someone considers the impact unacceptable. That test is open to interpretation, which could then attract legal challenges and lengthy delays. For mining companies I've spoken with, the fear is real. What happens when that test becomes a bureaucratic hammer rather than a guidance tool? What happens when companies are being held responsible for impacts outside of their control, which they cannot reasonably mitigate? That is not fairness; that is regulatory overreach.

Furthermore, in my consultation with the Queensland Resources Council, they flagged that the bill's establishment of a federal environmental protection agency with assessment, compliance and enforcement roles duplicates existing Queensland arrangements. That duplication will slow approvals, increase costs and reduce productivity in resource dependent electorates like Capricornia. In Queensland we already have a state environmental regulatory regime. To overlay a federal regime with parallel obligations—sometimes inconsistent, sometimes overlapping—is inefficient. It burdens project applications with increased compliance costs and delay. Energy-intensive or resource-intensive projects often depend on timeliness and predictability. When timing is uncertain, investment is re-evaluated, jobs are delayed, or lost, and growth is stunted. It is a bit rich for a Labor government that is big on talking up productivity to be tying down industry with this legislation.

In addition to reduced productivity, Queensland has more projects overlapping with matters of national environmental significance than any other state. Our Great Barrier Reef catchments, our threatened species, our migratory habitat corridors and our flood plains coincide with resource activity. That overlap raises the risk that even projects which meet high environmental standards could be refused or delayed because of new definitions, like that of 'unacceptable impact'. This is a risk to mining, to infrastructure and to the economic future of regions like Capricornia.

Let me also raise a concern around balance and fairness. I draw your attention to Noel Pearson's framing: 'It is not in the public interest to permanently deny regions such as the Bowen, Galilee and Surat basins their chance for economic development, while historically developed or urban areas retain privilege.' When legislation adopts blanket tests or criteria that don't consider regional equity, Indigenous participation or adaptive management, we risk entrenching disadvantage outside of our major metropolitan centres. That is why the Queensland Resources Council has recommended that the 'unacceptable impact' element be retained only as a case-by-case assessment, guided by standards that factor in regional equity and Indigenous participation and allow adaptive management, rather than imposing rigid definitions that may choke off legitimate investment.

Another critical point is that the bill gives the minister and regulatory authorities discretionary power to override or veto approvals. On paper that sounds like speeding things up—giving executive veto power—but in practice it concentrates risk in the office of the minister rather than in transparent independent criteria. That creates uncertainty for business. It invites political discretion rather than statutory predictability. Projects that comply with best environmental, safety, health and workplace standards and have robust rehabilitation plans may be delayed or refused if they do not align with some subjective view of 'priority' or 'unacceptable standard'.

Meanwhile, projects that have less community support but are more politically popular may receive prioritised treatment. I point to a concerning example: in my own electorate and surrounding regions, proposals such as the Clarke Creek Wind Farm have raised community concern. Unchecked renewable energy approval may be ticked off under this bill, while mining or infrastructure projects that follow industry best practice and rehabilitation standards may be delayed or blocked. That is not equitable treatment of economic development and environmental protection. The balance is wrong when greenfield renewable proposals are favoured over tried, regulated and best-practice industries simply because of political design, not merit.

The bill is supposedly intended to speed up approvals, improve environmental outcomes and provide certainty. But, as it is currently drafted, it may very well do the reverse: slow approvals, increase litigation risk, reduce investor confidence and deter capital from regions that most need it. Moreover, our industries are under pressure globally. Mining, energy, critical minerals and building materials must compete on cost, quality and timeliness. If other jurisdictions offer clearer pathways, fewer risks and more certainty, companies will invest elsewhere. That cost is paid by regional communities in terms of fewer jobs, fewer royalties and less growth.

This is not an argument against environmental protection. We want strong environmental outcomes, and resources companies in particular already adopt world's best practice. We want protections for habitat, for water quality and for threatened species. But protection must be fair, transparent and efficient. It must recognise that economic development and environmental stewardship can and must coexist. When legislation shifts the burden onto project proponents in ways that exceed reasonable control, when definitions are vague or subjective, when duplicate regulations slow things down and when approval power is concentrated in ministerial discretion, we undermine that coexistence.

I would like to see more consideration given to the following: clearer statutory definitions of unacceptable impact; adaptable management and case-by-case assessment so regional equity is built in; that, where possible, we avoid duplication of assessment regimes between state and federal, recognising existing approval frameworks rather than superseding them; that discretion be limited; that ministerial vetoes do not substitute for predictable, transparent statutory criteria; and that projects that meet practice, environmental, safety, rehabilitation and community engagement standards are not penalised simply because they are resource based or operate in regional Australia.

If we do not get that balance right we risk chasing an illusion of perfect environmental protection at the cost of real economic impact, real job losses and real regional decline. I urge the government to listen to those on the ground—to Capricornia, to resource communities, to First Nations and to industries—and to redraft this legislation so that it protects the environment and supports sustainable, productive economic development. I'd like to see balance and fairness restored to this legislation. I commend my words to the House.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our environment is under pressure. Our laws to protect it are broken, and for too long those laws have not kept pace with the challenges we face. Whether it be safeguarding our iconic landscapes, protecting our threatened species or nurturing our unique ecosystems, our current laws are not working for our environment. Australians are concerned, and rightly so. That's why the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the others in this package are being introduced by the Albanese government. They are practical, evidence based reforms that deliver real, enforceable and meaningful protections for our environment. They ensure that development is handled responsibly while safeguarding our unique ecosystems. And they make decision-making faster, more predictable and more accountable.

This reform package is long overdue and, importantly, it responds to all the Samuel review recommendations handed down to the coalition government. In our last term in government the Albanese government made it a priority to: respond to this review; fix our environment laws; provide clear, nationally consistent guidelines; and establish enforceable penalties through a historic national environment protection agency. But on this journey the Albanese government has faced considerable roadblocks. When push came to shove, in the last term of government the coalition and the Greens teamed up to block reforms that would have delivered clarity for business and stronger protections for the environment. Despite this, the Albanese government was not deterred. We've pushed ahead, and now we draw a line in the sand. Today we champion these groundbreaking environmental reforms and we urge both the Greens and the coalition to be more constructive this time around and back in these bills.

The bills establish clear national environmental standards that must be adhered to. Whether you're mining in a culturally significant area or working to build new much-needed housing, the bills will give clarity and certainty while delivering better protections. These standards are not aspirational. They will be clear rules grounded in science and law. Most importantly, they cannot be weakened over time. The bill makes this crystal clear.

The reforms also include a new definition of 'unacceptable impact' specific to each protected matter. This will set clear and upfront criteria for impacts that cannot be approved, and provide a safeguard against impacts that cause the irreversible loss of Australia's biodiversity and heritage. The proposed reforms will clearly define what types of environmental harm must be avoided and cannot be offset.

The bills also introduce protection statements for threatened species, providing clarity for decision-makers and proponents. Moreover, the bills strengthen compliance and enforcement powers, making it clear that serious breaches will no longer be treated as just the cost of doing business. Importantly, they introduce the principle of net gain for environmental offsets. The reality is, the current offset regime doesn't work. It does not work for our environment and it facilitates irresponsible development. The Albanese government recognises this, and through these bills we're charting a different course. These bills introduce a new net gain framework which means projects are required to not only avoid and minimise impacts but also actively contribute to the improvement of our environment. The principle of net gain will ensure projects leave the environment in a better state than they found it. This can be achieved through direct offsets such as replanting degraded habitats, restoring wetlands or funding species-recovery programs. It can also be achieved through contributions to a central restoration fund which can then be strategically deployed to areas of greatest ecological benefit. Restoration contributions can be pooled strategically to achieve maximum environmental benefit, giving nature the chance to recover, regenerate and become more resilient.

These bills are about reversing decades of decline, and they're also about ensuring that when a species is listed as threatened, or when a habitat is identified as endangered, the law is equipped to protect it effectively. They are about ensuring that when development occurs it does so responsibly, and in a way that genuinely contributes to restoring the environment.

I know how important this is for my communities in Corangamite. They are passionate. They care deeply about improving our unique environments across the Bellarine and Surf Coast. To the Landcare volunteers whom I have worked with over many years, to the schoolchildren who ask me questions about the future of our planet, and to the surfers I met this morning who care so deeply about our ocean—this bill is for you. I know just how much they care, and they want our laws to work better for the environment and for future generations. They want environmental laws to work better to achieve responsible development and protection of flora and fauna.

The bills also introduce bioregional planning, mapping conservation zones and development zones in advance so that proposed projects can be assessed against bioregional plans and, where appropriate, can proceed while ensuring high-value areas are robustly protected. Bioregional planning will be a game changer. It will enable a coordinated, strategic approach across multiple jurisdictions, ensuring environmental gains contribute to a healthier, more connected landscape over the longer term. That is the essence of the first pillar of this reform: stronger environmental protection and restoration.

The second pillar relates to greater robust decision-making to tackle duplication and delays. The bills will streamline assessment pathways, reducing statutory timeframes for compliant proposals by up to 20 days. A new national interest pathway will also be created, allowing projects that are critical to Australia's future to proceed, under strict transparency rules, while still maintaining high environmental standards. The reforms also modernise reconsideration provisions, setting clear timeframes and improving certainty for business, while maintaining environmental safeguards.

The third pillar focuses on greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision-making. To achieve this, the Albanese government is establishing the National Environmental Protection Agency, Australia's first national, and formidable, independent environmental regulator. The EPA will oversee compliance; enforce the law; hold serious offenders to account; provide guidance and education to business; and monitor, audit and report, giving communities confidence that the law is being applied, enforced and taken seriously.

Alongside the EPA, Environment Information Australia will consolidate environmental data into a single authoritative source. For too long, environmental information in this country has been fragmented, inconsistent and hard to access. EIA will collect, consolidate and publish data about the state of our environment, improving decision-making for government and business. It will make it easier to identify emerging threats to our natural world.

The reforms also enshrine First Nations engagement in the system, ensuring that decisions affecting land, water and heritage are informed by those who have cared for these places for generations. First Nations perspectives will guide the protection of country, and their expertise will be recognised in decision-making processes, from species conservation to bioregional planning.

These bills will deliver tangible and lasting benefits. They will help protect threatened species, such as the eastern curlew, the Leadbeater's possum and the hooded plover. They will safeguard forests, rivers, wetlands and grasslands. They will ensure scope 1 and scope 2 emissions are reported by proponents. The safeguard mechanism will provide the necessary guardrails to achieve emissions reduction targets for our biggest emitters.

These are the environmental protection laws Australians have been waiting for, and they continue a proud Labor tradition. Labor has always acted to protect our environment. We have delivered landmark reforms throughout our history. Programs such as Landcare have empowered communities to restore and care for their local landscapes, from the smallest waterways to the largest forests, engaging volunteers, schools and local groups in the hands-on work of regeneration. It was Labor that saved the Franklin River from destruction. Labor protected Kakadu, the Daintree and countless other sites of ecological, cultural and historic significance. We have built the largest network of marine parks in the world. We have championed initiatives that address the urgent threats of biodiversity loss, habitat destruction and the broader impacts of environmental change. We have done this while balancing the needs of communities and the economy.

This bill is the next step in that legacy. So I say to the Greens and the opposition: will you stand in the way?

At the last election, the people cast their vote, and the message was clear. They want a system that works for the environment, for communities and for business. They want a national EPA that has teeth. Under these laws, serious environmental harm will carry serious consequences, and those who profit from destruction will be held to account.

These bills are not just about law reform. They are about restoring trust in the laws that protect our environment. They balance protection with progress, and they are built on many years of consultation.

In closing, I'd like to recognise our Minister for the Environment and Water, and the former minister, the member for Sydney, for all the work they have done to deliver these groundbreaking reforms. It's now vital that these bills pass and that, together, we leave a legacy that protects what we all hold dear: our nation's amazing coastlines, rivers, bushland and cultural heritage. I commend these bills to the House.

(Quorum formed)

Ben Small (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite refer to the EPBC reforms in front of the House as 'groundbreaking'. But the very real concern that I have representing the electorate of Forrest is they'll lead to no ground being broken at all. Before we dive into the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the six associated bills in some detail, I want to outline to the House my three areas of primary focus when it comes to considering the legislation proposed by the government.

The first is what benefit there is for industry in these reforms. As much as we hear hyperbole from those opposite that this is a great thing for industry in our country, the devil is in the detail—and that is of grave concern to many stakeholders from the great state of Western Australia, because it is the mining and resources industry that underpins the prosperity we enjoy in this country today. Secondly, there are conflicting and uncertain statements on unacceptable standards within the bills, and these pose a grave risk to the ability of proponents to get a project up and established in this country—which, again, in an era of declining productivity and declining standards of living, is simply unacceptable for the coalition to support. Thirdly, when it comes to bilateral assessments and approvals, the great state of WA should receive both immediately and simultaneously. We can't afford for there to be delay, prevarication or consideration of the need for a one-stop shop when it comes to these approvals. Without diving into the detail just yet, they are the three areas of concern that mean I, on behalf of the electorate of Forrest, find myself unable to support the current proposals.

At the end of the day, the bounty that our nation enjoys stems from the investment and approval decisions through the 2000s—that is, the mines that were first explored, discovered and then progressed, through development to production, date back to the mid-2000s, in reality. Today we enjoy the bounty of decisions that were made under the existing laws some 20 years ago. The question on my mind is: will these current proposed EPBC reforms unleash a new wave of mining investment in our country? The reality is that they won't. What's the impact of that? When you consider that the mining and resources industry has spent some $242 billion of capital expenditure in the last decade and generated some $395 billion of taxes and royalties in the same period, it should be clear to every Australian that our ability to pay for a social security net in this country comes from industry. At the end of the day, without that capacity to pay as a nation, it is our most vulnerable and our most disadvantaged who pay the greatest cost.

Mining and resources aren't the end of the story, of course. Oil and gas as an industry, in the last financial year alone, paid some $21.9 billion in taxes and royalties, which is equivalent to the entire cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. When mining does well, when industry does well, Australia does well. Importantly, if we curtail the extraction of resources domestically, we're pushing that production of resources to overseas jurisdictions who have lower environmental standards than those considered by environmental law here in Australia and who have lesser safeguards when it comes to workplace health and safety and the use of labour. Ultimately, we don't change the consumption of resources globally but we move it. We move it away from Australia, we deprive Australians of the benefits of the taxes and royalties that are paid for the extraction of our resources and we see greater environmental harm, accordingly. What I'm looking for is legislation here in Australia that will help our industry 'dig baby dig,' because that's what benefits all Australians. When our industry does well, we all do well.

Let's turn to some of the main areas of concern that I have with the EPBC legislation in front of the House. Firstly, when it comes to accreditation, those opposite have been very quick to point to the benefits of streamlining approvals through, effectively, a one-stop shop in licensing state based EPAs to conduct approvals and assessments. The great shame, really, is that there are those opposite who are part of this government who had the opportunity to support such an important reform in this place in 2021. Imagine where we would be as a country if we had knocked the red tape, the restriction, the regulation that's contemplated by that almost five years ago. I won't be lectured by the government on the importance of this, because, like I say, they had the opportunity to get behind that almost five years ago and failed to do so.

In fact, just earlier this morning, upstairs in a committee room not far from here, we were discussing the Smokebush Gallium Project in Western Australia, which the Albanese government have been keen to trumpet as a great success story. As a brownfields project, it is not impacted by the EPBC Act. Importantly, the proponents of that project just articulated the reality that if it was impacted, this project would be some five to 10 years away. That's where we need to call out the failure of EPBC in Australia, because we are so bound up in red tape, regulation and restriction and so bound up in environmental 'lawfare' that our industries that generate the prosperity for us all to enjoy and benefit from are simply lagging behind. This bill in its current form does not suitably address that. I say again, Western Australia and its EPA should be accredited immediately and without delay under these reforms. That would be something I could certainly support.

In terms of the prospect of a net gain, which is principally what Labor used to call nature positive, until that became politically difficult for them, there's no clear guidance on how this would be applied and measured. It simply can't be put into legislation. Inevitably, we would discover there were unintended consequences or difficulties in the implementation, and the reality is that we would then have to be back debating the legislation once more in the House. If it were pushed off into the standards, we would see the ability for those net gain principles to change over time in a nimble and agile way, as I think, at its heart, the government really sees some benefit in.

What they need to do is listen to stakeholders and actually respond accordingly, because there are simply mad examples that abound in our country of offsets that are out of control—one tree with a couple of black cockatoos involved requiring the offset of some thousand trees elsewhere is in the way of housing developments, for instance. We wonder why we can't get housing supply to market. We wonder why the government's Housing Australia Future Fund is simply unable to do that. It's because of these sorts of restrictions and this madness.

When we get to unacceptable impacts, the criteria are just too low, and businesses from WA are telling me that it is a real risk to future projects. There are more than 5,000 FIFO employees in Busselton alone that depend on the mining industry for their jobs. I hear those industry participants telling me in private rooms that this is a key risk of the bill. I'm urging the government to follow the Samuel review and put those into the standards, not the legislation, for the same reasons I just mentioned earlier.

Importantly, in this place, we should use the powers of retrospectivity very cautiously indeed. It is unacceptable to me on a first-principles basis—and it is unacceptable to many that I talk to at home, in Western Australia—that conditions could be imposed under this reformed legislation retrospectively. You can't go shifting goalposts when it comes to capital investment decisions that amount in the billions of dollars. If the government is upfront and honest with Australians that there is no intention at all to retrospectively alter the environmental conditions attached to projects, they should be clear about that. It's very simple for them to say n-o—'No, we will not impose retrospective alterations on industry in Australia under these reforms.' They've failed to do so to date, and, until they do, I certainly could not vote for this legislation.

When we come to environmental protection orders, the threshold is too low in my view, but it's not the main issue with it. The main issue with the way the legislation is drafted presently is that there's no appeal process. There is no right to natural justice for someone impacted by an environmental protection order to seek remedy, to have their day in court and to be heard in that way. That is a severe failing of any legislation contemplated by this House. It would be quite simple for the government to fix. Whilst that single biggest issue is a barrier to the effective implementation of environmental legislation that would have the right balance between the environment and industry in Australia, again, I simply can't afford to support it, because my state's prosperity—and that indeed underwrites the prosperity of the country—depends on getting this stuff right.

It's worth reflecting on how we got here, because, yes, the Samuel review was commissioned under the coalition government, as we've heard. But the reality is that, since they came to power in 2022, the government have been shrouding this legislation in secrecy. Stakeholders have been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements. They've been drip-fed little bits here and there. Now it seems like the minister's in some sort of rush, because we've got extended sitting hours this week, and, all of a sudden, the government are using their numbers in the House here to move around the order of business and have us talk about this stuff until 10 pm each night. Yet, at the same time, the reporting date for the Senate inquiry is March next year. So if there's not some dirty deal at play here, if there's not some sort of stunt in the works, what is the tearing rush? The reality is that this legislation represents a quarter-century reform. It needs to be considered. It needs to get the balance right. In its current form, it doesn't.

Anyone that thinks that 1,500 pages of legislation could be suitably considered and scrutinised in this place in just a matter of weeks is honestly delusional. The reality is that the Australian people need to understand what these reforms mean. Industry needs to have the opportunity to have their say, as do environmental stakeholders. There are two sides to this, and it is a matter of getting the balance right, so what is the problem with allowing this process of inquiry through the parliament to take place to allow the issues and unintended consequences to be fixed through suitable amendments? That's ultimately what we are calling for. We're not being obstructionist; we have committed, of course, to being constructive where we can. There is a genuine desire on the part of the coalition to respond to feedback from industry that these laws do need improvement. But, in their current form, for the reasons I've just articulated, the reality is that we simply can't support them.

Colleagues have taken some time to step through the concerns and the issues that we're highlighting in the legislation, but what I'm hearing back from the other side of the chamber is that the government is determined to press ahead with this legislation. We're not hearing responses to the criticism; we're hearing government talking points just repeated ad nauseam, one member after another, chewing up time in this place without constructively engaging in what should be a really important national debate. I guess it reflects a government that says one thing and does another. I always urge people in this place to look at what Labor does rather than listen to what it says.

We can't afford to get this wrong. We've seen the consequences of legislation like this going wrong in the past, and then there's a mad scramble to try and fix it up. They crunched through all sorts of legislation in home affairs and made a terrible mess and then had to fix it up multiple times. This stuff, which underpins our national prosperity as a country, simply can't afford that sort of risky behaviour.

All we're asking for is the time to consider this legislation appropriately and responsiveness on the part of the government to genuine concern from environmental stakeholders, industry groups and project proponents themselves across the entire spectrum of activity in Australia, from housing development all the way through to our largest mining, oil and gas projects. That's what's at stake in this place today and, indeed, this week and that's why we can't support this legislation in its current form.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For our government, the six months since the election have been all about delivery—delivering the policies that the Australian people voted for on 3 May: cutting student debt by 20 per cent; making it easier to buy a home, with five per cent deposits; protecting penalty rates and overtime pay; delivering real help with the cost of living through cheaper medicines; and, of course, starting last Saturday, the biggest boost to bulk-billing since Bob Hawke's government created Medicare.

Right across the board, delivery is what drives our government, and these reforms are all about delivery—building new homes, connecting new energy, creating new jobs, providing the certainty to catalyse new investment, unlocking our critical minerals and rare earths not just to dig up and export but to refine and process and make more things here in Australia, and boosting productivity across our economy all while protecting and restoring our environment for future generations, because Australia doesn't have to choose between a strong economy and a healthy environment. We don't have to choose between creating jobs and cutting emissions. We can do both; indeed, we must do both because each one depends on the other. These reforms are central to meeting the challenges facing our nation here and now, and they're vital for Australia to seize the profound opportunities that are right ahead of us.

The starting point for this legislation is a simple fact that people across this parliament know, understand and have said is the case. And people outside the parliament know, whether that's environmentalists concerned about the state of our natural environment or business trying to get things done and create jobs. They all say that the current laws are broken. They were written by the Howard government for a very different Australia, and they haven't just become obsolete; they've become an obstacle. They're not working for the environment and they're not delivering for business. They are a barrier to jobs and investment across our nation, and in many cases they overlap with or duplicate state and local government processes.

All of this costs money, it creates uncertainty and it wastes time. Back in 2000, the median wait time for project approval was 48 weeks. Today it's 118 weeks. Far too often, those delays mean investors simply walk away, regional and remote communities miss out on good jobs, growing suburbs don't get the new homes they need, and business, industry and households miss out on cleaner, cheaper energy. Projects get passed back and forth between different levels of government or are tangled up in layers of process.

This problem isn't new. It has been five years since the Leader of the Opposition, the then environment minister, received the review that was commissioned by the former government into the EPBC Act. It was commissioned, of course, from Professor Graeme Samuel. Professor Samuel's review laid out a clear plan for changes that would deliver better outcomes for our environment and better outcomes for our economy. On receiving the review the opposition leader said this:

It is time to find a way past an adversarial approach and work together to create … reform that will protect our environment, while keeping our economy strong

That's precisely what this legislation does, and Professor Graeme Samuel has been very clear about his support for this legislation. He said this just last week:

At long last, almost five years to the exact date of delivery of the report, Minister Watt has produced legislation which implements the totality of the report in substance, in a way that I could not possibly have imagined back in 2020 … I cannot possibly imagine why anyone would want to now oppose it.

But, of course, we have circumstances where the now opposition commissioned a report, they received the report and we have legislation that's based upon the report, but now they're opposed to it. We got an insight, perhaps, into why that's the case from the member for Wright just this week when he said, in justifying not even having a housing minister or any housing policy for most of the period they were in office: 'Oh, it wasn't needed. It wasn't needed at that time.' They think that everything that happened prior to 2022 is just forgotten and that there weren't issues there until the change of government by the Australian people in 2022. In fact, Australians know, for example, when it comes to housing approvals that, if you have a major project that is delayed for year after year after year—and there are examples of projects that have been delayed for more than a decade—that increases costs, it reduces supply and someone pays the bill for that delay, because the asset is held but the capital is not spent in improving the value of that asset, and someone has to pay. And who pays? The consumer. Who pays? The entire Australian public, because that is one of the things that boost inflation.

Now, you can't say you're concerned about any of these issues and then vote against this legislation, because this legislation does deliver on the vision of Graeme Samuel. This bill is about driving better, clearer and speedier decision-making, making it easier to get an answer from government sooner—a quicker yes or a quicker no, providing that certainty. That is the key to encouraging investment in our economy.

Every bit as important as encouraging investment in our economy is ensuring there's a better system of protections for Australia's precious and unique natural environment—firstly, by giving the minister the power to make national environmental standards, which simply aren't there at the moment: clear, enforceable expectations around offsets, engagement with traditional owners and matters of national environmental significance. This isn't just about conserving our natural heritage and assets; it's also about repairing any damage that is done. The repair could be done either directly—through delivering an offset, such as planting more trees and providing essential habitat for unique Australian species—or by contributing to a restoration fund, managed by an independent statutory officer in the department.

This idea of an independent restoration fund, to build back not just what was there but to build back better and to make an improvement to our natural environment, makes enormous sense. It's a practical measure going forward. Rather than doing, for example, 10 trees here or 20 trees somewhere else to make a difference and alleviate the impact of a project, by having a national restoration fund managed independently you can pool the contributions and do something really significant that makes a much bigger difference to our environment: a net gain for Australia's environment.

This bill will give clear guidance about protecting threatened species and important habitats, which are not there in the current laws. It will impose tougher penalties for significant breaches of environmental law. In order to build confidence in these decisions and strengthen the enforcement of these laws, at the centre of this legislation is the creation of Australia's first national environmental protection authority, honouring a commitment that the Australian people have voted for not once but twice. The independent national EPA will have stronger powers to impose tougher penalties, but, importantly, the final responsibility will remain with the minister of the day, because in our democracy ultimate responsibility should belong to the elected representatives.

The government has worked tirelessly to consult about these laws across the community. The broad engagement we have undertaken is reflected in the broad support for these reforms, from the Property Council to the Australian Industry Group to the Smart Energy Council. The opposition and the Greens political party in the Senate both acknowledge that the current laws are broken, so their choice is very clear. We had legislation in the former parliament that couldn't receive support in the Senate, so the existing laws just carried on. I want to make this very clear: the government is determined to have this legislation carried this year. If that doesn't occur, the opposition and the Greens political party will both be responsible for the existing laws—that they themselves say are not fit for purpose—continuing on. That is what we are dealing with. That is the choice that people have.

We have said that we're up for dialogue and up for sensible propositions, if there are improvements that can be made. But this is the time. This has gone on for long enough. Five years after the reception of the report from Graeme Samuel, it is time to get things done. So their choice is clear. They can talk about the problem, or they can vote for the solution. That is the choice that will be before the Senate.

The government's position is clear. This week, we'll pass this legislation through the House of Representatives. We'll be voting for jobs, we'll be voting for housing, we'll be voting for new energy. We'll be voting for new projects and new industries across regional and remote Australia, and we'll be voting to pass on a better environment to our children and our grandchildren, for a stronger economy and a healthy environment. That's why it's not surprising that people are being asked to leave the House, to leave the chamber, so that political games can be played rather than actually engaging in debate. I say this to the opposition and to the Greens political party. This is good for jobs and good for industry, but it is also good for the environment. You have an opportunity to be part of the solution instead of continuing to be a part of the problem. The Australian people had something to say about the 'noalition' and their tactics of blocking—

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Speaker has ruled that that term is not to be used.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Consistently, he has not. He has said the 'noalition' can't be about a specific party, and it's not. It's about all of them. It's not about any individual, and the 'noalition' is when you have people combining from different ideological perspectives to form something new, something that's about blocking, not about advancing. And that is precisely the opportunity that people in the coalition or in the Greens have. Either of them have the opportunity to be a part of something positive, being a part of going forward rather than simply blocking. I say it is time. The Senate will have the opportunity to pass this legislation in the last week or move on, and it will be the responsibility of those people who don't support this legislation, the consequences of it, and they'll be held to account, just as they were held to account for the actions of the 'noalition' on 3 May.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the government's latest attempt to rewrite the approvals framework that underpins jobs, investment and certainty in our economy. In 2024, I had the honour to deliver the Garfield Barwick oration. Barwick is a hero of mine, a former member of this House, former Liberal attorney-general, former chief justice of Australia and the founding president of the Australian Conservation Foundation. In my address, I spoke about Barwick's approach to the environment, which was balanced, prudent and realist. Recognising the complexities of modern life and the demand for raw materials, it envisaged that advanced development and conservation could exist peaceably. When Barwick was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, he commended the foundation at that time for doing a great deal to introduce a sense of balance into the consideration of the protection of the environment. Explaining what he meant by 'balance' in 1970, he said, 'We realise this generation must have access to resources and must use the technologies which are available to make the life of the ordinary man better, but resources can be used and technologies employed without doing avoidable damage to the environment.'

This balance is what the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 should be about, but unfortunately it's not, and it gets the balance wrong. This bill doesn't make small changes or amendments. It's almost 1,500 pages of legislation and explanatory materials that reaches into every corner of the economy that builds, digs, grows and manufactures. It will determine whether projects are approved in months or in years. It will determine whether capital comes here or goes somewhere else. It will determine whether Australians get a system that's workable and provides certainty to the private sector or one that is slower and more complex.

What has the Albanese government chosen to do with something that's this significant? We heard the Prime Minister say it just then. They want to rush it through the parliament in one week. The bill was introduced into the parliament on 29 October. Stakeholders have immediately asked for more time to consider the bill. The Senate has already had to step in and refer it to an inquiry reporting on 24 March next year. According to the Prime Minister's timetable, the bill will be passed in the Senate before the Senate has had a chance to even consider this properly. This is outrageous, because 1,500 pages takes time to read, weigh and consider.

The member for Watson has carriage of the bill in this chamber, and he knows this. When he sat on this side of the chamber, he regularly decried rushed legislation. In 2014, in relation to a piece of legislation, he said:

The timing of this bill has precluded members of parliament from doing their job …

Is the timing of this bill precluding not only the parliament but stakeholders from doing their job to ensure the final bill passed is in the best interests of all Australians?

Or should we look to 2019, when Minister Burke said, 'There's only one reason the government have decided that they want this legislation to be rushed through tonight, and it's because they've decided to play the game.' So, this is now the game that the Albanese government is playing: acting in the same vein that they accused the former government of doing. Today they're doing precisely what they used to decry, and on such a large and far-reaching piece of legislation from their own government.

This matters because rushing this legislation will have real consequences for Australians. This bill updates the 1999 EPBC Act. As environment minister, the Leader of the Opposition commissioned Professor Graeme Samuel to undertake an independent review. The former coalition government introduced reforms, including streamlining pathways. It's no surprise to anyone that Labor, in opposition, blocked them at the time. The Labor government now has presented its own model, but at what cost? Minister Plibersek attempted to make these reforms in the last parliament. They were withdrawn under internal pressure.

Labor promised an environmental protection agency at two elections, and four years on it hasn't delivered what it promised. This is all too familiar from those opposite when it comes to energy and the environment. Let's not forget that they promised that Australians would see a $275 reduction in power bills. Four years on, they haven't delivered. The Prime Minister said that life would be cheaper under his government. Four years on, the government hasn't delivered.

The issue I particularly want to speak about in relation to the bill is very simple. It's about the transparency that this government is allergic to, and it's about scrutiny. The bill, as I indicated at the start of my remarks, is the perfect exemplar of this government's approach to transparency, scrutiny and allowing the parliament to do its job. Dumping 1,500 pages of legislation sight unseen, with economy-wide ramifications, and then demanding that the parliament pass them without properly looking at them is not the action of a government that wants the parliament to do its job. Indeed, we as legislators would be failing in our job if we didn't scrutinise the legislation properly.

Many of my colleagues have already made this point. The legislation contains a range of extraordinary changes that need to be properly weighed. Instead, we heard this petulant demand from the Prime Minister just a few moments ago to pass this bill—more reminiscent of a toddler than of a government acting in the national interest. More importantly, this bill says something very important about the government's approach to transparency and accountability. This is a government that talked a big game on transparency before they came to power. They promised to be so much better. Prior to the election, the Prime Minister promised the Australian people that, if they elected him and the Australian Labor Party to office, he and his ministers would deliver transparency, integrity and accountability in everything they did. Those are the standards he told the Australian people he would uphold and that he wanted them to judge him by if he was elected as Prime Minister of Australia: transparency, integrity and accountability.

Now we know that these standards are not the standards that the Albanese government and the ministers are holding themselves to. The former Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, loved preaching about accountability and integrity, but his government has done the exact opposite. He said that :

appropriate, prompt and proactive disclosure of government-held information informs community, increases participation and enhances decision-making, builds trust and confidence, is required and permitted by law and improves efficiency.

The point they made in opposition was that transparency actually promotes better government. But that's not what we're seeing in the bill.

What about the Minister for the Environment, who's responsible for the procedural mess we're dealing with today? What did he say when he was in opposition? He said, 'We deserve answers and transparency.' He also said it was not negotiable, and should not be negotiable, that the Prime Minister comply with the standing orders and properly answer questions. Clearly he's changed his tune in government.

And what about the Prime Minister? In his foreword to a Code of Conduct signed personally by him, we get this sort of sanctimony:

Australians deserve good government.

The Albanese Government is committed to integrity, fairness, honesty and accountability and Ministers in my Government (including Assistant Ministers) will observe standards of probity, governance and behaviour worthy of the Australian people.

In making all the fanfare that he did in relation to his Code of Conduct, at clause 4.4, under 'Responsibility and accountability', he said:

Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office, and of the activities of the agencies within their portfolios, in response to any reasonable and bona fide enquiry by a member of the Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee.

That's exactly what we should be seeing with the bill. Instead, we've seen a very different tune from this government. Instead of transparency, accountability and openness we've seen the approach demonstrated by this bill, where we have a government that is demanding that it be rammed through without proper consideration. More important than that, the approach to this bill is part of a very disturbing pattern around secrecy and opposition to scrutiny. There's overwhelming evidence that the resistance to scrutiny that we are seeing in the approach to this bill is endemic.

We've seen it in other areas, such as the surge in FOI refusals. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, the watchdog of the FOI system, said that the proportion of FOI requests being completely refused shot up to 27 per cent in the December 2024 quarter. By 31 March this year the proportion of requests that had been completely refused by government had, according to the OAIC dashboard, shot up to 31 per cent. We've seen it in this government's approach to consultation, which, extraordinarily, made nondisclosure agreements a condition of participation in too many areas. We saw it in the secrecy in relation to workplace relations reforms. They gagged small business, employers and industry groups that were directly targeted. They got people to sign legal gags and tried to enforce them because they wanted to lock them out of consultation.

This government should hang its head in shame. This is the same government that drafted a secret manual directing officials on how to avoid answering questions in Senate estimates, called 'Approaches to SEQoNs asked of all (or multiple) agencies'. The government was exposed because of a leak. The document was circulated among agencies, and the involvement of the Prime Minister 's Office is very murky.

This is a government that has repeatedly flouted orders for the production of documents. In fact, this government is now so egregious that the Senate has been forced into extraordinary procedural steps, like extending question time just to ensure basic standards of transparency. The Centre for Public Integrity has made clear that compliance with Senate orders for the production of documents has fallen to the lowest level since 1993. For whole generations of Australians, no government has been worse than this one in actually producing documents for scrutiny. Claims of public interest immunity, a claim that is used to oppose the release of documents, have tripled among this government, and we're seeing them made every single week.

We're seeing this in the malicious and petty slashing of staff from all those in opposition and on the crossbench, whose job it is to help hold this government to account. This government broke with decades of bipartisanship to reduce the number of staff. And we're not talking about electorate offices; we're talking about staff whose job it is to help us scrutinise the government.

That brings me back to this bill, which, as I've said, is just one more data point in a long line of data points that illustrate this government's addiction to secrecy. It's the sort of petulant approach that, as I said, you'd expect from a toddler. This government has now brought this bill into this House. The Senate, rightly, sent it to committee. Stakeholders want time to look at it. They want time to consider it. They want the chance to tell us, as legislators, how it will affect them. Instead, this government tried to rush it through. The Business Council of Australia has been clear:

… without significant changes … we risk embedding a system that's even slower, more complex and lacking the clarity and certainty needed for investment.

That's the Business Council, not the coalition. It's a serious concern. We should be examining those concerns in committee. Are those concerns borne out by evidence? Are changes required? What do the changes look like? Does this bill actually provide a solution to a productivity problem, or does it do the opposite, as industry has been telling us? I want to be clear: there are reform options that the coalition supports, but there are also serious issues with the legislation that we're being asked to consider. My colleagues have spoken at length to those issues.

I want to talk about scrutiny in this government's approach. As I said, this bill has already been referred to committee. Those opposite should be well aware of the importance of the committee's procedures and why we have committees in this place. It's worthwhile reminding people what Practice says about the importance of committees in the function of our parliament. It says:

The principal purpose of parliamentary committees is to perform functions which the Houses themselves are not well fitted to perform, that is, finding out the facts of a case or issue, examining witnesses, sifting evidence, and drawing up reasoned conclusions. Because of their composition and method of procedure, which is structured but generally informal compared with the Houses, committees are well suited to the gathering of evidence from expert groups or individuals. In a sense they 'take Parliament to the people' and allow direct contact between members of the public and representative groups of Members of the House. Not only do committee inquiries enable Members to be better informed about community views but in simply undertaking an inquiry committees may promote public debate on the subject at issue. The all-party composition of most committees and their propensity to operate across party lines are important features. This bipartisan approach generally manifests itself throughout the conduct of inquiries and the drawing up of conclusions. Committees oversight and scrutinise the Executive and are able to contribute towards better government. They also assist in ensuring a more informed administration and policy-making process, in working with the Executive on proposed legislation and other government initiatives.

So, this is what the purpose of the committee is in our system. This is why a committee inquiry into this bill has been established. This is why, because of the complexity of this bill, a reporting date for this committee has been listed as March next year.

Instead, as the Prime Minister said, we have a rushed attempt to bring this bill into this House and have it debated today, without the benefit of a committee inquiry. The Prime Minister is standing over the Senate and saying to the Senate that they will pass the bill in the next week of parliament sitting without the benefit of that sifting and weighing process which is vital to the committee processes of this parliament and vital to the legislative scrutiny that all of us who are not part of the executive—and this includes members opposite—have an absolute responsibility to do in regard to a bill with such economy-wide ramifications as this one. It is about whether the parliament should be allowed to do its job and whether all of us should benefit from the deliberations of the committee process and the weighty consideration that such a committee would give to a bill as complex and economy-wide as this.

What we have, in this bill, is an arrogant government that is instead trampling all over the committee process. It's clear that, by suspending standing orders to rush the debate today, the government has abandoned the longstanding position of the importance of proper consideration of legislation. It has also abandoned due process that must take this matter through a committee process. It has ignored the community benefit and the national interest in scrutiny and transparency and the use of the parliamentary process to deliver the best possible legislation in the national interest. Labor has taken this silly and entirely political approach, attempting to ram 1,500 pages of law and explanatory materials through the parliament without notice and with urgency.

I want to make a couple of closing comments to put the bill in context. Australians are dealing with a productivity problem. We can't afford to hardwire delay, confusion and litigation into our approvals system. The bill before the House is being sold as a productivity measure, but there are clear and present concerns that, far from improving productivity, this bill as presented would actually do the opposite. Parliament's duty is to write laws that work. Australians expect us to have genuinely considered the legislation that the government has put before us. They expect that laws are clear, proportionate and practical. This government does not respect that understanding. It does not respect the parliament and it does not respect the Australian people.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today as the federal member for Newcastle, a city deeply proud of its historical heart which sits alongside our world-class beaches and our internationally recognised wetlands, to speak in very strong support of this Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. This bill is about far more than legislative reform. It's about the kind of future we want to choose for our children, our grandchildren and the generations to come.

Newcastle is no stranger to transformation. We've evolved from our foundations in steelmaking, shipbuilding and heavy industry to a city of innovation, creativity and resilience. We know what hard work looks like. But we also know that the health of our environment underpins everything. Our harbour, our wetlands and our coastline from Merewether to Stockton are not just beautiful backdrops; they are part of our city's identity. They sustain livelihoods, tourism, recreation and community wellbeing. They provide the critical habitats for biodiversity and shorelines for threatened migratory shorebirds and, of course, the green and golden bell frog. Every worker who clocks on early in the morning, every family that walks the foreshore and every child who plays in our parks and on our beaches deserves clean air, clean water and a safe environment. This bill offers that better future.

The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 is the most significant overhaul of Australia's national environmental laws in a generation. It creates a streamlined, efficient and effective framework that cuts duplication, reduces the delays and restores trust in the system. For too long, approvals have been bogged down by complexity and inconsistency, frustrating businesses and communities alike. This bill replaces that patchwork with one clear, strong set of rules that are legally enforceable national environmental standards. They are the first of their kind in Australia's history.

Let's not hear this nonsense that these laws are not profound enough or that they're too profound for some members opposite. No longer will polluters be able to shop around for the weakest rules. No longer will Australians be left guessing which government is responsible when things go wrong. It delivers one system, one set of rules and one national approach underpinned by a tough, independent national environment protection authority with the powers and resources to enforce the law and hold offenders to account.

For Newcastle, this reform means real, tangible outcomes. It means a cleaner harbour and waterfront. Our port activity is vital to our regional economy, but our community also deserves clean water, safe recreation and restored shoreline amenity. Stronger standards and a tougher EPA mean better monitoring, less pollution and healthier waterways for everyone. It means stronger protections for our industrial zones as they undergo transition. The Hunter is at the forefront of the clean energy revolution with green hydrogen and ammonia, battery manufacturing, a clean energy precinct at the Port of Newcastle and a net zero manufacturing centre at Tighes Hill TAFE. We need a framework that supports that transition, not one that rewards inaction or delay.

It means investment certainty for the renewable energy and clean technology sectors. Investors want clarity. I do not understand how the coalition does not get this point. Investors want to know that environmental approvals will be handled efficiently and transparently. This bill gives them that confidence by unlocking new projects, cheap and clean energy, and new jobs—very important in regions like Newcastle and the Hunter. It means safer, healthier communities; stronger air quality standards; better land-use planning; and cleaner waterways as well as greater resilience to the growing impacts of climate change.

But this bill doesn't just tighten rules; it streamlines processes. For too long, approvals have been mired in duplication. This bill creates a single consistent framework with efficient, transparent decisions. For too many builders, it takes a longer time to get approval for a home than to build one. Building on the Australian Labor government's ambitious $43 billion housing agenda, the government announced in August that it would fast-track 26,000 homes currently under environmental assessment. But the measures in this bill tackle the underlying cause of delay while delivering stronger protections for nature.

In crafting these reforms, we have looked to three pillars: firstly, stronger protection and restoration; secondly, efficient and robust assessments and approvals; and, thirdly, accountability, including the National Environmental Protection Agency.

When it comes to housing, the Greens choose politics over progress every single time. They worked with Peter Dutton in the last term to block progress here in Canberra, they block housing in their local communities and they offer fantasy fixes that make the housing crisis worse. The Australian people have shown the Greens that they have a pretty dim view of opposition for opposition's sake. It's time they heeded the message and worked constructively with government. You've got an option. We can work this way, or we can work that way. You all should be on board, quite frankly, in the national interest to begin with.

But review after review has told us that these laws, our current environment laws, are not fit for purpose. We all know that. If you were all honest you would all admit that yourselves. In 2020, Professor Graeme Samuel delivered that review and made it very clear to all that the current system was broken: it's too slow, too complex and too weak. He called for strong national environmental standards and a tough, independent regulator to enforce them. Yet, since then, we've seen delay after delay after delay, and that is fuelled not only by community but by people who take advantage of political games.

Graeme Samuel himself has warned that the ongoing obstruction by the coalition and, disappointingly, by the Greens is a betrayal of the Australian government—and he is right. This is our one shot for a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix a system that has failed both business and nature for far too long. The Greens want to frame this legislation as a tug of war between the environment and the economy. They assert a false choice: that you can have one but not the other. And that is simply wrong. You don't have to choose between the environment and jobs or business. You can protect and grow both. Rather than petty political stunts, the Greens should learn their lessons and work with the government to deliver what the Australian people want. The Australian people have voted not once but twice for this legislation. Let's get this done.

This is the same Greens party that teamed up with the coalition to block the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2009, setting the stage for a decade—indeed, decades—of climate inaction. They also teamed up to send more of Australia's rubbish overseas, missing an opportunity to create jobs here and protect our environment. Whether it's the climate, housing or environmental reform, the Greens have too often put their own political interests above the national interest. If the Greens now choose to block this legislation, they will only have themselves to blame for the lack of progress on environmental law reform.

This bill is not about choosing between the environment and the economy. The two are inseparable. Strong standards provide certainty for investors and fairness for responsible operators. In Newcastle we've always understood that balance—prosperity through innovation while protecting our coast and waterways. This bill reflects that legacy.

This is nation-building reform. It creates a modern, trusted system of environmental protection. For the first time, the environmental information will be public in real time; for the first time, the Commonwealth will set binding standards; and, for the first time, there will be an independent, national EPA—a strong cop on the beat. This is what Australians expect, and it is what Labor is delivering.

This is a moment of decision. The people of Newcastle expect us to protect both jobs and the environment. We can deliver the renewable energy and the housing we need while safeguarding nature. Let's pass this bill. Let's protect our environment and build our economy at the same time. I commend this bill to the House.

Mary Aldred (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a pleasure to follow the member for Newcastle, because—while we differ on a number of aspects of the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025—as a new person to this place I do appreciate the real sense of collegiality that she has shown towards me in the last six months. I'd like to record my sincere appreciation for that.

It's a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill. I want to reflect—next week is the 50th anniversary of the dismissal of the Whitlam government and the subsequent election of the Fraser Liberal government. Some milestone achievements that were part of that government have been reflected in the parliament this week. We have, of course, the Freedom of Information Act, which was a crowning achievement of the Fraser Liberal government. It is disappointing to see the watering down and undermining of that bill this week, but it was a crowning achievement of a Liberal government.

And there were many milestones that the Fraser government implemented in respect of the environment. We had, of course, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. The Great Barrier Reef was declared a marine park. We ended sand mining on Fraser Island. We had the declaration of Kakadu National Park. We ended whaling in Australian waters and prohibited oil exploration and drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. And there were a number of internationally important conservation agreements, including a convention against trading endangered species, a convention on the conservation of seals in Antarctica and a convention on the international importance of wetlands.

I come from the Monash electorate, which is part of the great Gippsland region—which is the size of Switzerland. If you look at that entire regional area, there are some very important biodiversity and environmental aspects to that place. In my good friend the member for Gippsland's area, we've got the largest inland lake system in the Southern Hemisphere around Lakes Entrance. My good friend the member for Leichhardt has some family connections to Central Gippsland, which is known for its clean, green horticultural produce. We've got, in my electorate, Phillip Island, which, prior to COVID, attracted over a million international ticketed visitors a year, which I'm very proud of. It is right up there with Kakadu National Park, the Great Barrier Reef and other attractions. We also have some very special biodiversity and native wildlife species. We've got the orange-bellied parrot, which has its migratory flight path from King Island in Tasmania through our region to South Australia, also known as the Neophema chrysogaster. So environmental conservation and protection is something very dear to my heart.

I turn my remarks to debating this bill, the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, the first in a series of seven bills now being considered separately as part of the government's overhaul. From the beginning of this process, the shadow minister for the environment, the member for Moncrieff, has said one thing very clearly, and that is that environmental reform is too important to get wrong. As I referenced earlier, the Liberal Party have a very proud history and heritage on this issue. Australians deserve reform that really tackles a number of imperatives: it protects our environment, and it supports jobs, investment and productivity. There should be room for all of those imperatives in the way that we approach policy and legislative reform. Unfortunately, this bill falls short on those areas. In fact, we've seen three years of promises and delays. The government has now finally brought forward—

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You delayed it.

Mary Aldred (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

a 1,459-page legislative package, and it's expecting industry, stakeholders and parliamentarians to digest it in just three weeks. That's not consultation; that is chaos. We've seen far too many examples of that recently. We've seen the rushed approach to the FOI legislation. We've seen the underresourcing, for example, or cutting of opposition staff members, who play a really important role, I think, in making sure we can respectfully and robustly have a contest of ideas in this place that lands somewhere on balanced, reasonable legislation.

Even the minister himself has, at one point, said that these reforms would take 12 to 18 months to finalise. That's a pretty reasonable approach, to take a considered, methodical way forward. I have to ask: why the rush before Christmas? Why force through some of the most significant environmental reform in an entire generation with barely enough time to read through it? I don't think that that's good for the democratic process. I don't think that that helps us mould a better legislative and regulatory reform process. And I really don't think that's doing justice to Australians, to regional Australians, who I represent, and to the environment. Stakeholders have been pretty clear on this. This legislation, in its current form, is completely unworkable. Business groups, environment groups and local communities are all saying the same thing. This process is rushed, it is inconsistent, and it is overly complex.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Graeme Samuel? What did he say? What about Ken Henry? What did he say?

Mary Aldred (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've seen too many examples right now of state and federal governments, Labor governments, just riding roughshod over local communities, over regional communities. At the moment, we've got yet another rushed renewable project in West Gippsland, in Darnum. I'm very proud to represent a region that contributes 23 per cent of the nation's milk output and 26 per cent of Victoria's beef. We've got the best soil out of anywhere in Australia. It's prime agricultural farmland, and yet we've got a big battery energy storage project that's just being lumped on paddocks in that community. Lily D'Ambrosio, the Victorian energy minister, has scant regard for the views and other productive activities of regional Victorians. That's an example of where Labor, again, are just riding roughshod over local communities.

I also have real concern about the productivity that this bill will undermine. The government loves to talk about productivity. It had a talkfest—it took the idea from Kevin Rudd's 2020 roundtable—on productivity recently. It certainly talks about productivity, but it's not really serious about implementing steps that are practical and enhance productivity measures. In fact, this bill will take productivity backwards. We've already got a serious productivity problem. We're ranked second last in the OECD, just above Mexico. Australia used to be near the top of the pops on productivity across the OECD, but, under successive Labor governments, we've seen that decline and be whittled away. This bill is just another spoke in the wheels of productivity in this country.

In their first term alone, more than 5,000 new regulations were introduced. I don't think this government has ever met a regulation it didn't like. I talk to a lot of businesses in my electorate that are drowning in a quagmire of green tape. It does not serve the environment, it does not protect regional jobs, and it does not enhance productivity. This is not reform; this is regression. Economists have been tolling the bell on this. They have warned that underinvestment in research and development is already dragging our productivity down. We invest a lot in research, particularly in the agriculture sector, in my region. I'm very proud that Monash hosts the Darnum research facility on dairy. We are trying our best to lift up productivity and kickstart innovation, and this bill really runs counter to all of those principles. Without balanced reform, we're going to risk pushing that investment offshore. That means fewer jobs, less growth and a weaker economy.

Let's not forget Labor's history in this area. Under former minister Plibersek, the government promised a complete EPBC overhaul by the end of 2023. That failed to be delivered. It was a friendless proposal that collapsed under its own weight. Minister Watt, the Prime Minister's so-called Mr Fix It, has inherited a mess, and, to his credit, he's tried to work through that mess. He claims that this new package is 'balanced reform', but stakeholders have been telling the coalition otherwise, and those stakeholders include environment groups and local community groups from metropolitan areas and regional areas like mine. They tell us otherwise. Western Australia's premier even had to step in to stop Labor's last attempt at this bill. That's how bad it was. There are a number of Labor premiers at the moment—from Chris Minns in New South Wales, who's very sensibly had some words to say about excise tax, to the WA Labor premier—who really are running counter views to a number of things that this federal Labor government are trying to achieve. After three years and two ministers, the government has produced a reform that's really worse than the 26-year-old law that it's seeking to replace. The key reasons for that are that it's unworkable and it's massive overreach.

There is a glaring issue, and that is the environment protection authority itself. This government came to its administration saying that it wanted to streamline regulation; that, where possible, it's always preferable to harmonise and streamline regulation; and that, where you're able to meet the intention of an agency, a bill or a piece of regulation, there's no point asking businesses, community groups and environment groups to have to grapple with overlapping state and federal regulatory burdens. That's what we've effectively got with two levels of EPAs at a state level and at a federal level. The Graeme Samuel review, which was commissioned by the coalition, never recommended an EPA, because we've got that state based compliance structure. What it recommended was a compliance commissioner, not an approval authority.

I speak to a whole range of businesses in my electorate, mainly small to medium businesses, from agriculture, meat processing and dairy processing. They are really up against it right now. There's a whole lot of uncertainty in international markets. Productivity is declining, but red tape and green tape are just killing regional businesses. This is going to be another spoke in the wheel for those businesses. There are no clear performance indicators. There's no binding statement of expectations. There's no ministerial accountability for the CEO. So, under the bill, the CEO can be dismissed only by the governor-general, and that's just absurd. Any government body wielding this much power should answer directly to the minister—that is respecting the primacy of that office and the parliament as well as the function and role of the executive.

We also have duplication, and that really is a huge point of frustration for many businesses that I speak to. The bill needlessly repeats existing scopes 1 and 2 emissions reporting requirements, and that's already covered under the Safeguard Mechanism. Labor claims to be cutting red and green tape, but this bill is creating more of both. It also contains 37 separate definitions of unacceptable impacts. How can a business possibly operate under that kind of confusion? I address my remarks particularly to small- and medium-business operators because, unlike big corporations, they don't have a whole compliance department. They don't have a whole HR department. If you're a small-business owner, you're the compliance officer, you're the HR officer and you're the marketing manager, and you've got to find time at the end of the day to be able to for your customers. With respect, I just don't think that's a concept Labor understands, respects or can relate to.

I've got a number of issues with this bill. I do not think that it in any way meets those ambitions of protecting the environment or addressing productivity issues that we have in this country in a really reasonable way. I was quite pleased to listen to the previous contribution respectfully, and I'd encourage others to perhaps reflect on doing the same.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all of my colleagues who clearly have given up a bit of time in their day to come and listen to the contribution on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. I'll start my remarks by saying that I'm very fond of the member for Monash and hold her in high regard, but her comments about rushing this bill through the House is actually quite ironic. A bit of history for the member for Monash is that when the Leader of the Opposition was the then environment minister, she too brought a bill that was meant to be the then federal government's response to the Samuel review that they commissioned. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? She brought in a bill that undermined the key principle and the key recommendation of the Samuel review, which is that the federal government and this place need to have strong federal, national environmental standards that are upheld by the federal government and by the parliament. What did the then minister for the environment, now Leader of the Opposition, do? She brought in a bill that would have given all of the powers to the states, completely taking the federal government away from environmental standards and away from environmental decision-making.

There's worse than that. When the member for Monash talked about rushing through, I looked at this speaking list, and there is ample opportunity for any single member on that side of the House to contribute their views to this debate. In fact, we welcome the contributions of those opposite and we have extended the sittings to ensure that every member of this place gets a chance to contribute to this debate. Of course, that wasn't the approach of the former government. That wasn't the approach of the Leader of the Opposition when she was the environment minister, or when Christian Porter, who was the then Leader of the House, used the numbers of the Morrison government to crunch debate and to ensure that members didn't get a say on the government's environmental approvals and didn't get a say on the government's proposed environmental laws, which were completely ignoring the Samuel review that they commissioned. Thankfully, the Senate decided to throw those environment laws in the bin where they belonged. But never forget that their attempt to ram through environment laws was a last-ditch attempt by a government that was on its last legs, by a person who's now the Leader of the Opposition and who ignored the very recommendations that her government asked for.

But that is not the approach that we have taken. This set of bills sets out a strong regime of environmental protection that this parliament should absolutely vote for. The EPBC reforms contain a number of huge steps forward, including setting out federal, national environmental standards—something that will be made possible by this bill.

This bill also creates an environmental protection agency. This bill responds to a number of the recommendations of Professor Samuel. This bill also creates a whole range of different policies that will ensure that the environment benefits from potential applications, including a net gain principle. This bill will speed up approvals. This bill will ensure that there is transparency and accountability in environmental decision-making including, for the very first time, that proponents submit the amount of emissions that will be included as part of any proposal in any application for federal environmental approvals.

This bill seeks to do the genuinely difficult thing of balancing the interests of businesses with the absolutely essential responsibility that we all have as custodians of our environment to adhere to and uphold our great national traditions.

The EPBC reform package that is before the House is one that every single member of this parliament should be voting for. I know that those opposite are in disarray. I know that the Liberal Party and the Nationals don't know whether they're Arthur or Martha at this moment. One thing that would be a great signal for the people that they are clearly making absolutely no sense to now is to say that, instead of walking away, just saying no and killing off the environmental protection reform bills, they are actually willing to be sensible and deal with the government to ensure that these bills can pass both houses of the parliament. But I am not hopeful. I am not hopeful that the Liberal Party and the Nationals are coherent or cohesive enough to actually form a position on anything, let alone something as important and complicated as environmental approvals.

Obviously, we will engage in good faith with the coalition and the Greens to try and ensure that there is a strong set of bills that pass through the parliament, but I am not hopeful, given the state of the Liberal Party and the Nationals coalition today, where lots of clandestine meetings are happening at restaurants in Kingston as opposed to actually coming together and forming some sort of coherent policy on this bill.

I represent the wonderful people of Macnamara. Everyone in this place knows that the people of Macnamara stand for strong climate action and that the people of Macnamara stand for protecting our environment. I have some of the most extraordinary environmental and community groups which I am so proud to represent, and we even have our own nature project—one of the largest projects of urban renewal in Australia's history inside a city, where we turned the old Elsternwick golf course into the Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve. We are seeing endangered species coming back. We're seeing growling grass frogs, come back. The community is building habitats for them and seeing the natural wildlife develop around this incredibly beautiful part of our local community. It's just inspiring.

We have the Port Phillip EcoCentre, which, of course, were proud to support as well. It is a hub of citizen science, community engagement and environmental lessons in education, which engages a lot of our local schools and so many different parts of our community. The people of Macnamara want to see John Howard's old environmental reforms updated. I want to see John Howard's old environmental reforms and EPBC bill updated.

The recent state of the environment report found that most indicators for the state and trend of plants and animals show a decline and that the number of threatened terrestrial and marine species has risen. We have a responsibility to act right now. That is why we have picked up the recommendations made by Professor Samuel, which were completely ignored by those who asked him to do that work, and put together a set of reforms that will improve the environmental protection and that will ensure that businesses have timely responses. If it's a no, it's a quick no. If it's a yes, it's a yes and work through those conditions. More importantly, it's to ensure that the environmental standards that we want to leave for the next generation are strong and adhered to and that the federal government is right in ensuring that there are national standards.

Professor Samuel's recommendations were important and he said himself:

There is no variation in any significant or indeed in any small way from the recommendations of the review. That's why I'm satisfied … after five torturous years.

We are going to set up the National Environmental Protection Agency, one that is going to be a tough cop on the beat to ensure that environmental standards, and the conditions in environmental approvals are adhered to and that, if someone is doing the wrong thing, there will be consequences. I take this opportunity to give a shout-out to the incredible activists of the Labor Environment Action Network, who championed the EPA. The National EPA is an agency that LEAN members have fought for for many years, and they have been critical in ensuring it didn't fall off the agenda. When the Liberals and the Greens teamed up to block a federal EPA last parliament, it was LEAN members who fought hard to ensure we recommitted to the EPA in these bills. When these bills pass through the parliament, as I hope they will, LEAN members will have cause to be very proud of themselves, having made this fantastic contribution to our environmental agencies and to our environmental regime.

There are so many other parts of this that I'm very proud of. Having national environmental standards for the first time, prescribed by the minister, is something that these bills will make possible, and hopefully we will see it become reality. I also take this opportunity to reaffirm the Minister for the Environment and Water's commitment that the RFAs, the regional forestry agreements, will have to adhere to our national environmental standards. That's something that has also been fought for for a long time by activists, and it will ensure that our RFAs are held to federal standards.

It's pretty simple: these bills are an opportunity that doesn't come around very often. Last parliament we saw the Liberals and the Greens team up to block the EPA time and time again. Last parliament we saw the Liberals and the Greens team up to block a whole range of policies. Right now, they can work together to block these environment bills. It would be unsurprising if the Liberal Party did that, and it would be a complete neglect of our environmental standards if the Greens were to work with the coalition to block this set of reforms that includes strong environmental approvals.

This parliament has a chance. Yes, there can be negotiations and amendments to bills, and that is what will happen, but right now we as a parliament need to take this opportunity to update our environmental protection. We need to ensure there are strong environmental standards, and we need a partner in doing so. I say to all members of this place and the other place: now is the time to improve our environmental regime. It'll be a great reform that we leave to the next generation. As Professor Samuel said, it is bitterly disappointing to see posturing and political games being played. We should put political games aside and get this done for this generation and generations to come.

Debate adjourned.