Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We must balance the economy and the environment. The member for McNamara previously said that his side is allowing debate on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills, and I thank him for that. But our environment deserves more than slogans; it deserves action that's practical, balanced and accountable.

In the electorate of Cook, we know this better than most. From the seagrass beds of Botany Bay to the dunes of Cronulla, our community treasures its coastland and its bushland. We see firsthand what happens when environmental policy loses touch with local realities and industry. Yes, we want policies that protect our coastline, not bureaucracy that strangles investment or paralyses progress, and we certainly don't need another 1,500 pages of red tape from a government that's all talk and no delivery. I remember Winston Churchill once said, 'This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read.' Well, this 1,500-page bill, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read. That's unfortunate, because, right now, this government has actually alienated both industry groups and environmental groups, and that's hard to do. Trying to ram through this bill, all 1,500 pages of it—something that the parliament cannot possibly engage in, in such a short time—without proper consultation with either industry or environment, is actually hurting democracy and risks hurting the environment and hurting industry.

During the last term, the environment minister promised to deliver a full overhaul of the EPBC Act by the end of 2023. The environment minister missed that deadline, and, nearly two years later, we're still debating a bill riddled with uncertainty.

Industry and environmental groups alike agree that this bill fails both business and the environment. It won't—

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take the interjection. I know a fair bit about business. What do you know about business, over there, in your unionised spot?

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's your business experience?

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind the speaker to address people by their appropriate titles.

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you—and maybe they would like to do the same. Industry and the environment groups agree, alike: the bills fails—

You looked better when you were up the front!

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Again, speaker—

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Industry and environment groups alike agree: the bill fails both business and the environment. It won't speed up approvals or create confidence. It will simply tie up investment in process, while doing little to improve outcomes.

The coalition supports strong, clear environmental standards, but they must be practical. The concept of unacceptable impacts should sit within the environment standards framework, as the Samuel review recommended, not be buried in legislative grey areas.

An honourable member interjecting—

I'll take that. What was the interjection? I'll enjoy this!

Sorry, I can't hear you, you're so far back! I think you've been bulleted to the back of parliament. It's hard to hear you from back there.

An honourable member interjecting—

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you could stop the interjection or you could sit me down.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I just remind the speaker at the dispatch box to address people by their appropriate titles. Continue with your contribution. I would remind members of the House that the speaker will be heard in silence—

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

as we afford the courtesy to all members of this place when they are speaking—including from the dispatch box.

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; understood. Industry and environmental groups alike agree: this bill fails both business and the environment. It won't speed up approvals or create confidence. It will simply tie up investment in process, while doing very little to achieve practical outcomes.

The coalition supports strong, clear environmental standards, but they must be practical. We have a proud history of doing this, whether it was John Howard creating the marine parks that surround our beautiful continent and keep our sea life and coral reefs protected and enshrine them for generations to come, or whether it was the Morrison government or the Abbott government actually bringing this government to sign up to Paris—

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was Turnbull!

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was Abbott, actually. I thought you might know that, having spent so much time here.

An honourable member interjecting—

If you're going to interject—if they're going to interject, Deputy Speaker, I'll be responding to it.

The coalition supports strong, clear environmental standards, but they must be practical. The concept of unacceptable impacts should sit within the environmental standards framework, as the Samuel review recommended, and not be buried by legislative grey areas. We also believe the new Environmental Protection Agency must be accountable to the minister, not be another layer of unchecked bureaucracy. When unelected officials make decisions that affect jobs and investment, someone in government must answer for them.

In Cook, my community lives on the front line of environmental change. Locals care deeply about our beaches, our dunes, our bushland and our marine life. We're surrounded by the Hacking River in the south, the Georges River in the north, and the beautiful beach of Bate Bay in the east, and we're surrounded by national park. We care about this area, and we've seen what can happen when pollution and erosion go unchecked: beaches narrow, ecosystems decline and our coastal identity suffers.

That's why I support strong action in building up our beaches We've got a fantastic local organisation there called C Care, which started with just three local surfers who had watched our beaches erode. They came together to form community around my local electorate in Cook and lobby the federal, state and local government to stop erosion action. I'm pleased to see—and I congratulate them—the Sutherland Shire Council listening to these grassroots community groups and the almost 1,000 people who signed up to the petition we put out. They have started to rebuild those dunes. But, unfortunately, Bate Bay needs long-term solutions. In storms, this sand will continue to erode, and we need to do more to protect the beaches.

We also need to do more to get strong action against plastic pollution. The Sutherland Shire has been a leader in this area. They had plastic-free Cronulla, where the business community self-organised to rid Cronulla of plastic—plastic plates, plastic cutlery and plastic takeaway containers—practical, industry supported measures that keep plastics out of our oceans and out of our food chains. I'd also like to acknowledge Councillor Kal Glanznig for his efforts in doing that, as well as Surfrider Foundation Cronulla and Joe Glendinning. My community wants rules that protect the beauty of Bate Bay, Cronulla Beach, Port Hacking and the Georges River as well as our bushland. We want beauty that protects Towra Point, Botany Bay and the UNESCO wetlands that surround my beautiful electorate. What the community don't want, though, is new layers of bureaucracy that delay the restoration of dunes and local habitats or that penalise industry.

This government talks big about biodiversity but has ignored the basics. While it might fund activist groups—such as the Environmental Defenders Office, which was judicially criticised in a Federal Court case for witness coaching and presenting evidence that was found to lack integrity—39 species have gone extinct under this government's watch, including the Christmas Island shrew.

That's a failure wrapped in self-congratulation. Under the coalition, Australia has led the world in rooftop solar, and I'm pleased to see that the government is still pushing this forward. In waste reform, our recycling modernisation fund helped transform the recycling sector, some of which is also in my electorate of Cook, as the Breen group looks at recycling and waste disposal. We looked at cutting plastic litter as well as expanding batteries and food waste recycling programs. We backed ReMade in Australia, the initiative to give consumers confidence that recycled products are made here, at home, in Australia—because we really do believe in a future made in Australia, not a future bailed out in Australia.

When it comes to coastal care, our focus has always been on local action: dune restoration, habitat grants and community clean-up programs—and there are a number of community clean-up programs every weekend in the electorate. Whether it is the community-organised ones, the Surfrider-organised ones or the Sutherland Shire Council organised ones, these programs are fantastic.

That's the balance we believe in: protecting the environment. But, critically, we must support jobs, tourism and recreation. The coalition wants an environment law that actually works, that protects our beautiful beaches across Australia and across Cook, that protects our beautiful bushland—like the Royal National Park on my electorate's doorstep—and that supports local jobs and the tourism that exists in Cook, as well as the local businesses, many of which have gone plastic-free, and restores the confidence of investors as well. We'll fight for a bill that's simple, that's strong and that's workable—one that cuts plastic pollution and safeguards our coastline but doesn't punish the people and the businesses that build Australia's and my electorate's future.

In Cook we are proud to be coastal custodians. We need a government that can match that pride with policy that works. Until it does, we'll keep holding it to account.

Some of the issues that we have in particular with this bill are that the CEO of the EPA must still be accountable to the minister and that the definition of net gain needs greater clarity, with guard rails in place to ensure certainty not just for industry but also for the environment. Labor is completely divided on whether they support jobs or the wealth created by our nation and its resources sector. They put off the decision on the North West Shelf until after the election, and then they sacked the minister responsible. Now a new minister has come in, providing preliminary approval for a project, while the Prime Minister has recruited a Greens defector who was vehemently against the project. Industry and business need certainty so that they can invest in Australia with confidence, to create jobs and boost our economy.

Earlier I spoke about the 39th extinction. We've got that extinction but also a growing number of animals now on the endangered list that previously were not. The 39th extinction came only months after the government's international commitment to prevent extinctions. It's a monumental government failing. It's a truly sobering statistic to have lost Australia's only shrew, and it's the latest in a litany of broken promises by this government.

Australia should be disappointed with the Albanese government's failure to act on the algal bloom that has been blooming for months and has significantly affected the South Australian coastline. The Albanese government failed to listen to scientists as long as 18 months ago. They failed to listen to scientists four months ago, when dead fish were washing up on those beaches. Today, more than 14,000 marine animals have died because of the Albanese government's failure to listen to these scientists. Today, local fishing and tourism businesses are hurting because the Albanese government failed to respond sooner.

South Australians, all Australians, should be disappointed by this Labor government, because all of this should have been addressed much sooner. If only they had listened to the advice. When Minister Plibersek tried to introduce these reforms into the last parliament, they were seen as too left wing for the Labor government, which is why the Western Australian Premier had to step in and contact the Prime Minister—and just like that, overnight, the bills were stopped on the eve of the election.

Labor have promised in two elections to deliver an environmental protection agency, and, after four years, they have still not delivered on that promise. Labor have now introduced the proposed reforms into this chamber. In trying to ram through these bill that have already been sent to a Senate inquiry that's due to report back on 24 March 2026, Labor wanted it to report back within seeks to allegedly try and pass the bills this year. That is not scrutiny; that's scandal. This set of bills and the explanatory memorandum are too long for us to consider in that time, and the Senate inquiry needs to be given the time to run. The minister is looking to do a deal with either the coalition or the Greens by calling these back from the Senate inquiry process to rush these through by the end of the year.

Ali France (Dickson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank goodness that speech is over and done with. What a bunch of rubbish was coming from the member for Cook. I believe the Moreton Bay region is the very best place to live in the world. Moreton Bay, just north of Brisbane, is home to native platypus, turtles, frogs, lizards, snakes and many species of birds. We have flying foxes, native eels and a significant koala population, as well as powerful owls, which we know are vulnerable to extinction.

Recently I was talking to students at a school in Lawnton. I looked to my right and up there in the tree was a koala—right outside the classroom. There are very few places in this country where this could happen. Moreton Bay is also home to one of only a handful of urban platypus populations in Australia, and it's found right on the South Pine River. We have wet and dry eucalypt forest, rainforest, creek systems and coastal and wetland ecosystems. Nearly 30 years ago our local council had the foresight to preserve some of our precious Moreton Bay rainforest ecosystems, after local residents petitioned the council to save the land around Eatons Hill from residential development. Kumbartcho Sanctuary is now a wonderful place to discover and appreciate Moreton Bay's rainforest ecosystems. The sanctuary is an important wildlife highway, providing a safe place for wildlife to move from the state forest to the river. This rare pocket of untouched rainforest has six kilometres of walking paths throughout the forest and near the river.

Saving this land is the only reason we have a unique urban platypus population. That is why the Albanese Labor government has committed $1.6 million for new, improved facilities at the sanctuary to ensure that this important land holding is maintained for future generations. I also acknowledge the support of local councillor Cath Tonks in ensuring that the sanctuary is a priority for the council and the Moreton Bay region. At the mill in Petrie, koala populations have grown by 22 per cent annually since 2017. But we all know that overall our koala populations have been severely impacted over time by development and much-needed housing. The message from my community and across the nation at the election was clear: we want laws that protect the environment, our unique habitats—our koalas—while giving certainty to those who invest, build and create jobs.

For far too long, Australia's environmental laws have been broken, outdated, complex, and failing both nature and business. Today we have the opportunity to fix them. The EPBC Act is last century. Those laws were introduced in 1999—more than 25 years ago—and do not reflect modern environmental science or community expectations for nature, protection and sustainability. It is clear that the need for change is urgent.

The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 represents the most significant overhaul of environmental law in a generation. It is an opportunity for important change, and I urge the opposition and the Greens to take up that opportunity. You may not get everything you want, but I think we can all agree that the current laws are archaic and do nothing to protect the environment. This bill delivers strong protections, faster approvals and greater accountability through the creation of Australia's first ever independent National Environmental Protection Agency. This bill is about getting the balance right between protecting our environment and delivering fast approvals for good projects, particularly for housing and transport infrastructure, in fast-growing regions like mine.

Moreton Bay is one of Australia's fastest-growing regions. It is expected that in the next 20 years there will be 210,000 new residents. That's almost the size of Hobart. From young families priced out of Brisbane to those who are looking to retire or those coming from the south to a greater weather and lifestyle, outer urban centres like Moreton Bay are and will continue to be the most impacted by growth. It's only fair that we deliver a strong framework that will protect communities like mine from development in the wrong places while encouraging it and making it easier in the right places.

For too long the grey area between federal and state systems has meant confusion, delay and frustration for communities and businesses. The measures in this bill will tackle the underlying cause of delay while also delivering greater protections for nature. Under these reforms we will remove duplication through new agreements between the Commonwealth and states. There will be faster approvals for good projects, particularly in housing, clean energy and regional infrastructure, while ensuring that environmental safeguards are not compromised.

The National Environmental Protection Agency will be an independent environmental watchdog with real teeth. The new laws will introduce national environmental standards—clear, enforceable rules that cannot be ignored or watered down. And they will empower an independent regulator to act when those standards are breached.

Five years ago, the Samuel review, commissioned by the opposition leader, found the current EPBC Act benefited no-one—not business, not the environment. The review gave the then government a framework for these laws and they promptly shelved the recommendations. Those opposite claim that these laws are too rushed, but they have been aware of the scaffolding and the road map for these laws for five long years. They have had five long years to consider these issues raised by Dr Graeme Samuel.

The member for Cook mentioned 'all talk and no action'. Well, the member for Cook should take a look in the mirror. He talks about protecting the environment while, at the same time, his coalition wants to dump net zero and opposes these bills. Everyone in this place has known that we made a commitment at the election to establish a federal environment protection agency and undertake national environmental law reform. Labor is the party for major environment reform but we are also the party for workers, for jobs and for housing. The bills are about getting the balance right—laws that are good for business and good for the environment. We can and we must do both.

From the beautiful Great Barrier Reef to the rare platypus in the South Pine River, our natural environment is too important to risk. These bills will deliver on thousands of jobs in construction, agriculture and tourism and on clean energy projects, our renewable energy transition and a future made in Australia. We cannot afford to wait for another review, another inquiry or another election cycle; our environment and our economy are too important. The time to act is now because every delay not only costs us precious biodiversity but also costs us jobs—jobs that could be created today in the outer suburbs and regions, where economic opportunity must be matched by decisive leadership.

It is possible to grow our economy, build homes and create jobs while protecting the natural wonders that define our national identity. Only the Labor government will deliver this important change. I commend these bills to the House.

Jamie Chaffey (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the six associated bills. After having years to approach the matter of a much-needed overhaul of the EPBC Act, we're here in this place, forced to deal with this extremely complex piece of reform in a pre-Christmas flurry. Perhaps the Albanese government is hoping that we don't have enough time to dissect the 1,500 pages and take a close look at the fine print. This is a piece of work that Labor promised would be finished by the end of 2023. This shows a lack of respect from Labor, who first tabled these seven bills separately to make up what is the revised EPBC Act. And then yesterday, when the debate started, the first order of business for Labor was to gag debate and use their numbers to bundle all the bills together so we could have a faster debate. This is for no other reason than to rush this reform through by the end of this sitting week. This reform is far too important to all Australians to rush. Even the Environmental Defenders Office, in a media release less than a week ago, issued their first impressions, while their lawyers pored over the details in the hundreds of pages.

These are very important bills—they will have an important impact, eventually, on all Australians—and they require thorough examination. This should not be done at the end of years of delay in such a big hurry. One thing that just about all stakeholders, from the environmentalists to the developers, do agree on is that they do not like what they've seen in this piece of reform. Part of the concern is the amount of control that falls into the states' and territories' hands. Through the net gain clause, along with the federal government, now the state and territory ministers can write their own increased cheques on the cost of biodiversity impacts. This will have devastating effects. How is it better, how is it cheaper, and how is it fairer? How can anyone embarking on a development have any certainty about what they can or can't do when the rules change from case to case and from state to state?

Let's get to the crux of another matter. How on earth are we able to measure and implement the increasing escalation of biodiversity offsets that will now be calculated by some mysterious formula called net gain? How can we debate the issue when we have no clarity on what 'net gain' means? Net gain is a concept that will take more agricultural land out of food production and will cause biodiversity offset costs to skyrocket even further. We also have no clear definition on what makes up the 'unacceptable impact'. If we don't know that, how can developers? How are they able to go and work out what it is for them? The concept of 'national interest' is another pitfall waiting to swallow future development that will never see the light of day due to these reforms. The Albanese government claim they want to speed up approvals and get productivity moving. We're going in the wrong direction.

Nobody denies that people are doing it tough right across regional Australia, particularly in my area of the seat of Parkes. Our country is in the grip of a cost-of-living crisis. We are in the grip of a housing crisis as well. The Albanese Labor government has committed to addressing the housing shortage by building new houses. The National Housing Accord target is 1.2 million new homes over five years. And yet here we are, with the Labor government trying to dress up the unworkable act by not only failing to impress those who have environmental concerns but also shackling developers even more. This is another move that is not cheaper, not better and not fairer.

Already across the Parkes electorate I'm hearing horror stories of the unwieldy monster that is called the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme. Let me tell you a story of the Wilcannia Weir, the much delayed and very necessary piece of infrastructure needed to ensure the water supply of a remote town with a majority-Indigenous population. The new weir was originally costed and funded at $30 million back in 2022. Now, just three years on, the cost for that same weir has blown out to over $100 million. I'm advised that $17 million of that price is going to biodiversity offsets. That's more than half of the original cost for that project. Again, it's not cheaper, not better and certainly not fairer, and there is still no weir.

Here are some more eyewatering examples of the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme at work. These are projects that have not gone ahead or have been seriously downscaled, with the offset costs being a major contributing factor. The first is a new residential subdivision of 600 homes planned for Moree Plains Shire to capitalise on the Inland Rail project. This carried a Biodiversity Offsets Scheme price tag of $120 million. That is more than the $90 million value of the entire project. Another project in Moree, a 300-student agricultural college with an offset price tag of $3 million to $5.5 million, was stopped. The project was lost. A 40-home residential subdivision plan for Armidale had a $3 million offset. The project was reduced down to 10 homes. In the Parkes Shire, 40 new homes attracted $2 million in biodiversity offsets, and that project didn't go ahead. In Tamworth—this is an extremely sad story in a housing crisis—a 46-lot residential estate was lost because of a $16.2 million offset cost. A 96-lot residential subdivision was lost to a $19 million offset cost. A 24-lot subdivision was lost to a $3 million offset cost. A 50-lot subdivision north of Tamworth was lost to a $6 million offset cost. A 28-lot subdivision was lost to a $2.8 million offset cost. That's a total of 244 new homes lost to offset costs in the Tamworth area alone, and it will get worse under this revised act because of the net gain clause.

Where is the transparency behind this enormous offset price tag and what is the cost to our housing, jobs, infrastructure and so much more? Where is the evidence of all of this wonderful environmental offset that has been paid for by the other millions and billions of dollars that have come from the offset schemes right across our great country? We have a government that is committed to approvals and committed to productivity, but who is taking oversight of a scheme where the offset costs are sometimes higher than the value of the actual project? Something here doesn't add up.

In addition, the Inland Rail, a critical driver for investment, growth and job creation, is facing an offset cost of $1.375 billion. Something's wrong. In Narromine shire, a requirement to build a small part of a new road under the Newell Highway, disturbing a minimal 36 hectares, carried a $20 million offset cost that somehow was revised down to $10 million. There is a $500 million biodiversity offset on a project to raise the wall of Wyangala Dam, to droughtproof and flood-proof the whole of the Central West. That project is still under assessment. And the Transgrid project is looking at a $1.2 billion cost for biodiversity offsets for the HumeLink transmission line between Wagga and South Australia—a massive amount that will increase power costs even more.

This change to the act will not improve it; it will make it worse. This is not a matter of not caring about the environment. As I've said, there are voices from each side of the debate chiming in over these reforms. This is a case where reforms are long overdue. This is a complex case where reforms are being crammed through before Christmas. They have far-reaching implications for housing, productivity, the cost of living and livability in regional Australia. More time, more consideration and more transparency are needed in this place.

Better, cheaper, fairer? Labor's proposed reforms to the EPBC Act will have long-lasting negative impacts if the Albanese government continues to ram them through this House. These reforms are not better than what we've got now, and they're certainly not fairer.

Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For people who care about our natural environment, there is always an origin story, a time when they were struck by the awe and wonder of nature, and that moment came for me later in life. My husband and I were working in Samoa in our late 20s. Many of our Samoan colleagues at the time told us to go down to a local village to do some snorkelling and see the giant clams. I was sceptical about these clams—how magnificent and great could they be? We snorkellled out to the marine sanctuary, and it was there that I was struck by the wonder of these creatures because they were truly spectacular. They were really big, but what struck me most were the iridescent colours, which almost glowed through the water.

It's an awe and wonder that I shared with my son, Max. So, when I read last year that the conservation status for giant clams had moved from 'vulnerable' to 'critically endangered', it brought home the fragility of our environment and the urgency to protect it. I promised that, once Max learnt to snorkel, we'd take him to see the giant clams in Samoa. I've now brought forward that trip. I was struck by the wonder of nature because of those giant clams. I think, for my son, it was the trip to the Great Barrier Reef two years ago. He was blown away by the sea life and coral and became very fond of a big parrot fish called Wally, who swam alongside us as we snorkellled in the reef. Sadly, our much-loved Great Barrier Reef is facing severe threats.

Even in my own inner-city electorate, my community is surrounded by some of the most incredible natural environment. The wetlands in Sydney Olympic Park and Homebush Bay are home to 400 native plant species and 250 native animal species, including the endangered green and golden bell frog. I know how important it is that we protect and cherish our natural environment. It's what Australia is known for.

I'm the patron of the Labor Environment Action Network, something I'm incredibly proud of. I want to thank all the members and the leadership of LEAN, particularly Felicity Wade, Louise Crawford and Penny Pedersen. They have helped me better understand these bills and how this will help protect our environment. I think the entire labour movement are indebted to them for their extraordinary advocacy, because they know we owe it to our children to do what we can to preserve our natural environment for them and future generations.

We also owe it to them to build critical projects for the nation, like more housing, public transport and the renewable energy projects that we desperately need. The current environmental approvals are too slow, complex and expensive. For far too long, our environmental protection laws have been unable to protect the environment or deliver on critical projects, and that is why the Labor government has introduced the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. The reforms we are proposing are about striking the right balance.

It's built around three key pillars. The first is stronger environmental protection and restoration. We will establish Australia's first-ever national environmental protection agency and set national environmental standards. The EPA will be an independent regulator that will make sure our environmental laws are enforced fairly and transparently. The national standards will protect and restore environmental areas and species by ensuring projects don't just offset their impact but leave the environment better off.

The second pillar is more efficient and robust project assessments and approvals. Australia's current environmental laws are slow, unpredictable and riddled with duplication. It can take longer to get an approval for a housing project or a renewable project than it does to actually build it. These reforms will change that. We will make decisions about approvals faster, clearer and more consistent. By improving cooperation between the Commonwealth and states, we can cut red tape and streamline assessments without cutting standards.

The third pillar is greater accountability and transparency in decision-making. Every Australian deserves confidence that, when projects are approved, they meet clear environmental standards and are assessed openly and fairly. These reforms will shine a light on environmental decision-making, ensuring communities know what's being approved, why it's being approved and who's responsible for upholding those standards.

We desperately need these environmental law reforms, and I thank the Minister for the Environment and Water for his engagement with me and so many stakeholders. It's thanks to his hard work and the work of so many people in the Labor caucus that this bill is being introduced with the backing of experts, environmental groups and businesses. Professor Graeme Samuel, the author of the Samuel review, has been unequivocal in his support. He said that the bill introduced by Labor implements the 'totality' of the recommendations he made in his report and that it is a 'quantum leap forward' for both environmental protection and business certainty. Environment groups have also engaged constructively with the government, and the Business Council of Australia has said the reforms 'present an opportunity to fix a broken system'.

Despite the broad support from experts, environmental groups and the business sector, those opposite continue to stand in the way. It's been five long years since the Samuel review was delivered, and who was the Minister for the Environment at the time? The Leader of the Opposition. She gave her support then, but what did she do with the report? Nothing. It stayed sitting on her desk for 500 days. Under the coalition's watch, the environment suffered, and we are paying for it. Professor Samuel himself described the opposition leader's opposition as a political game and said that it made him feel 'frankly, a little angry'—and, after half a decade of coalition negligence, who can blame him?

That criticism isn't just limited to those opposite; it also extends to the Greens, because they have a history of blocking sensible reform that would deliver stronger protections for nature and certainty for business. Here we have an opportunity to deliver better outcomes for the environment, and the Greens are refusing to support it. Australians hate it when political parties play politics instead of making progress, and, given the choice between politics and progress, the Greens always choose politics. They teamed up with the coalition in 2009 to block the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, setting back climate action for over a decade; they teamed up again with the coalition to prevent Labor's improvements to the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act; and now, again, they're standing in the way of strengthening our environment laws.

They're also making disingenuous arguments that it's a choice between certainty for business and the environment, and they're wrong. We don't have to choose, because Labor is delivering this bill to do both—to provide cleaner energy, more housing and stronger protection for the land and wildlife that we love. Australians have made it clear, twice, that when it comes to the environment they want progress, not politics. We can protect what makes Australia special while building the homes and clean energy projects that will shape our future by passing this bill. Every day we wait is another day our environment slips further behind. Every day we wait is a day we could be building the renewable energy projects and the housing our children need. Let's get this done to deliver on what Australians sent us here to do: to build a cleaner, more livable future for future generations to come.

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

I rise today on behalf of the people of McPherson—from Clear Island Waters at the top to Coolangatta, and from Burleigh Heads across to Tallebudgera and Currumbin—to speak against Labor's deeply flawed environmental protection and biodiversity conservation reforms in the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills. These reforms, some 1,500 pages long, have been rammed into parliament without the consultation or the balance that our communities deserve. It's another example of this government's emboldenedness, as a result of its election result, turning into arrogance—1,500 pages! Does the government really believe, in dropping the bills on us at five minutes to midnight, that five days during a sitting period is adequate time to meaningfully review 1,500 pages? This just reeks of arrogance. With an underresourced opposition, they are once again running away from scrutiny. Why are the Prime Minister and those opposite so allergic to accountability?

Let me be clear: we all want strong environmental protection. We live it every day on the Gold Coast—in our beaches, our hinterland and our estuaries. But environmental protection must go hand in hand with economic sense in order to maintain its social licence and sustainability. Labor's plan fails that test. Under these reforms, the new Environmental Protection Agency CEO will be granted sweeping powers to issue stop-work orders, with—and here's the catch—no end date. There's no clear timeline, no defined process and no guarantee of review. For our local industries, from small marine operators at Currumbin Creek to construction firms building new houses near Elanora, this means a single bureaucratic decision could halt work indefinitely. These orders could hang over projects for months, even years, without compensation or procedural fairness. In my electorate, where small and family owned businesses drive our economy, this isn't environmental management; it's regulatory paralysis. It risks turning compliance into punishment.

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

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43 and will be resumed at a later hour, and the speaker will be granted leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.