Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Albanese Labor government's environmental reform package—the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills—which demonstrates Labor's latest attempt to overhaul the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Let me be clear from the outset: I care very deeply about our environment. I represent more than 1.4 million square kilometres, the largest electorate in Australia. When you cover that kind of ground, you see our country in a way that few others do—that few others will truly appreciate. And I'll tell you what I see when I look out the window of those little—and also those large—planes as I traverse Durack.

I see thousands of kilometres of coastline—pristine, rugged and breathtaking. I see the Ningaloo Reef, one of the great natural wonders of the world, home to whale sharks, turtles and coral that Australians and visitors travel halfway across the globe to experience. I take great joy in seeing the red earth of the Pilbara and the Kimberley, a landscape that tells the story of the continent's ancient history, its strength and its spirit.

But I also see the farms, the stations and the mines, which are the heartbeat of the Australian economy—the producers, the pastoralists and the workers who get up before dawn to grow our food and export our resources and who help to keep our lights on. These industries sustain local communities, they underpin our national prosperity, and they provide the royalties and the tax revenue that fund our hospitals, our schools and, indeed, our environmental protections. That is why I say this: we will not support reform that puts ideology ahead of practicality. We will not support measures that threaten Australian jobs, deter investment or weaken our productivity.

Let me be 100 per cent clear on this: not all mining projects—or, for that matter, renewable energy projects—will get environmental approval, and nor should they. That's because not all projects will be able to demonstrate their ability to coexist, without undue damage, with the environment. What project proponents need is a quick no or a quick yes to their environmental approvals. That's not what these bills will do. We will therefore not be supporting this package of bills, as they are about centralising control in Canberra, expanding bureaucracy and stifling the very industries that underpin our national prosperity.

It's worth reflecting on how we got here. The process began when the then environment minister, now Leader of the Opposition, commissioned Professor Graeme Samuel to undertake a review of the EPBC Act. Following the review, the coalition government introduced legislation to undertake reforms that would have improved the system, but, unfortunately, the Labor Party teamed up with their bedfellows, the Greens political party, to block it. Now, a few years later, Labor has returned to parliament with its own version, one which is more complex, more bureaucratic and more hostile to business than the 26-year-old system it's seeking to replace.

This isn't their first attempt to. During their last term, the then environment minister, Minister Plibersek, promised time and again that Labor's full EPBC overhaul would be delivered by the end of 2023, but those deadlines came and went. The reform was deferred, delayed, watered down and, ultimately, shelved. Even Labor's own state premiers had lost faith. Of course I reference my home state of Western Australia. WA Labor Premier Roger Cook was so concerned with the economic impact of Minister Plibersek's so-called nature-positive laws that he called the Prime Minister to overrule her. He told the Prime Minister directly, apparently, that the reforms would destroy confidence in the resources sector. Well, they are true words.

As a result, we saw an embarrassing series of headlines—the reforms would be introduced in the Senate, and then they wouldn't be introduced in the Senate—which eventually concluded with the plan being quietly abandoned. The Prime Minister decided these reforms should wait until after the election so as not to risk seats, particularly across Western Australia. Following the election he decided it was time for a new minister who might be able to deliver some sensible reform. Unfortunately, we struck out again, and this new minister has now sought to introduce a 1,500-page monstrosity that business, industry and stakeholders right across the board have described as unworkable. The Business Council of Australia, who I note got a good shout-out from the Prime Minister during question time yesterday, has warned that 'without significant changes to this bill we risk embedding a system that's even slower and more complex and lacks the clarity and certainty needed for investment'. That is a damning verdict, demonstrating that this legislation is riddled with problems. It paints a very grim picture for jobs, investment and productivity in our country.

Let's start with the so-called 'unacceptable impact' provisions. There are eight pages outlining 37 separate definitions which would limit the number of projects that could proceed. Industry has been crystal clear: these definitions must be removed from the legislation and placed into the environmental standards. Then there is the net gain requirement—vague, undefined and open to endless litigation. The definition absolutely needs greater certainty, with guardrails to ensure certainty for industry and certainty for our environment. The government also wants project proponents to report scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, duplicating the safeguard mechanism and creating a backdoor climate trigger that every resources investor fears.

Let's not forget the proposed environmental protection agency. Labor promised the EPA for two elections. After four years, this is what they've come up with—a structure that is completely unworkable. The proposed EPA would assess, approve and enforce its own decisions. It would act as student, teacher and principal all at once, marking its own homework—completely unworkable. The CEO of this new agency would be a statutory officer who could not be dismissed by the minister, not even for failure to perform. There is no binding statement of expectations, no accountability to government and no mechanism to ensure the CEO acts in the national interest. That is not independence; it's unaccountable power.

This is the system that the Labor government claims will 'speed up approvals' and 'boost productivity'. Australia is in the middle of a productivity crisis. That's not a talking point from the coalition whip's office; it's a fact. It's important those opposite know we are now ranked as second last in the OECD. Only Mexico performs worse than Australia. Yet Labor is pushing through reforms that will make it harder, slower and more expensive to get major projects approved. Let's not forget that, when Labor was re-elected in May, they quickly declared that productivity under them was actually in serious trouble, and so the Treasurer and the Prime Minister announced they would hold a productivity roundtable. Sounds good, doesn't it?

This was then rebranded as an economic reform roundtable. I'm not sure that it amounted to much, except maybe the suggestion of spare bedrooms being taxed. Mining royalties, oil and gas exports, critical minerals, agriculture—these are the industries that pay for our hospitals, our schools and our roads. In 2023-24 alone, the mining industry paid $59.4 billion in taxes and royalties to Australian governments. Labor's reforms threaten that foundation. They will send investment offshore, cost Australian jobs and place a handbrake on regional economies. Labor's division over resources is now legendary. They delayed a decision on the very important decision in relation to a project in my electorate of Durack, that of course being the North West Shelf gas extension, until after the election, and then they sacked the minister responsible.

Now a new minister has stepped in with preliminary approval while the Prime Minister recruits a Greens defector who's openly hostile to the project. Investors—whether in oil, gas or critical minerals—need confidence that Australia is a stable, reliable destination for capital. Right now, they're not getting that from Labor. While Labor ties industry up in knots with red and green tape, its record on actual environmental outcomes—well, that's appalling. Australia's just recorded its 39th extinction. The Christmas Island shrew was declared extinct by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. This comes after former environment minister Plibersek's public commitment that there would be 'no new extinctions' under the Albanese government.

Then there's Labor's multimillion dollar handout to the far-left Environmental Defenders Office. The coalition warned from day one that this was a reckless decision. And guess what? We were right. The EDO has been condemned by the Federal Court for coaching witnesses and fabricating evidence in the Santos Barossa gas pipeline case. Despite this disgraceful record, the Albanese government has continued to fund them with not just the original $8.3 million grant but ongoing annual funding that will see the EDO receive around $15 million by the end of the decade. This is taxpayers' money being funnelled into an activist law firm that works to shut down projects, destroy jobs and strangle Australia's economic growth, and yet Labor claims to support productivity.

If you want proof that this government is distracted and has all the wrong priorities, look no further than the algal bloom disaster along South Australia's coastline. For months, scientists warned the Albanese government to take some action. Eighteen months ago, they raised the alarm. Four months ago, when dead fish were washing up on the beaches, they raised it again. The government did nothing. Now over 14,000 marine animals have died. Local fishing and tourism businesses—well, they're suffering, and coastal ecosystems have been devastated. It's a misconception that the coalition does not care about the environment. As a former minister for the environment, I know that we do care. I often have colleagues discuss multiple environmental issues with me to ensure that we know what's happening with our environment.

When we were in government, we sought to protect the environment while supporting the economy. It's not always easy to protect the environment and look after the economy. It takes hard work. Under the Morrison government, investment in renewable energy hit record highs, with renewables making up almost one-third of our energy mix. Australia had the world's highest uptake of rooftop solar, with one in four homes having solar on their roof. Again, this demonstrates that we are not anti renewables. There are some places where it makes sense and some where it simply does not. It is completely different for an individual to choose to put solar panels on their roof than it is to force farmers to have transmission lines run across their properties.

When we were in government, we also led the way on waste and recycling by establishing the $200 million Recycling Modernisation Fund that leveraged $1 billion in industry co-investment. We launched the ReMade in Australia trademark to ensure Australians could trust that products were recycled and manufactured here at home. We invested billions to improve the health of the Great Barrier Reef and delivered two dedicated threatened species strategies.

We were a government that delivered environmental protection and economic growth together. It's possible, but it's hard work. Labor, by contrast, has delivered division, delay and dysfunction. In its current form, Labor's EPBC reform package is unworkable. It's bad for business, bad for investment and bad for Australia's future. It hands more power to bureaucrats and activists while stripping accountability from ministers. It risks green lawfare and constant litigation. It undermines the very industries that fund our prosperity.

These bills represent a real test for the Prime Minister and the Labor government. Will they negotiate with the coalition to protect jobs, support industry and help enable the 'Future Made in Australia' that they always talk about? Or will they side with the extreme Greens political party, who don't believe in just about any project getting underway and whose policies, if enacted, could only result in a weaker and more dependent Australia? What will it be, Prime Minister?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now before the House is that the bill be read a second time.