Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment 11 as circulated in my name:

(11) Schedule 1, item 323, page 229 (after line 12), at the end of section 177DI, add:

(4) The Minister must publish a copy of the annual report on the Department's website within 20 days of receiving the report.

I'm speaking today about the importance of transparency in the operation of the new environmental offset system and, in particular, the amendment requiring that the minister publish the restoration contribution holder's annual report within 20 days of receiving it, which is what this amendment is. Now, this might sound like a small administrative change, but it is in fact an important improvement in transparency. Under the new framework, developers can pay a restoration contribution charge instead of directly securing their own offsets. That money goes into a central fund, which is then responsible for delivering restoration projects across the country. That means that we're asking Australians to trust that the offsets purchased on their behalf are actually delivering real, measurable gains for nature. And trust requires transparency.

This annual report will provide the first real window into whether that trust is being earned, and it will show where the money is going, which projects are being funded, what impacts they're offsetting, how much has been paid and whether these projects are actually achieving ecological outcomes. It's not enough for this information to exist somewhere in the system; it must be publicly available. That's what this amendment ensures—that this report is published within 20 days of reaching the minister's desk—because, if the public can't see the data, accountability disappears. And, without accountability, confidence in the offset system will crumble.

We've seen this story before. In New South Wales and Queensland, centralised offset funds have struggled to deliver promised outcomes, and part of the problem has been opacity. The public couldn't tell if projects were working, or even where they were. We can't afford to repeat these mistakes at a national level.

Offsets are meant to repair damage, not to hide it, and the only way to know if they're working is to measure, report and publish the results. This amendment makes sure that that happens. The offsets fund represents a potential single point of failure for these entire reforms, so making sure that the public can see whether they're working or not will allow us to continue to improve these laws.

So I thank the government for considering this amendment in good faith, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Curtin for the engagement that's happened with the government, including with me, through question time as well, in raising concerns about this issue. The government will support this amendment. It improves transparency and accountability for the effective exercise of the functions and powers of the restoration contributions holder.

This amendment would require the minister to publish the annual report on the exercise of the restoration contributions holder's functions and powers on the department's website within 20 days of receiving that report from the restoration contributions holder. One of the key pillars of these reforms is enshrining greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision-making, and this amendment speaks to that.

Once again, and on behalf of the minister for the environment from the other place, I thank the member for Curtin for her constructive engagement on these reforms.

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

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (10) and (12) to (15) together, as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 228, page 96 (after line 26), after subsection 134(3AC), insert:

(3AD) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (2)(b), the Minister must not attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of a restoration contribution charge in relation to a residual significant impact of the action on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect if the Restoration Contribution Holder has advised that it is not likely that restoration actions directed towards protecting, conserving or restoring the affected matter in the bioregion where the affected matter is located can be delivered and will result in a net gain.

(3AE) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (2)(b), the Minister must not attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of a restoration contribution charge in relation to a residual significant impact of the action on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect if the matter is on the excluded matters list.

(2) Schedule 1, item 230, page 97 (after line 27), after subsection 134(3G), insert:

Conditions requiring payment of restoration contribution charge

(3H) In deciding whether to attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of restoration contribution charge, the Minister must:

(a) consider whether it is feasible to instead attach a condition requiring the holder of the approval holder to instead deliver restoration action to compensate for the damage cause by the action; and

(b) if the Minister considers that that is feasible, attach a such a condition.

(3J) In deciding whether to attach a condition to an approval of an action requiring payment of a restoration contribution charge in relation to a residual significant impact of the action on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect, the Minister must seek advice from the Restoration Contribution Holder on whether it is likely that restoration actions directed towards protecting, conserving or restoring the affected matter in the bioregion where the affected matter is located can be delivered, and will result in a net gain.

(3) Schedule 1, page 97 (after line 27), after item 230, insert:

230A After section 134

Insert:

134AA Excluded matters list

(1) The Restoration Contributions Holder must:

(a) develop a list of matters protected by a provision of Part 3 for which no general restoration actions are likely to be available due to the scarcity of the affected matter; and

(b) make the list available for public inspection on the Department's website.

(2) The list is to be known as the excluded matters list.

(4) Schedule 1, item 291, page 137 (after line 19), after section 157A, insert:

157AA Production or extraction of fossil fuels

Despite section 157A, the Minister must not determine that the taking of an action is a national interest proposal if the action involves the production or extraction of:

(a) petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006); or

(b) coal.

(5) Schedule 1, item 291, page 139 (lines 23 to 35), omit subsection 157D(2).

(6) Schedule 1, item 291, page 141 (lines 10 to 22), omit subsection 157F(2).

(7) Schedule 1, item 292, page 143 (after line 7), after section 157H, insert:

157HA Production or extraction of fossil fuels

Despite section 157H, the Minister must not grant an exemption for an action from a provision of Part 3 or this Chapter if the action involves the production or extraction of:

(a) petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006); or

(b) coal.

(8) Schedule 1, item 292, page 145 (line 33) to page 146 (line 11), omit subsection 157N(2).

(9) Schedule 1, item 292, page 148 (lines 20 to 32), omit subsection 157R(2).

(10) Schedule 1, item 323, page 212 (after line 32), after paragraph 177CP(1)(f), insert:

(fa) to provide advice for the purposes of subsection 134(3J); and

(fb) to maintain the excluded matters list; and

(12) Schedule 1, item 432, page 234 (after line 29), after section 302A, insert:

302AA Production or extraction of fossil fuels

Despite section 302A, the Minister must not grant an exemption for an action from a provision (including a regulation made under a provision) of this Part if the action involves the production or extraction of:

(a) petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006); or

(b) coal.

(13) Schedule 1, item 432, page 258 (line 30) to page 259 (line 8), omit subsection 302F(2).

(14) Schedule 1, item 432, page 261 (lines 19 to 31), omit subsection 302J(2).

(15) Schedule 1, item 612, page 364 (after line 11), after the definition of environment protection order in section 528, insert:

excluded matters list: see subsection 134AA(2).

I commend the government for taking on the difficult task of reforming our national environmental laws. It has been more than two decades since the EPBC Act was passed, and it's well overdue for an update. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore trust, protect nature and deliver faster, fairer decisions for business. But that promise will fall flat if the reforms create new loopholes that make these reforms irrelevant, because even the strongest framework means little if you can simply step around it.

Under the current EPBC Act, the minister has what's known as a national interest exemption—a break-glass power, designed for genuine emergencies like natural disasters. It's a tool used rarely—only 31 times since 2000—and mostly in good faith. It's not perfect, but it's understood: it exists for extreme situations, not convenience.

The new reforms go much further. They introduce a new pathway—a national interest proposal or approval that allows the minister to bypass almost all environmental safeguards whenever they decide a project is in the national interest. Unlike the original exemption, this one isn't limited to emergencies. It could be used for anything from housing to energy projects, with no clear limits on what the minister can take into account. That means a minister could approve a project even if it causes unacceptable impacts, even if it pushes a species to the brink of extinction. Every environmental safeguard in this bill—the mitigation hierarchy, the net gain standard and the unacceptable impact test—could be waived by the stroke of a pen. This isn't a safeguard. It's a shortcut, and it undermines the integrity of the entire system. It's bad for the environment, and it's not great for business either. Investors can't make long-term decisions on the hope that they will be deemed to be in the national interest. They need certainty, not ministerial discretion. Let's be clear. You can't streamline approvals by cutting out the environment. This national interest pathway is an admission of failure, a way of saying, 'We can't balance environmental protection with economic development, so we'll just make it optional.'

The amendments that I'm putting up today would put some safeguards around this power. First, if the government insists on keeping the new pathway, fossil fuel projects must never qualify. It would be absurd to claim that new coal or gas projects are in the national interest when science tells us they are fundamentally against it. Second, there must be full transparency whenever this power is used. The current bill would let the minister redact the statement of reasons, hiding the rationale for bypassing environmental law. If a project truly is in the national interest, the government should have the courage to explain why. Ideally, this new pathway should be removed completely, but the legislation is complex, and in the time given I haven't been able to draft a complete removal of this new pathway.

Another major weakness in this package is the offsets fund. On paper, it's a neat idea—the Restoration Contributions Holder. When a project can't fully avoid environmental damage, the developer pays into a central fund that delivers restoration projects on their behalf. In theory, it creates efficiency. In practice, it's risky. We've seen this model before in New South Wales, in Queensland and in the Pilbara, and it consistently underdelivers. Developers destroy habitat, pay into the fund and walk away. The fund then struggles to find suitable offsets, and nature ends up footing the bill. That's the pay-to-destroy problem—a cheque is written, the project proceeds, and the promise of restoration fades into paperwork.

Without strong guardrails, this fund risks becoming the single point of failure for the entire reform package, so I'm introducing a series of amendments to increase the likelihood it actually works for business, for government and, most importantly, for nature. First, limit the use of the fund. It should be the last resort, not the default, and my amendments ensure that there is another layer to the mitigation hierarchy. Proponents must seek to offset directly where they must follow principles such as like-for-like and net gain before using the fund, which does not have to follow the same principles. Second, ensure suitable offsets actually exist before money is accepted. The fund should have to advise the minister whether it can realistically deliver an offset. There should also be an excluded matters list, because you can't destroy the last of something and call it an offset. Thirdly, we need to price offsets accurately, and that's dealt with in another bill. Fourthly, there must be transparency around success and failure of projects, which we've already discussed. There also needs to be scientific oversight so that the advisory committee includes scientists who understand biodiversity, not just balance sheets.

This reform package could really deliver what Australians have demanded, but that promise depends on integrity—integrity in how powers are used, how offsets are priced and how results are reported. The national interest shouldn't be a loophole, and offsets shouldn't be a licence to destroy. We must build a system that restores rather than excuses, that protects nature and that delivers real outcomes to the Australian people. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting these amendments. To provide some of the reasons, I'll provide information that's been provided by the Minister for the Environment and Water on each of the two issues raised in turn. First of all, the proposed national interest approval provision in the bill is directly responsive to a recommendation from the Samuel review. It's a provision that is to be rarely used and has significant guardrails, including a statement of reasons, where there is an overwhelming national interest outcome at stake. The national interest approval will not switch off the new environmental protections in their entirety. The approval must still be consistent with our international obligations, including for World Heritage and Ramsar wetlands. The minister must also make sure that the tests are met as far as is possible without preventing the national interest outcome. This means that projects that fall short of the new tests can only be approved where it is truly crucial to do so. Proponents will not get a free pass just because their action is in the national interest.

In terms of the amendments that relate to the independent Restoration Contributions Holder, the government's environmental reforms will deliver better outcomes for the environment and the industry. The bill's reforms will introduce new options for offsetting. Project proponents can either deliver an offset themselves or pay for the government to do it via a restoration contribution payment, or a combination of both. The new independent Restoration Contributions Holder will be able to use the funds to strategically deliver offsets to have greater environmental offsets, including through pooling funds for similar projects. We do not support these amendments because new rulings powers under the act fulfil the role of enabling the minister to determine that restoration contributions in all or particular circumstances are not appropriate as compensation for a particular protected matter. This mechanism provides for flexibility and responsiveness by the minister as new information becomes available, including any advice of the Restoration Contributions Holder.

The proposed amendments would also remove flexibility and limit the environmental benefits of larger strategic restoration actions—for example, increasing connectivity or creating wildlife corridors. This approach is better for the environment and better for business. We know that the current offsets regime isn't currently working for industry or for the environment. We need to be able to do something differently to improve the system and deliver restoration at scale. The bill strikes a balance in allowing that to happen while learning the lessons from other offsets approaches that haven't worked.

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

The question is that amendments (1) to (10) and (12) to (15), moved by the honourable member for Curtin, be agreed to.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 73 (after line 16), after item 178, insert:

178A After subsection 78(3A)

Insert:

(3B) However, subsection (3A) does not apply if the action is likely to cause or significantly contribute to the extinction of any native species or cause any other unacceptable impact as defined in section 527F.

(2) Schedule 1, item 181, page 73 (line 21) to page 75 (line 15), omit the item.

When the Leader of the House stood up to introduce the Environment Protection Reform Bill, in an astonishing misstep he forgot to say one crucial word in the bill's title—'protection'. That might have been a slip of the tongue but many have since been left wondering if the government has left protection out of the bill as well. Indeed, it's been well ventilated by now that these reforms fall well short of what's needed to stop and reverse biodiversity loss and to meet the challenges of the climate crisis. It's riddled with all sorts of carve-outs and loopholes which would allow for continued environmental destruction in the face of all the evidence.

Speaker, you'll excuse me, being from Tasmania, for reminding the House of the mother and father of all carve-outs: the exemption of the regional forestry agreements and the changes which the government rammed through the last parliament on budget day this year to exempt the salmon industry from ongoing scrutiny. Some perhaps remember specifically the former environment minister being ruthlessly undermined by the Prime Minister and forced to come in here and herald the government's choice to remove her ability to reconsider certain past environmental decisions, all because the Prime Minister promised the salmon companies they could continue to wreak environmental havoc in Macquarie Harbour and continue driving the Maugean skate to extinction. In these bills, the new environment minister is undermining these reconsideration revisions even more, and that's of particular concern, s another feature of these bills that concerns me is the devolution of approvals to states and territories who, let's face it, have an even worse track record on environmental approvals than the feds.

To remedy that, my amendments insert a new section to clarify that a minister can reconsider past decisions if the action concerned is likely to contribute to the extinction of a native species or has another unacceptable impact as defined in the new section 527F. My amendments also delete clause 181, which introduces a new limit on the timeframe for third parties to apply for reconsideration to just 28 days and sets other new and ridiculously high thresholds which must be met when any third party wants to request a decision to be reconsidered. Let's not mince our words. As drafted, the process is so onerous and limiting that it's intended to all but end the ability of members of the community to request that past decisions be reviewed. That's bad process, bad for transparency and bad for the environment. The fact is that the reconsideration process is an important safeguard intended to ensure environmental decision-makers can correct mistakes and be flexible and responsive to a changing environment and evolving science.

I want to bring attention back to the Maugean skate because it really is emblematic of what's wrong with our environment laws currently and what the government plans to bake in with these reforms. There, in Macquarie Harbour, we have an endangered, prehistoric fish which has outlasted the dinosaurs and exists in that one location only. We've also got clear scientific evidence of its decline, coinciding with expanded salmon farming following a federal approval created in 2012. Moreover, we have updated and authoritative conservation advice from the experts at the environment department saying the primary driver of the skate's decline is low dissolved oxygen and that the main, anthropogenic cause of that oxygen debt is the salmon farm.

Surely, acting in the environmental and public interest and on the precautionary principle, any environmental regulator worth their salt would account for this new evidence and rein in the industry to prevent an extinction. But what has been done instead? The previous environment minister sat on a reconsideration request without a decision for almost two years before the government then removed the power to reconsider that decision altogether. Now the government comes back to take another bite of the cherry with these reconsideration changes because, clearly, other industries got jealous of the salmon industry and wanted unfettered, forever approvals themselves. In other words, freed of the responsibility to consider changing circumstances and empowered to improve whatever they like under the guise of the national interest, Australia's environment ministers will now preside over the next mass extinction event. The community won't stand for that, so I won't support these bills without significant changes, and I urge the parliament to support my amendments and to come together to pass other sensible changes to fix these broken bills.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for the issues that he's raised. The government will not be supporting the amendments that have just been moved. I've been provided with information on the amendments. In the first instance, one of them does not specifically relate to the current bills before the House but relates to amendments that were previously considered and passed by the parliament earlier this year, as was partly referred to in the contribution just made. The view of the government is that the amendment would create uncertainty and increase legislative complexity through introducing untested terms in the legislation that haven't previously been considered—for example, native species without reference to whether or not they are matters of national environmental significance.

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

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask leave of the House to move amendments (1) to (20) on sheet 1, amendments (1) and (5) on sheet 2 and amendments (2) to (4) and (6) to (13) on sheet 2 as circulated in my name together

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

Is leave granted?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted, and I thank the member for moving them en bloc.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendments:

SHEET 1

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Schedule 1, page 5 (before line 8), before item 2, insert:

1A Section 11

Omit "it is taken in accordance with Regional Forest Agreements or".

(3) Schedule 1, item 85, page 16 (after line 3), after subsection 33(1), insert:

(1A) However, the Minister must not make a declaration under subsection (1) in relation to forestry operations.

(4) Schedule 1, item 115, page 38 (line 28), at the end of section 37, add:

; and (f) the action is not a forestry operation.

(5) Schedule 1, page 38 (after line 28), after item 115, insert:

115A Divisions 4 and 6 of Part 4

Repeal the Divisions.

(6) Schedule 1, item 117, page 39 (after line 11), after subsection 46(1), insert:

(1A) However, a bilateral agreement must not make a declaration under subsection (1) in relation to forestry operations.

(7) Schedule 1, item 117, page 39 (after line 17), after subsection 46(2), insert:

(2A) However, the Minister must not accredit a management or authorisation framework in relation to forestry operations.

(8) Schedule 1, page 64 (after line 20), after item 157, insert:

157A After subsection 68(1)

Insert:

Note: See also section 68B if the proposal involves clearing native vegetation.

(9) Schedule 1, page 64 (after line 23), after item 158, insert:

158A Subsection 68A(5)

After "subsection 68(1) or (2)", insert ", or subsection 68B(2),".

158B After section 68A

Insert:

68B Clearing native vegetation in certain areas requires referral

(1) This section applies to a proposal to take any of the following actions:

(a) an action that includes clearing one or more areas of native vegetation that total 20 hectares or more;

(b) an action that, together with one or more other actions, includes clearing one or more areas of native vegetation that:

(i) total 20 hectares or more; and

(ii) are on the same property;

(c) an action, that together with one or more other actions over a period of up to 2 years, includes clearing one or more areas of native vegetation that:

(i) total 20 hectares or more; and

(ii) are on the same property or on adjoining properties.

Note 1: For the meaning of action, see section 523.

Note 2: For paragraphs (b) and (c), the actions need not all be carried out by the same person.

(2) A person proposing to take the action for an area of native vegetation must refer the proposal to the Minister for the Minister's decision under subsection 75(1), whether or not the action is a controlled action, if:

(a) a listed threatened species is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or

(b) a listed threatened species' habitat is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or

(c) a listed migratory species is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or

(d) a listed migratory species' habitat is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or

(e) a listed threatened ecological community is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or

(f) the area is wholly or partly within a Great Barrier Reef catchment area.

The referral must comply with subsection (3).

Civil penalty:

(a) for an individual-1,000 penalty units; or

(b) for a body corporate-10,000 penalty units.

(3) The referral complies with this subsection if the referral specifies each provision of Part 3 that the person reasonably considers is, or may be, a controlling provision for the action.

Note: A controlling provision for the action may be:

(a) if paragraph (2)(a), (b) or (e) applies for the action-section 18 or 18A; or

(b) if paragraph (2)(c) or (d) applies for the action-section 20 or 20A; or

(c) if paragraph (2)(f) applies for the action-section 24B or 24C.

(4) Nothing in this section limits the operation of any other provision of this Act or prevents clearing of native vegetation from being a controlled action under any other provision of this Act.

Note: Clearing native vegetation may be a controlled action (see section 67) even if subsection (2) does not apply. Similarly, a proposal to clear native vegetation may need to be referred to the Minister (see section 68) even if subsection (2) does not apply.

(10) Schedule 1, page 70 (after line 25), after item 169, insert:

169A After subsection 75(2B)

Insert:

(2C) In deciding whether a proposed action that includes clearing of native vegetation is a controlled action, the Minister must consider the cumulative impacts of native vegetation clearing on each relevant matter protected by a provision of Part 3 as impacts of the action.

(11) Schedule 1, page 84 (after line 25), after item 193, insert:

193A After subsection 87(3)

Insert:

(3B) In deciding which assessment approach must be used for a proposed action that includes clearing of native vegetation, the Minister must consider the cumulative impacts of native vegetation clearing on each relevant matter protected by a provision of Part 3 as impacts of the action.

(12) Schedule 1, page 98 (after line 20), after item 235, insert:

235A After paragraph 136(2)(fa)

Insert:

(fb) if the action includes clearing of native vegetation, the Minister must consider the cumulative impacts of native vegetation clearing on each relevant matter protected by a provision of Part 3 as impacts of the action; and

(13) Schedule 1, item 291, page 137 (line 9), omit "section 133.", substitute "section 133; and".

(14) Schedule 1, item 291, page 137 (after line 9), after paragraph 157A(1)(b), insert:

(c) the action is not a forestry operation.

(15) Schedule 1, item 292, page 142 (after line 18), after subsection 157H(2), insert:

(2A) However, the Minister must not grant an exemption in relation to forestry operations.

(16) Schedule 1, item 323, page 160 (after line 4), after subsection 177AA(3), insert:

(3A) A bioregional plan must not permit forestry operations.

(17) Schedule 1, item 604, page 361 (before line 10), before the definition of Commonwealth entity, insert:

clearing, of native vegetation, means one or more of the following:

(a) cutting down, felling, thinning, logging or removing native vegetation;

(b) killing, destroying, poisoning, ringbarking, uprooting or burning native vegetation;

(c) severing, topping or lopping branches, limbs, stems or trunks of native vegetation;

(d) substantially damaging or injuring native vegetation in any other way.

(18) Schedule 1, page 361 (after line 22), after item 605, insert:

605A Section 528 (definition of continuation )

Repeal the definition.

(19) Schedule 1, item 614, page 366 (after line 20), after the definition of national interest proposal in section 528, insert:

native vegetation means one or more native plants, including native plants that are:

(a) trees (including saplings, shrubs or scrubs); or

(b) understorey plants; or

(c) groundcovers; or

(d) found in a wetland; or

(e) lichens.

(20) Page 473 (after line 19), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Repeal of the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002

Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002

1 The whole of the Act

Repeal the Act.

SHEET 2

(1) Schedule 1, item 77, page 14 (lines 17 and 18), omit the item.

(2) Schedule 1, item 85, page 16 (line 13), omit "the Minister is satisfied that".

(3) Schedule 1, item 104, page 25 (lines 20 to 24), omit all the words from and including "(1) If" to and including "instrument", substitute:

(1) If, in relation to a declaration in force under section 33 a situation mentioned in subsection (2) exists or will arise, or any requirements prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection are met, the Minister must, by written instrument:

(4) Schedule 1, item 117, page 39 (line 22), omit "the Minister is satisfied that".

(5) Schedule 1, item 121, page 47 (line 1) to page 48 (line 3), omit section 48B.

(6) Schedule 1, item 237, page 99 (lines 5 and 6), omit "the Minister is satisfied that".

(7) Schedule 1, item 237, page 99 (lines 32 and 33), omit "the Minister is satisfied that".

(8) Schedule 1, item 237, page 100 (line 34) to page 101 (line 1), omit "the Minister is satisfied that".

(9) Schedule 1, item 571, page 315 (lines 16 to 21), omit subsection 514YD(2), substitute:

(2) A national environmental standard must:

(a) promote the objects of this Act; and

(b) not be inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the international agreements specified in subsection 520(3).

(10) Schedule 1, item 571, page 317 (lines 1 to 10), omit subsections 514YF(2) and (3), substitute:

(2) The variation or revocation of a national environmental standard must:

(a) promote the objects of this Act; and

(b) not be inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the international agreements specified in subsection 520(3).

(11) Schedule 1, item 571, page 317 (line 12) to page 318 (line 2), omit subsections 514YG(1) to (3), substitute:

(1) A variation or revocation of a national environmental standard:

(a) must not reduce protections of the environment; and

(b) must not reduce the likelihood that environmental data or information provided to the Minister, Secretary, Department or a Commonwealth agency under this Act or the regulations is appropriate, including as to quality, for the purposes for which it is provided; and

(c) must not reduce the likelihood that appropriate consultation or engagement (including with Indigenous persons) will occur under the Act; and

(d) must not reduce the likelihood that outcomes or objectives specified in the standard will be achieved; and

(e) meet the prescribed requirements (if any).

(12) Schedule 1, item 571, page 319 (lines 26 and 27), omit "a decision prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection", substitute "a relevant decision".

(13) Schedule 1, item 571, page 320 (line 1), omit "may", substitute "must".

These amendments address multiple issues. Firstly, they remove the sections of the bill that hand federal responsibility to the states regarding fossil fuel developments that affect water resources. In October of 2023, together with Senator Hanson-Young in the Senate, I introduced a bill to expand the existing water trigger in the EPBC Act to include unconventional gas projects, and later that year the government finally responded, expanding the water trigger to cover unconventional gas projects through the Nature Repair Bill. That was a massive win for our nature, for wildlife and for future generations, but now we are being taken backwards. The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 will give power back to the state and territory governments to make decisions about large coalmining and unconventional gas projects that affect groundwater reserves or waterways, rather than the federal government. Numerous experts and environmental organisations have warned that the states and territories are likely to favour developments which they profit from over the environment. Handing approval powers back to the state and territory governments, as this bill does, puts Australia's waterways, groundwater and agriculture at even greater risk from coal and gas fracking projects.

My amendments also address native forest logging and deforestation. First, they repeal the exemption for the regional forestry agreements in the EPBC Act; second, they repeal what is called the continuous use exemption; third, they insert a new provision that makes clear that, for any area over 20 hectares where threatened or migratory species may exist, actions must be referred for assessment under the national EPBC Act; and, fourth, they prohibit forestry operations from being allowed through bioregional plans and bilateral agreements and prohibit national interest exemptions from applying to forestry operations.

Australia is facing a deforestation crisis. We are the only developed nation on the global list of deforestation hotspots, and we hold the record for the highest number of mammal extinctions. It was very sad to hear that we have just clocked up our 39th extinction. Despite the minister saying that the regional forestry agreements will be subject to the new environmental standards, there is no mechanism in this bill to achieve that. These amendments are urgent, and they are possible. We cannot delay, and our wildlife cannot wait.

Finally, these amendments strengthen decision-making in the proposed reforms by shifting subjective provisions and language towards an objective decision-making framework. The Samuel review found that a fundamental shortcoming of the current EPBC Act is that it does not provide sufficient constraints on discretion, resulting in uncertainty and poor environmental outcomes. With key decisions and tests throughout the bill dependent on whether the minister is satisfied something is the case or whether an action is not inconsistent with something, this bill risks entrenching the very weaknesses of the current EPBC Act that have allowed Australia's environment to decline so sharply and seriously.

With 19 ecosystems on the brink of collapse and an extinction and deforestation crisis in this country right now, the subjective language that pervades this bill simply does not provide a guarantee that, in another 25 years, the situation for Australia's nature will not be even worse. We cannot allow this to happen when we know full well the power and influence that industry lobbying can exert. We simply cannot leave it to an unknown future individual's discretion, the minister of the day's, to ensure our incredible nature is protected. I commend all these amendments to the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government won't be supporting the amendments, and I'll go through, in turn, the different issues and the information that I've been provided with.

Firstly, with respect to forestry, our intention, as the Minister for the Environment and Water has stated, is that we will apply the national environmental standards to regional forestry agreements under which native forestry occurs. Work on how to implement that commitment is ongoing. With respect to land clearing prior-use and continuous-use exemption, we have contained our amendments primarily to those recommended by the Samuel review. I know there are many people and organisations who are very passionate about this matter, but that is not something we are contemplating in the bill.

With respect to the second sheet of amendments—first of all, amendments (1) and (5)—we are not supporting these amendments. In crafting the reforms, we've looked to three key pillars, all aligned with the Samuel review. One of these pillars is more efficient and robust decision-making, and one of the core recommendations of the Samuel review was to reduce duplication between state and territory and Commonwealth processes. This is an amendment that would maintain duplicative processes. Any bilateral agreements or accredited processes will have to meet our strong national environmental standards.

With respect to the remaining amendments on the second sheet, which go to national environmental standards, the government is not supporting those either. The minister of the day will have the capacity to make standards but will only have the capacity to make standards if this bill is passed. Reforms will allow the environment minister to make national environmental standards. The standards will set clear and enforceable expectations for regulated activities under the EPBC Act. If a proposal is inconsistent with these standards, it won't be approved. This will deliver improved environmental outcomes, provide certainty and guidance for business, and uplift the quality and consistency of decision-making.

Standards will protect the environment. Standards will give businesses clear rules. Standards will help decision-makers be fair and consistent. The individual standards will be made as legislative instruments following the passage of this package of bills, which will create the new standards-making power. The government has made clear that its priority standards are matters of national environmental significance, offsets, First Nations engagement, and data and information. A prescribed consultation process will need to be followed before making a standard, and these are disallowable instruments.

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

The question is that amendments (1) to (20) on sheet 1 and (1) to (13) on sheet 2, moved by the member for Mackellar, be agreed to.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 18), after item 60, insert:

60A After Subdivision FB of Division 1 of Part 3 of Chapter 2

Insert:

Subdivision FC — Clean air and water

24F Requirement for approval of activities that may affect air and water quality

(1) A constitutional corporation, or a Commonwealth agency that does not enjoy the immunities of the Commonwealth, commits an offence if the corporation or agency takes an action that:

(a) may produce an actual or potential adverse effect which may occur from air or water pollution, or from exposures to pollutants in other media, which pollutants originate as emissions to the ambient air; or

(b) may affect the air and water quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national waterways and marine parks and areas impacting other matters of national environmental significance.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years or 420 penalty units, or both.

Note 1: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this subsection may also commit an offence against section 495.

Note 2: If a person takes an action on land that contravenes this subsection, a landholder may commit an offence against section 496C.

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person takes an action that:

(i) may produce an actual or potential adverse effect which may occur from air or water pollution, or from exposures to pollutants in other media, which pollutants originate as emissions to the ambient air; or

(ii) may affect the air and water quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national waterways and marine parks and areas impacting other matters of national environmental significance; and

(b) the action is taken for the purposes of trade or commerce:

(i) between Australia and another country; or

(ii) between 2 States; or

(iii) between a State and Territory; or

(iv) between 2 Territories.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years or 420 penalty units, or both.

Note 1: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this subsection may also commit an offence against section 495.

Note 2: If a person takes an action on land that contravenes this subsection, a landholder may commit an offence against section 496C.

(3) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person takes an action that:

(i) may produce an actual or potential adverse effect which may occur from air or water pollution, or from exposures to pollutants in other media, which pollutants originate as emissions to the ambient air; or

(ii) may affect the air and water quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national waterways and marine parks and areas impacting other matters of national environmental significance; and

(b) the action is taken in:

(i) a Commonwealth area; or

(ii) a Territory.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years or 420 penalty units, or both.

Note 1: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this subsection may also commit an offence against section 495.

Note 2: If a person takes an action on land that contravenes this subsection, a landholder may commit an offence against section 496C.

(4) Subsections (1) to (3) do not apply to an action if:

(a) an approval of the taking of the action by the constitutional corporation, Commonwealth agency or person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or

(b) there is in force a determination under section 79E that the action may continue to be taken and the action is taken in accordance with the conditions (if any) specified in the determination; or

(c) Part 4 lets the constitutional corporation, Commonwealth agency or person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or

(d) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or

(e) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process).

Note: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (4). See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

24F Requirement for informed public participation

The Minister must be satisfied that that any decision to permit increased air or water pollution in any area to which this Act applies is made only after careful evaluation of all the consequences of such a decision and after adequate procedural opportunities for informed public participation in the decision making process.

To ensure environmental protections and to underpin conservation, our ecology has to be protected as a whole. That's why I'm introducing an amendment to this bill to include clean air and water as matters of national environmental significance. Clean air and water are foundational to the health of our ecosystems, to human populations and to our planet at large. As the global community grapples with the escalating challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss and public health crises, the protection of these vital resources has become more urgent than ever.

Safeguarding air and water quality is not just an environmental necessity; it's also a prerequisite for sustainable development and for human wellbeing. Air and water are integral components of the planet's life support systems. Clean air regulates climate, supports plant photosynthesis and maintains atmospheric balance. Similarly, clean water sustains aquatic ecosystems. It supports biodiversity, and it's essential for agriculture and for human consumption. Degradation of these resources through pollution disrupts ecological balance and leads to cascading effects across our ecosystems.

Air pollution, primarily from fossil fuel combustion, releases harmful substances, like particulate matter, nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide, which contribute to acid rain, smog formation and global warming. Water pollution introduces toxic substances into our rivers, wetlands, lakes and oceans. It affects aquatic life, causes algal blooms and harms biodiversity. Biodiversity underpins the resilience of ecosystems by supporting essential systems like pollination, nutrient cycling and climate regulation. Air and water pollution are among the leading drivers of biodiversity loss. According to the European Environment Agency, 73 per cent of ecosystems in the EU exceeded critical loads for nitrogen deposition in 2022. That threatens species diversity and ecosystem stability. Pollution induced by diversity loss is particularly severe in freshwater ecosystems, where reduced pH levels and chemical contamination, including with PFAS, disproportionally affect aquatic species. Airborne pollutants also damage forest and soil microbiomes; they weaken the ecological networks that sustain terrestrial biodiversity.

The link between environmental quality and public health is well established. Exposure to polluted air causes respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Contaminated water contributes to gastrointestinal infections, to neurological disorders and to developmental issues in children. The WHO estimated that, globally, air pollution causes seven million deaths every year. Last year, outdoor air pollution was estimated to be linked to almost 4,000 premature deaths in Australia alone.

Effective environmental governance is absolutely essential to protect air and water quality. Instruments such as the US Clean Air Act and the US Clean Water Act have already demonstrated the potential for regulatory frameworks to reduce pollution and to restore ecosystems.

As it is, this bill offers inadequate protection for the water trigger that we've already legislated in this House. Under the current laws, it is specifically excluded from bilateral approval agreements and from regional plans; under this bill, it is subject to devolution. We don't yet have the promised national environmental standards for matters of national environmental significance, but these could, in any case, be bypassed by ministerial rulings or by the national interest loophole. And this bill's definition of unacceptable impact is so loaded with qualifiers and sets a threshold so high that it will not capture habitat essential to the survival of even the most critically endangered species, nor will it prevent the contamination of groundwater aquifers.

So I propose this amendment, which seeks to raise clean air and water to the same level of national environmental significance as our most important environmental values. Australia's air and water would be protected from actions that would significantly impact their quality, and there would be civil penalties and offences in place to enforce those protections. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for the contribution and for raising the significant issue in the House. The government won't be supporting the amendment, and I'll explain why. There's a longstanding practice that the Commonwealth regulates for matters of environmental significance—and they are also based on specific heads of constitutional power—and state and territory governments regulate for matters that have been identified in the amendment that's before the House right now. We're trying to reduce duplication through this legislation, and the states and territories have a long history now of having mature laws on this issue and regulators to manage these.

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

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 7), before item 2, insert:

1A After section 3A

Insert:

3B Climate principles

Decisions under this Act must have regard to:

(a) the protection of the environment from climate change, including the impacts of climate change on matters of national environmental significance; and

(b) the impact of global greenhouse gas emissions on matters of national environmental significance and the environment, and the need to reduce those emissions to ensure that those matters and the environment are protected; and

(c) the need to promote and support adaptation and resilience in the face of climate change; and

(d) the contribution of biodiversity and functioning ecosystems to climate change mitigation and adaptation; and

(e) Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets; and

(f) Australia's international climate change obligations including under the Paris Agreement; and

(g) any other climate related matter set out in a regulation or a standard.

(2) Schedule 1, page 98 (after line 11), after item 234, insert:

234A At the end of subsection 136(1)

Add:

; (c) climate change matters.

To explain my amendments to these bills, the bills comprising the first overhaul to our nature laws in a quarter of a century, it's useful to go back to first principles. Why do we have nature laws? What's the purpose of them? I think, if you ask the average person on the street those questions, they would answer, 'Surely, the primary purpose of nature protection laws is to protect nature.' That's a proposition that's really hard to argue with. The next question is: if the purpose of nature laws is to protect nature, what does nature need protecting from? There are many threats to nature, but the key ones that have fuelled the species extinction crisis of the past 25 years are habitat destruction, invasive species and climate change. In their current form, the government's EPBC reforms do very little, if anything, to address these things.

In relation to habitat destruction, the current law and the so-called reform bills contain exemptions for land clearing and for logging of native forests. This is just nonsensical, as is the fact that this bill also does very little, if anything, to address climate change impacts. Climate change is among the greatest threats to biodiversity now, with compounding impacts predicted for the future. The federal environment minister is currently not legally bound to consider or authorise to refuse project proposals based on their alignment with Australia's nationally determined contributions made under international treaties, such as the Paris Agreement. This is administratively nonsensical, commercially nonsensical and, frankly, environmentally nonsensical. How is it possible that in 2025 stronger nature laws are drafted without any consideration for two of the most significant threats to nature this decade and for future decades? That's why my amendments are being tabled. This is where they come in.

My first amendment takes us back to first principles, which is where we started. It amends the objects of the act, which broadly set out the purpose of the act. The amendment inserts a set of climate principles to be taken into account when decisions are made under the act. They include protecting the environment from climate change, the impact of greenhouse gas emissions and the need to reduce emissions, and Australia's international climate change obligations. To repeat, this is because climate change is one of the greatest threats to nature. We need to consider all laws that can mitigate the climate crisis, and we are committed to an international rules based order. That's why I think nature laws should seek to protect nature from climate change and recognise the contribution of a healthy environment towards mitigating against the physical impacts of a changing climate on all Australian communities. My second amendment deals with the same issue in the substance of the bill. It adds climate change matters to the list of issues that must be taken into account when decisions are made to approve projects.

These amendments are the absolute bare minimum that this bill should do to address the consequential impacts of climate change on nature. The approach I've taken with my amendments differs from the concept of a climate trigger, which has been so widely discussed in connection with this reform. That's because the government has been very clear, despite how beneficial it would be for nature, that it has no appetite for the introduction of a climate trigger, asserting that greenhouse gas emissions from industrial facilities are adequately addressed under the safeguard mechanism. Just for the Hansard, let it be known the member for Bradfield is currently raising one eyebrow. Instead, my proposal adopts a mainstreaming approach to making the current act responsive to climate change, setting out generally applicable principles which apply across all provisions. The broad application of my amendments will ensure that climate change is considered in all relevant decisions under the act—for example, in deciding whether a threatened species should have a recovery plan or in developing a regional plan.

I do not expect the government will support my amendments, but I could not in good conscience be involved in this debate in this place about nature and not raise climate change as something from which nature needs protecting. This is the reason that I commend these amendments to the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bradfield for the issues that have been raised. There are actually three amendments coming where the response from the government is the same, because they all deal with the same issue of incorporating climate change powers into environmental approvals, so the answer I give now is relevant to the amendment being moved now by the member for Bradfield, and to amendments that I'm anticipating are going to be moved by the members for Wentworth and for Warringah.

We're not supporting these amendments. As the minister for the environment has previously said, there will be no climate trigger in the legislation. The safeguard mechanism is Australia's main law for reducing emissions and meeting climate goals. That's a decision that we've taken as a government. Under the Climate Change Act 2022, the minister is required to give certain emissions estimates that they have received to the minister for climate change, as well as the Climate Change Authority and the secretary of the climate change department.

The proposed reforms aim to support the safeguard mechanism by requiring developers to estimate and publicly report their greenhouse gas emissions for scopes 1 and 2 and to include plans to reduce and manage those emissions. This information will be required for project assessments, strategic planning, regional approvals and bilateral agreements. These changes will improve transparency and accountability for new developments and support the effective operation of the safeguard mechanism, and are in line with the recommendations of the Samuel review. This is an important step forward to provide the community with confidence that proponents are taking their greenhouse gas emissions seriously and that they have a plan to reduce those emissions in line with Australia's net zero targets.

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

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Bradfield be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1 and amendment (1) on sheet 2 as circulated in my name together:

SHEET 1

(1) Schedule 1, page 94 (after line 6), after item 218, insert:

218A After section 131AB

Insert:

131AC Minister must obtain advice from Climate Change Authority in relation to designated large facilities or potential designated large facilities

(1) This section applies if an action is likely to result in:

(a) an increase, in the financial year in which the action is proposed to be taken or future financial years, of scope 1 emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of a designated large facility for the financial year in which the action is taken; or

(b) a new designated large facility for the financial year in which the action is proposed to be taken or a future financial year.

(2) Before the Minister decides whether or not to approve, for the purposes of a controlling provision, the taking of the action, and what conditions (if any) to attach to an approval, the Minister must obtain advice from the Climate Change Authority in relation to:

(a) the accuracy of emissions estimates provided by the person proposing to take the action, including the consistency of the methods for making those estimates with methods prescribed by the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007; and

(b) the impact that the action would have on safeguard emissions for the financial year in which the action is proposed to be taken and future financial years; and

(c) the impact that the action would have on the safeguard outcomes; and

(d) whether the action would place a safeguard outcome at risk; and

(e) what conditions (if any) it would be appropriate to attach to an approval if the Minister were to approve the action; and

(f) how the person proposing to take the action plans to mitigate emissions caused by the action, including:

(i) committed, time-bound measures to mitigate gross emissions; and

(ii) reliance on expected or potential future measures and technologies; and

(iii) feasibility of proposed strategies.

(3) In this section, the following expressions have the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007:

(a) designated large facility;

(b) safeguard emissions;

(c) safeguard outcome;

(d) scope 1 emission.

(2) Schedule 1, page 98 (after line 20), after item 235, insert:

235A After paragraph 136(2)(fa)

Insert:

(fb) any relevant advice obtained by the Minister from the Climate Change Authority in accordance with section 136AC; and

(3) Schedule 1, page 156 (after line 3), after item 317, insert:

317A At the end of Division 7 of Part 11

Add:

170CB Publication of reasons

Despite any other provision of this Act, if the Minister makes a decision under this Part the Minister must publish the reasons for the decision on the Department's website.

_____

SHEET 2

(1) Clause 2, page 3 (after line 8), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) A notifiable instrument made under subsection (2) must be consistent with the principle that the amendments made by this Act in relation to assessment pathways should take effect gradually over the 3 year period beginning on the day fixed by Proclamation for the purposes of item 2 of the table.

As I outlined in my second reading speech, reform of our Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act is long overdue—for our environment, for our economy and for our country. However, serious loopholes remain. The bill leaves too much ministerial discretion over what constitutes the 'national interest', retains exemptions for native forest logging and land clearing, and risks entrenching a pay-to-destroy model through the new restoration fund and overuse of biodiversity offsets. These weaknesses threaten to undermine the very purpose of the reform and the protection of Australia's biodiversity.

I'm rising to speak on amendments that will strengthen this bill, both for nature and for business. Climate change remains the single greatest threat to Australia's biodiversity and ecosystems—from rising ocean temperatures to floods, fires and droughts. While proponents must disclose their emissions and mitigation plans, these are neither required to be considered by the minister or the EPA nor required to be independently verified. The government argues that this is unnecessary because emissions are managed under the safeguard mechanism. But they are not managed effectively. The environment minister is only required to notify the climate change minister and authority after a project is approved. The safeguard is not effective enough to carry that burden. Without an upfront assessment, new projects can add pressure to the mechanism, forcing others to cut more deeply or rely on offsets that may never materialise.

I want to see a clear link between the safeguard mechanism and the EPBC process. My amendment will require the Climate Change Authority to assess any action that would allow a new facility to the safeguard mechanism or increase emissions from the existing one; independently verify proponents' emissions estimates; consider the likely impact on the safeguard's overall emissions trajectory and objectives; advise whether the action risks undermining those objectives and recommend appropriate conditions, such as declining annual emission caps; and provide that advice to both the climate change and environment ministers.

While this advice would not be binding, it would ensure that emissions data and abatement plans are used meaningfully in assessments, not left to another minister after approval. Approving major emitters first and hoping another minister cleans it up later is poor governance. The amendment would enable upfront consideration of climate impacts and prevent avoidable harm. It would also provide the government with useful data to inform future safeguard policy and to set conditions needed to mitigate a project's impact on the mechanism.

My second amendment concerns transparency. It would require the minister to publish a statement of reasons for all decisions, particularly approvals or rejections under the EPBC Act. At present, both the minister and NEPA must publish notice of a decision but not the reasoning behind it. While the current minister generally does so voluntarily, this requirement should be embedded in law for all future ministers. Publishing reasons is vital for accountability, public trust and better decision-making. It also helps business proponents better understand precedents and improve future proposals.

I have also moved a matching amendment to the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill to ensure NEPA operates with the same level of transparency.

I had a constructive conversation with the minister's office in relation to these amendments, but particularly this one. It is my hope that, while the minister, at this stage, has indicated that they will not be supporting this amendment, it will still be considered as part of any future amendments that go through in the Senate.

Finally, I wanted to move an amendment in relation to some of the business groups I've consulted—and that is to sunset the removal of three project assessment and approval pathways over a three-year period. Part of the importance of this bill is to make sure that projects can move swiftly through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act's approval process if they are warranted to. I think the government has, appropriately, introduced a new streamlined process that should, hopefully, speed that up. I very much support that.

However, I am aware that, when government sets up new things, it takes some time to bed them down. Things don't always go faster in a new process; they sometimes can go slower. What I'm urging the government to do in this case is provide a sensible transition period so that, perhaps, those businesses that are familiar with the current available pathways are able to use them until the new pathways are established, precedence is set and people are able to understand what is actually going on. I think this could not only achieve what the government wants to do—which is move to a streamlined mode overall—but also make sure that we do get faster approvals, when things deserve to be approved, straight off the bat and there isn't some unnecessary delay, which everybody, I think, is genuinely seeking to avoid. I do believe it balances the need for reform with the need for certainty and fairness during implementation. Again, I've spoken to the minister's office about this, but I recognise that this was circulated relatively recently, so I would urge the minister and others to consider that in the Senate.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is not agreeing to the amendments, in terms of the amendment related to climate change, for the same reasons as I gave earlier in response to an amendment from the member for Bradfield.

With respect to on sheet 2, it seeks to further amend the commencement provisions to require the commencement arrangements to meet specific requirements. The requirement would be that they are 'consistent with the principle that the amendments related to assessment pathways should take effect gradually over three years'. In the government's view, it is legally uncertain what 'take effect gradually' would mean, and adding this criteria to instrument would potentially open a judicial review, which could frustrate the commencement of the bills.

That said, I respect the points that the member has put in making sure that the transition is done in a constructive way. The existing transitional rule-making power does provide the necessary flexibility for the government to work with stakeholders, as the member has suggested, and to apply a sensible transition period that provides certainty on when the new rules apply and ensure the benefits of the reforms for the environment and business are available in a timely manner.

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

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Wentworth be agreed to.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave, I move amendments (1) to (19), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 168, page 69 (line 12) to page 70 (line 22), omit the item.

(2) Schedule 1, item 194, page 85 (line 10), at the end of subsection 87(5), add:

; and (c) the national environmental standards dealing with community engagement and consultation, First Nations Peoples and community consultation and environmental impact assessment have been complied with as relevant.

(3) Schedule 1, item 320, page 158 (lines 17 and 18), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days".

(4) Schedule 1, item 323, page 161 (line 18), at the end of subsection 177AD(2), add:

; (g) high value agricultural land;

(h) drinking water catchment areas.

(5) Schedule 1, item 323, page 165 (after line 22), after paragraph 177AL(1)(a), insert:

(aa) a copy of the bioregional plan strategic assessment report prepared in accordance with subsection (1A); and

(6) Schedule 1, item 323, page 165 (line 25), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days".

(7) Schedule 1, item 323, page 165 (after line 25), after subsection 177AL(1), insert:

(1A) Before the Minister publishes a draft bioregional plan under subsection (1), the Minister must prepare a bioregional plan strategic assessment report that identifies the conservation and recovery priorities for the bioregion and considers the cumulative impacts of any proposed activities under the bioregional plan, and meets the requirements prescribed in the regulations.

(8) Schedule 1, item 323, page 169 (line 8), at the end of section 177AP, add:

; (g) that the bioregional plan does not compromise high value agricultural land or drinking water catchments.

(9) Schedule 1, item 323, page 175 (lines 7 and 8), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days".

(10) Schedule 1, item 323, page 182 (line 24), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days".

(11) Schedule 1, item 323, page 182 (line 31), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days".

(12) Schedule 1, item 323, page 187 (line 5), omit "regulations." substitute "regulations; and".

(13) Schedule 1, item 323, page 187 (after line 5), after paragraph 177BN(2)(d), insert:

(e) be accompanied by evidence of compliance with the national environmental standards dealing with community engagement and consultation, First Nations Peoples and community consultation and environmental impact assessment.

(14) Schedule 1, item 323, page 195 (line 16), omit "30 business days", substitute "60 business days".

(15) Schedule 1, item 571, page 315 (line 14), omit "may", substitute "must".

(16) Schedule 1, item 571, page 315 (after line 15), after subsection 514YD(1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the national environmental standards must deal with the following:

(a) community engagement and consultation;

(b) First Nations Peoples and community consultation;

(c) environmental impact assessment;

(d) other standards the minister determines.

(17) Schedule 1, item 571, page 316 (after line 15), at the end of section 514YD, add:

(7) The national environmental standard dealing with community engagement and consultation must set out engagement and consultation processes required to be undertaken for:

(a) a referral seeking streamlined assessment under Division 5A of Part 8; and

(b) a request to be made to take a priority action in a development zone specified in a bioregional plan under section177BN.

(18) Schedule 1, page 342 (after line 27), after item 587, insert:

587A At the end of Subdivision B of Division 1 of Part 23

Add:

525A High value agricultural land and drinking water catchments

In this Act:

drinking water catchment has the meaning prescribed by the regulations.

high value agricultural land has the meaning prescribed by the regulations.

(19) Schedule 1, item 678, page 385 (lines 5 to 10), omit the item.

My amendments seek to do three main things: (1) embed best-practice community engagement and consultation through the EPBC Act, (2) protect high-value agricultural land and drinking water catchments within bioregional plans, and (3) stop minor or preparatory works from starting on projects still pending assessment as a controlled action. Graeme Samuel's 2020 review rightly identified the need to improve community participation in decision-making processes. My amendments will require the minister to create national environmental standards for community engagement and consultation and First Nations participation and engagement, and to create an environmental impact assessment.

Firstly, the community engagement and consultation standard will need to set out a process for engagement and consultation for referrals seeking streamlined assessments and priority actions in development zones. Furthermore, priority action projects seeking approval within a development zone will be required to provide evidence of their compliance with this standard. Quick approvals under streamlined assessment processes and as priority actions should not brush over community engagements. My amendments give a clear signal to developers that community engagement is important and necessary to receive project approval. I know there is an industry appetite for this. Ultimately, it encourages project developers to do better and get a result faster. It also lays out a procedure to give guidance to developers and communities on what to expect in the community engagement process.

As these bills currently stand, the timeframe for allowing community consultation on draft or changed bioregional plans is neither sufficient nor fair for communities to give considered feedback. My amendments will increase the timeframe allotted for community feedback from 30 days to 60 days. Community engagement and consultation offers additional knowledge and perspectives and improves the qualities of decisions made. This must be prioritised. These amendments are good for communities, good for proponents and good for the environment.

Secondly, my amendments aim to ensure that bioregional plans are truly strategic and effectively prioritise competing land use demands. They will require the minister to consider the conservation and recovery priorities as well as the cumulative impacts of any proposed activities when creating bioregional plans. Importantly, my amendments also require the minister to consider high-value agricultural land and drinking water catchments, defining development zone boundaries within bioregional plans. Our land is a precious and limited resource, and we must be strategic in how we prioritise its use.

Finally, my amendments remove a loophole the government is seeking to add to the EPBC Act that would allow proponents awaiting assessment on a controlled action to start 'minor or preparatory' works before the minister's assessment. The only requirement for this work to commence is a note from the minister. There are huge swathes of ministerial discretion in this legislation. This additional discretionary power is not necessary and poses unjustified risks to the quality and integrity of environmental assessments.

My amendments will improve trust and integrity in the EPBC Act, which is important. They are made constructively and in good faith. I call on the government to support these amendments to help get our environmental reforms right. While I acknowledge that the government won't be accepting these amendments in this House today, I have had really good conversations with the minister, and I really value those. He has listened carefully. So, while I understand that the amendments won't be accepted at this point, I do urge the government to keep looking at this, thinking about it carefully and consulting on it. I hope I see some amendments of this nature happen throughout the Senate process.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Indi, both for the content of the issues she's raised and the manner of the casting forward of the continued conversations. I'll deal with the three issues in reverse order. We're not supporting the amendments, and I'll just go through the reasons.

First of all, with respect to minor or preparatory works, the change that we have in our legislation is a small but important change to address uncertainty about when certain parts of an action can commence. It enables proponents to undertake certain minor or preparatory parts of an action that are not likely to have a significant impact on protected matters, with the minister's agreement, while the larger action is being assessed. It allows for the making of regulations on the matters that the minister is to be satisfied of. Therefore, the constraints that are there in the legislation as presented do not guarantee an approval. That risk is borne by the proponent, and it's a practical measure to improve productivity.

With respect to high-value agricultural land and drinking water catchments, I respect the issues that have been raised and acknowledge that, for the member for Indi as well, these are issues that would be regularly raised in her electorate. The EPBC Act specifically regulates significant impacts on the nine matters of national environmental significance. This amendment would overlap with matters that are appropriately for states and other legislation to regulate and matters that are regulated by the EPBC Act. It would introduce uncertainty and additional complexity into the system.

Insofar as the issues around public consultation are concerned—and I acknowledge that the member for Indi has also raised this issue personally with me and in question time as well as in the meetings she's had with the minister—the public consultation requirements are aligned with other consultation requirements under the act. It's important that communities have their say on projects, and it's sensible to have a consistent time frame across the act. In the context of making bioregional plans, the consultation time frame in the bill relates only to the statutory consultation step. Bioregional plans will also have significant prior community consultation through processes facilitated by state and territory governments as we work with them to develop their regional plans.

I know how important listening to the community is, and the minister has asked me to specifically repeat that he's very keen to keep engaging with the member for Indi on the development of a standard for community consultation. But those standards cannot exist unless the legislation itself finds its way through.

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

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 191, page 82 (line 20) to page 83 (line 8), omit paragraphs 84A(2)(a) and (b), substitute:

(a) a reasonable estimate of the likely amount of scope 1 greenhouse gas emissions of the action; and

(b) a reasonable estimate of the likely amount of scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions of the action; and

(2) Schedule 1, item 191, page 83 (line 15), at the end of subsection 84A(2), add:

and; (e) the climate-related disclosures reported in accordance with Australian Standard AASB 52 Climate-Related Disclosures.

(3) Schedule 1, page 93 (after line 28), after item 215, insert:

215A At the end of section 130

Add:

Duty of care

(6) In exercising a power under this section, the Minister has a duty to act with reasonable care not to cause harm to future generations.

(4) Schedule 1, item 223, page 95 (after line 15), after subsection 133(7B), insert:

Duty of care

(7C) In exercising a power under this section, the Minister has a duty to act with reasonable care not to cause harm to future generations.

(5) Schedule 1, page 95 (after line 27), after item 224, insert:

224A After section 133

Insert:

133A Action must not hold an unacceptable climate-related financial and transition risk

(1) Despite any other provision of this Part, the CEO must not approve an action, if CEO is satisfied that:

(a) disclosures under section 84A(2)(e) would demonstrate an unacceptable climate-related financial and transition risk; and

(b) as a result, the action could materially impact matters of national environmental significance.

(2) The CEO must consider the greenhouse gas emissions information for the action for the purposes of subsection (1).

(6) Schedule 1, item 551, page 307 (after line 7), after section 474D, insert:

474DA Appeal against environment protection order

(1) A person against whom an environment protection order is made may appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction against the making of the order.

(2) The lodging of an appeal does not, except to the extent that the court otherwise directs in relation to the appeal, operate to stay action on the order appealed against.

(3) After hearing an appeal, the court may:

(a) confirm the order, or

(b) modify or rescind the order.

(4) In making a decision on an appeal, the court is to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development and the public interest.

(7) Schedule 1, item 588, page 343 (line 4), after "Part 3.", insert "In determining whether an impact is an unacceptable impact, the cumulative effect of multiple actions that are regulated under this Act must be taken into account.".

The amendments seek to integrate the existing climate-related financial disclosure into project assessment and approval processes. I should note these are disclosures that have been legislated by the government. So this is something they have supported and advocated for in other contexts.

Fundamentally, we cannot have an environmental legislation that is separated from climate impacts of proponents. Inherently the two are interconnected. The Albanese government's insistence on claiming that climate impacts are not relevant to protecting the environment and biodiversity in our environment—that they are with dealt elsewhere through other legislation—is simply wrong and highlights that it is not serious about protecting the environment and arresting biodiversity loss.

Nature does not experience climate and environment separately, neither should our laws. Every decision on our land, water and biodiversity is also a decision about the impact on our climate, which is then also an impact on our environment. Financial regulators APRA, RBA and the Climate Change Authority have all warned of climate risks to the economy, such as stranded assets and rising insurance costs, yet environmental assessments under this bill proposed by the Albanese government ignore these realities.

My amendments would require proponents to include climate-related financial disclosures in their applications, something that businesses are already familiar with; and require decision-makers to ensure projects do not pose unacceptable climate-related transition or financial risks—that is, become stranded assets. This is a financial viability consideration, not a climate consideration.

Amendments (3) and (4) would embed duty of care into our environmental protection legislation. It would introduce a legislative duty of care to protect children and future generations from the impacts of climate change. This follows the case of Sharma v Minister for the Environment, where the court initially found the minister owed such a duty, though it was overturned on appeal due to the legislation. This amendment fixes the problem.

The proposal responds to public support for the reform, including the duty of care bill which attracted over 400 supportive submissions. The amendment clarifies that, under the EPBC Act, the minister must act with reasonable care not to cause harm for future generations when approving projects. Enshrines the principles that today's decisions must not endanger tomorrow's citizens.

Amendment (7) would ensure that cumulative environmental impacts are properly assessed under the EPBC Act. It seeks to prevent the project fragmentation that we see too often, where large developments are split to avoid scrutiny and proper assessment of their true impact. The amendment would ensure an evaluation where the combined projects collectively cause unacceptable harm—that is, habitat loss, water degradation. The change reflects recommendations from the Samuel review, which found the EPBC Act's project by project approach insufficient.

By including the requirement in primary legislation, it ensures it cannot be delayed or weakened later. The amendment aims to halt the incremental degradation of ecosystems and enable informed, transparent and responsible decision-making.

Amendment (6) would introduce and establish a clear right of appeal for any person subject to an environmental protection order. This is important for business. The amendment adequately balances efficiency with accountability and procedural fairness so that businesses and proponents can gain certainty and a fair process if they need to challenge a stop work order.

In summary, these amendments aim to embed climate accountability into financial environmental approvals, to establish a duty of care towards future generations, to strengthen environmental governance by considering cumulative impacts and to provide a fair appeals process for environmental protection orders. Collectively, they promote a sustainable, transparent and responsible framework for decisions-making that aligns economic development with Australian environmental and climate goals.

It's disappointing to see how little participation in this process members of government have engaged with. To all MPs, especially members of LEAN who go to their communities with claims of being here for climate and protecting the environment: I urge you to consider the amendments that are being debated today. They are all seeking to improve legislation that is inadequate and will fail in its stated purpose to protect the environment. It is essential that, in this place, we have an informed debate and we test this legislation. It is disappointing that the government is choosing to ignore so many people trying to improve this legislation, but I hope that in the other place improvements will be made.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Warringah for the issues that have been raised. I will say this: never underestimate the commitment to the environment of the backbench members of the government. Everyone comes here from a good place, and the undermining that happened towards the end of that speech—as someone who sees how hard people on the backbench work through our committee process, the caucus process and the different processes we have, I wouldn't want to leave the comment that was made uncorrected.

With respect to the issues raised by the member for Warringah concerning climate, I refer to the answer I gave previously on the amendments that were moved by the member for Bradfield.

With respect to the issues on environmental protection orders, there are strong requirements that must be met before one of these orders can be issued. The CEO of the National Environmental Protection Agency must reasonably believe a person or body corporate has or is likely to breach legislation. The EPO can only be issued where there is an imminent risk of serious damage, it's necessary to ensure future compliance or it's necessary to manage any damage. The EPO must then be revoked if the CEO reasonably believes that it is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was issued or if a specified timeframe in the EPO has lapsed. An EPO must state the purposes for which the order is issued, including by giving brief details of any alleged contravention or potential contravention to which the order relates and set out the requirements imposed by the person on the order, either specifying when the order ceases to be in force or including a statement to the effect of, 'The order will remain in force until it's revoked by the CEO.' If no timeframe is included in an EPO, the CEO must revoke an environment protection order if the CEO reasonably believes that the order is no longer necessary for any of the purposes for which it was issued.

On cumulative impact, these issues are to be dealt with through the standard on matters of national environmental significance and embed landscape-scale approaches.

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

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Warringah be agreed to.

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

The question before the House is that the bill as amended be agreed to.