Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last night, I was in full swing, analysing this government's failures when it comes to legislating to improve environmental protections in this country but also to do it in a way that actually addresses the failings of this government when it comes to productivity measures and ways to provide investor certainty. Just to recap, for those who weren't tuned in last night, it is an appalling set of events when, after three years of failed attempts, the government is only now trying to bring on something that has been desperately needed for so long.

In the last term, we saw Minister Plibersek with her closed door meetings. Participants in the stakeholder process were being forced to sign non-disclosure agreements, NDAs, because, despite the environment being a public good—something we all depend upon, some derive a living from and we all enjoy the beauty of—the fact that we legislate to manage it, to protect it and to improve it is something that we don't want the public to know about! So this government took the approach of seeking to do all of its negotiations behind closed doors, away from the prying eyes of the public—because we don't need them to have any input, any insight or any say over how this country's environment is managed!—and, certainly, insofar as it relates to how business operates when it comes to its interface with the environment.

I will be very interested to see, over time, what productivity measures and what investor certainty is provided out of the broader package of measures. This legislation before us here today is but a very small part of the large suite of reforms required to fix this broken system, and it is, obviously, something that we will support because it's important we do get that ongoing certainty for the boards of management of the parks that I've already mentioned in my contributions. But that is not the answer to the problems we face here, and the government's track record does not bode well for the future. When it comes to exactly how we think this government will be able to do what it needs to do in our country's interests in terms of ensuring, for those who want to make a decision about whether to invest here and create jobs here in a sustainable way, to world's best practice and world's best standard, that they can do it in a way that is not overly burdensome or cumbersome, that strangles investment opportunities with red tape and therefore sends those jobs offshore, preventing the economic activity from occurring here.

Additionally, as I said before too, tinkering around the edges with this legislation today—legislation which is important and necessary—does not fix the problem that we have. The three years of wasted time on environmental law reform, which went nowhere under this government, have meant that those businesses that could operate here, under strict conditions, in a way that respects the environment, have taken the decision to offshore their investment. People who could mine for a certain commodity here—again, to world's best standard—have made the decision to go elsewhere because of the uncertainty around the regulatory regime.

You only have to look at the McPhillamys goldmine. Someone reminded me of it this morning. It was a mining proposition that would have injected billions of dollars of economic opportunity and activity into our country—in your home state of New South Wales, Acting Deputy President Sharma. It went through the full state and federal environmental and planning approvals, and, having secured all of those very, very high-bar approvals, it was then knocked on the head at the very last minute, which again points to a broken system, because the environmental approval laws in this country are not interfacing in any way with Indigenous heritage protection laws. This project would have meant billions of dollars of economic activity, as I said, but it's now gone and will not be done here. Goodness knows what that company is going to do, but, again, this government put its head in the sand and didn't think it was an issue worth dealing with.

We'll wait and see what happens with the full suite of legislation, but, in the meantime, these reforms are sensible and should be supported.

Richard Dowling (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak in support of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025. The bill is brief, but its impact is significant. It protects the continuity, partnership and integrity of joint management of our most iconic national parks: Kakadu, Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Booderee. At its heart, the bill safeguards two things that Australians deeply value: good governance and respect for country. It ensures that boards of management can continue to make lawful, practical decisions, even when a management plan expires, which is a small but crucial legislative fix to prevent disruption.

Under the current EPBC Act, each management plan expires after 10 years. When one does, the board of management immediately loses its power to act. The management plans for the Booderee and Kakadu national parks are due to expire in November this year and January 2026 respectively. So, without this bill, both boards would be, in effect, legally paralysed, unable to approve fire management, visitor safety or cultural access work. This was never the intention of parliament. The Director of National Parks would be forced to act alone, therefore breaking the spirit of joint management and interrupting the vital involvement of traditional owners, who do guide the stewardship of their country. That is the governance gap that this bill closures.

The bill strengthens Indigenous decision-making. Each board has a majority Indigenous membership, nominated by traditional owners under section 377 of the EPBC Act. Their knowledge and cultural authority guide the work of rangers and park managers every day. In fact, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water has said the bill supports 'the effective participation of Indigenous people in decision-making about the management of jointly managed Commonwealth reserves' and that it allows continuity of governance arrangements for Commonwealth reserve management. The bill ensures that responsibilities around fire management, the protection of cultural sites and visitation can continue lawfully and respectfully until new management plans take effect.

Traditional owners bring to their work thousands of years of knowledge around caring for country. Their understanding of land, water, fire and seasons is not an adjunct to science; it's actually its foundation. Across Australia, Indigenous led management delivers stronger environmental outcomes, from savanna burning in the north to the landscape restoration in the south. Of course, in my home state of Tasmania we recognise the Palawa and Pakana peoples as the traditional owners and custodians of Lutruwita. Their enduring connection to country and role in protecting Tasmania's national parks and cultural heritage enrich how we understand conservation. National parks are living cultural landscapes, and, when traditional owners have a genuine say in their care, our entire nation benefits.

Consultation with the boards of management, Northern Land Council, Central Land Council and Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council has confirmed strong support for this bill. The Law Council of Australia says the bill is 'a practical solution to a practical problem'. The Australian Airports Association acknowledged the bill's intent to 'provide continuity of decision-making' and 'avoid governance gaps'.

The consequence of not acting should be considered as well. If parliament fails to pass this bill before management plans expire, the consequences would be immediate and damaging. The boards would lose authority, traditional owners would be excluded from decisions affecting their land, and the Commonwealth could face significant legal uncertainty if decisions are made without clear statutory power. Beyond the legal risk lies the practical reality. Vital environmental management—fire control, weed management, visitor safety and cultural site protection—could all be delayed, so there is a real, practical consequence to this bill. Delaying such things as fire control or weed management is an unacceptable risk for communities who rely on these parks for their livelihood, heritage and identity. Failing to act would also undermine confidence in the government's broader environmental law reforms and the commitment to reconciliation. It would contradict the recommendations of the Samuel review, which urged greater empowerment of Indigenous partners in managing Commonwealth reserves.

The bill is both principled and practical. It keeps national parks well-governed, ensures Indigenous partners remain central to management and strengthens the link between cultural knowledge and environmental care. In doing so, it honours the traditional owners of Kakadu, Uluru and Booderee and the Palawa and Pakana people of my home state of Tasmania, whose custodianship reminds us that caring for country is both an environmental and a moral duty. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday the Senate marked 40 years since the return of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park to the Anangu people. The joint management of the park since then has strengthened custodianship and recognised the Anangu people's relationship with the land. It has embedded cultural knowledge in decisions, it's enabled an end to the destructive climb that ignored cultural values, and it's helped First Nations led tourism to thrive. It demonstrates how traditional owners managing land and sea country leads to better outcomes for culture, community and the environment, which brings me to this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill.

This bill fixes a technical issue that would have interrupted First Nations management. Without this amendment, the board of management of a jointly managed national park would lose decision-making powers when a management plan expires. Decisions would revert to the Director of National Parks until a new plan is in place. The management plans for Kakadu National Park and Booderee National Park will expire in the next few months. New management plans are being developed, but they won't be ready before the current plans expire. The Greens support the changes enacted by this bill to allow the boards of Kakadu and Booderee to continue their management roles while the plans are finalised.

Several submitters to the inquiry into the bill were concerned that extending the operation of an expired management plan could mean that decisions did not reflect the best environment or climate science or Indigenous knowledge. It is important that management decisions are informed by the best available information, and I acknowledge the legitimate concerns of those submitters but note that the bill confirms that the board and the director must try to ensure that there is a current plan at all times.

The success of Indigenous protected areas across Australia shows how traditional owners and Indigenous rangers understand and respond to the needs of country. However, developing rigorous and culturally appropriate management strategies takes time, and implementing them takes money. This will only be achieved if the government dedicates sufficient, long-term funding to enable management plans to be developed, implemented and reviewed and for training and support for rangers.

Beyond this bill, much more must be done to enable First Nations custodianship of land and sea country. The shameful destruction of Juukan Gorge by Rio Tinto in 2020 made clear that Australia's laws are failing to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage, and they're not supporting the self-determination of traditional owners. That destruction was all the more shocking because it was entirely legal, and it wasn't an isolated event. First Nations cultural heritage is being destroyed, damaged, degraded and displaced every day across this country. Across the country many sacred First Nations sites are currently under threat, including sacred rock art at Murujuga and in Darwin, sacred forests in the Pilliga, caves along the Great Australian Bight and burial grounds and songlines in the Tiwi Islands. Rio Tinto was widely condemned after it was legally allowed to blow up the 46,000-year-old caves at Juukan Gorge under WA's outdated Aboriginal Heritage Act. The Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura peoples were left devastated while Rio Tinto tried to save face by overhauling its executive team and admitting that it breached traditional owners' trust.

The inquiry that followed on from that incident set out a pathway for a way forward. That inquiry report called on the government to legislate new national cultural heritage laws with proper protection and a process of co-design with First Nations people. It called for minimum legislative standards and approaches to negotiation that are based on principles of self-determination and importantly of free, prior and informed consent. Australia is unceded Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land, and traditional owners must be able to decide what happens on country without interference and with access to the best available information. Australia has yet to ratify the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but that must not stop us from adopting free, prior and informed consent. First Nations people must be able to withhold consent to the destruction of their cultural heritage and to determine how their land is managed. But it's not happening.

This morning I joined a delegation of First Nations and Pasifika delegates sharing their experiences of how the climate crisis is impacting their countries and their heartbreak at decisions being made to approve fossil fuel projects against their wishes. Most of the recommendations of the Juukan Gorge report have not been implemented. There's been no progress on new cultural heritage laws to protect tangible and intangible heritage. The government has retreated from its earlier support of a makarrata commission and resumed that money. The national environmental standards promised for First Nations consultation and engagement will not be released before the EPBC reforms are introduced. It's just not good enough. I'm moving a second reading amendment to this bill to acknowledge that.

This bill is a welcome step to address a technical issue and to allow uninterrupted First Nations management of Commonwealth reserves, but, if this government is actually committed to managing land, sea and cultural heritage in partnership with First Nations people, it must implement all the recommendations of the Juukan Gorge inquiry report. It must urgently progress cultural heritage laws. It must include robust First Nations engagement and decision-making processes into the EPBC Act consistent with the principles of free, prior and informed consent. It must support First Nations led co-design for all management plans, and it must provide adequate long-term funding for ranger programs and Indigenous protected areas.

As the Minister for Indigenous Australians said yesterday, the formal return of Uluru Kata Tjuta came after more than a century of disposition and four decades of campaigning by the Anangu. Across Australia, First Nations communities continue to fight for country. Let's not make them wait any longer. I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes:

(a) the importance of Traditional Owner participation in, and control over, management of land and sea Country; and

(b) that the Albanese Government has not progressed cultural heritage legislation or many recommendations set out in A Way Forward: the final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia's inquiry into the destruction of Indigenous heritage sites at Juukan Gorge, including implementing principles of free, prior and informed consent".

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For more than 65,000 years Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have cared for land, country, sea and sky. Our knowledge systems have sustained the world's oldest continuing cultures and remarkable biodiversity on this continent. I'm a proud Noongar Yamatji woman, and I know that when we talk about protecting country, we're not talking about land in an abstract way. We're talking about family. We're talking about spirit. We're talking about connection and whose country we are on. For tens of thousands of years First Nations people have cared for this country, shaping and renewing this continent, and protecting its waters, its animals, its plants and its stories. That care was never incidental. It was deliberate. It was guided by law, culture and a responsibility that was passed on from generation to generation.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Board of Management Functions) Bill 2025 honours the principles that country is cared for by the people who it's always belonged to and that keeps traditional owners leading the way, guiding our national parks that are managed, protected and also shared. Just last week we celebrated 40 years since the Commonwealth returned the Uluru Kata Tjuta area to the Anangu people, a moment when justice, partnership and a shared love of country came together at the heart of our nation. The act of handback was more than a ceremony; it was a statement of principle and that the people who have cared for country for millennia should continue to do that with the respect and authority that comes from ownership and stewardship.

It was also a moment of extraordinary generosity. The Anangu people chose not to close Uluru to others but to share it and to invite all Australians and the world to learn about their culture, their law and their enduring relationship with that sacred place.

Debate interrupted.