Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and six related bills, and the amendments to the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 moved by Senator Ruston on sheet 3511. The question is that amendments (1) to (5), (7) to (9), (11) to (14), (18) and (19) be agreed to.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I've got some questions about standards. I'm interested in if the government would commit to implementing the full suite of national environment standards that are listed in Professor Samuel's review, prior to allowing for accreditation of any entity with assessment or approval powers under these reforms.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks to Senator Pocock for the questions. While I'm on my feet, I will acknowledge a few high-profile and very committed people in the gallery, leaders of a number of Australia's peak environmental organisations. Thank you, of course, for your engagement through this process over a long period of time. I hope that today you can celebrate some of the big wins for the environment that have come through your advocacy—of course, in addition to the big wins for business because, remember, this is a balanced package.

I want to also acknowledge, in the gallery, the person who first argued for a balanced package, Professor Graeme Samuel, whose review, handed down over five years ago today, really did lay the groundwork for what we've been able to achieve today. Professor Samuel, I really appreciate also the personal support you've provided to me through this process. You've been at hand anytime that we've needed any of your advice. I hope you feel really proud of what the parliament will be achieving today as well.

Senator Pocock, in terms of the national environmental standards, you're right that Professor Samuel's report recommended a number of standards—in fact, provided draft standards for consideration. As I indicated this morning, in the earlier committee stage, there are two standards that are now available and open for consultation regarding matters of national environmental significance and environment offsets. There will need to be a formal statutory consultation period regarding those standards, and I would anticipate that will commence in the new year.

I also indicated, as to questions from Senator Hanson-Young, that we are well advanced in the drafting of a First Nations engagement standard. We will also be preparing a community consultation standard. And, as you've recognised, there are a range of other standards that Professor Samuel recommended; I would expect that we will be proceeding with all of them. To be honest with you, I've forgotten exactly what they are, but certainly, in broad terms—we are also preparing one regarding data, environmental data and information. Put it this way: I certainly haven't decided to not proceed with any of the standards that Professor Samuel recommended.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister; I appreciate it. My question was not so much about standards but whether or not you will do the standards prior to allowing for accreditation of any entity with assessment or approval powers.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not really in a position to give that commitment today, Senator Pocock. We are committed to both preparing the standards as quickly as we can, noting that no minister has the power to create standards until these laws are passed, but, nevertheless, that's why we got started on drafting a number of those standards, because we do want to create them as quickly as possible. Again, as I said this morning, they will be disallowable instruments, so there'll be an opportunity for the Senate to consider those as well. At the same time, we are committed to proceeding as quickly as we can, with, for example, entering bilateral agreements with states and territories around the assessment and approval of projects, and also regarding the accreditation of a number of state and territory processes.

We want to get moving. I know there have been some people in the community who—and I think you, Senator Pocock, yourself—have said that we shouldn't be rushing this and that we should take this into the new year. We've got to get moving! Poor Professor Samuel—he handed down his report five years ago. We don't want to take another five years, because, in another five years, there will be another review of the act. So we've got to get moving, and that's why we want to get moving as quickly as we can with as many aspects of these reforms as possible.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. Will you at least confirm that it's your intention to implement the standards prior to accrediting any entity with assessment but, more importantly, approval powers, prior to allowing accreditation?

To your point about the timeline: anytime in the last parliament, you had a majority of crossbenchers who were urging the government to undertake environmental law reform that protected nature. So I can see what you're saying with the criticism. But I don't think it's grounded, because you have a majority on the crossbench who have been urging you to do this—in fact, negotiated with your predecessor, and we all know how that went down, at the final hour, with the Prime Minister stepping in. So I think that's probably important to be on the record.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just in terms of the history of this, I will make the point that, in the last term, when my predecessor and my good friend Minister Plibersek put the building blocks in place for these reforms, the Senate was a little bit different, and we didn't just need the Greens party to pass these reforms; we needed the Greens party and a collection of Independents, and that made it somewhat more difficult to get things, rather than only requiring support of either the coalition or the Greens, but that's by the by.

In answer to your question, as I said, I'm not going to give a commitment today that the standards will be finalised prior to any accreditations or bilateral agreements, but I think it would be reasonable to expect that it will take a number of months at best to finalise some of those processes and bilateral agreements. As I say, we want to get cracking as quickly as we can, but I think there's a very good chance that at least some of those standards will have commenced by the time we enter into such an agreement or accreditation processes take place.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I wanted to go back to the conversation we were having, before the hard marker earlier, about offsets. You were saying that, when small proponents potentially don't have the ability to play in that space and actually find like-for-like offsets, they can pay into the fund. You then said that it potentially wouldn't be like for like, but there's the potential for much more broadscale conservation work. Could you explain to us how that would work when you have fairly small but really significant impacts on critically endangered ecosystems—say, temperate grasslands and box gum woodlands, where we're down to less than one per cent or a couple of per cent of what is left of these ecosystems. Say 50 or 100 hectares of that were damaged or destroyed and someone pays into a fund, what guardrails are there in place to ensure that it's not 50,000 hectares of rangeland that are actually offset, where, clearly, there are very different species and a bunch of species that probably aren't as threatened? How's the government going to work that one out?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the other amendments that's been moved to the bill, which hasn't had quite as much attention in the media today—and I'll do my best to paraphrase it—

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What number?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Amendment? I'll come back to you on that. We're just trying to dig out the amendment number. As I said, I'll be paraphrasing here, but in essence what the amendment seeks to do is to give the Threatened Species Scientific Committee a role in establishing whether there are particular species that are so endangered that the environmental offsets should not occur in the form of restoration fund payments. There would be probably a fairly small category of species, and if an offset was required then that would need to be delivered on a like-for-like project basis, as opposed to making a payment into the restoration fund. I'll come back to you with the amendment, and that will no doubt express it a lot more clearly and accurately than I have, but that's the general principle.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will all critically endangered species be on that list?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not necessarily, and I'm advised the amendment is No. 3565.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, how can critically endangered species not be on that list? I'm interested in how you offset a critically endangered species, and, if the government is, how are you going to work out the exchange rate? What does a swift parrot translate to, in terms of bettongs, phascogales or antechinuses? How does that work?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, Senator Pocock, the intention is not to prevent payments into the Restoration Contribution Fund for every single critically endangered species. Sadly, that is a relatively long list in Australia, and that's why it's a Labor government that is proposing reforms to our laws which we'd really like you to support, Senator Pocock. Don't ever forget that it's Labor governments that actually deliver environmental reform.

One of the objectives of these reforms—and Professor Samuel made this point in his report—is to get away from the ongoing managing of decline in nature and shift the dial towards restoration of nature. We do want to see critically endangered species recover. There's a range of government policies and investments directed towards that, and it's very pleasing to see that there are critically endangered species whose numbers are growing. It's still not at the rate we'd like, but it's good to see that there are some critically endangered species in which we're seeing a recovery. We want to see more of that. It's not and never has been the intention to effectively rule out contributions to the restoration fund for every single critically endangered species. But the opportunity exists for the Threatened Species Scientific Committee to provide advice to ministers—and, again, I'm paraphrasing what the amendment says—if there are species for which, in the judgement of that committee, contributions to the restoration fund are not enough.

You also asked how you would calculate this. To my surprise in taking on this role, as it stands, our department has developed a calculator that proponents can use now to determine what their environmental offsets are required to be. We will need to adapt and upgrade that calculator to determine what the financial contribution will be. But one of the really important things that we've done and committed to in that process is that there needs to be a net gain for the environment in that process. Again, this comes straight out of Professor Samuel's report. Rather than having the current system, where environmental offsets need to deliver no net loss to the environment, we are lifting the requirement so that any environmental offsets deliver a net gain for the environment. That calculator, as I was saying, needs to be adjusted to recognise that change.

In summary, what this means is that proponents in some cases would be able to make a financial contribution that delivers a net gain for the environment—not more of the same but something better—and that would be possible for a range of species. But, with the Threatened Species Scientific Committee having the ability to provide advice around particular species, that opportunity should not arise.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could the minister please give some comments for the record that relate to how regulations will be required? We're talking about standards, here. I'd like to know, so that it is clear, that there will be regulations that declare which standards will apply to relevant decisions. Obviously, one of the things we need to make sure of is around when there is an application of the various standards that you have outlined. Knowing that there could and inevitably will be new standards—because that's the whole purpose of this particular amendment to the act—the minister has the power to create a standard to ensure that there is a higher level of protection for threatened species or the environment. Could you please confirm that you will require regulations to declare all core standards to apply to relevant decisions?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, Senator Hanson-Young, this is a matter that we discussed over the last couple of days. The short answer to your question is yes. We would envisage that the two, if you like, core standards—I'm thinking of the two core standards that we've got out for consultation at the moment, on MNES and offsets—but also potentially other core standards such as First Nations engagement, would apply to all approval decisions. I know that there has been some discussion about whether all the environmental standards should apply to every single assessment and approval decision. While at first flush that may seem like a sensible thing to do, it may well be that over time we develop particular standards that are relevant to particular industries. For argument's sake, if we were to develop a standard specifically relating to the renewable energy sector then it wouldn't make a lot of sense for that to be taken into account if you're assessing a housing development. As I recall, the intention, therefore, is to provide a regulation which sets out which standards apply to which kinds of decisions, but certainly the intention would be to apply those core standards to all approval decisions, regardless of the sector.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, in relation to the amendments that have been circulated by the Greens in relation to removing the land-clearing exemption, could I ask you to commit to the chamber today that land clearing will indeed be a priority for the newly established environment protection authority. Obviously, we know that land clearing is rampant across the country. In fact, an area the size of the MCG is cleared every two minutes in Australia. That is an extraordinary amount of Australian bushland that is devastated, bulldozed and destroyed simply in the name of development—and often multinational profit. I would like a commitment from the government that this cracking down on land clearing, this tightening of the rules and our ensuring that we protect more of our bushland and forests will be a priority for the Environment Protection Authority.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the new provisions regarding agricultural land clearing and the enforcement of those provisions will certainly be a priority for the new National Environmental Protection Agency. This is a good example of why it's important to have a national environment protection agency, which we don't currently have. In colloquial terms, it will be a strong cop on the beat, with strong powers and real teeth to enforce environmental laws in a way that we haven't seen to date at the national level, despite the good efforts of officials in my department to do so.

I might quickly elaborate on the provisions regarding agricultural land clearing, which I addressed in some detail earlier on in the committees stage in answer to Senator Roberts. We know, and the science tells us, that one of the biggest causes of biodiversity loss in Australia is unregulated agricultural land clearing. I want to be clear: I'm not saying that all farmers do the wrong thing or anything like that, but at the moment we lack national regulation of agricultural land clearing even where it impacts in a significant way on threatened species. And so that is the major motivation for lifting the exemption from the act which currently applies.

Similarly, we're proposing in these amendments to lift the exemption that currently applies to agricultural land clearing that, effectively, occurs within 50 metres of the rivers and creeks in the Great Barrier Reef catchment. Again, the motivation for that change is that we know that one of the major threats to and impacts on the Great Barrier Reef is sediment run-off, which occurs at least partly through some of that clearing that takes place on riverbanks and creekbanks. Again, there are people who deliberately do the wrong thing. There are others who don't necessarily recognise or realise that that sort of clearing can have those major impacts. Before the scare campaign starts about this, it's not about saying that farmers can't clear their land; it's about saying that, if that kind of clearing in those sorts of circumstances is going to have an impact on a nationally protected matter, then farmers and the large corporates that own farmland will need to seek EPBC assessment and approval in order to undertake that clearing. They may very well get that approval. They may get that approval subject to conditions. But it's really about levelling the playing field across all industries. In the same way a mining company, a housing developer, a windfarm developer or a solar-farm developer currently, under the law, need to seek EPBC assessment and approval if their activity is going to significantly impact on a nationally protected matter, as a result of these changes, that will also apply to the agricultural land clearing that I was talking about.

I'm not sure if you were in the chamber earlier, Senator Hanson-Young, when I made the point about those exemptions that were included in the original legislation passed in 1999. One very interesting submission that was made to the Senate inquiry was from Robert Hill, the former federal environment minister whose legislation we are now amending. He was, in fact, a former federal Liberal Senate leader. Even though he was the minister—in no way do I mean this as a criticism of him; quite the opposite—for reasons that probably related more to his party room at the time, his own legislation included those exemptions, for agricultural land clearing and for regional forestry agreements. He made a submission to the Senate inquiry saying those exemptions should be lifted. When the former federal Liberal minister for the environment whose legislation was passed in 1999 is telling us that we should revisit that and remove those exemptions, that's probably something worth listening to, quite apart from all of the other groups who made submissions to similar effect.

Just to bring it back to the compliance and enforcement point, as I said, it would be our intention that enforcing these new provisions around land clearing would be a priority for the new National Environment Protection Agency. I might also make the point that, while many of the provisions in this bill will not commence for roughly 12 months time—there are a few others that will start sooner than that—we will be commencing the provisions relating to agricultural land clearing and removing the exemption that currently applies on the date of royal assent. So that is probably in the next week or two. The reason we've done that is that we have seen, in other circumstances where particularly state and territory governments have sought to regulate land clearing, what's known as 'panic clearing' occur. That is where people, for either good reasons or bad, decide to get in there and start clearing land urgently in a way that is about to be prevented by legislative change. We want to make sure that that doesn't happen, and that's why we are commencing the provisions around land clearing and removing those exemptions as quickly as we possibly can.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to come back to the idea that you can offset a critically endangered species. My understanding of a critically endangered species is that it is under almost immediate threat of being extinct in the wild. Populations are on the edge of being functionally extinct. The IUCN talks about some of the criteria: a very fast population decline; catastrophic drops over the last 10 years or three generations; a tiny population size; sometimes only a few hundred or fewer mature individuals left; an extremely small range, living in a very limited area, so one disaster could wipe it out; ongoing decline plus fragmentation; and quantitative models showing a very high probability of extinction soon. I'm wondering how that will square with the government's commitment to no new extinctions—if we are, in fact, saying that you could, in some circumstance, offset the destruction of a critically endangered habitat or affect a critically endangered species. That's one question: whether you think you can do that and still hold your 'no new extinctions' commitment to the Australian people.

The other question is on net gain. I'm interested in what circumstances will the regulations prescribe or the minister be satisfied that a net gain has been achieved. How will net gain actually be determined?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to your first question regarding critically endangered species, for starters, I want to say the government is absolutely committed to our commitment made last term to not see any further extinctions of species. That is the reason why we're investing heavily in programs like the Saving Native Species program and a range of other investments. It's one of the reasons why we're keen to change these laws, to provide greater protection to critically endangered and all threatened species.

Before I answer your question directly, Senator Pocock, I might just add to what I said earlier about the ability to prevent financial contributions being made to the restoration contributions fund in some circumstances. The amendments that have been introduced will allow the minister of the day to create a list of matters that cannot be compensated through financial contributions to the restoration contributions fund. The minister would need to get advice and consult with advisory committees, including the Threatened Species Scientific Committee, in making or changing the list. That list would be a disallowable legislative instrument and would be published on the department's website. What that's all about is that these amendments recognise that there are some matters and some species that cannot be appropriately compensated through financial contributions to that restoration fund. That's what we're doing.

Regarding the point around critically endangered species, I recognise that it is not easy to offset significant impacts on critically endangered species. In the short time I've been the minister, these are some of the most difficult decisions that you need to make around whether a project that is going to have a significant impact on critically endangered species can be offset. I'm sure there would be occasions where it's simply not possible to find an offset, whether that be in the traditional way of finding an offset, a like-for-like offset. I'm sure that will be difficult, at times, to do through this new fund as well, but that's not to say it can't be done.

One example that I've dealt with—and I know it's a project that not everyone in this chamber supports—is the Robbins Island wind farm in Tasmania. It is a large wind farm that will produce enormous amounts of clean energy, not only for Tasmania but also for the mainland, to be transported through Marinus Link. One of the concerns that many in the community have had about that project is its potential impact on the orange-bellied parrot, which is a critically endangered species. It would appear, from recent data monitoring, that there has been some recovery in the numbers of that species—nowhere near as much as we want—but it's still a critically endangered species. One of the decisions that I had to make was whether that project and any impacts that it may have on that species could be offset. Again, there would be people in this chamber who say that can't be done, but the evidence that I reviewed in making that decision persuaded me that those impacts could be offset in certain ways.

For example, we have required the proponent in that case to make financial contributions toward captive breeding programs, which are very successful in helping recover the number of particular threatened species. Those sorts of programs don't always work, but much of the time they do. We've seen them work quite successfully with other critically endangered species. Also, for that case, as I recall, there were conditions attached to the approval of that project that required the preservation of habitat for that critically endangered species, again, to give it the best chance of not just surviving but growing and recovering. Of course, there were a whole range of other conditions attached to that project which were all designed to reduce the impacts on that and other threatened species. The point is that, in my view, based on good scientific evidence, it can be possible—not always, but it can be possible—to offset the significant impacts on a critically endangered species.

I think that addresses your first question. The second question regarded net gain. Can you just remind me exactly what the question was?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Minister. It was: in what circumstances will the regulations prescribe or the minister be satisfied that a net gain has been achieved? How will net gain be determined?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Pocock. I'll provide a little bit of background to begin with. Again, I may have said this in the earlier committee stage today. One of the really important changes to this legislation which were recommended by Professor Samuel was to state in law for the first time that project proponents would be required to avoid and mitigate their environmental impacts before moving straight to offsets and that, where environmental offsets were to be delivered, they had to produce a net gain for the environment. I think I was just saying before that that's an improvement, from an environmental perspective, on the current test, which requires no net loss to the environment. Of course, what we're talking about there is offsetting residual significant impacts after those impacts have been avoided or mitigated.

The net gain test will apply when the minister of the day considers whether to approve an action that has an residual significant impact on a protected matter, considering any conditions attached to an approval, and it will also apply to accredited arrangements and landscape-scale approaches, such as regional plans. The net gain test requires that any residual significant impacts to a protected matter be fully compensated and have an increase or improvement to that matter to achieve a net gain. This helps address environmental decline by ensuring that offsets do more than just deliver no net loss and improve the viability of protected matters. To give you an example, if a development project removes 20 hectares of habitat for a threatened species but delivers more than 20 hectares of equivalent or higher-quality habitat elsewhere, then we would consider that to be a net gain for the species.

We're not proposing to define in the act the amount of net gain required for a protected matter. As I've undertaken consultation on this over the last few months, there are definitely some groups that would like us to specify, for example, a percentage increase in environmental terms as what we would mean by 'net gain', but our judgement was that it wasn't necessary to do that. What was necessary to do was to insert the requirement that there is a net gain for the environment, and that in itself is an improvement in environmental terms compared to the current legislation. So, instead of doing that, instead of defining the term 'net gain' in the act, the minister will be able to prescribe requirements relating to net gain or offsets in the regulations. The regulations will contain detailed requirements for the net gain test and exemptions to the net gain test for certain protected matters and prescribe the amount of net gain required for a particular protected matter.

Again, I think I made the point earlier today, Senator Pocock, that we have heard from stakeholders on all sides of the debate that there is probably more that could be done to provide clarity around what would be considered 'net gain', and it is my intention to further clarify the department's view of what net gain is when we come to finalising the national environmental standard regarding environmental offsets. So there is more to come there. That will be fully consulted on. That will be disallowable by the Senate, as will every other national environmental standard. So there is more we can do in this space as well.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some questions around the continuous use exemption, Minister. After the Samuel review, when your government embarked on this journey years ago, I asked in Senate estimates whether the government would consider looking at shark nets being removed from continuous use exemptions—I'll wait.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I think—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's alright. I can wait.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's alright, Minister. You've had a long few days. I understand.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know you were talking about shark nets.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly. I was just outlining something I've been raising for a number of years. When I first raised it, I think the department said no-one had brought this to their attention, and, of course, it wasn't in the Samuel review. But you are aware, as you've had a number of groups raise this issue with you. On the record today, for those groups who are obviously very disappointed that there's nothing in this package today to remove shark nets from continuous use exemptions or a pathway forward on how to do that, could you explain whether the government has looked at this and why there was no concession made on this? You've obviously made concessions, which we're very grateful for, on land clearing, the Great Barrier Reef catchment and critical vegetation, but these nets have been weapons of mass destruction off our coastline now for many, many decades. They are exempt from federal environment laws.

The Senate did recommend, back in 2016, that the government review this and have a very important role to play in providing information—which could be provided through Environmental Information Australia, for example—on the impacts on protected and threatened species, target sharks and non-target sharks. Why didn't your government consider removing the exemption or, at least, reviewing the exemption with this once-in-a-generation reform? What have you got to say to those Australians who are very disappointed that this is not in the bill?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that this has been something that Senator Whish-Wilson has advocated for, for a very long time, and I know that's based on a very sincere belief. In some respects, you've answered your question by pointing out that this was not a recommendation of the Samuel review. While I'm not going to pretend that we've delivered every single recommendation in the Samuel review—although we've delivered the absolute vast majority of them—and while I wouldn't want to pretend that we haven't done additional things beyond the Samuel review recommendations, delivering those recommendations has absolutely been our priority in this reform package. I'm sure you'd acknowledge, Senator Whish-Wilson, that even the bill that we are debating today is an incredibly comprehensive bill. There is a huge amount in it. It's much broader than any other bill this parliament has considered around the reform of these laws, and my judgement was that there were only so many things that we could do in these reforms. Simply delivering the recommendations of the Samuel review was a pretty herculean task in its own right.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to both my office and the departmental officials, who've absolutely worked their guts out over the last few months—and, in some cases, the last few years—to get us to this point. So even delivering these recommendations has been a mammoth effort from a very large team of people.

You're right, Senator Whish-Wilson. There are some groups who have advocated to remove the continuous use exemption that applies in relation to shark nets. I'm particularly thinking of the humane society, and, as I recall, the Australian Marine Conservation Society has also been quite active on that issue. There may be others that I've momentarily forgotten, but my memory is that those two have been the most vocal about this, and I welcome their contributions to these debates. But my judgement was that we needed to focus in particular on the recommendations of the Samuel review in delivering these reforms.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My summary of that summary, Minister, is that this wasn't an important enough issue for this bill. Feel free to correct me if that's not the case. Will you commit to some kind of pathway to reviewing shark nets and their exemption under these new federal laws? Is this something that you will continue to take representations from the community on? Will you seek a pathway forward to stop these shark nets from killing protected species, including endangered and critically endangered species, and federally protected cetaceans like humpback whales and dolphins?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the government has no plans to make any changes in that regard. It's better for me to not pretend that we do.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, I am proud that our parliament is passing long-awaited reforms to environmental laws here in Australia—laws that signal improvement, are better than the ones put forward by this government alone and will provide some relief to many climate campaigners across this country. I am massively grateful to my Greens colleagues in the Senate, who have shown incredible determination in their negotiations to get these concessions from the government. However, these laws still fail to address some of the greatest threats to our environment: climate-polluting corporations and the billionaires who are fuelling our changing climate.

For this vote today, I am reflecting on my recent trip to Karratha in WA's Pilbara region, a place of rich Australian history and ground zero for Woodside's Burrup Hub. Guided by elders and custodians, I got to experience our World Heritage listed Murujuga and its ancient rock art. I also saw firsthand the catastrophic impact of industry, devastating First Nations land and eroding the Murujuga rock art. I saw the uninterrupted flame of gas from the Burrup Hub, an open source pouring millions of tons of emissions into the world each year.

Following Labor's approval of the North West Shelf expansion, it is estimated that emissions from WA gas exports will reach 15 billion tonnes over their lifetime. This is what happens when we have environmental laws that don't actually protect our environment and do not consider the climate crisis. Above the safety, health and wellbeing of Australians, this government chooses the private industries who gain profit from our land and resources—the private industries who do not pay their fair share of tax, who do not support Australian communities and who do not protect our natural world. It is disappointing that this government refused to negotiate on having environmental laws that would stop new fossil fuel projects in their tracks and protect nature for years to come.

These laws presented an opportunity for strong leadership and for genuine reform for Australia's environment. I am really proud that the Greens secured significant improvements that have ensured this bill is better than our current nature laws. We have stopped the fast-track approval process for coal and gas projects so that they cannot be rushed through in 30 days. We have secured new protections for our native forests by ensuring that native forest logging projects will be assessed under the new environmental standards. We have closed land-clearing loopholes, protecting Australia's threatened wildlife and natural treasures like our Great Barrier Reef. We have saved the water trigger, which will continue to be a key tool for people fighting against fracking projects in the Kimberley.

We have a lot more work to do. We have a lot more work to do to protect the northern jarrah forests. We have a lot more work to do to save Scott Reef. We have a lot more work to do to protect our precious Kimberley from the frackers. I look forward to continuing to work every day to protect nature, to protect our forests and to ensure a safer climate future.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to make a few comments and I'll have some questions, Minister, in relation to some of the interactions within the bill. But I want to go back to some comments that you made with respect to the exemption for the RFA process in particular. I happened to be here—I think I'm the only one who was—when the RFA bill was passed. I remember quite clearly the delight of the forestry industry, because the exemption that was placed into the act, with the passing of the RFA legislation, took away the continuation of green lawfare that was imposed on the industry. With every particular harvest they wanted to undertake they had to go through a separate environmental approval process. That's why that process came about; it was because of the green lawfare of environmental groups who wanted to use that to cost the industry out of existence. That's where it came from.

You made some comments with regard to my former government leader in the Senate Robert Hill when the RFA legislation was passed—that was the background to that. I remember why. I remember the impact on industry by environmental groups, who we know don't always tell the truth. We know that because a court recently found that they actually fabricated evidence in one particular case where they were looking for an outcome. But it was done to mitigate the impact of that green lawfare.

I'm very keen to understand if the operation of the new system will continue to allow industry to operate on a reasonable basis so that they are not on a coupe by coupe basis, for example, required to come back for environmental approval. This sector already operates under an environmental standard. It's called Australian standard 4078 for sustainable forest management. I would be very curious, Minister, to understand how that standard, the Australian Forestry Standard—benchmarked globally against other forest standard systems; established through the principles of ISO 14000—will that be applied? How will industry be able to manage a reasonable process for their operations without constant interference and interruption? This will be an important part of what happens into the future.

There's a good reason why people in my home state of Tasmania don't trust the Labor Party with respect to this. I go back to Graham Richardson, I go back to Mark Latham and I go back to former minister Tony Burke. That's why I'm concerned about this. We have good reason not to trust them, and I would be very keen to have assurances and some understanding of how the industry, with the work it has already done to establish the standards under which it operates, that are benchmarked globally and that operate under scrutiny and regular auditing, can continue to operate on a sustainable basis and not be priced or costed out of the market by continuous challenges through green lawfare.

We know that's what will happen. That's the method of operation that these green groups utilise. We know that they're not always honest. Courts have found that to be the case. What guarantees do we have that the processes that they have in place will work properly with the new system and that they won't be continuously interrupted on a microbasis as a part of the way they conduct their business? All of the states, particularly the two RFA states, have good forest management systems and forest approval systems to ensure that they do comply with the Australian forestry standard. It's bemusing to think that the government is proposing that we will have to establish a new standard when we already have one.

The minister said earlier that the industry is moving more and more towards the utilisation of plantation timber. That's certainly true in the context of structural timbers. They are more cheaply grown and developed, and the way that manufactured timber works these days is that it's not just about the timber that provides the structural strength. So having enough capacity within the plantation industry is extremely important for the forest industry in this country. In fact, demand for timber in this country is projected to double by 2050. That's really important. But so too is the native forest industry. It's important to the people, the workers and the communities in my home state of Tasmania, and I know it's important in a number of others. I know that, from talking to my friends in the farming community, they are very concerned about whether their private forests will still be able to be appropriately operated. Of course, the forest standards will apply to those, so how does that work? How do our private foresters, who are operating a native forest private industry, ensure that they still have the basis of an industry to work with?

One of the things I have to say that I lament in my home state of Tasmania and that occurred in the nineties, when we were moving much more towards plantations, was the conversion of native forest to plantation. It was a very difficult period of time in my home state. When we talk about the comparison between the plantation based industry, which I know the minister accepts is important, and a native forest based industry, one of the things I now understand, having worked very closely with people in the forest industry and forest scientists in particular is that, when you compare a plantation forest with a native forest, a native forest is better for biodiversity, water quality—I know the minister is concerned about that; he's made that point a number of times during his presentations today—and carbon storage. It actually stores more carbon. It uses no chemicals. At the end of the day, it produces a higher value and higher quality product. We're sitting amongst it today. If the native forest industry folded, you wouldn't be able to build what we enjoy today in this place because the timbers would not be available.

I know that's what some in the environment movement want, but, quite frankly, that is the wrong response. It's against the science, and it's an ideological and philosophical perspective. Now, that's fine; I don't object to people having their ideology and their philosophy. But, if we're going to do this based on proper science, then the attributes that I've already listed are really important. In that context, there is a genuine case for the continuation of a strong native-forest based industry, because it's basically a natural forest based process. Are there considerations that need to be made with respect to native species, endangered species and all of those things? Absolutely, there are, but they are already built into our forestry standard. The Australian forestry standard already incorporates those things.

Minister, how do you intend to ensure that the industry has the capacity for continuous flow and not the possibility of interruption after interruption, which is basically designed to inhibit their operations? We know that that can happen, and that's why we had the exemption in the first place. Also, there's the Australian forestry standard and the chain-of-custody standard that works with it, which is also an important element, that ensure timber that is being sold in our marketplace is sourced appropriately. It's a very important piece of work, which Minister Burke started, which I continued and which has been followed since. But they're important questions— (Time expired)

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were a couple of questions there. Certainly, in terms of where you ended up around forestry certification, I am well aware, from my time as the forestry minister, of the great efforts of many foresters in Australia to meet both national and international certification when it comes to the standards they adopt. The reality, though, as I've said previously, is that the current law means that forestry that occurs under RFAs is one of the few industries where these national environmental standards and the EPBC Act do not apply. So, as I've said before, these changes are about levelling the playing field between forestry and all other industries that are subject to these laws.

As I've said already today, this is not about shutting down native forestry. There's nothing in the bill about shutting down native forestry. I challenge anyone who says it's about shutting down native forestry to show me where it says that in this legislation, because it doesn't. It's about assisting the industry to meet these new standards, to apply the same law that applies to every other industry, and we're confident that that can be done in a way that doesn't interrupt the flow that you're talking about. I'd be happy to have further discussions with you, Senator Colbeck.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I have a question about the new provisions intended to stop fossil fuel projects from being fast-tracked. I'm wondering if they extend to and include exploration activities. Could exploration activities for fossil fuels be fast-tracked under the amendments agreed to with the Greens? We know that some of the activities can be extremely damaging, particularly to water resources in relation to coal-seam gas or fracking. I visited the Pilliga a couple of times and saw some of the gas test sites that have leaked and damaged the land around them. So I'm interested in whether it will also include exploration activities.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The short answer is no, exploration activities for coal and gas projects would also be precluded from those new fast-tracking processes.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make some comments that broadly go to amendment on sheet 3511 and the bill itself, particularly given I was denied the opportunity to speak during the second reading debate.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are not being denied the opportunity to speak, Senator Canavan.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, we have been. We very much have been denied the opportunity to speak. The government continues to use gags and guillotines at a rate we've never seen before. Once again, a very complex piece of legislation is being rushed through the Senate without any necessity. There's no reason this has to be done before Christmas, and there's certainly no reason it has to be done before the sun goes down here in the ACT. We could be staying here a lot longer.

The main point I want to raise here today is that this is a bill that is going to put at risk people's jobs. We have a situation right now in our economy. Inflation is going up, unemployment is going up and interest rates are probably going to be going up in the new year, yet this government's priority this week, before Christmas, is not to try and get the economy going or to bring inflation under control but to push through a bill that puts at risk thousands of jobs in our forestry sector—thousands of union jobs, too. Good union members have now had their Christmas made a little more uncertain because this bill is going through and tearing up regional forestry agreements.

Those agreements have been in place to protect those jobs, to protect those forestry workers, and the Labor Party used to profess that they supported those jobs, that they were on side with them—until today. As with so many other industries in this country, time and time again, the Labor Party sells people's jobs down the river. They did it with the live export industry in the last term of parliament. The shearers, the truck drivers, the farmers—they were not considered by the Labor Party. They were not worthy of their protection, because they had to do a deal with the Greens and the Animal Justice Party to get preferences and be elected. And now we see the sequel in this term of parliament, where they're willing to shut down the Tasmanian forestry industry. We have Tasmanian senators who say nothing. They don't stand up for their state. This is meant to be the states' house, but they stay completely silent and just let these jobs get sold down the river again. That is exactly what is happening here.

This EPBC Act does have separate provisions for different sectors. It has them for the oil and gas sector, which are still maintained through NOPSEMA, despite this bill, and we had them for the forestry agreements as well, so that there were easier ways of managing environmental issues in industries we know a lot about—we know a lot about the risks, and we have a long history and tradition of doing forestry sustainably in this country. This government has ripped up all that experience, ripped up the record of achievement of the forestry industry, and thrown the sector to the wolves of litigators and green activists, who will now use these changes to shut down the industry by tying it up with green tape and litigation in our courts. Nothing could be more true than that, given this bill.

We then have the spectacle of a dodgy environment minister trying to tell those workers that somehow he's going to help grow their jobs. Earlier in this debate, I heard Senator Watt say: 'It's all okay. Your jobs will be fine. We're going to have a forestry growth fund. It's in the name.' That's what he said! You know it's going to be growth because we've called it 'growth'. How could it not be? It's called growth. It's like somebody from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea saying, 'Look! We're a democracy. It's in the name. Of course we're a democracy. It's called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. How dare you accuse us of being authoritarian?' When the minister was pressed—'Okay, you've called it the Forestry Growth Fund. That sounds excellent, Minister. What exactly are you going to invest in with that $300 million?'—he said, 'We're still working through the details.' He's got no idea!

We in the National Party have seen this so many times before. The government will say, 'It's okay. We're going to remove these tariffs. We're going to change these regulations. We're going to have dairy deregulation. We're going to get rid of wheat marketing. It's all good. We'll have a fund, and we'll invest in new equipment and technology.' Before you know it, the tobacco industry is no more, we lose sugar mill after sugar mill, and we're lucky to have a few hundred dairy farmers left in Queensland. All these workers aren't as gullible as you think, Minister. They're not naive. They know a spiv when they hear one, and you are being a spiv tonight, because you're gaslighting them into suggesting that somehow a $300 million fund will make up for the massive risks you've imposed on their industries and jobs today.

What we've seen here, ladies and gentlemen, is the reunion of a beautiful relationship. Do you all remember, about 15 years ago now, when Bob Brown and Julia Gillard—they had little wattles in their lapels, I remember—signed the agreement, exchanged vows and formed a Greens-Labor coalition in 2010. They agreed to have a carbon tax that we were never to have. And, today, isn't it wonderful to see such a loving couples, even though they have fallen out over the years at different times.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speak for yourselves!

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right! But I want to focus on the positives today, because we've seen this beautiful relationship return. The Labor-Green marriage is back together. They walked down the aisle. They're now a happy couple about to go on their honeymoon just before Christmas. And, in doing so, they're willing to sell out whatever Australians they need to, just like they did 15 years ago.

Ultimately, decisions and deals like this are about the government's priorities. What are their priorities for the Australian people? Clearly, the government's priority right now is to increase the amount of regulation and red tape that businesses face in this country. Their priority is to put above the protection of workers and their jobs the prosecution of green, left goals that many in the Labor Party want to pursue. The green, left wing of the Labor Party are happy. The AWU, right-wing part of the Labor Party are a little bit less happy. The government's priorities are on display on this last day before Christmas.

Our priorities on this side were always to stand up for the jobs of the hardworking men and women in this country who don't get the time to go on marchers and protests or spend their whole lives on social media, making comments and demanding more legislation and laws. They're too busy right now trying to balance their budgets and too tired at the end of their day after working in the sun, getting dirty and hot, to be the activists that the Labor Party seems so close to now. Those people are just forgotten about. They're totally ignored and forgotten about by this Labor-Green cabal. But, like many instances following a conjugation of a Labor-Green relationship, eventually those people—those workers—wake up. They find out the deals that have been done behind their backs, that their jobs are now at risk and that sometimes they get the pink slip and no longer have a job. When that happens, there will be a backlash. Those people will have more time then to be on social media, and they will find out that, despite the Labor Party having Labor in their name—like the minister says, it's in the name—they don't represent workers, people who have to labour for their livelihood. They don't represent them at all. They're just like the democratic republic of Korea. They're not a democracy. They're not a labour party. They're now a greens party using the costume of a once-proud workers' party to try and defraud the working people of the Australian population that, somehow, they're on their side. They're not.

This week and today just underline that with a big red pen. They are willing to do a deal with the very people that want to sign the death warrant on the forestry industry. Make no mistake about it. The Greens political party want to end the native forestry industry. It is a stated goal of them, and the Labor Party are dealing with them and signing up with them. Ultimately, you can judge somebody by the company they keep, and the Labor Party are keeping company with people who want to shut down industry and put thousands of Australians out of work. That's why we're fighting. I'm always proud to stand up and fight for the workers of this nation. I'm proud that we won't be supporting this rubbish. One day we'll fight to make sure we have this corrected and that we once again protect the vibrant, sustainable Australian forestry industry.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a short statement; I'm not intending to ask the minister a question. It's been very difficult this afternoon to make a proper assessment of the Greens amendments, as they are still being tabled in the afternoon. So, for many of those, it's very difficult to vote for them, although they may have tremendous merit.

In my view, nature should be at the centre of all decision-making, and I'd like to think the Environment Reform Bill 2025 and related bills are an evolution to that. I don't think they get there, and I also do not believe that nature, in this bill, has a sufficient voice. The regulator may play a role in that, but I do think we need to have a paradigm shift in the way we structure our environmental protection laws—less binary about development and nature and more of a structure that can drive more sustainable development that lives in harmony with nature.

I appreciate the minister's kind comments on the Hon. Robert Hill. He saved me asking him a question, because I was going to ask whether the bill accommodates Robert Hill's submission, which I think was one of the more insightful submissions. I hold him in the highest regard, being a South Australian, and I would suspect that when he reviews the bill, if he has enough time, he will be well pleased with some of the work that you and your staff have done.

To those that may not forgive me for voting for some of the Greens amendments, I say it is too late to make a proper decision as a parliamentarian, and I may well abstain.

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make a short statement; I don't have questions. Today the Greens have announced that we will support the Environment Reform Bill 2025 and related bills, having achieved significant amendments for new protections for our native forests and excluding coal and gas from fast-tracking. We've negotiated significant wins, but we know it's nowhere near enough. This package, however, is better than the status quo—considerably better than the status quo—and it's a whole lot better than it would have been if negotiated with the climate deniers on the other side of this chamber.

Labor's first draft was a wish list for corporate environmental destruction. It would have gutted our environment laws, given corporations the green light for new coal and gas projects with just a 30-day approval process, and introduced new loopholes to an already very weak act. Instead, Greens pressure made this bill better than the weak laws we have and infinitely better than if the government had done that deal with the climate deniers in the coalition.

While Labor had clearly hoped to pass a bill on behalf of big corporations, the Greens held firm during negotiations on protections for nature, boosted by community opposition to a bill that took us backwards. We won outcomes that forest campaigners have fought for across this country for decades—not enough, but a significant step in the right direction to begin the proper protection of our native forests—and we made it harder for big corporations to keep wrecking nature—our beautiful forests and all the creatures who live in them. We have ended an outrageous legal carve-out for logging that's resulted in devastation of our forests and threatened the habitats of our species that are at risk. We've fought for and won the removal of the ability of coal and gas projects to use fast-tracked approvals or the national interest loophole—such important wins. We've fought for and won the protection of the water trigger.

We said from the start the Greens wouldn't accept a bill that would take nature backwards and we would fight to protect forests and nature. Millions of Australians who voted for the Greens and put us here didn't put us here to lead our vote backwards and weaken the protection of nature. We've won protections that go forward, and that is our job. We stand on the activities and activism of thousands of Australians who have put us here to make that fight. We know that our beautiful native forests and bushland, which protect our wildlife and biodiversity, are essential to fighting off the pollution of fossil fuels. It's only possible because there were Greens in the parliament to fight for our planet.

You know this is a good outcome when you're angering all the right people. The Minerals Council of Australia has called this 'an inferior and disappointing outcome'. The Business Council called it 'a missed opportunity', and the Liberals are in hysterics. Meanwhile, environment groups have backed in our improvements. Greenpeace have said this is 'a significant improvement on the broken laws that have for too long failed to deliver credible environment protection'. Climate Council said:

This deal strengthens protections for our native forests, and provides a faster yes to responsible renewable energy projects that cut climate pollution.

The Bob Brown Foundation has acknowledged the hard work of the Greens in making important gains, especially taking Australia a step further towards saving a forest and woodland habitats of threatened species. The Australian Conservation Foundation called this 'a historic step for nature', with our forests 'finally covered by national law' for the first time.

Despite these significant wins for nature however, we know there's a lot more to be done. Despite huge public support, Labor has repeatedly refused to support a climate trigger. This failure prevents the environment minister from considering climate damage when approving projects. How absurd. What a disaster. What a shocking weakness in the face of all the science that's telling us the climate crisis is coming at us harder and faster than previously predicted. As Bob Brown recently said:

Having an Environment Minister who can't act on the greatest threat to our environment and ourselves, which is climate change, is like a Treasurer who has no power over tax.

It makes no sense. Labor's refusal to take meaningful climate action shows that the coal-and-gas lobby still have way too much influence on both major parties in this place.

Take today's emissions projections report, prepared by the climate department, for example. It clearly shows that the current absence of climate policies has Australia on track to reach just a 48 per cent reduction by 2035, nowhere near the government's 62 per cent target. Forty-eight per cent is a country mile away from the 62 per cent emissions reduction that Labor promised. We know that Labor will fall significantly short of even its 2030 target without stronger action. These are diabolical pollution numbers that suggest we are on track for cataclysmic climate change. The numbers in this report show Australia is nowhere near meeting our supposed climate targets for pollution reduction, which is directly thanks to decisions like Labor's approval of the North West Shelf gas project within two weeks of being elected this year. Labor must stop approving new coal and gas. It should also build on the momentum of the EPBC agreement today and immediately move to end all native forest logging to help hit the 2030 target.

In the face of so much climate inaction from this government, I'm delighted to be joining Rising Tide in Newcastle for the third time tomorrow and to paddle out into the beautiful Hunter River to protest our export of coal. The show of solidarity of hundreds of South Australians will be joining that of so many other Australians from around the country at Newcastle's Rising Tide. It's a powerful protest against fossil fuels and the damage they are doing to our world. It is time to end new coal and gas. We see the effects of not having done so everywhere around our planet, including and not least in my own state, South Australia. Like so many South Australians, I grieved the loss and damage caused by the harmful algae bloom that's unfolding in front of our eyes on our beautiful beaches, with thousands of dead fish and no sign of abatement, a crisis that continues and, in some places, is getting worse. Scientists have warned us for years: fossil fuels are driving the climate crisis, and this ocean warming is risking our beautiful marine life, our food systems and our beaches. Labor can throw money at cleaning up climate disasters, but, as long as the government keeps opening up coal and gas, we'll keep seeing climate disasters like the algae bloom crisis in South Australia.

The show of solidarity at Rising Tide speaks for itself. Australians are fed up with the major parties' commitment to fossil fuels. There will be kids, parents, grandparents, coalminers and Novocastrians who know the need for transition, have seen it before and know that they're facing another one, busloads of South Australians. We'll be protesting for our future, for the future of all of us and for the future of all the kids to come.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 5 pm, the time allotted for consideration of the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills, as well as nine other bills, is expired.