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

I want to go back to one of the points that I was making about the reason why the exemption came in in the first place, which goes to the issue of the continuous flow of legal action and appeal against the forest industry, which is why we moved to the RFA model in the first place. I'm curious to understand the standing provisions and how the government intends to manage the situation under the new act so that the forest industry doesn't have to suffer a return to the process of continuous challenge to operations, which is basically a mechanism to disrupt. I suspect that the reason the Greens are supporting this legislation is that they know they're going to be able to go back to this continuous cycle of challenge to the industry. How does the government intend to manage that process?

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

Sorry, Senator Colbeck. Would you mind repeating the very last part, including the direct question?

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

My question is: how do you intend to manage the standing provisions within the act, which I know the Samuel review indicated should be expanded, which is of concern? As I indicated in my previous contribution, we already know that environmental groups don't always tell the truth. I go back to 1981, when the Wilderness Society were opposing the construction of coal-fired power stations in Tasmania, rather than renewable energy, and there's the recent action where a court found that one of the environmental groups was actually fabricating evidence against a proposal so that legal action could delay or stop the proposal.

My genuine concern is that that process will return with the removal of the exemption and that the forest industry will be killed off by a thousand cuts through that process. You'll say that that wasn't your doing. My view is that the removal of the exemption is what does it. How do you intend to ensure that the industry isn't subjected to a continuous flow of legal actions, which will effectively make it very difficult if not impossible to operate?

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

I apologise; I didn't hear your question the first time you asked it. Your question goes to the point around standing to sue, essentially, and there are no changes and no expansions of standing to sue in this legislation. In fact, I think I'm right in saying that Professor Samuel's review did not recommend an expansion of standing to sue. That is the key reason why we haven't done so. There's no extension of standing to sue. This is not a point around standing, but, on the general topic around the ability to appeal decisions under the EPBC, one change that we have made—I doubt that this is relevant to regional forest agreements—as you may be aware, is that under the act there's the ability for certain parties and certain individuals to seek a reconsideration of a decision as to whether a project is a controlled action or not. Currently, under the existing law, those sorts of applications for a reconsideration decision can be made in perpetuity. It's not uncommon for us to see applications seeking reconsiderations of much earlier decisions—that a project was not a controlled action. In fact, you will remember the Macquarie Harbour situation, where that's exactly what occurred.

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

You might remember my private member's bill to get over it.

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

I do. What we have done in these amendments is to limit the timeframe for someone to seek a reconsideration of an earlier, not-controlled-action decision. It will be limited to 28 days from the point at which the not-controlled-action decision is made. That simply brings the time period for those kinds of applications in line with the usual judicial review timeframes that exist across government legislation.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the context of this debate, I just wanted to first say what an extraordinary job Minister Watt has done. I acknowledge the work that he, Senator Waters and Senator Hanson-Young have engaged in to achieve this legislation, which is important for the country. I want to express disappointment that the opposition was not able to participate in negotiations in the way that we would have hoped from a party of government. Also, because I need to put it on the Hansard, I indicate to the chamber that I'm not able to be here from 6.30 pm, and so I appoint Senator Gallagher as Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate from 6.30 tonight.

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

Minister, I've got a few questions about the rulings power. I might put two questions to you, if that's alright.

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

Yes.

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

Are rulings intended to be limited by the rest of the act? For example, do they have to be consistent with the objects of the act? Secondly, will the government commit to the rulings power under these reforms being only used to ensure improved environmental protection outcomes so that the public can be confident that it won't be used in any nefarious way by future ministers?

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

Thanks, Senator Pocock. I think we had a discussion earlier about rulings, and again that was one of Professor Samuel's recommendations. It's similar in nature to the tax rulings that the tax office can provide to aid interpretation of the tax act. It's a similar principle here. The purpose of this new power that ministers will have to issue rulings is to aid interpretation of sections in this act. One of the reasons for doing so is to provide all interested parties with a clearer sense of what sorts of decisions are likely to be made.

To answer your questions, yes, any rulings would need to be consistent with the objects of the act. Secondly, I don't think it's really possible to give a commitment that rulings will only improve environmental outcomes or reduce environmental outcomes. I wouldn't think of the rulings as taking a side on these sorts of issues. What they are simply about is providing the minister's interpretation of how the law should be applied.

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

Can you confirm that rulings were not recommended by Professor Samuel in his review of the act? Why are they contained in this package?

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

I'm sorry, Senator Pocock, I may have inadvertently misled you in my previous answer. I was of the understanding that Professor Samuel did recommend rulings in his review. I can see him up there, and he probably knows better than me. What I'm advised is that it wasn't in his review that he recommended rulings; he subsequently spoke of, including at the Senate committee inquiry, the benefit of rulings.

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

I have some questions about the national interest proposal pathway. Looking at the drafting, I'm interested in knowing what is envisaged to be the sort of information that is so confidential that it couldn't be included in the requisite reasons for a declaration that a proposal is in the national interest.

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

There has obviously been a lot of public interest in the provision in the bill that has become known as the national interest approval power. What this involves is rare situations where, in the national interest, the minister of the day decides that it is in the national interest to approve a project despite it not meeting the usual national environmental standards. That is a dramatic thing to do; I recognise that. That's why it is limited to national interest circumstances and we have said that it should be rarely used.

I would say that any decision to approve such a project in the national interest would only occur after a full assessment of the project under the EPBC Act and following the usual public consultation requirements that are undertaken during an assessment, and proponents would be required to reduce the impacts of their project. It's not a complete carte blanche of: 'Just go and do whatever you want.' It involves assessment, consultation, 'reduce your impacts' and 'avoid your impacts', but it preserves a power for an elected government and an elected minister to make that rare decision to approve a project even if it doesn't meet the national environmental standards.

The examples that were provided in the legislation related particularly to Defence and national security projects. I haven't got a particular project in mind, but you could imagine that there may be a time in the future, in a wartime situation, where a particular naval base or other Defence Force facility may need to be built urgently in a particular location that may have some environmental impacts and would not ordinarily receive an approval, because of those levels of impact and because it didn't meet the standards. But it may be in that type of situation that the minister of the day decides, notwithstanding that there will be significant environmental impacts and after whatever avoidance or mitigation of those impacts is undertaken, that it may still be in the national interest to approve that project going ahead if, for example, it was required for the conduct of operations in a wartime environment.

One of the other, if you like, safeguards or transparency measures associated with this power is that the minister is required to provide a statement of reasons or an explanation of the basis of their decision. However, as you pointed out, there are circumstances—which, again, are linked back to the national interest—where the minister may not be required to provide such a statement of explanation. To keep going with that analogy that I was providing you, it may be that, in a wartime environment, it's not a very good idea for a minister to put out in public, for all people and all countries to see, the full details relating to that project. They would be the sorts of circumstances that I can think of—perish the thought that we ever get to that—where a minister might not only decide it is in the national interest to approve that sort of project but also decide it's not in the national interest to publish their reasons in full and information about the kinds of environmental impacts that the project might have.

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

As you said, this national interest exemption is a dramatic thing, and I think that the example that you've given is probably the most extreme that most Australians could think up. I think most Australians would accept the wartime explanation, but the definition of national interest under the act is actually very broad. It includes things like strategic interest and international obligations. So I'm interested in what certainty this gives nature and business on the types of situations that would give rise to the national interest. Could you say a little bit more. If it isn't wartime, what are the reasons to not tell us the reasons and to say, 'This is so confidential that we can't tell Australians.'

I'll ask another question so we can get through them quicker. You go through the process as you've outlined, but then the government says: 'This is actually in the national interest. We need to do it.' Does that damage then also have to be offset, or do you just get a free pass on offsetting?

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

I think the short answer is that it depends on the situation. We've already acknowledged, and it's inherent in this power, that the type of project we're talking about would not meet national environmental standards, including standards relating to offsets. That's why, as I've said repeatedly, we would expect this power to be used rarely—only where it is in the national interest—with the minister in usual circumstances providing a statement explaining the basis of that decision. Another example of where you might not want to provide that sort of transparent statement might be that you may not want to specify the location of that particular facility for national interest, wartime or national security reasons. But we intend that it be used rarely and only in circumstances where it's clearly in the national interest to do so.

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

On my second question, would the government, Defence or whoever the proponent is then have to 'pay to destroy'? Would they have to pay into the fund as well?

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

It is entirely possible that in that situation a proponent could be required to pay into a restoration fund. That can absolutely be done.

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

Sorry, Minister—'could' or 'would'? We're getting to the point where they've gone through all the steps. It can't be avoided. You're giving them the green light, and then you're saying that they could pay into the fund? Surely this has been clarified.

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

The answer is 'could', because, as we've said earlier today, offsets can be delivered either by the proponent finding the offsets—in terms of the land that they might buy, maintain or regenerate—or equally, in certain circumstances, by the proponent being able to deliver their offsets requirement through financial contributions to that restoration fund. It's impossible to predict here and now whether a particular project would be required to meet 100 per cent of its offsets obligation or where it might be 90 per cent or 80 per cent. But absolutely it is entirely possible for those sorts of projects to contribute to that fund.

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

Minister, I think I've misasked the question. If the proponent can't find offsets, the last resort is paying into the fund. I just want to confirm that, if they can't find any offsets, they will then, even if it's for defence or national security, still have to pay into the fund so that we can get some sort of offset or net gain.

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

Again, because it is a national interest approval that doesn't comply fully with the National Environmental Standards, all I can say is that that project could be required to contribute to the fund, and the amount that is contributed will depend on the individual case.

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

Minister, I guess, for people listening, that would probably raise concerns. It's a bit like saying, 'If you're a person or a business, you can't cut down a tree, but, if we're the government, we can cut down the tree, because we're the government.' I would have expected that there would be similar rules. Regardless of who is actually destroying nature, nature is being destroyed. But I accept your answer there, and we'll try to look at the detail.

Just on the EPA, we look at compliance with existing EPBC laws, and we know that everything rests on these laws actually being upheld. We've seen a number of breaches of our federal environmental laws, and I really welcome your work on increasing penalties, setting up an EPA and ensuring that there is more compliance. But I would be interested if you could maybe tell the Senate about resourcing and give us a commitment that the EPA will be sufficiently resourced to ensure that it can undertake that function.

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

Thanks, Senator Pocock. We the government, and we the members of the Labor Party, have really held up the creation of the National Environmental Protection Agency as one of the most important aspects of this reform. It's a historic achievement in its own right, and the point of it is to strengthen the compliance and enforcement activities regarding environmental law, in addition to other roles that the federal EPA will have, including providing advice to a minister about whether or not to approve a project and including the assessment of projects which will be undertaken by an EPA.

We have begun the work around the implementation of these reforms. Of course, our highest priority has been finalising the drafting of this legislation and getting it through the parliament, but I've already mentioned that we've begun work on things that, frankly, we weren't required to do in order to get this law passed, such as starting the drafting of standards, and we've also begun the work around implementation of the reforms, with some early thinking being done about the structure and resourcing of an EPA. I'm not going to pretend that we've got that all solved yet. The new EPA won't start until 1 July next year, so there remains time to finalise that thinking, finalise resourcing and finalise the structure. But, certainly, that work has commenced.

It may well be that there are new resources required for the national EPA to undertake some of its activities, but equally I would expect that some of its resources would be found through savings generated in the department in the sense that some of the roles that will be performed by the national EPA are currently performed by officials in the department. It's reasonable to expect that some, many, most—whatever it might end up being—of those officials currently in the department would move across to the EPA. It's not as if it needs to be set up as if it has no staff; there would be staff who would move across. But it's quite possible there may need to be new resources—and, unfortunately, the finance minister is no longer in the chamber for me to prosecute my case about that. I'll do that offline.

We agree with your broader point about the need for active compliance and enforcement of these laws. That is actually one of the motivations for setting up the national EPA in the first place.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a few questions, if I may, quickly. I'm putting my emergency management hat on and then my forestry hat. I think there are a lot of outcomes we all share. It's just that the methods in getting to them may be different. I understand that hazard reduction burns and preparatory burns are not affected by this legislation—can you confirm that?

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

The short answer to your question is that there is nothing in these laws that prevents hazard reduction burns. However, if a hazard reduction burn would have a significant impact on a nationally protected environmental matter, such as a threatened species—any activity that is likely to have a significant impact on a nationally protected matter requires EPBC assessment and approval. A hazard reduction burn may fall into that category. It doesn't mean that can't occur, but it means that, if someone wanted to do that hazard burn and it was going to have that impact, they would need to go through an EPBC assessment and approval.

There are a couple of ways to shortcut that process. Having been in that portfolio, I know that these things get done every year but often at fairly short notice. It's dependent on what the weather is like at any particular point in time. The first step in getting those sorts of burns approved would obviously be to try and avoid those significant impacts on particular species. But, if that couldn't be done, then there is an existing provision in the act that goes to national interest exemptions from the act.

That's a little bit different from what we were talking about with Senator Pocock. He was asking about the national interest approval of an individual project, which, as I was saying, still needs to go through EPBC assessment, consultation et cetera. A national interest exemption is slightly different in that it provides an entire exemption from the act. It doesn't need to go through the assessment and approval process. I, in fact, granted one of them not that long ago in relation to remediation works following a natural disaster, which urgently needed to be done. If that had had to go through the usual EPBC process, that could have taken a very long time. This work needed to be done quickly. So I was able to grant an exemption from the act to allow that work to occur.

So even under the existing law it's possible to seek an exemption from the act—I guess it would most likely be a state government—if they could demonstrate that that activity were in the national interest. So that's one pathway where it could be approved more quickly than going through the usual processes.

You would have heard me talk about some of the new fast-tracking processes or streamlined assessment processes. At least one of those pathways could be used for this kind of activity as well. In fact, we are already in discussion with the Victorian government around some of these issues through a process which is known as a strategic assessment which, effectively, is a way of trying to in-build processes to allow for quicker approvals of these types of activities. So it's still paying attention to the standards that are needed, the need to avoid impacts, but trying to allow these kinds of decisions to happen more quickly while still not destroying the environment.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The specific perverse outcomes I want to get to are like the case of Pilliga. Pilliga had a population of, I think, 15,000 koalas. It had river gums and ironbarks, and it also had logging in it, with cypress. It was locked up, the fuel load increased, and there were fires in 2017-18. The recovery saw the non-native species overtake the gums and the koala habitat. The population is now estimated to be somewhere in the low hundreds—50 to 200. Under these EPBC acts, if they have to go through approvals, is the consequence of not acting taken into account for back burns for management for thinning in these cases?

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

What we're trying to do here is find ways—and we'll work with proponents, whether they be state governments or individual companies—for their activities to avoid those sorts of significant impacts on the environment. I think, in direct answer to the question, I'm not so sure that the government, in making this decision, would consider what risks arise from not allowing an activity to happen, such as a hazard reduction burn. There are obviously criteria within the act that need to be considered when deciding whether to approve something, whether it happens or not. That's what the decisions are always based on. In this situation, one way you might be able to do that is to come to an agreement that there'd be more regular but smaller and less intense burns that may not have as dramatic an impact on threatened species as if you did one really big one. So there are ways around these things.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two questions regarding forestry and the $300 million package. I've had communications from people not knowing what that is for or what that is about. I know it's new. Will there be an education program where things go out relatively quickly on that? If so, can you enlighten us as to what it may cover, what it may not cover and when we might expect some education?

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

Sure. It sounded like you were asking if there would be education and information about the fund, in particular. We've only just announced the Forestry Growth Fund today. I heard Senator Canavan making fun of the fact that we are saying that we will work with industry, unions and governments to design the fund, as if it's a bad thing that, in designing a fund, you would actually talk to the people affected.

What we've attempted to do today is to announce the dollar figures—$300 million—and the types of things that we would see those funds being used for, and we've said we want to work with all the interested stakeholders on the proper design and determine the very best use of those funds. As I've said before, it's actually about supporting the forestry industry to grow—to move up the value chain, to produce higher-quality, higher-value products, and therefore to ensure that the jobs in the industry don't just stay but grow, going forward. That's really broadly what it's about.

In the hours since this was announced, both the forestry minister, Julie Collins, and I have undertaken a fairly brief but important meeting with a number of industry players about the changes that we're making and about the fund. We also did take the opportunity to point out to them that certain coalition members have—I'm not sure whether you've done this, Senator Cadell, but certain coalition members have—misrepresented what we're doing here, so we took the opportunity to make very clear what we are doing and what we are not doing, despite what some people might be saying. Clearly we will need not only to develop this fund—exactly what it can be used for, who's eligible, when the payments are available and that kind of thing—but also to inform people about that fund. It was only announced at eight this morning, so we'll need a little more time than that to get the information out to people.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Finally, this is about the information and misinformation. There isn't a lot of certainty out there. Here's a text we've had from a player today: 'There's been no communication with us before making the announcement today. As a family business that has been involved in hardwood native forestry for at least four generations, we are devastated by this decision. The three-year timeframe'—and now I think it's an 18-month timeframe, but there's still that misinformation on time—'doesn't allow for the time it takes to grow hardwood trees in plantation of 30 to 50 years. We use a variety of timber species from native forests that cannot be successfully grown in plantation forests. We have to re-evaluate our business as to whether it's worth continuing in the industry.' What education or dissemination program will be there so that these people can make judgements, which they are seeking to do in a very short time?

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

Senator Cadell, it's a reasonable concern for people. They want to understand what this government policy means. Again, I'm not accusing you, personally, of doing this, but one thing that would really help would be for people to resist the temptation to go out and misrepresent to people what these changes are. We've seen, over the course of the day, members of the coalition, state and federal, and also members of the Greens party, state and federal, suggest that what we're doing here is closing down native forestry, or that this is another step towards native forestry, which it's not. So it would really help, in terms of not alarming people unnecessarily, if people didn't go out and misrepresent the situation.

One of the statements that Minister Collins and I made in that briefing of industry players earlier today was that we recognise that people want more information, and I get that. Over the course of the next few days and weeks, we will be providing further briefings to industry generally, including to unions that represent the workers in those industries.

I will say, there have been some discussions, over the course of this consultation process for these laws, about what, if anything, we should do regarding RFAs, given the recommendations Professor Samuel made. You know, we haven't just dreamt this stuff up. There are two clear recommendations in Professor Samuel's review that we're implementing. People might like them, and people might not like them, but the recommendations are there. Clearly, day one is not the day that you give everyone every bit of information, because people need a bit of time to absorb it, think about it and have that information provided. But, absolutely, we will be doing that.

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

Minister, I've got a few questions about unacceptable impacts, and this was something that came up in the Senate committee process, and I think there were some questions on notice to a few of the witnesses. Could you confirm that the precautionary principle will apply to the interpretation of the new 'unacceptable impacts' test being introduced in the act? In other words, where there's credible evidence that a proposed action may cause serious or irreversible harm to matters of national environmental significance, but there's scientific uncertainty, will the government ensure decision-makers are required to err on the side of environmental protection rather than wait for absolute proof of damage?

If something is likely to increase the risk of extinction, but we just don't have the data on that—noting that one of the big challenges in Australia is that we haven't put enough resources over decades into monitoring. Here in the ACT, we've been doing once-a-decade small mammal surveys. If you look at the surveys, there were antechinus and dunnarts and all these small marsupials in 1985, but when we did the surveys in 1994, they were gone. We have no idea what happened there. There is not enough data to be able to make good projections. So I'm interested if you can confirm whether the precautionary principle will apply.

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

Yes it will, Senator Pocock.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm interested in the planning aspects of this bill. Obviously, planning is central to both the existing act and the new act. Minister, what are the benefits of landscape-scale assessment rather than project-by-project assessment? How do the current reforms differ from the existing regulations?

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

Thanks, Senator Ghosh, for this question. Can I put on record my extreme gratitude to Senator Ghosh, as the Chair of the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, for so ably steering the inquiry into this bill to date. While I'm at it, I thank all senators, regardless of party, who've contributed and participated in this process. I recognise that these reforms and the legislation behind them are complicated, contentious and far-reaching in their effect, and I really do appreciate the immense amount of work that senators have put in over the last few weeks since the bill was introduced in the House, conducting an inquiry and providing an opportunity for a very broad range of stakeholders to be heard as to their opinion on the legislation. I note that the submissions made to that inquiry, both written and verbal, have very much influenced the government's thinking in terms of the amendments that have been provided and inserted here. Again, I really do thank all the senators, including Senator Grogan, who sits behind me, for the work they did on that inquiry.

In answer your question, Senator Ghosh, one of the reforms that we're driving through this legislation is to enable what are referred to as landscape-scale assessments. This particularly comes up in the context of regional planning, which is, again, something we're reforming in this legislation to make better use of it. What regional planning really comes down to is—the way I describe the usual situation is that an individual project might be seeking approval, might be assessed for its individual impacts and might have to find its own environmental offsets, and every project is assessed in its own right.

One of the downsides of doing things that way—there are a few—is that, first of all, we don't make use of the information that is provided by proponents and considered by assessors to think about what the impact of that particular project might be in a local landscape or local region in combination with other development that are occurring. While one individual project in its own right might not have a particularly significant impact on nationally protected matters, if you put together that individual project with the five others that are planned for the next couple of years in the same area, that could have a very dramatic impact on the environment in that local area. But because at the moment the system operates in a way that considers every individual project in its own right, that might mean that you're not considering the cumulative impacts on the environment of all of those projects put together.

To get back to regional planning, that is an alternative way of considering and approving projects that does take into account that cumulative impact of a combination of projects on the environment. Through the regional planning mechanism that we want to be using a lot more often, and will be able to as a result of these reforms, that will mean we can work with state governments, local governments, local communities, local industries, local scientists, local environment groups to nominate, first of all, with a state government a particular region where we want to do a regional plan. We can then work with all of those different parties and include community consultation around where, within that region, the areas are that have very high environmental values and so where we shouldn't be approving developments—what I call no-go zones—and, equally, what are the areas within that same region where the environmental values are quite low and where development could happen. And not just happen, but be approved much more quickly because we've already assessed what the environmental value of that part of the region is.

Of course there are a lot of other areas that are in between, that aren't necessarily a go zone or a no-go zone, and they're the sorts of areas where development might be able to occur with offsets in that region in order to gain an approval. That process allows us to think about the landscape in that region as a whole, rather than that one-off individual project impact, and to think about the cumulative impacts of several projects in a region. It allows us to consider what the environmental impacts of what those several projects might be when considering whether they should be approved, and when considering whether there are areas within that region where that combination of developments could go ahead without causing massive damage to the environment.

It's an alternative way of thinking about environmental impacts and planning. You'll think about where can you have a combination of projects happening that will be okay because we've already done the work upfront to identify that there are limited impacts in that area. Or where are the areas where one project in its own right might not be a problem, but a combination of projects might be a real problem. So it's a different way of approaching this, and I think it will be a really exciting way to approach these issues in the future.

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

Minister, I will put two questions to you. The first one is on recovery plans. As I understand it, looking at the legislation, recovery plans can now be overridden by protection statements. I'm interested in what is behind the desire to undermine recovery plans. As I understand it, recovery plans are the most robust document for helping a threatened species to recover.

Secondly, maybe just to assist the committee—I know Senator McKim would like to make a second reading debate speech—on no controlled action decisions, the reforms shorten the time frame for public interest consideration of no controlled action decisions to 28 days. Given we know that science is constantly changing and our understanding of ecosystems is constantly changing, does this 28 days not prevent the minister from considering good science after that period?

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

Thanks, Senator Pocock. I will deal with your second question first. We have made a change around the length of time someone can seek a reconsideration of a controlled action decision. As I was saying before, that really just brings that timeframe into line with the usual length of time that someone can apply for judicial review of a government decision for. I think the way you asked the question, Senator Pocock, implied that we were limiting the timeframe that people had to seek reconsideration of a not-controlled-action decision. We haven't done that. The change is to controlled-action decisions.

On the first question, which was about recovery plans, the way I think about it is that it's not so much that protection statements are replacing recovery plans. We see it more as protection statements forming a subset of recovery plans. Really, the purpose of the protection statements—again, this was based on a lot of feedback not just from industry groups but from environment groups as well—is that we have these recovery plans that don't necessarily influence decision-making in the way that they should, and protection statements are effectively a way of bringing up, to aid decision-making, the information that's contained in those recovery plans. We think that that will actually lead to better decisions that really take into account some of the risks to species, as set out in recovery plans.

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

Thank you, Minister. That makes sense. Is there a provision, then, that the protection statement can't go against the recovery plan and must actually aid it?

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

I'm advised that there's not such a statement. However, there's a role for the Threatened Species Scientific Committee in providing advice on both protection statements and recovery plans. I think that, to some extent, addresses the concern you have.

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

On that—and I guess it's also linked to the species or ecosystems you said earlier that can't be offset—if the Threatened Species Scientific Committee recommends that a species or ecosystem be included on their list, does the minister have to accept that? If they don't, do they have to provide a public explanation as to why they're not taking the advice of the scientific committee to protect a species from being able to be offset?

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

Senator Pocock, rather than risk giving you the wrong answer, I might just take that one on notice and come back to you in a few minutes, once I've got some further advice.

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

I rise not so much to give a second reading contribution as to make a few observations on the legislation broadly and how we find ourselves here this evening. I'm not going to indulge in a long, personal reflection here, but my journey into politics actually began in 1986, at a place called Farmhouse Creek in Tasmania, where I was arrested sitting in front of the bulldozers that were seeking to destroy beautiful old-growth and mixed temperate forest down there, with beautiful Eucalyptus regnans, the biggest flowering plant on the planet. I was arrested down there, and my mum famously told me that my life would now never amount to anything because I'd been arrested. Looking around me today, she probably had some kind of an argument about that.

The reason I mention that is that, as an activist, forest protection has been a core part of what's driven me into politics. Farmhouse Creek was where I first met Bob Brown, and I've done my best to fight for forests and to represent the need to protect our forest ecosystems for a large part of my life. That's why today I'm really happy that legislation will pass through this place that will end the outrageous carve-out from Australia's federal environment laws that has been enjoyed by the native forest logging industry for decades in this country. It never should have been carved out that logging done under a regional forestry agreement did not have to comply. It never should have been the case that logging conducted under an RFA did not have to comply with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and I acknowledge that in the review that Professor Samuel did, he recommended that that carve-out be removed, although it was recommended for the second tranche of reforms.

Removing that carve-out is a significant step towards protecting our forests and, in particular, protecting those parts of our forests that are home to threatened species like that beautiful little bird, the swift parrot, in Tasmania and have been logged towards extinction by the Tasmanian forestry industry for many decades now. I hope that that beautiful little bird—one of the fastest parrots in the world, one of the only migratory parrots in the world—is given a fighting chance of survival by the reforms that we are passing today. It's regrettable that the government wouldn't come at a transition period of shorter than 18 months, and, frankly, I don't understand why they couldn't because there was no administrative reason that the government could not have come at a shorter transition. I can only assume that it was a political decision rather than a policy decision which led the government to dig in so obstinately on an 18-month transition.

We've been waiting for more than two decades for this, in the environment movement and in the forest movement, and I believe that it's a significant win for our forests. I also believe it will hasten the long-overdue end to the native forest logging industry in Australia. Native forest logging is an industry whose time has come, and, in fact, it is well past time that we stopped destroying our native forests in this country. Since colonisation, this land has been subjected to a 'slash and burn' regime that has devastated its ecosystems, including its forest ecosystems. It's time for that devastation to end.

We are living through the breakdown of our planet's climate system. We are living through a biodiversity catastrophe. When you have climate breakdown—and it is at crisis levels—and when you have a collapse of biodiversity—and Australia is at the forefront of that on a planetary scale—there is simply no excuse for a public policy setting that continues to ensure that our native forests are clear felled, mostly for export woodchips, and then the remnants are napalmed and burnt, releasing massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. It's time for that archaic, barbaric slaughter of nature to end.

I want to say one thing to people that work in the native forest logging industry—and, by the way, the forestry industry more broadly loves to spout numbers about how many people work in the forestry industry. But those of us that have been watching this debate—I've been in politics now, in Tasmania, for 25 years or so, and I've been watching this debate very closely. Everybody knows the overwhelming majority of forestry jobs are actually in the plantation sector, not in the native forest logging sector. Here's a little statistic for those who are interested. There are more newsagents in Tasmania than there are people that work in the native forest logging industry. But I want to say this to people that work in the industry: it is absolutely not your fault that things need to change. When circumstances change, when climate change gets worse and when the biodiversity crisis gets worse then public policy has to change, and we absolutely have to look after impacted workers as we undergo the necessary transition out of logging native forests.

I want to say to the government, in relation to the fund that they've established: that fund should be a transition fund; it must be used to help transition people out of native forest logging into not only the plantation sector but also rewilding and environmental management. There are jobs-rich opportunities for people and communities in regional Tasmania, regional New South Wales and other parts of the country in industry sectors that are going to boom in coming generations. What this fund should not be used for is to pay out forest businesses that have, in many cases, already received multiple payouts to leave the industry, have then phoenixed themselves back into the industry and then received more payments to get back out of the industry again. I refer the minister to multiple Australian National Audit Office reports that have confirmed the massive rorts that have gone on in forest exit packages over decades in this country. I genuinely hope that the government ensures that those kinds of rorts—that kind of phoenixing back into the industry—do not occur in relation to this latest fund.

Work with communities. Work with affected workers and impacted workers. Help and support them to genuinely transition into sustainable jobs that are fit for purpose, that will be rewarding for the individuals and communities involved and that will actually contribute to repairing some of the terrible damage that the native forest logging industry has wrought on our ecosystems for far too long.

I want to offer some reflections about negotiations with the Labor Party. This is based on my experience through the safeguard mechanism negotiations and the negotiations around the bills that are currently before the Senate. Make no mistake: the Labor Party has a track record of destroying nature, of destroying our climate and of not giving a fig about protecting ecosystems. This is the minister who came in just after the last election—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, McKim, your time has expired.

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

Is that right?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I'm watching the clock. I'm sorry, Senator McKim, your time's expired. I did not hear any questions from the time I took over the chair, so I'll put the—Senator Ghosh.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'd like to ask about development zones and conservation zones and to have an explanation, at a conceptual level, of how they would operate and why they're important for achieving the goals in the act relating to both faster approvals and a clearer understanding of what parts of Australia's environment will be unlikely to be approved for developmental projects.

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

Sorry, Senator Ghosh, I'm pretty sure I caught your question. I was just clarifying what the hard marker is for this debate. I understand it's 6.30, for those who've had enough!

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

We can extend again!

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

I love talking about EPBC reform. I don't know what I'm going to do when I can't talk about EPBC reform! My office has got a few ideas! Senator Ghosh, I think your question went to the go zones, or the development zones, within regional plans and how that will assist business certainty and project approvals and the environment. I think that was the nature of your question.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also asked about conservation zones, in that question.

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

That, Senator Ghosh, is because in my experience you're a very balanced human being who likes balanced reforms that deliver for both business and the environment. Just to expand a little bit on the answer I gave to your previous question, talking about regional plans, more broadly the regional planning is a really good example of that kind of balanced approach that we've sought to take in these reforms more generally and which Professor Samuel sought in his reform package as a whole.

The regional plans, as I was saying before, allow the federal government to work with the state government, local governments, industry, conservation groups and scientists to identify, within a particular region, the areas that should be, if you like, earmarked for development—they're go zones or development zones; call them what you will—and the areas that should be earmarked for protection because of the high environmental values that apply. That will both enable better protection for the environment, by identifying areas in a particular region where development shouldn't occur, and help business, because we not only would be identifying development zones, or go zones, within a particular region but would provide a much faster approval process for projects that occur there.

I can think of a situation in the future, once we have these regional plans up and running, where, for example, a particular proponent for a particular project has multiple choices about where in a particular region they site a project. Obviously, there are some types of development that can only go in a certain place. If we're talking about a mine, it can only happen where the mineral resource is. If we're talking about a wind farm, it's got to be windy. But there are some projects where there's a level of flexibility around where development occurs. Housing would be a good example. A developer might like to build a housing development in a certain location, but, if there are very high environmental values, they might reconsider and decide to proceed with the housing development in an area that's been earmarked as one of those development zones, or go zones. If they're prepared to do it there and avoid the environmental impacts, they will get the benefit of a much faster approval than they will get if they try to site it somewhere that has serious environmental complications. So that would be an example of where you would get that dual benefit: it is better for business, you might get housing online more quickly, and you might avoid doing something terrible for the environment as well.

I think you're aware, Senator Ghosh—but I'll say it in case you're not—that we are already undertaking a number of pilots of these regional plans in different parts of the country. I'm certainly aware of a couple in my home state of Queensland. There is one in South-East Queensland that's focusing on housing development, working with the Queensland government and other parties on that. Similarly, there's a regional plan pilot occurring in North Queensland, focusing on wind farm development and where to properly site those kinds of developments. There's also a pilot occurring in north-west Queensland, which is focusing on mining activities. Similarly, there are other pilots occurring in other parts of the country.

I think that over time this will become a really exciting way for us to facilitate the kind of business development that is needed but do it in an environmentally sensitive way and protect the most environmentally sensitive areas within those particular regions.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the interesting aspects of the committee process was the difference between industry and environmental organisations in their attitudes to bilateral agreements and the process of state accreditation. Are you able to shed some light both on the importance of bilateral agreements and the state accreditation process and on the safeguards against environmental damage through that process.

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

Thanks, Senator Ghosh. Again, one of the other important reforms in the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 is to revamp the approach towards what are known as bilateral agreements, agreements between the federal government and a state or territory government. Currently, under the existing law, we do have the capacity to enter into an agreement with a state or territory which allows them to assess—sorry, I was just confirming.

Under the current legislation, there is capacity to enter agreements with states and territories whereby they would either assess a project for its environmental impacts or potentially approve projects. But, in practice, those agreements haven't worked very well. The system is, frankly, just too complicated to allow those agreements to work effectively. What that has meant is that there's only one state in Australia, New South Wales, where we have an effective bilateral agreement with the state government that sees them assess projects not only against their own laws and requirements at state level but against our requirements as well. We want to be able to do that with more states.

The benefit of that goes to the point that we've talked about a lot in this reform process: removing the duplication in the system and speeding up decision-making about projects not by sacrificing environmental standards but by improving our processes. In essence, how this would work is that, if we can enter into those kinds of agreements with state and territory governments where they not only assess and approve a project against their own laws and requirements but also do so against ours, that can massively reduce the amount of time it takes to assess and approve the project overall, because, rather than having a state assessment and a state approval and then doing a federal assessment and a federal approval, they can both happen at the same time and be done by a state government.

Your question is a really important one, and I know that there are people in the community who are concerned that, if a state government were to go rogue and not have the kinds of standards that we expect, there would be a risk that that state might approve projects that otherwise might have been rejected or heavily conditioned at the federal level. Some of the safeguards that are built into that process so as to avoid that kind of thing happening are, firstly, that the states would be required to assess and approve the project against our national environmental standards. So, if you did have a state or territory with lower environmental standards than ours, getting an approval from the state against their standards wouldn't be enough; they would also have to meet our standards.

The second safeguard in the legislation to prevent states doing the wrong thing—to put it simply—is that any bilateral agreement between a state government and a federal government around assessments or approvals of projects would need to be approved by the federal minister based on advice from the federal EPA that the state's processes meet our standards. So, before the agreement is approved, there's effectively a check that the state processes meet our standards. In addition, the federal EPA will be able to audit the state processes every five years to ensure they are up to scratch. We're also proposing the legislation be amended so that the EPA can provide advice to a minister about whether the state processes meet federal requirements if there's a substantial change to state laws or policies within that five-year period. Say there was a change of government in a particular state and the new government had radically lower environmental standards or got rid of public consultation processes or something like that. There's the capacity for a federal EPA to give the federal minister the power to say, 'We have a problem here and the accreditation of that needs to be reviewed.'

Finally, the other safeguard that's built into the system through the amendments to the bill are that, now, every bilateral agreement between a federal government and a state or territory that allows the state to do approvals of a project will have to include, effectively, a call-in power. That is where the federal government still has the ability to say, 'Even though we've got an agreement with you that you will assess and approve projects, if there's a particular project that comes along that's so important environmentally, nationally'—whatever it might be—'the federal government still has the ability to call that project in and say, "It's going to be approved by the federal government instead."'

As I'm talking, I'm thinking about additional safeguards. We've also said, through the amendments, that the approval of water trigger projects—so projects that trigger the water trigger in the act and, in essence, have an impact on the water table, particularly unconventional gas or coal projects—has to be done federally. The argument for that, and why that makes sense, is, if you think about those projects that have an impact on the water table, that's going to be an impact that crosses state boundaries; the water table doesn't stop at a state boundary. Our view is there's a pretty compelling argument that the federal government should retain the power to approve those projects, given the environmental impacts might go beyond the state that's doing the original assessment.

There are a number of different safeguards in there, built into the system. But it is an important change to allow more of these bilateral agreements to occur, because, again, it's a key way we can speed up the assessment and approval of projects and remove the duplication in the system.

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

Thanks for that explanation, Minister. The original bills tabled by Minister Watt did not deserve to pass through this parliament. They were an abject failure to respond with the speed, the urgency and the strength that the current climate and biodiversity collapses demand of us. We are living in a planetary emergency. It is likely that billions of people will die in this century—and if they don't die, it is almost certain that billions of people will be displaced from their homes, facing drought, facing famine and facing wars over basic necessities of life like water. Yet the Labor Party, a party with a demonstrated hostility towards protecting the environment and a demonstrated aversion to strong climate action, brought a piece of legislation to this parliament which would have fast-tracked coal and gas projects and which did nothing to address the impacts of native forest logging and land clearing on our forest and non-forest ecological communities.

These bills, even with the significant amendments secured by the Greens, still do not meet even the bare minimum necessary to respond to the biodiversity collapse and breakdown of our planet's climate that we are living through right now. But I genuinely believe the agreement we struck with the government is the best we could have done. Remember, this is a government that was prepared to derail any prospect of climate action in the previous term unless it could continue to approve new coal and gas projects in the middle of a climate crisis. This is a government that has cheered on the environmental destruction wrought by the native forest logging industry and by the land clearers, for many decades, in this country. It's a government that has a demonstrated track record of being hostile to nature and of not giving a flying fig about environmental protection. I think we've done the best we could.

I want to say something very clearly to people in the environment movement and in particular to climate activists and forest activists who, right now, in places like Tasmania, are out in the bush, on the blockades, on the front lines, defending forests and defending nature. The Greens understand that the job is not yet done. We understand that this package of reforms, while significantly improved by the negotiations conducted by the Greens, still does not do the job of adequately protecting nature in this country. It does not. It falls far, far short. I say to the activists that we will see you on the streets, and we will be with you on the streets. We will see you out in the forest, and we will be with you on the barricades out in the forest, because the planetary emergency, the climate crisis, the biodiversity emergency, that we are living through demands action of us all. It demands commitment, it demands courage, and it demands the bravery to stand up to the psychopaths and the sociopaths that run fossil fuel corporations in this country. They are prepared to place their own greedy, avaricious wants over and above the welfare of billions of people on this planet. Of course, the people who are going to face the impacts of the collapse of our climate systems are overwhelmingly poor people, and they are overwhelmingly in the Global South—black- and brown-skinned people. They are going to pay the price for the avarice and the greed of the people who are running our fossil fuel corporations and the people who come into places like this and do their bidding in this place.

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

It'll be very good for your Facebook.

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

I'll take that interjection. I will take it. If Senator Duniam thinks this is about social media, he needs to think again. This is quite literally a matter of life and death for huge numbers of people. This is a matter of whether we face a sustainable future for our children and our grandchildren and their children and their grandchildren or whether we don't. For Senator Duniam to try to diminish this by suggesting it's all about some social media platform, frankly, says more about him than it does about me.

He has successfully distracted me, so, in the short time that I have left before we hit the hard marker and commence the votes that will get this legislation through, I want to reflect on the land-clearing provisions in particular. Since the colonisation of this country, land clearing has wrought havoc on our native ecosystems, in particular, the Mulga scrub. The other forest or non-forest vegetation types that existed here under the stewardship of the original inhabitants of this country existed here for many, many tens of thousands of years. When Europeans arrived, that was the death knell for many species. It was the death knell for many ecological communities. Land clearing, under the continuous-use exemption, has devastated so many ecosystems, particularly in regional Australia, in states like Queensland, in states like Western Australia and in states like New South Wales, although not limited to those states, I might add. Ending the continuous-use exemption for land clearing is an extremely significant environmental reform and one that was hard won by the Greens negotiators on this legislation—Senator Hanson-Young and Senator Waters, in particular. They won that and won that by going in and fighting hard for environmental outcomes.

This legislation falls far short of what is actually needed to properly protect Australia's beautiful, globally significant environmental values. I tell you what—it's a big, big step forward from the steaming pile of tosh that Minister Watt first tabled in this parliament a few weeks ago, and it's a significant step forward because of Greens in parliament. I say to people, if you want environmental outcomes, if you want our forests protected and if you want our environment defended and protected and fought for, you need more Greens in this place—in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. It is only through having the Greens in this place that you get the improvement to environmental laws that we're about to vote on today.

The Senate transcript was published up to 1 8 :30. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.