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

I appreciate the chamber being able to deal with these issues quickly and efficiently today. I know there are a number of people who have not been able to speak in the second reading debate. I encourage them to use this opportunity to put forward their views.

I want to ask the minister to put on the record a number of issues that I think will help with some of the questions that people have. Minister, I would like to understand what the government's commitment is to implementation of the remaining standards. We know there are two draft standards out for consultation. They will be inquired into by the ongoing Senate inquiry, the inquiry that we established in this place a month ago that does not report until the end of March. That inquiry will now turn its mind to these standards.

I'm hoping that you can give us a commitment to the time frame the government is prepared to follow in relation to the remaining standards that you have already identified, namely the First Nations consultation standard and the community consultation standard.

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

Thank you to the parliament for participating in this very important debate about major changes to our national environmental laws, which will deliver much stronger protections for the environment and much quicker decision-making processes for business. And thank you, in particular, to Senator Hanson-Young for the constructive negotiations that you've undertaken with me and with the government that have resulted in these big wins both for the environment and for the business community.

On your specific question regarding the national environmental standards, it's absolutely the government's intention to proceed as quickly as possible with the development of new national environmental standards. One of the key recommendations, in fact the centrepiece of recommendation, from the review of Professor Graeme Samuel, who I know is in the building today, is that we should create new national environmental standards that effectively set benchmarks for decision-makers, ministers, officials in departments and the future EPA when making decisions on whether to approve projects and whether to approve a range of other decisions under the act.

One of the important aspects of the bill that we're seeking to pass today is to grant the minister of the day the power to create national environmental standards, and they will operate as regulations, so subordinate legislation. Until we have this bill passed, no minister has the power to create national environmental standards. Those standards, being regulations, will need to go through the usual statutory consultation period of a minimum of 20 business days once they are published for consultation. We recognise there has been huge interest in the standards across the community, and that's why we have begun a consultation process around two of those standards, one regarding matters of national environmental significance and one regarding environmental offsets. As I say, if and when we pass this bill today—and I know that we will—we won't be able to create those standards for some time because a formal statutory consultation period will need to be undertaken. As I say, we thought it was a good-faith gesture to put online, on the department's website, those two draft standards, as they currently stand, to give people an early look at what those standards are likely to look like and provide their feedback, which we could take into account.

But, as I say, in the new year we will formally begin a consultation process on those two standards and, most likely, others. I think, Senator Hanson-Young, the two you specifically asked about were First Nations engagement and community consultation, both really important matters. We do, as a Labor government, want to make sure that First Nations communities are consulted at an early stage when it comes to the impacts of projects on matters of environmental significance to those communities. Further, next year, we'll be getting moving even more on a separate set of reforms to cultural heritage matters.

But, of course, what we're talking about here today is environmental protection. The purpose of that standard, in general, is to ensure the proponents of projects properly, and at an early stage, consult First Nations communities about the potential impacts of a project on environmental matters of concern to First Nations communities. Let's not get into scare campaigns about vetoes and all that ridiculous stuff that we normally see whenever we're talking about these kinds of matters. It's about consultation and engagement with First Nations people.

The other standard that Senator Hanson-Young asked about was community consultation. Again, we understand—and I think everyone in this chamber believes—that it is important for there to be a proper degree of consultation with local communities about projects before they go ahead. What we are doing in that standard is to set out the expectations that would need to be met regarding community consultation as part of a decision-making process. In terms of the timeframes for those, the drafting of the First Nations engagement standard is very well advanced, and we expect to have an early version of that, again, available for the public to see, if not by the end of this year, then very early in the new year.

The community consultation standard is not as far developed at this point in time as the matters of national environmental significance, offsets and First Nations engagement, but that will be an early priority as well. I would expect that, by about March or April next year, we should be in a position to create those first two standards that are already out for consultation, and, in the first few months of next year, we want to be making real progress on those two other standards—First Nations engagement and community consultation—in addition to other standards. We are working on a standard around data and environmental information, and there will be other matters, as well, that are the subject of standards that we will progressively roll out. I undertake to consult not just with the general community on the development of those standards but also, obviously, with all senators and political representatives. It's important to note that those standards will be disallowable instruments, as well. To be honest, it's probably in my interest to make sure that there's good consultation around the development of those standards so that the Senate doesn't believe that they need to be disallowed.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (5), (7), (9), (11), (12), (13), (14), (18) and (19) on sheet 3511 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 85, page 17 (line 7), omit "or be likely to have".

(2) Schedule 1, item 104, page 26 (line 19), omit "or is likely to result".

(3) Schedule 1, item 114, page 34 (line 30), omit "or be likely to have".

(4) Schedule 1, item 117, page 40 (line 19), omit "or be likely to have".

(5) Schedule 1, item 121, page 46 (lines 21 and 22), omit "or be likely to have".

(7) Schedule 1, item 237, page 100 (lines 1 and 2), omit "or be likely to have".

(9) Schedule 1, item 241, page 103 (line 11), omit "or being likely to have".

(11) Schedule 1, item 247, page 106 (line 25), omit "or being likely to have".

(12) Schedule 1, item 283, page 128 (line 31), omit "or be likely to have".

(13) Schedule 1, item 283, page 129 (lines 5 and 6), omit "or being likely to have".

(14) Schedule 1, item 323, page 168 (line 32), omit ", or be likely to have,".

(18) Schedule 1, item 588, page 354 (lines 11 to 13), omit subsection 527H(1), substitute:

(1) A significant impact of an action seriously impairs something if, compared to the action not being taken, the impact results in an impairment or alteration of the thing that is of a severe nature and extent.

(19) Schedule 1, item 618, page 370 (line 35), omit ", either as a whole or in a particular region".

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens have worked hard to improve a pretty cooked and a pretty crappy Labor bill, to start off with. We've done this to better protect our native forests and our bushlands. We have taken out the terrible aspects of Labor's proposed disgraceful environmental reforms which would have fast tracked the destruction of nature. That is the job of the Greens in the parliament.

But the real questions here to ask are these. Why did Labor bring in a bill that would damage rather than protect the environment? Why did they write laws for coal and gas corporations and big mining to start off with? Why would Labor even contemplate a deal with the climate denying environmental vandals that are the coalition? Because Labor is too cowardly, too compromised and too beholden to big money, to corporations and to the fossil fuel lobby and their dirty donations. They don't give a damn about the environment. They care about corporate profits much more than environmental protection. And we are here to hold them to account.

It took arduous negotiations to get Labor to remove the 30-day fast-track approval for coal and gas projects that they had in the original bill. Why? Because, again, they don't give a damn about the climate crisis. If they did, their first act after winning this election would not have been the approval of Woodside's climate wrecking expansion of the north-west shelf gas project, which will be a disaster for the priceless Murujuga rock art. So, yes, we have put a spanner in the work of the native forest logging industry and ended a legal carve-out that forest campaigners have been fighting for, for decades. That's a good thing. It improves protection for native forests. And we have removed the worst aspects of Labor original, dreadful bill to destroy nature.

To be frank, it is shameful that the Labor Party that was elected, the first time, in the climate election had to be dragged back to the status quo and then dragged to improve environmental protections for our forests and bushlands. That tells you all you need to know about this Labor government. They would go backwards on climate and the environment if they had their way—if we weren't here. They were prepared to do a deal with the coalition. It's a clear indication of the work that we have cut out for us here. It's a clear indication of the fight that we have on our hands.

We've stood shoulder-to-shoulder and hand-in-hand with climate activists and forest campaigners for years. With the changes the Greens have pushed for, we do have some more tools to fight to protect native forest, and we will be with climate activists and with forest campaigners. We will be with them on the streets, we will be with them in the forest and we will be with them at the Rising Tide blockade in Newcastle this weekend.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you making a point of order, Senator Pocock?

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

I urge the Greens to allow time for questions in Committee of the Whole. That was a second reading speech.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: There's no point of order.

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

The proponents of the legislation we are dealing with here seem to have a bet each way when it comes this legislation. They say it's terrible and it's bad and it's written by these awful people in Labor, but they're backing it; they're signing up to it. Have your cake and eat it too, Australian Greens! That's exactly what's going on here.

I will say that I understand that the amendments before the chair are identical to the government's amendments relating to unacceptable impact. Hopefully, the government will support these amendments when they're moved. I want to reflect more generally on the debate before—

No? We'll talk about it later, I'm sure, Minister. I have to commend the minister for being able to pull off this deal. It was masterful. I don't like it. I think it's terrible. I think it's dirty. I think it's dodgy. But you did a great job of getting this mob down here, the Australian Greens, to again name a price they were willing to pay. Of course it's the shutdown of the native forest industry. The workers out there are screaming into the phones now on radio stations across the country, and they're providing comments to journalists in print and the TV newsrooms. They are wondering how a Labor government that once used to stand for the worker has today said that they will sign the death warrant of the native forest logging industry.

The Prime Minister, ahead of the 2022 election, wrote a letter to Tasmanian forest workers committing that he would never do this. He reiterated that commitment in 2025, saying he would never do this. Guess what, he's gone and done it now. There's a bit of a concern now in Tasmania; I think there's a missing person report for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Ms Collins, who's nowhere to be seen on this issue. Has she popped up to justify what the government have done? Has she popped up to defend this dirty, dodgy deal with the Greens?

The Greens are celebrating. I heard Senator McKim on the radio just before I went on, and I gave Senator McKim credit for consistency. The Greens have always been consistently against native forest logging. The only ones who've been inconsistent here are the government. They're the ones who've changed their position today by supporting this arrangement that the Greens put to them. I did commend Senator McKim and the rest of the Australian Greens for at least being consistently against this industry for its entire existence. They've never once changed their position, but the government now have.

As I said before, at the last two elections—in which promises were made around reduced power prices, and those promises were broken—promises were made to the native forest industry and its workers around their industry being protected, particularly in Tasmania, but they are going to see this unacceptable impact of shutdown. I would be interested to know what detail is out there on this $300 million—I think the government is calling it a growth fund, which I find rather odd, given you can't grow an industry that you're shutting down. The words are interesting, and it's kind of cute, but there are hardworking men and women out there who are now very, very concerned about their futures because of this deal done at the eleventh hour, as we prepare to rise for the year, by the Labor Party, who once used to stand proudly for the forest workers of this country but have now sold them out to the Australian Greens.

We heard Senator Faruqi before celebrating how the handbrake is going to be put on this industry and how there is now a spanner in the works. They were the senator's words, I believe. She nods in agreement. That is something the Greens are celebrating, so the government cannot get away from this fact. As I said earlier today, the Greens would not have signed up to this deal if it didn't mean we were going to kill that industry by a thousand cuts.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Save the forests!

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

'Save the forests,' says Senator Faruqi. I will take that interjection. What the Labor Party and the Greens have signed up to today is a deal to kill native forestry and, of course, take away all of the jobs that go with it. We can't escape that fact. It is just that simple. The Greens would not have signed on if it did not mean this industry would now be brought to its knees.

Ms White, the member for Lyons; Ms Collins, the member for Franklin in Tasmania; and my good friends in the Labor Senate team from Tasmania—we should go out on a road trip and talk to the forest workers of Tasmania who have been let down by this Labor government and have had their jobs suddenly pulled out from underneath them. These are people who have mortgages. They live in regional communities like those on the north-west coast of Tasmania. These are people who have kids in schools. These are people who are a part of communities, volunteer fire brigades and sporting clubs. And the Australian government have decided that they don't support these individuals anymore. They've cast them on the scrap heap. Their jobs are not important.

They do have a $300 million bailout package—buyout package, scale-down package, whatever it is—to try and ease the pain of shutting down this industry, to soften the blow of the news that today the Labor Party have sold you out. It is interesting, though. I do wonder how the Greens managed to be talked into providing a further $300 million to the native forest industry, an industry that just last Friday Senator Hanson-Young said—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sorry, Chair. I can't hear myself.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Duniam, the call is yours.

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

Thank you, Chair. Now that the temperature has been taken down a couple of degrees, we might get back to the truth of the matter, and that is that the Australian Labor Party have teamed up with the Greens to kill forestry. Let's not forget, though, that this is the same party that was toying with the idea of—

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

Can you ask questions?

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

Yes. I'm about to ask a question, Senator David Pocock. I've got three minutes to ask my question. I will do that.

Let's not forget, though, that we had 700 pages of legislation thumped on the table. We had a Senate committee inquiry process out to the end of March. I'll try and find it in this pile of paper that's been put on my desk today by the government, who want these bills passed—I'm just going to quote Senator Sarah Hanson-Young again. She said in a Senate inquiry last week, 'The people know it stinks'—'it' is this legislation—'It absolutely stinks, and that's why it needs scrutiny.' Senator Hanson-Young also just said to the chamber, in asking her question before, that she appreciates the urgency with which this is now being attended to. I don't know what's happened in the last week. Something big, something seismic, has shifted here. Senator Hanson-Young, who is normally so strident in her opposition to terrible bills, has suddenly found a way to agree with the government on this arrangement.

It was, as I say, a deal to make it harder for resources projects to start. It will make it harder to get more gas into the grid, so we're going to have problems with supply when it comes to this critical resource of energy. It will make it harder to get housing developments up, despite any rhetoric we hear from the government on this. It's just going to be ridiculous. Of course, the crown jewel in their achievements of this week is to shut down the native forest industry and take away tens of thousands of jobs. And, of course, we won't be getting the beautiful timbers that adorn this chamber from Australia forests; we'll be ripping them out of the Congo Basin and we'll be displacing human populations and endangering even more species overseas. But, hey, if it's over the horizon, we don't care.

My question to the minister is: can the minister guarantee that not one job will be lost in the forest industry as a result of the arrangement that has been put in place here today with regard to the changes to the RFA?

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

Thank you, Senator Duniam, for that very long question. I also want to put on record my thanks to Senator Duniam in this chamber and shadow minister Angie Bell for their constructive approach through these negotiations.

The truth of the matter is that, over the last few months, and particularly over the last few weeks, I have had many, many, many meetings and phone discussions with a number of representatives from the coalition—not just one—as well as, of course, having many, many conversations with representatives of the Greens. That's what you do. When you're seeking to pass legislation, you speak to all sides to understand what the concerns are, what you're prepared to address and what you're not prepared to address. I do recognise the effort that Senator Duniam in particular has put in to seek a deal with the government. We were not able to reach that agreement because of differences of opinion about key matters. That is a key reason why we have now undertaken to pass these reforms with the support of the Greens Party.

I will make the point, as I have publicly this morning, that, of course, we have accommodated a number of amendments to be moved by the Greens in this chamber, but, in addition, we insisted on a number of amendments being made to this legislation to deal with legitimate concerns that have been raised by business groups over the course of the debate and in the Senate committee hearings in the last couple of weeks. That's why we feel so confident about saying that these reforms are a balanced package which deliver for both the environment and business.

I understand that earlier there was a statement or question from Senator Duniam about the definition of 'unacceptable impacts'. I'm advised that the government's amendment on this comes very close to the amendments being proposed by the opposition, but there are some differences. It's not entirely the same, Senator Duniam, but I understand there's a fair degree of alignment there. I couldn't tell you exactly which words, but we can get them to you.

I might also just call out a little bit of hypocrisy that we heard from Senator Duniam and his colleagues this morning about this. All of a sudden they're criticising the government for working with the Greens to pass these reforms urgently today. Senator Duniam well knows that the coalition had been absolutely willing to work with the government to pass these laws today had he been able to strike a deal. It's not Senator Duniam's fault that a deal was not possible, but he knows that the government was prepared to pass these reforms with the coalition and was in active discussions with the coalition about that well into yesterday and last night. So it's a little bit hypocritical of Senator Duniam, but I understand he's got a job to do to reclaim some ground for the coalition.

On forestry matters, I want to make one thing extremely clear, and that is that the government, through these changes, is not shutting down the native forestry industry. I'm a little bit disappointed to hear Senator Duniam, who I do respect—I mean, I know we're not allowed to accuse people of lying in this chamber, so I'll say that Senator Duniam has completely misrepresented and fabricated what the government is doing right now. We have been telling that to the industry, as we were speaking to them this morning. Members of the industry and workers in the industry, who we'd been working with through their union, were very concerned to hear, through the coalition, that we may have been seeking to do something through this legislation that we are not. You may have heard the Greens express disappointment that we have not agreed to shut down native forestry, so, unfortunately for Senator Duniam, the facts don't back up his arguments.

We are not shutting down native forestry. We are not shutting down plantation forestry. What we're doing today is requiring forestry that's conducted under regional forestry agreements in both Tasmania and New South Wales to meet the national environmental standards in the same way that every other industry is required to do and in the same way we are now requiring the agriculture industry to do when it comes to land clearing—the same rules, the same standards that apply to the mining industry, to renewable energy and to housing developments. What we are doing is delivering on the recommendations of Professor Graeme Samuel in his review, which was presented to Sussan Ley when she was the environment minister five years ago and which she and the coalition embraced at the time, where he recommended that, when it comes to regional forestry agreements, the national environmental standards should be applied in the same way they are to every other industry, and that's what we're doing through this legislation. Professor Samuel also recommended that regional forestry agreements be accredited under the new laws, and that's what we're doing. We are doing nothing more and nothing less than implementing the two recommendations that Professor Samuel made when it comes to regional forestry agreements in the review he presented to Sussan Ley, the former environment minister, who embraced his recommendations. So that's a little bit more hypocrisy there from the coalition.

What we are proposing is to make this change over an 18-month period and to work with the industry as that change around standards occurs. I will also note that there have been a number of representatives of the forestry sector who took part in the Senate inquiry and have made other public statements about this over many years who have said that forestry that occurs under regional forestry agreement meets very high environmental standards. So if that is the case, as the industry believe—and, being a former forestry minister and having worked with the industry in that capacity, I've got no reason to disbelieve the industry when they say that they meet very high environmental standards—they should have every confidence that they can meet the new National Environmental Standards that we are asking them to comply with, in the same way we are asking the mining sector, the renewable energy sector and the housing development sector to do that—and we are also, as a result of these changes, asking the agriculture sector to comply with the standards, at least in relation to some of their activities. That's what we are doing. We're not doing what the coalition, for their own cheap political gain, are accusing us of doing. We know the coalition have tried to wage a culture war in Tasmania over decades by misrepresenting policies and the future of that industry. What I'll say is that only a Labor government will stand by workers in the forestry sector and in every other sector to ensure that their jobs are secure and that the industries that they work in remain strong and grow into the future.

I should also make the point—because this is not widely understood by people who don't follow the debate around forestry closely—that members of the coalition like to talk only about native forestry and what the impact of these changes will be on native forestry. The changes we are making are to regional forestry agreements, which do include native forestry but also include plantation forestry. So there's nothing about singling out native forestry for special or unspecial treatment. The changes we are applying are to regional forestry agreements, under which native forestry and plantation forestry occur.

In addition, we have announced today a $300 million Forestry Growth Fund, which is all about supporting the industry to grow. It's in the name of the fund. This is not about closing things down; this is about opening them up and growing them. We know—and, if any of the coalition senators actually bothered to get out and look at the industry, speak to the workers and go to the mills in the way that I have and that all of our Tasmanian caucus have, they would know—that there are sawmills and other processing facilities in Tasmania and New South Wales, the RFA states, that need new investment to make sure that they can continue growing and employing people in those regional communities into the future. That's what we want to see happen, and that's why we've put $300 million on the table. I invite the Tasmanian government to join us in putting some investment into this industry rather than criticising what we've done. If they cared so much about that industry, they might want to put their hands in their own pockets to support those workers and those industries. But we put $300 million on the table today to invest, for instance, in retooling mills and installing new, modern equipment. I've seen such equipment in some Tasmanian processing facilities, and it has been funded by Labor governments, because we want this industry to keep moving up the value chain; to have more jobs, not fewer jobs; and to meet the environmental standards that the industry say that they already meet. The industry say that they need to maintain their social licence by demonstrating they meet good environmental standards, and this is another opportunity for them to do so. This is about more jobs, not fewer, and a bigger industry, not a smaller one.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, here we are. For decades now, Labor governments have entered into political stitch-up deals with their coalition partners, the Australian Greens. They've put political convenience ahead of working families and our sustainable forestry and farming industries. Here we are: another day, another decade in the Australian Senate and another stitch up—not for any technical reason required in the legislation or because anything needs to be done before the end of the year but simply for the political goals of the Albanese government. It's a tried and tested pattern of betrayal, turning cynical deal making into an art form and turning their backs upon families and workers who once supported them and their party. We are now watching this pattern repeat.

From the start, the Greens have been really clear about what they demanded and what they got. In their own press release, they were very clear. They boasted that they had secured the end of the regional forestry agreements. Those exemptions within 18 months have gone.

This exemption has been the cornerstone of regulatory certainty for the native forestry industry for nearly 30 years. Removing the RFA exemption is not a technical amendment; it is the structural dismantling of a system that has allowed a sustainable industry to operate with long-term planning and measurable environmental protections. The Greens describe ending the RFA exemption as a spanner in the works of the native forest logging industry. They celebrate it as winning extra tools to fight the forestry industry. So, for the minister to stand up and say there is nothing to see here by getting rid of the RFAs—I beg to differ, Minister; I think your coalition partners have a huge issue. They are celebrating this as the mechanism by which they can end native forest logging in this country. He talks a big game on New South Wales and Tasmania as the only states with RFAs. Do you know why? Because Victoria, my home state, doesn't have an RFA. This is what industry has actually said—I'm very happy to read it into the Hansard:

The loss of Victoria's RFA last year has had a terrible impact on local jobs and communities and undermined new plantation establishment.

In fact, my National Party colleague Darren Chester only just last week was down in Yarram, a small dairying and forestry community, where the local sawmill closed down and 70 people lost their jobs, because the Labor government in Victoria got rid of the regional forestry agreement.

So, Minister, these mechanisms have real impacts in the real world. They are required by the Greens for their ideological outcomes, but there are 70 families a month out of Christmas whose parents don't have a job. That's what's happening as a result of this. What the Australian Forest Products Association has also said is this:

Under the EPBC reforms, the removal of Regional Forest Agreements (RFA)—which have effectively served the nation and managed our forests sustainably for decades—will strangle the native forest industry in green tape and put at risk any future plantation investment. As the Federal Court confirmed last year, RFAs are an alternative mechanism by which the objects of the EPBC Act can be achieved.

So, Minister, empty words in this chamber are cold comfort to families who are losing their jobs in communities far away from Labor Party MPs and senators, in regional communities.

It's not just the forestry sector. The National Farmers' Federation calls this an outrage. They are bitterly disappointed by the agreement between the government and the Greens. They've warned that it will create new risks and new layers of complexity for people who manage more than half of Australia's landmass, the Australian agricultural sector. We all wanted to support genuine reform to what has been a complex and unworkable act, quite frankly. We all want a genuine reform. But we can't support this deal, because the detail is either unclear, untested or unworkable. The absence of detail around definitions and how the complexity contained within this legislation is going to work in the real world is shocking. The fact that this is now going to continue to be examined by a Senate inquiry just shows you what a farce of an operation is being run here. When the Senate actually looks under the bonnet, gets all the stakeholders together, gets their feedback and recommends changes based on that consultation, Minister, are we going to be back here in March or June next year moving amendments to yet another suite of government legislation because you got the drafting wrong again? The number of times this chamber has had to amend your own legislation over the last 3½ years is embarrassing.

So there are concerns about the continued use provision and its removal. It's a provision that has allowed for the routine management of regrowth for decades for Australian farmers, not for some dirty, big corporate farm. You're a former agriculture minister. These provisions have actually allowed for basic land stewardship, weed control, feral pest management and bushfire mitigation. Hello! Thank you, Labor! You're not able to do that at all.

One of the things that I would have liked to have seen in the reforms of the EPBC Act is the removal of the moratorium on nuclear energy. That's why I'm foreshadowing amendments on behalf of the opposition to remove the ban on nuclear, amending both the EPBC Act and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act. Do you know what? We want to lower emissions, and we want to stay a rich economy. We want to be able to provide world-class jobs in advanced manufacturing. We want to be able to power the data centres required for artificial intelligence in coming decades, and we're not going to be able to do that with windmills and solar farms.

Why can't we, as an advanced economy with a backyard full of uranium, do what every other nation that is as rich and prosperous as us is doing and use nuclear energy as part of the mix of our energy system? Right now the renewables-only push has pushed energy prices up in excess of 37 per cent. That doesn't hurt just mum and dad when they get their power bill and it's gone through the roof; it hurts every bit of our economy—every doctor's surgery, every hospital, every data centre, every school, every factory. In a country like ours, we need to be able to make metal, in our big smelters and refineries. If we don't make it here at home it'll be coming in from China, and we know that is not about being a sovereign country, which the Prime Minister talks a lot about.

Energy security is important. If you care about the environment, you want to have low-emissions energy powering our economy, and the very best source of that is nuclear energy. So I will be moving this amendment to make that a reality, just like in other countries, or to at least remove the ban so we can start having a sensible, respectful conversation about how we're going to power our nation in decades and centuries to come. It is a shame that the Labor government has chosen to prioritise political expediency and punching out media releases at the end of a parliamentary sitting calendar year, rather than getting the results of this right.

I think it's a shame on the Australian Greens, but at least they're upfront about the fact that they're up for a deal. How the Labor party conducted itself and how the Labor party continues to treat this chamber—and to Senator Pocock's very sensible commentary, why couldn't we sit all through the night, like we did when we were in government and were putting through significant reforms in certain areas of our country? The Senate has to do its job, and then you still get the deal but we've actually held you to account.

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

I think we just saw a very good example of why the coalition was unable to strike a deal with the government on these reforms. What we're talking about here are major reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, Australia's main national environmental law, which is all about protecting the environment and putting in place a process for projects to seek environmental approvals. That's what we're talking about here, and that's what we've been seeking to talk about for months now, with both the coalition and the Greens.

I've said repeatedly that the biggest challenge the government has faced in reaching an agreement with the coalition is that they are completely distracted by their own internal leadership turmoil and their ideological preoccupations. There is no better example than what we just heard from Senator McKenzie, the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, who spent half her speech talking about something completely unrelated to the legislation that we're talking about. Instead she spoke about her and the National Party's, and now the Liberal Party's, obsession with nuclear power. That's what the National Party and the Liberal Party have been wanting to talk about over the last few weeks while they've been trying to work out who sits in the big chair and how they keep Barnaby in the National Party.

Is it any wonder that the government have agreed to pass these reforms with the Greens, who we don't always agree with? There are things that the Greens wanted in this deal that we have said no to, but at least they could work out what they wanted—unlike the coalition, who were in absolute shambles through these negotiations. Even today, they're wanting to bang on about nuclear power and their other ideological preoccupations rather than what we're actually here to talk about. So thank you, Senator McKenzie, for demonstrating to the Australian people, who are watching this, exactly why doing a deal with the coalition was, frankly, impossible.

Again, there's this running theme of hypocrisy from the coalition speakers. We had Senator McKenzie getting in and doing the usual gripe of: 'We could have sat through the night to pass this legislation. Why are you ramming it through?' Only this week, Senator McKenzie was out there in the media saying she was pushing the opposition leader to push these reforms into 2026, but now she's so desperate to pass these reforms that she was prepared to stay here all night. I think the Australian people can see through what's going on here.

This is a coalition that don't know what they want, that can't focus on important reforms for the Australian people, that can only focus on themselves and their ideological preoccupations and that are therefore unable to work out what on earth they want to do when reforming environmental laws. I'm not going to look at anyone here, but there are a number of coalition members who agree exactly with what I'm saying and who are disappointed about their own team's effort over the last few months and their inability to reach an agreement with the government. There are a lot of members of the business community—traditional supporters of the Liberal Party, in particular, and of the National Party—who are aghast at the way the coalition have handled these negotiations and their inability to advocate for the interests of the business community.

What's happened with these reforms, as I said, is that it's the government who have requested that amendments be made to this bill to address some of the major concerns of the business community and who have insisted on inserting those amendments into this bill as part of an agreement with the Greens party. There are changes here in this bill around protecting the environment, and we're happy to support those. There are also changes here that are about giving business more certainty, which they were looking for, and there was no-one in the coalition who made that happen, because they were all deciding amongst themselves who was talking to who and what they would agree on. It was the government who made those amendments. Let's be very clear about that.

Finally, I want to pick up on the misrepresentations and falsehoods being peddled by the coalition, particularly around forestry. Senator McKenzie claimed that the reforms here are getting rid of regional forest agreements. That is completely untrue. I invite Senator McKenzie to actually read the legislation to see that that is completely untrue. Just like Senator Duniam's claims that these changes shut down native forestry, it is completely untrue, Senator McKenzie, that the reforms are getting rid of regional forest agreements. These changes, as I've said, implement the direct recommendations of Graeme Samuel to apply the national environmental standards to regional forest agreements, under which native forestry and plantation forestry occur in New South Wales and Tasmania, and they require the accreditation of those agreements. Exactly the same rules apply to the mining industry, the renewables industry, housing development and every other industry in this country. It is important that people get the facts about what is in this bill and what is not. So far, we haven't heard a lot of facts from the coalition.

I'd like to take the opportunity to table three supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025.

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

Minister, I've got a bunch of questions. I know we don't have much time left, so I might put a few at a time, if that's alright. You mentioned the $300 million growth fund. Could you clarify for the Senate if that is exclusively to grow the plantation sector, or could it, in fact, be used in native forest logging? Secondly, I mentioned how the rulings power is envisaged to be used. Would the rulings power enable the minister to make a ruling that a particular action would meet a standard, even where factually speaking it clearly did not?

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

Senator Pocock, you kept your questions short, so I'll try to keep my answers short so that you have time for further questions. As I said earlier, the $300 million Forestry Growth Fund that the government announced today is all about supporting the future growth of that industry and supporting ongoing employment in the industry. While the information about the fund that's been published today gives an indication of its likely priorities, what we've also said in that information is that we will now be working in more detail with the industry, unions and state governments on the design of that fund. But we have not inserted a ban on funds being used for native forestry or for plantations. We have said that one example of what the funds could be used for is to expand plantations, just as we've indicated that the funds could be used to retool mills and to assist business buy and install new technology to allow for higher-value-adding products from forestry. That's the general detail about the fund, but clearly there's more work to do with all of those stakeholders around exactly what the funds can be used for, when it will be available and those kinds of things.

On rulings, this was a specific recommendation from Professor Samuel in his review. The idea there is that, just as the Australian tax office can give a ruling about its interpretation of a particular section of the tax act, this will enable the minister of the day to issue rulings to the public about how particular sections of this act will be interpreted. It would certainly not be envisaged that it would be used as a way for a minister to rule on a particular project and as to whether a particular project or particular action met a standard; it's more a matter of providing guidance. Again, frankly, that enables better protection of the environment and gives business a bit more certainty about how decisions will be made.

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

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that explanation. I understand that there is more to do on the $300 million fund, but I'm just wondering if you could rule out using the funds to in any way extend the life of any native forest logging operations. I also have a couple of questions on offsets. I'm interested to know why the government is duplicating an offset system that we know was found to be deeply flawed in New South Wales. The Audit Office of New South Wales found that the scheme was poorly designed and has issues with integrity, transparency and sustainability, so I'm interested to know why, at a federal level, we're essentially duplicating a failed scheme. I'm also interested to know whether the government will require that restoration contributions meet all principles in the offset standard, including a requirement that they be like for like and delivered in a timely way.

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

Thank you, Senator Pocock. I acknowledge that you have raised previously with me some issues around the restoration fund and what we've seen occur in New South Wales. I'm not going to provide the assurance that you're seeking in relation to the forestry fund and how it might be used. We need to work through the detail about the design and use of those funds with all of those stakeholders in the way that I outlined.

In terms of environmental offsets in the restoration fund, this is an important reform that's part of this package. Again, it's something that was recommended by Professor Samuel in his review. Just very briefly, for those who aren't across it, people would be aware that when a project is seeking environmental approval, if that project is likely to have a significant impact on nationally protected environmental matters, then one of the changes that we're making in this legislation is to require by law, for the first time, a proponent to avoid and mitigate or minimise its environmental impacts before moving to offsets. What we've said is that those environmental offsets need to produce a net gain for the environment, so another positive outcome for the environment as a result of these reforms.

We have offered, through this legislation, an alternative way of delivering environmental offsets for proponents to what exists at the moment. One of the issues we have at the moment with environmental offsets is that the requirement on individual project proponents to find their own environmental offsets that are like for like—similar to what environmental impacts they are having—frankly doesn't always generate a very good environmental outcome. That's why we've taken the opportunity in these reforms to make some changes around environmental offsets. The purpose of setting up this fund, the restoration fund, is to give proponents an alternative to finding their own environmental offsets if they simply cannot do that, if they don't have the capacity as an organisation to do that, because that is a particular skill that not all organisations have. What we've said is that, for proponents, there will be the option to make a financial contribution to this restoration fund commensurate to what they would have needed to find in terms of their own environmental offsets.

One of the benefits of going down this path is that we believe—and certainly Professor Samuel believed—that this has the capacity to actually deliver a better environmental outcome than what we see with individual proponents finding their own individual offsets. If there were 10 different project proponents who all had to find their own little environmental offsets, put together, that might not actually produce much of an environmental outcome. If those 10 project proponents make a financial contribution to a fund that's managed by government, those funds can be pooled to, for example, purchase land and regenerate vegetation on land in a much bigger and more meaningful way than each of those proponents doing their own thing. I know you understand that, Senator Pocock, but I just thought I should explain the rationale.

In terms of New South Wales, I have seen the reports, news reports and audit reports, identifying issues with the New South Wales restoration fund scheme. We, of course, intend to learn the lessons of what's been done in other funds and design this fund in as robust a way as we possibly can.

To just quickly answer your other question, I think what you meant to say was, 'Why are we not requiring like-for-like offsets in the restoration fund?' That's really because what we're seeking to do is to develop those landscape-scale or across-a-region environmental benefits, rather than one on one. That may produce like-for-like outcomes, or it might not produce like-for-like outcomes, but I reckon it's going to produce a much better environmental outcome, and that's really what's behind the scheme.

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

This is an absolute betrayal of Western Australia. Even Labor premier Roger Cook has said that this is a poor piece of legislation that could have been better.

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

No, he didn't. He said exactly the opposite.

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

He said it could have been better, Minister. This is a betrayal of the Western Australian gas industry, particularly when we've got potential shortages on the horizon. Minister, of Labor premier Roger Cook's five red-line issues, how many have you addressed?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister, I heard your interjection.

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

I withdraw.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you.

Again, we've had three speakers from the coalition who have completely fabricated this and are peddling falsehoods. Senator Brockman, and I don't remember his exact words, claimed that Premier Cook is opposing this legislation and has bagged this legislation. Let me tell you what Premier Cook has said about these laws today, and you might be interested in this Senator Brockman. He has said, 'The reason there is a deal with the Greens is because the Liberals are an incoherent fringe party who dealt themselves out of negotiations.' That's what Premier Cook said.

He also said: 'While we're still digesting the detail, these laws will be a major improvement on current laws. They are a win for WA industry and a win for the WA environment. The creation of a streamlined process will greatly benefit our mining industry. Industry advocates appear to have had a number of wins, including around the definition of unacceptable impacts. Murray and I have agreed that WA will be first cab off the rank for bilateral negotiations, and we hope to address any outstanding issues through that process.' So Senator Brockman, you should apologise to the Senate and to Premier Cook for completely misrepresenting his position.

In the other part of your question you asked how many of the five items that Premier Cook asked to be addressed have been addressed. The answer is all five. In fact, I explained that to Premier Cook when I spoke to him late last night. Premier Cook's five items that he raised are very similar to the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of WA.

First, he was seeking amendments to the 'unacceptable impact' definition. Done. It was a condition of us reaching an agreement with the Greens. Second, he asked that we keep streamlined pathways for all projects. Done. We have kept the streamlined pathway for preliminary documentation. Third, tighten the use of stop work orders or environment protection orders. Done. That's 14 days in length, with the option of an extension for another 14 days, with more evidence to be provided. Done. Fourth, tighten the net gain definition. Done. We have committed, in the standard around offsets, that we will provide greater clarity around the definition—in the same way we committed to the coalition, but they just couldn't get their act together to make an agreement. Bit of a shame. Fifth, climate disclosure must not be part of decision-making. Done. That is in the explanatory memorandum.

Five out of five is what Premier Cook got. Five out of five is what the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of WA got. And zero out of zero is what the federal coalition got because it is a complete rabble. You don't know who your negotiator is. You don't know what you want. You have profoundly let down business across the country, you have profoundly let down the environment and you have profoundly let down Australia, because all you care about is who gets to be the leader.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, these bills are a betrayal of Queensland, a betrayal of Australia and a betrayal of democracy. As an aside, before I start my question, on the first list of speakers to this bill in the second reading debate, I was speaker No. 9. The other One Nation senators were further down the list. On the revised speakers list, I was third last, Senator Bell was second last and Senator Whitten was last. No chance at all of getting to speak! One Nation is the party the other parties fear. We are the real opposition.

Minister, another day another dodgy deal between the Labor Party and the Greens, which, as usual, sells out everyday Australians to advance the government's overarching agenda of virtue signalling and TikTok video production. From the moment the deal was done, this government has chosen to make a mockery of parliamentary process. What matters to the Labor Party is not the outcome. No, it's the so-called win. Yet all Australians lose.

The Greens are the spiritual bedfellows of the ALP in this regard. No sooner is the ink dry on this dirty, backroom deal than they immediately move the goalposts. The Greens now want one set of rules for Australia's natural environment and a whole new set for Australian Aboriginal environment. I thought all our land was unceded and belonged to Aboriginals. Surely, the Greens motion doesn't in fact acknowledge that Australia belongs to Australians, regardless of skin colour. Who knows! One could go mad thinking too much about Greens motions. Certainly, they don't do much thinking about them.

It will be left to a One Nation government to clean up the mess this bill will create, and we shall clean it up. One Nation will repeal this bill and replace it with protections to our natural environment based on sensible, honest stewardship—on outcomes and on data, not on feelings. Our second reading amendment set out some of our objections to the bill. Given time constraints, I'm not going to repeat these now, Minister.

Liberal senator Duniam has an amendment coming up which has a fair crack at fixing one of the major errors of this bill. This is an environment bill that does not define what the environment is! Senator Duniam's amendment sets out what areas, which most Australians would agree, are the actual environment—World Heritage areas, listed wetlands, the Great Barrier Reef and so on. One Nation will support that amendment.

One area of our environment which the government and the Greens misunderstand completely is forestry logging. The whole point about logging is that it provides timber for use in Australian home construction—the same homes the Labor-Greens government are promising to build, apparently without timber! Oh, and, yes, apparently they'll do that without steel frames either, because they want to stop coal.

The National Farmers' Federation has provided a question to the minister, which is as follows because they've said it very well:

As stewards of more than half of Australia's environment, farmers understand the importance of doing the right thing by the land—

it is in their own interests—

They've also historically borne the brunt of complex federal environmental laws, often at odds with state obligations.

That's why the NFF has supported genuine reform, but not this deal.

Our key concern is the announcement of 'closer controls' of 'high risk land clearing'. The specifics of this remain unclear—

what a surprise!—

and we are urgently calling for clarity.

The introduction of reduced regrowth thresholds to the long-established 'continuing use' provision will promote poor environmental outcomes and increase bushfire risk—

which, as an aside, will increase fire damage, hurting the natural environment and the human environment. The NFF quote goes on:

It will interfere with routine vegetation management of regrowth to prevent bushfires, keep land productive, and manage weeds.

The misunderstanding of agricultural practices is bitterly disappointing.

That's the end of the quote. Minister, why does this bill include measures which will 'increase bushfire risk' and place lives in danger; reduce the health of our forests; reduce food production—and, from that, increase food prices for all Australians—destroy the timber industry; destroy the communities that rely on timber; and damage the home construction industry, which will be left to bid in the international market for timber which is already in short supply and is from countries with lax environmental protections?

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

():  Thanks, Senator Roberts. Well, the theme continues with senators from that side of the chamber completely misrepresenting what is being done in this bill. I guess it's no real surprise. It's one thing for senators to come in here and oppose what is in the bill. I get that. I did that myself when I was in the opposition. It's a completely different thing to come in here and make stuff up and oppose things that aren't in the bill. We've seen that from Senator Duniam, we've seen that from Senator McKenzie and we've now seen that from Senator Roberts as well. I mean, we know that One Nation is setting the policy agenda for both the Liberal and the National parties at the moment, so it would appear that the style of argument from One Nation, where they just make stuff up, is also now how the Liberals and the Nationals approach policy arguments and debates in the Senate.

I've already discussed at length, in answer to earlier questions, what is actually in this bill when it comes to forestry, so I won't go over that again. But I do want to reject and rebut the falsehoods that Senator Roberts is now peddling about the impacts of this legislation on the agriculture sector, particularly when it comes to changes regarding land clearing. It's far from stopping farmers clearing their land. Next it will be that we are 'confiscating farmland'. Next it will be that some big bogeyman is going to go sit in the middle of a farm and stop tractors running. You can set your clock by the arguments you're going to get from the coalition and One Nation, because they don't have any facts and they don't have any arguments, so they resort to fear and falsehood.

What we are actually proposing in the legislation to do regarding agricultural land clearing, similar to forestry, is to remove an exemption from the act that currently applies to a range of land-clearing activities that are high risk for the environment. I might just make the point before I forget it that, as you would expect, a number of environment groups have been calling for these changes because of the dramatic improvements to the environment they will make, whether for threatened species or to the Great Barrier Reef. But you know someone else who's called for these changes? His name is Robert Hill. Those of us old enough to remember will know that Robert Hill was the Liberal Party minister in the then Howard government who first introduced these laws back in 1999 and, probably for reasons of internal politics, had to agree to an exemption from the act for both forestry activities and agricultural land clearing. The reason I mention that is that the very Liberal Party minister who introduced these laws in 1999, Robert Hill, made a submission to a Senate inquiry about this bill. And you know what he said? He said we should lift the exemptions that his own bill applied to forestry and agricultural land clearing. So, sure, environment groups want this changed, but so does the very Liberal Party minister who introduced the bill when it was first passed back in 1999.

Again, let's have some facts. What we are talking about doing here when it comes to agricultural land clearing is making two changes. One is removing the exemption that currently exists under the act for two forms of agricultural land clearing. We're only talking about situations where that land-clearing impacts will have a significant impact on a nationally protected matter. Firstly, we are proposing to lift from the date of commencement of this legislation—from the date of royal assent—the exemption that currently applies for what is known as continuous-use land clearing. To put it in simple terms, we will remove the exemption that currently applies for land clearing of regrowth that has been there for 15 years or more. The point about that is that that's the sort of length of time, according to the scientific consensus, that allows an ecosystem to rebuild after it has first been cleared. It's not about stopping that land clearing; it's about saying that, if land clearing of regrowth of more than 15 years is to occur and will have a significant impact on a nationally protected matter such as threatened species—koalas, gliders or whatever it might be—then the person who wants to do that land clearing needs to get an EPBC assessment and approval, and that's exactly what happens now for the mining industry. It's exactly what happens now for people who want to build wind farms or solar farms, and it's exactly what happens for housing developers. If they want to clear land that will have a significant impact on a nationally protected matter, they have to go the EPBC Act, and that's exactly what we're saying will happen now for farmers who want to clear their land in those circumstances.

The second change is to lift the exemption that currently applies for clearing essentially within 50 metres of rivers or creeks within the Great Barrier Reef catchment. All the science tells us that one of the major things that has been impacting on the Great Barrier Reef's health is sediment run-off from clearing alongside rivers and creeks. The people who do that are not bad people, and they're not breaking the law as it stands at the moment, but it is having an impact on the Great Barrier Reef.

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

It's okay to blow up the ridgelines!

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

Senator Canavan might not care about the Great Barrier Reef or the 60,000 jobs in Queensland that rely on the Great Barrier Reef and its tourism industry, but we do. That's why we're saying that, if farmers want to clear within 50 metres of rivers or creeks in the Great Barrier Reef catchment, because the Great Barrier Reef is a nationally protected matter, then they need to go through an EPBC assessment and approval and follow the same rules as every other industry. These changes for land clearing, in some circumstances, and forestry are about levelling the playing field and saying that agriculture and forestry activity should meet the same rules as the mining industry, the renewables industry, the housing industry and every other industry.

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

The time for debate has expired. The committee will report to the Senate.

Progress reported.