Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. One reason it is such a privilege to be the member for Mayo—I've got to say, there are many!—is that my own values align closely with those of my community. There is no better example than this issue. The people of Mayo see the need for the value of developing our local economy and industries, and also have a deep connection to our pristine local environment and know the importance of nurturing and conserving it. They see how essential it is for economic development and environmental protection to work together and to build on each other.

Professor Samuel's review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was comprehensive and damning. It found that the current regime is not fit for purpose. It is failing to promote economic development and is failing to protect the environment. It is a scandal that the current situation is this bad. And yet we have quiet. Why is this the case? The previous review, in 2010, found the same problem as Professor Samuel. Labor failed to act then, and the coalition, I believe, is failing to act now that it is in power. And it's because of those failures that our environment is now in a state of unsustainable decline. I believe, frankly, both parties should be ashamed.

What matters now is what happens next. The government proposes that we allow state governments to handle the entire project approvals process as long as they comply with federal standards. Centre Alliance has no problem with this as long as the standards effectively protect the environment, an independent regulator can monitor processes and outcomes, and there is a broader response to the Samuel review. However, this is not what the government is proposing. The standards that the government has proposed are simply not effective. Instead, they will lock in the current failing regime for at least another two years. The regulator, as proposed by the government, is not independent. Instead, it will be part of the department and subject to interference by the minister.

Further, the government has not published a response to the Samuel review and refuses to tell us if it ever will. We simply have no idea if it intends to walk away from reform after this bill is dealt with. It is simply not good enough. This is why Centre Alliance has been working with the Senate crossbench to ensure that the EPBC bills will not pass parliament in their current form. We are not opposed to reform; rather, we think it is necessary and long overdue. But it needs to be done right. And that's not what we have in front of us.

Senator Griff, in the other place, and I, and other crossbench senators, wrote collectively to the minister back in March, setting out what that means. Firstly, we want the government to work with industry and conservation groups to deliver better standards—but not in two years time; this needs to be done today. The Senate inquiry heard that those groups have already agreed to 80 per cent of Professor Samuel's standards. So let's adopt those agreed standards in this bill and set up a process to find common ground for the other 20 per cent. Secondly, we want the regulator to be genuinely independent. We want someone who can speak honestly and openly about the problems within the system and how to fix them. We want someone who is fearless. We will not get that in this bill. That's the only way to ensure the system is effective and to rebuild public confidence. Thirdly, we want a comprehensive response to the Samuel review, with a road map for implementation. This will give us confidence that the government is not going to walk away from the Samuel review after the bill has passed.

Those were our requests that we put in writing; requests that we believe are reasonable and responsible, will improve this bill and will deliver better environmental and economic outcomes. Disappointingly, the minister, I believe, hasn't considered any of our concerns. I certainly haven't seen a letter in response. It's for those reasons, and the lack of confidence of myself and my Centre Alliance colleague, Senator Stirling Griff, that we cannot support the bill before the House.

See this speech in context