Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Hansard source

I firstly want to thank all members for their contribution to the debate on this important Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. The independent review of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 found that the act is complex, a comprehensive reworking of the act is required and reform should be delivered in stages. And, as I've already said in this place, the government is committed to taking a staged, methodical approach to working through the recommendations of the review in consultation with stakeholders.

Already I have released a pathway for reforming Australia's national environmental law, which sets out the government's initial stages of reforms. These initial stages include and build on the reforms that are already underway, including the legislation debated today. I also released a time line outlining the government's proposed timing for further environmental law reform.

I want to address some of the matters that have been raised during the debate. Firstly, we've continually heard members compare this bill with that of a previous bill. There's been a lot of confusion about the narrative that relates to the reforms. Actually, the member for Hunter put it well when he said—and I'm paraphrasing him—he's heard a lot confusing words spoken about something that isn't the bill before the House. I couldn't have put it better myself. This bill delivers a framework to establish environmental national standards and an environmental assurance commissioner, a commissioner that will provide oversight and confidence that the single-touch approval system is working as intended and upholding the requirements of the EPBC Act. This shows once again that, despite the government adopting a new approach to environmental reform, those opposite continue to stand in the way. We've heard from the shadow minister claiming that her door is open to reform, a quietly echoed appeal from every speaker in Labor at the end of their remarks—'The door is open.' But what Labor says and what it does are two different things, because if Labor was serious about reforming the EPBC Act it would be supporting these reforms. If Labor was serious about supporting jobs and driving economic growth, it would be supporting this bill. If Labor was serious about delivering better environmental outcomes, it would work with the government. But, once again, all Labor does is stand in the way.

Time and time again, Labor has moved the goalposts when it comes to working with the government. The member for Watson, previously an environment minister, started to wander into a very interesting space but seemed very clearly to say that Labor does not want to see a devolution of accreditation under standards and assurances to the states. It doesn't want that. But that's not what his leader said in a letter to the Prime Minister. It is very clear from the opposition leader's letter that 'much needed reforms to Australia's environmental laws are needed' and that 'federal Labor supports the Western Australian resources sector, the jobs it creates and the export revenue it generates,' and then he goes through projects. And I think that is quite fine, because we do know that the Western Australian government wants this and is very strong. The Leader of the Opposition wrote, 'Federal Labor has never ruled out support for bilateral agreements with states with the aim of streamlining the approvals processes consistent with the Samuel review,' which we commissioned. So either Labor supports a devolved accredited bilateral agreement system with the states or it doesn't, but, again, it's not clear from the speakers which way.

When it comes to the crunch, the behaviour that Labor have demonstrated indicates that they were never really serious about improving the EPBC Act. As I said earlier this week, the Prime Minister wrote to the opposition in the spirit of working together to bring about important reforms—important, as noted by the Leader of the Opposition—that will deliver much needed jobs for the country and grow the economy while putting in place the measures that will provide better environmental outcomes. But what did Labor do? They said no. Despite continued efforts by me and the government to find a pathway forward, to work together with stakeholders, to bring about change—and all that has been constructive—it hasn't involved the Labor Party, because all Labor has managed to say is no.

Just this evening, the Prime Minister received a response, and I've already quoted from that response. The Leader of the Opposition claims to understand the need to support Western Australia's thriving resources sector. Well, if the opposition leader really understood that sector and the jobs it creates, if the opposition leader really was standing with the people of Western Australia, as he seems to be saying, he would stop saying no. He would stop standing in the way of this bill and these necessary reforms.

While Labor were also quick to criticise the government, claiming the government was under-resourcing the department and delaying project approvals, suggesting that the government was stalling projects, what they didn't mention was that this year's federal budget took total new Morrison government spending on the environment since the last election to more than $2 billion. We've also been investing in our department's resources and capabilities. So, while Labor was happy to rely on an Australian National Audit Office report from a previous period to criticise the government, what it failed to mention was that the department is currently assessing projects on time. Currently, key assessment time frames are met 99 per cent of the time, and this is a result of the government's investment to bust congestion and improve service delivery, and we have.

The shadow minister also indicated Labor was committed to a framework for durable reforms that will last for years to come, but this is exactly what this bill does: it sets up that framework, an architecture to facilitate improvements to the EPBC Act. It provides a pathway for greater environmental protections and for more jobs across Australia, jobs that would be created in electorates from the Hunter to the Pilbara, from Tasmania to Queensland. I understand the opposition leader may be planning to head to Western Australia. He will be off to the Pilbara to reassure miners and industry that Labor is in it for them. But if they really were in it for them and for the environment, they would be supporting legislative change now.

See this speech in context