Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I disagree with the member for Melbourne: I don't think this is a bad bill; I think it's a terrible bill. It's an appalling piece of legislation. Yes, it will do some things. Yes, it will give the minister power to set environmental standards. But let's look at that for a moment. The proposed requirements for environmental standards are weak and unclear. The power to make standards is discretionary. Definitions of key terms are missing, and review requirements are vague. It would allow the government's weak interim standards to remain in place indefinitely, and environmental groups, lawyers and experts have consistently rejected the government's proposed standards, which just reflect the failing legislation we already have in place.

Yes, the bill will establish the Environmental Assurance Commissioner, but let's look at that for a moment. The commissioner would be limited to a 'general' audit with no power to investigate proponents, to compel information or to investigate individual decisions related to projects. There is no compliance or enforcement power for the commissioner, and the minister has input into work plans, meaning the commissioner isn't properly independent. The commissioner can't conduct unplanned audits. There are no requirements for particular expertise or qualifications for the commissioner. There are poor public disclosure conflict-of-interest requirements. And it's a far cry from the strong cop on the beat recommended, quite wisely, in Professor Samuel's interim report. In fact, in essence, the commissioner that we would get from this piece of legislation is a toothless tiger, one that will basically ensure business as usual. I think I've made myself quite clear: this is a terrible piece of legislation. So, in response, I'm going to move an amendment. I move:

That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

":

(1) noting that the bill:

(a) does the bare minimum by giving the Minister unclear, discretionary powers to create weak environmental standards with poor oversight;

(b) establishes a watered-down Environmental Assurance Commissioner with limited powers and little independence, which is a far cry from the strong cop on the beat recommended by Professor Graeme Samuel AC in his Interim Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and

(c) will do little to protect Australia's precious environment or reverse the current extinction crisis;

(2) the House:

(a) declines to give the bill a second reading; and

(b) calls on the Government to instead pass the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021, which sets up a completely independent body with the power to strengthen environmental regulation, ensure accountability and achieve real environmental outcomes".

In essence, what I'm proposing is that the parliament ditch this terrible piece of legislation and instead adopt the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill that I tabled and spoke about in this place in March 2021. That bill, a much superior bill, would ensure that the EPA would be created, which would effectively and transparently exercise the administrative functions currently held by the Commonwealth concerning the EPBC Act, as well as any other federal legislation relating to the environment. This would include issuing approvals, granting permits, auditing environmental impact assessments and monitoring postapproval impacts. The EPA I propose will have the power to undertake both systemic and individual investigations into applications, environmental impact statements or any other documents received in support of an application. Moreover, the EPA I propose will have the power to terminate an approval or even issue a stop-work order in circumstances where serious environmental harm has been caused or is imminent. Importantly, the EPA I propose will also have a call-in power for monitoring, compliance and enforcement even when a state or territory bilateral agreement has been made. Moreover, the EPA I propose will be headed by an appropriately qualified CEO who is independently appointed for a fixed term and supported by a newly established parliamentary joint committee on the environment and energy. And, to avoid even the perception of bias, the senior staff will be prevented from having any potential conflicts of interest, including employment as a politician or lobbyist in the five years preceding appointment to the EPA.

I call on both major parties—the government and the opposition—to support the bill that I propose through this amendment. What I propose is practical, has community support and will deliver real outcomes for our environment.

This is not a contentious proposal. Regularly, independent statutory watchdogs are created to oversee complex areas of policy or where there is a risk of bias, corruption or conflicts of interest. Communications and media companies are overseen by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, Consumer Law is overseen by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission is charged with looking after markets and financial services. I've been working with my crossbench colleagues for years to establish an independent commission against corruption to clean up our political institutions and to tackle corruption. So now, when we're seeing the imminent collapse of precious ecosystems, when Australia is a world leader in extinctions and when we're already facing unprecedented threats from climate change, a strong independent regulator is more important than ever. But a strong independent regulator will not be the outcome of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021, which is before us today.

The bill I propose we pursue through this amendment is supported by Places You Love Alliance, a group of key environmental groups which represent communities across the country. This includes groups like World Wildlife Fund Australia, the Wilderness Society, Australian Conservation Foundation, BirdLife Australia, Humane Society International and Environmental Justice Australia. I leave the amendment before the House, and I ask for the support of both the government and the opposition. It is not too late to abandon this legislation that the government brings to the House and to chart a different course, to instead be fair dinkum about looking after our environment, to arrest the extinction crisis, to take the power to intervene away from the government and give it to a genuinely independent body, made up of experts with no conflicts of interests, who can intervene, have punitive powers and who can genuinely look after our environment across the whole of the country. They can certainly do a much better job than what's being done currently by state and territory governments.

On that point, I'd make the observation that the Tasmanian government is doing a dreadful job of looking after the Tasmanian environment and the Tasmanian natural environment. That's why we need a strong cop on the beat at the federal level, just like we already have strong cops on the beat to look after any number of other matters. I will leave it there. I look to the government and the opposition to support this amendment, and then we'll be charting a much more effective course into the future.

See this speech in context