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

I rise to speak on the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and the related bills.

I think that our journey towards environmental protection reforms—in this place, certainly—has been torturous, perhaps tedious, and, some would argue, terminal. This is somewhat synonymous with the 2,212 species and the ecological communities that are listed as 'threatened'—of which 10 per cent were added to that list in the last three years, suggesting a worsening crisis requiring immediate action rather than the navel-gazing undertaken by successive governments. Between the years 2000 and 2017 alone, more than 7.7 million hectares of potential habitat for threatened species were cleared—a staggering 93 per cent without being referred to assessment or approval under the EPBC Act. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. Experts have advised governments that our existing laws are inadequate.

We've had two independent statutory reviews of our environmental legislation. Firstly, the Hawke review in December 2009, then the Samuel review in 2021. The Hawke review made 71 wide-ranging recommendations, including a general requirement to completely redraft the act in order to make significant changes to its operation and administration. The then government's response: it went into environmental legislative hibernation. After more than a decade of inaction, the Samuel review was released in January 2021. That report concluded:

The EPBC Act is out dated and requires fundamental reform. It does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively fulfil its environmental management responsibilities to protect nationally important matters. The Act, and the way it is implemented, results in piecemeal decisions, which rarely work in concert with the environmental management responsibilities of the States and Territories. The Act is a barrier to holistic environmental management which, given the nature of Australia's federation, is essential for success.

In April 2022, Graeme Samuel appeared before the Environment and Communications Reference Committee stating:

In 2020, or January 2021, which is when my report was released, we had had just over two decades of neglect and of abysmal failure in protecting the environment and biodiversity. Unfortunately, nothing of any consequence was done with my report until 21 May 2022.

And here we are. After two reviews spanning more than a decade, we finally have a bill before us that seeks to correct the obvious flaws in our environmental legislative framework.

But I'm not popping the champagne corks just yet. While I commend the government for its decisive and early decision to implement its Nature Positive Plan and incorporate many of the Samuel review recommendations, it does fall short in critical areas. The bill establishes a statutory agency, Environment Protection Australia, comprising a CEO, staff and other persons whose services are required for the operation of the entity. The CEO is appointed by the Governor-General through a process determined by the minister and may only be appointed if the minister is satisfied that the person has the requisite knowledge and experience. However, during the consultation process, a draft policy paper was distributed relating to a ministerial call-in power related to environmental approval decisions. This does cast a shadow over the independence of the EPA and its CEO to make appropriate decisions and does not address the position of many stakeholders, academic experts and environment and climate activists who have long argued for a truly independent statutory authority. The National Environmental Law Association summed this up as such:

The proposal for a CEO model without a statutorily appointed Board may be intended to curtail political influence within the EPA. However, reliance on a single-member regulator structure encourages a perception of bias, misconduct and corruption, and increases that risk that bias, misconduct and corruption will occur because only one person (i.e. the CEO) need be influenced to affect the regulator's decision-making. To achieve legitimacy, a regulatory authority must be seen to be and be free from external influence.

I think that's a very important point.

In addition to curing perceptions of improper conduct and lowering the risk of such conduct, the presence of a board would ensure the EPA's strategic direction is guided by members with specific expertise in a range of areas. Board oversight provides for a broader range of skills and qualifications than a single person fulfilling the role of CEO. I'm therefore seeking some guidance from the minister on whether the lack of transparency around the shortcoming will be resolved in stage 3 of reforms. The Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill establishes the position of the Head of Environment Information Australia—HEIA—as a statutory officer within the department. It confers powers and functions, including the preparation and publishing of biannual state and environment reports, and will develop and implement a monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework to assess and report on the extent to which Nature Positive is being achieved. While this progresses the recommendations of the Samuel review, I'm disappointed at the vague definition of Nature Positive and the omission of a baseline and a target year. We should be including that in the legislation, rather than it being set at the discretion of the Head of Environment Information Australia.

Environmental legislation is challenging. There is no doubt about that, and I do not envy the minister's role in navigating a path with such broad stakeholder views and expectations. These bills are not perfect, but they are a significant advancement on what we currently have. I support this bill and look forward to seeing further reforms that provide certainty for our environment and stakeholders.

See this speech in context