Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

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

For just the second time this century, Australia stands at a unique political moment where the establishment of an ambitious and truly independent regime for environmental protection should be within reach. And, for the second time this century, our government is on the cusp of missing an opportunity to create the genuine protection our environment needs. Australia is endowed with diverse natural beauty and unique native wildlife. Both are central to our lifestyles, culture and national identity. With that comes a responsibility on us all to manage anything that would put preservation of our flora, fauna or biodiversity at future risk. This moment, where government, the community, environmental advocates and many in industry share broad political will for structural environmental reform, will not last forever. If the government chooses not to seize this opportunity properly now, this will be a defining moment in this term of government.

Unfortunately, I believe this package of environmental legislation fails to capitalise on this opportunity. Delay, denial and downright sabotage characterised the last government's approach to climate change, energy policy and the environment. This government came to office with promises of speedy action to update and renovate our environmental laws, to provide 21st century protection for our forests, waters, plants and animals—no more Juukan Gorges. But what have we got from this government? Delay and diminution of ambition in a range of policy areas. Not when it comes to gas or coal though: the minister has approved four new coalmining projects, and another 25 are awaiting approval. Then there is the Future Gas Strategy, stretching our dependence on gas to at least 2050. Members of the Goldstein community tell me they can't see much different between that and Scott Morrison's fantasy of a gas led recovery.

With the coalition backsliding on climate targets and renewable energy, now is the time for this government to step up bravely and not to be cowed. Data provided by BirdLife Australia shows that 11 bird species which call Goldstein home are classified as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable. They include the swift parrot, the fairy tern and the blue-winged parrot. Goldstein and all of Australia are home to such beautiful and diverse wildlife. Our laws must reflect the urgency of the threat they face.

This government's proposal for a federal EPA lacks integrity and genuine independence—so often promised yet so rarely delivered. The proposed model for Environment Protection Australia would not be substantially different from the current arrangement of delegated authority within the environment department. The minister retains the power to call in—in effect, override—any environmental application or decision they choose.

The government has telegraphed its intention to break its promise to deliver this total package of reform during its first term of government. We simply don't know who the next minister for the environment will be or how they might undermine the confident promises of the current minister that there's nothing to fear. 'Don't be too worried about that,' seems to be what the minister is saying. I respect this minister, but I can't trust legislation that is missing the required oversights. It lacks rigour and accountability, and I think that's what our communities want. That's why I am here, and that's why this crossbench is here—to make legislation as rigorous as it can be.

Glaringly and, in my opinion, brazenly absent in this reform package is a board overseeing and guiding the operation of the EPA. Instead the government would prefer for the minister to nominate her own CEO to direct the agency—one who is not accountable to the parliament and could have decision-making authority removed from them at any time of the minister's choosing. This is not meaningful independence and is arguably blatantly buckling to industry lobbying. A board could be appointed by an independent panel which could in turn appoint the CEO.

This EPA will in effect operate similarly to other Commonwealth departments. This means the minister will be able to shape the EPA's strategic policy direction through a statement of expectations. This statement sets the objectives and priorities of a statutory agency. This is the instrument through which the agenda of Australia's primary national environmental protection mechanism will be set.

Statements of expectations change from government to government. The concern is the next government could have even less ambition than the current incumbents. This is just too wishy-washy, too toothless. Is the best we can do better than nothing? This was a choice, one made by the government, not to include commonsense structural integrity provisions to safeguard our environment for future generations, independent of the preferences of any minister. This choice does not reflect the urgency of the threat posed to our native wildlife populations.

Professor Graeme Samuel, whose report informed much of the nation's current debate on nature positive, was explicit in his recommendation that new national environmental standards be at the centre of our environmental law. The government, prior to the election, stated it would live up to Professor Samuel's recommendations. That raises the question of where precisely they are in this legislation; I can't seem to find them. Evidently we must cross our fingers that those measures will land in the third phase of this legislation—that is, likely after the next election. I don't know about you but I am not currently inclined toward blind trust in either this government or a future one that may be less ambitious or, worse, wilfully negligent on environment policy matters.

Australia's current environmental laws are not fit for purpose to preserve our environment and stop the ongoing destruction of nature. National environmental standards would shift the focus from individual process approvals to setting environmental objectives and outcomes. The World Wildlife Fund has made it clear Australia has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world. Bilbies, quokkas and rock wallabies are all facing dwindling population levels and are in danger of extinction. The koala is probably our best loved national symbol, hauled out regularly to impress foreign leaders who visit our shores—yet they are now listed as 'endangered' under the EPBC Act. It's estimated there are possibly only 38,000 koalas left in the wild. Our existing environmental protection regime and what's proposed is inadequate to protect them. Do we really want to be the last generation to see koalas among the gum trees?

This brings me to the government's choice to split this legislation across three phases. We're currently at phase 2—whatever phase 1 was is a subjective question, to put it lightly—and the government last week announced the early stages of its consultation into phase 3. Between now and the release of phase 3—almost certainly in the next term of government—nearly 60 projects, including carbon intensive coal and gas facilities, are currently in the department of environment's approval pipeline. Dividing the environment package into separate phases and across separate terms of government exposes long overdue reform to unnecessary political risk. I will work constructively with any government of the day, presuming I'm still here, but the coalition's track record on environmental protection is worse than this government's.

With all this in mind, I will later propose two amendments to this effect. The first addresses the inadequacy of the government's definition of nature positive. It is completely mystifying to me that we have three phases of nature-positive policy rolling out, but the government is reticent to substantively define in this legislation what nature positive even means. And while on face value it appears commendable that Australia would be the first jurisdiction in the world to define the concept, the government's proposed holding definition is not remotely consistent with recommendations of the internationally recognised Nature Positive movement, nor the advice of leading Australian environmental policy experts.

The government's definition that nature positive entails a simple improvement in the diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems from a baseline is about as wishy-washy as this legislation is overall. The absence of a baseline does not hold the government to science-driven criteria on which the recovery of our ecosystems and native wildlife can be compared over time. The government currently has datasets available to it that, while imperfect, are a better starting point than, 'We'll get back to you on that.'

The most recent State of the environment report, released in 2021, could have been referenced in this legislation to establish a working baseline and superseded by subsequent data obtained by the EIA. While I understand that the intent of this legislation is for the head of the EIA to collect data and set a baseline at a future date, parliament has no insight into who the head will be, no oversight over their appointment process and no assurance that the threats to our environment will be addressed by a data driven legal framework. Nothing in this legislation compels the government to set an ambitious baseline based on all best available sources of data.

The question is also open on the wellbeing of threatened and endangered wildlife species as the EIA undertakes its data collection work. My amendment would substitute this noncommittal definition to include native wildlife populations, set a baseline informed by environmental data put forward in the State of the environment2021 report and set clear targets to reverse environmental decline by 2030 and achieve recovery by 2050. If Australia is going to define nature positive, it must signal here at home and internationally that our domestic environmental regulation is world-leading and fit for purpose.

My second amendment would improve the integrity and the independence of the EPA by establishing a joint standing committee on the environment to monitor the CEO's performance and oversee the process of their appointment. The minister's nomination of the CEO would be referred to the joint committee for confirmation, effectively inserting parliamentary oversight into the EPA's operation. The committee mechanism could be complementary to a board which, in best practice, would be comprised of expert members appointed by an independent interim committee.

I'm proposing this amendment to advance the integrity and independence of the EPA as an alternative to a board, noting the government has explicitly ruled one out without sufficient explanation. And there is a precedent—the parliamentary oversight committee integral to the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. But it appears that the government is reluctant to allow any further parliamentary involvement in oversight and monitoring of executive branch decision-making. If it's good enough for parliament to make sure a body is set up to bring the corrupt to account, so should there be a body to make sure the authority designed to protect the environment is doing its job. Both are cases of sunlight being the best disinfectant.

In 2005 when climate change policy and discourse were settling into the public consciousness, the member who is now Prime Minister tabled substantive legislation which would have created a new matter of national significance under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It would have required major new projects to be assessed for their potential to contribute to climate change—in short, a climate trigger. Where did this courage go?

The crossbench has repeatedly called for broad national environmental standards for matters of national significance, an EPA with independence and integrity and—like the now Prime Minister himself did—an assessment of the risk a project may pose to climate change. Almost like clockwork, as it has developed this legislation, the government has failed to meet its timetables and now appears set to divide aspects of the reform across two terms of government, which relies on re-election. This is a very high-risk strategy when, as we've seen in recent days, the climate wars are on again in earnest, ignited by the opposition leader's plans on nuclear energy—climate war 2.

There is conjecture about whether it was all a mistake. Did the opposition leader understand he was being asked about 2035 targets, not 2030? If not, he couldn't correct his error, because to have done so would have revealed how little he understood about either climate or energy policy. If yes, he has backsliding on Australia's Paris commitments. Neither is good. Now, the alternative dumpster fire: the distracting nuclear policy that can only make our power bills even more expensive, and now an EPA without genuine independence or real authority. This looks like business as usual for the major parties.

See this speech in context