Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

There's huge appetite for reform of the EPBC Act, which has been promised by this government. The government decided to do this reform in three stages, and this is the second stage, which sets up some of the institutional framework to deliver on the expected stage 3 reforms. Let's be clear. The bulk of the reforms needed will be in stage 3, which we haven't seen yet and which we hope will pass before the end of the year. If the stage 3 reforms are not passed in this term of government, then this government will be a huge disappointment to all those who hoped that we would see genuine protection of the places that we love before it's too late.

I've engaged with the content of this bill in good faith on the expectation that stage 3 is coming. If stage 3 was not coming, I'd be trying to pull a lot more of the stage 3 changes into this legislation, but I do recognise that we need to do this properly. I recognise that it's a big piece of work and I can see an argument for doing it in parts, as long as we get all the parts in this term.

Today I want to cover why it's important that we get this nature-positive reform right, how these bills fit into the context of the reform journey, my priorities for the stage 2 reforms, and some vital parts of stage 3 reforms which I've directly raised with the minister.

So why is it important that we get these nature-positive reforms right? It's apparent to anyone with a news subscription, an internet browser or in fact eyes that we're facing a nature crisis in Australia. Our nature and ecosystems face significant threats: changes to and destructions of habitats, invasive species and the impact of climate change.

It's been almost four years since the Samuel review bluntly concluded that the EPBC Act is ineffective, is cumbersome for business and has comprehensively failed to protect our environment. The government's ambitious Nature Positive Plan, released 18 months ago, was a welcome first response. However, since then, like many others in the House, I've been urging the government to prioritise the passage of these reforms, to both protect our magnificent environment in Australia and create greater clarity, guidance and transparency in the process of environmental approvals. The existing system is convoluted, and people have no confidence in it.

Constituents in my community are highly informed and engaged in biodiversity and conservation issues. The south-western corner of Western Australia, which includes the ecologically protected Swan Coastal Plain and my electorate of Curtin, was the first global biodiversity hotspot to be recognised in Australia and one of only 36 in the world. Currently more than half its plants are endemic to this region, as are many animals, including critically endangered animals that rely on this habitat for survival. In Curtin we have 19 community conservation groups with passionate volunteers who steward the protection of our wetlands, bush and coastal parks. They have observed firsthand the impact of climate change, our deteriorating environment and the extinction crisis. I'm also fortunate to have a significant number of biodiversity and conservation experts in Curtin who are leading academics in this field. There are also many constituents in my electorate employed by the energy sector, and there's a lot of concern about the lack of clarity surrounding approval processes. Over the past two years requests for updates on these reforms have represented a significant proportion of my constituent inquiries.

So how do these bills fit into the reform agenda? As I said, this is the second of three proposed stages of reform. Stage 1 is complete with the establishment of the Nature Repair Market and expanding the water trigger. These three bills represent stage 2 of the plan, establishing the foundational framework of Environment Protection Australia and Environment Information Australia, as well as consequential amendments to the EPBC Act and other environmental legislation to accommodate the establishment of these two bodies.

I want to make it clear that I am supportive of an independent well-funded EPA with clear functions and duties. I'm also supportive of a well-functioning EIA that has a broad scope and the ability to manage significant data that will support better environmental and investment decisions in the future. These will be some of the building blocks that enable the protections we're hoping are coming in stage 3. On their own they don't achieve this, but they are pieces of the puzzle.

Biodiversity and conservation data collection is critical. Governments have been collecting data for each State of the environment report since 1995, yet none of it has been saved in usable form anywhere. I find that extraordinary. Every time we do a State of the environment report, we effectively start from scratch. The government tells us that these two agencies will provide more support for faster environmental approval decisions on projects, and more environmental information and transparency.

The institutions we establish to protect our environment should contain an appropriate level of ambition in their governing infrastructure that is consistent with the level of ambition we want to see and the laws they'll be administering. Having not seen the stage 3 reforms yet, it's hard to know exactly what's needed to deliver on them. This is one of the challenges of doing the reform in stages. But taking it on good faith that stage 3 is coming, there are some requirements for these institutions to be set up for success to deliver on a coherent nature-positive reform package under the anticipated stage 3 changes.

We need a strong, well-funded, independent EPA with unambiguous functions and duties. We need an EIA with appropriate measurement monitoring and natural capital accounting tools that enable it to manage significant data and establish a regional reporting framework. And we need a definition of 'nature positive' that's consistent with our international goals, and the consistent application of that definition across stage 2 legislation. I have concerns about these bills in these three areas.

First I want to say something about the concept of independence. It's critical that the Environment Protection Australia agency is independent and transparent, with strong compliance and enforcement processes and a focus on positive-nature outcomes. A strong EPA will be undermined if it can be influenced by vested interests or directed by government. The WA EPA has recently undergone a review. Serious concerns have been raised that the recommendations of that review are fatal to the independent purpose of the WA EPA. There's a renewed emphasis in the recommendations on facilitating quicker decision-making and sustainable development, rather than on its statutory purpose, which is the protection of the environment. We do need efficient processing of matters, but not at the expense of good decisions.

There's a strong perception in Western Australia that the state EPA has been hijacked by industry pressure on the government to fast-track development approvals at the expense of nature. The bill before this House anticipates the new head of the EPA, the EPA CEO, will be appointed on direct recommendation of the minister or government. It would be preferable for the CEO appointment to be transparently made by an independent board—a board that's independent of government, management and stakeholder groups and selected due to their relevant skills and experience—and for the EPA CEO to be accountable to that board. This model has been recommended by many during the consultation process. Good governance is important; it fosters trust and removes risk. I'll be supporting the amendments proposed by the member for Mackellar to strengthen the independence and governance of the EPA.

I also want to say something about the definition of 'nature positive'. The minister's choice of the term 'nature positive' for this reform package is significant. Words matter. The Prime Minister has endorsed the Leaders Pledge for Nature, which aims to step up global ambition to tackle the climate crisis, halt biodiversity loss and deliver a nature-positive world by 2030. At COP15, Australia signed up to the global biodiversity framework to address biodiversity loss, restore ecosystems and protect indigenous rights. This plan includes concrete measures to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030. That goal has been consistently adopted around the world to guide urgent action to get nature visibly and measurably on the path of recovery.

In the EIA bill, 'nature positive' is defined as an improvement in the diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems from a baseline. But the bill does not include a goal for recovery or a baseline. Instead, the bill provides for the head of the EIA to determine the baseline for 'nature positive'. I think the definition of 'nature positive' in the EIA bill should reflect our commitment and include a clear goal to halt biodiversity decline by 2030, measured against a 2021 baseline. It makes sense to make the 2021 baseline consistent with current, national state of the environment report data. I'll support the amendment put by the member for Goldstein to strengthen the definition of 'nature positive' in this bill.

Over the last few weeks, I've considered, drafted and proposed to the minister's office several other amendments that experts believe would improve the stage 2 reform bills. However, I accept that the primary objective of these bills is to establish a foundational institutional framework that has the requisite capacity and expertise to administer the forthcoming substantive stage 3 reforms. I note the minister's reluctance to drag into these bills parts of the stage 3 reforms, and I can see that doing this in a piecemeal way could create a legislative framework that's unworkable, impractical or incomplete. So, whilst I have concerns about the set up of these institutions, I support the establishment of the EPA and the EIA in these bills.

I want to finish with some comments about the upcoming stage 3 legislation. As I mentioned, we're waiting for opportunity to review very significant reforms as part of stage 3. We expect national standards that are robust and legally enforceable. They must deliver a meaningful shift in our environmental laws to a new decision-making framework that's characterised by objective assessment processes and nature-positive outcomes. I wrote to the minister recently, seeking her assurances that key reforms would be included in that package and that we would see those reforms in this term. These critical issues for reform include the legislative application of a mitigation hierarchy, the recalibration of the purpose of the offset scheme, a consideration of cumulative regional impact and the participation of First Nations people in the assessment of culturally significant ecological communities and habitats. I'm going to address each of these briefly.

In relation to a mitigation hierarchy, every expert I speak with about these reforms calls for consistent guidance and tools for decision-makers to assess what amounts to an improvement and net gain in biodiversity. There must be a clear hierarchy and consistent application. Firstly, there must be avoidance. If that's not possible then it must be minimisation. If that's not possible then it must be rehabilitation. And if that's not possible then it must be restoration, offset and enough resources to follow up compliance. Where a project represents irreversible damage, decision-makers must have the regulatory tools to decline approval.

In relation to the offset regime, the primary focus of the legislation needs to be on prevention and avoidance rather than rehabilitation and offset. I'm aware that there has been a recent departmental audit of the offset policy. However, there are significant concerns that this policy distorts the purpose of nature positive and is consistently being breached. The offset regime must form part of the legislation and must be the option of last resort.

On cumulative regional impact, the stage 3 legislation must recognise that decisions about individual projects cannot be made in a vacuum. Ecological communities and environmental values are not static. Self-evidently, species and habitats extend beyond the footprint of a single project. Multiple projects or proposals have a cumulative impact across a region. This is particularly so in Western Australia. In the context of cumulative impact, conservation planning proposals and project assessments must include a consideration of climate.

For Aboriginal people, ecological communities and habitats may be worthy of protection due to their cultural significance, even if they're not threatened species. We must have a new national standard that embeds regional Indigenous participation in the process of assessment and determination of culturally significant ecological communities and habitats.

In conclusion, I recognise that wholesale reform of our environmental laws is a massive undertaking. I welcome these stage 2 reforms to set up the institutional architecture to deliver on further significant reforms. The independence of the EPA will be very important in ensuring that decisions are made for the right reasons. Words matter, and the minister has chosen the badge 'Nature Positive'. We must define that term consistently to meet international standards and reflect it as the underlying concept throughout this package.

We cannot afford to wait much longer for stage 3 reforms, and I urge the minister to introduce those as soon as possible so they can be passed this year. We're looking for strong, enforceable national standards that embed objective assessment processes and nature positive outcomes.

See this speech in context