Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act consolidates Commonwealth environment laws relating to environmental impact assessments, national parks, World Heritage and endangered species. Successive statutory reviews and other inquiries have deemed this act a failure. In 2020, Professor Graeme Samuel described it as 'gobbledygook'. He said that the regulatory framework 'has been an abysmal failure over the last 25 years'. Decision-making under the auspices of the EPBC Act is not based on good science or good data. It does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively protect environmental matters. The act is not fit to address current or emerging environmental challenges.

This government's response to the Samuel review, its Nature Positive Plan, includes three stages. The first was the establishment of the nature repair scheme and the expansion of the water trigger to all forms of unconventional gas development in December 2023. The second phase of the nature-positive reforms is this legislation for the establishment of an independent environment protection agency. The third stage will be substantive reform to the EPBC Act.

The minister has told us that the EPA is being established ahead of the broader reforms to avoid teething problems in the establishment of new agencies and to allow a smoother transition of responsibilities from the department to the new agency. The Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill establishes Environment Protection Australia as a new Commonwealth entity, with the chief executive officer as its accountable authority. That CEO can establish an advisory group to provide advice regarding the performance of the agency, but he or she will not be bound to follow or to publish that advice. The EPA will not have a statutorily appointed board. The minister will issue the EPA with a statement of expectations, but they will not otherwise direct the agency. The minister will be able to call in decisions and to approve new developments with negative impacts on matters of national environmental significance where this is felt to be in the national interest. The EPA's proposed powers also include the ability to issue stop-work orders and substantially higher penalties.

The accompanying bill establishes Environment Information Australia within the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. This division will develop and implement a national environmental data strategy and oversee the national environmental information supply chain, including the Biodiversity Data Repository.

While new institutions like the EPA and the EIA may be steps in the right direction, if they act within the existing frameworks they will not—they cannot—protect native species and ecosystems.

It's profoundly disappointing that the government is presenting us with this legislation in June 2024, having been in government for more than two years. We have no guarantee of seeing the final tranche of EPBC legislation in this 47th Parliament. These bills fail to provide strong governance structures or clear objects and duties for the EPA. It's my hope that the minister will accept the amendments proposed by the crossbench to address some of these deficiencies.

Firstly, the bill does not provide a definition of 'nature positive' which is in line with internationally recognised best practice definitions and focused on measurable repair and recovery.

Secondly, the EPA should be governed by a skilled and experienced independent board. Its CEO should be appointed by and should report to that board, not to the minister. Decision-making by the agency has to be based on the best available science and on clear rules. The EPA should be adequately funded and functionally independent. Its independence must not be undermined by call-in and exemption powers. Any call-in powers should be strictly limited and defined in legislation as situations in which the EPA has declared that it has a conflict of interest, for projects with a demonstrable public interest determined by quantifiable criteria or where projects meet clear criteria regarding national defence, security or other emergencies. It's laudable that the government is committed to community engagement and consultation during the development of this new EPBC legislation, but the legislation does not include provisions for merits review, which is key to ensuring public involvement in accountability. Merits review should be introduced for project decisions, and it has to be retained in those areas of the act that currently provide for it.

The EPA should not be able to delegate decision-making on matters of national environmental significance to state and territory governments and to other statutory authorities. We cannot trust states and territories with this decision-making. Look at the Northern Territory government, which signed a contract for Beetaloo Basin gas with Tamboran without a competitive tender process, in clear contravention of its commitment to the directives of the Pepper inquiry and without Beetaloo having approval from the NT EPA. The existing EPBC legislation requires Tamboran to self-notify if it anticipates a potential environmental risk, unless the NT government does so. We know that the NT government does not act in the best interests of Territorian on climate or on environmental issues. Given the risk to the Territory's water supplies and its quality from the fracking of the Beetaloo Basin, and in the absence of a self-referral from Tamboran, we're waiting for the federal environment minister to exercise her call-in powers under the water trigger. Until we see her do so, we simply cannot trust this government to enforce the EPBC Act in this country's best interests.

Similarly, the EPBC Act's exemption for logging under regional forestry agreements has been disastrous. In Victoria alone, more than 300 breaches of logging codes were reported to the regulator between 2009 and 2017. None were prosecuted. The state government and VicForests have frequently acted with impunity and in active contravention of the EPBC Act. The Victorian government now claims to have stopped native forest logging, but it has launched an unsupervised forestry transition program, which will clear areas greater than those previously allowed for logging. It is removing trees which have high retention value and which are not hazardous. The VNPA, Forest Watch and Environmental Justice Australia have appealed for ministerial intervention under section 70 of the EPBC Act for the protection of tree geebungs, southern greater gliders, yellow-bellied gliders, leadbeater's possums and other threatened species. They've not yet seen action from the minister.

In Tasmania, we've seen the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal approve a Filipino-owned windfarm on the migration path of the critically endangered orange-bellied parrot and the endangered Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle. This move was applauded by both the Labor and Liberal Parties at a state level. How can we have faith in our environmental protections when the federal minister fails to intervene on such repeated and wilful acts of environmental vandalism?

Delaying and splitting the EPBC reforms undermines the Albanese government's commitment to addressing the climate and biodiversity crises. It's especially disappointing when we've seen legislation prioritising fossil fuel projects receiving higher priority. We're putting off legislation for stage 3 of the EPBC legislation while this government brings bills to this House to facilitate sea dumping and new gas projects while Woodside acts to secure permission to mine gas from the Browse Basin, putting at risk not only the Scott Reef but also pygmy blue whales, dolphins, seabirds, green sea turtles and dusky sea snake species which rely on that habitat.

A fortnight ago, the Albanese government approved a new gas pipeline. A week later, it approved the Gina Rinehart-backed Atlas Stage 3 Gas Project. This is a plan for 151 new coal seam gas wells in Queensland—a state in which fracking has contaminated water supplies. Water bores have been drained, and cropping country is sinking. Atlas will produce gas up to 2080. The minister told us last week that the project is permissible under the Albanese government's Safeguard Mechanism and the existing EPBC Act. If this is permissible under the current legislation, then that legislation is a failure.

Australia has a tragically high rate of species extinction, including the first extinction attributable to the effects of climate change in 2009. More than 100 endemic species have been lost from the wild since colonial settlement in 1788. More than 2,200 Australian species and ecological communities are actively threatened. One-in-six of our bird species is at risk of extinction. BirdLife Australia tells me that in my own electorate of Kooyong we have three threatened bird species: the swift parrot, the gang-gang cockatoo, and the white-throated needletail.

Habitat loss is a huge and continuing problem. Between 2000 and 2017, 7.7 million hectares of habitat for threatened species was cleared, and 93 per cent of that was not referred for assessment and approvals under the EPBC Act. Most recently, we've seen the minister give the green light to the clearing of bushland at Lee Point in Darwin. This is bushland which is crucial habitat for the critically endangered gouldian finch. Again, if this is permissible under current legislation then the current legislation is a failure. The legislation before the House today will do nothing to prevent even further loss of habitat.

Many key threats to threatened species and ecosystems generally, whether we're talking about habitat loss, invasive species and disease, adverse fire regimes, climate change and severe weather, are poorly addressed or are not addressed under the framework provided by the EPBC Act. It fails to deal effectively with cumulative impacts and it overrelies on offsets for biodiversity destruction. Climate change is a foundational, pervasive threat to the matters of national environmental significance that the EPBC Act is intended to protect.

In the Black Summer bushfires, more than 500 plant and animal species lost their entire known habitats. At least 100 threatened species lost more than 50 per cent of their known habitat. In the decades to come and in the absence of more effective action on climate change, such events will continue to affect us with increasing frequency and severity and with cumulative, compounding effects on nature. Nowhere in the current environmental assessments regime is this increased likelihood of future events taken into account when addressing or assessing the overall impacts and risks of specific developments.

The government still has not committed to introducing a climate trigger to guarantee that emissions from new projects will be directly regulated under the EPBC Act. Instead, it has argued that this should be done through other laws such as the Safeguard Mechanism. It is a ridiculous anomaly that our national environmental law barely mentions and does not effectively address climate change. We have to have a climate trigger included in the EPBC Act. It has to be inclusive of all emissions, including scope 3 emissions from new projects, and it has to include a proper assessment of the cumulative impacts of all decision-making by the government on climate. It should also include a mechanism for emergency listing of species or ecological communities where such is required after a climate related event such as a bushfire or a reef-bleaching event.

Four years on from the Samuel review, a comprehensive package of environmental reforms is finally on our national agenda, but delaying and splitting these reforms breaks the government's explicit promise to our electorates. It undermines the Albanese government's commitment to addressing the climate and biodiversity crises. We need new laws that deliver robust national standards and better protections for critical habitats. We need them now. At a time when Australia is already experiencing increasing and compounding climate impacts, we cannot afford any further delays in protecting our environment.

My electorate of Kooyong wants this government to act on climate and environment more quickly, more decisively and more effectively. I ask the government to accept the proposed amendments from the crossbench. They will significantly improve this legislation. Australians have lost faith in our environmental and climate protections. We need the government to act now to restore that faith.

See this speech in context