Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Further to my earlier comments in relation to the amendments that I have moved, I refer to the amendment in relation to introducing unacceptable impacts into this legislation. We often have situations where communities are dragged along for years trying to fight projects, and it should really be clear from the outset that they are simply not acceptable projects because of their unacceptable impact.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 refers to both 'significant impacts' and 'unacceptable impacts' yet fails to adequately define either within the act. 'Significant impacts' does have a 40-page guidance documents provided by the department, but 'unacceptable impacts' on matters of national environmental significance is a term that is used in the context of what is clearly unacceptable. Yet many proponents will still apply for a project and drag that community on for years on end. Clearly, what might appear as unacceptable is anything but. The term has been the subject of prolonged cases illustrating that uncertainty around the term and the impacting proponents, as well as adversaries of proposed developments. Most concerning, though, is the risk that, as a result of 'unacceptable impacts' not being clearly defined, actions that arguably will cause unacceptable impacts nevertheless proceed, risking a matter of national significance.

The amendment that I have proposed deals with this concern. It is in the form of a table clearly outlining unacceptable impacts for each matter of environmental significance. It would not only protect the environment but also save proponents time and money, with clear certainty about what unacceptable impacts actually are, and the practical implications of this amendment are significant. Arguably, with clear definitions, unacceptable projects such as the Woolworths one around the New South Wales Central Coast distribution centre, where there was an issue of expanding into critical habitat of endangered flora and fauna, would not have been able to proceed and drag that community along for so long. Similarly, the development in Toondah Harbour has a history spanning nearly a decade of disputes under the EPBC Act. Approval was initially rejected for 'unacceptable impacts' only to then be accepted by then environment minister Josh Frydenberg. Again, certainty for communities is what is needed.

The other amendment that is proposed is in relation to making sure that the EPA is a tough cop on the beat by providing the power to amend conditions. Too often, despite robust conditions being imposed on a proponent, there is a failure to comply with conditions and then, rather than the proponent genuinely suffering the real consequence of that failure to comply, we at times see conditions watered down, and that is not in the best environmental interest.

I commend these amendments to the minister. I have had discussions and I understand she is not supporting them, but I do look forward to further discussions to make sure that we strengthen this. There are many people in the community and around Australia who are very concerned that, unless tranche 3 genuinely delivers stronger protections for the environment, this whole enterprise will have failed to address the concerns raised in the Samuel report.

Question negatived.

See this speech in context