Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I again want to really thank the member for Mackellar for her amendments. I won't be supporting these amendments, but I do really want to acknowledge the spirit and the intent behind the amendments. I certainly agree that it is important that we have a robust and independent Environment Protection Agency. That's why we are setting up the EPA to be an independent statutory body.

The reason we're doing this legislation in two tranches—which Professor Graeme Samuel has said is a very sensible way to proceed—is that we want the organisation up and running, the staff ready to go and all the rest of it before they're administering the new laws. I think the idea that a new organisation—still getting the business cards printed—could administer a whole lot of new laws at the same time is a recipe for all sorts of confusion. So we have brought this legislation forward to deliver accountable, efficient, outcomes-focused and transparent decision-making.

In my view, the proposed government's arrangements for Environment Protection Australia strike the right balance between enabling independence from the minister and the government of the day while ensuring that Environment Protection Australia does not become a separate legal entity to the Commonwealth, as is the case with corporate Commonwealth entities. Environment Protection Australia will have its own budget, separate from the department of the environment et cetera. It will publish its own annual reports. It won't be able to be directed by the secretary of my department and it can't be directed by me, other than by the general direction that I give through my statement of expectations and the statement of intent that the CEO of the EPA responds with. This is a very big change from the current situation. Currently, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is completely regulated by my department. The regulator reports to the secretary of my department and to me; there is no independence there. At the same time, I think we do need to have a model which recognises that decision-making will continue to be shared between Environment Protection Australia and the minister. Under the current law, Environment Protection Australia will make certain decisions as the delegate of the minister and the minister will continue to have some role, even under our new laws.

This relationship between Environment Protection Australia and the minister in decision-making is one of the issues that has been most contested during the law reform process. The honourable member has spoken about the view of environmental organisations, and I understand the view of the environmental organisations. What we're trying to do with these new laws is both to improve environmental protection and also to give faster, clearer decisions to business. We're trying to balance these two imperatives because while we know that our environment is in trouble and that we need to better look after it, we also need to continue to be able to build housing, roads, transmission lines, solar farms and all the rest of it. Many people want no decision-making role for the EPA and some want no role for the minister. We're trying to balance these two things, and I believe that we have the balance right, currently, with Environment Protection Australia. We'll continue to discuss the balance of these decision-making responsibilities as part of stage 3 of the reforms. And, of course, we'll have the opportunity to examine those laws when they're released as an exposure draft, so members will have an opportunity, once again, of letting us know whether they believe that balance is right at that time.

See this speech in context