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

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (4) to (9) on the sheet revised 27 June 2024, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 13 to 17), omit the clause, substitute:

3 Object

(1) The object of this Act is to establish a national environmental regulator, the Chief Executive Officer of Environment Protection Australia, in order to:

(a) enhance the protection of Australia's environment; and

(b) prevent the degradation of Australia's environment and reduce risks to human health; and

(c) deliver accountable, efficient, outcome-focused, transparent and informed environmental regulatory decision-making, and as a result promote public trust in that decision-making; and

(d) deliver proportionate and effective risk-based compliance and enforcement responses, using data and information, including providing assurance that environmental outcomes are being met.

(2) Paragraph (1)(c) includes decision-making informed by persons who are:

(a) members of the Aboriginal race of Australia; or

(b) descendants of Indigenous inhabitants of the Torres Strait Islands.

(4) Page 9 (after line 8), after clause 13, insert:

13A Duties of the CEO

The CEO has the following duties when performing the CEO's functions:

(a) to act consistently with the object of this Act (see paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (d));

(b) to follow principles of ecologically sustainable development;

(c) to act consistently with the human right to a healthy environment for all.

(5) Clause 15, page 10 (line 9), after "registrable decisions)", insert ", offsets relating to approvals under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999".

(6) Clause 16, page 11 (before line 10), before paragraph (3)(a), insert:

(aa) ensure that the statement is consistent with the object of this Act (see paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (d)) and with the CEO's duties set out in section 13A; and

(7) Clause 17, page 11 (before line 24), before paragraph (2)(a), insert:

(aa) ensure that the statement is consistent with the object of this Act (see paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (d)) and with the CEO's duties set out in section 13A; and

(8) Clause 18, page 13 (after line 4), after paragraph (1)(a), insert:

(aa) a register of offsets relating to approvals under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, including details of the following for each offset:

(i) the species affected by the offset;

(ii) the agreements relating to the offset;

(iii) the specific offset project, including its geographical location.

(9) Page 13 (after line 23), after clause 20, insert:

20A Register of offsets

The rules may make provision in relation to the register of offsets mentioned in paragraph 18(1)(aa), including (without limitation) the information in relation to each offset that the CEO must publish on the register.

Note 1: The rules may, for example, prescribe that the CEO must publish the name of a person with a particular connection to the offset.

Note 2: The CEO is not required to publish certain sensitive information: see section 23.

We must start to acknowledge that our environmental laws are broken and that these bills, while a welcome step, will do little to fix them. This is tranche 2 of the reforms from the minister. Tranche 1 included a water trigger and was passed late last year. It was great to legislate it, but unfortunately it is completely ineffective if it is not actually used.

I should say to the minister that, as we consider these amendments and this bill and consider whether it will be effective in improving environmental protection, we do look to past conduct. The problem is, in relation to, for example, the Tamboran and Beetaloo gas projects, a number of us have written to the minister asking her to use those new powers under tranche 1 of the reform to recall that project in to be assessed in relation to its water use. Unfortunately, earlier this week we received a letter from the minister really stating unsatisfactory excuses as to why this gas project remains unreferred under the EPBC Act despite grave concerns and the past history by this proponent of being fined for dumping wastewater.

So it begs a question. These legislations before us will not have the effect that is stated unless they are robust, they are utilised and the intent is in fact very clear and specific. As I understand it, regarding all of the amendments and the discussions that have been had with the minister and her team, while I am very thankful for the opportunity to do that, the difficulty is it does not appear that there is any willingness to actually accept any amendments that are all here and are reasonable to ensure better legislation.

The amendments that I'm moving now are absolutely reasonable and sensible. In fact, some were even included in the minister's and the government's own nature positive consultation documents but later dropped. In particular, they introduced clear objects and duties to ensure the duties of the EPA formed under this legislation and with the minister can achieve, amongst other things, the enhancement of the Australian environment. We need to be specific about the objects of this legislation and the EPA formed under this legislation.

This amendment provides greater transparency and accountability for offsets to ensure proponents are not double-counting offsets, as was reported just recently in the media. The amendments include providing more detailed objects to the Environment Protection Australia bill, linking those objects to the EPA's duties and any ministerial statement of expectations and minister's statement of intent.

My concern is that, as the legislation is currently drafted, without being explicit in the legislation we will have different ministers who can then make vastly different statements of expectations and statements of intent, which very much lower the bar when it comes to the expectations of how this EPA will work. Objects and duties guide the EPA in its activities and assist decision-making, and they actually make it arm's length from that political intervention, so it is really important for it to be specific in the legislation. It also keeps the EPA accountable to delivering the outcomes that this legislation seeks to achieve. It is one of the key mechanisms in which decisions can be reviewed by the courts to ensure they are consistent with the objects of the legislation.

I note the minister in my discussions flagged potential legal complexities regarding having objects in this way, but the EPA equivalents in states such as New South Wales and Victoria still contain quite comprehensive objects within their EPA legislation while discharging responsibilities relating to many other environmental laws that also have their own objects. I should say that I did a search of all the laws that this EPA would essentially enact, and not all have detailed objects, so there are gaps that need to be addressed. The minister's own press release on the tranche 2 reforms also recognised the concerning results of an offsets audit and the need to urgently strengthen the enforcement of offsets. Yesterday, the media reported that the department's audit of 20 offset sites showed that 30 per cent of sites had worse conditions than the offsets plan and that two sites overlapped with existing offset sites. So I'm also moving an amendment to include an additional register of offsets to avoid this overlap. This will provide greater transparency about where offsets have been secured and which offsets have been secured and that they're continuing in perpetuity. I also wholly support the amendments moved by the member for North Sydney to improve transparency through documentation having to be registered and through definitions. It's important that communities can see the reasoning of the decision-making body and that there's transparency around that—not just a duty to the proponent of an application but also that it states that duty to communities.

I note that further amendments must be made in tranche 3, and we have been promised that those are coming, especially around offsets and like-for-like— (Time expired)

See this speech in context