Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm glad to speak in support of the bill itself, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, and the associated bills. It's a vitally important reform and it seeks to address an urgent issue. Australia's environment is not in great shape; we know that. Australia's environment has suffered very significant harm over a considerable period of time. We know the reasons for that, and we have seen those apply over a considerable period. They include introduced species, deforestation and other kinds of human activity. More recently, they include climate change, which is making all of those other things worse. We've been told, in no uncertain terms, on a completely solid scientific basis that Australia's environment is in poor condition, and the trajectory is for further decline. That's why this government has wasted no time in making some significant reforms. These are very substantial reforms, and they join a considerable list of changes, legislative and regulatory reform but also program and funding provisions that the minister for the environment has delivered. As she rightly says, there is no time to waste on this issue.

The speaker before me in this debate, the member for Page, essentially got up and said, 'We're not going to back this. We don't back this sort of stuff.' I thought that was interesting. 'This sort of stuff' is trying to ensure that Australia's remarkable and distinctive environment and biodiversity persists—that it continues and that it is able to be healthy and sustainable on its own terms. Nature, the environment, doesn't exist for us. It should be able to exist, continue and be sustainable on its own terms. But it certainly means that the distinctive Australian environment will continue to be this precious resource, a part of our precious heritage for this generation, the next generation and generations to come. This won't be the case if we continue with business as usual. So, if anyone says, 'I'm not interested in this sort of stuff,' what they're essentially saying is, 'I don't give a stuff about the poor condition of the Australian environment. I don't care about species going extinct. I don't care about the disappearance of threatened ecological communities. I don't care about any of those things, and I don't care about the extent to which people in the future won't be able to live in a continent like Australia and experience and enjoy all those things, and take pride in the stewardship of that remarkable environmental condition'—stewardship which, of course, was provided for tens of thousands of years by First Nations people.

We've got a lot to learn from First Nations people in seeking to do a much better job when it comes to our environment and the biodiversity on which it depends. This is part of it; this is what the Albanese Labor government was elected to do.

We've come along after a period of time in which Australia's environment was put under more pressure, and it got worse and began to experience some acute forms of climate change pressure which we knew were coming, whether it was the massive bushfires, or the floods that we saw recently, or the incredible warm and dry spell we've just had in Western Australia, which has literally seen the Western Australian bush dying of thirst. If you went anywhere beyond the metro area—to the east or south-east of Perth—over the last six months, you'd see a landscape that features all these unfamiliar colours. You see browns, dry yellows and reds. If you came from the Northern Hemisphere you might think, 'This must be Australia in autumn.' But it's not. It's the incredibly beautiful and rich biodiverse forest landscape of Western Australia dying of thirst in a way we haven't seen for some time.

We're not going to accept that. We're not going to accept the kinds of things that have occurred over the previous 10 years, like 40 per cent cuts to the department of the environment. When it came to EPBC approvals, an ANAO report found that 79 per cent of all of those approvals involved conditions that were being breached with no monitoring—which of course is hard to do when you have a department that gets chopped off at the knees to the extent that the previous government was prepared to do. We saw species continuing to go extinct, and we saw species continuing to be added to the endangered and threatened list. We're not going to accept that, so we are making some significant reforms.

Reforming the EPBC Act is the No. 1 focus, and the minister is pursuing that consultatively, steadily and thoroughly. It's a thousand-page piece of legislation. It's a complex piece of work, and we have to get it right. While we get the EPBC reforms right, we're wasting no time with other aspects of the reform. Last year, we improved the scope and strength of the water trigger under the EPBC Act, and that's particularly significant when it comes to making sure that water resources aren't threatened by unconventional gas projects in the way that they have been in Europe and in the United States. It's something the Australian community will not accept, and the minister took the opportunity when it presented itself to make that change earlier than many people had thought would be possible.

Now we have come along here with the nature-positive reforms, and we are taking two big further steps. We are introducing, for the first time, a national independent Environmental Protection Agency—something the community has identified and called for for a long time. Environmental stakeholders and scientists have also called for it for a long time. It's quite a sensible thing to set up an expert agency that is properly resourced to make independent environmental decisions and ensure that we're not allowing this trajectory of decline that has been occurring throughout the 21st century to continue.

The previous government knew that something had to be done. Why? Because they received the State of the environment reports and each successive State of the environment report painted a darker and more depressing picture when it came to Australia's environment and biodiversity. More particularly, the previous government commissioned Professor Graeme Samuel to have a look at what would be needed to ensure that the EPBC Act actually did its job. The other side can say, 'We hate red tape and we hate regulation,' or, 'We hate this kind of stuff,' as the member for Page said, ostensibly about the kinds of guidelines and frameworks that protect Australia's environment. 'We hate all that.' But the bottom line is that the previous government received a comprehensive, cogent report and set of recommendations from Professor Graeme Samuel, and what they do? They did nothing. They literally did zero.

Graeme Samuel said: 'You've got to reform the EPBC Act. You've got to get the national standards working properly. You've got to have an independent cop on the beat.' Because what has been going on today has been that the decisions themselves have been bad, and then the decisions are not being applied or compliance with the decisions is not occurring at all. As I said before, 79 per cent of all decisions had conditions that weren't being met. We know that one in seven offsets provided under that decision-making framework weren't being delivered in the way they had been promised by project proponents. In fact, there wasn't even an accessible register of all of the offsets that had been provided in order to make some projects approvable, and there was evidence that in some cases offsets were being provided twice for state and Commonwealth approvals—all the kinds of things that can go wrong if you don't care and if you don't make sure that government works properly and that the Public Service is both resourced and encouraged to do its job.

The previous government received the 2021 State of the environment report. What story did it tell? It said the environment's in rough shape, it's getting worse, there's too much harm occurring, the regulation is rubbish and the resources aren't there—all of the kinds of things that you get in a recipe for disaster. The minister in the previous government wouldn't release the report. If you get a report you don't like, or you get a bad report, the Australian community might expect you to listen to it, front up to it, have the courage to accept what it's telling you and take some action. What did the previous government choose to do? They chose to bury it, ignore it, hide it from the Australian people and misrepresent the facts. With the EPBC reforms recommended to them by Graeme Samuel, who they commissioned to undertake the report, to fix the national standards, create an independent environmental protection agency and consider how you might streamline some of the processes, they said, 'No.' They had no interest in that. None of that ever came here. There was never a bill like this one, seeking to introduce those kinds of reforms, so we're not going to do that. That would be utterly irresponsible, and it would be a dereliction of the duty that any Australian government has to the Australian people and to the Australian environment. Instead, we are creating this independent protection agency and we're creating Environment Information Australia and that's important, because one of the reasons why so much environmental harm has occurred is we haven't been able to see the full picture. What we've tended to do is: people come along and say, 'I would like to undertake a particular project,' that gets assessed just on its own terms and, too often, things had been approved in ways that weren't really respectful of the environmental condition, the conditions that were applied weren't met and there was no compliance with those conditions.

But what we weren't seeing was the cumulative impact. You're getting decision after decision after decision after decision, in many cases involving reduction in habitat and other kinds of pressures on threatened species, and, while those decisions, one by one, might have been tolerable as far as the health of a threatened ecosystem or a particular species, in combination they were pushing species off the cliff and they were pushing ecological communities closer and closer to the brink. Environment Information Australia will help us stop that because it will give us that picture, and it will work really well alongside the other reform that we've introduced, the Nature Repair Market Bill. That falls under the same category as this sort of stuff.

According to the member for Page, it was actually an idea that the National Party came up with in the previous parliament, and it was quite a good idea, to connect up those who have significant landholdings, particularly Australian farmers who are interested in and have a tradition of wanting to improve country and undertake restoration projects, with the growing amount of capital that exists to see that work undertaken. It was an idea that the Nationals put forward—quite a good one. It didn't advance under the previous government; we've delivered it. Environment Information Australia will help make sure that that works well. Farmers will benefit from it but, more particularly, the Australian environment will be improved by it.

Those are among the programs and funding that the minister for the environment has delivered. We have the $200 million Urban Waterways and Catchments Program. We know that that's critical. Most of our major cities involve a significant watercourse, and the way that our cities relate to the watercourse—drain into the watercourse—obviously has a big effect on those ecosystems. We shouldn't forget that, when it comes to the environment, there isn't the chalk-and-cheese divide that the member for Page was trying to suggest exists. He used some weird phrase like 'inner city elites who don't understand what it's like in the country' and 'people in the country who don't understand what it's like in the city'. That sort of dichotomy is utterly false. We all spend time in the regions and the country. We're all connected to the regions and the country through family and friends, and the reverse is true from country and regional people with respect to the cities. But half of all threatened species in Australia are actually present in metropolitan areas, so programs like the Urban Waterways and Catchments Program are really critical.

The minister's quite right to say that this government won't waste time because there is no time to waste. When it comes to Australia's environment and biodiversity, it is one of our most precious responsibilities. There is nowhere on Earth like Australia. We are the custodians of this remarkable continent. We inherit that from the longest continuous civilisation on Earth. We owe it to the environment, on its own terms, to do much better than we've done because we've done a pretty awful job. The Australian environment has been hammered and it's on a trajectory of decline. The previous government couldn't give a stuff about that. They didn't do anything about it, despite all of the warnings and all of the expert reports. We're not going to take that approach. We've started the reform process. This bill continues with two significant instalments in looking after Australia's environment under the Albanese Labor government.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly support the amendment proposed by the member for Fairfax. In spite of what's been said previously, the majority of the impact of what's proposed here, in the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and related bills, will be felt once again by regional Australians. Those of us who live in the regions and are involved in both agriculture and resources and mining will certainly be the target of and affected by what Labor is putting on the table.

Once again Labor is setting up another independent entity, Environment Protection Australia, that will totally remove the minister from the decision-making process and from taking responsibility for government decisions. Effectively, what this means in practice is that Labor is determined to remove the decision-making responsibility from elected members of parliament who become ministers and to hand that responsibility to unelected Canberra based bureaucrats. When you look at recent events, that hasn't really gone well for the government. I note that the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs is at the table. We've have seen the terrible situation where the independent AAT essentially have made a range of decisions that certainly haven't assisted in keeping Australians safe. We need ministers who can and do take responsibility and do make those decisions.

Again, Australian taxpayers will have to pay exorbitant amounts for incompetent boards and departments and ministers' salaries when we've got an independent board that's going to make the decisions. This means either the minister is not competent or is actually unwilling or unable to do the work that their portfolio requires. Because of that weakness and lack of accountability, Labor ministers are always going to need that 'get out of jail free' card that allows them to blame some obscure independent body and not take responsibility for the government's decisions, particularly if they are flawed or when they are the wrong decisions.

Unfortunately this shows that ministers don't have the courage of their convictions and are not willing to or capable of taking responsibility for the Labor government's decisions. It is always going to be someone else's problem when things get tough or go wrong. It will never be those ministers' responsibility. The minister can simply throw their hands in the air and say: 'It wasn't me who made that decision. It was the independent board of the EPA.' It reminds me of the old Comedy Company's tagline: 'I didn't do it. It was dolly!'

This is the next bureaucracy that Labor is establishing through this legislation, and technically, once it's there, neither the minister nor the department will have any role in the decisions made by the EPA. That's because the decisions will be made by Environment Protection Australia bureaucrats backed up by a second bureaucracy named Environment Information Australia, which will focus, apparently, on loosely described data collection. More layers of bureaucracy and endless red and green tape for business and industry are being legislated specifically to enforce Labor's nature-positive act, and the majority of the impact of that will be felt in rural and regional Australia. The new bureaucracy will sit above the existing seven state and territory EPAs. There will be layer upon layer of bureaucracy for business, industry, ag and local governments to deal with again—by a majority, those of us who live in rural and regional Australia. The two new entities will undoubtedly be hand-picked and supported and surrounded by even more public servants, perhaps adding to the 36,000 extra public servants Labor has employed over the last two years.

The EPA will have powers that extend to undertaking all or most of the environmental assessments of projects under the EPBC Act. It will have extensive new audit and inspection powers and it will deal with referrals by third parties such as the Environmental Defenders Office, as well as any and every other activist. The new EPA will have the power to force project proponents to immediately cease work on their developments at any time and the capacity to impose unprecedented fines of up to $780 million.

Added to this, the EPA's CEO will have complete impunity and immunity from removal from office by the minister or the government. So there is a real lack of accountability in this bill for decisions made by the CEO. Whether or not the CEO makes patently wrong or terrible decisions, the minister and the Labor government will have no powers to remove that person. The only causes for dismissal are dishonesty, financial mismanagement, misbehaviour or failure to carry out duties—not whether they can do their job or whether they can do it well. That is a wonderful licence for unlimited scope and opportunity to do exactly what the CEO wants, good, bad or downright ugly. There will be queues for this job. Who wouldn't want an enormous salary at taxpayers' expense to do exactly what you want and not have to consult, answer or be accountable to the minister or the government of the day? There will be a queue of activists lining up. The roles and responsibilities remind me very much of the disastrous WA Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act.

But, from my reading of the bill, there are no details on the roles and responsibilities of the EPA inspectors on the sites they'll visit. There are certainly no details on the rights of project proponents, businesses, industries, farmers, local governments or the myriad others who will be impacted by their presence and decisions. I'll be looking very closely at the powers of onsite inspectors when they eventually become available. Perhaps that's why those provisions are not included in the legislation. The government doesn't want the parliament, business, industry, farmers and people affected to know what powers and controls the inspectors or EPA representatives will have until they're actually in place.

They could well replicate the powers conferred by the WA Labor government in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, as I said. Labor's Nature Positive bills also contain Aboriginal heritage provisions. In WA, that act was of the type where inspectors had more powers than police. Will the EPA inspectors have more powers than police in the same way the Cultural Heritage Act inspectors did? Will they have the right to enter properties without the owners' permission? Will they have the right to forcibly stop, commandeer and use the owners' vehicles without their permission? That's what that act contained. Will they have the right to demand passwords and access to any and all information on computers, laptops and other technologies without the permission of the owners? What will the onsite rights, fines and prison terms be for individuals, business owners, project managers, farmers and others when the EPA inspectors arrive on their properties? Will the inspectors have the right to examine every container, cupboard or piece of storage equipment, whether the site is a project site or the businessowner's home, as for us farmers? These are just some of the practical questions, but they were matters covered by the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act in WA. That was what the inspectors could do.

Clearly, Labor intends for this to have a significant impact on industry, business and agriculture, looking at the powers conferred by this legislation. But it intends to blame the independent EPA for those decisions. I know from listening to and meeting with the businesses and industries recently that they are very, very concerned about this legislation and the roles and responsibilities of the EPA. They are doing, in the majority of instances, very good work in this space. But they do know how antimining, antibusiness, antifarming and antidevelopment the Labor government is. Environment Information Australia will have to produce a series of new environmental reports through a new monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework with a new baseline, as well as establish environmental economic accounts. What a massive additional cost this will add to all businesses, industries, projects and small and family businesses! On top of the government's scope 3 emissions reporting, it's an absolute avalanche of paperwork.

Loosely translated, what this means for those of us living and working in regional and rural areas is that Labor's renewables-only agenda is being thinly disguised as Nature Positive to ensure that Labor's renewables-only projects will take precedence over our communities, our local environments, our wellbeing, our opportunities and future developments that will support, improve and grow our communities. Those are the ones that we support in our communities. Critically, this EPA removes entirely our capacity to make decisions in the best interests of our communities and hands these decisions to Canberra based Labor mates and bureaucrats. It takes away rural and regional Australians' ability to offer changing opportunities for our young people and to meet and deliver the economic and social needs of industries and our local communities. I believe we will see the EPA waving through Labor's renewables-only agenda in spite of our communities. They will ignore and roll over our communities.

In my electorate, one early test for the new EPA will be whether the proposed 7,600 square-kilometre offshore wind factory will be approved in spite of the environmental damage. If the EPA is actually doing its job right, there is no way that this project could be deemed nature positive simply because it's a renewables project. And what's being proposed is 20 gigawatts of energy from this particular wind factory. This will be a massive proposal. There could be as many as a thousand or more turbines, each around 100 metres high, in the pristine Geographe Bay in the south-west of WA.

There is no doubt that the 7,600 square kilometres of offshore wind turbines will have a significant environmental impact. These turbines can't be installed without extensive impact to the benthic habitat of the bay, which is internationally recognised and listed as a biodiversity hotspot. The federal government's own south-west marine bioregional plan highlighted the key ecological and biodiversity features of Geographe Bay and the surrounding ocean, which also includes migratory pathways of multiple species of whales. That report said:

Geographe Bay is a … sheltered embayment with extensive beds of tropical and temperate seagrass that account for about 80 per cent of benthic primary production in the area. The seagrass beds are noted for their high species biodiversity and endemism.

The seagrass beds support critical fish habitat, including dhufish spawning. The report goes on:

Similar to the lagoons to the north, Geographe Bay provides important nursery habitat for many shelf species—

and—

is also an important migratory habitat for humpback whales.

I understand that around 35,000 humpback whales annually migrate through this zone. International researchers found that subsea power cables introduce electromagnetic fields into the marine environment. In Geographe Bay, this will have an impact on many species of fish, western rock lobster juveniles, WA salmon and other marine animals. Rays and sharks are noted to be particularly sensitive to EMFs, as they use electromagnetic receptive sensory systems for orientation, navigation and locating prey.

We also know about the impacts of offshore wind farms in Australia on birds. There is a report by DCCEEW that notes, 'In offshore regions in southern Australia the highest-risk species are albatrosses.' Fourteen species of albatross are listed as threatened in WA, so the process of construction, operations and decommissioning will all impact on the marine environment in Geographe Bay. I'm looking forward to seeing exactly what the government's EPA will actually do in this instance, and whether it will discharge its responsibilities to not prioritise the government's renewables-only agenda over our rural and regional communities and over our regional and rural local environments.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():  I recall a time that whenever a project was put up to any level of government, whether it was local, state or federal government, the first thing that would be asked was what would be the social, economic and environmental outcomes of that project. And while it was always true that all three of those matters were considered in the assessment process, including the environmental aspects of it where reports would be submitted justifying how the project was not going to damage the environment in any way, the reality is that once projects got approval the environmental outcomes were often largely neglected. There have been countless reports over the years highlighting the environmental losses and the degradation of the land on which we live. Ecosystems are being destroyed; plant and animal species are being lost. That's all contributing to a very unhealthy environment. An unhealthy environment, leads to poor health outcomes for the people, animals and plants that live within it.

The EPBC Act came into effect, I believe, in July 2000, over two decades ago. I have to say that, for all its good intentions—and there have been some good outcomes as a result of that legislation—the reality is that we are still falling short in meeting the environmental outcomes that I believe all of us in this House would aspire to. The 2021 State of the Environment report identified climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, pollution, resource extraction and land clearing as contributing factors to a deteriorating environment. It was a report that quite frankly brought home the reality of what is happening in the world around us and why we need to do so much more.

This is a matter that this government, the Albanese Labor government, and in particular, this minister—the Minister for the Environment, the member for Sydney—take very, very seriously. I believe we have a moral obligation not only to the people of this generation, but to future generations, to take this matter very seriously. Just as we are the losers of poor environmental outcomes of previous decades, where animal and plant species have been lost, so too future generations will be the losers if we fail to preserve and protect the environment that they will live in in the years to come.

We will be held accountable for our failure to do what we should have done. Both the State of the Environment report and the Samuel review highlighted the need for stronger environmental protection measures. Whether it is climate change or habitat loss—and the other matters I referred to—that have individually or collectively been the problem, the reality is that so much more needs to be done.

I am sure other members could do their own research and come up with all sorts of statistics that highlight just what is happening. The number of Australian threatened species has risen eight per cent since 2016. In other words, rather than going down, it has increased. And more extinctions are expected in the coming decades. Australia now has more foreign plant species than native plant species. Again, this is just highlighting the transition that has taken place. The number of plant and animal species listed as threatened increased to 1,918 in June 2021, up from 1,774 in 2016. Again, as the years go by, the situation deteriorates. Between 2000 and the 2017, 7.7 million hectares of land habitat was cleared. Between 2014 and 2019, across Australia, 11 per cent of the coastal dune vegetation was lost. Those statistics alone should be of concern to anyone that has any interest in the environment. I genuinely believe that everyone in this House does care about this issue.

We also know that climate change, while it's related to many of those losses, is another issue in its own right. Climate change is also a factor of environmental destruction. The two go hand in hand. Whilst climate change contributes to more environmental losses, environmental losses contribute to climate change. We all know in this place that the reality is that, again, across the world, huge efforts are being made to mitigate the effects of climate change and huge investments are being made, all because of climate change. So the reality is that, if we can help with the environment, we may be in a position where we don't need to spend as much on matters to address climate change. The reality also is that the last decade has been the hottest on record. That heat—the highest increases being on the land—is also affecting our oceans and our waterways, and that additional heat is directly contributing to some of the losses that I referred to earlier on in my remarks. Only today, the front pages of some of our newspapers talked about coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef, as we all know, is a national environmental and economic treasure of our country. The Great Barrier Reef is something we should strive to protect in any and every way that we can. Again, when we look at why it's deteriorating—apart from climate change—another contributing factor is the sediment washing into the reef from the land. This is tied to land-clearing, land use and so on. Everything is interconnected, and that's why we need to have a holistic system that's going to ensure we don't make any more destruction than what has already occurred.

One of the problems we've faced over the years—and it has been referred to in this place on many occasions—is that environmental responsibility in Australia is shared between the three levels of government. In all fairness to those who criticise all the different rules and regulations, that creates a problem. Quite often, many of the approval processes are duplicated, and duplication causes time-wasting and time-wasting causes additional costs to people applying to have their projects approved. That's not to mention that quite often there are differences of opinion about what should and should not be approved. That's a problem, and I'm hoping that perhaps this legislation will go part of the way to addressing and resolving that.

I said at the outset that this government takes environmental responsibility very seriously. Last year, this government established the Nature Repair Market, which made it easier for anyone who wanted to invest in nature repair projects. There are many good people out there, and many good businesses and different corporations, who are genuinely investing in nature repair projects. I commend them for it. But if we can make it even easier for them to do that then I'm sure that they will do even more. Again, it will be a win-win for everyone responsible. We also expanded the water trigger so that the assessment of our water resources and the impact of projects could be better controlled and managed. That's important for our farmers and for anyone who relies on that water, which might otherwise be contaminated because of the different projects being developed around the country. In fact, protecting our water resources is as critical as protecting anything else that we have in this country. As we all know, water is the essence of our survival.

That's why this legislation, in my view, is important legislation. It's important legislation because it creates stronger environmental powers, it creates a faster environmental approval process and it creates much more transparency and available information for anyone who is going to propose a project or use the land in any way, shape or form. It will make everyone's life so much easier. The establishment of our first national independent environment protection agency with strong powers and heavy penalties is a good thing. I believe that, in reality, most proponents don't want to destroy the environment. Most proponents are as concerned about the environment as I and other members of this place are. So they will do the right thing, but they need to have some guidance to do that; they need to have accessible information and they need to have transparency in the process to be able to do that. If we make everyone's life easier then everyone is a lot more likely to cooperate with the processes that they're asked to engage in. And we'll also have a new office called Environment Information Australia which will ensure accountability and transparency. I said at the very outset of my remarks that environmental accountability was always part of the initial approval process, but it's rarely been part of the process of following up after a project has been approved and we need to have that. We need to hold to account those who say they will do something but then don't follow up. In my view, both of those agencies will go a long, long way towards addressing the shortfalls of the EPBC Act that have been identified by both the Samuel review and by the Australia state of the environment report.

I conclude with these remarks. In my time in public life, the environment has always been a priority issue wherever I go. At local government level, you will find people and councils all around the country doing their bit to try and ensure that we have a sustainable environment. At state level, I see governments trying to do their best as well, and I believe that this parliament over the last 50 years has tried to do the same. I don't believe that the parliament would have liked to have seen our environment in any way degraded, and measures have been put in place, including legislation. I also now see groups like Rotary and Lions have included the environment as one of the key measures they will be looking to contribute towards as part of their projects around Australia and the globe. And I don't go to a single school where the schoolchildren don't raise the environment as a priority matter for our future. It is a matter that people genuinely care about because they know it is critical to our future survival.

We, as a parliament, have a responsibility to ensure that we preserve and protect the environment and, at the very least, stop it from degrading further. The measures proposed in this legislation, I believe, will go a long way towards doing that. Others will argue that perhaps they are imperfect, that they may cause other problems. The reality is that, as with every bit of legislation, there may be flaws, but this bit of legislation at least responds to identified problems of the current system as identified in the Samuel review and implements what I believe will be measures that will ensure that our environment is better protected into the future.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst the headline of this legislation might say 'nature positive', the reality is this is Australia negative. I've been through the second reading speech and other pieces of the legislation. The part that really stands out in the second reading speech is we know that most businesses are doing the right thing, but the intention of this Labor government is to impose yet another layer of legislation, regulation and enforcement over the top of them. Even though the states have the responsibility and they do this already, the intention of this legislation is to set up the green police with enforcement powers. Can you imagine, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, organisations like the CFMEU—who do this in construction already with rights of entry onto a construction site and cause all sorts of grief for the construction sector—having similar people with similar powers at a federal level around the environment, where they can then enter your site, your farm, your operation, on the basis of the fact that they have a reasonable belief. Last time I checked, it isn't that hard to get a reasonable belief. It is up to the individual to make that determination and you don't need much evidence.

I want to speak a little bit about the hypocrisy. Let's look at reality. The reality is this: this federal Labor government signed up to an international treaty for which 30 per cent of the nation's lands and oceans have to be locked up—30 per cent. I had some research done through the Parliamentary Library. On land alone you need an additional 60 million hectares to meet that target. Now, that can't come from existing parks, from the national parks or from state land. That is already counted. The only place those 60 million hectares can come from is cleared and partially cleared agricultural land. There about 426 million hectares of agricultural land in the country right now. I know in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, and in the member for Dawson's electorate, it matters. It is a big part of the economy. It provides jobs and food for this nation and the world. For those who may be listening, to give your concept of just how much land 60 million hectares is, the entire Australian sugar industry, all of it, the whole lot, is farmed on around 350,000 hectares. So there is 350,000 hectares for the entire Australian sugar industry and the Labor proposal is that 60 million hectares of cleared or partially cleared agricultural land has to come out of production. It is ludicrous! And on top of that there'll now be an enforcement provision under the legislation where inspectors, let's call them—for want of a better word—will come onto your farm or your property and enforce these requirements from a federal level, on top of what's already there at a state level.

If we look at the practical application, many of these things already exist. We already have the Environmental Defenders Office—that great bastion of selective prosecutions, funded by this Labor government. In fact, in their very first budget, the government allocated $9 million for the Environmental Defenders Office. So let's look at some of the activities that they've undertaken. They've undertaken activities opposed to Barossa offshore gas, which, fortunately, the judge threw out for a very prejudicial basis, and that was the right decision. They have looked at a whole stack of other resources driven projects and used taxpayer funds to delay or close down these operations.

But where are they not? We don't see the Environmental Defenders Office anywhere on the huge swathes of land that are literally being bulldozed, levelled and covered with solar panels in regional Australia. We don't see them at Clarke Creek, a wind farm in Queensland, where—and this is in their environmental management plan—3½ thousand hectares of pristine forest koala habitat is being bulldozed to provide roads and access to put up wind turbines. Where is the Environmental Defenders Office defending the environment?

There's a gentleman called Steve Nowakowski, a self-described greenie activist. Steve tells me that he's been arrested many times for tying himself to bulldozers and chaining himself to trees. He has come to the realisation that the proposal—and we saw more of it in the ISP from AEMO today. The damage it will cause to the environment is outrageous for what will be part-time power that can't run the country and has to be replaced at least every 20 years, assuming it doesn't get damaged by a fire, a hailstorm, a cyclone or anything else that happens in this country every other year.

Steve has become a supporter of nuclear. He was originally opposed, but he has seen firsthand what is happening, particularly in Queensland. I attended a function with Steve and Colin Boyce, the member for Flynn. It is horrifying, what is happening. Yet the people who are supposed to be advocating for the environment, to protect the environment and to protect pristine wildlife and wildlife areas, are nowhere to be seen—nowhere. They are quite happy to make noise about the Great Barrier Reef. I compliment the member for Makin for identifying how important the reef is, but I would suggest to the member—and others—that he actually goes and reads the reports on the Great Barrier Reef, which say that the bottom half in particular is in the best condition it has been in for decades. That report has conveniently been shelved or put somewhere else, because 'Let's make some noise about the reef.'

Can you imagine, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, this legislation passing and someone having a warrant to go out, investigate, enforce it and issue huge fines to organisations, on top of what happens at the state level, on top of what happens at the local level and on top of what happens with the Environmental Defenders Office with lawfare? How on earth will you get investment in this country? Layer upon layer of delays, lawfare and court actions make it even more difficult for people to invest and get an outcome.

This might seem like a strange concept to some, but businesses invest to make a profit, and if they can't make a profit and they can't pay their bills then they won't employ anyone and they won't invest here. So there is a significant risk from this legislation in terms of Australia's sovereign risk around the world, and it will continue to get worse. We know what happens between this Labor government and minor parties like the Greens and the teals—doing deals, particularly in the Senate. The outcome is horrifying.

The bill, allegedly, is amending nine pieces of environmental law to confer permitting, licensing, compliance and enforcement responsibilities directly onto the CEO of the proposed EPA. Mr Deputy Speaker, you've been here a while; I've been here a while. Why do we need a minister of the Crown if it is the intention of this government to give all of the authority to the CEO of an organisation, a bureaucrat or a member of the Public Service? It's a legislative authority. It takes away the responsibility of the minister to make a decision in those circumstances. You and I both know, Mr Deputy Speaker, once it's implemented, it's almost impossible to reverse because you need support of both the House and the Senate. We continue to see these challenges over and over and over.

The CEO can also establish an advisory group. You'd think that an advisory group might have three, five, seven or maybe even nine participants, but the proposal from this Labor government is that it's unlimited. There is no limit to the number of people that can be on the advisory group to the CEO for this new proposed organisation, this new level of bureaucracy. And where will they all be when it is a state responsibility, like, for example—we heard about the water trigger—the GAB, the Great Artesian Basin, an incredibly important water source for regional Australia? Where were they in the most recent debate when we saw proposals to literally pour liquid poison into the GAB? Who took up the fight? The member for Flynn, the member for Dawson and others. But nowhere did we see the Environmental Defenders Office. What will happen with this bureaucracy? Will they do those things? How do they get a constitutional power to override the state? So this proposal is fraught, absolutely fraught.

It's outlined in the second reading speech that existing directed audits will be expanded to cover an even greater range of circumstances. So you're in business—I spoke about this with the member for Dawson just yesterday, who is and has been a long-term agricultural producer; a farmer. He and I are of a similar age and similar backgrounds. When we first started, you used to go to work, you used to grow the best crop you could possibly manage and you'd drive your tractor and do everything else you'd have to do. But, now, you have to fill your forms in, you have to do your reef regulations and you have to allocate on a piece of paper exactly how much fertiliser you might apply, even though—really?—nobody wants fertiliser to run away, because it costs money, affects profit margin and affects and impacts whether you produce a crop. I don't know any producers that want run-off from their fertiliser, from their pesticide or from any other application. But it is getting so hard now, so difficult.

Family farmers are literally walking away, and they are selling out to big corporates, particularly those who come from overseas, from pension funds from super funds, and we are seeing larger and larger and larger organisations running over Australian family farmers. I think that's a tragedy for this country. Where is the opportunity for our youth, for our children, for those who live in those regions who are desperate to get their own farms? Now, not only do they have to get over the top of capital, competency, ability to grow, markets and the duopoly; they also have to get past another set of regulations and legislation that impacts what they do but doesn't really have any impact in terms of an outcome.

I'll give you a really good example. My region was recently brought into what's known as the reef regulations in Queensland. It is the Burnett Mary regional area. Would you believe that the Mary River runs to the Pacific Ocean and then turns south? It actually flows to the south. But our region now has to deal with the reef regulations because of the impact on the reef, which is 100-and-something kilometres to the north. It literally doesn't go there. It can't; it flows the other way. But every single provider, like the member for Dawson used to be, has to comply with legislation which has no impact on the reef but has huge impact on their organisation, their profitability and their ability to hire people.

So this legislation—this proposal for the green police, this proposal for even more bureaucracy, which will have more powers than the minister because the minister will allocate those powers to the CEO—is a mistake. It is not in the interests of this country. There are so many levels, so many layers, already, that you do not need the green police. If we look at carbon sequestration, that is something that those opposite are continually worked up about. They love the CSIRO, and I love them too. But, if you actually go and read one of their reports, you will see that there is no practical way whatsoever to reduce carbon emissions by the amount that those opposite are claiming they will without carbon capture and storage. It is the only option. There is no practical outcome that can be achieved under the existing protocols apart from that one. I'd certainly encourage those opposite to go and read that report. It makes for very, very interesting reading.

There will be the ability to issue what's called an environmental protection order, an enforcement tool to force project proponents to immediately cease work on their developments at any time where it's reasonably suspected that they've contravened their obligations under federal environmental law. That is on top of their state obligations, on top of their state workplace health and safety legislation obligations, on top of the criminal requirements to pay their workers, on top of all of the other things they have to deal with every single day to be in business. It's a great shame that there are so few people in this building who have had the great opportunity to run their own business. It makes your hair grey, it creates a lot of risk and it creates problems at home on occasion, but you get to put yourself out there. You can set your own path. You can pay people. You can be proud of what you do. You can take risks. You can make money. You can educate your kids, and it is a great vocation. But there are so many things getting in the way of the ability for any individual to find their own path and their own way, and this is just another one.

What's wrong with Landcare? Landcare is a great, practical solution, a fundamental and wonderful piece of legislation that was applied by Bob Hawke as Prime Minister. I applaud him; it was the right decision. But we cannot continue to have ideological decisions that set the framework of policy in this country with no thought to application, to the damage that it will do and to the restriction that it puts on trade and on individuals who are just out there trying to run their businesses and have a go.

I oppose the legislation. I oppose the green police. I think it's not in Australia's interest, and I am incredibly concerned about the ability of an agency like this to end up like the CFMEU, to end up with rights-of-entry provisions and to end up with actual powers and warrants and authority to go on to law-abiding businesses and shut them down. No-one wants to damage the environment; no-one wants to damage the reef. They just want to be able to run their businesses without so much interference, and they are walking away, particularly those in small businesses. And my heart breaks for those individuals, those young Australians, who want to get in and have a go and who just can't get that opportunity.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024. When we on this side of the House commit to something, we commit fully. So, when we came to the last election promising a strong, national, independent environmental protection agency, we intended to deliver that.

Today, we are delivering exactly that—an agency aimed at protecting the environment that we all live in and rely upon, and one that has teeth. We are hard at work creating a nature-positive Australia. We are delivering programs, policies and actions, and it's in everyone's interests to look after the environment. I don't see it as a political issue; I see it as something that we should just do and we should be able to find common ground on, on all sides of politics. We all live in the same environment and we all should be okay with the idea of trying to make sure that we look after it as best as we possibly can, because the better we look after the environment around us, the better we look after ourselves.

But it's easy to think that laws aimed at protecting the environment are political, especially when we have the Leader of the Opposition wanting to tear down these laws. What gets forgotten is that some of these laws were introduced by a member of his own party, former prime minister John Howard. So I do still hold hope that the two sides of this House can come together again and be on the same page when it comes to protecting the environment. Supporting this bill would be a very good start.

When looking at this bill, there are four very clear and straightforward questions to answer: do you want an independent environment protection agency or not? Do you want to make sure that we have the best possible data in front of us so that we can be better informed to make environmental decisions or not? Do you want our environmental laws to actually be effective by having tougher penalties for those breaking these laws or not? Do you want Australia to be a world leader, the first place in the world to put a definition of 'nature positive' in legislation or not?

The new body will be known as Environmental Protection Australia, EPA. EPA will work with Environment Information Australia to make sure that our environmental laws are being complied with, because what's the point of having any law if there's nobody to make sure that it's being followed? What's the point of doing anything to protect our environment if what is being written in legislation isn't being followed through?

We already have an environmental goal of protecting 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030. We've had those debates and it's set in legislation which has passed both houses. While we may not have all agreed, the debate is over. It would be a waste of our time and resources to have had these discussions and set these targets but not make sure we have the bodies in place to help us meet them. Everybody agrees that what we have in place now is not good enough. Everybody agrees that the current regulatory system just doesn't work. Without these changes, setting our goals and targets will have been a waste of time—if our regulatory system doesn't work then we won't achieve anything.

We want to fix our laws so they're less bureaucratic and provide more certainty for business. We've already made so much progress in this area, but the next step is the legislation. This stage of our reforms will deliver strong environmental powers, fast environmental approvals, more environment information and greater transparency. These are big steps forward for the environment and also for business. The EPA is a tool that's going to allow us to do this. The EPA is Australia's first national, independent environment protection agency. It will have strong new powers and penalties to better protect nature. The outcome of this is that the EPA will administer Australia's national environmental laws to better protect our environment and make faster, better decisions by being charged with delivering accountable, effective, outcome focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making. The EPA will be responsible for a wide range of activities under Australia's environmental laws, including in relation to recycling and waste exports; hazardous waste; wildlife trade; sea-dumping; ozone protection; underwater cultural heritage; and air quality.

These are all areas which I think everyone can agree are worth protecting, regardless of what side of politics they're on. There's nothing political about better looking after our land and our sea. The fact is that we need to do a better job at looking after both. The ineffectiveness of our current regulatory framework was made clear when the government's offset audit found that one in seven projects using environmental offsets under our environmental laws had either clearly or potentially breached their approval conditions. Again, I have to ask: what's the point of setting conditions or going through the approval process if the conditions set can just be ignored without any consequence? This is supported by the Samuel review into Australia's environmental laws, which found that our regulatory framework is not fulfilling its necessary function.

While I'm speaking on this bill, I just want to make sure that one thing is crystal clear: I have no doubt that the true meaning of this bill will be hijacked by someone within or outside this place, and I'm fully aware that when the environment is discussed, my election of the Hunter comes into the discussion because of the fact that our main industry is the coalmining industry. But make no mistake: I always have, and I always will, back the coalmining industry and workers 100 per cent. Regardless of what spin anyone may hear, coal is going nowhere anytime soon. It will be here for decades to come. While people want to buy our coal, we will always supply them with our coal in the export market. Just because we introduce a piece of legislation aimed at protecting the environment and making better decisions, it does not have to impact the mining industry. There will still be coalmining in the Hunter and all around the country. There will still be copper, gold, iron ore and other critical minerals being mined all over Australia as well. Just because there are ways to look after the environment better that doesn't mean that anything has to change when it comes to mining, which, in many ways, our entire economy is heavily dependent on.

Let me be very clear about this: these new laws are about setting obligations for compliance, and I see no reason why any industry or business would be unable to meet the necessary compliance requirements while continuing to operate at their current capacity.

In order to make better and faster decisions about the environment, we need to make sure that we are getting the best information possible. Getting good information about the environment is also vital if we want to keep track of our progress in meeting the goals that we have set. This is where the head of Environment Information Australia will play an important role.

This will be an independent position with a legislative mandate to provide environmental data and information to EPA, the minister and the public. This information will be extremely useful and will help to inform investment, policy and regulatory decisions by government, the private sector, community groups, academics, scientists and other groups who are focused on the environment. Having this position will also mean that there will be nowhere for governments to hide when it comes to how we are progressing with our environmental goals. Independent, consistent and authoritative environmental reporting will mean that no Australian government can hide the truth about the state of our environment. It also means Australians will be kept in the loop by providing more transparency of the critical information and data that underpins the regulatory decision-making.

As Australians, something that we are most proud of is our landscape and our environment, and that is something worth protect. In my electorate, I have the biggest saltwater lake in the Southern Hemisphere, in one part. Beautiful vineyards in the Hunter Valley in the other part, and some of the world's best horse stud. These wonders of nature have been able to coexist within the largest mining area in New South Wales. In the Hunter we are proud to say we are known wines, mines and equines.

This is an ideal outcome and this bill will help to make sure that more ideal outcomes will continue to be delivered. This bill is common sense. It makes sure that the laws we make are being followed and that our goals are being met, and it helps us to have access to the best possible information to make this happen. It's about helping to make the right decisions faster, and it's all for a cause that I don't think anyone can disagree with, making sure we better look after the environment. I commend this legislation to the House.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on these combined bills, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill. My concerns were triggered with the classic motherhood statement attached to this bill, 'nature positive'. I've read all about the nature-positive agenda that populates many extreme green websites and that is to turn 30 per cent of the known developed world into natural bush again. You can tell from the outset where this is coming from.

These bills as a whole deliver incredible powers to an unelected bureaucrat. There is a delegated authority being moved from the legislature—namely, us—and ministers, to unelected appointed bureaucrats. I don't like that principle. Our whole legislative process, at state level—New South Wales, in particular—and here at the federal level, over the last few years has had many more bits of important decision-making moved to unelected bureaucracy—rather than the minister, who actually has to face the people.

Governments come and go, and that is the beauty of a democracy. If the people of Australia don't like what's happening, they can vote people out. But you can't vote bureaucrats out; they are appointed. They are there. And, with the delegated authority, they don't have to answer to anyone. They only have to administer the incredible powers that they've been given.

The first of these laws creates or establishes another statutory body, an environmental protection authority, as well as its CEO and the powers that that CEO and any other delegated person in the organisation would have over nine environmental laws. We are very used to some things being signed off by ministerial subs—we've all been familiar with that—but once these come into full force, a lot of these things may not even reach ministerial level. They won't be assessed. There will be no-one to go to if you are a person who is getting an agricultural process underway or—shock, horror—a new housing development underway or a new freeway, a new port, a new mine, a new energy facility, a new powerline. It will be subject at a federal level in a duplicated system to what already happens at state level.

We have environmental protection agencies in many jurisdictions and this will be another classic case of the federal government knows best. They will come in, as the member for Hunter said, with teeth and the ability to give huge fines. People will not invest in this country anymore if we keep going at this rate. Existing businesses in this country, particularly in agriculture and the primary industries of fishing, forestry, of growing food and fibre, are being attacked on all fronts.

This cluster of bills will, I'm sure, send shivers down the spines of many people, because the delay in getting through another level of bureaucracy is going to be a huge cost and a huge detriment to anyone trying to develop things in this country, particularly after they have gone through the state and local government processes. It is not a free-for-all. There are so many restrictions, inquiries, evaluations. It is amazing anything gets done in Australia. The government is talking about this boom in rare-earth minerals and manufacturing things in Australia again, but, I'll tell you what, to get a mine up and running in Australia, it takes about 15 years. With this new bureaucracy, you could add another three or four at least, going on past experience.

Now, you've got to remember this is just another one of these very deleterious pieces of legislation. They are here already. I talked about the restoring our rivers bills. That sounds so beautiful—restoring our rivers. The Murray Darling will look like the Danube, the Rhine, the Mississippi, perfectly filled with flowing, bubbling, little fish jumping. There will be trees and everything will be wonderful, but what will happen? They are going to attack and take another 750 gigalitres of water out of the pool. What has happened already? The Barmah forest, the river red gums that are designed to be intermittently flooded are dying because there is so much water that used to be taken in irrigation to grow food—you know, the illegal substances of food, grains, crops—that depend on water. That bill has led to more and more irrigation water leaving valleys, leaving productive food and fibre, and the economy in those areas will weather as a result.

We also have the nature repair bill. What is wrong with restoring nature? There is nothing wrong with restoring nature. We have heaps of nature in Australia. I have read a lot of tourism magazines lately to see how we are being rated in international tourism, because that it is another huge industry in this country that we do well. In two UK and European surveys—in the last two that I've read—the No. 1 nature capital of the world is acknowledged to be Australia. That's how they see it. Compared to other countries that do rape and pillage, we have such a good legacy here already. We have got a national park system in every state. We have got a managed forestry system. We have got standards for irrigation systems. We have a well-managed Murray-Darling Basin. Though we have droughts and we have extremes of weather, these bills and this sort of mindset that we've got to regulate everything to death are going to be the death of our greatness. We will be doing what the member alluded to—this bizarre idea that we've got to turn 30 per cent of our productive land back to nature.

As I said, we have huge legacy native bush—unless you are trying to build windfarms, which they're doing in Queensland. At the moment, they get a leave pass from all these current approvals at state level in Queensland. There are several thousand kilometres of roads being built up and down the Great Dividing Range that have been approved under state code 23 without any environmental assessment, all because it's putting up renewable energy. But these wind turbines will only be producing energy about 30 per cent of the time. Once they're there, they destroy the native bush on these hills and on these mountaintops. The animals leave. The electromagnetic vibrations—animals that we see as Australian native classics, like the possum and the kangaroo, hear all this whirring. They don't like it; they leave. You can see the before-and-after pictures taken by Steven Nowakowski, former Greens candidate in a Queensland election, who's outlined all this environmental destruction.

We've got this bill coming in to give unelected bureaucrats huge powers, but the same machinery that's bringing this in is giving everyone a free-for-all in Queensland and the same in New South Wales. All the environmental processes are getting a red-carpet ride to get all these renewable projects approved offshore.

The Port Stephens offshore wind project off Newcastle, for which one exploration licence has already been approved, is in an area where you've got 10,000 whales travelling up and down, north and south, every year—at least 10,000. You've got a commercial fishing zone in the middle of that and the one off the Illawarra. They've got another one off Perth and off the coast of Gippsland—all these things that are really disturbing the environment.

These windfarms are massive. The ones that are proposed will not be at shallow depths close to the shore; they'll be 30 kilometres out. But they're so big you can still see them from the shore. That's how big they are. I can't imagine any fishing happening in these zones, because they've got exclusion zones around each one of them. The one off Port Stephens in Newcastle is earmarked to have up to 297 of these massive 260-metre-tall wind turbines. So there goes the fishing industry—the bluewater economy of Port Stephens. Half the commercial take on the north coast comes off that area. A billion-dollar industry based in Port Stephens will suffer, all because, if they actually survive a storm or an east coast low, they'll be intermittently generating electricity, when you could have a new power station built on dry land for much cheaper without any of this environmental ravaging.

It's a most beautiful place, Port Stephens and up into the Forster-Tuncurry area. You have got a state marine reserve. You've got a federal marine reserve against it. You've got Gould's petrel and other seabirds that are protected. You've got a series of islands. It's a nature wonderland, and they want to turn it into an industrial park out at sea. We have all this restriction coming with this legislation, but, again, renewables are getting a leave pass, and they're herding the bills through as quickly as possible. They have this obsession with building renewables.

Getting back to these bills, as you can gather, I have grave concerns about the loss of ministerial control over major environmental law and about handballing it to people who, once elected and appointed, don't have to answer to the communities. They can control all the information, get information on everything and gum up the works. We will have environmental lawfare and applications to the department. It won't just be the usual green lawfare; we will have a very aggressive, highly empowered, unelected bureaucracy duplicating what's happened at the state level. It will happen at the federal level. As I said, just about everything we want to develop in this country—our energy security, commercial fishing to feed cities and nations or recreational fishing, if you want to do those—will be limited by all these other renewable energy projects. I'd be interested to see what the new bureaucracy thinks about them and whether they will perpetuate this double standard that they're giving to renewable projects.

You can gather, Mr Speaker, that I don't approve of the bill, and I don't recommend it to the House. I think we should leave the approval at the one-stop shop. If you have one EPA in New South Wales, one in Victoria or one in Queensland, we believe in applying the same laws for everyone. You can't cherry-pick which industries get regulated to death and which ones get a leave pass. I'll leave it at that, but I definitely recommend caution. This is putting lots of rushed, angry types of powers into the hands of very powerful bureaucrats.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I open these comments by saying I support the amendments put forward by the opposition. I've become increasingly concerned that Australian environmental evangelists are intent on shutting down our economy. Australia has one of the world's highest standards of living, and I think it behoves us to reflect on how we got there.

I have a farm. In an average year it probably produces around 3,000 tonnes of grain. It would never have been there if we hadn't cleared the trees. We kept 10 per cent as shelterbelts, but you simply cannot develop a country unless you are prepared to accept a footprint. I would say on every level we have improved the country in so many ways. Who would want to drive through our country if it was just kilometre after kilometre after kilometre of trees? We've changed Australia and we've made it a productive place. That's why it supports 26 million people.

The environmental warriors, much to my concern, have taken advantage of and misused Indigenous peoples to lodge claims for land title to further frustrate investment and development in Australia—and today we're discussing more mechanisms that will place even greater burdens on those intent on contributing to our sovereign capacity. In my local area, it means we've had projects like a desalination plant proposed by the state government for Port Lincoln frustrated by the claims of Indigenous groups, backed by environmental groups. That plant needs to be completed by 2027 or it's envisaged we'll have severe water restrictions on the Eyre Peninsula. In my home town of Kimba, we've seen the same thing happen with the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.

In the wider context it means that, in Australia, resources industry projects like the Scarborough, Narrabri and Barossa projects have all been frustrated within the court system by claims that are nothing more than attempts to delay or derail the developments. Last week, when I was in the western half of my electorate, I had meetings with four councils, and three of them raised native title as a concern. That's because they have communities that have within them or are surrounded by Crown land, and what is now a consultative labyrinth has become a huge impediment to their ability to negotiate and progress approvals. And in that time the government withdrew the native title respondents' funds, so they're feeling like they're under siege. So employers and businesses are at their wits' end as they grapple with getting approval for ports, for the removal of vegetation, for mining, for transport, for labour hire—you name it. Could we in Australia possibly make life any harder for them?

You mightn't know this, Deputy Speaker Vasta, but I'm an amateur musician. I'm a great David Bowie fan, and David Bowie sang, 'It ain't easy to get to heaven when you're going down.' That's what Australian businesses feel like. It's pretty hard to get to the top when somebody's trying to drag you down the whole time.

Already in Australia we have seven state and territory environmental protection agencies, and the Minister for the Environment and Water is intent on establishing yet another, even though Professor Samuel highlighted the problem with the EPBC Act is that it duplicates state and territory processes for the development of assessment and approval. In fact Professor Samuel did not recommend the establishment of a federal EPA.

Despite the minister promising at a first press conference that not a minute would be wasted in saving the environment, it seems that two years later the minister is conflicted between her head and her heart, and that's why so little has happened. Now she knows not where she wants to go but is determined to make some kind of statement. So we have this, 'We will have the formation of a federal EPA and another agency to go with it,' just to be seen to be doing something.

I have raised in this place before, the trend in Australia for the divestment of ministerial responsibility. The public has a view that they elect their members to come to Canberra and they will somehow be able to have a say in the regulations that affect Australia. As a farmer, I can remember saying many times, 'Why do they do this? Why do I have to fill out that bit of paper? Why does this all happen? Why do I have to do this for somebody who wouldn't know anything about my business?' And, of course, when a newly elected member gets here they're quite surprised to find that none of this stuff happens in Parliament House. It's all being farmed out to faceless bureaucrats, as a rule, whether it's compliance in the workplace, the road rules or heavy vehicle regulations. There's also accreditation on everything, whether it's operating aged care or operating child care.

Then we've got this government proposing that businesses on the ground will have to deal with scope 3 emissions. Does anyone in the government have any idea of how scope 3 emissions will affect small businesses in Australia? Whatever someone makes, they will have to provide documentary evidence of the embedded carbon within their inputs. How will they compile that? How will they determine what the embedded carbon was in their inputs? There's no other way. Their suppliers will have to provide their own documentary trail. And that's how it will find its way right down the food chain to the smallest producer of anything that ends up in the pie, as it were.

Here, I'll take us back 30 years. Let's go back to John Hewson's birthday cake. I don't know what kind of cake it was. I like chocolate cakes myself. But I do know that it would have needed flour, eggs, milk and sugar. Or perhaps you could even buy a packet mix. It might come from Sara Lee. So if Sara Lee is trying to put together the packet mix, they will have to account for the embedded carbon of the ingredients. What do you make flour out of? Wheat. Let's go back to the farmer. How much fuel did you use? Was the chemical made from oil? Did you have to work your paddock more than once? It is an impossible conundrum. They'll have to go to the dairy and ask what the cows have been eating when they had a night off on Saturday night. They'll have to go back and check out what happened with the sugar and the eggs. Are they free range eggs? Perhaps they were barn laid eggs. Perhaps that will make a difference. Perhaps the feed mix will make a difference. This is just an impossible conundrum for Australian producers to deal with.

Now, on top of the creation of the federal EPA, the minister also wants to establish yet another government committee—Environment Information Australia—as a separate body, and even more regulations, more reports, more accounting and more expense. About the only growth industry around here is going to be accounting. I wonder why our per capita productivity in Australia has fallen off a cliff. There was a 3.7 per cent decline in per capita productivity last financial year, and it is difficult to believe at the moment that it has improved since that time, I'd have to say.

As to the policing of these new rules, the enforcement of all these regulations is outsourced to a multitude of committees made up of bureaucrats with little understanding of what it's like to run a business. I will put a question—a theoretical question: what's the best kind of day for a bureaucrat? I can tell you: it's a day when nothing goes wrong. A perfect day is when nothing goes wrong—or, at least, nothing that can be attributed to them. Sadly, this is what leads to nothing much getting done. Decisions are delayed, and the consequences are that it just gums up the whole system. Decisions inevitably resemble an enigma wrapped in an obfuscation inside a box of conundrums. It is just impossible for people trying to run profitable businesses to keep their head above water. They feel like they are under siege.

This proposal puts the CEO of the proposed EPA beyond the reach of the minister. A person with the power to stop any project, anywhere, at any time, at their discretion, is beyond the reach of the minister. What a perfect handball for people who do not want responsibility! As I've said, it's the divestment of ministerial responsibility. A reasonable question would be: Why on earth do we need a minister at all? Why get yourself elected to parliament if you want to palm everything off? I got elected to parliament because I actually wanted to have a say in these decisions.

Since this government was formed, in those two years, there has been almost an industry of referrals, of new regulations, of new committees, to govern the way in which we live here in Australia. Nothing was more obvious. This proposal, like so many of the government's recent decisions, was discussed with very few indeed, and then behind closed doors.

We've heard this recurring theme, as with the vehicle emission standards, where the major importers were told, 'Shhh! Don't tell anyone!' and with the safeguard mechanisms and the religious discrimination proposals. I think one of these mobs—I can't remember which one it was—had to leave their phones at the door, for crying out loud! We were told that the bishops of Australia couldn't discuss with each other the proposals for the religious freedom bills.

This week we've seen it again, with the vaping laws that the government announced that are going to put the sale of vapes into every chemist's shop. That came as a great surprise to the pharmacists, just as the double dispensing debacle did eight months ago or whenever it was.

On every level, this legislation is a lemon. It can do nothing but gum up investment and confidence in Australia. It'll be successful at that, but not at too much else.

We, in opposition, are right to oppose it. We are right to campaign for Australia's future—to try and keep us in that top handful of countries with the highest living standards in the world and not to drive our productivity through the floor. It is why the opposition has taken the stance in the last week to say that we back nuclear energy in Australia, because we do not want to see the industries, the manufacturers, the people that actually provide the jobs in the economy in Australia, driven to the wall. We do not want to see them driven out of the country.

This kind of legislation will only drive investment in Australian projects offshore. The projects won't happen. You'll get companies like BHP and Rio Tinto—those big investors in Australia that have fully mobile capital—going to where they'll get the best returns. We do have the advantage in Australia, normally, of having what we call a solid political pathway, where there's not too much variation—where governments don't penalise companies that invest by changing the rules on them. Sadly, that is changing. The Australia of the last two years is a changed place; people no longer have confidence in it. It's why we've seen the collapse, for instance, of exploration and approvals in the gas industry. That is coming home to roost with a raft of other industries, and I just briefly touched on the energy suppliers in Australia.

So this is bad legislation. The shadow minister has put up some amendments which we believe will make the sow's ear a little more attractive, but, at the end of the day, it ain't gonna be a purse.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's almost exactly a year ago, I think, that I stood here in this place speaking about the Nature Repair Market Bill. That was the first stage of the Albanese government's bold Nature Positive Plan. Despite all the bluster that we get from those opposite, the opposition, we got on with the work over the last year of putting environmental protection and biodiversity, in conjunction with business and First Nations people, at the centre of our environmental agenda. That's what happened over the last year, which is testament to the good work of the minister and all of the government as a whole.

That important work continues with stage 2 of the Nature Positive Plan, which is before the House today. Many of us on this side have spoken many times about the commitment to making sure our shared natural environment—the rivers, the parks and the reserves—is better off for future generations. I know that in my electorate and all around the country—and I'm sure many others in my electorate of Wills agree—all of those spaces and habitats are such important places for native flora and fauna. Those shared spaces also have an enormous positive impact on the health and happiness of residents. Just walking through them makes a difference to one's mental health, certainly.

In my electorate, the investment that we've made, the Albanese government has made, to the Moonee Ponds Creek, in improving it, has been remarkable. It's all about regenerating native species, including the threatened growling grass frog—I must say I haven't seen one yet, but I'm waiting to see one—native turtles and birdlife right along the creek while also improving the community's access and enjoyment of the shared, open green spaces and removing the concrete that was put in place in Moonee Ponds Creek many decades ago. It's so important for the local community to enjoy the native flora and fauna. It's so important for young schoolkids to be able to explore and understand the environment better. It makes such a difference. Stage 1 opened up private and public investment and introduced the water trigger, and today we turn to improving transparency, education and compliance through what we're debating today.

The Albanese government will create two new bodies, as we know: the Environment Protection Agency and Environment Information Australia. These are the centrepiece of stage 2 of the Nature Positive Plan, a compressive approach to fixing environmental law in Australia. The EPA will have those strong new powers and penalties to better protect our natural environment, and the EIA will provide government and the public with high-quality environmental data, increase transparency and improve access to scientific data.

The government released its response to the Samuel review into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act back in December 2022. Professor Graeme Samuel AC found: 'The EPBC Act is outdated and requires fundamental reform.' Well, we've set about doing that. The EPBC Act was not delivering for the environment, the community or business, and the Albanese government and Minister Plibersek have introduced the Nature Positive Plan. This staged package of reforms is all about protecting the natural environment, increasing transparency, cutting red tape and establishing the EPA, as I've said.

Stage 1 of the Nature Positive Plan came into effect in December last year, in 2023, and it included the crucial establishment of the world's first nature repair market and the expansion of the water trigger. The nature repair market has brought together private companies, conservation groups, farmers and landowners to fund real-world projects to improve biodiversity and restore and protect the environment. It has brought business, agriculture and rural communities together, and it has been central to unlocking investment and delivering long-term outcomes. Unlike those opposite, as I said, and all the bluster that we heard from them when we introduced this last year, we recognise on this side of the House the incredible value of centring Indigenous Australians in these projects as well and listening to their knowledge and experience of the land, while also embracing employment opportunities in the regions.

The Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, which we are debating, delivers on this promise by establishing the EPA. The Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 delivers on this promise by establishing Environment Information Australia, the EIA. And the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 provides the powers to the minister to address many of the unintended outcomes or unforeseen issues related to transitioning to the EPA.

Debate interrupted.