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

In my previous contribution to the debate on the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 in the House, I was going through the introduction of both the EPA, which is going to deliver on the promise of establishing an Environment Protection Agency—we made that commitment at the last election—and the Environment Information Australia, the EIA, as well as the commitments we have made to address some of the unintended outcomes or unforeseen issues related to the transition to the EPA that are also part of the reforms and the changes in the bill.

The EPA is a body that will have significant power to enforce federal environmental law. These powers include the ability to issue environmental protection orders—these are stop work orders to anyone breaking the law; auditing of businesses to ensure they are compliant with environmental conditions of granted approvals; providing better guidance on and education to businesses to make rules clearer and easier to follow; increasing compliance; and empowering courts to impose fines of up to $780 million or prison sentences of up to seven years for extremely serious breaches of federal environmental law. This brings penalties into line with punishments for serious financial offences such as insider trading and market manipulation.

The recent audit of environmental offsets undertaken between June 2023 and March 2024 found that one in seven EPBC Act approvals were non-compliant with approval conditions, highlighting the need for both greater education and tougher penalties. The EIA will increase transparency in decision-making, including through creating a public website that will provide government and the public with authoritative and high-quality environmental information and data. Unlike the past where we saw a complete vacuum when it came to environmental data—it just wasn't put out there—this is going to make sure that the public see the exact statistics, the analysis and the scientific data that they can actually assess. The EIA will also develop an online database that will give businesses better access to this data and help make federal approvals quicker and easier as they go through the process.

There will also be public reporting on the government's progress towards established environmental goals, such as protecting 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030. That's accountability. The EIA will also be required by law to publish a State of the environment report every two years instead of the previous five-year interval. This will prevent future governments from hiding the truth about the Australian environment which, frankly, the previous government did.

The Nature Positive Plan is a crucial part of our environmental legislative agenda. It's world-leading action on environmental protection that recognises the incredible biodiversity and natural wonders that Australia is home to and blessed with. While the coalition bury their heads in the sand with empty, decades-away promises of nuclear energy, we remain focused on a clean, renewable future backed by scientists, businesses and experts. In only two years we've seen record investment in renewables, with 40 per cent of our main national grid now powered by renewables. That's a real achievement for just over two years in government. That was confirmed by the AEMO just the other day.

This sits side-by-side with investment in coastal reef restoration, threatened species protection, transforming our recycling system, the new national water agreement and the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, among many other actions. It's not grandstanding, it's not getting up with a megaphone and carrying on and doing slogans; it's putting your head down and doing the hard work necessary to protect the environment. That's what this government has been doing.

There's a lot of noise out there. There's a lot of politicisation and weaponisation of these issues. It's all about the politics, whether it's the coalition with their fantasy of nuclear energy and nuclear power plants or whether it's the Greens minor party who are shouting slogans and spreading misinformation. This government is actually doing the work. It's doing the work that a government is supposed to do. It's passing laws and getting things done. We've heard all about quiet diplomacy. I'd say there's some quiet work on environmental law that's going on here that actually has a material, substantive, real effect on protecting the environment. That's what we're about. That's what this government been delivering and the Minister for the Environment and Water Tanya Plibersek has been delivering again and again over the last two years.

We've got a proven track record. This government has a proven track record of ensuring that this precious environment that we have, that we all share, remains pristine and intact for future generations, for our kids and our grandkids. That's a fundamentally important obligation and responsibility of this place and of the government of Australia. We are blessed in this continent with such an amazing environment, and the laws that we are debating today and the laws that have been put in place are about protecting that for our kids and our grandchildren.

The establishment of the EPA and the EIA increase and will increase knowledge and education, and it will also make sure that those tasked with protecting the environment are doing so with the backing of strong penalties for those who fail in their duty and fail to do what is right. As I said, these bills support stage 1 of the Nature Positive Plan, which has given us such great steps forward in protecting local environments. I mention the Moonee Ponds Creek in my electorate and the regeneration of native flora and fauna for the enjoyment and benefit of the community and the protection of that environment. That Nature Positive Plan and the bill that we're debating today which will support and strengthen it and the whole environmental legal framework will give confidence to business and to the public that real actions on environmental protection are taking place, are being done, and they are being done with an appropriate oversight as well.

As Australians, we are all proud of and cherish our natural environment. We know that the Biodiversity Council has found that 81 per cent of Australians support measures to protect Australian wildlife of cultural significance, and 71 per cent believe that governments have a duty of care to protect future generations from environmental harm. A duty of care for the protection of our pristine environment for future generations is one of our responsibilities in this place, one that has been materialising through this bill, through stage 1 of the Nature Positive Plan. That's our duty of care, and we take it seriously. We do the hard work of putting these bills to this place and passing these laws as a government and not playing politics with these issues, because they're too important for future generations. They're important for us today. We all take seriously this duty to protect the environment from harm, to protect the pristine environment that we all share. So I'm proud to be a part of the Albanese Labor government that is actually delivering this protection to the environment for this generation and for future generations.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and related bills. Australia's natural environment is one of the defining features of our nation. From the koala to the kangaroo, the wallaby to the wombat and the crocodile to the cassowary, Australia is home to amazing animals, unique plants and diverse aquatic life. In my own electorate of Wentworth, the annual whale migration is now in full swing and dolphins are regular visitors to our stunning coastline. In the last two weekends, we've been blessed to have seals at Bondi and Bronte beaches, which is a wonderful reminder of the connection of our community to the natural environment.

Against this backdrop of beauty, nature is in crisis. The 2021 State of the environment report pulled back the curtain on the devastating damage that is being done to our environment. We have the highest rate of deforestation in the developed world and the highest rate of mammal extinction of any country, and we are doing irreparable damage to the Great Barrier Reef. And things are getting worse. More than 2,200 species and ecological communities are currently listed as threatened in Australia. Ten per cent of these have been added since the beginning of 2021. Add to this the existential threat posed by climate change, and our environment has never been in greater danger.

Our failure to address this decline is in no small part down to our broken environmental laws. The EPBC Act was introduced under John Howard a quarter of a century ago and the laws are still stuck in the past. They don't protect the environment and they don't work for business either, who are tied up in a slow process driven approach to environmental approvals. The minister has rightly acknowledged that our current laws are not fit for purpose, that major reform is needed and I completely agree. But unfortunately, the bills before the House are not the major reforms that we need. They are more limited changes which, while welcome, still leave room for improvement.

There are three bills in this package, so let me take you to each one in turn, starting with the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024. It has been clear for a long time that our environmental laws were not properly enforced, that environmental approvals were subject to inappropriate interference and that there was a lack of expert-led assessment of projects that have big impacts on nature. The community has lost trust in environmental decision-making and that is understandable. The government's commitment to deliver an environmental protection agency is therefore welcome. This introduction of a federal EPA is a significant and long-overdue reform, one which I and many across the environmental movement have argued for.

There are important changes in the EPA legislation that strengthen penalties for non-compliance, that alter stop-work provisions so that we get decisions more quickly and that enable stop-work orders to be issued where there are clear and present dangers to the environment. These are all important and welcome. But to be effective, to move beyond being just another environmental agency and to be trusted by the community to make environmental decisions, the EPA must meet certain standards. It must be independent in its construction, transparent in its decision-making and led by experts. It should have clear and legislated objectives and it should be properly funded from its commencement. The Victorian and New South Wales EPAs as well as EPAs overseas provide helpful examples of how this can be done well. However, as it is currently drafted, I have reservations over whether these minimum standards have been met.

The CEO of the EPA is to be appointed by the minister with no independent assessment process and no oversight from an independent board. While the CEO may constitute an advisory group to provide guidance on decisions, there is no legislative requirement for this advice to appear in a statement of reasons for particular decisions, so we may not have transparency over whether or not the CEO's decisions were aligned with expert advice. Furthermore, while the bill allows the minister to delegate certain functions to the EPA, there is currently no requirement for the details of that delegation to be made public. As a result, it won't be clear which types of decisions will be delegated to the EPA, which ones will not, and why.

Despite extensive consultations over the past year there is also not a clearly defined ministerial call-in power, so we won't know when the minister has decided to take over and make a decision instead of the EPA. This lack of transparency creates risk and, importantly, the perceived risk that environmental approvals will be shrouded in the same secrecy as flawed systems in the past. Thankfully, there are simple fixes to the problem requiring minor but meaningful changes to the legislation. I thank the minister for her constructive engagement with my team and I on addressing these issues. I look forward to continuing to discuss this as the bill moves to the consideration in detail stage.

Beyond these issues of transparency and independence, I also want to put on record some of the issues that the business community have raised with me about the bill. These relate to three key areas: first, ensuring the EPA and its CEO are accountable for their performance while maintaining independence from government; second, providing appropriate checks and balances on the new stop-work orders so that projects cannot be excessively or indefinitely delayed without due recourse; and third, ensuring that new penalties in this bill are applied in a proportionate manner. I encourage the minister to continue working with the business community, in particular representing those proponents of projects that are essential to our clean energy transition, to address these concerns.

I would like to turn my attention to the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024. This is a reform that will make a real difference. The creation of the EIA is an important step to ensure that businesses have easy access to the environmental data that they need and ensure the community has more transparent information about the state of the environment. One of the major inefficiencies in our current approvals regime is the continued collection and recollection of the same environmental data. It is costly and time-consuming and it doesn't work for business or the environment. Professor Graeme Samuels' independent review of the EPBC Act recommended a quantum shift in data collection and information systems, and this bill will help to deliver that.

One of the centrepieces of these bills is the requirement for the State of the environment report to be published every two years. It is important that we have more regular assessments of the state of our environment, so I strongly support this new requirement. But for the State of the environment report to do anything more than be a chart of continued decline of nature in Australia, we need real reform of our environmental laws. If these laws are broken, no amount of data will fix them.

This brings me to the disappointing aspect of the legislation before the House today, which is the narrowness of its scope. The gaping hole in these bills is the absence of changes to our underlying national environmental laws, which Professor Graeme Samuel described earlier this year as 'gobbledegook' and 'an abysmal failure at protecting our environment over the past 25 years'. It is crystal clear our national environmental laws are in need of an entire rewrite. That is what the government has promised but what we are still waiting for. The consequences of this delay are dire. Businesses will continue to face an inefficient and process driven approach to environmental approvals. Native forests will continue to be logged in New South Wales and Tasmania. Land clearing of endangered habitat will continue because much of it does not require referral for assessment under the act. And our national environmental law will continue to omit consideration of climate change—the biggest threat to nature in Australia.

I want to take a minute to talk specifically about climate and why it's so important that it is integrated into our national environmental law. The truth is that human induced global heating is having a devastating effect on nature, with rapidly rising ocean temperatures, floods, fires, droughts and extreme weather causing enormous damage to our environment. Our main environmental law does absolutely nothing about this. The EPBC Act does not require emissions to be considered when evaluating project proposals and doesn't even require them to be disclosed. As a result 740 fossil fuel projects have been approved since the EPBC Act came into effect, including four new coalmines during this parliament. On the other side of the coin, because climate is ignored our environmental laws don't recognise the positive long-term benefits to nature of renewable projects that reduce climate pollution. As the Clean Energy Council put in their recent submission to the department's consultation:

Climate and nature are not separate phenomena and treating them separately is leaning into a false dichotomy.

The government has indicated a willingness to incorporate climate into our national environmental law in a manner consistent with policies like the safeguard mechanism. But the can has been kicked down the road, and we simply cannot afford to wait any longer.

I conclude by acknowledging the road to real reform never did run smooth. It is not easy to rewrite our environmental laws. It is an incredibly complex process fraught with challenges and conflicting opinions. If these laws are going to work, they need to stick. The needs of the environment need to be matched with the needs of businesses, and this needs to be something where people can come together. I know the minister is sincere in her commitment to getting this right. I desperately want her to succeed, and I will be willing to work constructively with her to get a good set of laws through this parliament. But time is running out for our climate and for the environment. The reforms contained in these bills may present some progress, but we need so much more. I urge the minister to work with the crossbench in this House and in the other place to strengthen this important legislation.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to speak on the government's continued legislative response, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and the associated bills, to the Samuel report. That report of the review into the Commonwealth EPBC Act was delivered to government in October 2020. The coalition failed to respond to that report and failed to act. Their opposition to this legislation is simply a continuation of that failure.

In contrast, the Albanese government has taken to the task. This is the second tranche of reforms following the review, with a third to follow. In the foreword to the report Professor Graeme Samuel stated:

Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. They are not sufficiently resilient to withstand current, emerging or future threats, including climate change.

In my electorate of Hasluck, this has been absolutely evident this season. Until this crossover between autumn and winter, Western Australia had experienced a drought, and we have seen forest collapse in the northern jarrah forests. To have this happen—where, no matter how many kilometres you drive, you witness the loss of the stunning, beautiful habitat that supports an enormous ecosystem, from the birdlife of our black cockatoos through to insects and other flora and fauna—is absolutely, utterly devastating, and everyone across the community is pointing it out and talking about it. It happened once before, in 2011, and it was then deemed a 'first in the world' event. And now we've seen it again in 2024.

This is real, and we have a responsibility to respond. Some of the ways in which we respond are a little dry and technical, but are necessary in order to create the framework to achieve action that's lasting. To this end, Graeme Samuel's review said that the EPBC Act is outdated and requires fundamental reform. Importantly, he stressed that because the environmental law required fundamental reform, it would need done in a sensible way, with a staged pathway to achieve it.

This second stage of legislation establishes two pivotal bodies, each of them with necessary independence from the government of the day and, importantly, independent from one another. We are building the house in which the final stage of the reforms will find its home. Environment Information Australia will inform the application of the new environmental law, and Environment Protection Australia, an independent EPA with teeth, will administer it. The ALP's national platform states that Labor believes in a strong national environmental protection framework. It commits the party to pursue a strong and independent EPA, and publicly available and transparent environmental data.

I wish to speak first about Environment Information Australia. I think the body we are creating here is generally underestimated. It's a great, positive change vehicle. The EIA will make a difference to environmental outcomes in two particular ways: it will become, over time, the fundamental national repository of up-to-date and historical information about our environment; and, importantly, it will be an ongoing, respected independent voice that will, without fear or favour, tell the community and each successive government, regardless of their propensity to listen to it, just how we are going with protection of environment.

Recommendation 10 of the Samuel report emphasises the vital importance of improving the information base of our environmental protection system. This legislation embodies that attitude, and, through the statutory position of the head of Environment Information Australia, it will ensure the establishment and the ongoing integrity of accurate, timely, regular and useful environmental reporting for the country as a whole. The head of the EIA, while situated within the department, will not be subject to direction by the secretary of the department, the minister or any other person in the fulfilment of their statutory duties in relation to monitoring, evaluation or reporting, including the state of the environment reports and the environmental economic accounts.

There will be a public environmental portal created and maintained by the EIA, and this will work both ways. An example from the UK is their government supported Environmental Information Data Centre, which carries as menu headings on its website, firstly, 'Find & use data', and, secondly, 'Deposit data'. Who will deposit the data for the EIA? State governments, university researchers and, of course, the many grassroots organisations and peak bodies that work in their own fields or regions every day. For example: just with this forest collapse, we were called upon as a community and as scientific citizens to photograph and capture the GPS data of where these tree collapses occurred, and we've uploaded that into a particular data point within the university. In due course, we'll be able to share that on this national platform.

There are many other groups with memberships across Hasluck that I know will make the most of these new opportunities, such as RegenNarration podcasts, ACF Community Darling Range, local chapters of the Citizens Climate Lobby and Climate Action Network Australia. And we have Guildford in Transition; the Darling Range Wildlife Centre; Save Perth Hills; the industrious catchment groups of Jane Brook, Susannah Brook, Blackadder Woodbridge and the lower Helena Valley; the Swan Valley Wildlife & Environment Advocacy Group; and the Perth Hills Climate Change Interest Group, to name just a few. Collectively, they see what's happening on the ground. They notice the change. They can understand when we've got fuel loads and when the soil is becoming dry. They can see the changes that are a consequence of a drying climate, particularly in Perth and across the hills. Their data is valuable, but now we can extract the value from their efforts and use that data in a meaningful way. I expect the EIA will also find helpful synergies with other major repositories, such as Geoscience Australia's recently launched Digital Atlas of Australia, so we can start to join the dots around the nation.

Further, this legislation places positive duties upon the environment minister to respond to the state of the environment reports in a timely way and to table annual statements of the environmental economic accounts. It's good legislation, and an essential part of underpinning the new environmental legislation and the efficacy of the EPA. The budget sees an allocation of $54 million over the four years to establish the EIA, and the legislation requires the minister to conduct five-yearly reviews too.

In an article in the Conversation this month by Professor Hugh Possingham and others, they agreed that the EIA was needed but suggested that, by itself, it won't improve outcomes for nature. While I certainly understand the intent of the comment, I actually disagree. I think that this body will have an effect all on its own, both through the more comprehensive and available information it will provide and through the spotlight its reporting regime will throw upon environmental needs, outcomes and responses. The data that will be collected will include data not just on native species but also on invasive species, for both flora and fauna.

In relation to feral cats, which kill about six million native animals every day, this government is developing a new action plan, and state and local governments across the country will have then the data to share. Action to remove feral cats from islands such as Christmas Island and other protected areas have been shown to be an effective way to save animals in place and avoid extinctions. Federal government leadership in this area is important so that the experience and success of state and local efforts can be shared and replicated. The feral cat abatement plan consultation late last year received over 1,600 responses, and the new draft is being created by the department presently.

I'm pleased to support the establishment of the EIA. Once it is in place, it will mean, as the minister said, that no future government will be able to hide information about the state of the environment, as the previous coalition government did.

The other bill before us, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, is to establish the Commonwealth EPA, Environment Protection Australia. It will have strong new powers and penalties and will be independent. Almost every state and territory in Australia has an EPA—almost. Perhaps Queensland will take the hint after this bill passes. The USA has an EPA; Canada has its environmental and climate change agency; the UK has its environment agency; Germany has the Umweltbundesamt, or the UBA.

In order to show that we are serious as a parliament about environmental protection, we need to create a powerful authority to embody that intention and we need to fund it. The budget provides $121 million to establish the EPA, which will act across a wide range of legislative powers and activities, including the natural environment, recycling, waste exports, hazardous waste, sea dumping, ozone protection, cultural heritage, air and water quality, and offset appropriateness and delivery, amongst many other things.

The EPA will be an independent statutory agency. The CEO will not be subject to direction by the minister, the secretary of the department or anyone else. Public statements of intent will frame the relationship between the EPA and the minister of the day. This new agency will have formidable powers and penalties. Courts will be able to impose fines of up to $780 million or send people to prison for up to seven years for extremely serious, intentional breaches of federal environmental law. The EPA has significant separation in the regulation of our environmental approvals and will underpin the delivery of the new environmental laws that will come before the parliament next.

It does appear, though, that some members opposite are uneasy about the proposals to legislate an EPA and an environment information body. The member for Page wants to pretend that this environmental law is the city people telling the country people what to do. He says we will quash investment, but this government is the one creating an attractive investment environment. It is those opposite who are trying to wreck it with their nuclear fantasies. The Clean Energy Council welcomes the introduction of these bills. The member for Mallee complained that the government seemed to want to insert consideration for the climate into every area of policy. Well, that's right. I put it to the members for Mallee and Page—and perhaps the National Party as a whole needs to hear this—that if you aren't willing to put climate related considerations into every area of policy, then you simply do not understand the nature and the extent of the climate emergency.

Fortunately, most voters do seem to care, and carry that understanding. I don't just mean city voters; I mean most voters—in Mallee and Page too. The members might need to catch up with their constituents. People in rural areas understand the issues that climate change and environmental degradation carry. Let the member for Mallee go and ask the Yarrilinks Landcare Network at Warracknabeal or Scaada Environmental & Sustainability Group at Horsham what they think about the new environmental laws. Let the member for Page seek the views of the Coffs Coast Climate Action Group or the Lismore Environment Centre. Come back next sitting and tell us what those people, and others working at the coalface of environmental issues in your electorates, think about this legislation for the federal EPA and Environmental Information Australia. The member for Mallee also stated that enshrining the independence of the two bodies in legislation was an issue. We are proud to create these independent bodies with teeth. They will, no doubt, provide challenges for Labor environment ministers, and I can tell members that Minister Plibersek is up to the challenge. I can understand if the challenge of that independence would be too much for some coalition members who'd rather not have to take significant action on the environment; they may just need to adjust to the new reality.

The coalition seems to be saying that Labor is doing too much to assist the environment with this legislation. On the other hand, the Greens have come in and pretended that they don't support the legislation by speaking about anything but the legislation. The member for Brisbane said the legislation is a cynical distraction. The truth, as usual, is neither of these things. The coalition can't support the legislation because they don't have the imagination to realise how necessary it is. The Greens will support the legislation, but can't say they will because they are terrified of being irrelevant to the real and deliberate action Labor is taking to fix our environmental laws.

I commend Minister Plibersek for her carriage of this legislation and for her dedication to seeing all these laws—our response to the Samuel report—through to completion. I support these bills.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and the related bills.

I think that our journey towards environmental protection reforms—in this place, certainly—has been torturous, perhaps tedious, and, some would argue, terminal. This is somewhat synonymous with the 2,212 species and the ecological communities that are listed as 'threatened'—of which 10 per cent were added to that list in the last three years, suggesting a worsening crisis requiring immediate action rather than the navel-gazing undertaken by successive governments. Between the years 2000 and 2017 alone, more than 7.7 million hectares of potential habitat for threatened species were cleared—a staggering 93 per cent without being referred to assessment or approval under the EPBC Act. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. Experts have advised governments that our existing laws are inadequate.

We've had two independent statutory reviews of our environmental legislation. Firstly, the Hawke review in December 2009, then the Samuel review in 2021. The Hawke review made 71 wide-ranging recommendations, including a general requirement to completely redraft the act in order to make significant changes to its operation and administration. The then government's response: it went into environmental legislative hibernation. After more than a decade of inaction, the Samuel review was released in January 2021. That report concluded:

The EPBC Act is out dated and requires fundamental reform. It does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively fulfil its environmental management responsibilities to protect nationally important matters. The Act, and the way it is implemented, results in piecemeal decisions, which rarely work in concert with the environmental management responsibilities of the States and Territories. The Act is a barrier to holistic environmental management which, given the nature of Australia's federation, is essential for success.

In April 2022, Graeme Samuel appeared before the Environment and Communications Reference Committee stating:

In 2020, or January 2021, which is when my report was released, we had had just over two decades of neglect and of abysmal failure in protecting the environment and biodiversity. Unfortunately, nothing of any consequence was done with my report until 21 May 2022.

And here we are. After two reviews spanning more than a decade, we finally have a bill before us that seeks to correct the obvious flaws in our environmental legislative framework.

But I'm not popping the champagne corks just yet. While I commend the government for its decisive and early decision to implement its Nature Positive Plan and incorporate many of the Samuel review recommendations, it does fall short in critical areas. The bill establishes a statutory agency, Environment Protection Australia, comprising a CEO, staff and other persons whose services are required for the operation of the entity. The CEO is appointed by the Governor-General through a process determined by the minister and may only be appointed if the minister is satisfied that the person has the requisite knowledge and experience. However, during the consultation process, a draft policy paper was distributed relating to a ministerial call-in power related to environmental approval decisions. This does cast a shadow over the independence of the EPA and its CEO to make appropriate decisions and does not address the position of many stakeholders, academic experts and environment and climate activists who have long argued for a truly independent statutory authority. The National Environmental Law Association summed this up as such:

The proposal for a CEO model without a statutorily appointed Board may be intended to curtail political influence within the EPA. However, reliance on a single-member regulator structure encourages a perception of bias, misconduct and corruption, and increases that risk that bias, misconduct and corruption will occur because only one person (i.e. the CEO) need be influenced to affect the regulator's decision-making. To achieve legitimacy, a regulatory authority must be seen to be and be free from external influence.

I think that's a very important point.

In addition to curing perceptions of improper conduct and lowering the risk of such conduct, the presence of a board would ensure the EPA's strategic direction is guided by members with specific expertise in a range of areas. Board oversight provides for a broader range of skills and qualifications than a single person fulfilling the role of CEO. I'm therefore seeking some guidance from the minister on whether the lack of transparency around the shortcoming will be resolved in stage 3 of reforms. The Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill establishes the position of the Head of Environment Information Australia—HEIA—as a statutory officer within the department. It confers powers and functions, including the preparation and publishing of biannual state and environment reports, and will develop and implement a monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework to assess and report on the extent to which Nature Positive is being achieved. While this progresses the recommendations of the Samuel review, I'm disappointed at the vague definition of Nature Positive and the omission of a baseline and a target year. We should be including that in the legislation, rather than it being set at the discretion of the Head of Environment Information Australia.

Environmental legislation is challenging. There is no doubt about that, and I do not envy the minister's role in navigating a path with such broad stakeholder views and expectations. These bills are not perfect, but they are a significant advancement on what we currently have. I support this bill and look forward to seeing further reforms that provide certainty for our environment and stakeholders.

Alison Byrnes (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese Labor government is doing more than ever to protect the environment. We are delivering on programs, projects, policies and actions to create a Nature Positive Australia. Labor is a party that cares about and for the environment. We believe in climate change, and we act responsibly. We are not denying the science, like those opposite, or standing in the way of sensible progress, like the Greens political party. We have seen the extreme right and the extreme left almost coming together on tactics on a number of fronts, particularly on renewable energy and the environment. Both the opposition and the Greens political party are all about chasing the headlines and not doing the hard work of implementing sensible and effective changes that help to protect our planet and our environment and secure our energy sources, keeping the lights on and using the cheapest form of energy—renewable energy. For both, it is all about the headlines, often with incorrect information, and not about the hard work that goes on behind the scenes.

As the member for Blair pointed out, the leader of the Greens political party along with the member for Brisbane and the member for Griffith didn't address one single iota of this bill. Instead, they spent this debate spreading the misinformation that's pumping out of their party machine. Greens Senator Hanson-Young said today that Gina Rinehart is cheering the government's approval of 151 new gas wells, threatening more than 500 hectares of koala habitat. But the approval that I have right here includes strict conditions: no koala breeding or foraging habitat can be cleared. It's outright disinformation from this party of protest.

Labor is happy to put in the hard work. Unlike them, we will not serve up uncosted, unrealistic and unreliable plans. On this side of the chamber, we understand that addressing climate change requires balancing environmental protection, economic realities and future energy demand. Minister Plibersek has been working with a wide range of stakeholders on these reforms, as have local Labor members. I have met with the Australian climate coalition, the Tomorrow Movement, Surfers for Climate, Good for the Gong, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Sea Shepherd and the Illawarra Knitting Nannas Against Greed amongst many other organisations. Nanna Cherry is a fierce advocate but an even fiercer knitter. I thank her for my and Minister Plibersek's climate scarves, which she kindly gifted to us.

Making positive change means hard work and consultation. We've established the Net Zero Economy Agency to have a focus on the economic opportunities for the regions at the centre of the energy transformation, which have powered and built Australia for generations. We've released the National Electric Vehicle Strategy, most importantly including the commitment to implement new vehicle efficiency standards. We're rolling out 400 community batteries around Australia, including in Warrawong in my electorate, to help Australian homes harness the cost savings of solar energy. We're progressing the development of an offshore wind industry here in Australia. We've designated the Gippsland, Hunter, Southern Ocean and Illawarra zones and are still in consultation for the Bass Strait and Bunbury zones. We have budgeted $1 billion for Solar Sunshot, to help Australia capture more of the global solar manufacturing supply chain, and $2 billion for the vital Hydrogen Headstart program, so Australia stays in the green hydrogen game. Hysata in my electorate is manufacturing the world's most efficient hydrogen electrolyser and recently achieved the largest ever series B capital raise in the southern hemisphere at $172 million, which included a $15 million dollar component from the federal government. This brings our government's investment in this amazing local startup, which came out of the University of Wollongong, to nearly $45 million.

This is just to name a few ways the Albanese Labor government is paving the way for a cleaner and more resilient Australia. We have achieved so much since we came to government, but there is still so much more that needs to be done. These three Nature Positive bills represent a groundbreaking step towards our promise to preserve the breathtaking landscapes, unique biodiversity and rich ecosystems that we are all so fortunate to call home. It indicates a new era of environmental conservation—one that recognises the urgent need for action and sets out a way we can address the climate challenges facing our planet.

However, in recent years, we have seen the alarming consequences of the years of neglect of those opposite. We have seen so much environmental degradation through deforestation, habitat loss, species extinction, pollution and the increasing threat of climate change.

In October 2020, Professor Graeme Samuel AC provided an independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, or the EPBC Act. This act is currently Australia's central piece of national environmental law. His review concluded that the act had become outdated, ineffective and in dire need of reform. The review found that Australia's environmental law was not working for the environment, for business or for the community. This review from Professor Samuel, when read in conjunction with the 2021 State of the environment report, paints a very alarming picture for what could be our future with no intervention. The 2021 State of the environment reportsaid:

Overall the state and trend of the environment of Australia are poor and deteriorating as a result of increasing pressures from climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, pollution and resource extraction.

If we progress down this path without intervention in the constantly changing environmental conditions, many species of flora and fauna and entire ecosystems will continue to be threatened and eventually become extinct.

The idea of accelerating this decline should alarm us all. Our economy, our livelihood and our wellbeing all depend on the health of the natural world. Currently, our demand on nature exceeds its capacity to survive, thrive and regenerate. Preventing environmental damage and ensuring that our laws are upheld is one of the most important things that we can do to protect nature. Our Nature Positive Plan aims to deliver stronger protections for the environment, provide faster and clearer decisions for business, and restore accountability and trust to our environmental laws.

The Albanese Labor government has committed to protect 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030, create a nature repair market, establish an independent environment protection agency and work in partnership with First Nations people. We've done this by doubling funding to better look after national parks, including Kakadu and Uluru; keeping the Great Barrier Reef off the World Heritage in Danger list by better protecting it with a $1.2 billion investment and doubling funding for the marine scientists who look after it; investing $1.3 billion to support the successful Indigenous ranger program, including doubling the number of rangers who help manage the feral animals and weeds killing our native species; and ensuring First Nations people are at the forefront of conservation efforts by investing more than $230 million to expand Indigenous protected areas. We will fix our laws so they are less bureaucratic and provide more certainty for business. We will also make sure the laws improve nature and protect our unique native plants and animals to prevent any further extinctions.

This has been a huge task and one that Labor has consulted widely on. Last year, we passed legislation to establish the world's first nature repair market, which was a stage 1 of the Nature Positive Plan. These three bills are part of the second stage of implementation of the Nature Positive Plan. The Albanese Labor government is establishing an independent national environment protection agency to be known as Environment Protection Australia or EPA. EPA will administer Australia's environmental protection laws to better protect the environment and make faster and better decisions. It will be charged with delivering accountable, efficient, outcome focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making. EPA will be an independent national environmental regulator that Australians can be proud of. It will be responsible for a wide range of activities under Australia's environment laws, including recycling and waste exports, hazardous waste, wildlife trade, sea dumping, ozone protection, underwater cultural heritage and air quality. In addition, EPA will be able to provide better guidance and education to make sure businesses are clear about the rules so they can do the right thing; issue environmental protection orders or stop work orders to address or prevent incoming significant environmental risks and harm; and conduct audits on businesses to ensure that they are compliant with environmental approval conditions.

We have also introduced legislation to establish Environment Information Australia, or EIA. EIA will work in collaboration with Australian experts, scientists and First Nations people to collect information and produce consistent tracking of the state of Australia's environment. With the information gathered, the EIA will provide the government, business and the community with reliable, high-quality information and environmental data. They will also create an online database that will help businesses access appropriate data to speed up and make the federal environmental approvals process smoother. Having this database easily accessible will reduce the need for scientific studies for the approval process to be repeated unnecessarily.

The current legislation states that a review of the Australian environment must be completed every five years. This is not good enough. That's why we are increasing the frequency from every five years to every two years. This is so future governments can't hide the truth about the condition of the environment like the last Liberal government did. The EIA bill also defines for the very first time the term 'nature positive' and introduces a requirement to report on Australia's national progress toward that outcome. This will be the first time any country has defined nature positive in legislation and put in place national reporting against this objective.

The EPA will work closely with the EIA, as well as with state and territory governments, to have better availability and use of environmental data for planning and decision-making. What Labor is trying to achieve through these bills is to promote the importance of proactive conservation measures. We want to protect and restore the intricate biodiversity here in Australia by preserving key habitats, promoting sustainable land management practices and protecting endangered species. We want to empower local communities and Indigenous peoples by making sure that everyone is getting involved in environmental planning and management.

There is still a lot to be done to help futureproof the environment, but these three bills are a huge step in the right direction. Unfortunately, those opposite do not care about lowering power bills or combating climate change; all they care about is delaying progress, denying science and deceiving Australians. I commend this bill to the House.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and the related bills.

For just the second time this century, Australia stands at a unique political moment where the establishment of an ambitious and truly independent regime for environmental protection should be within reach. And, for the second time this century, our government is on the cusp of missing an opportunity to create the genuine protection our environment needs. Australia is endowed with diverse natural beauty and unique native wildlife. Both are central to our lifestyles, culture and national identity. With that comes a responsibility on us all to manage anything that would put preservation of our flora, fauna or biodiversity at future risk. This moment, where government, the community, environmental advocates and many in industry share broad political will for structural environmental reform, will not last forever. If the government chooses not to seize this opportunity properly now, this will be a defining moment in this term of government.

Unfortunately, I believe this package of environmental legislation fails to capitalise on this opportunity. Delay, denial and downright sabotage characterised the last government's approach to climate change, energy policy and the environment. This government came to office with promises of speedy action to update and renovate our environmental laws, to provide 21st century protection for our forests, waters, plants and animals—no more Juukan Gorges. But what have we got from this government? Delay and diminution of ambition in a range of policy areas. Not when it comes to gas or coal though: the minister has approved four new coalmining projects, and another 25 are awaiting approval. Then there is the Future Gas Strategy, stretching our dependence on gas to at least 2050. Members of the Goldstein community tell me they can't see much different between that and Scott Morrison's fantasy of a gas led recovery.

With the coalition backsliding on climate targets and renewable energy, now is the time for this government to step up bravely and not to be cowed. Data provided by BirdLife Australia shows that 11 bird species which call Goldstein home are classified as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable. They include the swift parrot, the fairy tern and the blue-winged parrot. Goldstein and all of Australia are home to such beautiful and diverse wildlife. Our laws must reflect the urgency of the threat they face.

This government's proposal for a federal EPA lacks integrity and genuine independence—so often promised yet so rarely delivered. The proposed model for Environment Protection Australia would not be substantially different from the current arrangement of delegated authority within the environment department. The minister retains the power to call in—in effect, override—any environmental application or decision they choose.

The government has telegraphed its intention to break its promise to deliver this total package of reform during its first term of government. We simply don't know who the next minister for the environment will be or how they might undermine the confident promises of the current minister that there's nothing to fear. 'Don't be too worried about that,' seems to be what the minister is saying. I respect this minister, but I can't trust legislation that is missing the required oversights. It lacks rigour and accountability, and I think that's what our communities want. That's why I am here, and that's why this crossbench is here—to make legislation as rigorous as it can be.

Glaringly and, in my opinion, brazenly absent in this reform package is a board overseeing and guiding the operation of the EPA. Instead the government would prefer for the minister to nominate her own CEO to direct the agency—one who is not accountable to the parliament and could have decision-making authority removed from them at any time of the minister's choosing. This is not meaningful independence and is arguably blatantly buckling to industry lobbying. A board could be appointed by an independent panel which could in turn appoint the CEO.

This EPA will in effect operate similarly to other Commonwealth departments. This means the minister will be able to shape the EPA's strategic policy direction through a statement of expectations. This statement sets the objectives and priorities of a statutory agency. This is the instrument through which the agenda of Australia's primary national environmental protection mechanism will be set.

Statements of expectations change from government to government. The concern is the next government could have even less ambition than the current incumbents. This is just too wishy-washy, too toothless. Is the best we can do better than nothing? This was a choice, one made by the government, not to include commonsense structural integrity provisions to safeguard our environment for future generations, independent of the preferences of any minister. This choice does not reflect the urgency of the threat posed to our native wildlife populations.

Professor Graeme Samuel, whose report informed much of the nation's current debate on nature positive, was explicit in his recommendation that new national environmental standards be at the centre of our environmental law. The government, prior to the election, stated it would live up to Professor Samuel's recommendations. That raises the question of where precisely they are in this legislation; I can't seem to find them. Evidently we must cross our fingers that those measures will land in the third phase of this legislation—that is, likely after the next election. I don't know about you but I am not currently inclined toward blind trust in either this government or a future one that may be less ambitious or, worse, wilfully negligent on environment policy matters.

Australia's current environmental laws are not fit for purpose to preserve our environment and stop the ongoing destruction of nature. National environmental standards would shift the focus from individual process approvals to setting environmental objectives and outcomes. The World Wildlife Fund has made it clear Australia has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world. Bilbies, quokkas and rock wallabies are all facing dwindling population levels and are in danger of extinction. The koala is probably our best loved national symbol, hauled out regularly to impress foreign leaders who visit our shores—yet they are now listed as 'endangered' under the EPBC Act. It's estimated there are possibly only 38,000 koalas left in the wild. Our existing environmental protection regime and what's proposed is inadequate to protect them. Do we really want to be the last generation to see koalas among the gum trees?

This brings me to the government's choice to split this legislation across three phases. We're currently at phase 2—whatever phase 1 was is a subjective question, to put it lightly—and the government last week announced the early stages of its consultation into phase 3. Between now and the release of phase 3—almost certainly in the next term of government—nearly 60 projects, including carbon intensive coal and gas facilities, are currently in the department of environment's approval pipeline. Dividing the environment package into separate phases and across separate terms of government exposes long overdue reform to unnecessary political risk. I will work constructively with any government of the day, presuming I'm still here, but the coalition's track record on environmental protection is worse than this government's.

With all this in mind, I will later propose two amendments to this effect. The first addresses the inadequacy of the government's definition of nature positive. It is completely mystifying to me that we have three phases of nature-positive policy rolling out, but the government is reticent to substantively define in this legislation what nature positive even means. And while on face value it appears commendable that Australia would be the first jurisdiction in the world to define the concept, the government's proposed holding definition is not remotely consistent with recommendations of the internationally recognised Nature Positive movement, nor the advice of leading Australian environmental policy experts.

The government's definition that nature positive entails a simple improvement in the diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems from a baseline is about as wishy-washy as this legislation is overall. The absence of a baseline does not hold the government to science-driven criteria on which the recovery of our ecosystems and native wildlife can be compared over time. The government currently has datasets available to it that, while imperfect, are a better starting point than, 'We'll get back to you on that.'

The most recent State of the environment report, released in 2021, could have been referenced in this legislation to establish a working baseline and superseded by subsequent data obtained by the EIA. While I understand that the intent of this legislation is for the head of the EIA to collect data and set a baseline at a future date, parliament has no insight into who the head will be, no oversight over their appointment process and no assurance that the threats to our environment will be addressed by a data driven legal framework. Nothing in this legislation compels the government to set an ambitious baseline based on all best available sources of data.

The question is also open on the wellbeing of threatened and endangered wildlife species as the EIA undertakes its data collection work. My amendment would substitute this noncommittal definition to include native wildlife populations, set a baseline informed by environmental data put forward in the State of the environment2021 report and set clear targets to reverse environmental decline by 2030 and achieve recovery by 2050. If Australia is going to define nature positive, it must signal here at home and internationally that our domestic environmental regulation is world-leading and fit for purpose.

My second amendment would improve the integrity and the independence of the EPA by establishing a joint standing committee on the environment to monitor the CEO's performance and oversee the process of their appointment. The minister's nomination of the CEO would be referred to the joint committee for confirmation, effectively inserting parliamentary oversight into the EPA's operation. The committee mechanism could be complementary to a board which, in best practice, would be comprised of expert members appointed by an independent interim committee.

I'm proposing this amendment to advance the integrity and independence of the EPA as an alternative to a board, noting the government has explicitly ruled one out without sufficient explanation. And there is a precedent—the parliamentary oversight committee integral to the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. But it appears that the government is reluctant to allow any further parliamentary involvement in oversight and monitoring of executive branch decision-making. If it's good enough for parliament to make sure a body is set up to bring the corrupt to account, so should there be a body to make sure the authority designed to protect the environment is doing its job. Both are cases of sunlight being the best disinfectant.

In 2005 when climate change policy and discourse were settling into the public consciousness, the member who is now Prime Minister tabled substantive legislation which would have created a new matter of national significance under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It would have required major new projects to be assessed for their potential to contribute to climate change—in short, a climate trigger. Where did this courage go?

The crossbench has repeatedly called for broad national environmental standards for matters of national significance, an EPA with independence and integrity and—like the now Prime Minister himself did—an assessment of the risk a project may pose to climate change. Almost like clockwork, as it has developed this legislation, the government has failed to meet its timetables and now appears set to divide aspects of the reform across two terms of government, which relies on re-election. This is a very high-risk strategy when, as we've seen in recent days, the climate wars are on again in earnest, ignited by the opposition leader's plans on nuclear energy—climate war 2.

There is conjecture about whether it was all a mistake. Did the opposition leader understand he was being asked about 2035 targets, not 2030? If not, he couldn't correct his error, because to have done so would have revealed how little he understood about either climate or energy policy. If yes, he has backsliding on Australia's Paris commitments. Neither is good. Now, the alternative dumpster fire: the distracting nuclear policy that can only make our power bills even more expensive, and now an EPA without genuine independence or real authority. This looks like business as usual for the major parties.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the package before the House today of nature positive bills, because, after 10 years of environmental neglect, we really have a lot of work to make good on those past wrongs and those actions that were not taken when they were perhaps most timely needed to be taken. Still, one should always aim to make amends, so making up for those past wrongs is very much a part of the package that is before the parliament today.

The Albanese Labor government is indeed committed to ensuring that our precious and irreplaceable natural environment is repaired and that it continues to be nurtured and protected so that the environmental vandalism of the past remains in the past. There was a very strong platform when coming to this government. When we took our policies out to the Australian public, we promised a strong national independent environmental protection agency that would be that tough cop on the beat and today we are delivering on that. That is an important part of this package.

In my region, the package does a number of critical things. It not only delivers the environmental protection agency but it also has some important work around establishing Environment Information Australia—we will come to that—and a number of other important matters. But for time being, I will just say that the establishment of a national environment protection authority for Australia has been long requested by my community. We first came across this need when we had to tackle the PFAS contamination around the Air Force Base at Williamtown in my friend and electoral neighbour, the member for Paterson's, electorate. What was critical and missing at that time was having any kind of national overview and the capacity to act in a coordinated fashion, not just to deal with the matters of treatment of PFAS now but to ensure there are adequate protections going forward and to do some of the detailed work on it. It was a recommendation in inquiries that I took part in and that the member for Paterson led again in the following parliament. So the establishment of an Environmental Protection Australia is great news for the people in Paterson, around Katherine and all those areas where we've subsequently found PFAS to be such a big issue. That is just one example of why you need a proper national body that is well coordinated and well managed to do the work.

As I said, it was something that my community was alive to, through that experience with PFAS and through many others as well, which I will come to. A national EPA will ensure compliance with environmental laws that do in turn ensure that nature is protected while supporting the sustainable development of industries that are wanting to do the right thing. This isn't some pretence that this is a pristine world where humans are not interacting with environment, but we are making sure that those people that do engage in properly thought through sustainable development options—we have industries that work in that space too—have a national EPA body that they can trust and work with and that has the trust of our communities to be always upholding the protection of our environment front of mind. A national EPA will also streamline regulatory decision-making and restore public trust in environmental law, which has been significantly eroded after a decade of neglect and sometimes open vandalism.

The current regulatory system is broken, and this is widely agreed on by all parties. It is a rare day when you have all your environmental groups alongside those doing business and development agreeing that the current regulatory system is broken. The EPA that is part of this package of bills is designed to fix that. We recognise that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. This our mechanism to do that. It will provide tougher penalties for people who do the wrong thing, as it should. It will make careless or deliberately unlawful operators think twice about breaking environmental laws. We need those disincentives to be powerful. It will improve the processes for businesses, providing more certainty and reducing red tape, which will be a welcome relief from the current complex bureaucracy and uncertainty.

Most importantly, a national environmental protection authority will protect our unique natural environment. That is its primary job. Many of our unique native plants and animals are now facing extinction due to years of environmental mismanagement. I know that my office would not be alone with regard to the level of anxiety, which is expressed by many, particularly our young environmentalists, all of whom are very well schooled now through the education system about extinction of our precious mammals and much of our flora. That is what is uniquely Australian. So, making every effort to stem those extinctions, we've made some very strong commitments around zero new extinctions. It's a very important step for the Australian parliament to be taking. This agency will have a particular focus on land clearing and deforestation, which of course is the single biggest cause of extinctions.

I've got to say that this will be very welcome news for my favourite Australian bird, the rare freckled duck. The freckled duck is endemic to Australia and predominantly found in the eastern interior of the country, being wetland dependent. It's drought, habitat destruction and hunting that continue to put untold pressure on the freckled duck numbers. Thankfully, since 1993 the Hunter Wetlands Centre in my electorate of Newcastle—which I note was once a dumping ground, basically, for a lot of industrial waste and is now an internationally recognised Ramsar wetland. It's a perfect example of what can happen; this is now the habitat for the very endangered freckled duck. We have been running a captive breeding program to conserve the freckled duck numbers, which has since produced the largest captive population in Australia. So my community is playing a very important role in the protection of this particular duck species that's now endangered and on the verge of extinction. We're doing our part to try and turn that around, and the legislation that we're putting before the parliament today is going to help us in this regard.

I do want to say a very big, deep personal thanks to the Hunter Wetlands Centre and their amazing community of volunteers for their excellent advocacy and hard work in my community. It's with deep gratitude that I bring your work to the attention of the Australian parliament today.

Thankfully, the Hunter Wetlands Centre was indeed included in the internationally recognised Hunter Estuary Wetlands Ramsar site back in 2002, providing a much-needed safe haven for the freckled duck. In 2016 the centre started a program releasing healthy juvenile ducks back into the wild while keeping the captive breeding program operating on site. That's a good news story to share with the Australian parliament. The program has already helped expand the numbers of this rare and vulnerable species in the wild, and this is a huge success story for the freckled duck.

This Labor government went to the election promising better environmental protections, resulting in many more success stories like the one I've just shared with you today. Through the establishment of the EPA, we will be able to deliver for the freckled duck, for her rare and endangered animal friends, for plant and marine life and for Australians who love the environment and know what we can do better.

We'll also be able to monitor—this is important—and report on freckled duck numbers so that we will know if they need our help again in the future, through the establishment of Environment Information Australia. That's what this package of bills also enables us to do—to set up Environment Information Australia. Currently, environment information and data are terribly fragmented. It's of uncertain quality. It's difficult to access and often unusable, so it's not especially helpful for any of us right now. The proposed EIA will collect and report on high-quality and authoritative environmental data more accurately and with increased frequency to provide for faster, better decision-making.

The agency will work collaboratively with Australia's experts on our natural environment, including First Nations people, who have a deep, intimate connection to and knowledge of Australia's unique natural environment. They come with 65,000-plus years of knowledge about those very intricate ecosystems and the exquisite examples of flora and fauna. They are amongst our most respected environmental scientists. They will be working with and feeding information into Environment Information Australia, along with other environmental experts in their fields. Together they will collect and provide transparent and precise reporting and accurate evaluation of data and environmental protection laws to inform good investment, good policy and good regulatory decision-making. That's what the Australian community expects of any government. Certainly this government is one that holds a high bar for what we expect from the agencies and services that we establish, and this will go a great way to help restore some of that public trust.

The bills are also the second of a three-stage approach that the Albanese Labor government, under the direction of the minister for environment, the member for Sydney, has around the Nature Positive Plan. We've established the world's first nature repair market—that's already been done; that was in the first tranche of legislation—making it easier for landholders, including First Nations people and organisations, conservation groups, farmers, businesses and charities, to invest in the great work of repairing nature. But we know that there is lots more to do. No one pretends otherwise. Our planet is a very important asset to each and every one of us, and Australia will be doing the heavy lifting necessary to ensure that for the continent of Australia, at least, we are doing everything we can to stem some of that damage and degradation from years of neglect. That's not a position any of us want to go back to.

We know that there's the need for the big reforms of the EPBC Act, which we are committed to fully delivering in that next, third stage of our Nature Positive Plan. Native forest logging will be regulated by national environmental laws, for the first time ever, through the National Environmental Standards, and that is part of our Nature Positive Plan too. There is much more work to do, but you can be assured that this government is deeply committed to delivering the strongest environment laws this country has ever seen.

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

In 2022, the full bench of the Federal Court overturned the Sharma v Minister for the Environment case, and, in doing so, found that, under the EPBC Act, the minister has no duty to consider climate change impacts in the decisions the minister makes. The court said, 'Such a matter is for the parliament.'

Here we are, with the opportunity to improve our environmental laws, and, with respect, the minister is not doing that. It is so important that the nature-positive reforms must, as a matter of urgency, recognise the impact of global warming on the environment. The minister says that further tranches of reform are coming and will address shortcomings of the legislation then, but, with respect, as decisions continue to be made we, at the very minimum, need to implement interim measures to take into account and implement better protections. A case in point is that, only two days ago, the minister recently approved Gina Rinehart's Atlas gas project out to the year 2080, which puts at risk koala habitats and will exacerbate the climate crisis. It will, in turn, further destroy the environment that the minister is tasked to protect.

The minister is adamant that the impact of emissions from gas approval projects that go through her office will be dealt with or are dealt with by the safeguard mechanism, but, at the same time, the government is on notice that those very mechanisms are flawed, as facilities are not properly measuring and monitoring methane emissions from gas extractions, and they are not properly reporting it. Therefore, they are not properly offsetting the full impact of their emissions through the safeguard mechanism. Every new project approved by this minister and the next ministers will do significantly more damage to the environment via the emissions of those projects than the government will acknowledge and account for. Without including provisions for this law to take into account the impact of climate change and the impact of emissions on the environment, this minister and future ministers for the environment will continue to ignore the biggest threat to nature—global warming.

In question time, we've seen the government ask itself a number of dorothy dixers regarding its environmental credentials, trying to greenwash over its repeated approvals of more coal and gas.

There is a disconnect. Over the last two centuries, Australia has suffered the largest-recorded degeneration of biodiversity across the globe and, of course, the climate crisis sits alongside this biodiversity crisis. Sadly, it is the Labor government and the coalition who have now again refused to support the introduction into legislation of a duty of care to future generations as proposed by Senator Pocock and those very students who were overturned in the earlier case. I note we have students in the gallery here watching this process of decision-making. They should be aware the major parties—Labor and the coalition—are refusing to implement into legislation a duty of care for their generation and future generations. That is important, especially while we were in the midst of an extinction crisis.

The numbers are simply appalling. Approximately three billion mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and frogs were killed or displaced in the Black Summer fires. There have been seven mass coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef, including one occurring right now—not that you would know from the amount of attention it has had from the government or the media—and totalling five in the last seven years. It simply cannot recover when it happens consecutively that way. There have also been multiple major fish kills in the Murray Darling Basin and the deaths of large numbers of flying foxes and cockatoos in very hot weather. These animals are important forest pollinators and seed dispersers. You are kidding yourself if you think this happens aside from agriculture, aside from the economies of communities. All of this is interlinked.

Australia's environment protection laws are failing. It is not only a huge issue for Australia but it also represents a failing when it comes to our national and international commitments. We have committed along with other governments around the world to a 30-by-30 target to protect at least 30 percent of Australia's land and oceans by 2030. Last year the government announced zero extinction targets for the country's plants and animals, and we have signed the Glasgow's leaders' declaration on forest and land use pledge. To achieve this, we need wholesale reform, including strong national standards, an independent cop on the beat when it comes to the environment with meaningful power and a way to take into account climate change impacts on the environment to ensure we will continue to have an environment that we can protect.

Like for many Australians, it was positive to hear this government promise at the last election that they would bring in nature positive reforms. But where are they? Over two years in, we have tinkered around the edges but we have not moved the dial when it comes to protecting the environment. We introduced a water trigger late last year into the EPBC Act under pressure from the crossbench, but the minister is refusing to use it in projects like the Beetaloo basin gas.

So, unfortunately, these bills before us again today do little to strengthen standards and actually ensure better protection. The genesis of these reforms lie in the Samuels review of the EPBC act. That report was finished in 2020 and the Morrison government just sat on it. It then tried to introduce and ram through this place very poor legislation. I was here, I saw it, I voted against it and I was gagged. The Albanese government pledged to reform our national environmental laws prior to the last election, and the environment minister stated in December 2022 that legislation would be released as an exposure draft prior to being introduced to the parliament before the end of 2023. But here we are in June 2024 and still with no legislation in sight. So we really are staring down the fact that we are going to the next election with a broken promise and we will have not strengthened environmental laws.

On the one hand the government talks about the biodiversity crisis but on the other hand we are here two years later with not enough action. So whilst the bills before us do represent a step in the direction, they need improving. It has been disappointing that the minister—and I thank her and her team for their engagement—has simply not been prepared to consider amendments that have the backing of environmental groups to better this legislation. Small changes include that the State of the environment report will be handed down every two years rather than the current five-yearly pattern. That is good. The establishment of Environment Protection Australia is a true first alongside the establishment of Environment Information Australia. I support these changes, but, without better powers and clear objectives, it will make little difference.

This EPA will ultimately be applying the currently flawed EPBC Act standards. While the agencies will be tasked with measuring our progress towards becoming Nature Positive, I note that this is not even defined in this bill. The efforts of my crossbench colleague, the member for Goldstein, to define what Nature Positive means have not been accepted. This concept is adopted readily internationally and boils down to this: halting biodiversity decline by 2030 against a 2020 baseline and achieving recovery by 2050. I'm a bit ironic about the 2020 baseline because I think we've got a decline in biodiversity that has been occurring since quite some time before 2020.

Unfortunately, the government is proposing to embed a less-than-satisfactory version of Nature Positive without a clear definition, target dates or real baselines to work from. Increased access to relevant and timely data means governments, companies and NGOs can better understand and report on how well our environment is being managed. That information is critical. It prevents inappropriate projects that should not even be proposed in the first place. These bills also mandate the production of a comprehensive and ongoing national environmental economic accounts by-law, meaning we can track environmental health and assets at different scales, from the habitat of a single threatened species to the entire continent. The transition bill amends the EPBC Act to increase criminal and civil penalties and add new compliance and enforcement powers. Penalties for law-breakers will be increased to up to $780 million in some instances.

This is good, but it's too soon to say whether the new agency will be a tough cop on the beat without the wider overhaul of the environmental laws. Unfortunately, what we have is, 'Trust me; it's coming.' But the reality is that it should already be here. There is an appalling track record for monitoring biodiversity in Australia. The Australian National Audit Office in 2022 found that, in the management of threatened species, there was little evidence the desired outcomes of our environmental laws were being achieved due to the department's lack of monitoring, reporting and support for the implementation of conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans. It's clear we have decisions being made, and I want to highlight this. Despite multiple provisions in the transitional bill transferring power from the minister to the CEO of the EPA through the EPBC Act, the government has fallen short of providing the EPA with the power to assess, give approvals and vary, revoke or suspend approvals. This is something I would like to see. We urgently need the EPA to be given these powers.

Beetaloo and the failure of the minister to use the water trigger to call that project in is a case in point. Beetaloo is a climate bomb. It's a fossil fuel project with risks to water resources from both contamination and overextraction. But it has not been referred to the minister under the EPBC Act using that water trigger. We have called, written and requested for that to happen, and it isn't happening. That is why a delegated role to the EPA to do this would take the politics out of it so that what needs to be done can happen.

These bills can be improved. With others on the crossbench, we've sought to engage constructively with the minister on amendments to the bills before us. That engagement has been disappointing, because there's a complete refusal to hear from groups to improve this legislation based on key areas that key public interest groups have identified as shortcomings. I will be moving these amendments at consideration in detail and speaking to them in detail. Without some amendments, I simply will not be able to support this legislation. We have a high-stakes road map. How do we implement it? Where to from here?

We know time is ticking. The government must bring forward tranche 3 reforms. Along with many other colleagues, I have written to the minister on a number of occasions asking to implement the full range of Nature Positive reforms and the overhaul of the EPBC Act that is needed. We're yet to see that. I share the frustration of nearly all environmental and climate groups regarding the delay to these much needed reforms. As stated in the Samuel review, its operation has a major flaw in the environmental law. It has little benefit to the environment. Despite lengthy consultation, we are still not seeing the changes—at the very least, an exposure draft or some indication of where the minister is going in improving the EPBC Act and tightening environmental protection.

We know businesses need certainty to know what projects they can go forward with, what the impacts are going to be and what measures they need to take into account. We know renewables projects, critical for Australia's decarbonisation, are facing unacceptable delays in assessments and approvals. Reforms—introduction of a priority list, for example—must not only make it easier for proponents to know where it is appropriate to locate a development to avoid impacts to the environment but also ensure limited resourcing in the EPA is directed towards priority projects. That is something I will speak to further, hopefully when we have this tranche 3 legislation.

We must empower the EPA with good strong independent powers to make sure independent experts are assessing, approving and enforcing conditions on projects. Too often we see noncompliance with approval conditions come to light, and then we see a watering-down of those conditions to keep the project on foot rather than halting the project and upholding the environment and protecting it. We don't see a crackdown on the project proponents. We should have it so conditions cannot be watered down, particularly in the event of noncompliance.

When conditions are related to offsets, we must ensure that those offsets are like for like, that offsets must be secured before the actions commence and that offsets survive in perpetuity. I must disagree with the minister that the safeguard mechanism sufficiently addresses impacts of emissions and climate on the environment. The government is on notice that methane is not adequately being measured—so every gas project approval under the EPBC Act is not being properly offset when it comes to the impact on the environment.

From my point of view, whilst I welcome the implementation of an EPA, I am very aware these bills will return from the Senate amended. I urge the government to consider sensible amendments to strengthen protections.

Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government went to the election promising a strong, national, independent environment protection agency that would be a tough cop on the beat. It is really important that today we are delivering on that commitment. I know this is something that is important to my community. I have had a number of conversations with local people who want to know that there is a national regulator, a national EPA, in place to protect our biodiversity and to protect the special places—places in my community and right around Australia—that make our country the unique place it is.

After a wasted decade under those opposite—a period where nature was not valued, a period where we did not have these protections in place for our environment—Labor is getting on with the job. I thank everyone in my community who has engaged with me on these laws, who engages with me more broadly on the importance of protecting our environment and our climate and who continues to do that work with me and to talk with me and with the government about how we make sure we are putting these protections in place not just for now, not just for our community as it stands, but for the future as well. At its heart, that is what these bills, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and the associated bills, and these efforts are all about. They are protecting places—and we are losing too many—now but also into the future. These are very important bills. We want to see our precious natural landscapes repaired instead of continuing the decline that has happened for too long, that we saw happen under those opposite during a wasted decade of environmental vandalism.

There are clear choices before this parliament. Do we want to see an independent environment protection agency or not? Do we want to get better data to inform environmental decisions or not? Do we want to put in place tougher penalties for those breaking environment laws or not? Do we in fact want Australia to be the first jurisdiction in the world to enshrine a definition of 'nature positive' in legislation or not? All of these are what we are achieving with what is before the parliament, and the answer to those questions has to be yes. The responsibility is on us to do this work, to deliver these reforms and to make sure that we get on with the work that is still to be done.

Our new EPA, Environment Protection Australia, along with Environment Information Australia, will ensure compliance with environmental laws. It will improve processes for business. It will integrate environmental data collection so there's consistent and reliable information on the state of the environment across the country to inform decision-making and to track our progress against our goals, like protecting 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030. It is clear that the current regulatory system does not work, as in fact the National Farmers Federation has said. Our members have said for years that the current act is broken. It's hard to engage with producers who want to do the right thing, and, in some instances, it's preventing best-practice management of the landscape. So we are fixing our laws so that they are less bureaucratic and they provide more certainty for community and for business.

But, of course, we are also making sure that they improve nature, they protect our unique native plants and animals and they prevent extinctions, which are happening at far too great a rate. That is absolutely what people in my community expect of government. They expect us to be looking out for this important work now and, as I have said, into the future. These build on reforms we have already made. Last year, Labor passed legislation to establish the world's first Nature Repair Market. We've also increased the reach of our environmental laws so that the minister for the environment must assess all unconventional gas projects, including shale gas, which trigger our environmental laws.

We are now moving, establishing an Environment Protection Australia and Environment Information Australia. These are crucial elements of our plans to create a nature-positive Australia. We do want to get them in place as soon as possible so that they can begin their important work, and that is an important part of why this bill is before this parliament right now. We need to begin this work. We can't keep pushing it out, waiting for something perfect to be the solution. We've got to get on with it. These reforms have been widely welcomed.

We do recognise that even beyond this bill the job is not finished. There is more work to do. Our government will continue consulting on the broader reforms to our environment laws so that we can get them through the parliament and passed. So I encourage those opposite, I encourage the Greens and I encourage the crossbench to work with the government on good faith to get this piece of the puzzle done and to work on what comes next so that we really are making sure that we have a nature-positive Australia and we are protecting our special places, our biodiversity and our crucial habitats now and into the future.

In terms of this bill, combined with the significant additional funding we are putting in, this stage of the reforms will deliver stronger environment powers, faster environment approvals, more environment information and greater transparency. These are big steps forward. For the environment and for business, they are steps that we think are important to take now. Environment Protection Australia is an important part of delivering on our Nature Positive Plan. Passing this legislation means that we can get on with the nuts-and-bolts job of setting up the new EPA before they're being asked to administer new environmental laws. It will allow for that smoother transition of responsibilities from the department to the agency.

We are also establishing Australia's first national independent environment protection agency that will have strong new powers and penalties to better protect nature. So they will administer Australia's national environmental laws, better protecting our environment, making faster and better decisions and being charged with delivering accountable, efficient, outcome-focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making. If you ask anyone who has been involved in environmental decision-making processes to date, they would say that certainly has not been the process that they have engaged in. There is so much work to do, so much improvement to be made, and we must get on with this step of making that improvement.

The EPA will be a national environmental regulator responsible for a wide range of activities, including in relation to recycling and waste exports, hazardous waste, wildlife trade, sea dumping, ozone protection, underwater cultural heritage and air quality. As we do this work, we're also investing in people and their capability and in planning and systems—again, to do that work of making the system work better and making it work faster to deliver quicker yeses and, where necessary, to deliver quicker noes.

I come back to point that this is a tough cop on the beat—a tough cop that has been sadly lacking under those opposite but that we are putting in place now. In fact, audit work that we have done has found that one in seven projects using environmental offsets under our environment laws have clearly or potentially breached their approval conditions. Another audit found that one in four had potentially failed to secure enough environmental credits to offset the damage they were doing. This is unacceptable. We do need new systems of monitoring, compliance and enforcement, and that is what this bill does.

We're building on the good work of the Samuel review, which found that the regulator wasn't doing the functions it should; that serious enforcement actions are in fact rarely used and that penalties should be in place that are more than a cost of doing business. Again, this will be a major change from where we have been in this country before. It will mean that we are doing this work with an agency that has the powers to really make sure that we are protecting our environment as we should. It will deliver proportionate and effective risk based compliance and enforcement actions using high-quality data and information—another new piece that comes from these laws—so that we will actually have the information that we need to act on. As I said, this is a really significant change.

We are also increasing penalties for extremely serious breaches of federal environmental laws. Courts will be able to impose penalties up to $780 million in some circumstances. EPA will be able to issue environment protection orders or stop work orders to address or prevent imminent significant environmental risks and harm in urgent circumstances. EPA will be able to audit businesses to ensure they're compliant with environmental approval conditions. The minister will retain the power to make decisions where they wish to do so and, in practice, will make decisions based on the advice of EPA, really playing that important role in the full delivery of the Nature Positive Plan and beyond as we continue to work on the next stage of legislation that we need as well.

I reflect on how important this will be in my local community, where so many people are passionate about our local environment and our local biodiversity. Just recently I was at Diamond Creek with Friends of Edendale. We were engaged in a tree-planting there, supported by funding from this government and the work we're doing to restore our urban waterways. The group there is doing this work to protect habitat and to restore biodiversity in Diamond Creek and surrounds. This is a really special place. It is somewhere where they tell me the platypus lives. Of course, I've never seen it on the spotting trips—I've tried to go and see the platypus—because they are elusive, but I believe there is a platypus in Diamond Creek and I hope to see it one day.

The Friends of Edendale, who I know do this work protecting our local environment, and the Friends of Yarra Park Flats, who are working to restore the Annulus Billabong—again, supported by funding from our government to restore this urban river and this urban waterway—are passionate local people who understand how important biodiversity is not just for our local area but more broadly for our city, for our country and for communities right around the country. This legislation makes a difference for all those groups. It says to them that the efforts they're putting in in Jagajaga and the efforts of similar groups around the country are respected and that the laws are in place to make sure that we have a cop on the beat that is looking after our nature, that is looking after our environment and that is doing so with the information that comes from Environment Information Australia, giving us that full piece to provide environmental data and information on what changes need to be in place and what we need to be protecting.

This is a marked change from where we have been in this country for far too long. It is a change from the decade of, as I said, environmental vandalism that we saw from those opposite, where nature was not respected, where there was no value put on these very special places right around our country and where there was no framework in place. There was certainly no accountability or enforcement mechanism in place. The result of that, unfortunately, is that we have seen too many habitats destroyed around this country. We do still have too many species under threat. We do need to turn that around, and that is why it is time for this bill and for the reforms that are contained in this bill: the new national EPA and the head of Environment Australia. Those reforms do need to happen now, while we also need to continue working on the next stages of what a nature-positive Australia looks like. Again, I do urge all of those in this place to engage in those discussions in good faith, recognise that there is still a way to go until we get the complete picture of a nature-positive Australia in place and do the work with us. Because in bringing forward this bill and in making these changes to ensure we have a strong environmental cop on the beat, this government is showing that we take nature protection seriously. We are showing that we will not put up with more and more habitat being lost across our country. We are saying that we are doing this work now for my community and for other communities right around the country now, but also, into the future, we are making sure that we protect places that are special, that are important and that are home to species that you will find nowhere else on earth. We're doing that work for now and for future generations.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These three bills, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 implement the government's second stage of key environmental reforms, called the nature-positive reforms, that they promised in the 2022 election. The nature-positive reforms are the government's commitment to change Australia's environmental laws to better protect, restore and manage our unique environment.

My constituents value our natural environment, and they deeply care about the need to protect it. A recent community survey undertaken by my office asked the question: what do you love most about living in your local area? Time and time again, across hundreds of responses, my constituents would say that they love nature, the scenic environment and the natural beauty of where they live. Constituents also loved the opportunity to tell me about their surrounding bushland, the mountains, the rivers, the places they love and enjoy exploring. But they also talked about how being close to nature means they can contribute to regenerating and conserving Indi's natural treasures—from the Grass Tree orchards in the Warby Ranges to the native orchids in the Chiltern-Mount Pilot National Park. It's no surprise that Indi is home to over 40 Landcare groups, with volunteers who are dedicated to spending their time nurturing our environment by eradicating weeds and pests and restoring the native flora and fauna.

When I was elected as the member for Indi, I was given a very clear mandate by the community to protect the natural environment that we all hold so dear. This became even more evident in the 2022 election, after the 2021 State of the environment report, authored by Professor Graeme Samuel, was released. This report painted a dire picture of Australia's environment. Professor Samuel did not mince words:

Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat.

Professor Samuel found the current environmental decision-making framework was 'an abysmal failure'. He made a number of recommendations and told the government loud and clear that reform is urgently need to establish robust environment standards that can't be hijacked. After it was released, hundreds of constituents contacted me about the findings of the Samuel review. Like me, they were deeply concerned about the places they lived in and cared for. They were faced with the fear that our iconic places and unique environment might not be there for future generations to experience. Indeed, my constituents are witnessing this environmental degradation firsthand, from the record-breaking losses of koalas, greater gliders, regent honeyeaters and more after the Black Summer bushfires to the alarming impacts of reduced Murray Darling River flows on the Murray cod and other species and to the ever-decreasing snowfall in our alpine areas. A former constituent of mine was in my office this morning talking about the very, very deep threat of the lack of snowfall and the real threats to our alpine areas in Indi.

As I consider and scrutinise the three bills before us today, the priorities of the people of Indi are clear to me and central to what I have to say. We value our unique and special environment and desperately want to turn this alarming environmental situation around. The first bill sets up Environment Protection Australia, Australia's first national environmental protection agency, also called the EPA. An EPA is a long-overdue body that will be responsible for enforcement of and compliance with our national environmental laws. This includes stop-work orders to anyone breaking the law and tough new penalties for those that do. This role is currently undertaken from within the department of the environment. In his report, Professor Samuel called for the creation of a separate office with—and I emphasise this—independent oversight of environmental compliance. 'We must have,' he said, 'a tough cop on the beat if we are to have any chance of turning around the state of our environment.' An EPA is exactly what we need.

The second bill sets up Environment Information Australia—the EIA. The EIA will provide easy access to the latest environmental data so we know the whereabouts of threatened species and native vegetation. By providing this information to business, environmental approvals can be smoother, because costly scientific studies won't need to be repeated. EIA will have responsibility for setting a baseline for and recording achievement against the goal of Nature Positive. Under the bill, EIA will be required to more frequently report on the state of the environment every two years. Previously, this was only every five years. EIA will also report on progress towards environmental goals such as protecting 30 per cent of Australia's land and sea by 2030.

Finally, the third bill, which I will refer to as the transitional provisions bill, amends nine pieces of environmental legislation to give certain responsibilities to the new EPA. This includes conferring licensing, compliance and enforcement responsibilities to the CEO of the EPA in relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and other laws, including those about ozone protection, recycling, waste exports and air quality. There are positive aspects to these bills. It's good to see this government finally starting on implementing recommendations of the Samuel review, especially by creating an EPA and requiring more frequent State of the environment reports by the EIA. It's crucial that the EIA and EPA have adequate resources to undertake their work, and I understand this has been provided for in the budget.

But these bills must be improved if they are to truly fulfil their intention and the intention of the Samuel review. As they currently stand, they are simply not good enough to make a real difference to our environment. My biggest concerns lie with the proposed EPA. One of the main issues if not the No. 1 issue that motivated me to run for parliament was integrity in government decision-making. As many in this place know, I spent years working towards the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The work of integrity is never done. We must ensure integrity in every decision and action in government, including when that relates to the environment. For the EPA to be truly effective in protecting our environment, it must be transparent and independent of government. Right now, the EPA bill, as drafted, falls short of these requirements. We need to eliminate any risk that the EPA could make decisions that advantage certain groups or could be victim to political influence, rather than having a clear, solid evidence base that's best for the environment and upon which every decision is made.

Under the bill, the minister can delegate decision-making powers to the CEO of the EPA, but the minister is at pains to state that she will still hold powers to make important environmental decisions, like whether large-scale renewable energy or fossil fuel projects should be approved. Let me be clear: I understand that in some cases the democratically elected representative should make these decisions; under our Westminster system, the importance of ministerial decisions is clear, valid and critical. But, unfortunately, the public has no line of sight on when and why the minister gets to make those decisions instead of the EPA CEO. This is a problem, but it's one that can be fixed. Therefore, I urge the government to support the amendments that improve transparency for these decision-making processes by the CEO and the minister. We need to make laws that lock in transparency, and we can't leave that to chance.

I'm also concerned that the EPA will not be truly independent of government. Under the bill, there are no clear eligibility requirements and appointment processes for the CEO. There is no skills based governance board that would appoint the CEO and that the CEO reports to. Once again, this government is introducing a bill to create a statutory body that does nothing to prevent the culture of jobs for mates. So I call on the government to support the member for Mackellar's amendments that address these issues. The government's simple assertion that the EPA is independent from the executive does not make it so. It must set this out in black-and-white: how the EPA will be independent. Write it into the law; this is vital to ensure public trust and confidence in environmental decision-making.

And trust is critical—absolutely critical. There's no mention of the role of the EPA to promote public trust in environmental decision-making by ensuring meaningful consultation. This is particularly important; both the Samuel review and the government's own Nature Positive Plan found that a significant factor contributing to the community's lack of trust in the EPBC Act is lack of transparency around environmental decision-making. In the promotion for their Nature Positive Plan, the government said that it's good for the environment and good for business. What about communities? If one thing is clear to me from listening to my constituents, it's that the community and the environment are inseparable. It's people who live in and care for our natural wonders, after all. Social and cultural concerns are as legitimate as business concerns. Right now, constituents frequently contact my office, concerned about large-scale renewable energy projects proposed for their communities. They have legitimate concerns about the impact on their local environment, which includes bushland and farmland. But they feel like decisions are happening behind closed doors and that there are minimal avenues to pursue in having their voices heard. We need to transition to a low-emissions economy—we absolutely do. To do that, though, we need to deal communities into the decision-making. The current bill must ensure that the EPA itself—not only the project proponents—is ultimately responsible for ensuring communities have access to information about proposed developments and an adequate opportunity to express their views. Having an EPA that doesn't acknowledge the role of communities is a real shortfall, and I urge the government to support the member for North Sydney's amendments which would ensure public participation and community rights are reflected in the new EPA.

I could go on. There are many gaps in this bill about: publishing EPA information about decisions; transparency and CEO decisions that go against the advisory board provided for in the bill to advise the CEO; the appointment of the advisory board itself; and about how the statement of expectations from the minister to the CEO would work. Until these concerns are addressed, and until I can see the government responding constructively to proposed amendments, I'm reserving just where my support for the bills is at this time. I want to see the government engaging with these good-faith amendments, which will bring benefit and make this law better, stronger and more transparent, and which will increase community trust.

I've outlined the myriad concerns I have with the bills before us, but I want to address a much bigger worry I have with this government's approach to environmental law reform—in particular, their delays with comprehensive reforms to the most important piece of environmental law: the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the EPBC Act. Professor Graeme Samuel found:

The EPBC Act is ineffective. It does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively protect environmental matters that are important for the nation.

On the back of this damning finding, the government made an election promise to reform Australia's broken environmental laws, and, in December 2022, the Minister for the Environment and Water promised to introduce draft laws by the end of 2023. This deadline then passed, and in April 2024 the government deferred comprehensive reforms to the EPBC Act indefinitely. The EPBC Act needs urgent attention to include things like the impact of climate change on our environment. It needs strong national environmental standards that can be created by the minister but can't be reduced in subsequent standards. And it must focus on environmental outcomes to prevent extinctions and improve species recovery.

The fact is the bills before us are rendered meaningless until this comprehensive legislation is introduced into parliament. How can we expect an EPA to halt extinctions when the laws it is enforcing are fundamentally broken? This government can't simply separate them into neat packages; it doesn't work like that. These reforms are urgent. They can't be delayed. According to the Parliamentary Library, between 2000 and 2017 more than seven million hectares of potential habitat was cleared, and a shocking 93 per cent of this was cleared without being referred for assessment and approval under the EPBC Act. With such a broken system it should be no surprise that Australia has one of the highest rates of species extinction in the world. This must change if we have any hope of protecting the environment.

I acknowledge reforming the EPBC Act to turn this situation around is huge and challenging, and involves drafting thousands of pages of complex legislation, but the government simply must not put this task in the too-hard basket. Real work to protect our beautiful and unique natural environment is what my Indi constituents sent me here to do. As one constituent who recently wrote to me said, 'It is the only environment we have.' Nature-positive laws are within reach, but they are only achievable if this government shows the will and leadership required of it.

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm really pleased to speak on yet another environment bill, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, and the associated bills, brought here by the Minister for the Environment and Water and the Albanese Labor government, because the environment matters to this government and the environment matters to my constituents in Boothby—whether it's our native forests and scrubland in the hills of Boothby, the urban rivers and catchments that spread across the plains down to the coast, the beautiful beaches, the magnificent cliff faces or the marine environment. The environment is where we live, work and play. It supports our unique native wildlife, providing habitats and food. It supports industry and the economy. It supports the community and our way of life.

Most importantly, the environment has value in and of itself. Our environment is precious and needs to be protected. This would seem to be self-evident, but we know that the last government, the Liberal-National government, did not protect the environment. What they did instead, as they did with so many things, was simply hide the report card away from the Australian people. Rather than actually work to fix the issues they had been made aware of with the degradation of the environment, they instead worked to hide the evidence. The former minister, now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, received the five-yearly State of the environment report before Christmas 2021 but chose to keep it hidden, locked away, until after the federal election. This is fundamentally an antidemocratic action. Democracy is based on individual voters making rational decisions based on information as to what they believe will be the best policies and representation for themselves. But on the state of the environment, as in so many other areas, the record of those opposite is they hid information from the voters. They hid their shame, and they tried to deceive Australian voters.

We now know, because when Labor was first elected Minister Plibersek released the State of the environment report—and it was a catalogue of horrors. It showed just how much damage a decade of Liberal Party and National Party neglect did to our environment. The report said the Australian environment is in very bad shape and getting worse. It found Australia has lost more mammal species to extinction than any other continent. For the first time Australia has more foreign plant species than native. Habitat the size of Tasmania has been cleared. Plastics are choking our oceans—up to 80,000 pieces of plastic per square kilometre. And flow in most Murray-Darling rivers has reached record low levels. And it wasn't just neglect; there were actual deliberate acts to endanger and degrade the environment. Under the Liberals and Nationals, our environment fared so badly. In the last decade, on top of climate denialism, they ignored the Samuel review into our environment laws, sabotaged the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, set recycling targets with no plan to actually achieve them, cut highly protected areas of marine parks in half, cut funding to the environment department by 40 per cent. And, of course, we know their record on climate change denialism. Peter Dutton laughed about rising sea levels in the Pacific.

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

A point of order, Mr Speaker: the member needs to refer to Mr Dutton by his title.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. May I ask the member to do that?

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to repeat that. The current Leader of the Opposition laughed about rising sea levels in the Pacific, something our Pacific neighbours still raise with the foreign minister. I think it is worth repeating. Now, we have him trying to weaken environment laws. He wants to give projects like Clive Palmer's coalmine on the doorstep of the Great Barrier Reef, which the minister blocked, the green light. I guess we know who he considers his constituents to be.

The Albanese government went to the election promising a strong, national, independent environment protection agency, and today we are delivering. After a wasted decade under those opposite, Labor is getting on with the job. We are delivering more than ever on programs, projects, policies and actions to create a nature-positive Australia. No government has done more for the environment and climate than the Albanese Labor government. Labor wants to see our precious natural landscapes repaired instead of continuing to decline, as we saw under those opposite—under a decade of environmental vandalism.

The choices before parliament are clear: Do you want an independent environment protection agency? Do you want better data to inform environmental decisions? Do you want tougher penalties for those breaking environmental laws? And do you want Australia to be the first jurisdiction in the world to enshrine a definition of 'nature positive' in legislation? Our new EPA, Environment Protection Australia, along with Environment Information Australia, will ensure compliance with environment laws. It will improve processes for business. It will integrate environmental data collections. This will mean that there is consistent and reliable information on the state of the environment across the country, to inform decision-making and track our progress against our goals, like protecting 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030.

Everybody agrees that the current regulatory system doesn't work—environment groups, business, developers and this government. Under Labor, we will fix our laws so they're less bureaucratic and provide more certainty for business. But we will also make sure they improve nature, protect our unique native animals and plants, and prevent extinctions. That's what my constituents expect of us, and that's what we're delivering. Last year, Labor passed legislation to establish the world's first Nature Repair Market. We also increased the reach of our environmental laws so that the minister for the environment must now assess all unconventional gas projects, including shale gas, that trigger our environmental laws.

We're now moving quickly to establish an environment protection agency and Environment Information Australia. These are crucial elements of our plans to create a nature-positive Australia, and we want to get them in place as soon as possible so they can begin their important work. After a decade of wrecking under those opposite, the environment needs our protection and we need these protections in place as quickly as possible so we can continue to move onto the next stage of environmental legislation. Combined with significant additional funding, this stage of reforms will deliver stronger environment powers, faster environment approvals, more environment information and greater transparency. These are big steps forward for the environment and for business, and it's all new under this government. We're establishing Australia's first national independent environment protection agency with strong new powers and penalties to better protect nature. It is hard to believe, but we've never had a national EPA.

Our EPA is an important part of delivering the government's Nature Positive Plan. It will administer Australia's national environment laws to better protect the environment and make faster, better decisions. It would be charged with delivering accountable, efficient, outcome focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making. EPA would be a truly national environment regulator that Australians can be proud of, responsible for a wide range of activities under Australia's environment laws, including in relation to recycling and waste exports, hazardous waste, wildlife trade, sea dumping, ozone protection, underwater cultural heritage and air quality.

Importantly we're investing in our people, our planning and our systems to speed up development decisions to deliver quicker yeses and, where necessary, quicker noes. This is really important to ensure certainty for developers and investors and to provide certainty for investment decisions. No longer will developers and investors be led along the garden path and given false hope year after year on projects that are never going to get up. While the developers will welcome the fast 'yes' decisions, the fast 'no' decisions are actually just as important.

EPA will also oversee the offset system. The government's offset audits found that one in seven projects using environmental offsets under our environmental laws had either clearly or potentially breached their approval conditions. A separate audit found that one in four had potentially failed to secure enough environmental credits to offset the damage they were doing.

If organisations commit to mitigation or to an offset to make up for an unavoidable impact on nature, the public should be confident that the commitment will be kept. I can't tell you how many constituents have talked to me about the failings of the offset system. The Samuel review into Australia's environment laws found that the regulator is not fulfilling this necessary function. Professor Samuel also found that serious enforcement actions are rarely used and that penalties need to be more than just a cost of doing business. This is unacceptable. It makes a mockery of the whole system and undermines public confidence.

The EPA will be the tough cop on the beat, enforcing our laws through new monitoring, compliance and enforcement powers. Most businesses do the right thing. We know that. But, when penalties for breaking the law are too low and the risk of being caught is negligible, some companies and individuals regard breaking the law as an acceptable cost of doing business. That's why we are increasing penalties. For extremely serious breaches of federal environment law, courts would be able to impose penalties of up to $780 million in some circumstances. The EPA will be able to issue environment protection orders or stop-work orders to address and prevent imminent and significant environmental risks and harm in urgent circumstances. The EPA will also be able to audit businesses to ensure that they are compliant with environmental approval conditions. The EPA will deliver proportionate and effective risk based compliance and enforcement actions using high-quality data and information. It would provide assurance that environmental outcomes are being met.

The minister will retain the power to make decisions where they wish to do so and, in practice, will make decisions based on the advice of the EPA. The EPA will play an important role in the full delivery of the Nature Positive Plan and beyond. The EPA will advise the minister and government of the day on how Australia's environment laws can be improved, and the EPA will work closely with Environment Information Australia as well as state and territory governments to enable better availability and use of environmental data both in planning and decision-making.

These bills also set up the head of Environment Information Australia. This is an independent position with a legislative mandate to provide environmental data and information to the EPA, the minister and the public. It's an independent position to transparently report on trends in the environment. This will support actions and decisions to halt and reverse the decline and, in turn, protect and restore nature.

Environment Information Australia will be working in collaboration with Australia's experts, scientists and First Nations people to collect information and produce consistent tracking of the state of Australia's environment. A nature-positive Australia is good for the economy, livelihoods and wellbeing, but achieving a nature-positive Australia relies on good-quality and useful environmental information. This information will inform investment, policy and regulatory decisions by government, the private sector, community groups, academics, scientists and philanthropic groups.

We know national environment information and data is fragmented, its quality is uncertain and it is not readily accessible and usable. Environment Information Australia will be a consistent and reliable resource for business, enabling better site choices to avoid removing high-value habitat for our unique plants and animals. When project proponents are more easily able to select sites which minimise impacts on nature, projects can be approved more easily and completed more quickly. Importantly, legislating for independent, consistent and authoritative environment reporting will mean that no Australian government can hide the truth about the state of our environment, as we saw under the previous government.

The bill also provides more transparency in the critical information and data that underpins regulatory decision-making. This was a key recommendation of the Samuel review. It delivers on our promise at the last election to provide consistent and reliable information on the state of the environment across the country.

The bill also defines for the first time the term 'nature positive' and introduces a requirement to report on Australia's national progress towards that outcome. This will be the first time that any country has defined 'nature positive' in legislation and put in place national reporting against this objective. In short, nature positive means improving on our ecosystems, including the species that rely on and form part of the ecosystem.

Requiring reports to be prepared and published online every two years, instead of every five years, will allow us to get on the front foot and better apply and track protections where they are most needed.

Australia's environment is a national asset and a responsibility. As a government and as representatives of our local communities across Australia we have a responsibility to our constituents to protect our local environments. After a decade of neglect and active sabotage, this government is working hard to ensure that future generations can enjoy and benefit from the unique Australian environment. I commend the bill.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's huge appetite for reform of the EPBC Act, which has been promised by this government. The government decided to do this reform in three stages, and this is the second stage, which sets up some of the institutional framework to deliver on the expected stage 3 reforms. Let's be clear. The bulk of the reforms needed will be in stage 3, which we haven't seen yet and which we hope will pass before the end of the year. If the stage 3 reforms are not passed in this term of government, then this government will be a huge disappointment to all those who hoped that we would see genuine protection of the places that we love before it's too late.

I've engaged with the content of this bill in good faith on the expectation that stage 3 is coming. If stage 3 was not coming, I'd be trying to pull a lot more of the stage 3 changes into this legislation, but I do recognise that we need to do this properly. I recognise that it's a big piece of work and I can see an argument for doing it in parts, as long as we get all the parts in this term.

Today I want to cover why it's important that we get this nature-positive reform right, how these bills fit into the context of the reform journey, my priorities for the stage 2 reforms, and some vital parts of stage 3 reforms which I've directly raised with the minister.

So why is it important that we get these nature-positive reforms right? It's apparent to anyone with a news subscription, an internet browser or in fact eyes that we're facing a nature crisis in Australia. Our nature and ecosystems face significant threats: changes to and destructions of habitats, invasive species and the impact of climate change.

It's been almost four years since the Samuel review bluntly concluded that the EPBC Act is ineffective, is cumbersome for business and has comprehensively failed to protect our environment. The government's ambitious Nature Positive Plan, released 18 months ago, was a welcome first response. However, since then, like many others in the House, I've been urging the government to prioritise the passage of these reforms, to both protect our magnificent environment in Australia and create greater clarity, guidance and transparency in the process of environmental approvals. The existing system is convoluted, and people have no confidence in it.

Constituents in my community are highly informed and engaged in biodiversity and conservation issues. The south-western corner of Western Australia, which includes the ecologically protected Swan Coastal Plain and my electorate of Curtin, was the first global biodiversity hotspot to be recognised in Australia and one of only 36 in the world. Currently more than half its plants are endemic to this region, as are many animals, including critically endangered animals that rely on this habitat for survival. In Curtin we have 19 community conservation groups with passionate volunteers who steward the protection of our wetlands, bush and coastal parks. They have observed firsthand the impact of climate change, our deteriorating environment and the extinction crisis. I'm also fortunate to have a significant number of biodiversity and conservation experts in Curtin who are leading academics in this field. There are also many constituents in my electorate employed by the energy sector, and there's a lot of concern about the lack of clarity surrounding approval processes. Over the past two years requests for updates on these reforms have represented a significant proportion of my constituent inquiries.

So how do these bills fit into the reform agenda? As I said, this is the second of three proposed stages of reform. Stage 1 is complete with the establishment of the Nature Repair Market and expanding the water trigger. These three bills represent stage 2 of the plan, establishing the foundational framework of Environment Protection Australia and Environment Information Australia, as well as consequential amendments to the EPBC Act and other environmental legislation to accommodate the establishment of these two bodies.

I want to make it clear that I am supportive of an independent well-funded EPA with clear functions and duties. I'm also supportive of a well-functioning EIA that has a broad scope and the ability to manage significant data that will support better environmental and investment decisions in the future. These will be some of the building blocks that enable the protections we're hoping are coming in stage 3. On their own they don't achieve this, but they are pieces of the puzzle.

Biodiversity and conservation data collection is critical. Governments have been collecting data for each State of the environment report since 1995, yet none of it has been saved in usable form anywhere. I find that extraordinary. Every time we do a State of the environment report, we effectively start from scratch. The government tells us that these two agencies will provide more support for faster environmental approval decisions on projects, and more environmental information and transparency.

The institutions we establish to protect our environment should contain an appropriate level of ambition in their governing infrastructure that is consistent with the level of ambition we want to see and the laws they'll be administering. Having not seen the stage 3 reforms yet, it's hard to know exactly what's needed to deliver on them. This is one of the challenges of doing the reform in stages. But taking it on good faith that stage 3 is coming, there are some requirements for these institutions to be set up for success to deliver on a coherent nature-positive reform package under the anticipated stage 3 changes.

We need a strong, well-funded, independent EPA with unambiguous functions and duties. We need an EIA with appropriate measurement monitoring and natural capital accounting tools that enable it to manage significant data and establish a regional reporting framework. And we need a definition of 'nature positive' that's consistent with our international goals, and the consistent application of that definition across stage 2 legislation. I have concerns about these bills in these three areas.

First I want to say something about the concept of independence. It's critical that the Environment Protection Australia agency is independent and transparent, with strong compliance and enforcement processes and a focus on positive-nature outcomes. A strong EPA will be undermined if it can be influenced by vested interests or directed by government. The WA EPA has recently undergone a review. Serious concerns have been raised that the recommendations of that review are fatal to the independent purpose of the WA EPA. There's a renewed emphasis in the recommendations on facilitating quicker decision-making and sustainable development, rather than on its statutory purpose, which is the protection of the environment. We do need efficient processing of matters, but not at the expense of good decisions.

There's a strong perception in Western Australia that the state EPA has been hijacked by industry pressure on the government to fast-track development approvals at the expense of nature. The bill before this House anticipates the new head of the EPA, the EPA CEO, will be appointed on direct recommendation of the minister or government. It would be preferable for the CEO appointment to be transparently made by an independent board—a board that's independent of government, management and stakeholder groups and selected due to their relevant skills and experience—and for the EPA CEO to be accountable to that board. This model has been recommended by many during the consultation process. Good governance is important; it fosters trust and removes risk. I'll be supporting the amendments proposed by the member for Mackellar to strengthen the independence and governance of the EPA.

I also want to say something about the definition of 'nature positive'. The minister's choice of the term 'nature positive' for this reform package is significant. Words matter. The Prime Minister has endorsed the Leaders Pledge for Nature, which aims to step up global ambition to tackle the climate crisis, halt biodiversity loss and deliver a nature-positive world by 2030. At COP15, Australia signed up to the global biodiversity framework to address biodiversity loss, restore ecosystems and protect indigenous rights. This plan includes concrete measures to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030. That goal has been consistently adopted around the world to guide urgent action to get nature visibly and measurably on the path of recovery.

In the EIA bill, 'nature positive' is defined as an improvement in the diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems from a baseline. But the bill does not include a goal for recovery or a baseline. Instead, the bill provides for the head of the EIA to determine the baseline for 'nature positive'. I think the definition of 'nature positive' in the EIA bill should reflect our commitment and include a clear goal to halt biodiversity decline by 2030, measured against a 2021 baseline. It makes sense to make the 2021 baseline consistent with current, national state of the environment report data. I'll support the amendment put by the member for Goldstein to strengthen the definition of 'nature positive' in this bill.

Over the last few weeks, I've considered, drafted and proposed to the minister's office several other amendments that experts believe would improve the stage 2 reform bills. However, I accept that the primary objective of these bills is to establish a foundational institutional framework that has the requisite capacity and expertise to administer the forthcoming substantive stage 3 reforms. I note the minister's reluctance to drag into these bills parts of the stage 3 reforms, and I can see that doing this in a piecemeal way could create a legislative framework that's unworkable, impractical or incomplete. So, whilst I have concerns about the set up of these institutions, I support the establishment of the EPA and the EIA in these bills.

I want to finish with some comments about the upcoming stage 3 legislation. As I mentioned, we're waiting for opportunity to review very significant reforms as part of stage 3. We expect national standards that are robust and legally enforceable. They must deliver a meaningful shift in our environmental laws to a new decision-making framework that's characterised by objective assessment processes and nature-positive outcomes. I wrote to the minister recently, seeking her assurances that key reforms would be included in that package and that we would see those reforms in this term. These critical issues for reform include the legislative application of a mitigation hierarchy, the recalibration of the purpose of the offset scheme, a consideration of cumulative regional impact and the participation of First Nations people in the assessment of culturally significant ecological communities and habitats. I'm going to address each of these briefly.

In relation to a mitigation hierarchy, every expert I speak with about these reforms calls for consistent guidance and tools for decision-makers to assess what amounts to an improvement and net gain in biodiversity. There must be a clear hierarchy and consistent application. Firstly, there must be avoidance. If that's not possible then it must be minimisation. If that's not possible then it must be rehabilitation. And if that's not possible then it must be restoration, offset and enough resources to follow up compliance. Where a project represents irreversible damage, decision-makers must have the regulatory tools to decline approval.

In relation to the offset regime, the primary focus of the legislation needs to be on prevention and avoidance rather than rehabilitation and offset. I'm aware that there has been a recent departmental audit of the offset policy. However, there are significant concerns that this policy distorts the purpose of nature positive and is consistently being breached. The offset regime must form part of the legislation and must be the option of last resort.

On cumulative regional impact, the stage 3 legislation must recognise that decisions about individual projects cannot be made in a vacuum. Ecological communities and environmental values are not static. Self-evidently, species and habitats extend beyond the footprint of a single project. Multiple projects or proposals have a cumulative impact across a region. This is particularly so in Western Australia. In the context of cumulative impact, conservation planning proposals and project assessments must include a consideration of climate.

For Aboriginal people, ecological communities and habitats may be worthy of protection due to their cultural significance, even if they're not threatened species. We must have a new national standard that embeds regional Indigenous participation in the process of assessment and determination of culturally significant ecological communities and habitats.

In conclusion, I recognise that wholesale reform of our environmental laws is a massive undertaking. I welcome these stage 2 reforms to set up the institutional architecture to deliver on further significant reforms. The independence of the EPA will be very important in ensuring that decisions are made for the right reasons. Words matter, and the minister has chosen the badge 'Nature Positive'. We must define that term consistently to meet international standards and reflect it as the underlying concept throughout this package.

We cannot afford to wait much longer for stage 3 reforms, and I urge the minister to introduce those as soon as possible so they can be passed this year. We're looking for strong, enforceable national standards that embed objective assessment processes and nature positive outcomes.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise on the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024. This is the second tranche of environmental legislation that we have brought in since coming into government, and a very important one at that.

Our environmental laws are broken, they are not fit for purpose and they are a relic of a day gone by. We now have a different set of environmental circumstances that mean we need to consider projects faster so that we can approve the projects that meet environmental standards, while also ensuring that the standards of habitat protection, protection of our wildlife and protection of our precious natural wonders are maintained and increased in this day of rising temperatures.

The previous government actually started this work. The previous government engaged Professor Graeme Samuel to conduct a review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. In the typical fashion of the former Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison governments, they conducted a review, completely ignored it and decided to do their own thing. One of the key recommendations of Professor Samuel was that the federal government and this parliament should create and uphold national environmental standards, and that we should not be divesting our responsibilities to the states and territories to approve environmental projects or requests.

What did those opposite do when they had the privilege of sitting on the Treasury benches? They introduced an Abbott-era style of bills where they basically removed any responsibility from the federal government to be a part of those decision-making processes, ignored Professor Samuel and didn't create the national environmental standards and tried to divest all of those responsibilities to the states. The member for Farrer, who is now the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, was the environment minister at the time. Not only did they gag debate—I know this because I was one of the few speakers who managed to speak on the second reading debate—but they got to a point where they were so sick of having any form of democratic process around their terrible environmental bills that they forced the question for no reason. There was no rush to give the states more power in environmental approvals and to relinquish the federal government from environmental decision-making, but those opposite decided that they'd had enough of democracy, and what they wanted was to ram through the debate. They did so, and then, thankfully, in the other place—in the Senate—their bills were rejected not once but twice. They not only ignored their own review, by Professor Samuel, and creating national environmental standards, but then, when they brought that bill into this place, they decided they didn't want members talking about it and that they were going to try and ram it through. Then, in classic Morrison government style, it blew up in their face and was rejected by the Senate. I'm grateful for every senator that voted against that bill, as I did in this place, because what we want is greater and stronger environmental protections in this country, not weaker.

The first set of environmental reforms that we have brought in since coming to government were for extending the water trigger to unconventional gas. This was an important reform. We did that at the end of last year. It means that any unconventional gas project that is likely to impact water will have to go through the usual processes. One of the high-profile cases, obviously, is the Beetaloo gas basin in the Northern Territory. My understanding is that the proponent of that project has been communicated with to outline their responsibilities, because it is the proponent's responsibility to put forward propositions under the act. That proponent has been notified. As far as I'm aware, there is no current proposal before the environment minister, but we will have to wait and see. Nonetheless, that was a very important reform, which leads us to these bills before the House.

These 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 2024, will do a number of things. The first bill is to create the Environment Protection Australia authority, which is going to be such an important institution resourced to be the watchdog and to ensure that companies are complying with environmental standards. The second bill is to create Environment Information Australia to ensure that we have the data and the information that is required to monitor and to understand the state of our environment. We're not going to bury the state of the environment report like those opposite did when they were in government. We are going to be transparent, and we are creating institutions that will lead to greater transparency around environmental management.

The other thing I want to say before I go into more of the details on these bills is that the electorate of Macnamara, which I have the privilege of being the member for, is one that stands for not only greater climate action but stronger environmental protection as well. It is an electorate that cares deeply about our environment and about the incredible natural wonders that we have here in Australia. I am proud—and I think each and every member of this place knows—that not only do I stand for greater climate action and better environmental protection but the people of Macnamara do too. Macnamara is one of the electorates and communities that people know want to see reform in this area.

Since coming into government we have demonstrated that we are constantly looking to move on from the laggard approach of the previous government and actually take environmental management and climate change seriously. I want to thank the—literally—thousands of members of my community who have called, emailed and spoken to me about the need for environmental reform. This bill, I hope, is an important step that is recognised as part of that process to bring forward more environmental protections.

Under the previous government, the State of the environment report was hidden by the now deputy leader of the Liberal Party. It was received prior to Christmas, but they chose to keep it hidden. They chose to lock it away until after the federal election in 2022. Here are some of the things that report said at that time: Australia has lost more mammal species to extinction than any other continent; for the first time, Australia has more foreign plant species than native; plastics are choking our oceans; and flow in the Murray and Darling rivers has reached record low levels. That's the state of the environment under those opposite, and now we have those opposite no doubt opposing any form of environmental protection improvements in this place.

Interestingly, we also have the Greens in the other place looking to delay a reference to the Senate review committee. Apparently, we have to get environmental reform done as quickly as possible but the Greens want to delay this bill by at least a month. Thankfully, that was defeated. Clearly, they want a bit of a break over the holidays and aren't interested in doing the environmental reform. Anyway, that's a matter for them! On the other hand, we have set a national goal of protecting at least 30 per cent of our land and 30 per cent of our oceans by 2030; we'll make it easier for First Nations Australians to protect their cultural heritage; we've signed the Leaders' Pledge for Nature at the United Nations, which is something the previous government didn't do; we're establishing a new Nature Repair Market to reward farm and other landholders for their work in protecting nature; we've introduced legislation to the parliament to strengthen regulation on ozone-depleting gases; we've joined the international High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution by 2040 and the new Plastics Economy Global Commitment; we're working with state and territory governments to improve waste management and to build a more circular economy; and we're delivering on our $1.2 billion record investment into the Great Barrier Reef and funding for native species protection, including for our beloved koalas.

These bills, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, and the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024, comprise one of most significant steps forward by a federal government in more than a decade. They will establish the national Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Information Australia. These two organisations will ensure compliance with environmental laws, improve processes for business and integrate environmental data collection. This will mean consistent and reliable information on the state of the environment across the country to inform decision-making and to track progress against our goals, like protecting 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030. This delivers on our commitment to respond to Professor Graeme Samuel's landmark review of our national environmental law reform—something that those opposite commissioned but completely ignored. It's also important to note that EPA, Environment Protection Australia, will be given powers to issue environmental protection orders, also known as stop work orders, to those in breach of the law and to audit businesses to ensure they're compliant with environmental conditions—and there will be maximum fines for breaches of environmental laws. The new EPA will make sure that businesses are clear about these rules.

We can all be clear that the current system we have in place is simply not adequate. The Australian Conservation Foundation said about these new laws:

ACF welcomes the government's announcement that it will set up an agency to enforce environment laws—something previous governments failed to do.

An audit ordered by the minister last year found that one in seven projects using environmental offsets under our environmental laws had either clearly or potentially breached their approval conditions. A separate audit found that one in four had potentially failed to secure enough environmental credits to offset the damage that they were doing, and this is clearly unacceptable. These bills will fix our laws; they respond to both the findings of our audit and the Samuel review. We will make sure that we improve our native plants species and prevent extinctions—that's what Macnamara expects. Macnamara expects that we come into this place and improve the environmental protections in our country.

EPA is a truly national environmental regulator that Australians can be proud of. It will be responsible for a wide range of activities under our environment laws, including in relation to recycling and waste; exports; hazardous waste; wildlife trade; sea-dumping; ozone production; underwater cultural heritage; and air quality. The EPA will deliver proportionate and effective risk based compliance and environment actions using high-quality data and information, and it will provide assurance that environmental outcomes are being met.

The head of Environment Information Australia will be independent. They will have a legislative mandate to provide environmental data and information to the minister and to the public. They will be able to report on trends in the environment transparently, something that I know there has been a little bit of commentary on. They will report in collaboration with our nation's top experts, scientists and First Nations people to produce the tracking and data we need. This was another of the key recommendations of the Samuel review. For years to come, this will mean Australia can no longer hide the truth about nature, just like the previous government did time after time.

Macnamara is home to 44 species listed as threatened. The Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve—which I'm very proud to have helped secure millions of dollars of funding for—is something that we are building, and it will be home to many of those threatened species. We need more places in our cities and urban areas that provide sanctuaries for our precious wildlife. I've been pleased to bring a number of ministers to the Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve, including the minister for the environment, the minister for infrastructure and many other ministers as well. If anyone has an opportunity to come and have a walk through this incredible piece of Elwood, I highly recommend you do so. It is going to be an iconic part of the inner Bayside suburbs of Melbourne.

In conclusion, this bill is about improving compliance with environmental law. It is the second of the tranches in our environmental protection laws. The first, obviously, was the water trigger that we did last year. This is the EPA, and the next tranche will be a significant package of reforms in line with our election commitments around other recommendations of the Samuel review. We have a record of improving environmental standards. This bill complies with and builds on that record. I am proud of the environmental protections that are contained in this bill, and I commend them to the House.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no doubt that our environment is in a perilous state, and no-one has acknowledged this more clearly than the current Minister for the Environment and Water. In the most recent state of the environment report, it stated that 19 of Australia's ecosystems are on the brink of collapse. Much to the shame of the previous coalition government, in 2021 they hid this report from the public.

In December 2022, over 18 months ago now, the current environment minister committed to a landmark overhaul of Australia's environment laws, something that was strongly welcomed across my electorate of Mackellar. In making that commitment, the minister stated: 'Australia's environment laws are broken. Nature is being destroyed. Our reforms are seeking to turn the tide in this country—from nature destruction to nature repair.' Unfortunately, very little has changed in terms of the state of the environment since then. We continue to watch on as our native forests, including critical habitats for threatened species, continue to be clear-felled. We have witnessed the largest and worst ever bleaching of our Great Barrier Reef, and land continues to be logged for farmland at a rate that leaves us being a global deforestation hotspot.

There are changes to our broken environment laws that simply cannot wait any longer. It was, therefore, extremely disappointing that the government recently announced that it would be back-pedalling on its commitment to address the environmental catastrophe in this term of government. Specifically, in April this year, the government announced it was changing course by creating the previously unarticulated concept of three stages of nature reform.

Stage 1 involved retrospectively labelling one small change to the environment laws that occurred in December—an expansion of the water trigger. Again, it was something very welcome, but it was retrospectively labelled as stage 1 of the reforms. This was one small change that the government was pushed into, forced to do, when it needed to offer a carrot in the Senate to ensure the passage of the nature repair market legislation. I'm very proud of the role that I played in advocating this change through the introduction of my private member's bill for the water trigger to be expanded. It was expanded so that all types of gas fracking projects now need to be referred for assessment under the EPBC Act if there is likely to be a significant impact on water resources. We are watching and waiting to see if this is actually going to occur in terms of what is happening with gas fracking projects in the Beetaloo basin currently.

Stage 2 is the nature-positive bills, which establish two new bodies: Environment Protection Australia and Environment Information Australia, which are the subject of the current debate. I'll talk more about these in a moment, but neither of these bills enact any changes to the broken environment laws themselves.

Stage 3 seems to be everything else, including the substantive changes to the environment laws promised to be passed by this government in this term of government. Here we are talking about the introduction of national environmental standards, improvements to conservation planning and changes to assessment and approval pathways—in other words, the bulk of the necessary reforms. This will be the most important part of the nature-positive reforms, and the government has given us no assurance that they will be passed in this term of government as initially promised.

However, back to stage 2, which we are currently debating. With the bills before the House, the government proposes to establish the Environment Protection Australia agency, the nation's first federal environment protection agency. It will also establish the Environment Information Australia body, tasked with monitoring and measuring our progress towards becoming nature positive. Establishing an EPA is undoubtedly positive and long overdue, and I strongly welcome and commend this move by the government. The environment movement has been calling for a strong regulation and enforcement agency now for decades.

Unfortunately, however, the version that the government is proposing with this bill will not create the effective, independent or fit-for-purpose EPA that is required to effectively protect our environment. It is instead a significantly flawed proposal and must be strengthened here in this legislation if the Australian public is to be able to trust that it will both be effective and truly act in alignment with the public interests and expectations to protect Australia's environment. We need to be able to trust that it will act in the public interest rather than in the interest of powerful lobby groups. And it must be strengthened now in this current legislation, which is setting it up.

Under the government's bill, the EPA will be headed up by a CEO which will be selected by the minister—appointed by the minister. However, environment groups across the country have made clear that the EPA must be set up in a way that permits it to have far greater independence from the government of the day. That is why it is critical that the EPA be a board and one based not only on expertise and quality but also on independence from government. This means that appointments to the board must be made by an independent selection panel, not at the discretion of the minister. Appointments made at the discretion of the minister would leave the EPA open to political influence and, therefore, pressure from powerful lobby groups. It is absolutely critical that we do everything we can to end this jobs-for-mates culture in Canberra and the politicisation of these important institutions and bodies.

The EPA must also have a well-defined mandate and objective, and its decisions must be transparent. Ultimately, the EPA's functions must enable and ensure nature protection, and it must do so immediately in stage 2 with no further delay. Most critically, the EPA must be responsible for overseeing and assessing regional forestry agreements. Native forest logging undertaken under these agreements is currently exempt from federal environment oversight, completely exempt from our national environment laws. This absolutely must change if the government is to keep its promise of no further extinctions on its watch. I will be bringing amendments to this legislation which would bring an end to the exemptions of regional forestry agreements.

Let's look at an example of the destructive conduct which is happening right now and which is perfectly permitted and legal under our current broken environmental laws. This is the clearing of trees, inseparable, of course, from any attempts to protect our threatened species. Over the course of this year and last, in one example only, more than 670 hectares of land was bulldozed in a region not far from Gladstone in Queensland. That land was cleared for beef pasture but with an area that was mapped as habitat for 37 EPBC listed species, including the koala, the northern quoll and the greater glider. In addition, in 2023, over 270 hectares were bulldozed in the Banana shire—again for beef pasture. It had been mapped as habitat for 45 EPBC listed species, including the ones I listed above. These areas of land were able to be cleared through a continuous land-use exemption under the current EPBC Act—

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will be granted leave to continue speaking.