Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) Bill 2024 seeks to strengthen the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and provide greater certainty to project proponents regarding their environmental approvals through the introduction of limitations on timeframes permissible for reconsideration of decisions.

Under the current provisions for reconsideration of decisions within the Act, the request for reconsideration of a decision under section 78A does not provide limitations to, or restrictions on, the length of time allowed for an approval to be reconsidered.

This bill rectifies these shortcomings.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations of Decisions) Bill 2024 seeks to offer clear time limits and cut-off periods for decisions to be reconsidered and limits who is permitted to request such reconsideration to a minister within the state or self-governing territory where the relevant action is proposed to be taken. In doing so, the proposed amendments move to provide surety to industry, workers, and investors. This Bill looks to restore business confidence and a sense of security in enterprise that all Australian businesses and communities deserve.

In 2012 it was determined, under subsection 75(1) of the Act that the proposed Marine Farming Expansion, at Macquarie Harbour, Tasmania was not a controlled action if undertaken in a particular manner. In November of last year, 11 years after this approval was given, Environment Minister Plibersek, at the behest of three activist groups: the Environmental Defenders Office, the Bob Brown Foundation and the Australia Institute, opened up this approval for consultation.

In doing so, the Minister threw the entire Tasmanian salmon industry into an abyss of uncertainty and placed a $1 billion dollar industry under extreme threat; an industry that supports hundreds of jobs in many communities. And in doing so set a very concerning and potentially dangerous precedent.

The re-opening of an environmental approval that had been in place for over a decade has significant and potentially catastrophic ramifications for every business, organisation and industry group currently operating under an environmental approval previously granted. While the immediate impact of Minister Plibersek's action is, of course, on the salmon industry, the decision to re-open this environmental approval creates uncertainty for every business in Australia dependent upon environment approvals. Every sector, business or enterprise using natural resources—mining, forestry, renewable energy, and agriculture—any requiring an EPBC approval now has diminished certainty. In the absence of clear timeframes and defined authorisation for decisions to be reconsidered in the current legislation, any group holding an ideological opposition to a certain industry or enterprise can appeal to a sympathetic minister to reconsider previously granted environmental approvals.

This amendment places the long term and future reconsiderations of decisions within the domain and agency of a minister of the affected state or self-governing territory, where local and greater knowledge of the area can provide a balanced and constructive outcome for all interested parties of relevance.

Early last year the Prime Minister, when addressing the National Press Club, declared the focus of his government to be providing stability, confidence and security. The Prime Minister made a point of including greater security in industry and jobs and wages. And yet, less than a year later, we see his Minister for the Environment and Water take a most damaging action which immediately shattered security in industry and jobs and wages. Again, endless demonstrations of incompetence from this government of broken promises, a government that does nothing to reassure business and industry but everything to inspire doubt and concern as it prolongs uncertainty over key project decisions and go-aheads.

Industry deserves to operate in confidence and security, not with the environmental crusaders sword of Damocles hanging over them. Why would any company, industry or business consider investing in an Australian project when, at any point, their whole endeavour can be undermined at the behest of highly vocal but entirely unassociated groups, pushing their agenda without balance and in the process knee-capping economic growth and assurance. Investors need to proceed with certainty, and workers need to have certainty, and this Bill aims at providing such certainty, and assurance.

The 2012 decision, giving the approval for marine farming expansion in Macquarie Harbour specifically acknowledged and took into consideration foreseen potential impacts to the Maugean skate. Monitoring, reporting, and management frameworks were established to this end. These measures, and their outcomes, demonstrate that there is no substantial information or substantial change in circumstances not anticipated at the time of the 2012 decision; there has not been a "substantial change in circumstances that was not foreseen" at the time of the 2012 decision relating to the impact the action has or will have or is likely to have. The Minister, therefore, does not need to reconsider the approval, and most certainly not an approval that has been in place for so long. Such a decision, combined with the recent highly questionable, very controversial and mysteriously secretive decision on the Regis Resources gold mine project would call in to question the motives of the Minister in adequately fulfilling all aspects and considerations of her portfolio.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) Bill 2024 is about providing surety, ensuring balance in decision-making and instilling confidence in industry, in investment, and in the communities that benefit from strong and assured commerce.

To be clear—it is this minister and this government that has created a troubling precedent with the manoeuvring around the Macquarie Harbour approval. And it is this minister and this government who, although they promised certainty, have created untold levels of uncertainty. This bill would return certainty.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.