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

It gives me great—well, I would say 'pleasure' but I'm concerned that we actually even have to have this debate in relation to this piece of legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) Bill 2024, because it's a problem of this government's own making that this piece of legislation addresses.

We shouldn't need to have this debate, but we do because the Minister for Environment and Water took the word of organisations such as the now discredited Environmental Defenders Office over that of the Tasmanian government in relation to a decision on salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour. Instead of taking the word of the Tasmanian government, who in their submission to the Commonwealth in relation to this matter indicated that there had been no substantial change in circumstances that weren't foreseen in relation to salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour, the government went with the environmental groups. It's a pattern that we have seen in Tasmania for a considerable period of time, unfortunately.

Of course, the Environmental Defenders Office are an organisation that have recently had a significant finding against them in the courts in relation to other matters, where they have been found to have fabricated evidence, so it's even more disturbing that the government would take the word of an organisation like this over that of the Tasmanian government. That decision set a precedent, which is that more than 11 years after a decision was made to support salmon farming in Tasmania—a decision that it would not be a controlled action—the government can come back, after all of the businesses involved have made all of the investments they have made, and reconsider the decision. What sort of circumstance is that? What if a council gave you approval to build a house and then 10 or 11 years later they came back and said: 'Hang on a minute. We're not sure about that. We might have another look. In fact, we might make you take your house down. We might make you demolish your house, because we don't think we should have approved it in the first place'? What an absurd circumstance! What level of sovereign risk does that generate?

In respect of this bill to amend the EPBC Act we've seen exactly the same attitude. Those who invest their resources to create jobs in our economy, for whom everything is at risk—every single one of them, from a range of different circumstances—supported this amendment to the act. Obviously, the salmon industry supported it, as did the Forest Products Association; the renewable energy industry—Tilt Renewables; the Business Council of Australia; Senex; Santos, who obviously were the victim of the Environmental Defenders Office, with its corrupt evidence to a court; the Australian Airports Association; the Minerals Council of Australia. These are the organisations that invest tens of thousands of dollars—millions of dollars—in gaining environmental approvals, and every single one of them supported this very simple amendment to the EPBC Act to provide them with some certainty and remove the sovereign risk that this government had created. What does the government do in its majority report on the bill? It sides with the EDO, the Environmental Defenders Office. It sends a message.

The government will get up and say: 'Yes, well, we're going to amend the EPBC Act on a broader scale. There's the nature-positive legislation.' Well, there's not. The government themselves voted against debating that this week. So there is no change on the horizon from this government. That's unless they do a deal with the Greens, which we've seen a fair bit of lately. They stand here today against every user of the EPBC Act—those who invest to create jobs in our economy. That's all that these people are asking for: some certainty that, when a government makes a decision, the decision stands. That's what this very simple piece of legislation does.

This legislation doesn't even remove the capacity for reconsideration down the line in the case of a genuine change in circumstances. It leaves the act exactly as it is for three years, and then, after three years, any reconsideration request must come from an appropriate minister in the state government where the project is being developed. It's a simple piece of legislation. It should be easy for the government to support. They currently don't have anything on the table with respect to changes to the current act but they are prepared to oppose this change simply because the environment group said so.

Let's hear what some of these organisations that submitted to the Senate inquiry had to say. It was an inquiry that wasn't allowed to have public hearings, that was punted back to a time after sittings in the last part of last year. Really, there was zero respect for this piece of legislation shown by the government all the way through, which is a bit of a trademark, I suppose. Senex Energy said:

The Bill under consideration … would provide greater certainty in approval conditions for project proponents. Such certainty is essential for investor confidence, particularly in capital intensive industries involving multi-decade investments such as the natural gas industry.

We know the Greens won't support it, because they're the anti-everything brigade, but the government talk about having a future gas strategy as being important for our future energy needs. We know we need more gas in the system. This is what a major investor is saying in respect of this legislation. It's a simple piece of legislation; it should not be difficult to support.

Santos wrote:

Challenges in the form of reconsideration requests will continue to cause delays and uncertainties for proponents, investors and the community if deficiencies in the Act are not addressed.

Santos supports the Bill.

Santos also wrote:

Santos supports any reform which will bring clarity and greater investment confidence to the approvals regime.

It's pretty clear. But, of course, the government reject that. They've gone with the corrupt Environmental Defenders Office.

The Australian Forest Products Association wrote:

The proposed changes in the Bill will substantially improve regulatory certainty for investors in projects that require environmental approvals, increase investment overall and directly assist the government's efforts to promote expansion of, and investment in, the plantation forestry sector.

The government have a policy to increase plantations, and here's the forest industry saying this piece of legislation will enhance that, but Labor's gone with the corrupt Environmental Defenders Office.

The Business Council of Australia wrote:

One of the key criticisms of the existing EPBC Act is the lack of certainty provided to proponents in pursuing a decision via the process. When multi-million and multi-billion-dollar investments, supporting thousands of direct and indirect jobs, are being developed and delivered there must be certainty in process and approvals.

It can't get much clearer. Yet the government, again, poignant in the Santos circumstance, are going with the discredited, corrupt Environmental Defenders Office evidence. BCA continued:

The recently highlighted ability under the existing Act for third parties to challenge an approval, years after it has been given, has the potential to undermine investor confidence in any project that may have an interaction with the EPBC Act. Decisions under the Act range from renewable energy projects to mining, to housing supply—

hello, national housing crisis—

and tourism, and to agriculture and aquaculture.

All users of the act that submitted to this inquiry supported this change. The government has chosen in its report to go with the anti-everything brigade.

The Clean Energy Investor Group wrote:

CEIG also wrote:

Here we are with a government with a renewables policy for transition of the Australian economy. This is what the investors into clean energy are saying to the government, and they snub their nose at it. How absurd!

Tilt Renewables, one of the largest owners and operators of wind and solar generation in Australia, with 1,700 megawatts of renewable energy capacity across a number of projects, wrote:

The rationale for this is clear as investors need certainty that a planning approval … is final and will not be overturned as they continue to invest in developing, and then constructing, the project.

…   …   …

… the Bill would be a worthwhile reform and improvement to the current open-ended EPBC appeal process.

I went about developing this piece of legislation after a conversation with a state environment minister who had told me about the alarm amongst other environment ministers around the country as to the actions of Minister Plibersek in reopening this over-a-decade-old approval in Tasmania. It wasn't just about the salmon industry; it was about all of the other sectors that I've talked about during my contribution. We'll be accused of running a wedge or something of that nature in relation to salmon farming, but this was a genuine concern that was brought to me by a colleague in another parliament who happened to be the environment minister. They were all concerned about the precedent that had been set that would allow any similar approval to be reconsidered by the minister. And this was not through some sort of substantial submission. Three environmental groups—anti-everything brigade groups—wrote a letter to Minister Plibersek. They didn't write a substantial submission; they wrote a letter. On the basis of that letter, an approval process that has been in place for over a decade has been thrown into upheaval, and everybody is asking questions, including environment ministers at a state level.

This is a simple piece of legislation that can provide certainty for investors. Yes, there's a process that may come to fruition, perhaps in the next parliament, with respect to the EPBC Act more broadly. But, quite frankly, people who are putting up million, tens of millions or billions of dollars to invest in projects that support this sector, support industry and support jobs around the country should have the certainty of the decisions that are made by government. It is only reasonable that they do.

As I said earlier, consider if a council approved your house and came back 10 years later and said, 'Sorry, we're going to look at this again; you might have to take the extension down or we might make you take the house apart.' It's an absurdity, and the government should be supporting this legislation. They should be supporting jobs in Tasmania and across the country.