Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Assistant Minister for Education, Senator Chisholm, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent a minister moving, in committee of the whole, amendments to the bill which amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity ConservationAct 1999 to expand the circumstances in which certain petroleum mining developments must be assessed and approved by the minister administering that Act.

Colleagues, for the avoidance of doubt, since the government has circulated amendments to the EPBC Act and since the EPBC Act is not otherwise amended by the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill, the government is taking this step to enable the amendments to the Nature Repair Market Bill to be moved. It's a necessary procedural step. It enables the Senate to deliver important and commonsense environmental reform.

This is an important reform. Our government is seeking to establish the world's first national nature repair market, and this market will make it easier for businesses, philanthropists and others to invest in projects that restore and repair nature across Australia without greenwashing. Investment in the nature repair market means landholders, including farmers and First Nations groups, will get paid to improve the environment on their properties. For example, this may involve repairing damaged riverbeds, replanting critical habitat of threatened species or removing invasive species, such as feral cats and weeds. Tonight our government is also seeking to update the water trigger so that all new unconventional gas projects will be assessed for their impact on water resources. Before the election, Labor promised to do this, and we are delivering. We set this out in the Nature Positive Plan, which was released at the end of last year, after consulting with APPEA and the gas industry.

These are reforms which have been proposed by at least three reports: the Northern Territory government's Pepper scientific inquiry, the 2018 Senate inquiry into water use by the extractive industries and the 2021 interim report of the Senate inquiry into oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo basin. All of these inquiries recommended that the EPBC water trigger be expanded to cover all forms of unconventional gas. It's a commonsense change, colleagues, providing business with certainty and the community with confidence that water resources and our environment are properly regulated and protected. The update will expand the water trigger which already applies to coal seam gas to include other types of unconventional gas developments, such as shale gas. Most new gas projects will be unaffected by the change, as coal seam gas production is already covered by the existing water trigger and the changes do not apply to conventional gas production. Existing gas projects that are in production and have already been approved are unaffected by this update. Projects regulated by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA, will also be unaffected by this update. This will provide certainty for business and ensure continuity of gas supply.

We are grateful for the support of members of the crossbench to pursue these two important government initiatives together. We have agreed to support a number of amendments proposed by the Greens—namely, amendments to prevent biodiversity certificates from being used as environmental offsets and to remove references to offsets from the bill, and an amendment to change the name of the bill. The government has had many conversations with the crossbench about delivering our commitments, and that includes our nature repair market and expanding the water trigger. We are working with all members of the crossbench on this legislation. This is an important reform, colleagues. These are important initiatives, and I commend them to the chamber.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think this rather proves the point of what is exactly the definition of a shambolic government that is rushing towards the end of the year, doing dodgy deals with the Greens and perhaps others that we have no visibility of. Just yesterday, we had this motion that Senator McAllister has referred to. It had no detail, was nebulous in its construct and talked about provisions of the EPBC Act to be referred to in assessing and approving certain petroleum mining developments. 'Certain'—we didn't know what they were. Only at 5.52 this evening—less than an hour ago—have we seen the amendments relating to these particular issues. It is really starting to become a pattern of behaviour in this place that the government seems to think that scrutiny is not important.

I might remind the Senate that, of course, just yesterday we voted on a motion to end a further four months of scrutiny on the Nature Market Repair Bill and the associated bill—legislation which, up until yesterday, no-one other than the government supported. In relation to the Australian Greens, I read Senator Hanson-Young's comments in the committee hearings saying that the bill was in tatters, that it had no friends and that it was going to leave the environment worse off. Now here we are with an arrangement between the Australian Labor Party and the Greens political party rushing to have this bill voted on and passed before parliament rises. So urgent this is that we must get it done before the parliament rises! As a sign of disrespect to this chamber, the people we represent and the industries that keep our economy ticking over, we're going to rush these amendments in with no or little information or clarity around what they're actually about. I'm glad we have at least an hour and a half of committee stage to interrogate this flurry of amendments, including the amendments from the government that have been talked about here by Senator McAllister. She gave some clarity around what has been tabled just less than an hour ago, at 5.52 pm, this document here, which outlines what the government's new plan is—the one that wasn't contemplated in the committee inquiry, wasn't referred to in the government senators report and wasn't referred to in the Greens' dissenting report, a 'dissenting' report in a bill that they're now going to support. What an interesting change of events there!

I want to know exactly—and I'll be able to ask these questions—what consultation was had with industry about these amendments tabled less than an hour ago. I'm going to hazard a guess: none. I'd love to know which participants in the industry are caught up in this set of amendments. I don't think they know. I don't think they've actually gone out to figure it out. It's just about getting a deal before the end of the year because the government needs a win. It has been a terrible couple of weeks, and, in fact, it has been a terrible 18 months, if you really think about it—

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the nation.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the nation, as Senator Reynolds says. No one's better off. The cost of living is going through the roof. People feel less secure. And here we are, to get a win before the end of the year, doing deals with the Greens political party on things that were not contemplated at any point through the deliberations in the committee process.

We're seeking to suspend standing orders to be able to bring on these extraneous amendments relating to another act, which were referred to in a nebulous fashion yesterday, and we don't know what the extent of the consequences is going to be. But do you know what? I suspect the government have got the numbers. They've done a deal. We still don't know what price has been paid for these amendments to be supported by the government—this expanded water trigger that is going to have massive impacts—or whether any modelling has been done on the costs to people who may wish to get a project up, to create jobs, to provide energy to the market. We don't know. Has there been a regulatory impact statement, which is something good governments normally do? I'd be interested to know, to foreshadow that question. I'm sure Senator McDonald has similar questions as well. Again, I'll take a punt on that: I don't reckon any of this has been done, because it is the last week of the year, ladies and gentlemen, and it's all about getting a deal. It's all about getting a win. It's all about looking like we're in control and we know what we're doing.

Not only are the impacts of these amendments unknown and we've barely had an hour to read through the documents that have been dropped on our desks but, in fact, we don't know about a range of amendments that the minister has already said the government have agreed to and what impact they will have. We will consider our position on all of them, but, at the end of the day, I'd just say that this year ends as it has been all the way throughout—that is, shambolic. This is a government that lurches from one problem to the next and does dodgy deals to try and look like it's in control. This is not the bill they had on the table all the way through the committee process. They have cut off scrutiny because they are embarrassed about where they're going. It's all about getting a win. They don't care about the Australian people, and these amendments just prove that.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will be supporting this contingency motion. The reason is that, if we are going to be voting and passing environmental legislation in this place, it should be environmental legislation that actually does something. Under the amendments that have been circulated by the Greens and the new set of amendments that has been circulated by the government to incorporate a water trigger into our nation's environmental laws, finally, this bill actually does something.

I will take Senator Duniam's point from his contribution just now that, when this bill was first tabled, it was a dog's breakfast. It didn't protect the environment, and all it did was provide offsets for corporations to destroy one piece of environment over here while pretending to protect something else over there. 'Destroy a koala habitat here, and, hopefully, look after some Tassie devil habitat there—I am offsetting the environment against itself.' That is what a dog of a bill this was. With the amendments that have been tabled and circulated today, this bill will now be a bill that protects the environment and puts in place environmental assessments particularly in relation to fracking projects. It is absolutely bonkers that in 2023 we have environmental laws in this country that do not require any type of environmental assessment for big gas corporations to frack. Zilch. Zero. It's time that was fixed. That is why this amendment is important. That is why this contingency motion is essential.

I spend a lot of time talking to traditional owners in the Northern Territory. I spend a lot of time talking to farmers in the Northern Territory. They tell me, over and over again, that they want proper process. They want due process for these projects. They want to know that there will be a proper assessment, that someone is looking at what is being proposed, that someone is looking at the facts, that someone is thinking about the consequences and that there is some national oversight of this. That is what this motion before us now will allow to happen. It will amend our environment laws to give a proper overview before any big fracking projects are just ticked off.

I will speak further in the committee stage in relation to the Greens amendments to remove and scrap all of the offsets in this Nature Repair Market Bill. I will also speak to amendments that change the name of the bill. That's because no longer is this the Nature Repair Market Bill this government brought forward; it is essentially a new bill that, if it gets through this place, passed by the Senate, will establish proper protection for the environment, establish proper protection for our precious water resources and ensure that big corporations can't continue to greenwash. That is what this amended bill will deliver if we can get it done. I urge every member of this place to take the opportunity to do it. We are about to leave parliament at the end of the week. Wouldn't it be good to give the environment a Christmas present it deserves?

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Scrutiny or, rather, the avoidance of scrutiny is what drives the Greens and Labor coalition in the Senate. The Greens stated recently, just days ago, that they were strongly opposed to this bill, this 'nature repair' bill. What about the arrogance? The Greens now support it because Labor has agreed to allow the Greens to move amendments to the EPBC Act. The Greens will support Labor's disastrous Nature Repair Market Bill in return for Labor's support for the Greens' disastrous amendments to an existing law not before the Senate. This is preposterous. It's very dodgy. It's unheard of. And why? Because their arrogance says that the Labor-Greens-Teal coalition in the Senate can get away with it. They are saying to the people of Australia: 'To hell with you lot. We will give you the middle finger.' That's why they're doing it. They are hiding their political mates and bosses from scrutiny. They're not doing it properly.

Senator Hanson-Young talked about saving koala habitats. Their wind turbines and solar panels are killing koala habitats and they are actually talking about bludgeoning koalas. 'That's the way to do it,' they say. They want to avoid scrutiny and are killing the environment to save it!

Notice that they can't handle an argument. They start getting into invective. Speaking of scrutiny, last week's water amendment bill revealed under scrutiny, because it was allowed just briefly, 31 amendments from the government in the House of Representatives, plus 20 amendments in the Senate, on its own bill. That's 51 government amendments in total to its own bill. This is typical of what we have seen for 18 months. Then, if you add the amendments of the crossbenchers and the Liberals, you get 69 amendments to a water amendment bill. Consultation? Ha!

Then there was the identity verification scheme rushed in here. Again, they are hiding from scrutiny. That's the theme of the Labor government and its Green and Teal coalition partners—protecting themselves from scrutiny. The Greens used to be in favour of orders for the production of documents, but not anymore. They protect Labor quite often. Then we see Minister Burke protecting their mates from scrutiny and falsely creating the dishonest label 'closing loopholes' to hide the Hunter region Mining and Energy Union's complicity in aiding some labour hire firms in Australia's largest ever wage theft, worth billions of dollars. They're doing nothing about the fact that the Fair Work Commission protects blatant breaches of law in approving the Mining and Energy Union's enterprise agreements, enabling systemic wage theft, hiding their mates from scrutiny and protecting the Fair Work Ombudsman for using a fraudulent document that covers up the Mining and Energy Union's enterprise agreements, enabling systemic wage theft. They're hiding their mates and donors, their agenda and their coalition partners. One Nation will be opposing this.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an absolute farce this is. I rise to speak against the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and whatever dodgy deal has been done where Labor has capitulated to the Greens political party yet again. We are seeing the standard of Labor's parliamentary process, where they promise the world, then rush a backroom deal and try to ram through legislation without consultation. What was the promise to the Greens political party from this Labor government, a government that obviously struggles to keep its word?

On 15 May 2023, the Minister for the Environment and Water, Ms Plibersek, told RN Breakfast:

I'm proposing to release those exposure drafts in the second half of this year so people will be able to comment on the proposed changes that we're making.

That was the environment minister. What a joke that is, because here we are with absolutely no consultation—in fact, the ink is not dry on the amendments that we're looking at now. Where were these exposure drafts? Where can people comment on these changes? Well, they miss out on that, thanks to yet another dodgy deal through the back room. I remember the days when the Greens believed in transparency and good government. What a happy memory that is. Has anyone had the chance to review this legislation? Or has Labor only bothered to consult the people who are the most out of touch with Australians—the Australian Greens political party?

This pattern should not be a revelation, though, to the Australian public as it's become apparent that the Albanese Labor government are desperate to protect their own political careers by trying to buy Greens votes in Melbourne and Sydney. Surely it is only a coincidence that there was a swing to the Greens at the last election in Minister Plibersek's electorate. What about the rest of her Labor colleagues? Have any Labor members from Western Australia or the Northern Territory faced up to their constituents and had to tell them that Minister Plibersek is trying to save her own political career by pandering to Greens votes in inner-city Sydney or that Labor are abandoning the gas and manufacturing industries to save their own necks? What about Labor Premier Roger Cook, who recently had to come out and try and defend the gas industry, saying, 'No-one will thank us if we don't have enough gas.' Is Premier Cook aware of the dirty, dodgy backroom deals being done between his federal colleagues and the Greens political party that put his state budget in the firing line? Any claim from the Labor government that they support the gas industry is undermined by their continual capitulation to the Greens political party. We have had the safeguards amendment, funding of the EDO and the anti-gas Middle Arm inquiry, not to mention housing deals and the Murray-Darling Basin. And now we have this rushed backroom deal to target gas supply. This Greens political party is pulling the strings of the Labor Party, as if they were already in government together.

But, even without this dodgy, rushed deal, this legislation is another example of Labor putting their inner-city Greens fantasies ahead of the realities of life for hardworking Australians, especially land managers like farmers and graziers. Labor has consistently attacked and undermined farmers, removing property rights, legislating away farmers' water rights, removing markets, stalling necessary road infrastructure and removing the ability to fish. Now this government sponsored carbon frenzy means projects are being waved through by local councils with just the bare minimum of regulatory scrutiny.

This is an absolute travesty, to have these amendments come into this place with no consultation—no consultation with industry, no consultation with members and elected representatives of those communities, and even no consultation with environment groups. I have flicked through the amendments, because I only recently got them, and there are questions that we will drive a truck through tonight. This is not the way we make legislation—with these kinds of rushed, poorly drafted amendments to get a deal done so that the Greens will support the Nature Market Repair Bill, which they've already said they didn't agree with; they said it was a dog of legislation. Are Australians going to live with the dog and the fleas that sit on its back, thanks to these terrible amendments to the EPBC Act?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I can decode the LNP's concerns about lack of consultation. I think what the senator is saying is they haven't had a chance to talk to their fossil fuel donors about this yet! They haven't been on the phone to Santos, Woodside, Tamboran or maybe Origin Energy! It surprises me, Senator McDonald—through you, Deputy President—that you haven't talked to the other stakeholders you claim to represent, who are farmers.

Let's look at this. There are two consequential things we're doing here. The first thing is we're passing a strongly amended version of the Nature Market Repair Bill, which was a Liberal Party policy. This was brought to me by Mr Littleproud's office when I had the agriculture portfolio in the last parliament. This was put up to help farmers. I might remind the senator that Farmers for Climate Action—who have over 10½ thousand members now and are a big part of the NFF—recently surveyed their members, and over 5,000 members, two-thirds of them, supported an amendment version of the Nature Market Repair Bill passing the parliament. What they didn't support was using biodiversity credits to offset developers and environmental destruction. And they had some other sensible suggestions for amendments. So you claim to support farmers, Senator McDonald, but here you are trying to run interference on a bill that's actually going to help farmers if we get it right.

The second thing I want to point out—and I respect, Senator McDonald, that you come from a big grazier's dynasty up in Queensland—is this: what about the farmers and graziers in the Northern Territory or the Beetaloo basin, who have consistently raised concerns about the impact fracking is going to have on aquifers and water resources in the Northern Territory? Where are they being represented in this parliament? They're being represented here tonight by the Greens and the government, who are at least passing sensible checks and balances so that these things can be assessed. If you claim to represent farmers, at least get your facts straight—or don't try and sell only one part of the story to suit your political spin.

I want to say a few words in addition to that; I know we've got our Senate end-of-year party on soon, and I didn't get a chance to do a second reading speech! Like Senator Hanson-Young, I really hate the name of this legislation—the Nature Repair Market Bill. Markets can't repair nature. Governments can, and people can help—farmers want to help—but markets are probably responsible for all the problems we've got in nature and are the reason it needs repair in the first place. Any economic student will tell you the government's role is to solve externalities caused by business activities and markets. But, sadly, when you're in the pocket of fossil fuel donors, that's not going to happen.

Senator McDonald is saying there has been no consultation on this bill. This bill has gone to inquiries and there has been significant consultation. The Australia Institute told us that the use of markets to solve biodiversity problems is about six per cent of the estimation of what actually needs to be put in to solve the extinction crisis we have before us—things such as protecting land and water, more national parks, more marine parks, new environment laws that actually do their job and fully-funded threatened species recovery plans. There is so much we need to do if we are going to help nature and help restore nature.

I wanted to put on record here that I do not support the idea of markets repairing nature. Nevertheless, as Senator Hanson-Young has so eloquently pointed out, voluntary markets already exist. You can already get credits in biodiversity markets. You can already make donations to programs—some of them are very good. But this will actually help put some regulation around that, and I look forward to seeing the detail when it comes before the Senate.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator McAllister be agreed to.