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

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023. Due to the routine of business today, I didn't, like others, have the opportunity to make a summing-up speech in the usual way. I want to take the opportunity now to place certain matters before the Senate and acknowledge the debate that has occurred so far, and I thank senators for their contributions.

This bill supports the operation of the nature repair market being established under the Nature Repair Market Bill. The bill will make it easier for businesses and philanthropic organisations to invest in reversing environmental decline and repairing and restoring nature. This bill will amend the Clean Energy Regulator Act to enable the Clean Energy Regulator to effectively regulate the nature repair market. This includes allowing for members of the regulator to have relevant experience in the market. This bill will also amend the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act to allow the nature repair market to utilise the expertise of qualified and experienced auditors, ensuring integrity in the delivery of biodiversity projects.

Minister Plibersek has worked closely with Minister Bowen, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, and they are committed to a nature repair market with integrity and transparency. This includes ensuring that the Clean Energy Regulator is resourced in operating to deliver its regulatory functions efficiently and effectively. The Clean Energy Regulator will be able to delegate its powers to staff within the environment department. This will ensure that the regular has access to the best expertise available for its regulatory powers and functions.

Earlier today, I circulated government amendments to the bill. These amendments will amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to expand the water trigger to cover unconventional gas developments. Before the election Labor promised to do this, and we are delivering. This is a commonsense change. It provides business with certainty, and it provides the community with confidence that water resources and our environment are properly regulated and protected. The update will expand the water trigger to include other types of unconventional gas projects, such as shale gas projects, which are emerging as a potential new use of fracking in Australia. 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 trigger does not apply to conventional gas production.

The transitional arrangements will provide certainty for business and ensure continuity of gas supply. Existing gas projects that are in commercial operation and already have a Commonwealth, state or territory approval are unaffected by the new laws. For clarity, a project is not in commercial operation merely because it is in the planning, exploration or appraisal phase, irrespective of any sale of gas from this precommercial activity. Projects regulated by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA, will also be unaffected by this update. The water trigger will also not apply to projects that have already been through the EPBC Act approval process. The water trigger will apply to all unconventional gas production that has a significant impact on water resources. This includes all activities associated with the different phases of the production process, including exploration, appraisal, extraction, recovery or intentional release of gas, whether by drilling, hydraulic fracturing or other means.

The expansion of the water trigger has been an important issue for Northern Territory parliamentarians, particularly the member for Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour, and Senator McCarthy, and I acknowledge their work and advocacy. This issue, more broadly, is important for many First Nations communities. I acknowledge that their concerns are broader than proper environmental regulation of water. Water has important cultural value, and First Nations communities are rightly concerned to protect this value as well. We will keep working with First Nations on this as we implement these laws.

The Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications held an inquiry into the bill, which included public hearings and the receipt of written submissions. The committee's report was released on 4 December. The committee made one recommendation, which is that both the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 be passed, and the government accepts this recommendation.

I conclude by indicating that we are delighted to have received support from many members of the crossbench for an update to the water trigger. We are grateful for their willingness to support the government pursuing this alongside this other important government initiative, the nature repair market. We have agreed to support a number of amendments proposed by the Greens—principally, amendments to prevent biodiversity certificates being used as environmental offsets and to remove references to offsets from the bill and an amendment to change the name of the bill. We, of course, appreciate the conversations we have with the crossbench every day on delivering our commitments, and that includes the conversations we've had about the nature repair market and expanding the water trigger. I thank senators again for their contributions. I commend the bills to the Senate.

With respect to the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023, I seek leave to move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet SF110 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table (not including the note), substitute:

(2) Page 8 (after line 22), at the end of the bill, add:

Schedule 2—Protecting water resources from additional kinds of unconventional gas developments

Part 1—Amendments

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

1 Subdivision FB of Division 1 of Part 3 (heading)

Omit "coal seam gas development", substitute "unconventional gas development".

2 Subparagraphs 24D(1)(a)(i), (2)(a)(i) and (3)(a)(i)

Repeal the subparagraphs, substitute:

(i) unconventional gas development; or

3 Subparagraphs 24E(1)(a)(i), (2)(a)(i) and (3)(a)(i)

Repeal the subparagraphs, substitute:

(i) unconventional gas development; or

4 Subsection 130(4A)

Omit "Coal Seam Gas", substitute "Unconventional Gas Development".

5 Section 131AB (heading)

Omit "Coal Seam Gas", substitute "Unconventional Gas Development".

6 Subparagraph 131AB(1)(a)(i)

Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:

(i) unconventional gas development; or

7 Subsection 131AB(2)

Omit "Coal Seam Gas", substitute "Unconventional Gas Development".

8 Paragraph 136(2)(fa)

Omit "Coal Seam Gas", substitute "Unconventional Gas Development".

9 Subparagraph 304(1)(a)(viia)

Omit "coal seam gas development", substitute "unconventional gas development".

10 Paragraph 305(1)(ga)

Omit "coal seam gas development", substitute "unconventional gas development".

11 Subparagraphs 305(1A)(b)(via) and (c)(viia)

Omit "coal seam gas development", substitute "unconventional gas development".

12 Paragraph 305(2)(ea)

Omit "coal seam gas development", substitute "unconventional gas development".

13 Subparagraphs 306(1)(a)(viia) and (b)(viia) and (2)(a)(viia) and (b)(viia)

Omit "coal seam gas development", substitute "unconventional gas development".

14 Division 2B of Part 19 (heading)

Omit "Coal Seam Gas", substitute "Unconventional Gas Development".

15 Subsection 505C(1)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(1) The committee established by this section as previously in force is continued in existence with the new name of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Unconventional Gas Development and Large Coal Mining Development.

Note: See also section 25B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

16 Paragraphs 505D(1)(a) and (b)

Omit "coal seam gas developments", substitute "unconventional gas developments".

17 Subparagraphs 505D(1)(c)(i) and (d)(i) and (ii)

Omit "coal seam gas", substitute "unconventional gas".

18 Paragraphs 505D(1)(e), (f) and (g)

Omit "coal seam gas", substitute "unconventional gas".

19 Paragraph 506(d)

Omit "Coal Seam Gas", substitute "Unconventional Gas Development".

20 Section 528 (definition of bioregional assessment )

Omit "coal seam gas development", substitute "unconventional gas development".

21 Section 528 (definition of coal seam gas development )

Repeal the definition.

22 Section 528 (definition of Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development )

Repeal the definition.

23 Section 528

Insert:

Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Unconventional Gas Development and Large Coal Mining Development means the Committee established by section 505C.

unconventional gas development means any activity involving unconventional gas production that has, or is likely to have, a significant impact on water resources (including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity):

(a) in its own right; or

(b) when considered with other developments, whether past, present or reasonably foreseeable developments.

unconventional gas production means extraction, recovery, or intentional release, (whether by drilling, hydraulic fracturing or other means) of gas from:

(a) coal seams or beds; or

(b) layers of shale rock; or

(c) tight gas reservoirs; or

(d) any other sources prescribed by the regulations.

Part 2—Application and transitional provisions

24 Definitions

In this Part:

commencement day means the day this Schedule commences.

main Act means the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

transitional period means the period of 90 business days (measured in Canberra), beginning on the first such business day that is on or after the commencement day.

25 Amendments apply to actions taken after commencement

(1) The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule apply in relation to an action involving unconventional gas development that is taken on or after the commencement day, even if the action began before that time, unless item 26, 27 or 28 of this Schedule applies in relation to the action.

(2) If:

(a) a proposal by a person to take the action was referred to the Minister under Division 1 of Part 7 of the main Act before the commencement day; and

(b) immediately before the commencement day, the Minister has not decided whether the action is a controlled action; and

(c) the Minister has given a notice under section 74 of the main Act in relation to the action;

the validity of the notice is not affected by the amendments and the Minister is not required to give another notice under that section.

(3) However, if, after the commencement day, the Minister receives comments in response to the invitation in the notice (and within the period specified in the notice) that relate to whether the action is a controlled action for the purposes of a provision of section 24D or 24E of the main Act as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule, the Minister's duty under subsection 75(1A) of the main Act to consider comments includes a duty to consider any such comments.

26 Amendments do not apply—certain referred proposals

(1) The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule do not apply in relation to an action taken on or after the commencement day if, immediately before the commencement day:

(a) an approval of the taking of the action is in operation under Part 9 of the main Act; or

(b) both:

(i) a decision that the action is not a controlled action is in operation under section 75 of the main Act; and

(ii) the decision was not made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a particular manner.

(2) The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule do not apply in relation to an action taken on or after the commencement day if:

(a) immediately before that day, a decision that the action is not a controlled action is in operation under section 75 of the main Act; and

(b) the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a particular manner; and

(c) the action is being taken in that manner.

(3) The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule do not apply in relation to an action taken on or after the commencement day if:

(a) a proposal by a person to take the action was referred to the Minister under Division 1 of Part 7 of the main Act before the commencement day; and

(b) immediately before the commencement day, all of the following circumstances exist:

(i) the Minister has not decided whether or not to approve the taking of the action for the purposes of any controlling provisions;

(ii) the person has been informed under section 131AA of the main Act of the decision the Minister proposes to make in relation to the action;

(iii) if section 131AB of the main Act applies—the Minister has obtained advice from the Independent Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development in accordance with subsection 131AB(2) of the main Act.

27 Amendments do not apply—development currently in production

(1) The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule do not apply in relation to an action involving unconventional gas development taken on or after the commencement day if:

(a) the unconventional gas development does not involve the extraction of coal seam gas; and

(b) the unconventional gas development was in production (within the meaning of subitem (2)) before the commencement day; and

(c) immediately before the commencement day:

(i) the action was authorised by a petroleum production authorisation (within the meaning of subitem (3)); and

(ii) the action was not contravening a provision of Part 3 of the main Act; and

(d) the action continues to be authorised by the petroleum production authorisation.

(2) For the purposes of this item, a development is in production if the development is extracting or producing gas:

(a) commercially; and

(b) in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth and of any State or Territory that apply in relation to the development.

(3) For the purposes of this item, a petroleum production authorisation is a licence, permit, or other authority granted under a law of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory, that authorises the extraction of petroleum for commercial production. However, it does not include a lease or licence that is primarily for the purpose of reservation, retention or exploration.

28 Amendments do not apply—development that has ceased operation

The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule do not apply in relation to an action involving unconventional gas development taken on or after the commencement day if:

(a) the unconventional gas development does not involve the extraction of coal seam gas; and

(b) immediately before the commencement day, the action was not contravening a provision of Part 3 of the main Act; and

(c) immediately before the commencement day, either or both of the following apply:

(i) extraction and production of gas by the development had permanently ceased;

(ii) post-production had permanently ceased.

29 Minister to decide whether amended provisions are controlling provisions for certain controlled actions

(1) This item applies in relation to an action if:

(a) a proposal by a person to take the action was referred to the Minister under Division 1 of Part 7 of the main Act before the commencement day; and

(b) the action involves unconventional gas development; and

(c) item 26 does not apply in relation to the action; and

(d) before the commencement day, the Minister decided under section 75 of the main Act that the action is a controlled action; and

(e) immediately before the commencement day, the Minister has not decided whether or not to approve the taking of action under Part 9 of the main Act.

(2) The Minister must, before the end of the transitional period, decide in accordance with this item whether any provisions of section 24D or 24E of the main Act as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule are controlling provisions for the action.

(3) Before making the decision, the Minister must give the person proposing to take the action a written notice:

(a) setting out the decision the Minister proposes to make; and

(b) inviting the person to give the Minister written comments on the proposed decision within 10 business days (measured in Canberra) of the day the notice is given to the person.

(4) Before making the decision, the Minister (the Environment Minister) may:

(a) notify any other Minister whom the Environment Minister considers has administrative responsibilities relating to the proposed decision; and

(b) invite the relevant Minister to give the Environment Minister written comments on the proposed decision, within 10 business days (measured in Canberra).

(5) If the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the Minister does not have enough information to make a decision under subitem (2), the Minister may request the person proposing to take the action to provide specified information relevant to making the decision.

(6) If the Minister requests further information under subitem (5), the period within which the Minister is required to make a decision under subitem (2) is extended by the number of business days in the period:

(a) starting on the day the Minister requests the information; and

(b) ending on the day the Minister receives the last of the information requested.

(7) In making a decision under subitem (2), the Minister must consider:

(a) any comments received within the period specified in an invitation given under paragraph (3)(b) or (4)(b); and

(b) any further information provided in response to a request made under subitem (5); and

(c) any information included in the referral of the proposal to take the action relating to whether the action is a controlled action; and

(d) any other information, or any comments, relating to whether the action is a controlled action received (whether before or after the commencement day) in response to an invitation made before the commencement day under section 74 of the main Act.

(8) Subsections 75(2), (2A) and (2B) of the main Act apply in relation to the Minister's decision under this item:

(a) as if it were a decision under that section; and

(b) as if references to matters protected by provisions of Part 3 were references to matters protected by provisions of sections 24D and 24E of the main Act as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule.

(9) Within 10 business days after making a decision under subitem (2), the Minister must:

(a) give written notice of the decision to the person proposing to take the action; and

(b) publish notice of the decision in accordance with any regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 77(1)(b) of the main Act.

(10) The Minister must give reasons for the decision to the person proposing to take the action if the person makes a written request, within 28 days of being given the notice, that the Minister do so. The Minister must do so as soon as practicable, and in any case, within 28 days of receiving the request.

(11) The main Act has effect, after the Minister makes a decision under subitem (2) (the new controlling provisions decision), as if the decision mentioned in paragraph (1)(d) (the original controlling provisions decision) were varied to give effect to the new controlling provisions decision.

(12) The validity of the original controlling provisions decision, and any other decision made under Part 7, 8 or 9 of the main Act before the Minister made the new controlling provisions decision:

(a) is not affected by the making of the new controlling provisions decision; and

(b) cannot be revoked, varied, suspended, challenged, reviewed, set aside or called in question because of, or for reasons relating to:

(i) the making of the new controlling provisions decision; or

(ii) the variation of the original controlling provisions decision as described in subitem (11).

(13) Anything done by the Minister under this item is not invalid merely because it was not done within the period required by this item. However, this does not reduce or remove an obligation under this item to do a thing within a particular period.

30 Minister to consider whether assessment approach should be changed

(1) This item applies in relation to an action if:

(a) the Minister has decided under subitem 29(2) that provisions of sections 24D and 24E of the main Act as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule are controlling provisions for the action (the new controlling provisions decision); and

(b) before the commencement day, the Minister had made a decision under section 87 of the main Act as to the approach to be used for assessment of the relevant impacts of the action.

(2) The Minister may, before the end of the period within which the Minister is required to make the new controlling provisions decision, decide whether, as a result of the new controlling provisions decision, a different approach should be used for assessment of the relevant impacts of the action.

(3) If the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the Minister does not have enough information to make a decision under subitem (2), the Minister may request the person proposing to take the action to provide specified information relevant to making the decision.

(4) If the Minister requests further information under subitem (3), the period within which the Minister is required to make a decision under subitem (2) is extended by the number of business days in the period:

(a) starting on the day the Minister requests the information; and

(b) ending on the day the Minister receives the last of the information requested.

(5) In making a decision under subitem (2), the Minister must consider:

(a) any further information provided in response to a request made under subitem (3); and

(b) any comments or information received or provided as mentioned in paragraph 29(7)(a) and (b) relating to the approach to be used for assessment of the relevant impacts of the action; and

(c) any information included in the referral of the proposal to take the action relating to the approach to be used for assessment of the relevant impacts of the action; and

(d) any other information, or any comments, relating to the approach to be used for assessment of the relevant impacts of the action received (whether before or after the commencement day) in response to an invitation made before the commencement day under section 74 of the main Act.

(6) Subsections 82(1) and (4) of the main Act apply in relation to the Minister's decision under subitem (2), as if references in those provisions to controlling provisions were references to provisions of sections 24D and 24E of the main Act as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule.

(7) Within 10 business days after making a decision under subitem (2), the Minister must:

(a) give written notice of the decision to the person proposing to take the action; and

(b) publish notice of the decision in accordance with any regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 91(1)(b) of the main Act.

(8) The Minister must give reasons for the decision to the person proposing to take the action if the person makes a written request, within 28 days of being given the notice, that the Minister do so. The Minister must do so as soon as practicable, and in any case, within 28 days of receiving the request.

(9) The main Act has effect, after the Minister makes a decision under subitem (2) (the new assessment approach decision), as if the decision mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) (the original assessment approach decision) were varied to give effect to the new assessment approach decision.

(10) The validity of the original assessment approach decision, and any other decision made under Part 7, 8 or 9 of the main Act before the Minister made the new assessment approach decision:

(a) is not affected by the making of the new assessment approach decision; and

(b) cannot be revoked, varied, suspended, challenged, reviewed, set aside or called in question because of, or for reasons relating to:

(i) the making of the new assessment approach decision; or

(ii) the variation of the original assessment approach decision as described in subitem (9).

(11) Anything done by the Minister under this item is not invalid merely because it was not done within the period required by this item. However, this does not reduce or remove an obligation under this item to do a thing within a particular period.

31 Transitional rules

(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments or repeals made by Part 1 of this Schedule.

(2) Rules made before the end of the period of 6 months starting on the commencement day may provide that provisions of this Part have effect with any modifications prescribed by the rules. The provisions then have effect as if they were so modified.

(3) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:

(a) create an offence or civil penalty;

(b) provide powers of:

(i) arrest or detention; or

(ii) entry, search or seizure;

(c) impose a tax;

(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Schedule or the main Act;

(e) directly amend the text of this Schedule or the main Act.

(4) This Schedule (other than subitem (3)) does not limit the rules that may be made under this item.

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

I appreciate that outline from the minister about where we're at now. It sort of broadly lines up with the coalition's understanding of the rushed and botched process off the back of a fairly protracted committee process.

To that end, I'll go back to the supplementary explanatory memorandum that's been tabled by the government in relation to the consequential amendments. The minister talked about having worked closely with Minister Bowen and other entities. I presume the Australian Greens were in there. I'm trying to understand what has been proposed here. We have the backdrop of the cost-of-living crisis that this country is engulfed in at the moment. The people who frequent the public gallery to observe debate here are probably disappointed. Lack of supply has an impact on the price of gas. We talk about certainty about what will be provided as a result of this bill.

The water trigger that we are being asked to pass with an hour and five minutes of debate remaining was only tabled at 5.52, less than two hours ago. I'm wondering what consultation has occurred with industry. I know we get derided by the Australian Greens political party for talking about that—

given, as Senator Scarr points out by way of interjections, the jobs they create and the resources they provide to the economy. As far as I can recall from the committee hearings I attended and the evidence I read, this was not actually contemplated by the Senate committee. What consultation was undertaken with industry about these consequential amendments that were moved by way of very vague motion? Which projects does the government know will be caught up and what modelling has been undertaken around the impact of the passage of these extraneous amendments?

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

I see that Senator Hanson-Young is on her feet, so, given the time, I will keep my remarks brief. The minister and her office have spoken with a range of affected and interested businesses and other organisations, as you'd expect with this kind of legislative reform. You ask about impacts on gas prices. This change will not impact existing gas projects whatsoever. What the changes do is keep pace with changing technology. Shale gas fracking was not on the cards when the water trigger was introduced in 2013. If it had been, it would logically have been included in the definition. The changes simply ensure that there is a level playing field for all unconventional gas projects that have the potential to have significant impacts on water. This was a change that we committed to at the election. Industry have had plenty of time to prepare for this change, and importantly, these changes will give the community confidence that the impacts of unconventional gas production and water resources will be properly regulated by the Commonwealth.

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

Australians are sick of the greenwashing and the greed of big corporations wrecking our environment and fuelling climate change. That is why today the Greens have secured major reforms in this piece of legislation, to protect our waterways from fracking and our wildlife from big developers intent on destroying habitat. The Greens have secured an agreement from the government to drop dodgy offsets from their nature repair scheme. We have ensured the passage of an expanded water trigger in our environment laws before the end of the year, which we know is crucial, to force fracking projects to undergo environmental assessment for their impact on water, which is owned by all Australians. These significant environmental reforms will go a long way to protecting nature and climate from greenwashed destruction and dangerous fracking.

The inclusion of offsets in a scheme to protect nature was a red flag to begin with and was a key concern raised by the Greens, the environment sector and many others around the country. Allowing corporations to pay to destroy nature is not nature positive. An offset scheme would not save our wildlife but would greenwash the expansion of habitat destruction for fossil fuels, logging and big development, which harm our environment. Scrapping these controversial offsets is key to ensuring that this scheme will not allow greenwashing and will not supercharge the destruction of nature.

The Greens' amendment, agreed to by the government, will explicitly ensure that no biodiversity credits generated under the scheme can be used for offsetting. This will ensure that this nature repair scheme is truly a voluntary biodiversity accreditation scheme. This can facilitate private investment in nature to work alongside the much-needed government investment in biodiversity to help protect and restore nature. That is going to be a job still to do.

This scheme can help unlock private land to facilitate biodiversity restoration and allow groups like farmers or First Nations communities to undertake projects to restore wildlife biodiversity and habitat in their area. First Nations communities must be at the forefront of nature protection and restoration. It is critical that this scheme prioritise engagement with First Nations communities to cooperate on potential projects. Indigenous led land management is the most effective and efficient means by which to improve biodiversity outcomes, and this amended scheme can help facilitate that. Protection and restoration projects that work to ensure additional biodiversity outcomes are critical to targets like achieving zero extinctions and protecting 30 per cent of land and sea by 2030. By excluding offsets—banning offsets, dumping offsets—and stopping these projects from being used to justify disruption elsewhere, this scheme really could help work towards those targets.

This scheme does not and cannot replace government investment and leadership in biodiversity protection and restoration. Critically, the Greens have also received a commitment from the government to regularly publish investment strategies to guide this biodiversity accreditation scheme and any priority projects. By scrapping dodgy offsets, the Greens have successfully stopped this scheme from becoming greenwashing destruction. Instead, it will now facilitate private investment in real, accredited biodiversity restoration that is good for the environment. Dumping offsets was always an important part of winning Greens support for this legislation. We fought hard for it and tonight we will deliver it.

As part of this agreement, the Greens have also secured agreement that an expanded water trigger will pass into law by the end of this year. This will close the loophole which currently gives gas fracking corporations a licence to drill without there being any federal environmental water assessment. Currently, the Minister for the Environment and Water is required to assess only proposed coal seam gas projects for their water impact. Hydraulic fracturing projects remain exempt from this requirement despite their significant impact on water. Clearly, this is wrong and out-of-date and needs fixing. Today, after months of campaigning and negotiating, the Greens will ensure this is fixed. This water trigger will cover all phases of unconventional gas development, including exploration, appraisal and production. It will provide critical protection for Australia's rivers, aquifers and wetlands and the communities that rely on them. It will ensure that climate bombs like the Beetaloo basin must be assessed; that they can't just go ahead without any national oversight. It will throw a lifeline to water resources like the mighty Roper River in the Northern Territory.

Fracking uses enormous volumes of water and puts ground and surface water at risk of contamination. This extended water trigger will ensure the minister is required to undertake rigorous assessment of these projects and their impacts on critical water resources. The Greens, alongside many environmental and First Nations groups, have worked tirelessly to ensure this trigger is extended to cover destructive fracking projects. I want to thank in particular the delegation of traditional owners from the Northern Territory who visited parliament earlier this year to tell us about the impacts of fracking on their country. They said:

We know this planned gas fracking will make climate change worse. We know if this fracking goes ahead we may not be able to live on country like we have for thousands and thousands of years. We need your help to keep our culture, our water, our climate and our children's futures safe.

Our water, our land and our climate are all linked. These new environmental protections are critical in recognising this and protecting water resources into the future from the impacts of dangerous fracking. This is a hit on gas fracking corporations in places like the Beetaloo and the Kimberley. Closing the fracking loophole via the water trigger will mean gas companies will no longer be able to bypass Australia's environment laws, and fossil fuel companies will not be let off the hook for wrecking waterways and our climate.

After months of pressure and negotiation, the Albanese government has listened to the Greens' calls to deliver significant environmental reforms to protect nature and the climate from greenwashed habitat destruction and dangerous fracking—gas fracking. Scrapping the dodgy offsets that would facilitate the destruction of nature is critical to ensuring biodiversity investment that is additional and has integrity. Ensuring that damaging projects undergo environmental assessment is also critical for protecting biodiversity and our climate and communities. I want to thank the crossbenchers who will support these amendments that will be moved by the Greens and those we have negotiated with the government. I also want to thank Senator McCarthy in this place, who I know is very passionate about the water trigger in particular. I also want to thank Dr Sophie Scamps in the other place, who has fought hard to have this water trigger put in place as well.

Many, many Australians have long argued for an expanded water trigger—and tonight this is what they will get—to protect our environment and our waterways and to stop gas companies rigging the system, bypassing environment laws and thinking they can have whatever they want. Under these new laws, that will no longer be allowed.

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

I'm pleased that at least we can now be honest—because there you have it. That contribution by the Greens' environment spokesperson actually laid out clearly exactly what has been going on here. It was a contribution given with a high degree of certainty which, to my mind, didn't exist until very recently. It sounds to me, as described by Senator Hanson-Young, that this has been in the making for quite some time. I commend the Greens for being the green tail that wags the Labor dog—again—and for being able to achieve these outcomes which, frankly, I feel are going to have a disastrous impact on the Australian economy and the cost of living. For all the things that have been said, this is not going to end well for Australians.

In the last answer that was given to me by the minister, it was put to me that a range of entities, individuals and organisations were consulted—no names. I'd appreciated it if there were names provided. I'd also be interested to know whether a regulatory impact statement was undertaken by the government in preparing these last-minute amendments. I'd also be interested to know exactly when these amendments were finalised—the date and time they were finalised—because, as I've already put on the record number of times in this debate, we received these amendments at 5.52, with the supplementary explanatory memorandum.

There are big changes afoot. They're going to have a significant impact. I think we're going to see a huge amount of duplication. These changes, I believe, will just pave another road for green lawfare to occur. That's great news for the environmental defenders office and bad news for gas consumers, bad news for the economy and bad news for the cost of living. But, I tell you what, that is exactly what certain people in this place proudly fight for, and good on them. That is something that they can stand up for. But I just have to reflect, in asking these questions, on the shambolic nature of where we are today. Just a day and a half away from this place rising for the summer break, from people going back to their electorates, we are rushing this legislation through as if it is going to change the world.

Just last Friday, contributions were sought from senators in relation to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill. There was the majority senators report, which of course told us the bill was amazing and needed no change whatsoever and recommended that the Senate pass the bill as drafted. There was the coalition dissenting report. Our position remains the same on this piece of legislation. We still think it's terrible. We still think it's bad. We still think it's unnecessary to go down this path for all of the reasons I've already outlined—all of the uncertainty it's going to bring about.

We can go through the various contributions to the committee inquiry. Lyndon Schneiders is the executive director of the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation. There was a big element of the debate that took place in relation to these bills during the committee process, and that was a fundamental principle that I thought everyone—or at least non-government senators—shared and stuck to. That was the need to deal with the EPBC Act first, to be able to get a framework legislation around national environmental approval laws in place, have the national environmental standards bedded down and have all of the other relevant elements put in place so we knew exactly what the landscape was going to be. That suddenly isn't a problem anymore. I will quote Lyndon Schneiders again, someone I probably won't quote too many times in this place. The executive director of the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation said:

We recommend that the NRM (Nature Repair Market) Bill be delayed until Parliament has been presented with key EPBC reforms, including proposed National Environmental Standards for environmental offsets, regional planning, and threatened species protection, to demonstrate that a rigorous and high integrity regulatory system will support the operation of the Nature Repair Market.

Those concerns appear to have fallen on deaf ears tonight because we are wading into this area of legislative change, which is going to have significant impacts—and I do dispute what the minister said in the claim that this will have zero impact on the cost of gas because it won't affect existing projects. Sadly, supply is a key element to being able to meet demand and therefore has an impact on gas prices. So I don't buy that, and I think you will rue the day that you made those comments.

Given the concerns around that—and, in one of the hearings, Senator Hanson-Young herself made those very comments to departmental officials about this bill being in tatters and it being an absolute sham. But suddenly now it's okay to support it because of some amendments that appeared out of nowhere on the day we're debating this legislation. It just smacks of a Labor-Greens stitch-up, something we should have come to expect in this place. It's something that, sadly, is becoming a hallmark of this government in this term of parliament, where it looks like there's a proper fight on and that there's going to be some consistency and integrity shown by political parties, who go into a process saying, 'You know what? These are our red-line issues and we're not going to budge,' until they budge and they get a deal done behind closed doors, where there is no scrutiny and where there is no regulatory assessment of the impact that these new laws and regulations will have.

There is no modelling done on what cost implications there will be for individuals or entities seeking to commence a new project. We don't know how many organisations will be caught up in this, with projects that are planned. Surely the government, who work with entities out there, have some understanding of exactly what is in the offing. I haven't got an answer to that and I suspect we won't have one because there is no modelling and there is no concern for what this might mean for the economy, for the community and for the cost of living. It is, as I said before, simply about getting a deal done so that they can claim they have a win at the end of the year in order to try and cover over what has been one of the most shambolic fortnights in parliament, where we have seen terrible things happening and the government trying to pretend there are no issues at all.

More broadly, against the backdrop of a government that can't get its act together when it comes to environmental policy, we were promised that the national environmental law replacement, the replacement for the EPBC Act, would be in this place before the end of this year. We have a couple of days left, and there is nothing—not a thing to be seen with regard to that promise that was made by the government. And I wonder why. Why have they done the go-slow on that? Again, it points to the need for this government and this minister, Minister Plibersek, to get a win. And today she gets a win and the Australian Greens get a win. The people of Australia are the ones who are going to pay for the deal.

But, again, I'd love to know exactly who was consulted in the preparation of these additional consequential amendments that we're discussing right now. Was a regulatory impact statement done, and when, precisely, were these amendments finalised with the Greens given, as I said before, they were tabled at 5.52 this evening?

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

Senator Duniam asked about particular organisations that have been consulted in relation to, I think, the water reforms. I think the senator would accept that the Nature Repair Market Bill has been the subject of consultation and discussion through the Senate inquiry, and, indeed, he referred to that in his earlier remarks.

But I'm advised that the minister has spoken with, amongst others, Santos, Beach Energy, Tamboran, Empire Energy, and Australian Energy Producers about the amendments that are proposed. But I do reiterate my earlier remarks, which are these. The government went to an election indicating our intention to introduce a water trigger that would cover unconventional gas projects. This is not a surprise. It shouldn't be a surprise to the opposition and will not be a surprise to industry either. In relation to regulatory impact statement requirements, the government has met its RIS requirements. A RIS was undertaken on the nature repair market, and the Samuel review into the EPBC Act satisfies the RIS requirement in relation to the water trigger generally.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'm interested to learn why the government hasn't included extended standing in this legislation in a similar way to section 487 of the EPBC Act. I understand that you believe that the market will function well. So, I'm interested as to why you don't then have extended standing as a precaution. And just to clarify: I mean for the nature repair market part of this; the water trigger's fine.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are there any further questions while the minister seeks that advice?

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

I want to continue with this theme of consultation. Previously I referred to Minister Plibersek's comments on 15 May telling ABC Radio National 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.

Minister, we know that an exposure draft hadn't been released for this bill. You mentioned that it was no surprise that there was a water trigger coming. But surely the detail of these changes, these legislated black-letter law changes to the water trigger, matters. It matters how the legislation is written. So, my question to you is: when were relevant stakeholders advised that this bill would be debated this week? Were stakeholders consulted prior to the guillotine motion being passed by the government? And when did stakeholders—you named Tamboran and Empire, amongst others—see the black-letter legislation that we're now looking at?

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

In relation to the questions asked by Senator McDonald and by Senator Pocock, they're obviously questions where I need to seek advice from departmental staff. And I am the repping minister, so I apologise for not being able to provide the answer immediately, but I am seeking advice and will come back to the chamber when I'm able.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you said in some of your previous remarks that you had taken a water trigger to the election. I'm just interested, in terms of timing, as to why the government hasn't brought that in the past 18 months, given that there are the numbers in the Senate to pass that swiftly. And now we've got this attached to an unrelated bill in these circumstances where I don't think we have adequate time to scrutinise the nature repair market.

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

Senator, you'll know, because we've talked about it at estimates and in other forums, that the government is seeking to progress an ambitious reform agenda around environment protection generally, of which nature repair one part. The amendment to create a water trigger that would cover all forms of unconventional gas is another. Further, there are the broader reforms around the EPBC Act that arose in part from the consideration of these questions undertaken by Professor Samuel under the previous government. This is a big legislative agenda. We have sought to progress it in the most efficient way possible. We know it requires consultation and discussion. We find ourselves in a position this week to progress two important parts of the government's agenda—the first being the establishment of the arrangements for the nature repair market and the second to put in place a water trigger. I think that you would support the latter. I'm uncertain about your views about the nature repair market as described in our legislation. But we look for opportunities to work with people within the parliament to progress our agenda and it's on that basis we are bringing forward the legislation this evening.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I assume we're still waiting for the previous answers. Thank you for that, Minister. It's disappointing that with a government that promises things like a water trigger and has a Senate urging it to get on with that and do it we have to wait 18 months and that it's been bundled into the NRM and pushed through like this when you could have brought it forward at any time. It took a crossbench deal to get you to come good on an environment election commitment, but we see the government very keen to put other election commitments through. Minister, my question is: will the government commit to no reduction in funding for nature and invasive species management after the market is created? The market cannot be a substitute for investment in public good.

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

Senator Pocock, I think you are asking whether the nature repair market and the arrangements that we are putting in place to allow the private sector to make investments in nature repair are the full extent of the government's plans in relation to protecting our environment, and the answer, of course, is no. We understand that there is an enormous amount of work to do in relation to restoring and protecting our environment.

Part of this arises from a very extended period of neglect. The government previously led by Mr Morrison and, before him, Mr Turnbull and, before him, Mr Abbott got report after report—including the State of the environment report and the review of the Water for the Environment Special Account—that showed them that nature was in serious strife, in serious trouble, and that the measures that they were supposed to be pursuing to protect assets like the Murray-Darling Basin were not on track. Instead of acting on those reports and on that information that was provided to them, they hid them. They got an independent review from Professor Samuel that showed that the environment laws were broken and they did nothing serious about that independent review to fix those laws. They refused to act on climate change, a question that we have addressed in other debates. They announced 22 different energy policies and didn't land any of them.

So we understand that there is a lot of work to do. Establishing a framework where we can harness private sector investment to support the repair of our natural assets is one part of that, but so is government funding for nature repair and so are better laws to protect our environment when we are contemplating development and so are arrangements to create additional protected areas so that there are parts of the terrestrial environment and the marine environment that are actually protected and the animals and plants that live in them are looked after. All of these things form part of a comprehensive package to tackle issues around the environment. This is not the beginning and the end of the things that our government considers important.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand your points about the previous government. I've got two questions. Given we're 18 months in, firstly, I’m interested in which of Graeme Samuel's recommendations the Albanese government have implemented. And, secondly, one of the things that kept coming up in the consultation I did on the nature repair market was that everyone said that there will need to be government investment to get this started. If you look at the carbon market, the ERF—a couple of billion dollars or $1.5 billion put into kickstarting that and actually getting a pipeline of projects. Every stakeholder seemed to say: 'Yes, it could potentially work. There are some integrity issues with the Clean Energy Regulator administering something like biodiversity,' which is not exactly fungible and a lot more complex than carbon. My question is how much money is the Albanese government committing to creating that demand and creating a pipeline of projects?

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

I am able to come back to you now, Senator Pocock, in relation to the approach taken to both administrative review and merits review. The bill does define administrative decisions of the Clean Energy Regulator that can be reviewed, and they include refusal to register a project or refusal to issue a biodiversity certificate. Merits review of the decision can be initiated by a person aggrieved by the decision of the regulator, and this includes the person who made the application for the decision, and a decision of a delegate of the regulator would generally be reviewed internally before it can proceed by application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

As you probably know, our government has initiated reforms to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the new model will apply to the nature repair market through relevant legislative amendments. The minister's decisions to make, vary or revoke a method or biodiversity assessment instrument or the advice of the independent advisory committee are not subject to merits review as they are not administrative decisions. The methods and biodiversity instrument are legislative instruments and subject to normal parliamentary process, including disallowance and sunsetting. Methods and biodiversity assessment instruments will be developed in consultation with stakeholders and must be reviewed by the independent advisory committee.

The committee's advice is not subject to merits review. However, the process for creating the advice involves a rigorous statutory process with many integrity elements, including public consultation. The final advice will be published along with submissions to public consultation and a statement of reasons by the minister, and this provides transparency about the advice and how elements such as the biodiversity integrity standards have been applied.

In addition, the independent statutory reviews of the bill conducted every five years will include a review of the operation of the committee and the kinds of advice provided to the committee. Decisions made under the bill may also be reviewed under relevant judicial review legislation in relation to errors of law.

For most matters that are the subject of merits or judicial review, the bill allows people directly affected by a decision to ask for a review or appeal the decision, and examples of people who can request a review would include a person who has been refused the issuance of a certificate and a person directly affected by the approval of a project being registered, such as a neighbour. However, the bill does not provide for open standing for such appeals, nor for injunctions to enforce compliance by proponents and others. We have not included this, because open-standing provisions could present a number of risks, including a disincentive for participation in what is a voluntary market, the potential for provisions to be used by one proponent against another with whom they are in competition and undermining the Clean Energy Regulator's approach of bringing a noncompliant proponent back into compliance.

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

In the last estimate hearings, Minister Farrell committed that the government would not break any long-term LNG export contracts with our international allies. This amendment now jeopardises the development of future gas supplies in Australia for both export and domestic use. There remains considerable risk of gas shortfalls, as forecast by the ACCC and AEMO, and of course this flows on to considerable risk to the jobs of all those Australians employed on these projects. I want to understand whether or not Minister Farrell has told our international partners, like Japan and Korea, that the government is now actively targeting promising new gas suppliers in the Beetaloo with their water trigger. Or has Assistant Minister Ayres, who parades himself as a champion of the manufacturing industry, told Australian manufacturers that their gas supply may now be at risk because of yet another secret deal done with the Greens political party, who just want to shut down their gas?

I want to turn again to the amendments on sheet SF110, circulated at around 6 pm this evening. The sheet has a list of unconventional gas production definitions, which are markedly similar to the definitions introduced by the Greens in their proposed water trigger. Minister, in the amendment on sheet SF110, is it possible to vary the definition of 'unconventional gas' under section 528(d), which states 'any other sources prescribed by the regulations'?

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

Senator McDonald, I'm advised that that is a regulation-making power, and it is there to allow the act to keep up with technology. But I think you will also see that the same part of the bill sets out the three primary areas where we are aware that there is a disparity between the way different forms of unconventional gas are treated under the current arrangements.

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

With the catch-all of 'any other sources prescribed by the regulations', would it be possible for the regulations under this act to be varied to include gas from the seabed, much like in the definition that the Greens political party put forward in their own Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023 [No. 2]? I want to clarify that this bill would not currently require but does enable regulations which would capture all offshore gas extraction, should the definition of 'unconventional' be changed. I want to understand: is the Minister for the Environment and Water the determining minister for these regulations? Does consultation with any other ministers or state jurisdictions have to occur prior to this change?

Section 528(b) on page 3 of sheet SF110 includes references to projects covered by the amendment 'when considered with other developments, whether past, present or reasonably foreseeable developments'. Minister, what is considered 'other developments' in this context? Will it include pipelines, transport infrastructure or storage facilities? I want to understand what consultation has occurred with regard to the wideranging scope of this caveat. Given that these amendments were only circulated at 6 pm this evening, I would imagine that saying 'we will be introducing a water trigger' is a very broad topic.

Minister, finally—this is my last block of questions—AEMO and the ACCC have warned of imminent gas supply shortfalls as early as this summer. They've recommended a range of solutions, which include the urgent need for upgraded pipeline capacity from Queensland to the southern states—suitable storage facilities. Without these upgrades and an urgent increase in gas supply, households and businesses may face blackouts and energy shortages this summer. Does the amendment to the EPBC water trigger in this bill increase or decrease the regulatory burden on gas companies? Is the government concerned that this capitulations to the Greens political party's demands to rush this amendment will impede the approval of other developments, which will risk gas supply? Finally, has the government done any consultation on the risk to future investments in gas projects in Australia that will affect future royalties, company taxes, PAYG taxes and employment of hardworking Australians?

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

Senator McDonald, I appreciate you putting all those questions on the record in the way that you have. I hope that you will understand that I will take some time to assemble all the information you have requested. In the meantime, chair, perhaps I could respectfully suggest that other senators could make a contribution while I seek the information sought?

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly. Senator Roberts?

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

As a servant of the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, it's my duty to ensure I deal with every bill that comes before the Senate fully and properly. All too often, this government does dodgy deals with the Teals, the crossbench and the Greens to get legislation through without scrutiny. This is legislation that's written for reasons of ideology, not human need, and that as a result makes things worse. This is legislation that must get through without debate, lest the electorate be informed about what the government is really doing to them in the name of the United Nations' sustainable development goals.

I'm speaking about the Nature Repair Bill 2023, only 30 minutes from when the vote will be taken, yet I'm speaking to an interim bill. The massive amendments to this bill, which I know now are substantial, had not been revealed to the Senate just an hour ago. It appears to be the government's plan to provide the amendments and then require an immediate vote. That was exactly what we saw. That's not how the house of review, our Senate, works.

Even more troubling is that the government now has a motion that would allow the Greens to amend the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act as part of this bill—news to us until an hour ago. What that means is the Greens, with Teal Senator Pocock's support, are being allowed to put a bill of their own making onto the end of the government's bill and then vote it all through—a bill we can't read, can't amend and can't debate.

There's a longstanding convention in the Senate that we do one bill at a time and amend only the bill at hand, a rule the government are happy to ignore when they get desperate enough numbers to do a deal with the Greens and Teals. This isn't parliamentary process; it is undemocratic dictatorship. What a joke, and the people will be paying for it. When we call the Greens watermelons—green on the outside and red on the inside—this is why. Soviet Russia would pull a stunt like this, not democratic Australia.

I've spoken on several occasions recently on how this Labor government is best friends with the world's predatory parasitic billionaires. This bill is a perfect example of that. Like the failed national electricity market, which is really a racket, this bill allows large corporations to greenwash their businesses. To explain, greenwashing allows a business—most likely a foreign multinational company—to make a claim such as being 'net zero friendly'. That's simply not true. They're deceiving investors and customers in the process. They get to net zero by purchasing green certificates or carbon dioxide credits to balance out the environmental costs supposedly incurred in their business operation. A European Union report found that 95 per cent of carbon dioxide credits came from projects that did not make a difference to the environment, and Europol just a few years ago said 95 per cent are crooked. In other words, it's all a con.

The mining industry have come out in favour of offsets, which they call 'avoided-loss offsets'. These offsets occur after purchasing and improving an area of land with the same habitat as that which is destroyed or damaged in the development. This may appear to be mining-friendly, yet it's really more expense and more green tape that would best be handled through the existing system of remediation—put it back the way you found it, or better, which is what is happening. Indeed, one could be concerned that these avoided loss offsets are an alternative to remediation. I certainly hope not.

The bill helps wind turbines with the horrible problem of clubbing koalas on the koalas' property—clubbing them to death! They could literally club 10 koalas to death and then buy a national biodiversity certificate for 10 new koalas bred somewhere else. As we speak, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit's review is underway. The review is looking at a thousand carbon dioxide credit generating projects to see if they were fair dinkum and have been kept up. The lessons from that review were going to be added to this bill to ensure the national biodiversity certificate system was legitimate. Bringing forward this bill actually ruins that process.

One Nation opposes greenwashing, although, in most cases, we would suggest that the better option would be for our mining and manufacturing industries to first use environmentally friendly techniques, as they usually do. Then, having done that, be proud of their role in developing the economy, providing jobs and supplying materials that people need for a life of abundance. Perhaps that's just we conservatives taking care of the natural environment and taking care of people. Some submissions to the Senate inquiry called on the government to purchase the certificates themselves to provide certainty that, should a project be completed, there would be someone to buy the resulting certificate. Minister Plibersek has ruled this out—the only decision in this whole process One Nation can support.

I was amused with the submission from champagne socialists in the Byron Shire Council, who submitted that—quote—'free market alone may not facilitate rapid uptake of this scheme,' and called on the federal government to kickstart the market by committing to purchasing certificates itself. It will never stop. I would think that the federal government would be better off spending money on tax cuts for working Australians and paying off our debt so that interest rates come down, but that's just conservative values again—human values; real environmental values.

Minister Plibersek has described this bill as creating a 'green Wall Street'. Wall Street provides a means for financing businesses to expand productive capacity. This bill provides a means to restrict productive capacity through taking productive farmland and returning it to Gaia. I don't see the comparison with a genuine financial product, unless the minister was making a comparison to Bernie Madoff. That would be accurate in that case. The product itself, biodiversity credits, is subjective and, over time, will require more and more personnel to conduct compliance on an ever-increasing number of projects, just like the National Electricity Market—the racket. This does not increase productive capacity. It does increase bureaucracy at the public's expense, of course.

Many submissions opposed the use of these certificates for environmental offsets, including the Greens', and I note their amendments remove the offsets for the purpose of these certificates. This would seem a significant conflict between the minister's intent and the Greens' intent. What a mess! The Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 is a solution to a problem that has not yet been defined and does not meet real needs, just like the failed National Electricity Market.

The government is working on an update on the entire Environmental Protection and Biosecurity Conservation Act—the EPBC—informed by the Samuels review into the legislation from three years ago. Those amendments will frame the problem this bill is supposedly solving. This is something that Senator Thorpe has correctly pointed out in the second reading amendment, which I will support. How do you pass a bill like this ahead of the implementation of the Samuels review? How do we know which projects should be supported and which are not needed, or, worse, which projects are a load of bollocks, like the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull, as most climate projects are—climate fraud?

In relation to ensuring integrity around the use of offsets, the Australian government is working to introduce a new national environmental standard for actions and restoration contributions. This new standard is expected to include a requirement that offsets must deliver net gain for impacted protected matters and that biodiversity projects certified under the Nature Repair Market Bill will only be able to be used as offsets if they meet the new standard. What new standard? Oh, wait, you haven't written it yet! Great. Minister Plibersek is trying to pass a bill that implements a standard that hasn't been written yet. Can someone please give the government's legislation chocolate wheel back to rotary and we'll go back to doing things properly—you know, in the correct order.

This legislation implements something called the Nature Positive Plan. That sounds good. This is the government's overarching environmental blueprint. I notice that, on page 32, this plan includes a provision that traditional owners will have more control over Commonwealth national parks. More control! Australians who are used to bushwalking, camping and generally enjoying the beautiful national parks Australia offers are flat out of luck under this Labor government. 'No nature for you. Get back to your 15-minute cities.' That's exactly what the United Nations sustainable development goals do—they reduce everyday Australians to the status of serfs, imprisoned in their 15-minute cities, locked in a digital identity prison, owning nothing and eating bugs instead of real food. I first said that in the Senate in 2016, and the sniggers were obvious. Well, nobody's sniggering now. Now you're all trying to justify the abomination your globalist masters are working to impose.

Over the remainder of the Albanese government, those in this chamber will be required to face the reality of this government's globalist agenda. It's not an agenda written for the benefit of everyday Australians or for the Labor heartland. It's an agenda that serves the self-interest of the world's predatory investment funds, delivered through lobby groups like the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum and implemented repeatedly in legislation like this. It's an agenda that will make life a misery for everyday Australians, sending them back to serfdom. One Nation stands against everything this bill represents. It proudly stands against everything this bill represents.

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

I've got no idea what that was—no idea. But what it does show is that One Nation are always slow to catch up, aren't they? Always slow to catch up. I know there was a lot of chuckling in the chamber as Senator Roberts was speaking. Through the chair: we weren't laughing with you, mate; we were laughing at you. That's what was going on.

No one actually—except, perhaps, Senator Canavan—thinks this is indeed funny. What we've seen here tonight is the defence of the gas industry from this side of the chamber doing the bidding of the big gas companies, the big gas cartel. They just can't help themselves, can they? They've come in here, scurried in here tonight. They've been given their marching orders to stand up for the big gas cartel and the big gas corporations. That's what they've done. And they can't handle it. They can't handle that, in this place, what we are trying to do is make sure that national environment laws are not bypassed, that there are no loopholes, that, if you want to frack in the Northern Territory or frack in the Beetaloo, you have to get an environmental approval before you go and poison people's water. That is what the amendment put forward in this bill will do today—make sure there is scrutiny of these big fracking projects and make sure that companies can't just have free reign over big areas of the Australian country and farmland.

Over and over and over again, I have heard from farmers in the Northern Territory that they are sick and tired of being rolled over and told to sit down and shut up by the big gas companies. Over and over again. They are worried about the quality of the water in their communities. They're worried about the impact that fracking is going to have on groundwater in their local area. They are worried that gas companies are allowed to just start fracking without any national environmental approval. It's 2023, people. We're in a climate crisis, and all we get right now is gas companies thinking they can call the shots. Well, no more. No more. Under these amendments, gas corporations are going to be held to account. There are going to be no more loopholes. Santos, I'm sure, are not happy, and I'm sure Tamboran are not happy. But, of course, over and over and over again, we see members of the National and Liberal parties come in here to do the bidding of the big gas cartel. They know who their mouthpieces are in this place, and it's this lot over there.

Opposition senators interjecting—

You just can't—this lot just can't handle it, can they? There is not an environmental protection that doesn't upset them. There is not a piece of environmental law that doesn't rile them up. There is not a piece of environmental protection or a piece of nature that these guys don't want to bulldoze. There is not a piece of nature in this country they don't want to frack. There is not a piece of nature or wilderness in this area that they don't want to log. They want to knock it down, dig it up, burn it—that's all they're good for, over and over again: 'Look, here's our big plan: we're just going to trash everything. Let's just trash everything. Let's burn it, let's dig it up, let's knock it down, let's bulldoze it.' It doesn't really matter what wildlife is left over, it doesn't matter what the condition of the habitat is, and the state of our climate doesn't matter to them; they're a bunch of shills for the gas industry and fossil fuel companies. They can't stand environmental protection in any form. They want to be able to log, dig and burn wherever they can, and it's a time we put a stop to it. That is why the Greens are standing here today—to amend this bill to put some standard of environmental protection in our law to make gas companies have to explain themselves to their local communities, to the landholders, to the farmers and to the traditional owners in areas like the Beetaloo.

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

Noting the range of senators who seek to make a contribution, I will be brief. Senator McDonald asked me a range of questions, and I have assembled some of the information she seeks. She asked whether the minister for the environment would be the determining minister for the regulations. The answer to that question is yes, noting that these regulations must be within the scope of the regulatory power that's provided in the act and that these regulations will be disallowable.

I have further information in relation to the RIS. The EPBC Act review was certified by the Office of Impact Analysis as meeting the requirements of a RIS to support actions in the government's Nature Positive Plan. The full impacts will be measured and published following the introduction of legislation where additional regulatory burdens are identified.

Senator McDonald asked about the capacity for the seabed to be brought within the scope of offshore activity, to be brought within the scope of the water trigger. I am advised that, because the trigger is defined in relation to unconventional gas, that is not likely, as the gas which is presently extracted offshore is conventional. However, should a minister seek to do so, as with the other regulatory arrangements, any such regulation would be disallowable, and the Senate would have an opportunity to consider those matters at that time.

Senator McDonald asked about the provisions which provide for the interaction with other developments. I am advised that this language mirrors the existing language in the bill as it relates to coal seam gas.

Finally, we understand the significance of regulatory certainty on the resource sector and we understand the significance of securing sufficient gas supply to meet our domestic requirements. The truth is that those on the other side of the chamber were warned on at least a dozen occasions when they were in government that Australia was hurtling towards a gas supply problem in the domestic east coast gas market, and their response was 22 failed energy policies that left Australian households and businesses overexposed and underprepared for a global energy crisis. We have taken a very different approach. We have reformed the ADGSM to carefully balance domestic energy needs with Australia's responsibility to meet international contractual obligations—and this is certainty; this is clarity. We've legislated a credible emissions reduction policy, through the strengthened safeguard mechanism, providing the certainty that business has been crying out for on climate policy. And the government's gas code of conduct is working to shield east coast gas consumers from volatile international gas prices and to reduce the risk of supply shortfalls forecast by the Australian Energy Market Operator.

I will leave it there, noting that others wish to make a contribution in the remaining time. The government understands the significance of this industry. We are taking the steps necessary to provide regulatory certainty, and that's important for business and for the community.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this very important debate and draw out some very important key points—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat. Senator Pocock?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This probably isn't a proper point of order. We've got five minutes. Please, no dorothy dixers. We've got serious questions.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Okay. Senator Payman, can you make it extraordinarily short. Senator Canavan, do you have a point of order?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do have a point of order, because the practice of the chamber is to rotate the call. It was with a Labor senator; it really should then have come across to this side.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: It was the minister answering the question of a Liberal—

It's still a Labor senator. The practice is to rotate—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We're not debating this, Senator Canavan. It was the minister answering the questions of Liberal senators. That is what it was. Senator Payman.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Temporary Chair. I just want to highlight the Albanese Labor government's commitment, because it's something that's really important for us, and reflect on what I've heard from my home state of Western Australia: the importance of protection and preservation of the environment being supercritical. It's very rich for those opposite to talk about transparency when this bill is doing exactly that. I'm glad that our minister is taking bold and decisive action to protect, restore and manage our unique environment. I'll leave my remarks there, Chair.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I understand that, under environmental law reforms that have been flagged, the government plans to allow proponents under the EPBC Act to pay into a restoration fund rather than undertaking offsets themselves. I'm interested to know whether the ban on offsets also applies to the government's using money from that fund to buy certificates from the nature repair market.

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

The provisions in this bill prevent the use of certificates created under the provisions as environmental offsets in Commonwealth or state legislative arrangements.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So can the Commonwealth government, under the new environmental laws, use money that is paid into the fund by proponents to then buy certificates? If so, that's clearly an offset, with the government as the middle person.

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

Senator Pocock, I'm advised that the fund you speak of doesn't exist, so the legislation before us doesn't address it or deal with it.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The legislation before us doesn't preclude that happening should the environmental laws be set up in a way where proponents can pay into a fund.

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

Senator Pocock, I don't think I can add to my previous answer. The bill doesn't deal with possible future policies that don't yet exist and are not themselves legislated or established.

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

In the one or two minutes left I will just reflect on the debate that has transpired tonight. We know there's a dodgy deal. We're seeing it play out here. We've had a bit of a confession from the Australian Greens about what's been going on over the last little while, when none of us knew what was happening. We should have known, and we'll know for next time exactly where we're going to end up.

Two words from Senator Hanson-Young ring in my ears: 'no more'. There'll be no more new gas to bring down prices, no more support for households struggling with the cost of living, no more jobs for people in the regional communities where many of these projects exist. Certainly, there'll be no more answers to the questions that have been asked. That's not because the minister can't answer them or doesn't want to. There are no answers to these questions. Senator McAllister is, I think, one of the finest ministers in this place, and I really do look forward to seeing her elevated to the cabinet, because I think there is some room for improvement there, but there are no answers to the questions we're asking. Consultation? Regulatory impact statement? Any impact on the cost of living? No answer, no answer, no answer. This is what happens when, behind closed doors, under the cover of darkness, in smoke-filled rooms—whatever analogy you want to come up with—you find Labor and the Greens doing dodgy deals. Their smiles get bigger the worse this is for Australian households and the economy. Senator McKim's smile couldn't be bigger.

So, Australia, watch out. It's going to be a dark, dark Christmas, with the cost of living going through the roof. They are as happy as they can be because they got their deal. It is a bad day for Australians. But this is what we have come to expect in this brave new world of Labor-Green government—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Duniam. In accordance with the order agreed to yesterday, the time for consideration of the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and a related bill has expired.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the government amendments on sheet SF110 be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():  I will now deal with the amendments to the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 2301 be agreed to.

Australian Greens ' circulated amendment—

(1) Page 1 (line 1) to page 8 (line 22), omit "Market" (wherever occurring).

Question agreed to.

I will now deal with the amendments to the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, starting with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that amendments (1) to (6) and (8) to (11) on sheet 2203 be agreed to.

Australian Greens ' circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 16), omit "Market".

(2) Page 4 (line 21) to page 245 (line 16), omit "Nature Repair Market Committee" (wherever occurring), substitute "Nature Repair Committee".

(3) Clause 7, page 11 (after line 8), after the definition of engage in conduct, insert:

environmental offsetting measure includes, but is not limited to, a measure to offset or compensate for the impacts of an action or project (however described) on the environment that is:

(a) required as a condition of an approval, licence or permit (however described) under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or

(b) directly financed from a fund into which money is paid as a condition of an environmental approval, licence or permit (however described) under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or

(c) undertaken as required or agreed to under a penalty or enforceable undertaking imposed or accepted under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.

(4) Clause 7, page 11 (lines 9 to 13), omit the definition of environmental offsetting purpose, substitute:

environmental offsetting purpose means the purpose of meeting an environmental offsetting requirement (however described) under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory including through an environmental offsetting measure.

(5) Clause 68, page 95 (lines 18 to 20), omit subclause (1A).

(6) Clause 70, page 97 (lines 2 to 8), omit subclause (3), substitute:

(3) A biodiversity certificate must set out such matters (if any) as are specified in the rules.

(8) Clause 71, page 98 (line 20), omit "or 70B".

(9) Clause 76A, page 100 (lines 16 to 22), omit the clause, substitute:

76A Biodiversity certificates not to be used for environmental offsetting purpose

(1) A biodiversity certificate must not be used for an environmental offsetting purpose.

(2) This section has effect despite any other provision of this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth, or a State or Territory.

(3) To avoid doubt, section 225 (Concurrent operation of State and Territory laws) does not apply to this section.

(10) Clause 164, page 187 (lines 12 to 22), omit paragraphs (1)(da) and (db).

(11) Clause 212, page 234 (lines 20 and 21), omit paragraph (fa).

Question agreed to.

The question now is that clause 70B of the Nature Repair Bill stand as printed.

The Australian Greens opposed clause 70B in the following terms—

(7) Clause 70B, page 97 (line 25) to page 98 (line 13), to be opposed.

Question negatived.

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that the amendments on sheets 2310, 2311 and 2314 be agreed to.

Senator Roberts, do you wish the question split?

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

Yes.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I intend now to put the question on sheets 2310 and 2311, and then I will put a subsequent question on sheet 2314. The question is that the amendments on sheets 2310 and 2311 be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—

SHEET 2310

(1) Clause 198, page 226 (lines 3 to 8), omit subclause (4), substitute:

(4) The Minister must ensure that at all times at least one Nature Repair Market Committee member is a person who:

(a) belongs to an Australian First Nations community; and

(b) is recognised in that community as a person with significant standing; and

(c) has substantial experience or knowledge relevant to the functions of the Committee.

_____

SHEET 2311

(1) Clause 3, page 2 (before line 12), before paragraph (a), insert:

(aa) to halt and reverse nature loss, and prevent extinctions, by increasing the health, abundance, diversity and resilience of species, populations and ecosystems; and

(ab) to contribute to the goal of protecting and conserving by 2030:

(i) 30% of land in Australia; and

(ii) 30% of Australian waters; and

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheet 2314 be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendment s

(1) Clause 192, page 219 (lines 8 to 11), omit subclause (2), substitute:

Authorised person

(2) For the purposes of Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act, each of the following persons is an authorised person in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1):

(a) the Chair of the Regulator;

(b) any other person, whether the rights or interests of the person are affected.

(2) Clause 192, page 219 (lines 12 to 14), omit "An authorised person may, in writing, delegate the authorised person's powers and functions under Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act", substitute "The Chair of the Regulator may, in writing, delegate the Chair's powers and functions under Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act as an authorised person".

(3) Clause 211, page 233 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add:

There is extended standing for judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 in relation to decisions made under this Act.

(4) Page 237 (after line 29), at the end of Part 20, add:

Division 3 — Review of administrative decisions

217A Extended standing for judicial review

(1) This section extends (and does not limit) the meaning of the term person aggrieved in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for the purposes of the application of that Act in relation to:

(a) a decision made under this Act; or

(b) a failure to make a decision under this Act; or

(c) conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision under this Act.

(2) Any individual is taken to be a person aggrieved by the decision, failure or conduct.

(3) A term (except person aggrieved) used in this section and in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 has the same meaning in this section as it has in that Act.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that the amendments on sheets 2034, 2316 and 2320 be agreed to. Yes, Senator Roberts?

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

We need to vote separately on 2034.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie?

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Actually, could we please have them all split?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Alright. The question is that the amendments on sheet 2034, circulated by Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 55, page 77 (line 15), before "The Minister", insert: "(1)".

(2) Clause 55, page 77 (lines 23 to 26), omit the note.

(3) Clause 55, page 77 (after line 26), at the end of the clause, add:

(2) Despite regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 44(2)(b) of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 (disallowance) of that Act applies to a direction by the Minister under subsection (1).

Note: Part 4 of Chapter 3 (sunsetting) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to the direction (see regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 54(2)(b) of that Act).

(4) Clause 65A, page 92 (line 18), before "The Minister", insert: "(1)".

(5) Clause 65A, page 92, (lines 26 to 29), omit the note.

(6) Clause 65A, page 92 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add:

(2) Despite regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 44(2)(b) of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 of that Act applies to a direction by the Minister under subsection (1).

Note: Part 4 of Chapter 3 (sunsetting) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to the direction (see regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 54(2)(b) of that Act).

Question negatived.

The question now is that the amendments on sheet 2316, as circulated by Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—

(1) Heading to clause 56, page 78 (line 3), at the end of the heading, add "—general".

(2) Page 79 (after line 7), at the end of Subdivision E, add:

56A Consultation by the Nature Repair Market Committee — Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders

The Nature Repair Market Committee must not advise the Minister whether the Minister should make or vary a methodology determination unless the Committee is satisfied that:

(a) appropriate consultation has been undertaken with any relevant local community of Aboriginal persons, or Torres Strait Islanders, in relation to the proposed determination or variation; and

(b) relevant input received as part of that consultation has been taken into account adequately.

(3) Heading to clause 65, page 91 (line 11), at the end of the heading, add "—general".

(4) Page 92 (after line 15), after clause 65, insert:

65AA Consultation by the Nature Repair Market Committee — Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders

The Nature Repair Market Committee must not advise the Minister whether the Minister should make or vary a biodiversity assessment instrument unless the Committee is satisfied that:

(a) appropriate consultation has been undertaken with any relevant local community of Aboriginal persons, or Torres Strait Islanders, in relation to the proposed instrument or variation; and

(b) relevant input received as part of that consultation has been taken into account adequately.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment on sheet 2320, circulated by Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendment—

(1) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 3 and 4), omit "the owners of that knowledge", substitute ", and with the consent of, the owners of that knowledge to ensure the intellectual property rights of those owners are respected".

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

by leave—I ask that One Nation be recorded as supporting the amendment on sheet 2034.

Bills reported with amendments and an amendment to the title.