Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (21:46): I move the opposition's amendment on sheet 3338: (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 24), after item 1, insert: 1A After paragraph 78A(2)(b) Insert: (ba) be made within the 12-month period starting on the day the decision was made; and 1B Subsection 78C(1) Omit "As soon as practicable", substitute "Within 12 months".

This amendment is related to the timeframes for the period of time a request for reconsideration can be made and the period of time relating to the assessment of the request put before the minister. Our amendment is to shorten those periods of time, at least in the case of the period of time a request for reconsideration can be made, from five years to 12 months—a one-year window in which a request can be made.

We feel that, of course, with the amount of information that is available in the public domain, for members of the community to be able to assess that, that is an adequate period of time. Similarly, we don't think that within the act, as it stands today, 'as soon as practicable' is an adequate and tight enough definition about how long the minister can take to make a decision, hence the insertion of 'within 12 months' to substitute the 'as soon as practicable' terminology in the legislation.

Timeliness is a big problem with the EPBC Act. It has been for a very long time now. Nearly every sitting week in this place, during this term of parliament, there have been issues raised with regard to projects that are currently before the minister or being assessed in the department where timeliness is an issue.

It can be about the time taken to provide information, the time taken to assess information and the time taken by a minister to make a decision about a reconsideration request. For heaven's sake, we have been on this issue now since the tail end of 2023. A reconsideration request was lodged nearly 18 months ago, and we still don't have a decision.

I don't know where the minister was going to go on the question that was before her, and we never will know, because the laws we're passing today, the workaround legislation to get around a minister who chose not to do her job but was forced by the Prime Minister to introduce legislation to work around her intransigence. We don't know what the end result of this minister's work would have been.

We don't know whether the claims by the Bob Brown Foundation, the taxpayer funded Environmental Defenders Office or the Australia Institute were legitimate. We'll never know whether the department's advice to the minister validated those claims or not. Here we are, 18 months on, and, if anyone thinks that 18 months is a good enough period of time and it's acceptable, then I would love to hear the reasons for that.

I don't think it's acceptable, which is why we are moving these amendments to build in some timelines and some timeliness. Certainty is something that has been talked about ad nauseam in this debate. Certainty is something that proponents of projects and, of course, the community are seeking with regard to reforms to environmental approval laws in this country.

The minister said, back in December 2022, in response to the State of the environment report where we had this massive promise to reform the EPBC Act, that these laws would be better for business and better for the environment. In fact, I think we heard that catchcry again just now from the government—that the reforms that this government intends to bring in sometime in the future will be better for the environment and better for business.

I'm afraid I've seen nothing that would address the concerns around timeliness or that would deal with the fact that you go into this black box for decisions and assessments to be made. There are stop-the-clock provisions as well; there's a whole raft of issues relating to timeliness and the complexity of process. So we don't think that it is unreasonable to seek to put timeframes around the window of time in which any community group or any other individual in the community can lodge a request for reconsideration, nor do we think it's wrong to curtail the time taken to make a decision—18 months is too long.

The open-ended nature of what we have in the act today, before the bill we're debating now becomes law, is ridiculous. And the fact that, at any point in the future, anywhere in the country, someone can make a request for reconsideration, upending permits that have been in place, in the case of the Tasmanian salmon industry, for 13 years now—I find it astounding that there is no stepped process through this, where there are checks and measures before the minister is forced to initiate a reconsideration, one that has created such immense uncertainty.

There have been claims made that there are just 22 salmon workers in Strahan. I can tell you now, there are more than 22. I challenge my Tasmanian Greens Senate colleagues to come with me to Strahan and meet the more than 22 workers and tell them why you think their jobs don't exist.

Tell them why you think their jobs aren't important or why it doesn't matter that a decision is never made. Come and see them and tell them they're imaginary. The point being that the open-ended nature of the current situation, which the government is going some way to try to fix with their five-year window, as I said, I don't think is good enough.

But, if the Greens were to have their way—and I suspect and fear that, perhaps, after an election if the pollsters are to be believed, the crowd down the end there, the Australian Greens, may well be in partnership with the Australian Labor Party, and anything we do this side of an election may well be moot—they may seek to reverse the changes that are being made today and revisit— Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting— Senator DUNIAM: They will be.

Senator Whish-Wilson confirms for the Senate tonight—thank you for doing that; I've been wondering all day about this—that the Australian Greens, after the election of course, will be demanding, in a partnership agreement with the Australian Labor Party, that these changes be unpicked. That is a revelatory statement, and I'm pleased you provided it to the Senate tonight, Senator Whish-Wilson, because it does unpick the certainty that the government is telling us this legislation will provide, and that is very concerning.

This is why it's important that we get it right—because, I tell you what, the coalition will be opposing any plans to try and bring back this open-ended nature of the ability of vexatious groups in the community to try and launch these requests for reconsiderations. Of course, some of— Senator Whish-Wilson: How is it vexatious? Senator DUNIAM: I'm asked a question by Senator Whish-Wilson about how it is vexatious.

How is it vexatious to tell the people of Strahan that they don't have jobs, their jobs are real, their jobs aren't important and their community isn't important? That's the mantra that's coming from these people down the end of the chamber, who have no regard that this government has got away with this for 18 months and stood idly by right until the death knock of this government, allowing extremists in our community to mount these campaigns and cause misery for households and communities on the West Coast and to denigrate the jobs that these people have.

The fact that you're happy with some open-ended piece of legislation that enables this sort of activity to happen, bringing misery unto these households and families and creating the uncertainty that it did, is outrageous. I do believe that there is a strong case for us to be able to limit these timeframes. You only have to look at other jurisdictions that do have more certainty in their decision-making processes.

This is good for the community as well because you know what the situation is. You know that there is certainty around decisions being made by government. Unfortunately, I can tell you, the people of Strahan, a community that is interested in the environment, don't want the environment trashed, but they do support this industry.

It is not an all-or-nothing proposition like the Greens would have you believe. The two can co-exist. Industry trades on brand, would you believe?

They actually want a good brand, but the Australian Greens, of course, have made an art form out of going around the world and telling the rest of the world that we do things terribly here. In actual fact, if you look at other countries—for example, Chile—where they farm salmon, they don't care about the environment. They don't care about human rights.

They don't care about workers' rights. The Greens would rather see imports of salmon coming into this country than stand up for the jobs of salmon workers in this country, because, again, they don't matter. 'There are only 22 salmon workers; the rest are imaginary.' I think it is, frankly, offensive. Again, I'd be happy to drive to Strahan with you, Senator Whish-Wilson, to go and visit these workers, and we can explain what we each stand for on the bill we have before us and why it's important to give certainty.

They're a community that deserve our explanations about what we're doing here. As I said, it's not all or nothing, but the one thing we should be deriving out of this bill today is a modicum of certainty, both for the community of Strahan and for other communities like it across the country that have fallen foul of inner-city Greens who want to tear down industries like the salmon industry.

That's all we're asking for here, and I commend the amendments to the Senate.