Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Cities) (21:56): The government will not be supporting the amendments circulated and moved by Senator Duniam, and I wanted to step through why that's the case in relation to each of the changes proposed in the amendment in front of us. While these amendments do not include a requirement for the minister to make a decision within a certain timeframe, the fact is that they do provide certainty for business and for environmental outcomes.
They seek to strike a balance between the interests of industries, communities and the environment. The changes recognise that reconsideration remains an important tool for environmental management, and the changes do not seek to arbitrarily curtail it. The amendments are really targeted at established industries that have been operating on the basis of an NCA-PM decision in accordance with a state or territory management arrangement for five or more years.
They achieve a common-sense solution, balancing environmental outcomes while addressing the economic uncertainty faced by industries and the communities that depend on them. The amendment moved by Senator Duniam seeks to expand the number, or the nature, of exemptions, and we don't support that. It does so by restricting the timeframe from five years down to 12 months.
Five years was chosen as the threshold because we are looking at actions that have been ongoing and recurring over five years or more before the request for consideration. That would provide time for the impacts associated with the relevant action, as they were known at the time of the NCA-PM decision, to stabilise and become consistent. Having reached this point, the criterion would provide an appropriate balance between protecting the environment and providing certainty and fairness to businesses, workers and their communities.
The amendment also requires the minister to make a decision within 12 months rather than as soon as practicable. This is an arbitrary imposition of a particular timeframe. 'As soon as practicable' is a well-understood legal concept and does the task that is required in terms of the amendments that have been proposed to the head legislation by the government in this case.
I do want to use the time I have remaining to make a few comments about the approach that's been taken to this debate. When we seek to have challenging conversations within our communities about issues that people have very strong views on, people bringing false information to the table don't help. Diminishing the lives and livelihoods of people who live in regional communities and work in industries doesn't help when we're seeking to talk about creating an appropriate and sustainable balance between environmental protection and regional jobs and industries.
The approach that has been taken by some participants in this debate to minimise and, indeed, almost set aside the significance of the work and the workers in these industries is a very unfortunate way of approaching a really important debate and a really important set of policy issues. The CHAIR: The time for consideration of the bill has expired. After I have put the question before the chair, I will then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill.
We're currently on the amendment on sheet 3338, as moved by Senator Duniam. The question before the committee is that the amendment on sheet 3338 be agreed to.