Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025
Dr GARLAND (Chisholm) (21:07): It is clear that we must act now to protect our environment, and I urge those opposite to work with us and get out of the way of meaningful reform. Labor is the party of the environment. It's Labor that has delivered every single major environmental reform in Australia's history.
Labor has a legacy of leadership when it comes to our beautiful natural world. It was a Labor government—the Whitlam government—that established the first environment department in 1973, and the Whitlam government was one of the very first governments in the world, over 50 years ago, to support and ratify the World Heritage convention. This was a significant moment for our nation and demonstrated not only that we absolutely value and will protect the natural environment here in Australia but that we recognise we have a role to play in joining global efforts to protect the planet.
It was 50 years ago, too, that the Whitlam government passed the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. To follow, the Hawke government made the decision to stop the damming of the Franklin River, in 1983, and launched Landcare, which was expanded under Prime Minister Keating. The Keating government commissioned Australia's first state-of-the-environment report, demonstrating how central environmental protection and accountability are to Labor governments.
The Rudd government ratified the Kyoto protocol, and, more recently, the Gillard government expanded protection of areas in the Kakadu National Park. There are many more examples that I could detail. History is full of examples of Labor governments standing up for the environment and for our communities, and today the legislation before the House adds to that very significant legacy.
It has always been up to Labor governments to deliver for our environment, and I'm very proud to be part of a government that recognises its obligations to our communities, to nature and to ensuring that we live in a prosperous nation with a strong economy and an ambitious plan for housing and a renewables industry. This legislation delivers modern, fit-for-purpose national environmental laws that ensure big gains both for the environment and for business.
The Albanese government is committed to reforming our national environmental laws to deliver stronger environmental protections, reduce duplication and boost accountability and transparency in decision-making. It's been five years since Graeme Samuel tabled his report for the former environment minister, now the opposition leader, and our laws remain broken. They aren't working for the environment or for industry.
What is before the House today, the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the related bills, is a significant piece of work that goes to protecting our very precious natural environment. We owe it to future generations to do everything we can in the time that we have here as legislators to protect it. I know how important environmental laws are to my community in Chisholm and how important they are to me.
We live in a beautiful part of the world in Chisholm, Melbourne, with beautiful parks, creeks and bushland. So many people in my community have volunteered—often for decades—their time to protect nature, to plant trees and to clean our parks, our bushland and our creeks, and I recognise them and their voices, which have been so important to me as a member to hear, in this debate.
I've visited many groups in the time that I've been privileged to be the member for Chisholm. I am a longstanding member of LEAN, the Labor Environment Action Network, and I'm so grateful to the many groups and constituents who've met with me about the urgency with which we must act to protect our natural environment. The passion of so many in my community in their dedication to making a real difference is inspiring to me.
I thank them for their advocacy, and I look forward to continuing conversations with them about all we can and must do to protect nature and keep our communities thriving, because we know that our unique natural environment is one of the things that makes living in Australia so special. But we know, unfortunately, that our environment is going backwards. That's what the Samuel review told us.
It's what the Samuel review told the previous government five years ago. We need to turn our record around. These reforms deliver a balanced package that delivers real improvements for our natural environment.
These reforms are based on the recommendations from Professor Graeme Samuel in his 2020 review that was, of course, handed to the then environment minister—the Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley. These laws are a targeted and balanced package of reforms to the EPBC Act centred on three key pillars: firstly, stronger environmental protection and restoration; secondly, more efficient and robust project approvals; and, thirdly, greater accountability and transparency in decision-making.
These are stronger environmental protection and restoration laws that won't just deliver better protections for special places but also restore and regenerate them for future generations. These reforms are all about more efficient and robust project assessments and approvals that will allow us to better respond and deliver on national priorities, like the renewable energy transition, which this side of the House believes in; a future made in Australia; and the housing that we need.
In my electorate of Chisholm, I have people who work in local universities, such as Deakin University and Monash University; and who work in innovation, advanced manufacturing, science, renewables and critical minerals. They know that we need to do everything we can to build the industries that a future made in Australia relies on, and I'm really proud to be here to fight for that, even when those opposite won't.
Greater accountability and transparency in decision-making will give all Australians confidence in environmental laws in this country. Under these proposed reforms, we will establish Australia's first-ever independent, national Environmental Protection Agency—and, believe me, I've heard loudly and clearly from my constituents how important this is to them. This will be a proud Labor legacy, delivering on an election commitment that was proudly campaigned for by branch members and volunteers, and I thank them for their extraordinary efforts.
The newly established National Environmental Protection Agency will be a strong independent regulator with a clear focus on ensuring better compliance with and stronger enforcement of Australia's new environmental laws. It will exercise a range of powers independently of the minister, such as compliance and enforcement of the laws and project conditions and the auditing of state and territory processes for project assessments and approvals against new environmental standards.
It is proposed that the national EPA will be responsible for education, compliance and enforcement, issuing permits and licences and assessing project and setting approval conditions under delegation from the environment minister. These reforms will allow the environment minister to make national environmental standards. This is really significant.
These standards will set the boundaries for decisions to ensure they deliver improved environmental outcomes. Standards will protect the environment, give businesses clear rules and help decision-makers be fair and consistent, and these standards aim to protect, conserve and restore important environmental areas and species, truly make up for environmental damage and deliver a net gain for the environment, support better decision-making and help the public understand and comment on projects.
There are some impacts that can't be approved unless they're in the national interest. The reforms before us include a new definition of 'unacceptable impact', specific to each protected matter. This will set clear and upfront criteria for impacts that cannot be approved unless a project meets the national interest tests, increases transparency, consistency and certainty of decisions and provides a safeguard against impacts that cause the irreversible loss of Australia's biodiversity and heritage.
The proposed reforms will clearly define what types of environmental harm must be avoided and cannot be offset, and this applies to protected matters under the EPBC Act, including world heritage areas, threatened species and wetlands of international importance. These proposed changes aim to make clear what impacts are unacceptable and to support fairer and more consistent decisions.
The decision-maker will still have discretion to determine what constitutes an unacceptable impact, based on a legislative criteria and supporting guidance. The legislation before us ensures that projects must leave the environment better off, by introducing the concept of net gain for environmental offsets. This is a shift from the current rules threshold, which is 'no net loss'.
Projects will be required by law to avoid, mitigate and repair damage to protected matters wherever possible. Any residual significant impacts on nationally protected matters must be fully offset to achieve a net gain for the environment, which I think we can all accept is an improvement on the existing policy of no net loss. Our net gain could be achieved either by the proponent directly delivering an offset or through an upfront financial contribution to a restoration fund.
This will shift the dial towards avoided impacts and restoration, giving our native populations the opportunity to regenerate, recover and become more resilient. The Samuel review recognised, significantly, that, for some bad actors, breaching the law is just the cost of doing business. While we know that most proponents follow the law, we do need modern fit-for-purpose tools to respond to the most serious breaches.
The reforms increase the penalties for the most serious and significant breaches of the legislation, which will allow courts to respond proportionately to the most egregious breaches. Proposed changes to the EPBC Act include high maximum penalties for serious breaches, new environment protection orders to quickly manage urgent environmental risks and damage, and expanded audit powers to improve monitoring and compliance.
The proposed reforms aim to ensure breaches are managed properly and hold wrongdoers to account and to stop bad actors from treating noncompliance as just a cost of doing business. These are similar kinds of powers to those state and territory EPAs have. Sometimes, projects can harm the environment in ways that can't be avoided, but, when this happens, steps must be taken to compensate or make up for that damage.
That's called an environmental offset. The offset could take the form of an action, a payment or both. Proposed changes to the EPBC Act will require project managers to avoid harm in the first place and to offset any remaining impact to deliver a net gain.
The proposed changes will also allow certain biodiversity certificates issued under the nature repair market to be used for environmental offsetting. This will help ensure that there are enough environmental offsets that provide real, lasting environmental benefits. These proposed reforms aim to reverse environmental decline and to provide clearer rules about when offsets are needed and how much is required.
Proposed reforms will introduce new options for offsetting. Project proponents can deliver an offset themselves; pay for the government to do it, via a restoration contribution payment; or do a combination of both. A new restoration contributions holder will manage funds, deliver a net gain and ensure transparency.
The option of restoration contributions will simplify and streamline processes and reduce uncertainty and delays. The reforms will also introduce new emissions disclosure requirements, and, in keeping with Professor Samuel's recommendations, we haven't included a climate trigger in this legislation. But we will require major emitting project proponents to disclose estimates of scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions as part of gaining federal environmental approval.
Proponents will also be required to disclose their plans to reduce those emissions and explain how those measures are consistent with government laws and policies. Importantly, these reforms codify the involvement of First Nations people in environmental governance and decision-making through the Indigenous Advisory Committee. The reforms also create new statutory advisory functions for the committee in the development of national environmental standards and in species listings and conservation planning.
We need those opposite to do the right thing and support the legislation before the House. We can get this done and deliver on what the Australian people put us here to do. Every day we delay is a day our environment is degrading further, and every day we delay is one we could be building the renewable energy and the housing we absolutely need for the future.