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
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (21:22): I rise with qualified support for the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. This reform is long overdue. It seeks to address environmental protection, deliver a uniform approach across the nation and provide certainty for business and developers.
This bill marks the second attempt in the last few years to address the Independent Review of the EPBC Act, handed down by Professor Graeme Samuel five years ago. I was in this parliament five years ago, and I remember the debacle with the original proposal by the then government, now opposition. Professor Samuel called for legislation that was balanced, offering real gains for both the environment and business, and this bill is broadly consistent with the Samuel review.
His view is that this bill delivers for both business and nature. Key features of the reform include creating a national environmental protection agency to be the independent regulator that enforces compliance audits and issues environmental protection orders. There will be regional planning that maps areas for development and protection—so-called go zones and no-go zones—to streamline approvals for compliant projects and refusals for those that are not compliant, making it simpler for a developer to see from the very beginning, from the get-go, whether a proposal is consistent with regional plans.
I think this is really important for certainty. I also think it's important for environmental groups in particular areas. It will give them comfort and confidence while also ensuring that those who are wanting to do a development do not waste time and money on a proposal that has very little chance of approval.
There will be national environmental standards that are measurable and legally binding for matters of national environmental significance, regional planning, restoration actions and contributions, community engagement, consultation and First Nations engagement. There will also be a streamlined environmental impact assessment, under which actions with unacceptable impacts on protected matters will not be approved.
But—and this is something that I am concerned about—the minister of the day has the power to override the rules if a project is indeed deemed to be in the national interest. I have no issue with the minister having that discretion. It's really an essential part of our Westminster system that the minister has that responsibility and that capacity.
What I am concerned about is the term 'national interest'. My great concern is that there is some ambiguity about what is in the national interest. It's not defined.
It's subjective, and it may change with the government of the day. In briefings, I've heard the minister say that there has been significant common law interpretation of the term 'national interest' across a variety of different areas, but I think what we're doing is opening up for applications under the EPBC Act to go through the process of going through the courts, which, again, includes delays and includes enormous costs.
Wouldn't it be wiser to have what is in the national interest more clearly defined? I heard Minister Bowen talk on the radio a few mornings ago in connection with this EPBC Act. He talked about housing and he talked about renewable energy projects.
Is that minister assuming that those two issues are deemed in the national interest with respect to this act? I don't know. Again, there's that ambiguity, and I really do think that we need to have a far more tightened, defined terminology of what is in the national interest.
Could a future minister decide that the wide-scale clearing out of an area of high environmental importance is in the national interest in order to build hundreds of wind turbines or a nuclear power station or goodness knows what else in the national interest? And we will see changes in how this act is managed by ministers as decades go on. So I think this is one area of the bill the government absolutely needs to improve in the Senate.
The minister's discretion is broad, and the power is so significant. As I said, I believe a definition or other guidance is required. It also goes to transparency.
The minister would have to provide a statement of reasons. This is an important bill. I think it is essential that we are going to have national standards.
That was missing in the bill that was, in this place, debated a few years ago. If we all remember, the plan was to just let every state have their own free-for-all with respect to environmental standards. So I'm well pleased that we have those national environmental standards going forward.
This is an important bill. I am also concerned that we are rushing this bill. We're rushing this bill through this place.
It's now 9.30 at night. The bill was only introduced last week. This bill will then be going up to the Senate.
I understand that there have been a number of inquiries on issues that surround this, and that we've had the Samuel review for a long time. However, when we're undertaking to change laws in this place, I'm always very cautious when we're rushing things through. I think it's better to do it once and do it right.
Having said that, and in conclusion, I do support this bill. It is a qualified support. It is an improvement on what currently exists.
If nothing else, I think in this place we must all ensure that we don't let the desire for perfection be the enemy of the good.