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
Mr VENNING (Grey) (20:46): I rise today to speak on a matter of real importance. That matter is the fundamental process by which we draft, review and enact laws. It is diligent work, not merely fast work, that defines responsible government in our Australian democracy.
This piece of legislation before us, the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, is substantial in its scope and serious in its impact on many sectors. Such significant change requires thorough and deliberate consideration by this very House. Labor must resist the urge to rush these complex reforms through the necessary stages of debate.
These new bills are meant to update the EPBC Act 1999, but all they are is a set of handcuffs for business, and the coalition cannot support them. The minister first attempted to introduce reforms in the last parliament. These bills were quickly stopped after the Western Australian premier called the Prime Minister, showing they were extreme even for Labor.
Labor promised to deliver an environmental protection agency. After four years in government, they still have not delivered on this core promise. Labor has now rushed these proposed reforms into this chamber.
They tried to fast-track them, but the Senate inquiry process means that they won't report back until March 2026. How is that due process? These bills and supporting documents run to around 1,500 pages in length.
Stakeholders are rightly asking for proper time to read and to consult with their members on this massive volume of detail. This is not debate for debate's sake. This is simply asking for a reasonable time to review.
The minister now wants to pull the bills back from the Senate inquiry process immediately. He hopes to strike a deal with either the coalition or the Greens to pass this law by the end of the year. As I have mentioned, these bills do not offer any real improvement or certainty for Australian businesses.
They are a set of regulatory handcuffs, and, for this reason, the coalition cannot support this legislation. The Business Council of Australia has been clear that amendments are needed. Without these we risk creating a system that is slower, more complex and lacking the clarity needed to drive investment.
Substantial amendments to these documents will absolutely be needed. Our deep concern is that these bills focus more on the Greens' agenda than on supporting Australian industry and the economy. We need to make sure that we don't rush something through that will ultimately shackle industry and add yet more green and red tape to an already overregulated and complex business ecosystem.
Australia should be encouraging investment and creating laws that drive efficiency, not layers and layers of new checks and balances. That will only serve the ideologies of the hard left, the Greens and the teals. Rushing is a recipe for disaster.
I'm no chef, but good decision-making and good decisions are a bit like a recipe. You must follow each step correctly. Our current productivity rankings in the global OECD are frankly embarrassing—beating out only Mexico, which is no cause to break out the tequila.
The productivity crisis facing our nation is a real problem and, unfortunately, Labor's proposed reforms are shaping up to make it worse, because, when you rush, you make a mess. Back in June the Minister for the Environment and Water was talking about introducing this legislation sometime in the first half of 2026, yet here we are in November and the legislation is suddenly on the table with a mad dash to get it passed in just the two remaining sitting weeks.
This is simply not how you create good policy for a complex nation like ours. We need careful consideration, not a frantic sprint to the finish line. You must follow the recipe for success.
This legislation in its current form is a mud cake, and Labor is a chef in a hurry. The recipe is out the window. They forgot to preheat the oven.
They put salt in it instead of sugar. It's lumpy and falling apart and, to make matters worse, they've pulled it out of the oven too early and are trying to serve it raw to the Australian people. It's indigestible.
Business and industry groups are telling us that these rushed reforms are somehow worse than the current laws, which are outdated and 26 years old. That tells you about the quality of this scramble. It is clear to the coalition that this government can't stand the heat in the kitchen.
It can't stand healthy debate and due process and it is trying to get out while it can—rushing and leaving a half-baked mess at the table of Australian industry. The money that pays for the foundational things that make our country great—our hospitals, healthcare systems, schools and critical infrastructure—doesn't appear out of thin air. It comes primarily from mining royalties, natural resources and other critical minerals.
For example, in the last financial year, Australian mining companies paid about $49.4 billion in taxes and royalties. That's a huge slice of the national pie. These are precisely the industries that will be severely impacted—or worse, pushed offshore—by these dangerous reforms.
Perhaps just as damaging as this poorly conceived legislation and the impact it could have on the economy and the business is the very real threat of Labor doing a deal with the Greens to pass it. The Greens are open about their desire to prohibit all coal and gas fields. If Labor gives in, Australians will be locked into a deteriorating economy and the knock-on impact that will have on our already chaotic energy and electric market.
That path means less investment, fewer jobs for regional Australians like those in my electorate of Grey and a declining national prosperity. This legislation in this current form does not strike the right balance. The proposed structure of this new system is bizarre, frankly, and goes far beyond what was recommended in the independent review by Graeme Samuel.
Professor Samuel did not recommend an environmental protection authority with the massively broad, sweeping powers that these bills propose. Instead, he recommended a commissioner who would report directly to the relevant minister, similar to the ACCC or the eSafety Commissioner. Labor has put forward an EPA that would effectively be marking its own homework, taking on both assessment and approval functions, on top of auditing.
The CEO of this new body would be a statutory appointment—virtually untouchable by parliament—with no statement of expectations or binding KPIs, operating in a vacuum. I'll say it again: the sheer amount of red and green tape being added by this legislation will only slow down large projects and increase costs, ultimately making them more likely to be rejected.
The proposed CEO will have extensive powers to issue indefinite stop-work orders, creating massive risks for any large-scale project in this country. The sheer unworkability of these parameters has taken Labor more than three years and two different ministers to deliver. In a desperate attempt to sell this bad legislation, the minister is claiming it would prevent mining under Uluru—a crazy and fanciful example.
This is just a distraction from the facts. The coalition will simply not sit by and let this government push through a rushed, poorly conceived bill that will hurt our economy and our productivity. We will fight to amend Labor's laws, ensuring they protect our environment without sacrificing our future prosperity.
Labor's proposed environmental reforms, contrary to their claims of boosting productivity, are set to achieve precisely the opposite outcome. These changes will make project approvals significantly harder, costlier and more time-consuming for industry proponents, directly hindering economic activity. Despite six months of consultation, Minister Watt's department has conspicuously failed to integrate significant feedback from industry groups into the proposed legislation.
Industry stakeholders unequivocally state that the current bills, introduced on 29 October, are worse for business than maintaining the status quo. This suggests deceit regarding the minister's stated goal of finding genuine agreement. The legislation introduces a standalone EPA CEO without essential binding accountability mechanisms, like a statement of expectations or clear ministerial termination powers.
Furthermore, the proposed EPA structure disastrously combines assessment, compliance and enforcement functions, directly contradicting the expert recommendations of Professor Graeme Samuel to limit the EPA to compliance and enforcement only. This overreach is a critical flaw. The bills mandate the disclosure of scope 1 and scope 2 emissions but fail to provide the necessary protections to ensure the data is not used for decision-making or condition setting—a huge risk for Australian farmers.
This legislative ambiguity immediately creates unacceptably high litigation risks for businesses, increasing regulatory uncertainty. Definitions of key terms, like 'unacceptable impacts', 'net gain' and 'national interest', remain vague and require immediate amendment to mitigate these same risks, ensuring clarity and predictability. The proposed powers of environmental protection orders are deeply flawed, notably lacking essential appeals rights for affected parties, which represents a severe denial of natural justice.
The thresholds for issuing powerful stop-work orders is dangerously low, and there is an absence of necessary guardrails, making it too easy to discourage economic activity arbitrarily. Industry insists that the current streamlined pathways must be retained and operate in addition to any new ones to prevent unnecessary delays in the development approval process.
Labor's refusal to address these industry concerns is a telling test of its deceit and reveals the tight hold that the left-wing of Labor have over their party. This deeply flawed process that alienates business clearly demonstrates what so many already know: these are Labor-Greens bills. In my electorate of Grey this legislation will impact countless private and agricultural landholders.
Of particular concern amongst many is the fact that there is no automatic compensation clause for impacts caused by 'the authority restricting land uses that could affect biodiversity corridors or threatened species, and restrictions and bans being placed on clearing, burning, irrigation and fencing'. Additionally, the fact the new proposed agencies will be Canberra based presents a clear nervousness for people in regional South Australia, considering the mounting evidence that this government is completely out of step with the needs of farmers.
The coalition believes that following proper process and refusing a pre-Christmas deal is necessary to force the Labor Party to push back against its radical left wing in the hope that a sensible productivity-enhancing outcome is achieved. Unfortunately, only time will tell if that happens. If it were up to Labor and the Greens, they would rush it all through right now, no matter the cost to industry and the Australian economy.
Ministerial decision-making and matters of national interest must be discussed and debated robustly, not rushed through at the expense of common sense, consultation and fairness.