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 PENFOLD (Lyne) (21:39): Standing here tonight at this hour reminds me of when the original EPBC Bill was introduced. I was then the fisheries adviser to the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I recall spending many hours working with the office of the then environment minister, Senator the Hon.

Robert Hill, ensuring that the original Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill was thoroughly considered, given its reach. We spent a lot of time engaging with stakeholders to ensure that people had the opportunity to provide comments on the bill to ensure it was robust and that it took into account its impacts. I feel disappointed, at the very least, that a bill of this nature—indeed, seven bills—that can and will have a profound impact on industry and on our efforts to protect the environment is being rushed through this place before Christmas.

Last night in the Federation Chamber, in the debate on the freedom-of-information bill, I spoke about social licence. Social licence isn't earned when you do what people expect you to do; you earn social licence when you do more than the public expects you to do. Well, what we're facing here tonight is a government doing far less than the public expects it to do.

This is an important piece of legislation. My constituents deserve the right to have an opportunity to provide me with feedback. That hasn't been given because of the timeframe we have been presented with this legislation.

Indeed, 700 pages relate to the bill, and an equivalent 700 pages are for the explanatory memorandum. But here we are at this late hour trying to work our way through what is complex reform. The member for New England earlier this evening made the comment that we face a dilemma, and a serious one at that, because we on this side support sensible environmental reform but we're being asked to negotiate a bill with many flaws.

We need to find a way through this because, if we do not find a way to negotiate a better outcome, we will end up with a bill being negotiated between the government and the Greens, and that is a far worse outcome. I certainly appreciate the challenge and scope that confront the government in reforming national environmental laws, and I appreciate the work they have done.

I just wish they had given all Australians more time to consider these pieces of legislation. In my very first speech in this place, I made what I feel was a commonsense statement and an important one—that is, government does not do business better. Canberra does not do business better.

Yet embedded in the logic behind the reforms is a sense that Canberra can do business better by directing farmers and industry to adhere to a rules based system when it comes to the environment. We have heard, again from the member for New England, the impact of taking away farmers' property rights. Again, I come back to it being so important that, when we are dealing with legislation that can impact somebody's property rights—somebody's much-loved farm, the earth they toil day after day—if we're going to impact their capacity to do their business, we need to take our time and seriously think about the consequences.

I fear the government is going to burden Australia with sweeping reforms of the environmental legislation, regulations, prescriptions, processes and penalties that the hardworking people of this country will regret and will reject. There are seven environment protection and biodiversity conservation bills in this package, and the government will only allow the bills to be considered as one.

This means that the issues within the 1,459-page package cannot be adequately scrutinised or addressed. That such a sweeping set of reforms that will impact millions of people, our industries, our businesses, our fiscal health and our sovereignty is being managed in this way is, in my view, reprehensible. It debases its proponents.

This is not the right way to develop and enact legislation. It is not reasonable to expect the legislators to have to deal with it in this way, and it is an afront to the people of Australia that they will end up with what the government wants, not what is best for the country or what is in the national interest. The list of what is wrong with this bill is long.

Let's start with the proposed Environmental Protection Authority. Besides the fact that it is a duplication of what many of the states already have in place, there are many questions about its functions, costs, structure, powers, accountability and transparency. On its powers, measures need to be put in place to prevent this new national EPA body from behaving like the New South Wales version, which dominates and controls other departments, manipulates bureaucratic processes for personal agendas and undermines industries important to the people of the Lyne electorate, like the forestry industry, at every possible step.

We simply cannot have that sort of rogue operation at the federal level, for the sake of our farm sector, for the sake of our mining, coal, gas and oil industries and for the sake of what's left of our forestry industry. Proper processes must be put in place to prevent that and explicitly deliver true transparency and accountability. There must be scope for the parliament to review EPA operations through a committee.

There must be a mechanism to review orders issued by the EPA, and the organisation must table an annual report to parliament. Very importantly, it cannot be the regulator and the policeman at the same time, but the current bill includes the EPA function of assessment, compliance and enforcement. Professor Samuel recommended limiting the EPA to compliance and enforcement, with the assessment function to be retained in the department.

In regard to the review of operations, the CEO of the proposed EPA does not report to the minister. The CEO must be accountable to an elected minister. The bill says that the CEO must be independent.

The policy behind this is understandable, but any accountability is made only in 10-yearly reviews. The bill is missing the requirement for a CEO statement of expectation to be issued, for it to be binding and for the minister to have the ability to terminate the CEO for failure to perform to the statement of expectations. The parliament should have some form of review mechanism between periods of statutory review.

This should not impinge on the policy of independence but rather enhance administrative accountability. A review mechanism through a parliamentary committee will ensure that decisions are safeguarded from buyers. The EPA, with powers including the ability to stop work orders and to audit approval holders to ensure that they are compliant, must have a process to externally review those orders.

This mechanism must be included in the bill, because the power to issue a 'stop work' is a very significant power, a power held by unelected officials and with the consequence of cruelling development and economic activity in communities like mine. In terms of the annual report, the bill does not require it to be tabled in the parliament, but the bill needs to set out what must be in the annual report.

Now is the time to get this right. The biggest issue facing Australia today and tomorrow is productivity. If this is truly one of the government's objectives, an explicit review and reporting process is a key aspect to ensure transparency and accountability.

The other aspects of the bill that cannot be accepted in the current form that need to change include the 'unacceptable impact' definitions, and these will significantly constrain development. Industry has proposed that the definition be removed from the legislation and put into the standards, with some further adjustments in the standards. Currently there are 37 definitions covering eight pages defining unacceptable impacts, resulting in limiting the number of projects that would be possible.

A number of current projects would not have been granted an approval under the proposed reform. On scope 1 and scope 2 reporting, these must be removed. The reform proposes applications are required to include scope 1 and scope 2 emissions.

This is a slippery slope to a climate trigger. Further, it is also concerning that the legislation does not explicitly state the information cannot be used for decision-making and that it cannot be used for applying conditions. The concern is that this will form grounds for green litigation.

In terms of existing streamlined pathways, we agree these must stay. This would be in addition to the proposed new streamlined pathways. That way, if a project doesn't fall into the new streamlined pathways, which focus on upfront paperwork, a proponent will still be able to access streamlining further into the process that the government would otherwise have removed.

I want to now speak on fines for noncompliance and the need for these to be proportionate. The proposed reforms have provision for up to $825 million in fines; however, these must be made proportionate and an appeals mechanism must be available. There also need to be strong guardrails in determining fines.

The net gain definition must have clarity and certainty. At present the concept is unwieldy and the justification for such provisions unclear. There are significant positions currently in the reforms which the coalition support and must remain.

They include that ministerial decision-making remain with the federal minister, that there be no climate trigger and, very importantly for the Lyne electorate, that forestry under the regional forest agreements remains exempt. Any adjustment to the current arrangements must ensure that the native forestry industry remains viable and not worse off. However, regarding native hardwood forestry, the minister said on the ABC in an interview with David Speers: What we have said is that we'll follow the recommendations from Graeme Samuel and apply the national environmental standards to regional forestry agreements.

What that means in practice is that native forestry would need to meet higher environmental standards than currently required under legislation. This is dumbfounding. The regulatory regime that Australian foresters, particularly those in New South Wales, operate under are among the tightest, toughest and most prescriptive in the world.

It is impossible to imagine how they could be any higher, let alone why anyone would want them any higher. For instance, in New South Wales it was made illegal in 2000 to harvest timber from what was loosely and very subjectively called 'old-growth forest', and clear felling is also prohibited. The minister went on to say that some of those standards will be coming in the next couple of days, even though they can't be created until after the bill is passed, which all means that the industry is to get new, higher standards that it won't see until after this bill has passed.

How can business operate under this scenario? How can operational and investment decisions be made when they don't know what's coming? How on earth can that assist or boost national productivity?

Where is the national interest? Between this Albanese government and the New South Wales Minns government, the real question for them about hardwood timber is: how long do you think we have before we run out of timber and we have to import it all, with the consequence of exporting our timber jobs? We are missing a great opportunity here, and that is to remove the prohibition on nuclear energy.

The ban was created in 1998 by the Howard government as part of a deal with the Greens to establish a new reactor at Lucas Heights. At the time the prohibition was a low-value trade-off. Then, the need for nuclear was not great.

With a country full of coal, energy was affordable and abundant—not so now. With energy prices soaring, which is of course having a knock-on effect on pretty much everything, the need for nuclear—energy-dense, zero-emissions nuclear—coupled with a variety of other energy systems, including gas, coal and renewables, is required. The SPEAKER: I give the call to the honourable member for Fadden.