Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025
Ms CHANEY (Curtin) (16:05): I move the amendments circulated in my name: (1) Page 10 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add: 19 Methods prescribed by regulations (1) The method for working out the amount of restoration contribution charge that is prescribed by the regulations must take into consideration the following matters: (a) costs of project establishment, ongoing maintenance, and monitoring, reporting and verification (i.e., project implantation costs); (b) costs associated with identifying suitable restoration sites, including the costs of site assessments (i.e., search costs); (c) costs of acquiring relevant legal interests in land or waterways (as appropriate) to facilitate the conduct of the restoration actions, including associated transactions costs (stamp duty, etc) (i.e., land costs); (d) costs of managing the risks of project failure (e.g., of needing to undertake multiple projects to achieve the desired gains) (i.e., contingency costs); (e) the additional cost of undertaking restoration actions in remote locations, which will increase project establishment, maintenance and monitoring, reporting and verification costs (i.e., remoteness); (f) the additional cost of undertaking restoration actions where there is scarcity of suitable sites; and (g) costs of managing the risks of project failure (e.g., of needing to undertake multiple projects to achieve the desired gains) (i.e., contingency costs).
(2) If the regulations prescribe a method for working out the amount of bioregional plan registration charge, the regulations must take into account the matters in subsection (1). These amendments are about a critical but largely unexamined element of the EPBC reforms: how we price environmental offsets. If we get the price wrong, the entire system will fail.
Offsets are meant to restore nature. But if the cost of environmental damage is not reflected in the price paid, offsets don't work. Across Australia we've seen what happens when offsets are underpriced.
Developers pay a small fee, their projects go ahead, and governments are left with the impossible task of finding enough land, time and money to make nature whole again. The result is a growing ecological deficit—an environmental credit card that never gets paid off. Under these reforms the amount a developer pays into the offsets fund will be determined by a method set out in regulations.
My concern is that, without strong legislative guidance, that method could again undervalue the true cost of restoration. That's why I'm moving these amendments that require that the method for setting this restoration contribution charge takes into account the full range of real-world costs involved in delivering a successful offset. When we talk about restoring ecosystems, the price isn't just the cost of planting a few trees.
Restoration is complex, risky and expensive. My amendments ensure that the calculation of the offset price must consider a range of factors, including the costs of establishing, maintaining and monitoring projects, which are the practical, on-the-ground expenses of doing the work; the costs of identifying suitable sites, including the time and expertise required to find land that actually supports restoration; the costs of acquiring that land, including stamp duty and transaction costs; contingency costs, acknowledging the fact that projects fail and that success often requires multiple attempts; the added costs of remote locations, where logistics and labour are more difficult; and the additional cost of scarcity—when suitable sites are few and far between, the price should rise accordingly.
If we ignore these factors, we're not setting a fair price; we're setting nature up to fail. In too many jurisdictions—New South Wales, Queensland and overseas—offsets have been chronically underpriced. That underpricing flows through the whole system.
It means that restoration projects are underfunded from the start. It means that the offsets fund doesn't have enough money to deliver what was promised. And it means that we end up with a pay-to-destroy model dressed up as environmental reform.
By clearly defining the factors that must be included in the offsets pricing method, we make the system transparent, predictable and credible. These amendments are about integrity—financial integrity and ecological integrity. They ensure that when we talk about offsets we're talking about real restoration, not accounting fiction.
I commend these amendments to the House.