Address to the National Press Club

 *** Check Against Delivery ***

I’d like to acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, the traditional owners of the land on which we gather today and pay my respects to elders past present and emerging.

We should always remember that our first peoples have managed nature on this continent for tens of thousands of years and their knowledge remains valuable to this day.

I want to thank Tom, Maurice and everyone at the National Press Club for having me here today, on what is a really important day for Australia’s environment, our productivity and our community.

About an hour and a half south of Brisbane and an hour west of Surfers Paradise is one of the most special natural environments in our country, Lamington National Park.

Part of the World Heritage listed Gondwana Rainforest group, its densely forested valleys and ranges are home to precious plants and animals, like the scrambling lily, the mountain wattle, earthworms found nowhere else in the world and the eastern bristlebird.

Having bushwalked in Lamington several times with family and friends, it made sense for me to head there again soon after I was sworn in as the Federal Environment Minister, around five months ago.

It was a close-up reminder of how precious nature is and how we owe it to those plants and animals and our kids and grandkids to do everything we can to protect it.

That week, and every week, I’m reminded by my staff, my friends and my constituents about how hard it is for younger people to find a home.

How they want us to transition quickly to renewable power, to reduce our emissions and cut their power bills.

How we need to access critical minerals – the fuel of the future.

How we need a productivity burst to ensure living standards rise.

And every week, in this role, I am reminded that our national environmental laws are failing all of these things – those species in Lamington National Park, the young people seeking homes and the renewables, critical minerals and productivity growth we need.

INTRODUCING THE BILL

Today, we take a big step towards fixing this.

Today, the Albanese Government introduced into the House of Representatives, the Environment Protection Reform Bill. It is an exciting day, and one that has been a long time coming.

Five years ago to this very day, on October 30, 2020, esteemed Professor Graeme Samuel AC delivered his independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to then Environment Minister Sussan Ley.

I want to acknowledge Professor Samuel for his excellent work, in delivering recommendations that were supported by environment, First Nations and industry stakeholders alike.

His review exposed that our national environment law is fundamentally broken, outdated and is failing both the environment and business.

He laid out a blueprint for reform – to benefit both. Not the environment or business, but both.

OBSTACLES TO CHANGE

At the time his review was welcomed across the aisle.

Now Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said and I quote:

"It is time to find a way past an adversarial approach and work together to create genuine reform that will protect our environment, while keeping our economy strong." 

Greens Environment spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young said:

“The Samuel Report sounds the alarm that Australia’s environment is under unprecedented stress. Without urgent action and a full reform package, we risk losing our native wildlife and iconic natural places for good.”

But now, exactly five years later and after several attempts, if you believe the news reporting, the Coalition and the Greens are no closer to agreeing to these important reforms.

The Coalition’s internal splits see them lurch around, from claiming victory when they first saw the draft bill, to saying the opposite the next day, only to then call for the bill to be split three days later.

Advocating for a split bill, to avoid a split party room, and angering business groups in the process.

Meanwhile the Greens Party’s absolutism leads them, yet again, to threaten to block important environmental reform, rather than make progress. Just like they did last term.

All while using these reforms as a fundraising vehicle to try to win back the seats they lost, following that exact obstructionist approach.

It’s no wonder environmental law reform in Australia has proven to be one of the hardest tasks in politics.

But for all those obstacles, reform can and will be done. And with the hyper partisan atmosphere of an election campaign behind us, now is the best opportunity to pass a balanced set of laws, in the spirit of the Samuel Review, that are firmly in the national interest.

Put simply, it’s now or never.

WHY WE NEED REFORM

I suspect this audience needs little explanation of why we need reform, but here’s a quick summary.

Any honest assessment of our environment must acknowledge the pressure nature is under.

The most recent State of the Environment Report found that:

"Most indicators of the state and trend of plants and animals show decline, and the number of terrestrial and marine threatened species has risen.  

"We can expect further extinctions of Australian species over the next two decades unless current management effort and investment are substantially increased."

Our government’s commitment, under my friend and predecessor Tanya Plibersek, to conserve 30% of land and ocean is an important step to avoid these extinctions, but the job will be much harder without law reform that shifts the dial in favour of our environment.

Equally, we’ve seen project approval times blow out, from a median timeframe of 48 weeks at the turn of the century, to 118 weeks now. Costing business time and money, and strangling the homes and renewables we need.

Analysis by my Department on the economic value of these reforms shows annual savings of at least half a billion dollars and potentially up to $7 billion to the national economy.

In short, reforming these laws is vital to protect our precious natural environment, on which life depends, as do jobs in tourism, agriculture, resources and other industries.

But this Act is also incredibly important to giving business certainty and achieving our national priorities.

THE FALSE CHOICE

Many commentators and politicians want to frame this legislation as a tug-of-war between the environment and the economy.

They assert a false choice – that you can have one, but not the other.

This is plain wrong.

You don’t have to choose between the environment and jobs and business.

We can protect and improve our environment, while removing duplication and speeding up approvals – that was the secret sauce of Professor Samuel’s report.

In the same way we moved beyond the notion that you could act on climate change or have jobs, we have to move beyond this false choice, when it comes to nature.

Today, as the amendments are introduced to Parliament, I want to take the opportunity to walk you through the key elements of the bill and outline how these reforms will deliver for both our national environment and our economy.

THE REFORM TRAIN

When I started in this role, I said the environmental reform train is leaving the station and that I wanted as many people on that train as possible, rather than shouting from the platform as it rushed by.

And I’ve followed through, yesterday bringing up 100 meetings with key stakeholders, state and territory ministers, the Federal Coalition, Greens and independent parliamentarians.

I’ve consulted everyone from Birdlife Australia to BHP and countless in between.

My office and department have met even more and I pay tribute to their enormous efforts, as we’ve crammed 18 months’ work into five.

I want to acknowledge all the groups who have engaged in good faith with my team and I this year and over many years, from the Samuel Review to consultation with Tanya, on whose good work these reforms build.

That work has resulted in a balanced package of reforms centring on three key pillars which have received almost universal endorsement.

They are:

• Preserving what’s precious by strengthening environmental protection and restoration.
• Delivering a power surge for productivity through quicker project assessments and approvals.
• And cementing these reforms, by enshrining greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision making.

PRESERVING WHAT’S PRECIOUS

There’s a reason why the suite of legislation we introduced in the House of Representatives this morning is called the Environment Protection Reform Bills.

Because our national environment law must protect our environment. And when this bill is passed, it will, with several demonstrable gains for nature.

First, the reforms will create a new Ministerial power to make National Environmental Standards, which will be regulations under the Act.

These standards were the centrepiece of the Samuel Review, and the need for standards is broadly supported by stakeholders.

Standards will set the boundaries for decisions, to ensure they deliver improved environmental outcomes.

Importantly, they will also provide certainty and guidance for business by setting clear and enforceable expectations and uplifting the quality and consistency of decision-making.

Until the power to create the standards is in the law, we are unable to make them, but we’ve started work on them, knowing that people want to see the direction of travel.

In the next few days, we’ll release draft versions of the first two standards for consultation, regarding Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and Environmental Offsets.

Drafting of the remaining proposed standards – concerning matters such as First Nations engagement and environmental data – is underway and we will continue consulting on all standards once the laws are passed.

Professor Samuel made the point that it’s vital these reforms not just protect but restore our precious natural environment.

That’s why 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, an improvement on the existing policy of ‘no net loss’.

A net gain could be achieved either by the proponent directly delivering an offset or through an upfront financial contribution to a restoration fund, managed by an independent statutory officer in the Department.

We will seek to work closely with states and territories to align this with comparable funds in their jurisdictions.

This model is a win for the environment, as it enables a more strategic approach to offsets that delivers bigger biodiversity outcomes and allows for larger investments in nature repair.

The reforms will also clearly outline in legislation what is an unacceptable impact on the environment.

Currently the EPBC Act includes a ‘clearly unacceptable’ category for decisions when they are referred for decision, but the term ‘unacceptable’ is not defined.

The unacceptable impact criteria will set clear, up-front and transparent criteria for impacts that cannot be approved, enabling clear decisions early in the process.

What this means is that if someone wants to build an apartment block in a Ramsar-listed wetland, or mine Uluru, they’ll get a quick no. Saving them time and money, not to mention saving our special places.

The reforms will also enable the Minister to issue ‘protection statements’, to clarify what a decision-maker must consider during the approval of actions to protect threatened species or ecological communities, including unacceptable impacts and critical habitat where they have been defined.

There will be higher penalties for the most significant breaches of environmental law, as well as environment protection orders for use in urgent circumstances to prevent and respond to major contraventions of the law.

These are just some of the reform measures that deliver more protection for the environment. But more than that, they start to shift the dial away from simply protecting the environment from harm, towards restoring nature, towards recovery.

A POWER SURGE FOR PRODUCTIVITY

The second pillar of these reforms is delivering a power surge for productivity through quicker project assessments and approvals.

I’ve already cited the figures on the economic cost of delayed projects, not to mention the community impact of slower approvals for housing, renewables and more.

And the productivity benefits of these reforms have been underlined by former Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry, who has said there is no more important productivity reform than passing these laws.

And that if we can’t do so, “we should stop dreaming about more challenging options.”

So a key focus of our reforms is removing duplication in the Federal and State approvals and assessment systems for projects, all while maintaining strong environmental standards.

The current system, which requires proponents to navigate multiple assessment and approval processes across Federal, state and territory jurisdictions, creates lengthy delays while delivering no benefit for the environment.

Our new laws will enhance our ability to enter bilateral agreements, which would see states and territories undertake one set of assessments and, over time approvals, against both their own requirements and Federal standards.

This delivers on a key recommendation from Professor Samuel, and would see proponents go through one assessment process, rather than two, in some cases saving years of delay.

Alongside this change, state and territory processes would need to be accredited, to ensure they meet the new National Environmental Standards, and would be audited every five years, to ensure they stay on track. Important safeguards, to ensure that Federal environmental requirements are being met.

Other aspects of the reforms to provide more efficient and robust project assessments include a new Streamlined Assessment Pathway.

This will significantly reduce the assessment timeframe for proponents who provide sufficient information upfront and provides an incentive to proponents to meet the standards upfront.

In addition, the reforms will allow for the greater use of regional planning.

Under this approach, we can work with other levels of government, industry and communities to identify upfront “go zones” and “no go zones” in a particular region.

This allows projects in areas of low environmental value to be approved quickly, and gives clarity on areas where development is unlikely to proceed, because of its high environmental value.

This will also help overcome a weakness in the current laws, in that they focus on project-by-project assessments and approval decisions, without considering the cumulative impacts of those projects on the environment.

So planning and managing development impacts at a regional or landscape scale can deliver better outcomes for the environment and for business.

We also propose amendments to give business certainty, by limiting frivolous and vexatious legal action, including by introducing a 28 day time limit for third parties to request a reconsideration of a decision that a project is a controlled action.

Aligning this time limit with those that apply to appeals against other decisions under the Act.

Finally, we are adopting Professor Samuel’s recommendation that the Act should include a specific power, in rare circumstances that are in the national interest, for the Minister to make a decision that is inconsistent with the National Environmental Standards.

Such a decision would be accompanied by a statement of reasons, which includes the environmental implications of the decision.

To demonstrate the rare nature of these decisions, the bill refers to defence, security and national emergencies as the types of situations this power might be used.

CEMENTING THE REFORMS

The third and final pillar is cementing these reforms, by enshrining greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision making.

Currently, the community lacks confidence in decisions made about the environment and in whether our laws are properly enforced.

Often those decisions are opaque and are questioned, as to their evidence base and whether they were made for the right reasons.

If these reforms are to endure, we need to rebuild confidence in decisions made under the Act.

Critical to this task is the establishment of a new independent watchdog which can enforce those laws.

Labor has gone to the past two elections promising an independent regulator for the environment.

And we intend to deliver on that promise.

The reforms establish Australia’s first National EPA that brings together the regulatory functions of Australia’s national environmental laws into one independent agency.

The new agency would be a cornerstone of the environmental law reforms, ensuring independent compliance and enforcement and delegated decision making.

In line with the recommendations of the Samuel Review, the EPA would have access to stronger new powers and increased penalties to better protect and restore Australia’s unique environment.

Under current laws, decision-making on project assessments and approvals is the responsibility of the Minister, who is democratically accountable.

This will not change. I note that this preservation of Ministerial responsibility for decision-making is, to date, the one point of agreement between Labor, the Coalition and the Greens.

The creation of a National EPA by the Albanese Government is a huge step forward to lock in protections for nature and builds on Labor’s strong environmental legacy.

It’s up there with Whitlam creating the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and ratifying the World Heritage Convention, which gave the Federal Government a powerful tool to defend precious natural or cultural heritage sites.

And Hawke stopping the Franklin Dam, establishing Landcare and returning Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park to its traditional owners – the 40th anniversary of which we celebrated last weekend.

Now, under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, we have the opportunity to cement more reforms and deliver lasting change to protect the environment.

I particularly want to acknowledge the terrific members of the Labor Environment Action Network, who campaigned hard to secure a change to Labor’s platform, to create a National EPA.

Today we took a big step towards delivering it.

We are also delivering on Professor Samuel’s recommendation that the Act should better harness and value First Nations knowledge about supporting healthy Country, built up over 60,000 years.

The reforms will codify the involvement of First Nations people, via the Indigenous Advisory Committee (IAC), into the Commonwealth’s environmental governance and decision-making, including in the development of the National Environmental Standards.

Finally, the reforms also introduce new emissions disclosure requirements.

In keeping with Professor Samuel’s recommendations, we haven’t included a climate trigger in the legislation.

Rather the reforms 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.

This will provide a clearer linkage to climate-related policies, such as the Safeguard Mechanism, but will not be taken into account in project approval decisions.

CONCLUSION

As you can see, there is a lot in this bill.

A lot for our environment, a lot for business and a lot for our community.

It’s been a deliberate choice to introduce a comprehensive bill – much more comprehensive than any of the previous attempts at reform.

Because we’ve got one shot at this.

A once in a generation chance to deliver reforms that see our environment and business gain, just like Professor Samuel recommended, five years ago today.

There is of course an alternative to passing these laws – doing nothing.

And that’s what will happen if the Coalition and the Greens continue their roles as the blockers and spoilers of Australian politics.

Spinning wheels, allowing those species in Lamington National Park to decline, stopping homes being built and holding back national productivity.

That’s not want Australians want and it’s not what our government wants.

For those reforms, it really is now or never.

I got into politics to get things done, not to keep putting them on the backburner, so I’m voting for now. Let’s get this done.