Chapter 2Key issues
2.1Submitters that participated in the committee’s inquiry engaged with the Australian Government’s ongoing process to reform the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to varying degrees. Evidence to this inquiry demonstrated broadscale acknowledgement of the need, and general support for, significant reform to Australia’s national environmental law. The uniformity amongst inquiry participants also extended to key points of frustration and dissatisfaction with the Government’s process.
2.2This chapter discusses some of these key issues, including the urgent need for reform, ongoing delays to the introduction of reform legislation and issues with the nature of the consultation being undertaken. While the substance of the reforms will likely be the subject of future consideration by this committee and the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, this chapter also considers some of the key views on the proposed reforms. This chapter concludes by providing the committee’s views and recommendations.
An urgent need for reform
2.3The widespread consensus amongst inquiry participants, including the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), was that the EPBC Act is failing to adequately protect and manage Australia’s natural environment. Business people are also dissatisfied with many aspects of the legislation, and the ways in which it is being applied to the (often interminably long and evolving) assessment of proposed projects. Building upon his findings in his Independent Review of the EPBC Act (the Samuel Review), Professor Graeme Samuel AC described the current law as ‘gobbledegook’. He emphasised that a total redraft of the legislation is required because the current framework has resulted in ‘the abysmal failure of that regulatory environment to protect our environment over the past 25 years’.
2.4Inquiry participants, regardless of their views on the substance of environmental laws, uniformly stated that environmental law reform is necessary. Environmental groups highlighted the twin crises of biodiversity and climate change as increasing the urgency and necessity of change. The Australian Forest Products Association (AFPA) also expressed support for ‘the refreshing of our National Environmental laws’.
2.5Given the urgency with which inquiry participants regarded the need for reform, numerous inquiry participants urged the Government to introduce and pass a comprehensive package of reform during the 47th Parliament.
Ongoing delays
2.6Ongoing delays to the introduction of EPBC Act reform legislation into the Parliament were a point of frustration for many submitters and witnesses. Multiple inquiry participants stated that the rate of the Government’s reform process was out of step with the pace of the worsening extinction and climate crisis and that a sense of urgency and time-bound goals were needed. For example, the Climate Council told the committee that ‘glaciers are literally melting while this reform moves forward at a glacial pace’. Likewise, Environmental Justice Australia highlighted that the Government had not met its own timeframes, including those proposed in the Nature Positive Plan.
2.7Similarly, business groups have regularly made clear in their statements on the public record, and in their discussions with some members of this committee, that significant changes are needed to counter the adverse effect on investment in Australia from the mounting uncertainties around the assessment of the environmental impact of new projects.
Announcement of 16 April 2024
2.8As outlined in chapter 1, the Minister for the Environment and Water, theHonTanya Plibersek MP, announced on 16 April 2024 that rather than deliver a full package of legislation, the Government intended to deliver the remainder of the EPBC Act reforms in two additional stages. These two proposed stages, which follow the passage of the Nature Repair Act 2023 and amendments to the water trigger (now referred to as “stage 1”), entails:
introduction of legislation to establish Environment Protection Australia (EPA) and Environment Information Australia (EIA) (“stage 2”); and
completion of all remaining proposed reforms to the EPBC Act as outlined in the Nature Positive Plan (“stage 3”).
2.9In Supplementary Budget Estimates 2023-24 hearings in October 2023, DCCEEW officials told the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee that it intended to bring the EPBC Act reforms to Parliament as a comprehensive package of legislation.
2.10However, at the public hearing on 17 April 2024, DCCEEW told the committee that conversations about staging the remainder of the reforms commenced between officials and the Minister in December 2023. It stated that these conversations were prompted by the extent of the feedback arising out of the stakeholder consultations in October and December 2023, as well as decisions that had been made to bring forward the Nature Repair legislation and water trigger amendments.
2.11Evidence received in submissions, which pre-dated the Minister’s announcement of 16 April 2024, conveyed some submitters’ concerns that the commitments made by the Government to act on the Samuel Review recommendations will not be realised in this parliamentary term.
2.12Noting that the sense of urgency around the need for reform pre-existed the Minister’s announcement, the 16 April 2024 announcement was perceived by many witnesses as further delaying critical aspects of the reform.For some witnesses, this increased doubt in the Government’s ability to deliver the full suite of reforms in this term of Parliament.
2.13The Lock the Gate Alliance expressed frustration at the further delay, stating:
It’s 15 years since the Hawke review, three years since the Samuel review and nearly 18 months since the government’s Nature Positive Plan was released, and this week the minister is pleading that the government needs more time. It is unacceptable in our view that it has taken this long to act on the clear and present danger of extinction…
2.14The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) also charted the successive calls for change to date, including from this committee in its first interim report for this inquiry in April 2019 as referenced in chapter 1. The ACF noted that despite this long history, substantive law reform is yet to materialise:
We've got that 2019 report from this committee that I referred to, we've got the [2020] Samuel review, we've got a [2021] State of the environment report, and we've got a [2022] Nature Positive Plan—promise after promise after promise or indication after indication after indication about the urgent need for these reforms—and yet here we are, being told that it needs to be delayed or it's not happening now or in one chunk as was originally promised. It will come at some stage as part of stage 3. I think it's completely understandable why we'd be frustrated and disappointed with the progress…
We had the Hawke review even before this Senate committee hearing—the interim report that I've been referring to. Nothing happened on the back of that...We'll reach a point in October this year where we're closer to the next Samuel review than the last, effectively. For all those reasons, in terms of the politics and the process and for all the reasons that have been explained already in terms of the extinction crisis that we're in the midst of, we really just need to get cracking on this.
2.15Professor Samuel told the committee that to the best of his knowledge, the three stages of reform that he outlined ‘are taking place in an orderly process’.
2.16However, as a number of inquiry participants observed, the tranches of reforms outlined in Professor Samuel’s review of the EPBC Act are not being followed in anything like the same timeframes or order that he formally recommended to government.
2.17Professor Samuel originally said, in the Final Report of his EPBC Act review, that ‘a full overhaul of the EPBC Act should be completed by 2022’. In turn, he identified that the elements of the first tranche of changes should be the ‘immediate’ creation of legally enforceable National Standards; the start of work on complex enabling reform; and the delivery of Indigenous specific reforms. He did not propose that an EPA be established at any stage of the process at all, although did recommend the need for an independent watchdog—the Environment Assurance Commissioner—to enforce priority reforms including National Environmental Standards.
Need for a clear timeline
2.18The absence of any timeline for the introduction of the full package of reforms exacerbated these concerns. Participants noted a strong need for the Government to clearly communicate a timeline for next steps and an end date for the full implementation of its reform package. To date, the Government’s response regarding the timing of reforms has been that they will be delivered ‘as soon as possible’. The ACF articulated its desire for a clear understanding of how the Government intends to proceed, stating:
I understand and am abundantly clear that it’s difficult to meet time frames when developing large and complex legislative reforms like this, but we don't even have any milestones or indications about how the process is going to unfold from here.
Confidence in the Government
2.19Delays and a lack of a clear timeline for the implementation of reforms has eroded trust and faith in the process for some stakeholders. Environmental Justice Australia stated that ‘there would be a lot more community confidence in these new laws being introduced if there were a clear deadline and a timeline set for it’. The Biodiversity Council highlighted that failure on the Government’s part to meet its obligations and clearly stipulate a timeline could be perceived as indicative of the Government’s lack of commitment to meaningful reform.
2.20Similarly, the Environment Centre Northern Territory stated ‘[t]he fear is—and I think this is shared by a lot of other organisations we work with—that we may not have the political conditions in the next term of government to see this reform made, which is so sorely needed’. Indeed, witnesses expressed concerns that splitting the reforms into stages significantly lessens the likelihood that the critical reforms are introduced into the Parliament during this term.
2.21The Wilderness Society noted its disappointment that while the Government was delaying implementing its planned reform package, it was prioritising rushing through other environmental legislation that sought to benefit certain sectors such as oil and gas. It also highlighted that the complexity of reforms were known by the Government when it announced the Nature Positive Plan and hence, should not be a reason for slow pace of reform.
2.22Professor Samuel told the committee that he considered the pace of the Government’s reforms to be appropriate, given the need for proper consultation and the complexity and enormity of the proposed changes. Professor Samuel dismissed as misinformation reports in some media that delays to the reform process were due to the influence of a mining industry backlash. He expressed his confidence in the pace of reform and approach adopted by the Government, derisively noting:
To the conservationists in Australia, I would say: just sit and wait; take a chill pill. I think they will find that what we are going to get will satisfy all their aspirations, as set out in the Nature Positive Plan that the minister announced some time ago.
2.23DCCEEW noted that greater than anticipated disagreement on key issues relating to policy development has led to some delays. According to the department, consultation has reflected a complexity of views and feedback to incorporate into policy and legislation. DCCEEW spoke to the committee about how the high level of interest from stakeholders in these significant reforms had heightened delays to progressing the legislation.
2.24DCCEEW stated that it had been working to narrow down the issues between a disparate group of stakeholders in the consultation process, noting that they were not seeking agreement on every aspect of reform. With positions between some participants remaining relatively entrenched, DCCEEW’s stated objective was to reach a shared position on contentious issues and minimise disagreement or misunderstanding where possible.
2.25However, DCCEEW stated that the Government is committed to the full suite of reforms and intends to see that legislation put in place. It stated that the reforms ‘will be delivered as soon as possible’ and ‘…it’s important to get this right and…if that takes time, it takes time’.
Flawed consultation
2.26As stated, the Nature Positive Plan identified that an extensive process of consultation and discussion with a wide range of stakeholders would underpin the development of its environmental reforms. Furthermore, the Nature Positive Plan stated that draft legislation would be publicly released to enable further consultation and detailed feedback in 2023. A range of contributors to this inquiry noted their concern that expectations regarding the consultation process, created by the Government, have not been met.
Breadth of consultation
2.27Concerns were raised about the limited opportunity for a broad range of groups to engage in the Government’s consultation process on the reform package. The Environment Centre Northern Territory noted its concern ‘with the “closed shop” consultations that have occurred preferencing well-resourced stakeholders (including national environmental organisations), who are primarily based in south-eastern Australia’.
2.28Similarly, Lock the Gate Alliance—which had actively participated in consultations—raised concerns about the ‘selective “invitation only” consultation process and highlighted in letters to the Minister that it disenfranchises rural and regional communities particularly’. Throughout the past two years, numerous business people have also expressed their frustration at the complete absence of engagement and consultation with individual enterprises rather than membership-based bodies.
Accountability and transparency of the consultation process
2.29While the Government has employed a range of approaches to consultation, the Wilderness Society stated that to maintain integrity and trust in the decision‑making process, meaningful and transparent consultation with communities must occur, rather than what may be perceived as ‘tick‑the‑box‑style’ consultation.
2.30The ACF representative spoke about their concern that the Government had failed to openly share the range of issues that have been voiced through the various consultation sessions. They noted that the Government’s handling of the consultation process has been very unclear, stating they ‘would never recommend this as an appropriate approach to policy design and development in terms of these staggered lock-ups’. Similarly, the Biodiversity Council stated that ‘from a policy design approach, the process that we've gone through would be best described as “suboptimal”’.
2.31Some participants took issue with the closed approach of lock-up conditions where draft pieces of legislation were disclosed, but participants were not able to retain them afterwards. For example, Professor Martine Maron, a member of the Australian Academy of Science and Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (Wentworth Group), highlighted that restricted access to documents made it challenging to piece together information shared in these lock-ups:
It’s quite difficult to know exactly what to expect the overall outcomes are going to be... It’s something we’ve only really slowly had revealed to us, piece by piece.
2.32Similarly, the Biodiversity Council found that the closed, lock-up consultations made it difficult to fully assess proposed reforms. It noted that the random order of information sharing made it difficult to track iterations of policy and draft standards. No summary of suggested changes or explanations were provided by the department during these consultations.
2.33Questions were raised by some submitters about whether feedback provided in consultation sessions had been adequately considered and appropriately incorporated into draft documents. Feedback about significant areas of concern was given in consultations but not reflected in subsequent versions of documents. Professor Maron stated:
…we have been seeing the same sorts of documents coming back that have had comments, say, in the first lock-up. By the fourth lock-up, they’re substantially the same, but the elements of concern have been emphasised, rather than modified, to remove that concern.
2.34A lack of transparency in the consultation process has impacted trust in the reform process, as noted by the Wentworth Group. Having participated in four such lock-ups and provided subsequent feedback, it received little or no response from the department as to whether its feedback had been considered or its recommendations adopted. It explained:
The restricted consultation approach has hampered the ability of the Wentworth Group, and all consultation participants, to provide independent advice to this inquiry, and greatly undermines the overall integrity, fairness and public trust in the reform process.
2.35Concern was expressed about whether the lock-up style consultations were missed opportunities to facilitate meaningful dialogue between differing groups. The Biodiversity Council spoke about how key stakeholders and high‑level staff attended these sessions. However, there was no coordinated effort on the part of the department to facilitate engagement between interest groups to identify issues and potentially find common ground.
2.36Participants noted their further frustration that the Government had failed to consult on its proposition to pursue its reforms in tranches, beginning with legislation to create the EPA and the EIA.
Views on the proposed reforms
2.37As noted above, the focus of this committee’s current examination is the reform process that has been undertaken by the Government to date. However, significant amounts of evidence provided to the committee conveyed inquiry participants’ views on the reforms as they have been described both by the Nature Positive Plan and through the stakeholder consultation process. The following paragraphs identify some of the key views on these proposals.
Views on the EPA and the EIA
2.38While the legislation to establish the EPA and the EIA has not yet been introduced into the Parliament, inquiry participants expressed views on the proposed agencies based upon detail released to date either through the stakeholder consultation process or through public statements and publicly released material.
2.39While witnesses emphasised the need to see the detail surrounding the proposed agencies, as a general proposition, inquiry participants supported the creation of these agencies.
2.40However, concerns were expressed around the benefit of introducing these agencies in the absence of accompanying further legislative change now proposed for “stage 3”, in particular the national environmental standards. With respect to the EPA, witnesses told the committee that without further reform, the EPA would continue to enforce the current, unsatisfactory legislation. The ACF agreed that in the absence of the rest of the package, “stage 2” is ‘hardly environmental reform’. The AYCC expressed a similar view, stating:
In principle, I’d be supporting a body, an EPA, that could independently assess and hold different developers accountable with regard to the protection of the environment. However, we do share the concern that—in splitting up the reforms and implementing some pieces such as an EPA without the stronger and tougher national environmental standards and without stronger protections alongside—there would be limited capacity for this new body to genuinely improve decisions for matters of national environmental significance for the climate and for threatened species.
The original vision, to present these reforms as a holistic package, feels like a much stronger pathway…
2.41As this statement from the AYCC indicates, the absence of the national environmental standards in “stage 2” was identified as particularly problematic by some witnesses. The Wentworth Group reminded the committee that the Samuel Review recommended the immediate implementation of ‘legally enforceable national environmental standards that set the environmental outcomes’ as the first phase of reform. The Wentworth Group was disappointed with the Government’s delays in introducing important elements of the reform package, stating, ‘this is a step backwards for the Nature Positive Plan’. The Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) stated that it would support the introduction of a strengthened EPA with additional decision‑making powers linked to the proposed National Environmental Standards.
2.42Similarly, while the establishment of the EIA was seen as a welcome development, concerns were noted, with submitters stating that the creation of this agency is not enough on its own.
2.43NRM Regions Australia provided a slightly different view and expressed support for the establishment of the EPA and the EIA prior to the introduction of further substantive legislative reform:
[e]nsuring that the EPA and the EIA are stood up, robust and resourced, so they can support the legislation when the legislation comes in actually seems quite logical to me…
I personally am happy that the EPA and EIA are established to do their job so they can take on the work that's required as the new legislation comes in… I think they have got plenty of work to get on with in the next while.
2.44Professor Samuel stated that establishing the EPA in the first instance is worthwhile, noting that it ‘will be a compliance mechanism and an enforcer at the present time’. Referring back to his findings in the Samuel Review about the absence of compliance culture under the existing regime and the need for that to change, Professor Samuel stated that the ‘EPA will be there to ensure that the department actually does just that’. As previously noted, Professor Samuel never explicitly recommended the creation of an EPA in his formal review.
EPA
2.45Some inquiry participants expressed support for the establishment of a strong, independent environmental protection agency. The committee was told by these participants that such an organisation must be properly independent, with an independent board. The Australian Land Conservation Alliance argued that the strength of such a body must be supported by underpinning legislative and funding arrangements.
Strength and independence
2.46A number of inquiry participants involved in the stakeholder consultation process expressed dissatisfaction or raised concerns with the level of independence afforded to the EPA under the proposed arrangements put to participants in these sessions. For example, EDO described the detail of the draft legislation as ‘high level and underwhelming’. It described its expectations of independence as follows:
We need to see from the package put forward by government an EPA that is governed by a CEO who has been appointed by and is reporting to an independent, statutory, skills based board; that is fully independent and not subject to direction from the minister of the day or politicised appointments; that is led by clear duties and objectives to guide decision-making and other activities; that has secure and long-term funding; and that is subject to robust rules ensuring transparency in all of its functions and its decision‑making.
2.47The need for the CEO of the EPA to be appointed by and accountable to an independent board was echoed by other inquiry participants. Environmental Justice Australia explained this view as follows:
It's too risky to set up an EPA with one person at the top who's not accountable to an independent board and who, in our view, will be quite vulnerable to very powerful influences. The way to establish integrity and community trust in the EPA and set that agency up to succeed, particularly in the face of deforestation in Australia, is to make sure there's an independent board.
2.48Similarly, concerns about potential influence or interference from the Minister and Government were also raised by some inquiry participants. In this regard, the strength of proposed Ministerial call-in powers were noted as of particular concern to some inquiry participants from the environmental movement. The Australian Land Conservation Alliance submitted that it ‘supports the embedding of democratic accountability in…Federal environmental laws and supports Ministerial call-in powers to help provide that direct avenue of democratic Ministerial responsibility’. Such powers, however, ‘need to be fettered to ensure accountability and confidence in EPA decision-making’.
2.49To date, there has been more participation in this inquiry by environmental groups than businesses. In wider public commentary beyond this inquiry, it has been made clear that the latter are concerned by any potential dilution or diminution of Ministerial accountability through a transfer of decision-making authority and powers to an EPA. Typically, they take a very different position to environmentalists – pointing out that, under a Westminster model, Ministerial responsibility is a crucial component of the effective operation of government.
2.50From either end of the spectrum, or the many views in between, there is broad dissatisfaction at the approach being taken by government in progressing reforms of environmental approvals.
2.51DCCEEW told the committee that initially the EPA would be housed within the department, but with a view to becoming an independent statutory body on 1July 2025. The rationale for the body’s initial integration within the department was to assist it in the early stages of its development to allow the body to be established and ready to enforce the new legislation once it commences.
Other issues
2.52Other issues in relation to the EPA raised by inquiry participants included:
The absence of a clear mandate—the Lock the Gate Alliance expressed concerns that the EPA does not have the clear mandate it would expect to see in such a body, noting that the draft legislation viewed during the stakeholder consultation process did not appear to have an objects clause.
Oversight arrangements—the AFPA submitted that it holds ‘grave concerns that there is no person or body responsible for the oversight of [theEPA]’, which could risk ‘eroding the public trust it was designed to restore’. It suggested an independent third party, such as the Public Service Commissioner or the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, could undertake this role.
Considerations in decision making—while acknowledging that the EPA’s focus would be on environmental concerns, the AFPA emphasised that while achieving environmental outcomes, the EPA ‘should be expected to have regard to social and economic impacts’. This is a sentiment that is shared widely by businesses and industry groups.
EIA
2.53The EIA was welcomed by inquiry participants as a positive reform. The EDO highlighted the benefits of this agency for aggregating and disseminating environmental information and emphasised the importance of ensuring that this ‘information is made publicly available and can be shared and used for a range of purposes’.
2.54NRM Regions Australia described the EIA reform as ‘undervalued’. It explained that the information the EIA would produce would be important for the purpose of understanding trends:
…we also need to understand what's working and what's not working and how we do better. How do we move away from what isn't effective, or how do we invest more in what is effective? It's those sorts of things that we need to enable what we do. We also need them for accountability and for justifying that investment and building that investment. That becomes even more the case when you're outside of the public sector.
2.55The AFPA emphasised the importance of having access to high-quality information about the environment. It described the ‘critical’ need for the Government to ‘invest in new national surveys of important flora and fauna to establish credible baselines across all forest tenures’. This undertaking would, in AFPA’s view, create ‘credible up to date evidence’ for the Government and EIA.
Remaining Nature Positive Plan reforms
2.56The committee received a substantial amount of evidence from organisations that have been involved in the consultation process about the proposed “stage3” reforms. The committee was repeatedly told that it is difficult to envisage how the framework will work as a whole due to the fragmented way in which the reforms have been presented during the consultation process.
2.57Some inquiry participants expressed dissatisfaction with the reforms. For example, Professor Maron told the committee that while the proposed reform contains ‘some really strong elements’, it has ‘loopholes or areas of vagueness that threaten to undermine it to the point of potentially taking a step backwards’.
2.58The Lock the Gate Alliance raised concerns that the new laws are, in many instances, essentially duplicating processes and concepts within the existing Act. It also stated that, in its view, there is a significant amount of uniformity across environmental groups about what the laws need to achieve. It stated:
The effect of the legislation needs to be to prevent further clearing of critical habitat. The effect of the legislation needs to be to ensure that the downstream emissions of coal and gas projects and the consequences they will have for Australia's world heritage are taken into account and acted upon by the decision-maker. It's not about saying it has to be done the way we say it needs to be done. What I'm saying is it needs to deliver the government's promise to halt extinction.
2.59a number of specific areas of the proposed reforms were identified by inquiry participants as requiring improvement. These include:
further consideration of climate change in the legislation, including the introduction of a climate trigger;
greater action to address land clearing and native forest logging;
greater protections for critical habitat;
incorporating third party merits review rights;
provisions to enshrine First Nations participation and knowledge; and
limitations on the use of offsets and payments for destruction.
2.60In wider public commentary, it should be noted that industry possesses an altogether different set of concerns with the Government’s approach—asserting that new laws must be better for business as well as better for the environment including a focus on certainty with regard to timelines and scope of assessment work by government.
Committee view
2.61The committee’s examination of this topic took place at a critical time for the protection of Australia’s unique environment. The committee recommended major reform to Australia’s environmental law in April 2019. Professor Samuel similarly recommended extensive reform in October 2020. This Government set out its plan for reform in December 2022. Yet, little has changed. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 that has been described by Professor Samuel as an ‘abysmal failure’ remains largely intact.
2.62The committee recognises that a significant amount of time, energy and resources has been committed by the Government to progressing these reforms. But the reality is that the urgency of these reforms has significantly outstripped the pace of the Government’s actions, and Australia’s unique and extremely vulnerable biodiversity is paying the price. The Climate Council summed it up: the glaciers are melting while this reform moves at a glacial pace.
2.63While the committee recognises this is a complex reform, it also acknowledges the significant time and resources that have been committed by experts and stakeholders over many years to provide the Government with the information they need to update our national environment laws. The advice is abundantly clear, and the situation has only become more urgent.
2.64The committee shares stakeholders’ troubling concerns that the latest indefinite delay in bringing a full package of reforms to the Parliament indicates that the Government is unable to deliver on its promises. A full package of reforms was promised in this term of Parliament, and at this late phase to manufacture a staged process with no concrete timeframe demonstrates a prioritisation of politics over nature. Further, the absence of any real provision for environmental protection measures in the 2024-25 Budget undermines this Government’s credibility to deliver on its rhetorical commitments to protect nature. Trust in the Government’s ability to deliver the reforms is quickly eroding.
2.65The consultation process to date has not met the Government’s own expectations around timeframes and has been described somewhat generously by stakeholders as ‘suboptimal’. The quasi-confidential process has created difficulties for stakeholders in both consulting with others outside of the process and keeping track of changes in the development of the reforms. It has also excluded important groups of stakeholders, limiting accessibility for geographically distant, regional and rural groups or those with limited financial resources to travel.
2.66The committee acknowledges the Government’s somewhat belated efforts to keep the public informed by publishing the policy papers discussed during the consultations. However, it is unclear why the Government would not simply remove the intermediary quasi-confidential consultation and proceed expeditiously to the public exposure draft consultation.
2.67The Government foreshadowed the release in 2023 of exposure draft legislation for public consultation in the Nature Positive Plan, before backing away from that commitment, and then recommitting to such a process as part of “stage3” of the reforms. This vacillation does not inspire confidence in the Government’s commitment to this course of action.
2.68Stakeholders have repeatedly called for the release of exposure draft legislation, and that has not happened. Consultation on components of the draft legislation with a selected group of stakeholders, regardless of the number of meetings that are held, is not public consultation. The committee calls on the Government to unequivocally commit to publicly releasing exposure draft legislation of the full package of reforms as promised, and to commence a public consultation process on the draft as a matter of urgency.
2.69The committee recommends that the Australian Government urgently and unequivocally commit to publicly releasing exposure draft legislation of the full package of reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for consultation ahead of passage of piecemeal legislation in the Parliament.
2.70The committee heard that to deliver this reform in “stages” without providing a full picture of the reforms is piecemeal and unlikely to achieve the urgent reform needed to address the biodiversity crisis. Further, the proposed Government “stages” do not at all follow the timeframes or tranches originally recommended by the Samuel Review, including ‘immediately’ implementing legally enforceable national environmental standards. To restore trust in the process going forward, the Government must deliver on their promise and commit to a clear timeline for the full package of the EPBC reforms, with a view to passing all necessary legislation before the end of the 47th Parliament. Further, in the interests of trust, transparency and accountability, it must publish this timetable on the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water’s EPBC Act reform webpage. ‘As soon as possible’ is not a good enough response given the urgency of the need to protect threatened species and the inadequacy of the current legislative framework. It is also not good enough for stakeholders who have invested significant time and energy into the reform process over an extended period of time, and who are losing faith in the Government’s ability to deliver on its promises.
2.71The committee recommends that the Australian Government commit to a timeframe for the introduction into the Parliament of the full package of Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 reforms as outlined in the Nature Positive Plan. This timeframe should allow a reasonable period for all necessary legislation to be passed before the end of the 47th Parliament.
2.72The committee recommends that the timeframe in recommendation 2 be published by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water on its EPBC Act reform webpage.
2.73The committee acknowledges input from inquiry participants about the substance of the proposed reforms. The primary purpose of the committee’s examination of this topic was to understand the process to date. Further opportunity to consider the substance of the reforms will arise once legislation is introduced into the Parliament. However, the committee urges the Government to carefully consider this evidence, much of which the committee understands has been provided to it as feedback through the stakeholder consultation process.
2.74While some submitters and witnesses supported the concept of an environmental protection agency, the committee draws to the Government’s attention the concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed Environment Protection Australia (EPA).
2.75Ultimately, the overall strength of both Environmental Protection Australia and Environment Information Australia will be limited if the overarching framework remains unchanged. Without the promised full package of reforms, it is difficult to consider the Government’s proposal as reform of any significant substance.
2.76The committee recognises that the task of implementing these reforms is complex and challenging. However, it is well past time for the Government to demonstrate the leadership that comes with the privilege the Australian people have bestowed upon them and to make these changes a reality.
Senator Sarah Hanson-Young
Chair