Chapter 5Other issues and recommendations
5.1This chapter outlines key issues raised during the inquiry not addressed in previous chapters. It includes submitters’ views on the proposed strengthening of compliance and enforcement powers provided for in the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 (the Amendment bill) such as the use of Environment Protection Orders (EPOs) and changes to penalty provisions. It also considers the proposed changes to the ‘stop the clock’ provisions.
5.2This chapter also canvasses other issues raised during the inquiry, notably bringing forward the introduction of a National Environmental Standards making power, access to justice issues, and the importance of transitioning to renewable energy.
5.3This chapter concludes with the committee's view and recommendations on these matters.
Strengthened compliance and enforcement powers
5.4The Amendment bill proposes amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) relating to the compliance and enforcement and penalty regime. It would do this by:
introducing a new compliance tool, an EPO, for use in urgent circumstances to manage a contravention, or likely contravention of the EPBC Act that creates an imminent risk of serious harm to the environment, or where damage has already occurred;
expanding what approvals and orders ‘directed audits’ can be applied to, including a new ‘compliance audit’ that could be conducted without a requirement to provide prior notice; and
introducing a civil penalty formula for serious offences under the EPBC Act and increasing maximum financial penalties for criminal offences.
5.5In her second reading speech on the Amendment bill, the Minister for the Environment and Water, the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP, outlined the rationale for these changes:
The compliance powers available under the EPBC Act have not kept up with modern standards or community expectations.
That is why we are also introducing critical changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to deliver stronger enforcement.
This bill would expand and update audit powers, introduce environment protection orders, increase criminal and civil penalties for serious contraventions and introduce a civil penalty formula.
5.6This is in line with the findings of the final report of the Independent review of the EPBC Act (the ‘Samuel Review’) which found that enforcement provisions are rarely applied and serious action rarely taken, and ‘penalties do not appear commensurate with the harm of damaging a public good of national interest’.
5.7Environmental and conservation groups, such as WWF-Australia, the Labor Environment Action Network and the Humane Society International Australia, supported the proposed measures to strengthen compliance and enforcement under the EPBC Act, including increased penalty amounts and the use of EPOs.
5.8For instance, the Labor Environment Action Network and WWF‑Australia highlighted that weak compliance has been 'a particular problem with the implementation of the EPBC over many years'.
5.9The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) also outlined weaknesses in the current enforcement of the EPBC Act. It supported the establishment of an Environmental Protection Agency in this term of Parliament as it ‘would help protect nature now’. The ACF identified instances where it had resorted to its own investigation activities to overcome the inherent weaknesses in the current arrangements:
Many of our organisations are taking enforcement—we have to go through the courts to make sure enforcement is done, and we're doing our own investigations of illegal deforestation occurring in Australia. ACF runs investigations which we use crowdsourcing to do, to compare satellite imagery to identify where land clearing is about to occur or has occurred. We then overlay that against whether or not there are threatened species there. We then give that information to the government and say, 'Can you please do something about this?' That's what we're doing at the moment. An EPA could do all those things.
5.10Other organisations such as industry advocates and legal experts raised concerns about certain aspects of the proposed arrangements which are discussed below. While some of these concerns related to the substance of these measures, others identified technical improvements that could be made.
The creation of Environment Protection Orders
5.11As set out in Chapter 2, the Amendment bill would introduce EPOs as a new compliance and enforcement tool under the EPBC Act.
5.12These are intended for use in urgent circumstances where there is an imminent risk of serious harm to the environment or damage has already occurred, and would align the EPBC Act with comparable tools in State and Territory legislation.
5.13Reflecting the seriousness of circumstances in which these are to be used, the Amendment bill provides that the natural justice hearing rule would not need to be observed when issuing or varying an EPO.
5.14While the introduction of EPOs to mitigate environmental harm was supported by environmental and conservation groups, industry groups and legal experts cautioned against its unconstrained use, highlighting the absence of natural justice hearing requirements and merits review.
5.15For example, Chevron, Fortescue and the Chamber of Minerals and Energy WA expressed concern about the absence of the 'natural justice hearing rule in relation to the issue or variation of an EPO', and the lack of an evidentiary threshold to issue an EPO. The National Farmers’ Federation argued that EPOs should only be used in cases where there is demonstrable, sufficient evidence that a contravention has occurred, citing similar powers used in other jurisdictions where similar orders are used to address 'egregious offences'.
5.16The Minerals Council of Australia emphasised:
We want to make sure that the environment protection orders are constrained, are reviewable and don't extend beyond a certain period—and, if they do, they need to be reviewable in the way they are administered. That's an area that is extremely important to the minerals industry.
5.17The Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA advocated for ‘a full removal of EPOs from the legislation’, that natural justice hearing requirements should be observed and time limits applied.
5.18Industry organisations, such as the Business Council of Australia, also cited concerns with the perceived lack of 'procedural fairness' and the potential for 'major financial and socio-economic consequences' arising from its use.
5.19The Law Council of Australia identified the 'absence of procedural safeguards in the issuing of EPOs by the Minister (or in the future, by the EPA CEO)' as concerning, noting:
These provisions are contrary to the fundamental right to procedural fairness, which is an important component of the rule of law. The provisions confer virtually unlimited power enabling the Minister (and EPA CEO) to issue a verbal EPO, making it unlikely that a person will have prior notice that a decision may affect their interests. The inclusion of uncertain concepts leaves open the risk of incorrect applications of the EPO power, and this is even more concerning in the context of there being no clear review or appeal rights.
5.20Various suggestions were put forward in relation to EPOs including:
limiting the maximum period an EPO can apply to 14 days, with an extension beyond this period requiring an application to a court;
inserting a requirement that an EPO state 'the material facts or evidence relied on in deciding to issue an EPO';
including a right to limited merits review of a decision to issue an EPO;
proposing that the relevant State or Territory Environment Protection Agency issue the EPO; and
clarifying the scope of the EPO as it applies to a specific relevant activity rather than to an entire operation.
5.21As outlined in Chapter 3, conservation groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation also recommended that the EPA should respond to requests for it to issue an EPO when provided with evidence of a breach of the EPBC Act or of approval conditions.
5.22The Law Council of Australia identified a range of amendments that it submitted would provide a greater degree of procedural fairness, including simplified merits review on the papers, and following up any verbal EPO with written documentation within 72 hours:
From a practical perspective…if the power is to issue an EPO verbally, the entity that's affected needs to be able to respond to something concrete. By the same token, the minister or the delegated authority…who issues the EPO has to have some basis for issuing it so that the parties can then work together to protect the segment of the environment that they're trying to protect. I think these amendments that we've proposed do find that balance. There is need for urgency in certain circumstances, but they have to be backed up with a degree of specificity, and in writing, so that the parties can move forward on an agreed platform. That's something that's not unheard of in environment legislation…
5.23In response to concerns raised about the evidentiary threshold for issuing EPOs, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) clarified that the ‘reasonable belief’ test outlined in the Amendment bill is an established threshold under other legislation:
Within the legislation, there are inherent thresholds already. For instance, it's that the minister reasonably believes. It's not 'suspect'. It's not an inkling or anything like that. It's an established threshold under most law enforcement legislation…
It has to involve somebody engaging in or suspected to be engaging in a contravention of the legislation. That's part 1 of the test. Then it's that they're causing an imminent risk of serious damage to the environment. That's the second part of the test.
5.24DCCEEW also outlined that with respect to timeframes, while the Amendment bill does not provide for an overarching time limit requirement on EPOs, individual EPOs can specify the time period they are in effect. Where an EPO does not have a specified end date, it will remain in effect until it is either revoked or deemed no longer necessary by the Minister.
New penalty provisions
5.25With respect to the proposed increased penalty provisions, various submitters welcomed the introduction of increased criminal and civil penalties within the Amendment Bill as a deterrent for environmental harm.
5.26For example, Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action noted that 'penalties should both reflect the seriousness of the harm done and function as an actual deterrent, not just a cost of doing business'. Similarly the Labor Environment Action Network outlined that the proposed increase in penalties for non-compliance ‘should create genuine incentives for compliance, and to ensure impacts are not more significant than anticipated’.
5.27In contrast to these views, industry groups including those representing the mining sector, contended that the proposed increases in penalty amounts was not justified, disproportionate and not comparable to other jurisdictions.
5.28For example, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies argued:
The implementation of arbitrary penalties applied are not justified and the number of penalty units applied should be decreased. The new penalty regime vastly increases fines and penalties, up to 2.5million penalty units ($782.5 million). This is substantially larger than other jurisdictions penalty ratesfor environmental breaches. For example, in Canada for the most serious offences, fines up-to $1million a day for each day an offence continues.
5.29Similar views were expressed by the Australian Aluminium Council and Fortescue who submitted that the new maximum formula should only apply to 'extremely serious intentional breaches where there has been or is likely to be an impact to matters of national environmental significance'. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia argued that these provisions should not be applied where there have been administrative breaches or where the breach has occurred unintentionally.
5.30DCCEEW explained that the proposed penalties responded to the concerns raised in the Samuel Review that ‘penalties must be sufficient to be an active deterrent, rather than ‘a cost of doing business’:
We also looked at comparable schemes in other Commonwealth legislation—for example, those targeting financial crime and the various formulas and approaches that are taken. The reason we did that was not just to benchmark it against environmental penalties in state and territory EPAs but also that the seriousness of the damage—and damage not just to the environment but to Australia's international reputation and obligations in relation to the things that the Commonwealth regulates—was a particular concern, which is why we looked at the Commonwealth financial crime provisions as well. The most serious environmental crimes damage Australia's international reputation and economy. Insufficient penalties undermine trust…
5.31Various organisations also recommended that a transitional period should apply before the new penalty provisions take effect, noting that the proposed penalty regime comes into effect as soon as the Amendment bill receives Royal Assent.
5.32In relation to the technical aspects of the penalty provisions, the Law Council of Australia submitted that terms such as 'detriment avoided' and' benefit derived' are broad and should be further explained in the EM. This guidance is important, particularly given 'there is no ability to challenge the penalty imposed'.
5.33Other submitters, including the Humane Society International Australia and the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), recommended extending the civil penalty provisions to allow for third party enforcement of civil penalties as a crucial accountability mechanism.
5.34The EDO outlined:
The EPA Bill should explicitly allow for third parties to enforce breaches of civil penalty provisions through seeking civil penalties. This means any person with the right to enforce an Act will have the ability to seek civil penalties against entities that have breached it, including the EPBC Act. This reform is critical to improve enforcement and deterrenceparticularly for significant environmental damage that has already occurred.
Proposed changes to 'stop the clock' provisions
5.35The Amendment Bill proposes to amend provisions in the EPBC Act relating to the Minister or delegate requesting further information for the purpose of making certain assessment and approvals decisions, and 'stopping the clock' until the information is received.
5.36The proposed amendments would give people proposing to undertake actions, or project proponents, the opportunity to advise the decision-maker that they do not want decision-making timeframes to be paused while additional information is sought. This would mean that the normal statutory timeframes would apply to the decision-maker regardless of whether the proponent submitted the additional information requested within that timeframe.
5.37There was broad opposition to these proposed amendments, albeit for different reasons. These ranged from concerns about its potential misuse to risks to the quality and timeliness of decision-making.
5.38Industry associations including the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia argued that without 'appropriate guardrails in place, Stop the Clock provisions could be abused by the EPA [Environment Protection Australia]. In the WA experience, Stop the Clock provisions have become overused by the regulator, rather than attempting mediation with the proponent'.
5.39Submitters including the Biodiversity Council and EDO contended that these amendments would further weaken trust and integrity in the existing regulatory system and risk undermining the environmental impact assessment process:
A right of veto on the stopping of the clock will have one of two consequences, bothperverse. Either the minister will take decisions without requesting relevant andnecessary information, which will both reduce the quality of decisions and increase theprospects of them being challenged through judicial review; or decisions will be morelikely to be late, which will make the approval systemlessefficient. In either case, trust inthe regulatory system, which the NPP [Nature Positive Plan] seeks to restore, will only be further weakened.
5.40The Australian Conservation Foundation recommended that these amendments be removed from the Amendment bill as they are unnecessary and risk undermining the authority and independence of the EPA.
5.41The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, while acknowledging that these amendments could result in better environmental outcomes (for example, with more actions being deemed controlled actions, or more refusals to grant approvals for an action), also expressed concern that these amendments could lead to undue pressure on the decision-maker to make a decision within a designated timeframe, with 'insufficient information upon which to base [that] decision.'
5.42The Urban Development Institute of Australia welcomed the proposed amendments to the 'stop the clock' provisions, however recommended modifications to ensure information requests from the EPA are reasonable. This could occur by including an objectives clause that states that 'EPA requests for information cannot be unreasonably costly, complex, time consuming relative to the type of assessment and should directly relate to the terms of reference for the application'.
Introducing a standards making power within the EPBC Act
5.43The Samuel Review identified the need for ‘strong, measurable and legally enforceable National Environmental Standards’ as the centrepiece of EPBC Act reforms. It recommended that the EPBC Act should be immediately amended to enable their development and implementation.
5.44As discussed in Chapter 1, various submitters provided evidence about possible amendments that could be introduced immediately as part of this package of bills. Environmental and conservation groups, along with legal experts, highlighted the absence of National Environmental Standards within these bills as a significant shortcoming. These groups called for new legislative powers to enable the Minister to make, review and amend these standards as disallowable legislative instruments.
5.45The Nature Conservancy identified ‘providing the Minister with the power to create National Environmental Standards, safeguarded by a non-regression clause’ as ‘crucial gaps in the existing EPBC Act that need urgent attention as part of Stage 2 [reforms]’.
5.46Similar views were expressed by the Smart Energy Council and the Clean Energy Investor Group (CEIG), peak bodies representing the renewable and smart energy sector, who described these as ‘critical additions’ to the Stage 2 reforms.
5.47The CEIG proposed specific amendments to the EPBC Act to legislate the creation and enforcement of standards for project assessments, reviews and other key decisions. In CEIG’s view, this would:
…enable the Minister to establish standards, enforce their practical application in decision-making processes, apply state and territory accreditation, establish transitional arrangements for standards, and ensure transparency and parliamentary oversight as disallowable instruments.
5.48The Labor Environment Action Network (LEAN), while urging the Government to expedite the full set of reforms, argued that introducing a legislated power to create standards within Stage 2 could ‘deliver immediate change in the outcomes for both business and the environment’. It emphasised:
LEAN strongly believes that this Stage 2 tranche of legislative reforms would be strengthened by a legislated ability to create National Environmental Standards and have them apply to decision making under the current Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This should be accompanied by an inclusive stakeholder process to finalise key standards before the next election…
Amendments would empower the Minister to make, vary and review standards as disallowable instruments. Decisions under the EPBC Act would be required to be consistent with the standards. Standards would also apply to bilateral agreements with the states and territories.
5.49There was widespread support from environmental and conservation groups, industry groups representing the renewable energy sector and legal experts to introduce a standards making power as part of these Stage 2 bills. The EDO contended:
The government has talked about getting a quick yes and a quick no, giving clarity to both community and industry. By putting national environmental standards in place now and by identifying unacceptable impacts now, these are some safeguards that can go in now and start protecting nature so that the EPA is set up for success from day one, so we are not delaying the really important elements until stage 3…
We don't deny there's a really complex job to be done, but the starting point we're working with is what's before us. There are sensible amendments like a power to make national environmental standards so we can get the ball rolling now on fixing those broken elements.
5.50Similarly, the Biodiversity Council emphasised the immediate need for a standards making power:
We would like to see the standards and the head of power for the standards enshrined now and get the standards together as quickly as possible. Time is ticking, and we're losing biodiversity at an incredibly rapid rate. We really need clear rules on the table. So, we would love to see those things progressed. At the very least, we need to see that head of power for legally enforceable standards that demonstrate demonstrable outcomes for nature. We would like to see that in right now.
5.51The inquiry received similar evidence from the Australian Land Conservation Alliance and the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation (ACBF). The ACBF stressed the need to take immediate action despite the proposal not being ideal:
For me, it's like no regrets. Take a baby step forward and create, at least, the damn power. The power isn't there. The idea of creating a standard-making power was the subject of a committee inquiry last term. We all had the conversation. There was legislation drafted. We looked at it. It had some fleas on it—whatever. We know what it could look like. Take the baby steps. It will not be perfect, but it will send the signal to all and sundry who are very passionate and committed to this issue, because it involves both the environment and the economy, to actually re-engage. My fear is that the momentum's going to get lost.
Access to justice issues and community engagement in decision making
5.52The inquiry also heard evidence about broader access to justice issues, including the role of the community to participate in and challenge environmental decision making.
5.53The Samuel Review noted conflicting views about appeal mechanisms under the EPBC Act. It recognised public concerns regarding limited access to information about decisions and the lack of opportunity to substantively engage in decision-making. The Review suggested that public challenges to high-profile projects were often used to discover information and object to a decision. It also noted industry concerns that legal challenges were at times politically motivated 'lawfare' and resulted in unnecessary delay. In summary, the Review supported judicial review of decisions, noting that the ability of the public to hold decision-makers to account is a fundamental foundation of Australia's democracy.
5.54To allow for third-party concerns to be heard, while maintaining regulatory certainty, the Samuel Review suggested that the EPBC Act could be amended to provide for limited merits review of development approval decisions but be restricted:
by set time frames for applications;
to the papers at the time of the original decision;
to matters that would have a material impact on environmental and heritage outcomes; and
to where there is a reasonable likelihood of the matter proceeding.
5.55In the Nature Positive Plan, the Government did not support the right of limited merits review of decisions, suggesting instead that:
Legislating National Environmental Standards, greater transparency and establishing an independent EPA are more effective ways to improve and assure the quality of decision making. Limited merits review may also prevent projects from proceeding in a timely manner, as matters are held up by courts, which can lead to unreasonable and unfair costs for proponents. Members of the public will continue to be able to bring legal claims against decisions of the EPA or the minister for errors of law.
5.56The Law Council of Australia disagreed with this proposition, submitting that the low-cost nature and timing of the proposed merits review rights would not produce unreasonable or unfair costs for proponents. The Law Council was concerned about the lack of ability to seek review of decisions made by the Minister or the EPA CEO, given the CEO's wide-ranging powers.
5.57Parents for Climate said that trust in the EPBC Act would be enhanced if there were mechanisms to ensure that decision-making was well-founded, justifiable and able to withstand the scrutiny of merits review. They sought the right to seek review of EPA decisions in order to ensure consistency with current climate science.
5.58Many submitters supported greater community consultation and third-party initiated merits review of decisions. For example, Greenpeace Australia argued that the integrity of the regulatory framework could be improved by giving the community greater standing and increased opportunity for consultation, including via submissions to the EPA rather than the project proponent, and allowing for third-party merits review.
Renewable energy
5.59The committee received substantial evidence regarding the importance to the environment and the economy of a national transition to renewable energy as part of the Nature Positive reforms. For example, the Smart Energy Council submitted that:
Rapid deployment of renewable energy is a critical need for the Australian economy. Slow and complex environmental approvals present a material challenge to the timely rollout of renewable projects. Nonetheless it is critical that Australia builds renewable energy in a way that is nature positive.
5.60The committee received evidence that renewable energy projects now represent the largest category of EPBC Act referrals, and warnings of the impacts of delays on the Government’s ambitious renewable energy target. For example, the Clean Energy Council told the committee:
EPBC assessments have become challenging and time consuming for the renewable energy sector, and we welcome the overall package of reforms, though with some suggestions. I should add that we also welcome the recent federal budget commitments to bring more resources into EPBC assessments…With renewable energy projects now representing the largest category of EPBC referrals, we and our members welcome the opportunity for more specific and detailed engagement on these in coming months to ensure those settings are appropriate for facilitating the all-important energy transition.
5.61Similarly, the Smart Energy Council submitted that delays were 'very significant':
Roughly 25 per cent of wind farms referred over the last five years have received formal answers about those projects, whether approved or not. My understanding is that only one wind farm has been approved under the current government through the EPBC process. About 35 wind farms are currently awaiting EPBC decisions. That gives you a sense of the scale of the urgency.
5.62The Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation also gave evidence about the prevalence of renewable energy projects in the EPBC Act approvals process, and the impact of delays on the energy transition:
…we do need effective environmental laws as we're going through, maybe, the single biggest industrial revolution in our history, at least since World War II, which is the rollout of renewable energy at scale across our landscape. A cursory review of EPBC referrals since early this year demonstrated that the single biggest user now of the EPBC Act and the referrals, assessment and approval systems is, in fact, the renewable energy industry. We know, from all of the representations made by business and others, that we've got a hell of a job to actually find a coherent pathway forward to meet environmental concerns and community concerns and also to make sure that rollout of renewables happens in a seamless fashion.
5.63Environmental organisations and the renewable energy sector agreed that climate change impacts, both positive and negative, should be considered when assessing projects under the EPBC Act. For example, the Climate Council submitted that strengthening protections for the existing nine Matters of National Environmental Significance could be achieved by:
…adding climate change impacts to the list of factors proponents must consider when determining whether an action requires approval under the EPBC Act, and that decision-makers must take into account when assessing whether approval should be given.
5.64The Clean Energy Council (CEC) noted that climate change was a key driver of biodiversity decline and a significant threat to Matters of National Environmental Significance. CEC called for EPBC assessments to:
…take the climate benefits of renewable energy generation development into account whilst also weighing up the potential impacts on matters of national environmental significance and any additional restorative measures a developer may want to undertake.
5.65The Clean Energy Investor Group (CEIG) submitted that inefficient environmental assessments were 'the most significant challenge to delivering renewable energy projects in Australia', which put 'investment decisions and the likelihood of Australia meeting its clean energy targets and decarbonisation goals at significant risk'. CEIG called for:
…efficient planning and environmental assessment processes for clean energy projects that can be delivered without major harm, taking into account infrastructure development, environmental preservation, and energy planning to align Australia’s decarbonisation efforts with its Paris Agreement commitments and 1.5-degree outcome.
5.66The Environment Minister's announcement of the bills included an allocation of nearly $100 million to expedite environmental approval decisions, including:
more support for staff to assess project proposals from business, including renewables and critical minerals;
more tailored support to help business more effectively comply with environment law;
more funding for research into threatened species so sensitive areas can be more easily avoided and suitable projects can be more quickly approved based on robust, existing publicly available data; and
more planning—working with state and territory governments – in seven priority regions so it’s clearer to business where complying development can more easily occur and where the ‘no go’ areas are.
5.67In June 2024, the Environment Minister announced that the Australian Government had approved 54 renewable energy projects since coming to office, resulting in a 25 per cent increase of renewable energy in the national grid. The Minister also spoke about another 135 renewable energy projects in the approvals pipeline, and an increase in on-time approvals from 46 per cent to 84 per cent.
Committee view
5.68The committee heard a range of perspectives about the proposed measures contained in the Amendment bill, including the introduction of new compliance and enforcement measures such as Environment Protection Orders (EPOs) and changes to penalty provisions.
5.69Consistent with the findings in the Samuel Review, the committee supports the strengthening of compliance and enforcement measures under the EPBC Act as necessary and important measures to build community trust and confidence.
5.70At the same time, the committee acknowledges the views of various stakeholders including legal experts about the need for greater procedural safeguards, including natural justice hearing requirements and a clear evidentiary basis for issuing an EPO.
5.71Recognising the potential impact of EPOs, the committee considers that certain procedural protections could be introduced to ensure EPOs are used proportionately and in a transparent manner. These include requiring the Minister (and subsequently the CEO of the EPA) to disclose at, a high level, the underlying facts that have led to the issue of the EPO and considering the introduction of a limited merits review right for the issue and scope of EPOs.
5.72The committee recommends that amendments be made to the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provision) Bill 2024 to consider introducing greater procedural safeguards for the issuing of Environmental Protection Orders (EPO), including considering requirements for limited merits review, and requiring the Minister (and subsequently the CEO of the EPA) to disclose the underlying facts that have led to the issuing and scope of an EPO.
5.73The committee also recognises the concerns raised by various submitters about the proposed amendments to the ‘stop the clock’ provisions and the impact this may have on the decision-making process.
5.74While acknowledging these concerns, the committee considers that these proposed amendments strike the right balance between providing project proponents with greater certainty about why additional information is being requested and a greater say in statutory timeframes, and ensuring the integrity of environmental decision-making.
5.75The committee also supports timely approval of carefully planned renewable energy projects that effectively engage local communities. It recognises the Australian Government's nearly $100 million investment in streamlining environmental assessments and approval processes within DCCEEW, especially in the areas of renewable energy and critical minerals, to support a national transition to renewable energy.
5.76Finally, the committee also recognises the concerns raised about the consultation process and delays regarding the Stage3 reforms, noting the high level of complexity involved. The key reason for concern related to the need to implement the centrepiece of the Samuel Review—the introduction of National Environmental Standards.
5.77The committee considers that amendments should be made now to these package of bills to provide the legal framework and Ministerial power to create National Environmental Standards, while broader consultation occurs for Stage 3 of the Nature Positive reforms.
5.78The committee recommends that amendments be made to the Nature Positive package of bills to introduce a new National Environmental Standards making power to enable the Minister to make, review and amend National Environmental Standards as disallowable legislative instruments.
5.79The committee recommends, subject to the other recommendations found in this report, that the Senate pass the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024, and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024.
Senator Karen Grogan
Chair