Milton Dick

The question is that the bill be agreed to.

Kate Chaney

I move the amendments circulated in my name:

(1) Page 9 (after line 25), after clause 17, insert:

17A Review of methodology for calculating amount of restoration contribution charge

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the methodology for calculating the amount of restoration contribution charge to be undertaken every 2 years.

(2) The persons who undertake the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within the period (if any) prescribed by the regulations.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be published on the Department's website within 20 days after receiving the report.

(2) Page 10 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:

19 Methods prescribed by regulations

(1) The method for working out the amount of restoration contribution charge that is prescribed by the regulations must take into consideration the following matters:

(a) administration, such as ecological assessment, entering into a legal agreement to secure the site, rates and taxes that are applicable, and the cost of meeting reporting requirements;

(b) forgone use, such as the opportunity costs for landowner due to forgone uses;

(c) management, such as the cost of implementing the management plan during the maintenance period, including labour, materials and equipment;

(d) insurance and risk, such as for infrastructure or equipment, such as fencing, and for unforeseen circumstances that may impact offset delivery).

(2) If the regulations prescribe a method for working out the amount of bioregional plan registration charge, the regulations must take into account the matters in subsection (1).

These amendments are about a critical but largely unexamined element of the EPBC reforms: how we price environmental offsets. If we get the price wrong, the entire system will fail. Offsets are meant to restore nature. But if the cost of environmental damage is not reflected in the price paid, offsets don't work. Across Australia we've seen what happens when offsets are underpriced. Developers pay a small fee, their projects go ahead, and governments are left with the impossible task of finding enough land, time and money to make nature whole again. The result is a growing ecological deficit—an environmental credit card that never gets paid off.

Under these reforms the amount a developer pays into the offsets fund will be determined by a method set out in regulations. My concern is that, without strong legislative guidance, that method could again undervalue the true cost of restoration. That's why I'm moving these amendments that require that the method for setting this restoration contribution charge takes into account the full range of real-world costs involved in delivering a successful offset.

When we talk about restoring ecosystems, the price isn't just the cost of planting a few trees. Restoration is complex, risky and expensive. My amendments ensure that the calculation of the offset price must consider a range of factors, including: the costs of establishing, maintaining and monitoring projects, which are the practical, on-the-ground expenses of doing the work; the costs of identifying suitable sites, including the time and expertise required to find land that actually supports restoration; the costs of acquiring that land, including stamp duty and transaction costs; contingency costs, acknowledging the fact that projects fail and that success often requires multiple attempts; the added costs of remote locations, where logistics and labour are more difficult; and the additional cost of scarcity: when suitable sites are few and far between, the price should rise accordingly.

If we ignore these factors, we're not setting a fair price; we're setting nature up to fail. In too many jurisdictions—New South Wales, Queensland and overseas—offsets have ben chronically underpriced. That underpricing flows through the whole system. It means that restoration projects are underfunded from the start. It means that the offsets fund doesn't have enough money to deliver what was promised. And it means that we end up with a pay-to-destroy model dressed up as environmental reform.

By clearly defining the factors that must be included in the offsets pricing method, we make the system transparent, predictable and credible. These amendments are about integrity—financial integrity and ecological integrity. They ensure that when we talk about offsets we're talking about real restoration, not accounting fiction. I commend these amendments to the House.

Tony Burke

I thank the member for Curtin for raising this issue and I respect absolutely that the role of offsets is something where integrity is critically important. As I've said in question time, the legislation also switches the concept from no net negative to net positive, which of itself is a significant change. The reasons the government won't be supporting these amendments are similar to some reasons I gave previously, but I'll give them now in response to the member for Curtin.

This government's environmental reforms will deliver better outcomes for the environment and industry. The bill's reforms will introduce new options for offsetting. Project proponents can either deliver an offset themselves or pay for the government to do it via a restoration contribution payment, or a combination of both. A new independent Restoration Contributions Holder will be able to use the funds to strategically deliver offsets to have greater environmental benefits, including through pooling funds or similar impacts. The government does not support these amendments because a new rulings power under the act fulfils the role of enabling the minister to determine that restoration contributions in all or particular circumstances are not appropriate as compensation for a particular protected matter. This mechanism does provide for flexibility and responsiveness by the minister as new information becomes available, including any advice of the Restoration Contributions Holder.

The proposed amendments would also remove flexibility and limit the environmental benefits of larger strategic restoration actions—for example, increasing connectivity or creating wildlife corridors. This approach would be better for the environment and better for business. We know the current offsets regime isn't working for industry or the environment, and we need to be able to do something differently to improve the system and deliver restoration at scale. The bill strikes a balance between allowing that to happen and learning the lessons from other offsets approaches that haven't worked.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.

Milton Dick

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I will put the question immediately. The question before the House is that this bill be now read a second time.

Milton Dick

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I will put the question immediately. The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Milton Dick

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I'll put the question immediately. The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Milton Dick

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I will put the question immediately. The question is that this bill be read a second time.

Milton Dick

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I will put the question immediately. The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

Allegra Spender

I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

(1) Page 13 (after line 24), after clause 20, insert:

20A Publication of reasons

If a registrable decision is published on the register of registrable decisions, the reasons for the decision must also be published on the register.

My amendment to this bill continues the theme of transparency, this time for the new NEPA. Under this bill, the NEPA will pay a central role in approving, assessing and enforcing environmental decisions. These decisions will help shape the health of our environment and the credibility of the new system. Yet, as the bill stands, the NEPA is only required to publish notice of a decision, not the reasoning behind it. Earlier, I spoke about my amendment to the EPBC bill, which would require the environment minister to publish a statement of reasons for decisions made under the act. This amendment mirrors that change. If NEPA is to be the trusted independent body that the community expects, its decisions must be clear, consistent and explainable. My amendment would require the agency to publish a short statement of reasons for each significant decision, particularly any approval, rejection or enforcement.

Tony Burke

I thank the member for the issues that have been raised. The government will not be supporting this amendment. Thousands of decisions are made under the EPBC Act every year, including things like issuing permits. Many decisions that would be published in the register are routine. Therefore, it would be undue administrative burden to require reasons to be published in every single circumstance. The current reforms, and specifically section 232 of the bill, provide that recommendation reports for approval decisions are published. This is an improvement on the current process that we have, where interested parties need to apply for a statement of reasons.

Angie Bell

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill and to this set of bills. I wasn't able to speak on consideration in detail on this bill before the House, because the government shut me down. I'm not going to get the opportunity to ask the minister representing the minister for the environment the long list of questions that I had to ask. And now I'm going to be allowed just a couple of minutes to say why we do not agree with these bills in their current form. I understand I'm speaking to a bill around administration that is linked to the reform bill. I understand the procedure and that we are speaking to the amendment. But what I would like to do is highlight the difficulties with this bill from the opposition's point of view.

I have stakeholders on both sides—on the conservation side and on business, industry and productivity—coming to me saying that this is not workable for them. And what I would like to put to the House and to Australians across the country is that the coalition has been shut down time and time again today when we've been trying to talk about the flaws in this group of bills.

I want to talk to the environmental protection authority, which will now have sweeping powers. It'll have a CEO that will not be able to be fired by the minister. If the CEO of the EPA is not performing very well, there will be no scrutiny from the minister.

There are some other problems with this bill. Unacceptable impacts in the bills—

Milton Dick

I'm sorry to interrupt the member for Moncrieff, but this amendment is very prescriptive regarding registrable decisions. It's not a general debate. The member for Wentworth has moved her specific amendment, which is about 20A, publication of reasons. It's not a general debate, I'm sorry to inform you; it'll have to be about what is before the House, and the question I've stated is specifically about the member's amendment. It's very technical.

Angie Bell

I understand, thank you, that amendment and how technical it is. There are very many technicalities in these bills. There are technicalities in all of the bills. There are administrative bills. There are seven bills in total, in fact, and the coalition hasn't had the opportunity to speak even to the reform bill in the House, apart from the second reading debate. There are many technicalities in this bill, covering many areas of problems. The EPA, the unacceptable impacts, the net gain and the streamlined pathways are all technicalities in this bill that need to be addressed.

Judging by its shutdown that we've seen today of democratic debate, this is not a government that looks like it is prepared to do any negotiation at all around these bills. There are technicalities that will have unintended consequences throughout all of these bills, which this government doesn't seem prepared to hear about—on these EPBC reforms. It's important.

Milton Dick

The time has concluded.

Question negatived.

The question before the House is that the bill be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question is that the bill be agreed to. The member for Moncrieff is seeking the call for a point of order?

Angie Bell

I'm seeking the call to speak to the consideration in detail on the EPA bill.

Milton Dick

The member for Mackellar has listed her consideration in detail amendments, and the process is that we go through the ones that are listed as consideration in detail. I understand that you don't have any amendments yourself; you wish to speak to consideration in detail, and we will get to that to make sure that you do. I just remind the House that the result of the suspension motion that we have done, which is on the Notice Paper, is that there will be five minutes allocated for this debate. The member for Mackellar has the call to move her amendments.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question is that the bill be read a second time.