Division Description Changes — Bills — Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021; Second Reading — 23rd Jun 2021

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
representatives vote 2021-06-23#8 Edited by mackay staff on 2021-07-09 13:53:30	Title ~~Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Reject bill~~ Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Do not reject bill Description The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment to the usual [second reading](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) motion, which is "That the bill be read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). Not giving a bill a second reading is the same as rejecting the bill as it will no longer be considered. The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment to the usual [second reading](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) motion, which is "That the bill be read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This means that the amendment failed and that the bill will continue to be considered. ### Amendment text > That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > > "whilst: > > (1) noting that the bill: > >> (a) does the bare minimum by giving the Minister unclear, discretionary powers to create weak environmental standards with poor oversight; >> >> (b) establishes a watered-down Environmental Assurance Commissioner with limited powers and little independence, which is a far cry from the strong cop on the beat recommended by Professor Graeme Samuel AC in his Interim Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and >> >> (c) will do little to protect Australia's precious environment or reverse the current extinction crisis; > > (2) the House: > >> (a) declines to give the bill a second reading; and >> >> (b) calls on the Government to instead pass the [Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6691), which sets up a completely independent body with the power to strengthen environmental regulation, ensure accountability and achieve real environmental outcomes". ### What is the bill's main idea? The bill was introduced in order to amend the [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999) (EPBC Act) in order to establish: * a framework for making, varying, revoking and applying National Environmental Standards and * an Environment Assurance Commissioner (EAC) to monitor and audit the operation of bilateral agreements with the states and territories as well as to oversee Commonwealth processes under the EPBC Act for making and enforcing approval decisions. The [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd074) sets out the following 'Key Issues' relating to the bill: * Industry groups broadly support the Bill, including the framework for National Environmental Standards and the proposed EAC. They consider this Bill, together with the Streamlining Bill, would provide certainty and clarity while addressing regulatory duplication in environmental approvals. However, several industry groups suggest that any National Environmental Standards made under the Bill should reflect the existing requirements of the EPBC Act. * Other stakeholders, including environmental, legal and scientific organisations, generally do not support the Bill, expressing considerable concern. Many noted the lack of a comprehensive government response to the Final Report of the Samuel Review, and suggested that the Government was ‘cherry picking’ recommendations and making piecemeal reforms, rather than implementing the full range of ‘tranche 1’ reforms identified in the Final Report. * Many of these other stakeholders also suggested that the Bill does not properly reflect the [recommendations](https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/resources/final-report/recommendations) in the Samuel Review which the Bill is proposing to implement. Their concerns included: * uncertainty as to the content and application of the proposed National Environmental Standards due to the broad Ministerial discretion provided, as well as the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the initial standards and * the proposed EAC’s limited powers, resourcing and independence.
representatives vote 2021-06-23#8 Edited by mackay staff on 2021-07-09 13:52:45	Title Description The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment to the usual [second reading](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) motion, which is "That the bill be read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). Not giving a bill a second reading is the same as rejecting the bill as it will no longer be considered. ### Amendment text > That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > > "whilst: > > (1) noting that the bill: > >> (a) does the bare minimum by giving the Minister unclear, discretionary powers to create weak environmental standards with poor oversight; >> >> (b) establishes a watered-down Environmental Assurance Commissioner with limited powers and little independence, which is a far cry from the strong cop on the beat recommended by Professor Graeme Samuel AC in his Interim Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and >> >> (c) will do little to protect Australia's precious environment or reverse the current extinction crisis; > > (2) the House: > >> (a) declines to give the bill a second reading; and >> >> (b) calls on the Government to instead pass the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021, which sets up a completely independent body with the power to strengthen environmental regulation, ensure accountability and achieve real environmental outcomes". >> (b) calls on the Government to instead pass the [Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6691), which sets up a completely independent body with the power to strengthen environmental regulation, ensure accountability and achieve real environmental outcomes". ### What is the bill's main idea? The bill was introduced in order to amend the [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999) (EPBC Act) in order to establish: * a framework for making, varying, revoking and applying National Environmental Standards and * an Environment Assurance Commissioner (EAC) to monitor and audit the operation of bilateral agreements with the states and territories as well as to oversee Commonwealth processes under the EPBC Act for making and enforcing approval decisions. The [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd074) sets out the following 'Key Issues' relating to the bill: * Industry groups broadly support the Bill, including the framework for National Environmental Standards and the proposed EAC. They consider this Bill, together with the Streamlining Bill, would provide certainty and clarity while addressing regulatory duplication in environmental approvals. However, several industry groups suggest that any National Environmental Standards made under the Bill should reflect the existing requirements of the EPBC Act. * Other stakeholders, including environmental, legal and scientific organisations, generally do not support the Bill, expressing considerable concern. Many noted the lack of a comprehensive government response to the Final Report of the Samuel Review, and suggested that the Government was ‘cherry picking’ recommendations and making piecemeal reforms, rather than implementing the full range of ‘tranche 1’ reforms identified in the Final Report. * Many of these other stakeholders also suggested that the Bill does not properly reflect the [recommendations](https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/resources/final-report/recommendations) in the Samuel Review which the Bill is proposing to implement. Their concerns included: * uncertainty as to the content and application of the proposed National Environmental Standards due to the broad Ministerial discretion provided, as well as the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the initial standards and * the proposed EAC’s limited powers, resourcing and independence.
representatives vote 2021-06-23#8 Edited by mackay staff on 2021-07-09 13:49:20	Title Description The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment to the usual [second reading](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) motion, which is "That the bill be read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). Not giving a bill a second reading is the same as rejecting the bill as it will no longer be considered. ### Amendment text > That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > > "whilst: > > (1) noting that the bill: > >> (a) does the bare minimum by giving the Minister unclear, discretionary powers to create weak environmental standards with poor oversight; >> >> (b) establishes a watered-down Environmental Assurance Commissioner with limited powers and little independence, which is a far cry from the strong cop on the beat recommended by Professor Graeme Samuel AC in his Interim Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and >> >> (c) will do little to protect Australia's precious environment or reverse the current extinction crisis; > > (2) the House: > >> (a) declines to give the bill a second reading; and >> >> (b) calls on the Government to instead pass the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021, which sets up a completely independent body with the power to strengthen environmental regulation, ensure accountability and achieve real environmental outcomes". >> (b) calls on the Government to instead pass the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021, which sets up a completely independent body with the power to strengthen environmental regulation, ensure accountability and achieve real environmental outcomes". ### What is the bill's main idea? The bill was introduced in order to amend the [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999) (EPBC Act) in order to establish: * a framework for making, varying, revoking and applying National Environmental Standards and * an Environment Assurance Commissioner (EAC) to monitor and audit the operation of bilateral agreements with the states and territories as well as to oversee Commonwealth processes under the EPBC Act for making and enforcing approval decisions. The [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd074) sets out the following 'Key Issues' relating to the bill: * Industry groups broadly support the Bill, including the framework for National Environmental Standards and the proposed EAC. They consider this Bill, together with the Streamlining Bill, would provide certainty and clarity while addressing regulatory duplication in environmental approvals. However, several industry groups suggest that any National Environmental Standards made under the Bill should reflect the existing requirements of the EPBC Act. * Other stakeholders, including environmental, legal and scientific organisations, generally do not support the Bill, expressing considerable concern. Many noted the lack of a comprehensive government response to the Final Report of the Samuel Review, and suggested that the Government was ‘cherry picking’ recommendations and making piecemeal reforms, rather than implementing the full range of ‘tranche 1’ reforms identified in the Final Report. * Many of these other stakeholders also suggested that the Bill does not properly reflect the [recommendations](https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/resources/final-report/recommendations) in the Samuel Review which the Bill is proposing to implement. Their concerns included: * uncertainty as to the content and application of the proposed National Environmental Standards due to the broad Ministerial discretion provided, as well as the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the initial standards and * the proposed EAC’s limited powers, resourcing and independence.
representatives vote 2021-06-23#8 Edited by mackay staff on 2021-07-09 13:48:59	Title Bills — Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021; Second Reading Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Reject bill Description ~~<p class="speaker">Peta Murphy</p>~~ <p>I am in continuation and I want to conclude with some comments about the desperate state of one of the seven wonders of the world, the amazing Great Barrier Reef. This government commissioned the Samuel review, but is failing to adopt the recommendations of it. There were two reports by Professor Samuel, whose background, as we all know, is in business and in regulation through the ACCC. In his review, Professor Samuel said to this government:</p> <p class="italic">Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. The pressures on the environment are significant—including land-use change, habitat loss and degradation, and feral animal and invasive plant species. The impact of climate change on the environment … will exacerbate pressures, contributing to further decline. Given its current state, the environment is not sufficiently resilient to withstand these threats. The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable.</p> The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment to the usual [second reading](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) motion, which is "That the bill be read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). Not giving a bill a second reading is the same as rejecting the bill as it will no longer be considered. ### Amendment text *> That** all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > "whilst: > > (1) noting that the bill: > *>> (a) does the b*are minimum by giving the Minister unclear, discretionary powers to create weak environmental standards with poor oversight; >> *>> (b) establishes a watered-down Environmental A*ssurance Commissioner with limited powers and little independence, which is a far cry from the strong cop on the beat recommended by Professor Graeme Samuel AC in his Interim Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and >> >> (c) will do little to protect Australia's precious environment or reverse the current extinction crisis; > > (2) the House: > >> (a) declines to give the bill a second reading; and >> >> (b) calls on the Government to instead pass the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021, which sets up a completely independent body with the power to strengthen environmental regulation, ensure accountability* and achieve real environmental outcomes". * ### What is the bill's main idea? The bill was introduced in order to amend the [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999) (EPBC Act) in order to establish: *** a framework for making, varying, revoking and applying National Environmental Standards and** * an Environment Assurance Commissioner (EAC) to monitor and audit the operation of bilateral agreements with the states and territories as well as to oversee Commonwealth processes under the EPBC Act for making and enforcing approval decisions. The [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd074) sets out the following 'Key Issues' relating to the bill: * Industry groups broadly support the Bill, including the framework for National Environmental Standards and the proposed EAC. They consider this Bill, together with the Streamlining Bill, would provide certainty and clarity while addressing regulatory duplication in environmental approvals. However, several industry groups suggest that any National Environmental Standards made under the Bill should reflect the existing requirements of the EPBC Act. * Other stakeholders, including environmental, legal and scientific organisations, generally do not support the Bill, expressing considerable concern. Many noted* the lack of a comprehensive government response to the Final Report of the Samuel Review, and suggested that the Government was ‘cherry picking’ recommendations and making piecemeal reforms, rather than implementing the full range of ‘tranche 1’ reforms identified in the Final Report.* * Many of these other stakeholders also suggested that the Bill does not properly reflect the [recommendations](https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/resources/final-report/recommendations) in the Samuel Review which the Bill is proposing to implement. Their concerns included: * uncertainty as to the content and application of the proposed National Environmental Standards due to the broad Ministerial discretion provided, as well as the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the initial standards and *** the proposed EAC’s limited powers, resourcing and independence.** <p>That's what Professor Samuel said: 'The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable.' For most of us in this country it is unthinkable that, under this generation's stewardship, we could lose so much of the Great Barrier Reef that it will no longer be one of the seven wonders of the world and will no longer be something that we can deeply associate with being Australian—as even those of us who have never had the opportunity to go there do.</p> <p>In the last 24 hours, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee provided a draft recommendation that the Great Barrier Reef should be listed as 'in danger'. It has been extraordinary to see the put-on surprise and consternation from ministers in this government. Imagine anyone suggesting that the Great Barrier Reef could be in danger! This government surely cannot pretend that it is unaware of the bleaching events in 2016, 2017 and 2020—all years that are part of the eight long years that this Liberal and National party government has been in government. Surely the Minister for the Environment is not suggesting to the people of Australia that she didn't know that, in December of last year, the body that advises the World Heritage Committee, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, issued a report downgrading the reef's prospects to 'critical'. Surely the current minister is not suggesting that she is unaware that the government's own agency, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, issued a report in 2019 downgrading the reef's prospects from 'poor' to 'very poor'. Surely this government is not trying to tell the Australian people that all is hunky-dory with the Great Barrier Reef because of their great environmental stewardship. Is this government honestly trying to persuade the Australian people that the report issued by the International Union for Conservation of Nature—which said that the slow progress towards targets, including water quality targets in the government's own Reef 2050 Plan, contributed to its findings—'took it by surprise' and that it was just unaware of that? Is this government asking how an international body charged with the protection of World Heritage areas would have the temerity to suggest that the Great Barrier Reef is in danger?</p> <p>This government was supposed to finalise the Reef 2050 report in early 2021. But, under questioning in Senate estimates that occurred recently, we found out from the government and public servants that the government hasn't even provided the proposed final update to the respective ministers for their signatures. The government is even late in finalising the update for the Reef 2050 report! This is a minister who likes to pretend that this government is the world standard for reef protection. We have amazing scientists and marine biologists and people who work on the reef who are world leading in the work they're doing to protect the Great Barrier Reef, but this government isn't. This Morrison government isn't world leading.</p> <p>And now we hear from the minister that, instead of fighting to protect the reef, she's going to be fighting to stop UNESCO from listing the reef as in danger because she has asserted that they've misled her and the government in some way. She said that UNESCO told her they wouldn't be recommending the listing. It should be of concern to every member of the government, as it is to every member of my community and to Australia, to hear that Dr Douvere, of UNESCO's World Heritage Centre in Paris, rejected what the Australian environment minister has said. Dr Douvere said there was no such indication given to the government, no indication they wouldn't be recommending the listing, and that no assurances had been provided. This is because they wouldn't normally be provided. What this government needs to do, and do urgently, is stop talking about protecting the barrier reef, stop talking about protecting the environment. Instead, it should adopt the Samuel review recommendations properly and work with us to make sure it gets done.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Rebekha Sharkie</p>~~ <p>I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. One reason it is such a privilege to be the member for Mayo—I've got to say, there are many!—is that my own values align closely with those of my community. There is no better example than this issue. The people of Mayo see the need for the value of developing our local economy and industries, and also have a deep connection to our pristine local environment and know the importance of nurturing and conserving it. They see how essential it is for economic development and environmental protection to work together and to build on each other.</p> <p>Professor Samuel's review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was comprehensive and damning. It found that the current regime is not fit for purpose. It is failing to promote economic development and is failing to protect the environment. It is a scandal that the current situation is this bad. And yet we have quiet. Why is this the case? The previous review, in 2010, found the same problem as Professor Samuel. Labor failed to act then, and the coalition, I believe, is failing to act now that it is in power. And it's because of those failures that our environment is now in a state of unsustainable decline. I believe, frankly, both parties should be ashamed.</p> <p>What matters now is what happens next. The government proposes that we allow state governments to handle the entire project approvals process as long as they comply with federal standards. Centre Alliance has no problem with this as long as the standards effectively protect the environment, an independent regulator can monitor processes and outcomes, and there is a broader response to the Samuel review. However, this is not what the government is proposing. The standards that the government has proposed are simply not effective. Instead, they will lock in the current failing regime for at least another two years. The regulator, as proposed by the government, is not independent. Instead, it will be part of the department and subject to interference by the minister.</p> <p>Further, the government has not published a response to the Samuel review and refuses to tell us if it ever will. We simply have no idea if it intends to walk away from reform after this bill is dealt with. It is simply not good enough. This is why Centre Alliance has been working with the Senate crossbench to ensure that the EPBC bills will not pass parliament in their current form. We are not opposed to reform; rather, we think it is necessary and long overdue. But it needs to be done right. And that's not what we have in front of us.</p> <p>Senator Griff, in the other place, and I, and other crossbench senators, wrote collectively to the minister back in March, setting out what that means. Firstly, we want the government to work with industry and conservation groups to deliver better standards—but not in two years time; this needs to be done today. The Senate inquiry heard that those groups have already agreed to 80 per cent of Professor Samuel's standards. So let's adopt those agreed standards in this bill and set up a process to find common ground for the other 20 per cent. Secondly, we want the regulator to be genuinely independent. We want someone who can speak honestly and openly about the problems within the system and how to fix them. We want someone who is fearless. We will not get that in this bill. That's the only way to ensure the system is effective and to rebuild public confidence. Thirdly, we want a comprehensive response to the Samuel review, with a road map for implementation. This will give us confidence that the government is not going to walk away from the Samuel review after the bill has passed.</p> <p>Those were our requests that we put in writing; requests that we believe are reasonable and responsible, will improve this bill and will deliver better environmental and economic outcomes. Disappointingly, the minister, I believe, hasn't considered any of our concerns. I certainly haven't seen a letter in response. It's for those reasons, and the lack of confidence of myself and my Centre Alliance colleague, Senator Stirling Griff, that we cannot support the bill before the House.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

Change

Division

representatives vote 2021-06-23#8

Edited by mackay staff

on 2021-07-09 13:53:30

Title

~~Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Reject bill~~
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Do not reject bill

Description

The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an amendment to the usual [second reading](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) motion, which is "*That the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). Not giving a bill a second reading is the same as rejecting the bill as it will no longer be considered.
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an amendment to the usual [second reading](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) motion, which is "*That the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This means that the amendment failed and that the bill will continue to be considered.
### Amendment text
> *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst:*
>
> *(1) noting that the bill:*
>
>> *(a) does the bare minimum by giving the Minister unclear, discretionary powers to create weak environmental standards with poor oversight;*
>>
>> *(b) establishes a watered-down Environmental Assurance Commissioner with limited powers and little independence, which is a far cry from the strong cop on the beat recommended by Professor Graeme Samuel AC in his Interim Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and*
>>
>> *(c) will do little to protect Australia's precious environment or reverse the current extinction crisis;*
>
> *(2) the House:*
>
>> *(a) declines to give the bill a second reading; and*
>>
>> *(b) calls on the Government to instead pass the [Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6691), which sets up a completely independent body with the power to strengthen environmental regulation, ensure accountability and achieve real environmental outcomes".*
### What is the bill's main idea?
The bill was introduced in order to amend the [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999) (EPBC Act) in order to establish:
* *a framework for making, varying, revoking and applying National Environmental Standards and*
* *an Environment Assurance Commissioner (EAC) to monitor and audit the operation of bilateral agreements with the states and territories as well as to oversee Commonwealth processes under the EPBC Act for making and enforcing approval decisions.*
The [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd074) sets out the following 'Key Issues' relating to the bill:
* *Industry groups broadly support the Bill, including the framework for National Environmental Standards and the proposed EAC. They consider this Bill, together with the Streamlining Bill, would provide certainty and clarity while addressing regulatory duplication in environmental approvals. However, several industry groups suggest that any National Environmental Standards made under the Bill should reflect the existing requirements of the EPBC Act.*
* *Other stakeholders, including environmental, legal and scientific organisations, generally do not support the Bill, expressing considerable concern. Many noted the lack of a comprehensive government response to the Final Report of the Samuel Review, and suggested that the Government was ‘cherry picking’ recommendations and making piecemeal reforms, rather than implementing the full range of ‘tranche 1’ reforms identified in the Final Report.*
* *Many of these other stakeholders also suggested that the Bill does not properly reflect the [recommendations](https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/resources/final-report/recommendations) in the Samuel Review which the Bill is proposing to implement. Their concerns included:*
* *uncertainty as to the content and application of the proposed National Environmental Standards due to the broad Ministerial discretion provided, as well as the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the initial standards and*
* *the proposed EAC’s limited powers, resourcing and independence.*

representatives vote 2021-06-23#8

Edited by mackay staff

on 2021-07-09 13:52:45

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an amendment to the usual [second reading](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) motion, which is "*That the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). Not giving a bill a second reading is the same as rejecting the bill as it will no longer be considered.
### Amendment text
> *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst:*
>
> *(1) noting that the bill:*
>
>> *(a) does the bare minimum by giving the Minister unclear, discretionary powers to create weak environmental standards with poor oversight;*
>>
>> *(b) establishes a watered-down Environmental Assurance Commissioner with limited powers and little independence, which is a far cry from the strong cop on the beat recommended by Professor Graeme Samuel AC in his Interim Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and*
>>
>> *(c) will do little to protect Australia's precious environment or reverse the current extinction crisis;*
>
> *(2) the House:*
>
>> *(a) declines to give the bill a second reading; and*
>>
>> *(b) calls on the Government to instead pass the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021, which sets up a completely independent body with the power to strengthen environmental regulation, ensure accountability and achieve real environmental outcomes".*
>> *(b) calls on the Government to instead pass the [Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6691), which sets up a completely independent body with the power to strengthen environmental regulation, ensure accountability and achieve real environmental outcomes".*
### What is the bill's main idea?
The bill was introduced in order to amend the [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999) (EPBC Act) in order to establish:
* *a framework for making, varying, revoking and applying National Environmental Standards and*
* *an Environment Assurance Commissioner (EAC) to monitor and audit the operation of bilateral agreements with the states and territories as well as to oversee Commonwealth processes under the EPBC Act for making and enforcing approval decisions.*
The [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd074) sets out the following 'Key Issues' relating to the bill:
* *Industry groups broadly support the Bill, including the framework for National Environmental Standards and the proposed EAC. They consider this Bill, together with the Streamlining Bill, would provide certainty and clarity while addressing regulatory duplication in environmental approvals. However, several industry groups suggest that any National Environmental Standards made under the Bill should reflect the existing requirements of the EPBC Act.*
* *Other stakeholders, including environmental, legal and scientific organisations, generally do not support the Bill, expressing considerable concern. Many noted the lack of a comprehensive government response to the Final Report of the Samuel Review, and suggested that the Government was ‘cherry picking’ recommendations and making piecemeal reforms, rather than implementing the full range of ‘tranche 1’ reforms identified in the Final Report.*
* *Many of these other stakeholders also suggested that the Bill does not properly reflect the [recommendations](https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/resources/final-report/recommendations) in the Samuel Review which the Bill is proposing to implement. Their concerns included:*
* *uncertainty as to the content and application of the proposed National Environmental Standards due to the broad Ministerial discretion provided, as well as the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the initial standards and*
* *the proposed EAC’s limited powers, resourcing and independence.*

representatives vote 2021-06-23#8

Edited by mackay staff

on 2021-07-09 13:49:20

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an amendment to the usual [second reading](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) motion, which is "*That the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). Not giving a bill a second reading is the same as rejecting the bill as it will no longer be considered.
### Amendment text
> *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst:*
>
> *(1) noting that the bill:*
>
>> *(a) does the bare minimum by giving the Minister unclear, discretionary powers to create weak environmental standards with poor oversight;*
>>
>> *(b) establishes a watered-down Environmental Assurance Commissioner with limited powers and little independence, which is a far cry from the strong cop on the beat recommended by Professor Graeme Samuel AC in his Interim Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and*
>>
>> *(c) will do little to protect Australia's precious environment or reverse the current extinction crisis;*
>
> *(2) the House:*
>
>> *(a) declines to give the bill a second reading; and*
>>
>> *(b) calls on the Government to instead pass the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021, which sets up a completely independent body with the power to strengthen environmental regulation, ensure accountability and achieve real environmental outcomes". *
>> *(b) calls on the Government to instead pass the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021, which sets up a completely independent body with the power to strengthen environmental regulation, ensure accountability and achieve real environmental outcomes".*
### What is the bill's main idea?
The bill was introduced in order to amend the [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999) (EPBC Act) in order to establish:
* *a framework for making, varying, revoking and applying National Environmental Standards and*
* *an Environment Assurance Commissioner (EAC) to monitor and audit the operation of bilateral agreements with the states and territories as well as to oversee Commonwealth processes under the EPBC Act for making and enforcing approval decisions.*
The [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd074) sets out the following 'Key Issues' relating to the bill:
* *Industry groups broadly support the Bill, including the framework for National Environmental Standards and the proposed EAC. They consider this Bill, together with the Streamlining Bill, would provide certainty and clarity while addressing regulatory duplication in environmental approvals. However, several industry groups suggest that any National Environmental Standards made under the Bill should reflect the existing requirements of the EPBC Act.*
* *Other stakeholders, including environmental, legal and scientific organisations, generally do not support the Bill, expressing considerable concern. Many noted the lack of a comprehensive government response to the Final Report of the Samuel Review, and suggested that the Government was ‘cherry picking’ recommendations and making piecemeal reforms, rather than implementing the full range of ‘tranche 1’ reforms identified in the Final Report.*
* *Many of these other stakeholders also suggested that the Bill does not properly reflect the [recommendations](https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/resources/final-report/recommendations) in the Samuel Review which the Bill is proposing to implement. Their concerns included:*
* *uncertainty as to the content and application of the proposed National Environmental Standards due to the broad Ministerial discretion provided, as well as the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the initial standards and*
* *the proposed EAC’s limited powers, resourcing and independence.*

representatives vote 2021-06-23#8

Edited by mackay staff

on 2021-07-09 13:48:59

Title

Bills — Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021; Second Reading
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Reject bill

Description

~~Peta Murphy~~
I am in continuation and I want to conclude with some comments about the desperate state of one of the seven wonders of the world, the amazing Great Barrier Reef. This government commissioned the Samuel review, but is failing to adopt the recommendations of it. There were two reports by Professor Samuel, whose background, as we all know, is in business and in regulation through the ACCC. In his review, Professor Samuel said to this government:
Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. The pressures on the environment are significant—including land-use change, habitat loss and degradation, and feral animal and invasive plant species. The impact of climate change on the environment … will exacerbate pressures, contributing to further decline. Given its current state, the environment is not sufficiently resilient to withstand these threats. The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable.
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an amendment to the usual [second reading](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) motion, which is "*That the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). Not giving a bill a second reading is the same as rejecting the bill as it will no longer be considered.
### Amendment text
> *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst:*
>
> *(1) noting that the bill:*
>
>> *(a) does the bare minimum by giving the Minister unclear, discretionary powers to create weak environmental standards with poor oversight;*
>>
>> *(b) establishes a watered-down Environmental Assurance Commissioner with limited powers and little independence, which is a far cry from the strong cop on the beat recommended by Professor Graeme Samuel AC in his Interim Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and*
>>
>> *(c) will do little to protect Australia's precious environment or reverse the current extinction crisis;*
>
> *(2) the House:*
>
>> *(a) declines to give the bill a second reading; and*
>>
>> *(b) calls on the Government to instead pass the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021, which sets up a completely independent body with the power to strengthen environmental regulation, ensure accountability and achieve real environmental outcomes". *
### What is the bill's main idea?
The bill was introduced in order to amend the [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999) (EPBC Act) in order to establish:
* *a framework for making, varying, revoking and applying National Environmental Standards and*
* *an Environment Assurance Commissioner (EAC) to monitor and audit the operation of bilateral agreements with the states and territories as well as to oversee Commonwealth processes under the EPBC Act for making and enforcing approval decisions.*
The [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd074) sets out the following 'Key Issues' relating to the bill:
* *Industry groups broadly support the Bill, including the framework for National Environmental Standards and the proposed EAC. They consider this Bill, together with the Streamlining Bill, would provide certainty and clarity while addressing regulatory duplication in environmental approvals. However, several industry groups suggest that any National Environmental Standards made under the Bill should reflect the existing requirements of the EPBC Act.*
* *Other stakeholders, including environmental, legal and scientific organisations, generally do not support the Bill, expressing considerable concern. Many noted the lack of a comprehensive government response to the Final Report of the Samuel Review, and suggested that the Government was ‘cherry picking’ recommendations and making piecemeal reforms, rather than implementing the full range of ‘tranche 1’ reforms identified in the Final Report.*
* *Many of these other stakeholders also suggested that the Bill does not properly reflect the [recommendations](https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/resources/final-report/recommendations) in the Samuel Review which the Bill is proposing to implement. Their concerns included:*
* *uncertainty as to the content and application of the proposed National Environmental Standards due to the broad Ministerial discretion provided, as well as the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the initial standards and*
* *the proposed EAC’s limited powers, resourcing and independence.*
That's what Professor Samuel said: 'The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable.' For most of us in this country it is unthinkable that, under this generation's stewardship, we could lose so much of the Great Barrier Reef that it will no longer be one of the seven wonders of the world and will no longer be something that we can deeply associate with being Australian—as even those of us who have never had the opportunity to go there do.
In the last 24 hours, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee provided a draft recommendation that the Great Barrier Reef should be listed as 'in danger'. It has been extraordinary to see the put-on surprise and consternation from ministers in this government. Imagine anyone suggesting that the Great Barrier Reef could be in danger! This government surely cannot pretend that it is unaware of the bleaching events in 2016, 2017 and 2020—all years that are part of the eight long years that this Liberal and National party government has been in government. Surely the Minister for the Environment is not suggesting to the people of Australia that she didn't know that, in December of last year, the body that advises the World Heritage Committee, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, issued a report downgrading the reef's prospects to 'critical'. Surely the current minister is not suggesting that she is unaware that the government's own agency, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, issued a report in 2019 downgrading the reef's prospects from 'poor' to 'very poor'. Surely this government is not trying to tell the Australian people that all is hunky-dory with the Great Barrier Reef because of their great environmental stewardship. Is this government honestly trying to persuade the Australian people that the report issued by the International Union for Conservation of Nature—which said that the slow progress towards targets, including water quality targets in the government's own Reef 2050 Plan, contributed to its findings—'took it by surprise' and that it was just unaware of that? Is this government asking how an international body charged with the protection of World Heritage areas would have the temerity to suggest that the Great Barrier Reef is in danger?
This government was supposed to finalise the Reef 2050 report in early 2021. But, under questioning in Senate estimates that occurred recently, we found out from the government and public servants that the government hasn't even provided the proposed final update to the respective ministers for their signatures. The government is even late in finalising the update for the Reef 2050 report! This is a minister who likes to pretend that this government is the world standard for reef protection. We have amazing scientists and marine biologists and people who work on the reef who are world leading in the work they're doing to protect the Great Barrier Reef, but this government isn't. This Morrison government isn't world leading.
And now we hear from the minister that, instead of fighting to protect the reef, she's going to be fighting to stop UNESCO from listing the reef as in danger because she has asserted that they've misled her and the government in some way. She said that UNESCO told her they wouldn't be recommending the listing. It should be of concern to every member of the government, as it is to every member of my community and to Australia, to hear that Dr Douvere, of UNESCO's World Heritage Centre in Paris, rejected what the Australian environment minister has said. Dr Douvere said there was no such indication given to the government, no indication they wouldn't be recommending the listing, and that no assurances had been provided. This is because they wouldn't normally be provided. What this government needs to do, and do urgently, is stop talking about protecting the barrier reef, stop talking about protecting the environment. Instead, it should adopt the Samuel review recommendations properly and work with us to make sure it gets done.
~~Rebekha Sharkie~~
I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. One reason it is such a privilege to be the member for Mayo—I've got to say, there are many!—is that my own values align closely with those of my community. There is no better example than this issue. The people of Mayo see the need for the value of developing our local economy and industries, and also have a deep connection to our pristine local environment and know the importance of nurturing and conserving it. They see how essential it is for economic development and environmental protection to work together and to build on each other.
Professor Samuel's review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was comprehensive and damning. It found that the current regime is not fit for purpose. It is failing to promote economic development and is failing to protect the environment. It is a scandal that the current situation is this bad. And yet we have quiet. Why is this the case? The previous review, in 2010, found the same problem as Professor Samuel. Labor failed to act then, and the coalition, I believe, is failing to act now that it is in power. And it's because of those failures that our environment is now in a state of unsustainable decline. I believe, frankly, both parties should be ashamed.
What matters now is what happens next. The government proposes that we allow state governments to handle the entire project approvals process as long as they comply with federal standards. Centre Alliance has no problem with this as long as the standards effectively protect the environment, an independent regulator can monitor processes and outcomes, and there is a broader response to the Samuel review. However, this is not what the government is proposing. The standards that the government has proposed are simply not effective. Instead, they will lock in the current failing regime for at least another two years. The regulator, as proposed by the government, is not independent. Instead, it will be part of the department and subject to interference by the minister.
Further, the government has not published a response to the Samuel review and refuses to tell us if it ever will. We simply have no idea if it intends to walk away from reform after this bill is dealt with. It is simply not good enough. This is why Centre Alliance has been working with the Senate crossbench to ensure that the EPBC bills will not pass parliament in their current form. We are not opposed to reform; rather, we think it is necessary and long overdue. But it needs to be done right. And that's not what we have in front of us.
Senator Griff, in the other place, and I, and other crossbench senators, wrote collectively to the minister back in March, setting out what that means. Firstly, we want the government to work with industry and conservation groups to deliver better standards—but not in two years time; this needs to be done today. The Senate inquiry heard that those groups have already agreed to 80 per cent of Professor Samuel's standards. So let's adopt those agreed standards in this bill and set up a process to find common ground for the other 20 per cent. Secondly, we want the regulator to be genuinely independent. We want someone who can speak honestly and openly about the problems within the system and how to fix them. We want someone who is fearless. We will not get that in this bill. That's the only way to ensure the system is effective and to rebuild public confidence. Thirdly, we want a comprehensive response to the Samuel review, with a road map for implementation. This will give us confidence that the government is not going to walk away from the Samuel review after the bill has passed.
Those were our requests that we put in writing; requests that we believe are reasonable and responsible, will improve this bill and will deliver better environmental and economic outcomes. Disappointingly, the minister, I believe, hasn't considered any of our concerns. I certainly haven't seen a letter in response. It's for those reasons, and the lack of confidence of myself and my Centre Alliance colleague, Senator Stirling Griff, that we cannot support the bill before the House.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~