Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 5:11:11 to 5:46:38
A heated exchange occurs regarding gas industry exclusions from streamlined pathways and political negotiations over EPBC reforms.
Topics: Electricity grid, Fossil fuels, EPBC Act
Speakers: Hon Murray Watt, Susan McDonald, Hon Sarah Henderson, Tim Wyndham, Rachel Parry, Dean Knudson, Varun Ghosh
>> yeah thank you very much chair >> uh I just wanted to uh ask you minister about the new EPBC legisl ation which blocks project projects um from streamline pathways and I by referencing that I mean gas projects yet Australia needs to bring in more gas and quickly to address demand for gas and the shortage of base load power. Did you consult the resources minister at any point in the development of that deal? And this of course was a deal that was made with the Greens in order to pass
back and check uh what consultation happened around that. So can I take that on notice
>> because your resource minister has been very very strong in her support for gas including in the future gas strategy. Uh she said very clearly we will need continued exploration, investment and development in the sector. uh she's made it very clear that gas will remain an important source of energy through to 2050 and beyond. It just seems extraordinary that you would seek to exclude gas from streamline pathways when this is such an essential source of energy in this country. >> Yeah. Well, >> Sorry, Senator Hanson Young. >> Keep exploring. I have the call. Would you not interject me? Interject please. >> Let's tax it. Senator Henderson. Yeah.
>> So, um, you may have seen my comments, Senator Henderson, at the time the legislation was passed when this this issue came up. And the point I've made and continue to make is that the reforms to the EPBC act, which I have to say the opposition voted against. So it would seem that you didn't want any streamlining of approvals given that you voted against the laws, but those laws will speed up the assessment and approval of projects across the board in Minister. >> Hang on, I haven't finished. >> Well, I'd like to address my question. >> In addition to that, >> well, I was trying to answer your question. So all projects regardless of the industry will benefit from the the faster approvals and assessment processes contained in the reforms that you voted against. That includes things like the bilateral agreements that we were talking about earlier, streamlined assessments, sorry, strategic assessments, regional planning. Um we in addition there was a streamlined approvals process included in the legislation uh which we did exempt colon gas projects from. Uh uh but as I say all projects regardless of their industry will benefit from the faster approvals overall. The other point worth making specifically regarding gas projects and I'm going to need a bit of help here because of the technicalities the streamlined assessment pathway that we retained. Could you just say a little bit about that? Is that the not P? There's a acronym >> Yeah. Blame Worth acting branchet um reform task force. So in addition to that the assessment pathway minister is referring to is that we kept the assessment on preliminary documentation pathway which is one of the um fastest pathways.
though, Minister? I find it extraordinary that you don't remember whether you've had a conversation with the Minister for Resources about excl Sorry, if I can finish about excluding gas from streamline projects, which is a very very dramatic decision, which was not your original proposal for all the right reasons. Are you telling this committee you cannot remember that you've discussed this you discussed this
confirm is whether conversations that were had 3 months ago were between me and the minister or between my office and the minister's office. So that's what I want to confirm. What I find extraordinary is that the opposition voted against the bill alto together to stop stronger environmental protection and to stop faster approval. So I don't
know why >> I'm just interested in the in answers to my questions. Minister, uh did you consult with the resources minister at any point in time? I mean,
>> regarding the reforms,
>> no, no, regarding the deal, the dirty deal, I would say, with the Greens to exclude gas. And I say this because how can the government reliably, credibly claim to support affordable energy, manufacturing, and grid reliability while locking gas projects out of fast-tracked environmental approvals? I as a political concession to the Greens.
Well, Senator Henderson, you might recall that your own parties were on the way to the complete disarray that we see before our eyes now. Back in November, we >> I would like you to address my question rather than the politics.
>> Senator Senator Henderson, there was a political gloss on your question that the minister is entitled to respond to and be heard on. I didn't
>> we attempt we attempted to reach an agreement with the then coalition as in coalition version two rather than coalition version three that we're up to now. We attempted to reach an agreement with coalition version two. Senator McDonald knows that because she was part of those negotiations along with at least two other colleagues because I couldn't work out who was negotiating for the coalition. Um, so it's no surprise. So it's no surprise that we end up reaching an agreement. This is
Senator McDonald. Senator Senator surprise. This is a misrepresentation of
conversations and it is outrageous.
>> Senator McDonald. No, no, no. Hold on. Hold on. This committee will come to order. This minister, Minister, Senators, Senators, >> we're all senators in this room, including the minister. This committee will come to order. >> Senator Hanson Young, please. Senate Senators, we had a moment of silence. The the call is coming back to me. What has happened here in my assessment as the chair is that there is a political proposition around the passage of the legislation that's been put No, no, just let me finish. The minister is responding to that proposition. I appreciate that there are differences of view on this. We need to come back to the process of asking questions and answering them and that's where we'll go to now. I think we've got to the end of that particular exchange. Senator Henderson, if you have another question.
So Minister, how can the government credibly claim to support affordable energy, manufacturing and grid reliability while locking out gas projects from fasttracked environmental approvals because this at the end of the day was the deal that you did with the Greens?
>> Well, I've explained why we reached an agreement with the Greens and that is because we were incapable or your your parties were incapable of reaching an
agreement with us. I'm asking about gas.
The impact on the gas industry.
[clears throat]
>> I'm not sure whether it was your office that I saw three Angus Taylor supporters emerging from just as we returned from the lunch break. Senator Hennison, they were certainly coming from the Senate >> we were unable to reach an agreement with the minister.
>> You are out of order.
>> That is number one.
>> Number one, >> don't reflect on me and where I might move in this building, which is wrong. So you made a false allegation
>> saying that I saw three supporters from the house. >> You are required you are rather than
being having these snide comments. You are required to to stick with the
standing orders which require you to answer. If we are to reach an agreement with coalition if we are to reach an agreement with coalition version one, version two or version three, we need to understand what your position is and we were unable to understand what your
position was. Senators, Senators, Senators, Senators. No, no. Come to order now. I will take the call back once more. We're down this into this thicket once more. Ultimately, the question reflected on the politics of a deal that was No, the question was about the politics of a deal that was done in order to pass legislation. The minister is responding to that question. uh to the extent that the minister can keep his remarks confined to the nature of the deal and the process um or the substance of the question that was also asked would be great but the minister is being relevant given the political
your question by saying I've answered your question by saying
>> no you haven't actually
>> well I I I take let's rewind five minutes where I said all industries and all projects will benefit from the reforms that we undertook that you voted to streamline approvals. >> In addition, there is a separate streamlined approvals process that is provided for a range of industries not including coal and gas and that was the terms of the arrangement we reached in the with the greens partly because we were incapable of working out what your position was um and but all industries will benefit from the changes to the laws around streamline approvals and Mr. Wentworth has explained one of the other streamlined processes that is used by uh the fossil fuel sector particularly gas which has been retained
>> a minister uh I would suggest that if you were incapable of working out our position you weren't listening did you did you consult with the g
>> I consulted do you want not everyone here wants me to talk about the meetings that I had with members of the coalition version
>> can I please finish my question
>> hours of my life
>> did you consult stop interrupting me minister you very disrespectful. Did you consult with the gas industry during your development of this deal to exclude gas from streamline projects and was it the advice of the gas industry to uh that there would be uh very severe consequences if gas was removed? We
consulted throughout for many months and of course my predecessor minister plebec consulted with a range of stakeholders as well but I my office and department consulted with a range of stakeholders in representatives of the resources sector before during and after the passage of this legislation. One of the things I remember very clearly was that when I cons when I consulted members of the business community including the resources sector um they agreed with me that it was it was very difficult for the government to reach a position a deal with the coalition because you were all over the shop. We had an industry representatives telling us that as well.
The Business Council of Australia, which is um one of the peak bodies
>> who I who I met with many times
>> um one of the peak bodies for Australian businesses, said and I quote, "The Greens amendments create new barriers that cut against national priorities for the energy transition, including excluding gas projects from streamline pathways and regional planning and preventing water trigger projects from using single desk approvals. Why weren't you listening to Australian businesses?
>> We listened to all stakeholders. We also listened to those stakeholders when they pointed out to us that they were finding it impossible to work out what the coalition believed on this as well as we
>> we're talking about your legislation minister.
>> Yeah, that's what they were talking to
>> So, so the business council of Australia among many others raised serious concerns. Uh the prime minister and the minister for energy have said gas supply is critical to Australia. Did you consult with the energy minister during your development of the deal that you did with the Greens?
>> Again, I will want to go back and check my records as to whether I spoke personally to the minister or whether my office spoke to the minister's office throughout this. Um uh but all of our minister all of my ministerial colleagues understood um that I was attempting to reach an agreement with either coalition version two um or or the Greens and in the end we reached an arrangement with the Greens partly because we didn't know what you wanted and you still don't know what you
wanted. >> Yeah. Well, well, as I say, I'd suggest to you that you weren't listening because we have always
>> Well, who did I listen to of the three people who I was?
is fundamental. The development of gas projects in this country is fundamental
to the energy to the energy transition. Third time that I've explained that all industries will benefit from the faster approval and assessment processes contained in the reforms and that you voted against. I mean, if you're so obsessed with speeding up projects, why did you vote against a bill that speeds up projects?
>> Um, Minister, I'm just going to ignore the politicking that you keep in on insisting on pushing to our committee. We are trying to find out um the answers to proper and important questions. >> Chair, on this point, I will I think Senator McDonald has got some questions. I'll hand over to Senator Senator McDonald. Senator McDonald.
>> Thanks very much, Chair. And I will just put on the record how disappointed I am that our conversations which I thought were respectful and productive. Um you have so so cheapened them with your political comments.
>> You better talk to your colleague about the kind of questions that she was asking.
>> Um Minister, I I value the relationships that we develop around here to try and get things done for Australians. And I
know you tried
>> and I'm personally
>> I know you tried
>> really hurt that this is the way that we do business now is is taking what were I thought productive and and positive conversations and then turn them into a a sort of a sideeshow. I I'm really distressed by
>> I know you tried Senator McDonald and I think that was [clears throat] the point I was making before but you might want to talk to your colleague about the question she was asking.
>> I'm asking I think it was the answer questions minister
>> you were giving
>> and you know this is a deal that you should not have done. That's the bottom line. Australian business is saying that you were so desperate before we senators. Senators, Senators, Senators,
Senator Henderson. >> Come to order. Delt yourself out. >> Senators, I will take the call back to me for the moment and just explain once again that while I know emotions run hot on this topic in this committee, it is my effort to try and make sure that we run in a civil and respectful manner. I appreciate I'm not always successful in that respect, but I ask for senator's assistance in maintaining that level of decorum in this place. So, Senator
question uh I'm not sure who to direct this to perhaps Miss Parry is how is the department testing whether the EPBC uh implementation uh whether existing or the new changes are solving environmental problems what sort of assessment process will you have KPIs and what resources you putting towards
that? Um, Senator, we are in terms of environmental protection, our nine matters of M&Es are still at the core of of the reforms and the legislation. So, ultimately the protection of those is uh is our focus and that's what we regulate for. I think there's a couple of critical things um in the reforms that will go towards that protection. Um unacceptable impact criteria, making that really explicit uh in the legislation. So it's a it's creating that absolute >> no-go impacts on those critical matters.
>> That's the outcomes that I'm seeking to understand. So what are you going to be your measurements about? I understand the these y >> these standards but how are you going to know whether this legislation is being useful or if it is just more regulation legislation.
>> So I think Senator there's a variety of metrics. We don't have any uh right now we don't currently under the regulation. We do in other metrics uh report on the state of the environment under the EPBC act. We do not at this point we measure um statutory time frames and compliance. Uh we are turning our minds to how we think how we could create some metrics in terms of environmental protection building on the work that we already have across the department through state of environment reporting our 30 by30. We will look to things like um the uh restoration contribution holder and the kind of investments that are made there. We will look to um the kind of data and information that is being built up through EIA. But we don't have anything right now that I could put on the table for you.
>> Senator, if I may also just add um last year all jurisdictions signed on to a national biodiversity strategy that's driven from the international agreement to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity globally. It's our our national commitment to deliver on that. In there, as Miss Miss Parry just mentioned, uh achieving protecting 30% of the country by 2030, both our land and our seas, is one of the key objectives. Another one is to make sure that sustainable development happens. That is where the legislation fits centrally because that net gain, i.e. the environment will be better off after a project goes ahead than it is currently is a really key way of knowing that development is sustainable and will help towards the econ the accomplishment of halting and reversing biodiversity loss. We've also got a fair amount of work another of the five key areas is on circular economy. So, we're making sure waste isn't isn't entering the environment and therefore impacting.
>> I I appreciate what you're saying, but what I'm looking for is actually tangible measurables, whereas these are all statements of good intention. 30% of the land locked up may or may not end up in better outcomes for the environment. >> So, until you can demonstrate the KPIs
is what I'm asking you. On each of these we will be bringing to the environment ministers in March the implementation plan associated with this that will then report on our outcomes to to go to 30 by30. Couple things really important that is a science consensus globally that you need to have 30% of your ecosystems protected to provide a reasonable base for species to deal with climate change and other impacts on them. So it it has um some substance behind why we have to get there. In 2022, we were at 22% of the country being protected, the land mass. We're uh close to 26% at this point. So we are making progress on exactly the type of keep you're talking about. I appreciate
you're going to talk about the scientists doing, you know, this is all a great idea and it may well be, but what I'm seeing practically on the ground is a greater incursion of lantana, of rubber vine, of other invasive um uh plants and no budget to manage those within those uh places. We're seeing bigger bushfires come out of them. We're seeing pigs and dingoes and other things. So what I'm trying to get to is who is actually measuring whether or not we get a better outcome or we just have this idea that it's going to be better. You don't you have not been able to demonstrate a clear response and I need to keep moving on because the chair will give call me time.
I'll provide that but one of the five other targets an invasive species exactly what you're talking about.
>> Okay. Well in Queensland not seeing any measurement of it yet. So I look forward to that. Um I want to ask Miss Parry, do the current EPBC settings create new operational economic environmental risks for agriculture? We've had some measurements around housing numbers. The department was able to answer a question from one of the Labour senators about how much more housing is going to be built because of the EPBC changes. What about outcomes for agriculture? Do you seek to measure that?
>> I'm struggling to understand the nature of your question, Senator. So I'm
production. >> There's not I'm not sure if this answers your question, but there's not an awful lot of agriculture um developments that require EPBC approval in the sense of um you know building a new farm or undertaking fencing activity, that kind of thing. Obviously, that that's been the experience to date and I'm sure we could come back to you with figures about that. Obviously, as a result of the changes we've made around land clearing, um there will be some uh proposed clearing that now requires EPBC assessment and approval that did not require it in the past and you understand why we've made that decision to do that. Um but in terms of you know we wouldn't be talking about anywhere near the same number of approvals that have been granted for agriculture projects in the you know up until the changes because they haven't required
>> and and I've got some statistics on that. Senator,
>> I can give you a number of examples of projects that um uh that are now they don't bother applying because they feel because the tree police and the impacts of that um on people's uh businesses is now considered so stressful. So, I I appreciate what you're saying that you don't have applications, but there are um applications or projects that have were approved 15 years ago and there have been no further expansions or activities on those in that time because it hasn't been a positive environment for agricultural expansion in those regions.
Are you are you talking about um agricultural dams or
>> uh no um farming and converting what was previously grazing land into farming land?
>> Yeah. So, Senator, the only thing I would I just go back to emphasize is the changes to the um to the EPBC act and the ch changes that we heard canvas today around continuous use. Simply bring the agricultural sector in line with every other sector across the economy and we are providing support to that agricultural sector as you've heard we are uh working with them to try and make sure that they understand uh their obligations. But at the end of the day, a referral is only ever required if an activity has a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance. And that's the threshold. So if an activity is going to after avoiding and mitigating have a residual significant impact on one of the nine matters of M&Es that we regulate for, then that landholder has to refer. It doesn't even mean that it can't go ahead. It just means they need to refer it for assessment. >> So that's that's the changes that have
been brought about. I appreciate that here in CRA that all sounds incredibly reasonable, but it is the reason why you're getting so many inquiries uh from farming peak bodies and producers because that's not their lived experience on the ground. And if you want to start an animated conversation in farming communities, you start talking about vegetation management and specifically the 15 years. Uh so I appreciate what you're saying. sounds very reasonable here, but for land managers uh who are trying to make time efficient and and you know reasonable decisions on their their land, um this is not their experience and is not what
they believe is going to happen. >> I understand that there are some land owners who probably don't like the change that we made to the law, but you're also the shadow resources minister. the mining companies that you deal with in that capacity, if they are, if their developments are going to have a significant impact on threatened species, the Great Barrier Reef, the various other matters of national environmental significance, they need to have that assessed and approved under the EPBC Act. And what the change that we've made means is that farmers who want to clear regrowth that is 15 years older or more if that clearing will have a significant impact on threatened species the reef etc. then like the mining company they need to get it assessed and approved. Um we know that agricultural land clearing has been a primary driver of threatened species
>> that that's not reasonable given the amount of regrowth that has been measured by slats and that data is never reported >> and we know that >> reverse about that is what happens is only ever reported on clearing what regrowth um thickening all of those other things is never reported in the same breath and and having lived the experience experience in Queensland. I, you know, I've seen the data and I've seen the satellite imaging. So,
>> but the point remains, you know, what we're saying is that farmers who want to do clearing are brought in line with mining companies, with property developers, with wind farm builders, with solar farm builders.
>> It's it's a very different activity though. the style of the activity, the nature of the activity, and I appreciate that what you're saying sounds very reasonable, but these people who are asking me to get greater clarity, which we hoped we'd get through the um through the legislative committee process, is not how this works, that this is not that there that it is incredibly opaque, that the uh Queensland um mapping system is not being acknowledged particularly you know white um uh you know some of the other mapping criteria that's used
>> and we are working on that that's why we're working with some of the key stakeholders it's why we've got teams providing advice to people uh we we know that we've got an obligation to explain to landholders what they do and don't have to do um and that's what we're intent on doing
>> all right so I'll go back to my question which is around Is there uh any measurement um you know particularly is there any measurement that is going to determine whether or not we've impacted on food security as a result of these changes?
Well, maybe while the department thinks about an answer to that, I mean over time I presume we will be able to give you figures for the um number of referrals for land clearing that are approved and rejected, you know, based on so that there's been a change to the law and people will now be and now are seeking assessments and approvals for things they didn't previously have to do. And over time we will be able to give you those figures. you know different people will have a different view about whether that's going to be impacting on food security. But you know even now when mining companies or others seek EPBC and assessments and approvals it doesn't necessarily mean that the project is blocked from happening. What is required is that they alter the design of that project or do it in some way that minimizes or avoids environmental damage. And that's what our officials will be doing in working with farmers is to say if you clear it in this way like you propose, you're going to wipe out a species, for example. If you do it this way, you can still therefore do some farming without wiping out that species. and that that would be a better way to
>> So what about examples like in the North Queensland floods where river streams are congested with lantana and and rubber vine but because it is a river stream they can't clear those those streams.
>> Is this because of the reef catchment issue?
>> Yes.
>> Well depending what part of the Gulf we're talking about the reef catchment obviously doesn't go all the way across to the northern >> ingum. Yeah. So, >> sorry I wasn't thinking about Ingam being in the Gulf, but so in the reef catchment, what it might just it's a really important point. Maybe Mr. Wyndham can explain, you know, the kind of vegetation that would not be able to be cleared without an assessment.
>> Subsequently, the rivers backed up and there was flooding into um properties that, >> you know, previously hadn't been flooded. And the rules are is that they can go in and clear by hand but you know crocodiles mud I'm not doing that. So so subsequently it doesn't happen.
>> So so senator these are exactly the types of issues that we have been working through with peak bodies and with individuals. I guess the the message here really is that the change to the continuing use exemption is just one layer in what we're we're talking about. So that that related to uh the exemption no no longer applies within the area 50 mters of a water course. Um that does not mean the activity cannot continue. And um really the test then becomes about the level of the environment impact. And so the thing we're seeking to do in cases like that is work through with the landholder so that they can undertake the management that is required for for whatever reason. but do so in a way that keeps the impact on things that are protected under the act to a to a low level. And in most cases, that's very achievable. I I guess what what what one layer I think we're missing in this discussion is that the states actually are the primary regulators of land clearing. And so, um, a lot of the frustration that we do hear, and I'm sure you're hearing as well, does relate to to state laws. No,
you've just legislated over the top of the states with this stuff. So
>> with a with a minor change uh that affects a small number of activities. Um to give you a sense of the scale of the level of regulation in the system currently. Um we only have 11 out of over 600 projects under referral or assessment that relate to the agriculture sector. And that's much smaller than the energy sector which is you know over 200 in in total. and so on. So I guess haven't got to a specific quantification I think you're looking for but it is a clear indication that many of the activities that land managers are seeking to undertake can be can be done so in a way that has minimal impacts and without the need for uh an
>> Can I ask that you visit that community and and see exactly the specifics that I'm talking about minister? I'm sure you'd approve something like that.
>> Sure. Ingam's a lovely town. Well, it's
a fantastic town and it flooded terribly because of >> riverream congestion and the idea that you can not impact mangroves in order to destroy the the habitat that's grown up between them is is
>> I I don't think it's been said yet today, but we're in we're intending to have a departmental team um visit Queensland very soon for exactly these kind of conversations.
>> Right. And and may I ask that they go to places like that?
>> Yep. Let me see if we can get into Ingam.
>> Georgetown would be the other one if you're going to do a
>> let's see what's possible. But that the intention is to get out there and talk
to people. They're the communities that have got real potential for agricultural expansion. Um, but are limited by uh rules that sound really fabulous on paper a long way away, but when you go onto the ground and you see what's going on, it's not as practical.
>> Sure. Um, Senator McDonald, I was intending to move the call.
>> Uh, well, could I just just finally then I'm what I'm trying to understand is that agriculture which unlike the other projects that you're talking about mining and uh housing developments and whatnot is a continuous land use. how there's going to be uh some sort of measurement of impact and whether or not there has been a positive or negative impact on food security and the ability to to manage land because the suggestion from uh farmers and grazers is that it's limiting productivity.
>> Maybe I can jump on in on that one and provide a clarification again of the the change. And so you suggested that agriculture at large was a continuous land use. That is not the way that the provision under the act has operated since 2000. So it is only it only receives that exemption if the activity was occurring prior to 2000 and it has been continuous since 2000. Um and it does have those limitations that I described earlier where it does not apply the exemption does not apply if there's an intensification or an expansion of that activity. And so actually while many people do jump to the assumption that they have a continuous use exemption from an act perspective that's that applies to a reducing number of cases. And so that's when we really do need to jump to the practical conversations we're talking about to ensure that people do understand their obligations under the act to self assess and refer if there's going to be an impact and really um that the hands-on help that we can provide [clears throat] working through the cases on a one-on-one basis is the best
you think that makes sense, but unless you've seen thickening uh an encroachment because of the reduced use of fire um in the landscape, then I think you'd see that that is actually um areas that previously didn't need to be cleared are needing to be because previously um because yeah, previously you would have had suckers and trees
cleared by fire. So, and and that that's completely in line with what we're hearing through through the calls really. And I guess I'd make the observation you talked about Lantana as an example. Lantana is not really habitat for many species protected under
>> when I talk about thickening and encroaching, I talk about Giji and >> yeah, you know, >> other trees. So, >> all right. If the if the department is going out on the ground, I look forward to feedback on which communities you go to and what sort of practical examples you understand as people walk you through and say, "Well, how does this work?" And that was what we were seeking to do with the inquiry, but the legislation changed before the committee had finished uh and the committee had finished. And so we're having discussions here of things that um you have not been properly examined, I guess, publicly. So,
>> thank you, Senator McDonald. Senator Hanson Young,