Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 2:26:25 to 2:44:16
The committee reviews processing times for resource projects and the government's progress on banning the importation of hunting trophies.
Topics: EPBC Act, Fossil fuels, Animal welfare
Speakers: Hon Murray Watt, Senator Andrew Bragg, Senator Mehreen Faruqi, John Bradley, Mr. Tony Chappel, Cassandra Johnson, Speaker 23, Speaker 29
>> Okay. So, how long what's the average for a resources application to go >> to approval?
>> We'll see what the EPA has got on that.
the average time for a resourcing project to go through
>> for a resources project.
>> Resources project. >> Yeah. Just you bear with me a moment. I'll just [clears throat] um pull up
>> Sorry, I've been reminded um by my office uh one housing decision I have made as the minister related to the major housing development around the Queen Victoria market in Melbourne. But but
>> and you published that?
>> Yep. I don't recall having made any others. If there are others that I've
>> Okay. So the question is how long does it take to get a resources project >> under APBC in Australia? While while the
officials are looking for some figures, of course, um you know, some are made quickly, some are made over a much longer period of time, and that that will depend on the complexity of the project, the significance of its environmental impacts, the responsiveness of the proponent.
>> What do you have KPIs and benchmarks for
getting back to people? We have we have uh KPIs for um decisions to be made within statutory time frames. And to give you an example of that um last financial year 93% of all decisions were made on time. Um and uh for the current financial year to the 30th of September, 93% of project approvals were completed within the statutory time frame. And I have to remind you that uh it got as bad as 6% under the former coalition government.
>> Yeah, you've been in government 2018.
Yeah, we have. But my point is that re reaching 93% >> is a hell of a lot better than 6%.
>> Yeah. Everything's fantastic. So what's the
>> I'm not saying it's fantastic. It's better than 6% though.
>> I don't know. No one remembers that
>> We will need to take that on notice on
>> You might want to forget it.
>> You don't know
>> the resources projects we need to take on notice.
>> You don't know. Okay. So what about with these approvals that it will be faster now? I think you did a deal with the Greens in the Senate on this, didn't
>> Uh we certainly the Greens did vote for our legislation. I'm still trying to work out who was the negotiator for the
coalition. How's that part of the answer?
>> Well, I'm just explaining why the legislation was passed that way.
>> Okay. And so
>> it might have been different if you were a shadow. I don't know. But
>> so with that deal, what actually was the contents of that deal in terms of how it affects approvals?
>> Well, the contents of that deal, as you call it, uh, I think it was called the Environment Protection Amendment Act. It was the It was the full package of amendments. do it. get through still. >> The the So, the the the amendments, you might remember me saying, had three pillars. One was strengthening environmental protections. One was speeding up decision-m and the third was greater independence and transparency in decision-m. In terms of the second pillar that you're focusing on, um there were a range of amendments made to speed up decision- making including um entering bilateral agreements with states and territories, uh developing bio- regional plans, um uh creating new streamlined pathways. They're three that come to mind straight away.
>> So, when was this bill passed?
>> Uh early December last year.
>> So, it's coming up to its first anniversary.
>> we can have a birthday cake in my office if you want to come.
>> Well, look forward to seeing you celebrate your triumph, of course. But how many of these bilateral deals have you actually landed with?
>> So, well, the we are we have publicly committed to finalize a bilateral assessments agreement uh with New South Wales and Western Australia by the end of this calendar year. >> Right. >> And I expect those time frames will be met. Uh we have also publicly committed in fact I reached agreement with every state and territory environment minister recently that we will complete bilateral assessment agreements for every state and territory by 30 June next or by by mid year next year. Um and negotiations that will advance with a number of other states.
>> Okay. So but 12 months on you haven't got the bilaterals done. Well, that's
that's because um the uh to have bilateral agreements, we needed to have the new national environmental standards.
>> And you haven't made those.
>> We Well, we have and it's now up to you whether you choose to disallow them.
>> You made some of them, not all of them.
>> We've made the four key ones to begin with.
>> How many more there to come?
>> Um there's going to be uh at least one more that we've committed to do relating to First Nations engagement standard. uh and as time progresses it [clears throat] may be that there's benefit in creating more but the the the the ones that we have made in particular matters of national environmental significance and environmental offsets are the most crucial to enable assess assessments of projects or bilaterals
>> but almost 12 months on if you if you haven't made all the rigs and you haven't done the bilateral deals and you're not sure how long it takes to get a a project approved I mean I think you can see that a lot of people are now disappointed. >> Well, no that they effectively what what they what you've done is given yourself godlike powers to make these rigs and do these deals, >> but on the ground there doesn't seem to be any greater confidence about investment or or environmental
>> Well, I've already given you um the figures around the improvements uh that have been made. the my opening statement went to the increase in on-time decisions that we're already seeing as the reforms come into effect. Um the and you know I know it's in your political interest to argue that um it's all going badly. Um the problem for you is that we've got um uh press release from the UDIA 21st of August. UDIA welcomes practical improvements to new EPBC environmental standards. Property Council 20th of August National Environmental Standards to deliver greater clarity and consistency. I mean, some of the groups that I know you like to spend time with and you'd be looking to for support are actually saying things are getting better. Um,
>> but are they getting better?
>> Well, they said so,
>> but but but how do you measure that in
in reality if you don't even know if you
don't know the basic answers about how long it takes to get an approval? the
So, uh, Mr. Bradley can pick this up if he wants to, but the some of the other benefits that we're beginning to see, uh, the streamlined assessments that we we are introducing are estimated to provide up to $7 billion in economic benefit. Um, the I mean,
>> so what about the offsets calculator? Where's that up to?
>> Uh, who's the right person to update us on that? Yeah, that that's
>> because I think the industry industry wants that. I know you like to [clears throat] quote the parts of industry that you think might suit your argument, but there are also industry requests for clarity because industry just wants to know what what can we do >> So they've asked you for this offsets calculator.
>> So that's that's that's being developed. Um the official responsible can update you on that. Um, just before I hand to the official, you know, I know that you want you seem to want to have all these reforms. Keep
>> I'm just a simple person trying to get
>> I might remind you that in 10 years of coalition government, um, we didn't see the reforms passed. >> Uh, it's less than one year since we passed these reforms.
>> Yeah. Tell us next. We've already
commenced two trenches of the amendments with a third about to start. Um, we've got uh by the end of the year, I've already talked about the bilats. None of that happened under 10 years of coalition government.
>> What about the first fleet? Who was how many people in the first fleet?
>> I didn't realize that was a matter for the environment estimates.
>> Well, I mean, you're going back into deeply in the history. That wasn't that far apart.
>> I know you want to forget the Morrison, Turnball, Abbott era, but it happens.
>> Senators, at a different time, this
answer on the calculator.
>> Absolutely. Before you
>> um if we're going to go to the calculator and then one more question and then I'll
>> Okay, one more question before. So before we do the calculator, I think let's just do some like um so if I wanted to build a house where there's some trees, 25 trees, take them down. Do I have to plant 25 trees elsewhere?
>> It's not that simple. For starters, um you've got to work out whether clearing those 25 trees is likely to have a significant impact on one of the matters that we protect.
>> But they're just ordinary trees. They're not they're just they're just in the middle of nowhere. No.
>> I feel like we had this conversation,
this exact conver because these are the practical questions you should be able to answer as a minister.
>> Well, but >> Well, for starters, I'm not the assessor.
>> I'm concerned that you don't know how to administer your own act. And that's why people are saying to me,
>> they don't seem to know anything about what the stakeholders are saying, how
the act works. >> Just ask you if if I knock over 25 trees, do I have to replace them?
>> That depends on uh the the type of trees, whether they're habitat for a threatened species. No, they're just
ordinary trees. They're not fancy. They're in the middle of nowhere. They're in Timbuktu. Okay.
don't regulate trees in Timbukt.
>> There's nothing near them. >> All right. They're in no doubt. This is
getting farical.
>> Well, well, look,
>> they're in.
>> Well, okay, senators, whether or not it's getting farical, we don't have time for this.
>> Okay. Well, let's hear about you. Okay, you don't know the answer. Let's hear about the calculator then.
>> Let's hear an answer about the calculator and
>> let's hear the answer from the people who know more.
>> Uh, so Cassandra Johnson, branch head of restoration delivery. So, um, the minister was right. The offsets calculator is under development at the moment. >> Uh, it is being updated to align with the offset standard. uh a consultation on the components of the calculator have recently closed and further consultation will occur in
>> when's it coming month. Is it coming before the next historical moment in >> when's it coming?
>> The calculator is still under public consultation and expert elicitation. We don't have a date for it.
>> Okay. Well, does the minister tell us when the calculator's coming? >> When's the calculator coming? So we can we can work.
>> I was just distracted. I'm not sure what answer Miss Johnson just gave.
>> I just said we're still doing public consultation.
>> Look, we haven't made a we haven't made a commitment uh on time frames. We understand there's a great degree of interest, but we want to consult properly with industry and other stakeholders.
>> No wonder we can't get stuff done.
>> Senator Bragg. Thank you, Minister. Uh Senator Faruqi,
>> chair, excuse me, I'm wondering if Mr. Bradley can have an opportunity for his opening statement.
>> Just take it on. This is the very This is the very first very first appearance from the M EPA. It's not the EPA's fault that we are several hours late.
>> That is that is the case. Mr. Bradley, I appreciate that you have um been brought forward in unorthodox circumstances. Uh so I would ask you very respectfully to keep your opening statement as brief as possible, but yes, if you'd like to make a short opening statement, please do so.
>> Thanks very much. Uh I appreciate it, chair, and thank you for the opportunity to be with you today. And today is the first Senate estimates hearing for the National Environmental Protection Agency. And I want to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land that we're on today, the nonal people, and pay my respects to the elders past and present. And to acknowledge the um extend that respect to all ainal and toristra islander peoples participating in the proceedings. So as the committee is very aware tonight, the agency was established on the 1st of July as part of those reforms designed to achieve the three broad objectives that the minister just discussed. And in establishing the national EPA, we've consolidated a single environmental regulator with a national footprint. The team has diverse expertise and experience across 10 national environmental laws governing environmental assessments and approvals, wildlife trade, waste and recycling, ozone protection, and contamination. As an independent regulator, our focus will be on ensuring compliance with Australia's national environmental laws, promoting best practice regulation, and helping to safeguard matters of national environmental significance for current and future generations. Our initial focus to date has been on connecting to stakeholders and establishing our mandate, our critical business systems and our cultural priorities. And just as importantly, we're maintaining our momentum in critical responsibilities that protect environmental outcomes and economic activity. Uh the minister's recently released a statement of expectations to the national EPA and in coming months we'll publish a range of documents which will include our statement of intent in response, our first corporate plan and we've recently published our regulatory posture statement. So, thank you very much for the time with you tonight.
>> Thank you, Mr. Bradley, and I appreciate the brevity of that statement. Senator Fariki.
>> Thank you, Chair Minister. I have a few questions on trophy hunting.
>> Yep.
>> Because I find it pretty astounding that in 2026, uh, we're still legally importing trophy hunted polar bears, American black bears, brown bears, giraffes, grey wolves, hippopotamus, wild cats, and many more. And I just want to give a few examples of what has been imported here as trophies in the past two years. Sovette monkey scrotum shot glasses, 13 hippopotamus teeth with a skull as part of a coffee table with hippopotamus feet turned into bookstands, a rifle bag made of giraffe, a polar bear trophy. Minister, do you think it is acceptable to import these items obtained through [clears throat] trophy hunt trophy hunting to Australia? because surely we've evolved beyond the point of needing to pin up this wildlife on walls to kind of stoke our egos.
>> Um, let's just say I'm not a big fan of trophy hunting or importing trophies from hunting. >> I know this is an area the department has been doing some work on >> um and perhaps the officials could tell you a little bit about that if that's of
>> Yep. So I just yeah I do want to come to that work but your government minister committed in the 2025 election campaign to ban the import of 20 sites listed species but since that commitment 387 trophies have been imported in the past 2 years and nearly all of the 20 species the government committed to banning all of them have been imported 40% of the trophies imported into Australia in this data set are species vulnerable to extinction that includes claws, mouths, skin, and skulls of animals. So why hasn't any why have why haven't you actually banned this?
>> Um I've been reminded.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. So in fact quite recently the department has provided advice to me about this issue. Um uh >> I literally haven't seen it yet myself. It's going through my office, but that is something we're taking a serious look at.
>> So what is that advice? because I know it's pretty straightforward to ban the importation because Humane World of Animals Australia have actually done the work for you. So there are ways of doing it through the APBC act inserting a definition of hunting trophy or use existing ministerial powers under 303 section 303 CB2C >> of the ABPC act to set a limit of zero.
>> The
>> So what is the advice? What is the advice?
>> You you would know, Senator Perooqi, um neither officials nor ministers disclose the contents of advice. Okay. >> But what I can tell you is that advice has been provided um because this is an issue that we have a concern about.
>> So when is the ban going to happen?
>> Well, I'll need to look at the advice first. I um as I say, it's been received in my office. I haven't yet seen it. Um but stay tuned. having seen the advice, I don't know. I
>> Uh and will that advice be made public?
>> Uh well, we don't normally provide uh make public the contents of advice, but you've obviously got ways of seeking that >> information if you'd like to.
>> Okay. Could someone know could someone give me the number of how many trophies the government has approved for import?
Uh
>> if you don't have it, you can take it on
notice. I know I should have those numbers for you, Senator. So, it's Sam Hush branch head of wildlife uh trade and regulatory capability in the national EPA. Uh so, what were the figures you were after again? Was it 25 26
>> in 2026?
>> 2026 and it was the number of trophies would be 185 in total.
>> And how many more have been approved that are those the approvals or the ones that have already come in? Those are the
imported that those are imports for the financial year 2526.
>> Financial year 2526. Import numbers. Okay. And then last quick question. Uh Minister 14, brown bear and greywolf specimens were imported from the Russian Federation across 2024 and 2025. Well after the sanctions regime came in. Are trophy hunting imports exempt from the government sanctions on Russia?
>> Uh not that I'm aware of.
They're not exempt. So why
>> I I don't Sorry. The more accurate answer is I I don't know. And why don't I take that on notice?
>> If you could take that take that on notice. Thank you.