Michelle Landry MP on the Environment Protection Reform Bill and how changes impact Capricornia скачать в хорошем качестве

Michelle Landry MP on the Environment Protection Reform Bill and how changes impact Capricornia

Deputy Speaker, I rise to address the grave concerns many constituents, stakeholders, and industries in Capricornia and beyond have about the proposed changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. While reform may sometimes be needed, what is before us risks crippling industries that are pillars of our region and our nation — and places too much power in the hands of ministerial discretion, duplicates regulation, and threatens fairness and productivity. I speak today on behalf of regions that rely on resource development: mining, minerals, heavy industry. Companies like Boral, Glencore, BHP, QMag — they are not faceless corporations. They are employers. They are economic drivers. They unlock the wealth of our nation and they give back to the community through grassroots community activities. They are telling me clearly that the tighter green tape proposed under this Bill is strangling their ability to operate in Australia, let alone compete internationally where other countries offer far more favourable conditions. I back our mining companies. I back them because their success is our success. But under this Bill, we risk entering dangerous territory. We risk picking winners and losers by regulation — where those aligned with the government agenda are favoured with subsidies, while others are left to struggle under burdens they never asked for. Deputy Speaker, if we continue down this path, some may ask whether we are edging toward a system where government grants or regulatory favour determine what survives, rather than competitiveness and merit. That risks a chilling resemblance to state-controlled economies where approvals are less about fairness and more about who has influence. One of my deepest concerns is the proposal is around “unacceptable impact” as a legal test in the Bill. As per the recommendations from the Graeme Samuel Review, the intention may have been well-meaning — to protect matters of national environmental significance more strictly. But the drafting we see is deeply subjective, loaded with ministerial discretion, and lacking clarity. A project may be held up or refused not because it fails to meet clear standards, but because someone considers the impact unacceptable — and that test is open to interpretation. Which could then attract legal challenges and lengthy delays. For mining companies I have spoken with, the fear is real: what happens when that test becomes a bureaucratic hammer rather than a guidance tool? When companies are held responsible for “impacts outside of their control,” which they cannot reasonably mitigate? That is not fairness — that is regulatory overreach. Furthermore, in my consultation with the Queensland Resources Council they have flagged that the Bill’s establishment of a federal Environmental Protection Agency with assessment, compliance, and enforcement roles duplicates existing Queensland arrangements. That duplication will slow approvals, increases cost, and reduces productivity in resource-dependent electorates like Capricornia. In Queensland we already have a State environmental regulatory regime. To overlay a federal regime with parallel obligations — sometimes inconsistent, sometimes overlapping — is inefficient. It burdens project applications with increased compliance cost and delay. Energy-intensive or resource-intensive projects often depend on timeliness and predictability. When timing is uncertain, investment is re-evaluated. Jobs are delayed or lost. Growth is stunted. Listen to the video for more...