Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill 2025
I contribute to debate on the Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 on behalf of The Greens and indicate at the outset that, of course, I support the excellent contribution of my colleague Ms Sue Higginson. I also put on record my disappointment with the rushed nature of the introduction of the bill into this place. The Greens examined elements of the bill that relate to my portfolio areas of mining and water. In last week's crossbench briefing, The Greens were told by the Minister, "Don't worry. There's a lot in it, but it's not coming on until October." The Greens arranged priorities accordingly and put preparation for this debate on the backburner. It was not until after question time today that The Greens found out that the bill would be debated today.
The Greens support many aspects of the bill and the opportunity it provides to strengthen penalties for certain environmental offences and ensure that key contributors to environmental pollution incidents can be held accountable. As my colleague pointed out, in particular The Greens welcome the new objects that require the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] to work in respectful partnership with Aboriginal peoples and embed consistent, meaningful and trustworthy engagement with First Nation communities. We welcome the new provisions that allow the authority to give directions that restrict access to premises following the issuance of a clean-up notice, when such directions are necessary to protect human health or allow for clean-up to proceed.
The Greens also support the inclusion of environmental justice principles in the list of matters to be considered when imposing a penalty for an environmental offence. My colleague Ms Sue Higginson explained why that is so important, given the history of certain environmental matters. We support the provisions that allow for an owner of premises where a pollution incident occurs, and a person who contributes to the incident, to be held accountable. We support increased maximum penalties in relation to the prohibited use of listed industrial chemicals. We support establishment of a register of rejected waste loads and expanded provisions that enable protection of the environment policies to apply to persons carrying out specific activities.
However, a number of provisions raise concerns for The Greens. I mention a couple that relate to the portfolio areas for which I represent The Greens. In his second reading speech in the other place, Minister Dib framed the bill as containing minor amendments to reduce duplication, increase consistency, remove loopholes, clarify areas of ambiguity and allow for appropriate environmental risk management practices. Of course, some parts of the bill will do that, but the bill also has the potential to weaken transparency and erode third-party scrutiny of environmental decision‑making by making it optional, rather than mandatory, for the EPA to provide access to public registers.
The Greens are concerned that the bill removes the requirement for the EPA to assess the performance‑regulated industries, and the impact of those industries on the environment, by narrowing the reporting requirements of the EPA board to the Minister on this issue. I indicate that I will move amendments at the Committee stage to ensure that responsibility is not taken away, particularly at this time when there is heightened public interest in environmental pollution as a result of pollution scandals revealed in recent years by the media and the community.
Those scandals include, but are far from limited to, the recent revelations of PFAS contamination in some of our drinking water and waterways, and breaches by various coal companies across the State of their environmental protection licences, polluting rivers from the Royal National Park to Coxs River and to Maules Creek in the Central West. They also include, as my colleague Ms Sue Higginson touched on, the high levels of toxic pesticides found in blueberries tested straight from the supermarket shelf—one of which was supposedly banned in Australia in 2001—and extremely high levels of another pesticide, dimethoate, which has led the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to look at whether the blueberry dimethoate levels that are currently allowed are too high. There are other scandals that could be discussed in the context of this bill.
The bill also allows for the regulation to prescribe circumstances in which asbestos waste could be lawfully reused or recycled. While I acknowledge that the circumstances outlined in the regulation amendment presented with the bill seem reasonable—for example, re-use in association with an ongoing management order under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 or as part of remediation work carried out in accordance with a State environmental planning policy—are we expected to trust that this is where that will end? The regulations could also effectively exempt the requirement for the notification of particular pollution incidents or classes of pollution incidents that cause or threaten material harm to the environment. The bill also introduces regulation‑making powers that would allow for the exclusion of certain substances from the definition of waste, and it sets no guardrails to limit the scope of potential definition changes.
As part of the work I have been doing on PFAS, I have seen a lot of emails and internal documents that relate to dealing with PFAS in biosolids, which is incredibly serious. I would have preferred more time to assess whether there is any risk of this Government or a future government dealing with PFAS in biosolids by way of regulation. It will be very difficult for wastewater treatment plants and water utilities to treat wastewater to the extent of removing PFAS to a level deemed to be not hazardous and safe to apply to agricultural land. I do worry about exemptions coming through by way of regulation.
While The Greens welcome the positive elements of the bill, we are concerned about provisions that weaken transparency, diminish accountability and erode community trust in environmental regulation. When industries pollute, the public has a right to know how the impacts are managed and whether the regulator is doing its job. At a time when environmental harm is increasing and communities are demanding stronger protections, we should be strengthening oversight and scrutiny, not stripping back and allowing more loopholes. The Greens will move amendments at the Committee stage to restore safeguards because protecting our environment and communities who rely on it must always come first. As my colleague Ms Sue Higginson has indicated, ultimately The Greens support the bill, but we reject the rushed nature in which this debate was brought on, particularly given the number of changes contained in the bill.