“I rise to speak on the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, which amends the Environmental Protection Act, 1994 and other legislation. 

The bill has a number of significant implications for those industries and organizations who hold environmental authorities as well as the general community more broadly. 

Proposed amendments include extended investigative powers, expanded executive officer liability, significant changes to the transitional environment programs, and changes to the contaminated land and air frameworks. The bill also makes changes to the submission process and the new decision point for the administrator. 

Administering authority for the Environmental impact statement prepared under the EP Act.

 A proponent for an EIS will now be required to submit with the draft terms of reference a summary of potential negative environmental impacts and the measures undertaken to avoid or minimize these. 

The Chief Executive may determine that the EIS cannot proceed if satisfied, if satisfied that the project would contravene the law or give rise to an unacceptable risk of serious material or environmental harm, have an unacceptable adverse impact on the matter of state environments, significance or a matter of national environment significance. 

Having an unacceptable adverse impact on an area of cultural heritage and significance. 

Or there is a regulatory requirement requiring the chief executive to refuse the draft terms of reference proceeding. This would mean there is significant onus on the claimant to demonstrate at a very early stage that the project does not fall within these narrow grounds for rejection. 

Notably, cultural heritage significance is a given is given a broad definition and includes an area of place or indigenous cultural significance or esthetic architectural historical significance or scientific, social or technology technological significance, sorry there is a bit of a word there. 

To the present generation or the or future generations and how exactly will the department determine what area of technology, technological significance actually is, or an area of esthetic significance I know that Eungella ranges is.

And I through this bill, I’d like to see we’ve asked the Minister Scanlon to come up to Eungella to have a look at these areas and actually look at the nature and the people of the Yuwibara and the Pioneer and also the people that live there to give us some understanding about the point of hydro that they’ve suggested up there. 

The extreme ambiguity around the grounds on which an early refusal might be made is clear. Breach of Section 4 3 A of the Legislative Standards Act 1992, which allows Parliament to make rights and liberties or obligations dependent on administrative powers only if the power is significantly defined. 

The power is not. If the power is not significantly defined and will leave the door wide open for governmental government to impose additional grounds for early refusal by regulation. 

The refusal of projects is not just some minor technical matter that might be delegated to subordinate legislation. These are major amendments with hugely significant consequences for both industry and submitters. The whole bill is riddled with the use of vague and ambiguous terms, including the term unacceptable risk in relation to serious or material environmental harms. 

The problems of ambiguity and subjectivity in a number of the statutory criteria for what constitutes a major application has been raised in submissions, particularly via QRC. Deputy Speaker The Government’s consultation process has been strongly criticized in a number of submissions on the bill. The bill was introduced on the 12th of October 22 with submissions called by for 9am. 

For the 26th of October 2020. To me, a ten working days later, such a rush prior process is disrespect for the other stakeholders and does not accord with the principles outlined in the Queensland Cabinet Handbook, Which state such a consultation is an essential element of the legislative and cabinet process. 

Consultation with persons or organizations external to the government is routine part of policy development and cabinet submissions, and when developing legislative proposals, the Queensland Government is committed to consulting effectively with affected stakeholders at all stages of the regulatory cycle and the Queensland public deserves a full and transparent explanation as to why the Government considered necessary for stakeholders to execute a confidentiality date before the copy of the first draft exposure bill was released to them. 

Something that is hard to fathom given the explanatory notes, the statement. But one of the primary objective of the bill was to improve community input and transparency. Deputy Speaker the bill also substantially changes areas of legislation that are currently the subject of independent review into the adequacy of existing powers and penalties under the Environment Protection Act 1994. 

This review into the EPA is headed by retired Judge Richard Jones. Several components of the draft Epola bill proposed changes to enforcement provisions to the EP Act and will be considered as part of the ongoing independent review of the EP Act, including environmental investigations, environmental protection orders, offenses related to environmental requirements and powers of authorized persons to vehicles and places. Changes to enforcement provision of EPA Act should not be progressed prior to the completion of the Independent Review. Deputy Speaker. I have significant concerns around the bill’s amendments to executive officer liability in section (4) (9) (3) of the bill. 

The amended Section (4) (9) (3) substantially extends liability to historical acts or admissions without regard to the knowledge of former executive officer might have had at the time of the decision, as well as a potential in the intervening events beyond the influence of the former executive officer. Any enforcement regime must be fair and balanced, as well as clear and unambiguous in its application. And these new executive liability provisions are not consistent with these principles. According to the submission made by the Queensland Law Society, if this amendment passes in its current form, an executive officer will remain indefinitely liable for historical acts or omissions, and this could render such officers as uninsured. 

Such a far reaching liability provision is likely to have a chilling effect on the willingness of qualified and capable people to accept senior positions in corporations affected by these extended liability provisions. Amendment (s) (3) (2) (6) (b) (a) when environmental investigation required contamination of land, it would appear that the intent of this proposed legislative change is to empower the department with broader regulatory powers to require environmental evaluations in wide circumstances. 

However, the proposed broadened power as drafted has potential for an environmental evaluation to be required without proper consideration of the effect on the environmental values. Having regard to concentration levels of identified and measured contaminants, it would be possible for the impossible would be possible for the department to require an environmental evaluation based on me supposition and speculation, all but reasonably held opinion, at least to submitters of the Australian Prawn Farmers Association and the Barramundi Farmers Association. 

They expressed a certain amount of nervousness about the policy direction and the Government appears to be taking with this bill. While some of the provisions that were in the first exposure draft of the bill will ultimately be removed. Specifically, the explicit proscription of the intensely intensity of yield limits. Their original inclusion has raised a red flag for the state’s food producers. Even with the changes, their concern is that the bill may still provide opportunities for further on farm regulation, including the removal of transport and fair process of appeal. 

The concern relates primarily to the agricultural producers operating under the Environmental Authority who may need to report a breach possibly due to big rain, big rainfall event. With this bill, the department may arbitrarily determine this material change and compel operators to comprehensively modify their EA. Introducing new conditions as a result, and without any transparent appeals process beyond a court appeal, according to the testimony, Mr. Ruscoe of the Australian Barramundi Farmers Association, the first exposure draft was extremely concerning. 

Mr. Ruscoe, the committee that draft talked about the control of yields. That is akin to telling a banana farmer how much they can produce as a crop. We have significant concerns about the direction the bill takes the policy framework. Ms Hooper expressed similar concern, stating the changes that are being looked at here, given that the discretionary power to the department will mean they can at their discretion, change the license conditions. As my colleague Joe has said, for example, if there was a flood event and it was deemed a breach, those license conditions can then be amended. 

Then we come down to the ability of the department to put that on yield or intensity. It should not matter what happens on farm. It is about what comes out of the farm. That is where the jurisdiction should be, not whether we have five ponds or whether we have 500. If we want to talk about the response from the department that agriculture is not subject to environmental impact statements, I would point out that the new agricultural agriculture projects are very similar, if not identical process to the EIS is undertaken in order to get the environmental authority. 

As I mentioned, the bill indicates a policy shift within days that concerns us with regard to overreached, objective decision making and the removal of the Minister’s review of refusal with the opportunity for retrospective changes and no transparent appeals process that this bill invites, business confidence is certainly reduced. I tend to agree with Mr. Ruscoe’s comment on the bill. It clearly contains a number of material serious and unexpected shifts in policy by the Queensland Government, a shift that clearly raises concern for the future of the industry and food production of this state. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.“