Helen Haines
Indi · Independent · Australia
“on indulgence I just want to acknowledge the Leader of the House and thank you for considering this in the way of a conversation with us. I think the crossbench has become a large crossbench because of the way that we engage with legislation in a very detailed way and seek to collaborate and seek to improve legislation.”
“I move amendment (4) on sheet 1, revised 30 June 2026, as circulated in my name: (4) Schedule 1, item 92, page 35 (line 31) to page 36 (line 4), omit subsection 25A(2), substitute: (2A) Treatment may not be appropriate treatment for a person's impairment or impairments if the person's individual circumstances restrict the person from acce…”
“(5) Schedule 1, item 97, page 39 (lines 3 to 7), omit subsection 25B(6), substitute: (6) Before making National Disability Insurance Scheme rules declaring that a support is an alternative support for an impairment, the Minister must be satisfied that: (a) it is not appropriate to fund or provide a support for the impairment through the N…”
“My amendment would give them greater clarity about why decisions have been made and how the evidence they've provided has been used. Again, I hear consistently from people in my electorate that they want to understand the 'why'; they truly do.”
“by leave—I move: (6) Schedule 3, page 101 (after line 12), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 4 — Whistleblower protections National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 18 After subsection 73ZA(2) Insert: (2A) The disclosure of the information by the discloser qualifies for protection under this Division if it is made for the purpose…”
“Now, the government's recently made improvements to NDIS whistleblower protections, and I really welcome those. But I think many Australians, in fact all Australians, would be very surprised to learn that, under this legislation more broadly across the NDIA and NDIS, whistleblowers may not legally be allowed to talk about their own situat…”
The complete record
Every one of 574 lines we hold for Helen Haines, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 12.
“Under these proposals, a document could be exempt simply because it helped to inform the minister in relation to an issue the cabinet will consider. I believe, and I think many people do—civil society organisations from right across the nation say that this is a long bow, way too long. This is a serious extension of what is considered cabinet confidentiality. My amendments seek to remedy that issue, and I really ask members of the House to think very carefully about what we're doing under these freedom-of-information laws, consider their vote and support these amendments.”
“It's already incredibly difficult under the current FOI Act to access documents that have gone anywhere near the cabinet room, and years of litigation have established a very high threshold for the disclosure of documents involved in the cabinet process. I fully respect and support the principle of cabinet solidarity. There must be rigorous and appropriate protections for cabinet confidentiality where it's needed, but, under this bill, anything considered or even simply noted in the cabinet process will be exempt, rather than the previous definition, which referred specifically to deliberation and decision-making. I'm also extremely concerned that the previous 'dominant purpose' test will be replaced by a 'substantive purpose' test, increasing the threshold even higher.”
“To assist the House, I thought it would be useful to give some explanation, given that these amendments were debated last night in the Federation Chamber and there may be many members who didn't have a chance to hear that debate. In a bill full of antidemocratic reforms that will worsen transparency and accountability, these amendments are particularly important because they go to the question of the expansion of cabinet exemptions. Under the bill that is before us, the test of exemptions is elastic and will be stretched in practice, meaning the public's right to access government information can be determined by whether the public servant thinks it would involve an exempt document. While you can appeal, many people will simply give up on that.”
“I rise in support of the Attorney-General's amendments. I think these are sensible amendments. I recognise that we had a conversation in her office some time ago which included a conversation about such measures to improve the bill. I thank the Attorney-General for bringing these changes to the chamber. Question agreed to.”
“I thank the Attorney-General for her response. I feel, though, that I need to ask the Attorney-General to respond in particular to the Law Council opinion on cabinet exemptions and the explicit advice that they've given in regard to the robodebt royal commissioner's recommendation. I don't feel that the Attorney has addressed that and I have real concerns about that, so I'd ask, respectfully, that the Attorney address that particular concern with this bill.”
“The fact check said that it is misleading to suggest that this bill simply clarifies the existing cabinet exemptions. In fact the opposite is true. The Australian Law Council, in its submission, said: … the effect of the proposed amendments … will be to broaden what is captured by the cabinet documents exemption and further limit access to information. This contradicts the closing observations of the Royal Commission. The Law Council goes on to recommend that these amendments be rejected. So I seek to repeal these sections of the bill because they will make our democracy and our government less open, less accountable and less transparent, and we don't want that.”
“As I said in my speech yesterday—it's important these things are recorded in Hansard this government's proposals seek to reinforce a culture of cabinet secrecy that, in part, allowed robodebt to persist for so long. So concerned am I about this that I asked the Attorney-General about these proposed changes in question time in an attempt to understand why the government was rejecting the concluding recommendation of its own royal commission. Unfortunately the Attorney-General's answer did not inspire me with confidence—suggesting that the proposals were merely a clarification of what happens now and would reflect the policy intent of the existing exemptions. But this simply isn't accurate. Yesterday the Centre for Public Integrity published a fact check on key claims made by the government in relation to this bill.”
“Under this bill, anything considered or even simply noted in the cabinet process will be exempt, rather than the previous definition that refers specifically to deliberation and decision-making. Now this matters. I'm also extremely concerned that the previous dominant purpose test will be replaced by a substantive purpose test. Words matter. This will make the threshold even higher. Words matter, and that's why they're in the bill! Under these proposals, a document could be exempt simply because it helped to inform a minister in relation to an issue the cabinet will consider. It is a long bow; I contend that it is too long. It's hard to imagine anything that this couldn't include. Finally, these amendments to expand cabinet exemptions are in direct contravention of the concluding recommendations of the robodebt royal commission.”
“It's already incredibly difficult under the current FOI Act to access documents that have gone anywhere near the cabinet room. Years of litigation have established a very high threshold for the disclosure of documents involved in the cabinet process. Now, I fully support the principle of cabinet solidarity, and I agree there must be rigorous and appropriate protections for cabinet confidentiality where it's needed. That's not my argument. However, I think most people today believe that the balance has shifted too far against disclosure—and that's under the current arrangements! But now the government want to go further and extend cabinet exemptions to more documents, many of which were never created to go to cabinet or even to directly inform cabinet deliberations.”
“This means that a decision-maker can refuse a request without ever checking whether it is actually an exempt document. Simply believing it would be exempt will be enough to refuse a request. I'll say that again, just to make sure everyone has got this straight: you're right to access government information can be determined by whether the public servant thinks it would involve an exempt document. That doesn't pass anybody's pub test. It's lazy, at best. The test of 'clearly exempt' is elastic and it will be stretched in practice. That is not a fair contest, and it will discourage legitimate scrutiny. It will result in worse outcomes. Now while you can appeal, most people will simply give up. It's just another way that freedom of information will be harder to access. Second, on cabinet exemptions.”
“by leave—I move amendments (3) and (4) as circulated in my name together: (3) Schedule 7, Part 1, page 59 (line 2) to page 60 (line 9), omit the Part. (4) Schedule 7, Part 2, page 61 (line 1) to page 63 (line 8), omit the Part. In a bill full of antidemocratic reforms that will worsen transparency and accountability in our government, the amendments proposed in schedule 7 are perhaps the most egregious changes proposed. The amendments I'm moving today seek to repeal both the changes to cabinet exemptions as well as new powers to refuse FOI requests without even consulting the relevant documents. First, on the summary refusal of request. This part of schedule 7 would enable decision-makers to refuse a request when 'it would clearly be exempt' under the relevant section of the act.”
“I thank the Attorney-General. Attorney, I still can't see a case that charging for access to freedom of information will in any way compensate for the cost that the Commonwealth is claiming it's costing them right now. I'm wondering: what other justification, other than the cost, is charging a fee about?”
“I have a question for the Attorney-General. You quoted $97.99 million as the cost to the Commonwealth of processing freedom-of-information requests. Could you tell me, please, how much revenue you expect to raise by imposing these fees.”
“As I previously stated, the government has thus far failed to make the case for why application fees are necessary and has not sufficiently justified that application fees won't deter people from making an application in the first place. Without a case for change and a solid evidence base, I cannot support schedule 6.”
“If the government wishes to establish a fee-charging system it should lay out a clear case for change and explain how the benefits of such reform would outweigh any negative impacts on vulnerable persons or those otherwise disadvantaged by the proposed application fees. It hasn't done so, and I would truly appreciate hearing from the Attorney-General—and I'm really grateful that the Attorney is here—how the government weighed up the disincentive it acknowledges exists against the supposed need to limit the number of requests made. On what basis did the government determine this was proportionate and reasonable?”
“Remarkably, the bill's own explanatory memorandum, written by the Attorney-General's own office, states: The existence of an application fee may unintentionally limit access to information for certain persons. The government then says that the application fees are 'reasonable, proportionate and necessary', without providing any evidence for why this is true. Put simply, saying it's true doesn't make it true. Finally, the government tries to justify application fees on the basis that most state and territory governments charge fees. This is a poor argument and, on its own, is no justification for such a significant change.”
“Even with hardship waivers, the burden of proof will shift to the applicant to establish this hardship, provide paperwork and endure any delays. This will further disincentivise people from exercising their right to seek information. Secondly, the administration of application fees is likely to cost more than it will ever raise in revenue, and if it isn't a revenue measure then what is it and why have it? It's just bureaucracy that unfairly burdens people who can least afford it. If it's not raising revenue, it must be achieving some other aim. The only obvious conclusion is that the purpose of charging a fee is to deter people from applying in the first place.”
“Fee for access is contrary to the right to access information, and these provisions to create application fees appear to be just another barrier to access, with little justification provided by the government. I have three key concerns with application fees, which I'll now outline. First, a fee system will simply create new barriers for people with little disposable income to access the FOI system and make it more likely that they will decide against pursuing information. Provisions for financial hardship and exemptions for personal information are important, but the fact remains that when there is a cost there is a subset of our community who will not even apply, even when they have a genuine and reasonable reason to do so.”
“by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit "Schedules 2 to 6", substitute "Schedules 2 to 5". (2) Schedule 6, page 56 (line 1) to page 58 (line 12), omit the Schedule. Freedom of information should never come with a fee. Today I move amendments that would repeal schedule 6 of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. Schedule 6 allows the government to charge application fees for FOI matters by a regulation which would be created at a later date. The bill would let the government set fees for things like making an FOI request, seeking internal review of a refusal or applying for an independent information commissioner review.”
“When we return to our communities this weekend, what will we say when asked how we voted on a proposal to make government more secretive and less accountable to the Australian people?”
“The government has said this bill would be debated in future sitting weeks. It wasn't on the original program and only appeared last night. Up until then, it was desperate and dateless. But it appeared as an item of business today here in the Federation Chamber. These changes are so significant that this debate should be happening in the House of Representatives where all eyes are on it. In summary, I will not be supporting this bill, and I implore the government to withdraw it. I call on all good and fair-minded members of the government to ask whether this is really a bill they can support and whether this is a bill their constituents would support. Is this a bill you can defend? Is this a bill you can be proud of?”
“Part 1 would enable decision-makers to refuse a request when it would be clearly exempt under the relevant section of the act. There would be no need to check whether it's actually an exempt document. Simply believing it is exempt will be enough to refuse a request. I know this name is triggering for the government, but I'm going to say it anyway: as former senator Rex Patrick said, these provisions are ripe for misuse, and I agree. While you can appeal, most people will simply give up. Part 2 expands cabinet exemptions. I seek to repeal this section entirely, and, as I said before, this contradicts a key recommendation of the robodebt royal commission and will reinforce the culture of cabinet secrecy that allowed robodebt to persist for so long. While these exemptions remain, there is no chance that I can support this bill.”
“However, I always seek to come to this place not only with problems but with solutions, so I sought to look at this bill and make some good-faith suggestions to improve it. Several sections simply can't be fixed, and I've suggested they be repealed in their entirety. I hope members of the coalition, who seem to be saying they're not in favour of this bill either, will support these amendments. I moved amendments to repeal the section that creates application fees for FOI requests, as I previously stated. The government has failed to make the case for why these amendments are necessary, and it has not sufficiently justified that application fees won't deter many people from making an application in the first place. I've also circulated amendments to repeal parts 1 and 2 of schedule 7.”
“Frankly, it's hard to imagine anything this couldn't include. This will make cabinet documents even more secretive, directly contravening the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission. Just today, the Centre for Public Integrity said that it is misleading to suggest that this bill simply clarifies the existing cabinet exemptions. In contrast, it's the accepted legal view of the Law Council of Australia and others that these amendments will substantially broaden the cabinet exemption in highly concerning ways. And for a government that said 'never again' to robodebt, this certainly doesn't inspire confidence. I'm not convinced that this bill can be reformed, so deep and broad are the issues that I, along with many of my parliamentary colleagues, the community and civil society, have raised.”
“Government often fights tooth and nail in the courts to fight against release of these documents, but now they want to go further, making it virtually impossible to know how and why cabinet ministers are making the most important decisions affecting our country. Under this bill, anything considered or even simply noted in the cabinet process will be exempt, rather than the previous definition that referred specifically 'to deliberation and decision-making'. This is very concerning. Similarly, to be exempt under this bill a document need only have the substantive purpose of informing a minister in relation to an issue to be considered by cabinet. So this means, remarkably, that the document need not actually go the cabinet, but simply inform a minister in relation to an issue that cabinet will consider.”
“The government points to state and territory frameworks that charge fees, but this simply isn't sufficient reason. A fee system will simply create new barriers for people with little disposable income to access the FOI system and make it more likely that they will decide against accessing or pursuing information. Provisions for financial hardship and exemptions for personal information make a bad measure slightly less bad, but the fact remains that this government has made no compelling argument on why fees are actually necessary in the first place. But perhaps the most egregious changes are those to cabinet document exemptions. Already it's incredibly difficult to access any document that has gone anywhere near the cabinet room.”
“I have no doubt that there are vexations applicants, and, indeed, there will be serial spammers. New provisions in the bill to deal with vexatious and frivolous requests appear sufficient to deal with troublemakers in a more limited and restrained way. It's why I can't support an unjustified move to remove every Australian's right to make an anonymous request, and the chilling effect this would have on investigative public interest journalism in this country—something that so many of us deeply rely on. Similarly, provisions to create application fees appear to be nothing more than a new barrier to access. Fee for access is contrary to the right to access information, and that it's likely to cost more to administer than it will ever raise in revenue.”
“The Centre for Public Integrity says this bill 'takes the Australian freedom of information regime in a more secret direction'. Second is the proposal to prohibit anonymous requests, which are vital for investigative journalists or whistleblowers seeking to reveal government malfeasance. The government says that it must ban anonymous requests to stop the deluge of request being made by bots, foreign actors and trolls. Well, if this really were the case, I would be more inclined to agree. But here's the rub: the government hasn't provided evidence of persistent spam or malicious requests. All it can provide is a handful of cherry picked examples. Now, if the government insists on such a drastic and draconian reform to the FOI system, surely it must provide the evidence base—and it simply hasn't.”
“Rather than addressing abuses of process, it could in fact lead to more abuses of process—not by people making requests for information, but by government agencies and departments. First, the bill changes the purposes of the entire FOI Act. It shifts the FOI system from one that is pro-disclosure to one that balances disclosure against the interests of the government, departments and ministers. This is highly concerning, and has been widely criticised by organisations such as the Human Rights Law Centre. The Law Council of Australia says the 'the alteration to the objects of the FOI Act alters the presumptive right to information, replacing that with a discretion that promotes economic factors into decision-making'.”
“When I'm assessing legislation, I look for the good, but I ask key questions. The first is: what is the problem we are trying to solve here and what is the change we are trying to make? Secondly, I ask whether the proposed legislative response is an appropriate response to that challenge. I ask: will it actually fix the problem? Thirdly, I ask whether the proposed legislation is good governance. Is it ethical? Is it fair? Will it have unintended consequences for some groups of people? Unfortunately, I find that, despite some positive measures, key parts of this bill fails on all three of those questions. This bill will not deliver on its goal and will instead make the FOI system more secretive and harder to access and will shift more government decision-making out of the public line of sight.”
“I have no argument with some of these positive changes, including: clarifying that personal information of public servants is not FOI-able other than in certain circumstances; preventing concurrent agency and Information Commissioner reviews of FOI refusals; more clearly defining that timeframes apply to working days only; expanding the powers of the Information Commissioner to delegate decisions while ensuring that important decisions continue to be made by the commissioner or senior officers; and clarifying that, when a minister ceases to hold that ministerial office, the relevant agency can handle future FOI request relating to the minister's time in office. I welcome these changes and recognise that the FOI system, like all systems, needs to remain fit for purpose.”
“The government has said that its intention is: … to modernise the Freedom of Information framework, reduce system inefficiencies, address abuses of process, and clarify the operation of certain provisions and exemptions within the FOI Act. This bill makes around 30 amendments. Several are uncontroversial and would simply streamline certain processes for the benefit of both the government and the public.”
“Using some much-needed and important reforms as cover, this government seeks to implement sweeping restrictions and carve-outs under the guise of 'modernisation'. It shifts the entire purpose of the FOI system from 'pro-disclosure' to 'maybe-disclosure'. Passed unamended, this bill would represent a significant retrogression of transparency and accountability in Australia's federal system of government. It would be a direct repudiation of the Australian voters' wishes. They didn't vote for secrecy; they voted for transparency. This bill has no friends outside the walls of government. It should be abandoned, frankly. It is desperate and, honestly, it was dateless until it popped its way onto the Notice Paper and weaselled its way into the Federation Chamber today. I will now explain what the bill does and why I am so concerned about it.”
“The Australian Press Council points out: Broadly defined exemptions for Cabinet documents, deliberative processes, national security, and "commercial-in-confidence" have historically been applied far beyond their original intent. The reality is that most FOI documents contain significant redaction, sometimes comprising the majority of the document, and that's if the document is released at all. In recent years, for the first time ever, the number of FOI requests refused was higher than the number of requests fully granted. In the past 10 years, the refusal rate has doubled. FOI expert Maria O'Sullivan from Deakin University notes that, while there is real need for reform of the act, this bill 'severely threatens government transparency' and 'is not the way to do it'. Unfortunately, there is more bad than good in this bill.”
“Our freedom-of-information system is underpinned by the belief that every citizen, every member of our community, has the right to access information about the decisions that governments make. To trade this away is to trade away a great Australian democratic pillar as important as compulsory voting or the independent Electoral Commission. We don't have to look far to see what can happen when governments, even those elected democratically, begin to wind back and dismantle democratic institutions. Of course, there are genuine limitations to the right to access government documents, limitations that are clearly laid out in the existing FOI Act, limitations that many say go too far.”
“I rise to speak on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025. Frankly, I thought the member for Moore was looking me deep in the eye here and trying to convince me of the greatness of this piece of legislation. I am sorry to tell him this is not a bill I would wish to try to defend. While aspirations he speaks to are honourable, this bill simply does not deliver them. The right to access government information is an indispensable feature of our democracy. It is key check and balance on the executive, on the Public Service, and it is a protection against bad government. It is living proof of the democ in democracy—meaning the people. In Australia, the government should not sit above the people but with them. So I was rather amused at that explanation of the changing of the objectives of this act because it simply is not true.”
“These are industries whispering at the door, saying, 'Don't worry about us; you don't need law,' even when the evidence screams the opposite. Australians are screaming for this to end, and I call on the government to act now.”
“It was reported by Roy Morgan last week that an estimated 622,000 people have serious gambling problems. If any other condition caused the level of harm gambling does, we would have declared this a national emergency yet we continue to wait for this government to act, and Australians are rightly asking why. Constituents across my electorate often ask me why meaningful action has not been taken, and the answer sadly lies around who gets access to power. Research from the Grattan Institute shows industries most affected by regulation like gambling, property and fossil fuels dominate political donations, lobbying contracts and meetings with senior ministers. This has to stop. The gambling industry is dramatically over-represented in every measure of political influence compared to its contribution to the economy.”
“Indeed, the late Peta Murphy was a powerhouse in this place—much loved, deeply admired by many. When I was speaking on her passing I recalled meeting her at 'pollies kindergarten'—the place we all go when we begin our time here—and my first impression was this: crikey, this woman will take no prisoners. But the truth is we're all prisoners of the gambling lobby. Her landmark report, You win some, you lose more , laid out the roadmap for gambling reform. If the government had acted on its recommendations, we would have removed more than a million gambling ads from our screens and airwaves in the last year alone. This is not radical reform; it is a duty care to Australians. As legislators, we have responsibility to protect the health and wellbeing of our constituents.”
“It is racing season in Australia, from small country tracks to today's Melbourne Cup—the race that stops the nation. It is also, sadly, for many people, peak gambling season. I'm here today not to speak of gambling per se but to speak of the pernicious impacts of gambling advertising, because you cannot turn on the television, stream a sporting match or scroll social media without being bombarded by a tsunami of ads selling false hopes, easy wins and good times. The gambling lobby insists it is harmless entertainment, but we all know that Australians are not buying that. Let's be honest, those three-second disclaimers, rattled off at triple speed at the end of those ads, do nothing to counter the damage. By then, the harm is already done. Australians know the scourge of gambling harm has gone too far.”
“But I believe more needs to be done to ensure that it is fit for purpose to protect our environment into the future, so I call on the government to back my amendments. They are in good faith and address issues that disproportionately impact rural communities, issues that people in my electorate of Indi care so deeply about. Our environmental laws are currently failing the environment. We can't afford to wait another 25 years, but we also can't afford not to get it right this time.”
“This power poses multiple risks to communities, the environment, and the quality and integrity in environmental assessment under the EPBC Act. I will be moving an amendment to repeal this section of the legislation. In closing, I really believe this legislation represents the biggest change to our national environment laws in 25 years. It presents an enormous opportunity. It is extremely complex. Let's make no mistake. I welcome the Senate inquiry into this suite of bills to provide fulsome scrutiny of legislation. It's a vital opportunity for stakeholders and communities to contribute their views. I acknowledge that reforming the EPBC Act is a large and challenging task. I don't underestimate that. There are truly some positives in this legislation.”
“Another disappointing loophole to see in the Environmental Protection Regulation Bill is a very quiet carve-out exemption from penalties for minor and preparatory works. Under the EPBC Act 1999, it is an offence for a proponent to undertake work on a project deemed a controlled action before it has been approved by the minister. The government's amendment in the Environment Protection Reform Bill opens an exemption under this rule allowing the minister to authorise minor and preparatory works to start before the minister has made an assessment. If a project is on a site with concerns significant enough to be referred to the minister for a controlled action decision, how can it be acceptable for that project to start works?”
“I believe we can do both. But we can only do both if we consult with our communities, if we get the bioregional planning right and if we really link all of our national and our regional planning in a sensible and well considered way. I will be moving amendments to ensure areas of high-value agricultural land and drinking water catchments are considered when defining the boundary of a development zone within a bioregional plan. This is critical. High-value agricultural land and drinking water catchments are critical areas of our natural environment. I will also move amendments to increase the consultation timeframes for communities back out to 60 days. Shutting community out of environmental decision-making is bad for regional communities, bad for social licence and ultimately bad for project outcomes.”
“Bioregional planning under the EPBC Act must link with this strategy to identify the areas of high-value agricultural land most essential to protecting our food security and to identify where land is better and more economically suited to environmental regeneration or, indeed, to renewable energy projects. This is the opportunity to get this right. Let me be clear: I am not saying that renewable energy projects should not be placed on farming land, because many farmers welcome this. It's an additional form of diversification in their income. It protects them in times of drought or other difficult periods. But what I am saying is that we must be strategic about this. We must ensure that high-value agricultural land is preserved and farmers and communities can host renewable infrastructure and receive long-term economic benefits.”
“Done right, bioregional mapping can ensure our land is most appropriately and effectively used for environmental protection and regeneration, for farming the food and fibre we rely on and for the renewable energy to meet our energy needs. This planning needs to be done at a regional and a national level to ensure that we are being strategic, and it must be consistent with other national land-use policies. The government is currently creating a national food security strategy to ensure we can meet our domestic food needs and international obligations and to ensure our food production is better protected against climate change.”
“I've consistently called for regional mapping that clearly identifies areas that are not suitable for project development. In fact, this was my No. 1 recommendation to the community engagement review undertaken by the then energy infrastructure commissioner, Professor Andrew Dyer. I'm pleased to see bioregional planning included in this legislation. I genuinely am. This is a commonsense solution that gives project developers certainty over where they will get a quick 'no' on a project, and hopefully reduces unnecessary stress on regional communities. This legislation also identifies development zones, which means certain types of projects most appropriate for an area can be given faster approval. The government has a difficult role in managing competing land-use priorities.”
“Under the legislation we're debating today, there are no requirements for community consultation on projects approved under the EPBC Act, and, in my mind, that's completely unacceptable. A national standard for community engagement and consultation would improve certainty for developers and regional communities alike, giving clear expectations that, for any project seeking approval under the EPBC Act, proponents must adhere to best-practice community engagement. That can only be a good thing. So I will be moving an amendment requiring the government to develop a national environmental standard for community engagement and consultation. This standard, as I said, must be applied to all projects, but it's particularly vital for fast-tracked approvals and for priority action projects in declared development zones within bioregional plans.”
“The government has flagged its intention to create national standards relating to matters of national environmental significance, offsets, data and environmental information, and First Nations engagement. I welcome those. I am, however, disappointed that the minister is yet to commit to a national standard for community engagement and consultation, because communities are absolutely critical stakeholders. Our Farmers for Climate Action survey found 76 per cent of regional Australians believe that early and genuine community consultation for renewable energy projects helps build community trust, and, if we have community trust, we can get approvals through in a much, much better way.”
“Ministerial influence over the EPA fundamentally undermines the objective of this agency and diminishes trust in the whole EPBC Act. We need to get this right. Critical to Graeme Samuel's environmental reforms were robust, legally enforceable national environmental standards, outlining the environmental objectives of the EPBC Act. National standards are necessary for effective, clear and consistent environmental decision-making. A key criticism I had of the former stage 2 nature-positive reforms was indeed that these standards were missing. I'm pleased that the government has listened and has included a provision for the minister to create national environmental standards in regulation. I also welcome the 'no regression' principle applied to these standards, noting that this does not apply until after the first 18-month review.”