Angie Bell
Moncrieff · Liberal National Party · Australia
“Twice the Prime Minister was directly asked whether he could guarantee that house prices wouldn't tank as a result of his government's housing policies; twice he refused to answer.”
“At the same time, the government's own budget papers show rents are set to rise. Do those opposite realise that cheaper house prices mean nothing when the cost of living makes it impossible to save for a deposit? We already see young Australians locked out of independence, forced to live at home longer as rental stress worsens.”
“Over 2½ thousand people experience homelessness on the Gold Coast on any given night, and the money raised from this event will go directly to supporting those locals getting back on their feet. I want to thank everyone who donated so generously to the CEO Sleepout.”
“Back to the bill in front of us, this is a bill that changes a process, to give more power to a minister—the same minister who had to pay back the debt—and a bill that nobody has asked for. The government has not justified the need for a change in process.”
“Labor is more interested in their bottom line than supporting grassroots sport and the communities—like the communities of everybody in this place—who rely on it. At a time when families are tightening their belts, affordable community sport has never been more important.”
“I want to start by talking about sport, the inspiration that is sport and what it can do for young lives. I was inspired, as the federal member for Moncrieff, just a few weeks ago when I attended the Benowa State School, where there was a boccia tournament for three primary schools across my electorate.”
The complete record
Every one of 431 lines we hold for Angie Bell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 9.
“This impact should lead to serious consideration of whether urgent payments are being used to fill systemic gaps in financial stability, rather than serving their intended purpose as an emergency measure. As highlighted in the government's own explanatory material for this bill, urgent payments are primarily accessed by vulnerable people—45 per cent of recipients of urgent payments are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, even though only around six per cent of all income support recipients identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. With this evidence of daily struggle, it's clear that closing the gap is also becoming out of reach. Sadly, this raises serious and legitimate questions about how these changes will operate in practice, particularly in vulnerable and remote communities.”
“We know, troublingly, that, in 2024 and 2025 alone, 440,000 social security payment recipients were granted approximately one million urgent payments, outlining the urgency of the position that Australians find themselves in. That figure alone should prompt serious reflection by the Albanese government about the impact on Australians from its failed economic policies and about how this government is letting down every Australian because the interest rates are going up and because we find ourselves in a situation where we have to pay more all the time through inflation, every day. Australians are hurting, and Labor has no viable plan to change that.”
“Energy costs—as those who are watching from home all around the country, including in my home state of South Australia, who are paying huge energy bills, know—are up by 38 per cent across the country. Rent is up by 22 per cent. Health costs are up by 18 per cent. Education costs are up by 17 per cent. Food costs are up by 16 per cent. These are not discretionary or optional expenses. These are not luxuries. They are the fundamental costs of daily living that all Australians rely on. Against this backdrop, it's hardly surprising that many welfare recipients are experiencing persistent financial stress and may be increasingly reliant on urgent payments and other emergency measures to simply get by and to pay those bills.”
“The coalition welcomes measures such as access to financial counselling, social work services and alternative payment arrangements, including Centrepay. We are concerned, however, that removing the annual cap on urgent payment requests risks encouraging greater reliance on what was previously a limited and tightly controlled provision. Without effective safeguards, this change may deepen financial stress rather than relieve it, a perverse outcome indeed. We cannot consider these changes to urgent payments in isolation from the broader economic environment in which Australians find themselves. Under the Albanese government, Australians are paying more, simply, for everything. Insurance costs have increased by 39 per cent.”
“Urgent payments allow eligible recipients to access a portion of their regular fortnightly entitlement in advance in circumstances of exceptional and unforeseen financial hardship. The coalition accepts that there must be a lawful and transparent framework for those payments. However, on this side we have questions on how the removal of the annual cap will operate in practice and what safeguards will genuinely exist to prevent harm. Noting that urgent payments merely bring forward a portion of an existing payment, further information is needed on the measures the government will implement to ensure that recipients are not drawn into a cycle of repeated urgent payment requests and ongoing financial hardship.”
“This ensures that eligibility settings accurately reflect actual levels of care and of responsibility. Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Social Security Act and the Social Security (Administration) Act to provide clear legal authority for urgent payments to eligible recipients outside the normal fortnightly payment cycle. This schedule establishes a legislative framework for administering urgent payments. It abolishes the current limit of two urgent payments per year and introduces safeguards designed to ensure that welfare recipients have sufficient funds available to cover regular expenses on their usual payment date. It's important to note that urgent payments are not additional assistance.”
“Part 2 of schedule 1 confirms that individuals who have less than 35 per cent care of a child, whether they are parents or non-parent carers, are not entitled to receive child support. Importantly, this applies retrospectively from 1 July 2008 while validating past decisions and leaving historic assessments unchanged. The schedule is designed to clarify technical legal aspects of the current operation of the Child Support Scheme. The coalition recognises that schedule 1 also addresses unintended consequences arising from previous legislative amendments made under both Labor and coalition governments. It restores the original policy intent of the child support framework. In particular, it clarifies that a parent who provides less than 35 per cent care of a child is not entitled to receive child support.”
“For that reason, the coalition will always support practical measures that improve the administration of the Child Support Scheme and strengthen compliance. Turning to the bill before the House, this legislation is technical in nature and consists of three schedules. Schedule 1 amends the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 to clarify and validate child support assessment arrangements. Part 1 of schedule 1 adjusts when a new child support period starts after updated tax information becomes available. In some circumstances, commencement will be delayed by an additional month. This is intended to help parents manage financial changes that arise from updated income information.”
“The coalition makes no apologies for supporting strong and, where necessary, tough measures to ensure child support is paid. When parents shirk their responsibilities, they're not hurting the system; they're depriving their own children of financial support that helps them live a better life. At the same time, we recognise that most parents do the right thing and of course meet their obligations as parents. Since the scheme was introduced in 1988, more than $33 billion in child support payments has been transferred through the government scheme. When parents do not pay their child support on time, the impact is real and it's immediate. It affects the financial security of single parents and their children.”
“These changes were specifically designed to support jobseekers as they secured employment and re-entered the workforce. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the coalition government also provided $32 billion in emergency support payments to protect Australians through an unprecedented economic shock. That support was delivered quickly, responsibly and at scale while maintaining a clear focus on recovery and economic participation and being temporary. The coalition also recognises the integral role that the Child Support Scheme plays when families break down. They're particularly under pressure right now. Child support exists for one reason, and that is to ensure that, no matter where children live or with whom they live, the children affected by family breakdown remain financially secure.”
“Our focus should always be on helping more Australians move into work and contribute to strengthening the economy—that is the Liberal way—not on keeping people permanently connected to the welfare system. Our welfare system must be fit for purpose today and properly equipped to meet tomorrow's challenges. While in government, the coalition demonstrated that it's possible to strengthen the safety net while managing public finances responsibly. Through disciplined economic management, the coalition delivered the largest permanent increase to the JobSeeker income support payment at the time. In April 2021, the coalition increased working age payment rates, including the JobSeeker payment, by $50 a fortnight and permanently increased the income-free areas to $150 per fortnight.”
“It's built on the sacrifice of millions of hardworking Australian taxpayers. It exists because Australians go to work, run small businesses, invest, take all the risks and contribute to the national economy. We therefore have a responsibility to manage this system very carefully and responsibly through disciplined economic management. We have a responsibility to future generations who will be left to shoulder the long-term fiscal consequences of the decisions that we make in this place today. At its core, a well-designed income support system must provide a robust and sustainable safety net. It must protect the most vulnerable. That is how we are judged as a society. It must support people through genuine periods of hardship, and it must enable pathways to independence and self-reliance.”
“I rise today to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical changes No. 1) Bill 2026. The opposition will not oppose the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026 in the House of Representatives. However, we do hold concerns on some aspects of the bill before us today. The coalition has always taken the view that Australia must maintain a strong, fair and sustainable social services safety net. Few countries in the world provide the level of support that Australian taxpayers fund for people who are out of work, facing hardship or experiencing a family breakdown. That's something Australians should be proud of. However, we must also never lose sight of a fundamental truth: our social services safety net is not a bottomless resource.”
“The Minister for Small Business interjected when the member for Goldstein was delivering his speech on his MPI. I'd like Australians to know that what she said was that small businesses are dodgy. I say the Minister for Small Business is dodgy, I say the Treasurer is dodgy and I say the Prime Minister is dodgy.”
“At a time when Australians are already under pressure, the government's failures are adding further strain to housing, services and community confidence. It all flows from the same problem: an addiction to spending and a refusal to take responsibility. Labor's spending spree has driven inflation higher for longer, forcing the Reserve Bank to act. Instead of getting spending under control, Labor's answer is always the same. It is higher taxes on savings, on houses, on super and on family business, and that is not economic management. Labor spends, prices rise and you pay. (Time expired)”
“The Reserve Bank's latest decision confirms what Australians already know: Labor has lost control of the economy. They've lost control of energy costs. They've lost control of social cohesion. They've lost control of our borders. After 13 interest rate rises, families are hurting. Mortgages are up around $1,800 a month, rents are surging, groceries cost more every week and power bills are nearly 40 per cent higher despite repeated promises to bring them down. Australians were told that relief was coming. Instead, they got record prices. Living standards have collapsed at the fastest rate in the developed world. Families are paying 16 per cent more for food, 22 per cent more for rent and nearly 40 per cent more for electricity. These are not statistics. These are household budgets being smashed by this government.”
“A nation that tolerates hatred through silence will eventually pay a far higher price. May we honour and remember the victims of the Bondi terror attack not only with our words today but with courage, clarity, action and leadership. In the words of Rabbi Adi Cohen, 'Today's compromise is tomorrow's new normal.' So I condemn the hate and antisemitism that continues today on the Gold Coast. It is wrong, and it must stop, and those responsible will be held to account.”
“We cannot focus on only the symptoms while ignoring the deeper problem, we cannot condemn terror in one breath and tolerate hatred in the next, and we cannot continue to celebrate multiculturalism while any minority community feels unsafe in its own country. The victims of the Bondi attack deserve more than remembrance. They deserve resolve, and we must be honest about where antisemitism comes from. It exists on the far left. It exists among radical Islamist extremists. If we are serious about fighting terror and hatred, we must confront all of it head on and without fear or favour. This is not about politics; it's about public safety. It's about moral clarity and what sort of Australia we want to be. For too long there's been a deafening silence while anti-Jewish hatred has been allowed to fester and grow. This parliament must do better.”
“Free speech is not a luxury; it is vital protection for minorities, including Jewish Australians, who rely on it to defend themselves, to speak out and to challenge hatred wherever it appears. Australia has long prided itself on being a nation where people of all faiths can live freely and securely. Freedom matters because it allows minorities to call out hatred, expose extremism and defend their place in society. But freedom also carries responsibility to condemn violence, reject extremism and stand up for one another when it matters most, and we have seen that from Australian society calling for a royal commission.”
“They should not need to scan their surroundings before attending synagogue or sending their children to school. Jews should not feel compelled to hide their identity or think twice about wearing symbols of their faith in public. They should be as free at any other Australians to go about their lives in safety and dignity, yet today Jews are not. When a minority in this country live in fear simply because they are Jewish, it is a failure. The government has failed in its first responsibility: to keep all Australians safe. We do not defend antisemitism as those opposite have done for so long. We attack it head on, directly, unequivocally and without apology. Protecting Jewish Australians and protecting free speech must go hand in hand, because they are not opposing goals; they are inseparable.”
“The Jewish community is rightly angry, and I have words and sentiment directly from the three Gold Coast rabbis, Rabbis Gurevitch, Serebryanski and Cohen, who I joined with my Gold Coast colleagues in solidarity at the Bondi massacre remembrance at the Home of the Arts on 22 December. I was with Rabbi Serebryanski at Hanukkah celebrations when the news of the massacre unfolded. Their words, they say, must be matched with honesty, with leadership and with action. Antisemitism—what should more truthfully be called Jew hatred—has been allowed to fester in this country for far too long, and the fear within the Jewish community is real. Jewish Australians should not need increased security at their homes, at kindergartens or at places of worship.”
“What we saw at Bondi—the loss of 15 lives—was nothing short of horrific. It was a despicable act of terror targeting innocent Australians who were celebrating Hanukkah—people gathered in joy, community and faith whose lives were stolen by hatred and violence. The youngest, just 10, had her future stolen. Our future as a country was stolen. Today we remember those who were senselessly killed. We grieve with their families and their loved ones, and we recommit ourselves to ensuring that such acts of terror, hatred and violence have no place in Australia. But condolences, thoughts and prayers alone are not enough.”
“I add my heartfelt sympathy for the victims and their families around the events of 14 December at our beloved Bondi Beach. I acknowledge their pain and embrace those impacted; some, we know, were here in the gallery earlier this morning. The Gold Coast community send our deepest condolences: shalom aleichem—peace be upon you. My local Jewish communities send their love and support for your loss. We thank those first responders, the emergency services, but also I feel compelled, as the co-chair of Parliamentary Friends of Surf Lifesaving, to thanks those volunteer lifeguards—in fact, the 73 of them that day at Bondi who went way outside of their comfort zones, untrained for these matters, to attend to Australians and to save those lives. Thank you to all of those volunteers at Bondi surf lifesaving club.”
“The coalition has been clear, the housing sector has been clear and the Senate inquiry has been clear that no-one is asking for lower standards. It is clarity, efficiency and regulatory settings that allow them to build, innovate and grow. We all share the goal of protecting Australia's environment. Environmental protection and national productivity are not mutually exclusive. We cannot risk sending investment offshore, slowing productivity and putting thousands of jobs at risks. If the government continues with its antijobs, antiproductivity and anti-investment pathway then we cannot support the legislation. Australia needs good environment laws, not political shortcuts disguised as reform. We remain ready to work constructively to deliver a better pathway forward for our environment and for our economy. (Time expired)”
“The coalition has engaged in good faith with the government to secure environmental law reform—reform that will deliver for the environment and for jobs, industry and investment—in our great nation because Australians deserve environmental laws that are productive, practical and durable. But the legislation in its current form, despite the lofty rhetoric of those opposite, falls well short of delivering the certainty, the balance and the productivity that our nation needs. The coalition have engaged constructively throughout this process and we have put forward a list of seven substantive concerns to the government, which Labor has failed to address in their amendments. They have failed to deal with the core concerns raised by industry and housing stakeholders.”
“I have stakeholders on both sides—on the conservation side and on business, industry and productivity—coming to me saying that this is not workable for them. And what I would like to put to the House and to Australians across the country is that the coalition has been shut down time and time again today when we've been trying to talk about the flaws in this group of bills. I want to talk to the environmental protection authority, which will now have sweeping powers. It'll have a CEO that will not be able to be fired by the minister. If the CEO of the EPA is not performing very well, there will be no scrutiny from the minister. There are some other problems with this bill. Unacceptable impacts in the bills—”
“Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill and to this set of bills. I wasn't able to speak on consideration in detail on this bill before the House, because the government shut me down. I'm not going to get the opportunity to ask the minister representing the minister for the environment the long list of questions that I had to ask. And now I'm going to be allowed just a couple of minutes to say why we do not agree with these bills in their current form. I understand I'm speaking to a bill around administration that is linked to the reform bill. I understand the procedure and that we are speaking to the amendment. But what I would like to do is highlight the difficulties with this bill from the opposition's point of view.”
“My question is to the Minister for Resources. Yesterday the Western Australian Premier, Roger Cook, was wandering around parliament pleading with every minister who would listen to please, please, please not cave in to the Labor Left dominated backbench on the EPBC bills. Will the minister listen to the Premier of her own state or to her left-wing backbench?”
“I'm aggrieved by this government, which has gagged debate time and time again. We have all been here witnessing what's been going on. What is this government hiding? They did not allow me the opportunity to speak in consideration in detail and to ask the minister who is representing the environment minister in this House questions on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the bill that we are now talking about, the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025. We have questions, on behalf of Australians, that this minister will not answer. He will not give the coalition the opportunity to ask questions in consideration in detail. Now, this does not look to me and this does not look to Australians to be a government that is willing to negotiate on the EPBC reform bills.”
“I feel utterly aggrieved by this government, who would not allow me to walk from over there to the box here to actually ask the minister questions. I've been waiting in this chamber for an hour and a half while the crossbench have been putting their questions, patiently.”
“Satara recently returned from New York, where she presented an interim report on her year-long nationwide consultation with the youth of Australia. We had a very frank discussion about the future of our country and about the issues affecting youth. We talked about pretty much everything in the half-hour period, from macroeconomics and social policy to international injustice and international aid. She also spoke about her experience at the United Nations. There are truly some very, very remarkable young Australians among us, and I'm very proud of their achievements. I'm privileged to speak to them daily in my roles as the member for Moncrieff, the shadow minister for the environment and the shadow minister for youth. I'm very proud of all young Gold Coasters.”
“There were lots of questions around that, along with questions around issues that affect them now and will affect them into the future. Together we engaged in robust discussion and explored topics of youth crime, the housing crisis, university affordability and, of course, the broader cost-of-living pressures they face. These are the concerns of young people on the Gold Coast, and we have a duty to represent them in this place and to ensure we act on their concerns and leave this place much better than we found it so they can continue to thrive into the future. While I'm on the topic of young people, I also want to highlight my recent meeting with Australia's youth representative to the United Nations, Satara, who came into my office here in Parliament House in Canberra.”
“The pride they have in themselves, in the school, in their education and in their families was on full display, and I congratulate them on their achievements. Some of the thoughtful questions asked by our student leaders were: How do you hope to support small business in the future? What are some key skills that leaders need to possess? How can we bring together the polar ends of the political spectrum for the betterment of Australia—a tricky one there! It's so very important to listen to the voices of our young people. They are our future, and they deserve to have a seat at the table. It was clear that the student leaders seated around the table were eager to learn more about what it means to be a parliamentarian.”
“I had the great pleasure of hosting the Leader of the Opposition when she visited my electorate of Moncrieff last week. One of the standouts of her visit was introducing the leader to exceptional young leaders at Merrimac State High School. It's a beautiful school that I have the privilege of visiting regularly. It's not far from my home. It's one of the 34 schools in the electorate of Moncrieff, and I love all of them. The focus of the visit with the leader at Merrimac was to involve students in a young leader roundtable discussion. Firstly, I acknowledge the exceptional calibre of questions that the young people asked the leader, along with the initiative shown by our bright young leaders at the school.”
“I look forward to hearing all of the contributions of members across the House, particularly on the coalition side, when they outline the holes that are in this bill and put the spotlight on Labor for their failures.”
“We simply cannot continue to operate with the legislation in its current form, and we cannot wrap industry up in additional red and green tape. The coalition remains committed to achieving a balanced outcome for jobs, for productivity and for the environment. This legislation put forward is worse than the current outdated laws—imagine, those laws that were introduced under Robert Hill in 2001! These laws that the Labor Party are putting forward could be worse. Labor has given us no choice but not to support this bill. It does not deliver a balanced outcome to protect the environment, to improve productivity and to provide certainty for job-creating industries. The coalition cannot support this bill and the related bills in the form that they are currently in.”
“The Greens wants all coal and gas fields prohibited. If Labor and the Greens join forces, Australians will be locked into a deteriorating economy with no future prosperity. This legislation in its current form will put billions of dollars of investment and thousands of Australian jobs at risk. Instead of speeding up decisions, they're creating a system that will stop projects dead in their tracks. We need certainty, we need to be able to unlock faster approvals for resources and we need to unlock more homes. Currently, under Labor, more than 26,000 homes are waiting for approval under the EPBC Act. But that's just what we're hearing from those opposite. Industry estimates suggest that the figure could be well over 40,000 homes. Meanwhile, house prices are going through the roof and young people can't afford to get into a home.”
“Chief executive Bran Black said, 'Business still has many concerns that need addressing if we want the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act system to support growing the economy.' Labor has taken more than three years, with two different ministers, to deliver completely unworkable parameters that would send industry, jobs and livelihoods backwards. Alarm bells should be ringing for Australians, and Australians should, rightly, be concerned that Labor's proposed environmental law reform would hold back the growth that Australia needs and that Australians deserve. Even more concerning is the thought of Labor doing a deal with the Greens to pass these laws. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Australians should be scared if the Labor Party enters into an agreement with the Greens on these reforms.”
“I look forward to continuing to work with you through our partyroom processes as we proceed through this bill. Australians need these reforms to work for them and for the environment. So, when we say the government is again rushing through complex, untested legislation, we absolutely mean it. They've had three years now, and they are fast-tracking reform in three months, drip feeding limited details along the way, which is unhelpful for everyone. Not only has the drip fed approach been unhelpful; so too is the detail within the legislation—completely and utterly unhelpful. Industry and environmental groups can back this up. The Business Council of Australia has been flying the flag for its members and advocating fair and balanced reform.”
“Now it's time to give the coalition and stakeholders the time to carefully go through this legislation and be constructive and critical. It's too important to get wrong. I absolutely support an inquiry in the other place and I welcome engagement with the government to work through the current failings of this legislation. My door is open, as it always has been—since the start of these good-faith negotiations that we entered into with the government. We look forward to working with the government on these amendments, because we must ensure our environment and productivity do not continue to go backwards. I thank those with whom I've met and engaged with from industry and from environmental stakeholders, and I welcome their continued conversations. Similarly, thank you to my parliamentary colleagues for their engagement.”
“Stakeholders have said they need time to go through this very large, very important piece of legislation that impacts every Australian—as does any effective member of parliament. Thinking that this will be a done deal when only giving 3½ weeks to read it is wishful thinking from this minister. To comb through this legislation would take around 40 hours from the front to the back—and 60 hours to read through the explanatory memorandum. Then you have to consult, provide feedback, get lawyers involved and understand how the new legislation interacts with the current legislation. This is a process that—if the minister wants this done effectively—cannot be rushed. It should not be rushed. Minister Watt always said this process would take 12 to 18 months to get done.”
“After more than three years in government, what a monumental failure. Shame on this government, especially as the minister spruiked no extinctions in his speech just last week. Coming back to environmental failings on this bill, the bill refers to 'a threat abatement plan'. Instead, they should be referred to in the plural, as threat abatement plans. That could be a change. That could be an amendment to this bill. This bill requires so many amendments, even from Labor's own activist group in its caucus. They want amendments to this bill, as was reported just after question time today. But, as I said, this bill is unworkable, and there are so many issues that need to be addressed in order for this reform to proceed. This reform consists of seven individual bills and is nearly 1,500 pages long.”
“He's a fisher who I met on two trips down to South Australia, one with the Leader of the Opposition, to talk to the fishers down there about the government's flat-footed response on the South Australian algal bloom. While communities were crying out, while fishermen didn't have any work and while their environment was being decimated, the federal and state governments—both under Labor—ignored the community. Labor have failed Australians with another native species extinction. That's the next fail. The latest victim of this government is the Christmas Island shrew, which is now listed as Australia's 39th extinction, as declared by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Australia leads the world—it's not a good thing—in mammal extinctions and ranks second for loss of biodiversity.”
“Again, this is in stark contrast to the minister's message claiming that his reforms are balanced and are a demonstrable gain for business and the environment. In terms of the environment, the coalition has a strong track record of protecting the environment and will take that lens when working on amendments to this reform—amendments that ensure the environment is protected. It is not that this Labor government has a good track record on protecting the environment. Two recent failures come to mind. Labor have failed South Australians, with a lack of support on the devastating algal bloom. Can I send a shout-out to Bart Butson, who's here in the House from South Australia.”
“Let's move to Minister Watt's 'nature positive' rebrand. That's another concern. We know Minister Plibersek's 'nature positive' laws and how well they were received by everyone. They were reported as 'friendless'—not one friend in the stakeholder realm. The minister has chosen to go with 'net gain' instead this time, taking out 'nature positive' and putting in 'net gain'—same old definition, new name. How is that for this government's transparency? The definition of 'net gain' absolutely needs greater clarity, with guardrails in place to ensure certainty for industry and certainty for the environment. In their current form, the definitions of 'net gain' and 'unacceptable impacts' are completely unworkable. Our stakeholders across the spectrum of industry and environment agree.”
“It doesn't want the unnecessary red and green tape thrust upon it, especially when it's something that businesses already report on in a different piece of legislation. Throughout this legislation, there are 37 different definitions of unacceptable impacts—37. I thought we were supposed to be cutting red tape, not covering proponents in it. With these 37 definitions, it's guaranteed that almost no projects will be approved. What does that mean for this government's housing targets? Have they actually thought all of this through? What about Minister Bowen's reckless renewables-only plan? Say goodbye to your wind turbines and solar farms. What we need to see is one overarching definition of unacceptable impacts, with the rest removed and regulated under the minister's environmental standards.”
“Emissions reporting is currently already dealt with in the safeguard mechanism legislation, and rightly so, because climate and emissions belong within climate and energy legislation, not environmental legislation. This duplication is completely unnecessary, and it's got to go. Including these parameters within the proposal opens up a whole new can of worms in the legal sphere. It opens the door to severe legal action and consequences for organisations, for governments and for jobs. It risks additional conditions and parameters for proponents to adhere to on their projects. Ultimately, it duplicates the role of the climate change and energy minister. More process and more time equal fewer jobs. We've already seen that under this government. Business doesn't want the duplication.”
“The fact that Labor has not firmly legislated a formal requirement for a statement of expectations and that the CEO is not accountable to the minister is another massive red flag. Let's talk about some of the other red flags, because we all know how much Labor loves a red flag. We've seen time and again the unnecessary duplication within this legislation. You cannot go past the scope 1 and 2 emissions reporting duplication. I thought the whole purpose of this government and its environmental reforms was to reduce red and green tape, not to add to it. That's exactly what's happening here. Remember, I said there were 5,000 new regulations, and here are some more coming at you.”
“The coalition also has significant concerns pertaining to the appointment and functions of the CEO of this proposed authority. The minister cannot answer how many new employees the authority will have, after saying at the National Press Club that he's not fan of inflated bureaucracy. The EPA CEO must have a binding statement of expectations and must report to the minister, and there must be parameters within those expectations around dismissal by the minister for failure to comply and for underperformance. Really? No key performance indicators for the CEO of the EPA? As it stands, the EPA's CEO can only be dismissed by the Governor-General, and there is no requirement for a binding statement of expectations.”
“It does not encourage investment and it is a bill that falls short. We have significant issues with the Environmental Protection Authority, the EPA. The Graeme Samuel review recommendations did not include an EPA as a baseline. In fact, he recommended that a commissioner be appointed and that it be limited to compliance, assurance and audit—which means assessments and approvals should absolutely not be part of the EPA. Labor has absolutely overreached here, all because of the Prime Minister's 2022 election promise committing to a federal EPA. It's imperative that assessments remain in the department, and, as per the Samuel review, as per our Westminster system, decision-making and approvals must remain with the minister.”