Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2022
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill modernises Queensland's environmental protection laws by reforming the environmental impact statement process, strengthening enforcement powers against repeat offenders, creating temporary authorities for emergencies, and banning mining in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. It also updates contaminated land management, waste regulation, and mine rehabilitation frameworks.
Who it affects
Resource companies and project proponents face stricter EIS requirements and public notification obligations. Communities near major projects gain more transparency and input rights. Residents in the Wet Tropics benefit from a mining ban in the World Heritage Area.
Environmental impact assessments
Overhauls EIS processes so projects unlikely to gain approval can be stopped earlier, EIS reports expire after 3 years, and the public can view EIS documents online for 2 years instead of 1 year in newspapers.
- Chief executive can refuse an EIS from proceeding if the project is unlikely to gain approval under any law
- EIS assessment reports lapse after 3 years to ensure they reflect current environmental standards
- Ministerial review of EIS refusals replaced with standard review and appeal rights
- Public notification moved from newspapers to websites, with documents available for 2 years
Enforcement and compliance
Gives regulators and courts stronger tools to deal with repeat environmental offenders, expands executive officer liability, and equips inspectors with modern technology.
- Courts can ban persistent offenders from carrying out specific activities, with a penalty of 3,000 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment for breaching the order
- Executive officers can be held liable even after leaving office, if the harmful act happened during their tenure
- Environmental inspectors can use body-worn cameras and drones when investigating
- Environmental harm thresholds doubled and indexed to CPI — material harm now starts at $10,000, serious harm at $100,000
Emergency temporary authorities
Creates a fast-track process for businesses to lawfully operate during emergencies like floods, pandemics, or biosecurity events when their activities exceed normal environmental authority limits.
- Temporary authorities can be issued for up to 4 months during declared emergency situations
- No application fee for temporary authorities
- Conditions can be imposed to minimise environmental harm during the emergency
Wet Tropics World Heritage protection
Bans mining and mining exploration in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area and requires the Wet Tropics Management Authority to consent to any land subdivision in the area.
- Mining exemption removed — mining is now a prohibited activity in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area
- Land subdivision in the World Heritage Area requires consent from the Wet Tropics Management Authority
- Cooperative management agreements validated and clarified
- Board director appointments limited to 6 consecutive years
Contaminated land and environmental authorities
Streamlines contaminated land processes, allows landowners to voluntarily register their land, reforms mine rehabilitation planning, and improves environmental authority administration.
- Landowners can voluntarily add their land to contamination registers via a faster process
- Major amendments to resource activity environmental authorities now require mandatory public notification
- Personal safety information can be removed from public registers
- Environmental authority suspension periods can now be extended
Waste and industrial chemicals
Makes administrative fixes to the waste management framework and links Queensland's general environmental duty to national industrial chemical risk management requirements.
- Correctional facilities can use banned single-use plastics for safety and operational reasons
- End of waste code amendment timing aligned with publication date
- Compliance with national industrial chemical risk management measures now required under the general environmental duty
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Committee12 Oct 2022View Hansard
Referred to Health and Environment Committee
The Health and Environment Committee examined the bill over six weeks, receiving 29 submissions primarily focused on proposed amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1994. The committee recommended the bill be passed, while asking the Minister to address concerns about clause 105 (environmental offences) and the adequacy of defences in section 493 of the EP Act. The government accepted both recommendations.
Key findings (5)
- Submitters were primarily concerned with the bill's proposed amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1994.
- The bill proposed increasing the threshold for material environmental harm from $5,000 to $10,000 and for serious environmental harm from $50,000 to $100,000, with annual CPI indexation.
- Concerns were raised about whether fewer harmful activities would reach the increased threshold amounts and whether exceptions should apply where the nature of harm is significant regardless of value.
- The department advised that the threshold changes would only affect how harm is categorised, not the department's ability to enforce against environmental harm.
- Transitional provisions for progressive rehabilitation and closure plans (PRCPs) under the Mineral and Energy Resources (Financial Provisioning) Act 2018 were identified as the most urgent provisions in the bill.
Recommendations (2)
- The committee recommends the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 be passed.
- The committee recommends the Minister for the Environment and the Great Barrier Reef and Minister for Science and Youth Affairs take note of the committee's comments and, in her second reading speech, address the issues raised about the proposed amendment in clause 105 of the bill and the adequacy of defences in section 493 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994.
Committee report tabled
▸Second Reading28 Mar 2023View Hansard
▸25 members spoke14 support11 mixed
Raised concerns about lack of consultation with industry and impacts on aquaculture expansion, particularly the Tassal prawn farm in her electorate, while acknowledging environmental stewardship.
“While my contribution to the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill has been short, I acknowledge the impacts that it will have and, in particular, the government's policy settings and, more importantly, the department's ideology.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
Supported the bill for its focus on rehabilitation of contaminated land and improved enforcement powers, drawing on experience with the Narangba industrial estate in his electorate.
“I rise to speak in favour of the bill because I support these amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1994. It is an older act and we know that we can improve it.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
Criticised the government's consultation process and argued the bill should have included stronger protections around coal seam gas extraction, while acknowledging some decent measures.
“While this bill has some decent measures, the government could be doing more. I stand on the record of this side of the House on the environment any day of the week.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
Supported the bill's increased enforcement powers, public notification requirements for resource activities, and removal of mining exploration exemptions in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area.
“There is no need to conduct resource exploration in the Wet Tropics because the community would never accept resource projects in the Wet Tropics. I commend the bill to the House.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
Broadly supportive of environmental protection improvements but flagged concerns about confidentiality in consultation, divesting ministerial power to bureaucrats, and potential impacts on existing approvals.
“While we are supporting this bill, I flag the concern around divesting power from the minister to the department. I think in matters like that we should hasten very carefully.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
Supported the bill, particularly amendments prohibiting mining in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area and provisions supporting industry rehabilitation processes.
“Queenslanders would support amendments in the bill that enact those environmental objectives. They include amendments to the Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and Management Act 1993 which ensure mining is prohibited in the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
Criticised the botched consultation process involving confidentiality agreements and short submission periods, and raised concerns about impacts on aquaculture and agriculture industries.
“Lack of integrity, the secrecy, the manipulation and the pandering to vested interests make people lose trust in this government.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
Commended the bill and the minister's consultation with agricultural stakeholders, highlighting provisions assisting businesses during emergency situations.
“I want to commend the Minister for the Environment for her leadership on this bill and her consultation with those stakeholders. It was thorough consultation, and she listened concisely and took on board their concerns.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
Supported the bill, highlighting the government's environmental credentials and the importance of early refusal provisions for EIS processes and mandatory public notification requirements.
“I support the bill. I would like to acknowledge and thank the minister and the committee for their hard work in relation to this.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
Strongly criticised the consultation process involving non-disclosure agreements and the clause 105 executive officer liability provisions, while noting the LNP would not wholly oppose the bill.
“I note that we will not be wholly opposing this bill, but we will be moving an amendment in consideration in detail to attempt to bring some genuine common sense into the key part of this bill.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
Supported the bill's provisions for public notification of major amendments to environmental authorities, the early EIS refusal mechanism, and protection of the Wet Tropics.
“The ability to stop an EIS assessment process early provides benefits to both industry and the department by saving time, resources and money on projects which would not be granted all necessary approvals.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
Broadly supportive of the bill but expressed concerns about the need for objective criteria in early EIS refusal decisions and criticised the shambolic consultation process.
“Opening up a way for that decision to be made early sounds like a good idea because that would save that expense and could save some public resources as well.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
Supported the bill for streamlining administrative processes, resolving mine rehabilitation framework issues, and providing temporary authorities for emergency situations.
“This bill will importantly support industry and streamline administrative processes by cutting red tape, and this is something that businesses are always calling for.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
Supported passage of the bill but argued the environmental authority framework is failing Queenslanders, calling for an independent environmental protection agency with powers to rectify historical failings.
“Supporting its passage does not mean I support a system that is failing Queenslanders.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
Supported the bill, highlighting efficiency improvements for EIS processes, transparency requirements for environmental authority amendments, and corporate accountability provisions.
“I am pleased to support the bill before the House today as it continues to deliver on our commitment to protecting the environment and our great lifestyle in Queensland.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
As minister, defended the consultation process and the bill's executive officer liability provisions, arguing they restore the original intent of the act following the Linc Energy case.
“This bill will give the regulator power to give an early no to clearly unacceptable projects. It will provide greater transparency to the community on major amendments to resource projects.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
As Minister for the Environment, moved the second reading and outlined the bill's amendments to improve environmental protections, streamline regulatory processes, and ensure the independent environmental regulator has effective tools.
“This bill will support improved environmental protections while also streamlining and clarifying processes to assist interpretation of the legislation, and to improve understanding of obligations owed under the act.”— 2023-03-28View Hansard
Spoke in support of the bill, noting it will support industry, better protect the environment and improve community input and transparency.
“This bill will support industry, it will better protect the environment and it will improve community input and transparency.”— 2023-03-28View Hansard
Spoke in support of the bill's amendments to the Environmental Protection Act to provide for a stronger, more effective environmental regulator.
“It will support the Department of Environment and Science in achieving its objective of environmental protection.”— 2023-03-28View Hansard
Criticised the LNP's approach to environmental issues, noting the difficulty of being the LNP's environment spokesperson.
“Being the LNP's environment spokesperson must truly be the second-worst job in the world.”— 2023-03-28View Hansard
Focused on one particular aspect of the bill - the amendments to director liability provisions in section 493, raising concerns about the impact on company directors.
“I want to make a contribution on one particular aspect of the bill—that is, the amendments to section 493 relating to the director liability provisions.”— 2023-03-28View Hansard
Spoke on the bill's amendments to the Environmental Protection Act, raising concerns about the impact on industry.
“I rise to speak on the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2022.”— 2023-03-28View Hansard
Criticised the government's environmental record, reminding Labor that it was the Beattie and Bligh governments that allowed the Linc Energy underground coal gasification trial.
“I want to remind Labor members opposite that it was the Beattie and Bligh Labor governments which allowed the trial of the underground coal gasification at the Linc Energy site.”— 2023-03-28View Hansard
Rose in support of the bill aimed at amending the Environmental Protection Act.
“I rise in support of the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2022.”— 2023-03-28View Hansard
Criticised the lack of consultation given to the prawn farm industry, particularly Australian Prawn Farmers and Tassal, on the bill's environmental regulation changes.
“I would like to contribute to this debate by outlining the lack of consultation that was given to the prawn farm industry.”— 2023-03-28View Hansard
▸In Detail29 Mar 2023View Hansard
Opposed clause 105 on executive officer liability, arguing the defences were inadequate and the widened scope could deter qualified people from accepting senior positions.
“While we support holding executives liable if they have been negligent or acted deliberately knowing the harm that could come to the environment, we want to ensure that the right executives are held liable.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
Opposed clauses 4 and 5 which doubled the threshold damage values for serious and material environmental harm, arguing this would weaken enforcement against environmental harm.
“It beggars belief that the decision would come now—30 years later almost—to double those threshold amounts and to peg the threshold to inflation.”— 2023-03-29View Hansard
Assent date: 8 March 2022
Referenced Entities
Legislation
Organisations
Programs & Schemes
Sectors Affected
Classified using AGIFT/ANZSIC Australian government standards