Environmental Protection (Powers and Penalties) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill strengthens Queensland's environmental protection laws by making regulation more proactive rather than reactive. It introduces the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle as core guiding principles, creates new offences for breaching environmental duties, establishes a duty to restore the environment after contamination, and streamlines enforcement tools into a single environmental enforcement order.
Who it affects
Communities near industrial and environmentally relevant activities gain stronger protections, while operators face tougher penalties and new obligations to prevent harm and clean up contamination.
Key changes
- Breaching the general environmental duty is now an offence where it causes or is likely to cause serious or material harm, with penalties up to 4,500 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment
- A new duty to restore the environment requires polluters to rehabilitate contaminated environments as soon as reasonably practicable
- Environmental nuisance can now be classified as serious or material environmental harm, closing a gap that previously limited enforcement
- Three separate enforcement notices are replaced by a single environmental enforcement order, with penalties up to 6,250 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment for wilful non-compliance
- The duty to notify of environmental harm events is strengthened to include situations where a person should reasonably have known about the harm
- Evidentiary provisions are extended from criminal proceedings to civil proceedings, making it easier to pursue environmental cases in court
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Committee13 Feb 2024View Hansard
Referred to Health and Environment Committee
The Health, Environment and Agriculture Committee examined the bill over approximately six weeks, receiving 20 submissions and holding public hearings with industry, local government, and legal stakeholders. The committee recommended the bill be passed, finding that its strengthened environmental powers and penalties were justified. Submitters raised significant concerns about the new environmental enforcement orders, the general environmental duty offence, and insufficient consultation, but the committee was satisfied that the provisions struck an appropriate balance. Stephen Andrew MP filed a dissenting report opposing the bill.
Key findings (5)
- The bill implements recommendations from an independent review of the Environmental Protection Act 1994, introducing new environmental enforcement orders, a general environmental duty offence, and a duty to restore the environment
- Industry stakeholders including the Queensland Resources Council, Queensland Law Society, and waste and recycling bodies raised concerns about potential retrospectivity of the general environmental duty offence and its impact on existing environmental authority holders
- The new environmental enforcement orders consolidate three existing notice types but raised concerns about powers of entry onto third-party land with only two business days notice
- Local government submitters were concerned about increased regulatory burden and unclear boundaries between state and local government responsibilities for environmental nuisance matters
- The committee found the bill's penalties, while significantly high, were proportionate to the conduct and consistent with the existing approach in the Environmental Protection Act
Recommendations (1)
- The committee recommends the Environmental Protection (Powers and Penalties) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 be passed.
Committee report tabled
▸Second Reading2 May 2024View Hansard
▸14 members spoke7 support1 oppose6 mixed
Did not oppose the bill but raised concerns about stakeholder consultation, unintended consequences of the polluter pays principle, and the need for transparency and collaboration rather than treating industry as adversaries.
“Whilst the opposition will not oppose the bill, for too long our environment has suffered because the Miles Labor government has not followed through on its promises.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Introduced and commended the bill as fulfilling the government's commitment to implement the independent Jones and Hedge review, strengthening environmental enforcement tools and penalties to protect communities like Ipswich from odour nuisance.
“The amendments do not make fundamental policy changes. Rather, this bill aims to facilitate a more proactive approach to environmental risk management to prevent the community from being exposed to harm and remove barriers to timely and effective regulatory responses.”— 2024-05-02View Hansard
Strongly supported the bill as an important milestone for the Ipswich community that has suffered from waste industry odours for decades, praising the hardwiring of human health into environmental harm definitions and the polluter pays principle.
“These recommendations include hardwiring human health and safety into the legal definition of 'environmental harm', delivered by Labor.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Confirmed the LNP will not oppose the bill but raised significant concerns about stakeholder trust, the potential for environmental enforcement orders to override existing environmental authorities, and the erosion of trust between the department and industry.
“Again, I would emphasise trust is clearly an issue with these stakeholders. The operations of this government in dealing with environmental authority holders has given them no faith that the state government will act fairly and in a collaborative way.”— 2024-05-02View Hansard
Opposed the bill's tougher and more punitive approach as unnecessary and inappropriate, arguing the new enforcement orders and general environmental duty offence represent unacceptable sovereign risk for businesses and could put operators out of business.
“Overall, I believe the bill's tougher and more punitive approach is both unnecessary and inappropriate, particularly when the potential cost to businesses and individuals is likely be substantial.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as committee chair, noting sensible changes to streamline compliance tools and address nuisance issues, while urging the department to provide clear guidance on the polluter pays principle.
“These are sensible changes. I commend the bill to the House.”— 2024-05-02View Hansard
Supported the bill as an important measure for the Ipswich community, highlighting the longstanding odour issues from composting facilities at Swanbank and the need for stronger compliance powers.
“Everyone has a right to enjoy being in their backyard without feeling nauseated by the disgusting odours emanating from those composting facilities.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Welcomed improvements including the general environmental duty offence and inclusion of human health in definitions, but expressed deep concern that the government failed to adopt the key recommendation giving the chief executive power to amend historical environmental authorities, describing it as a serious failing.
“I am really struggling given that the government has not adopted the vital recommendation regarding the chief executive power to amend those historical authorities in dire situations. I ask the minister to please reconsider this serious failing to protect our environment and our people.”— 2024-05-02View Hansard
Supported the bill's positive changes including the general environmental duty, polluter pays principle and duty to restore, but expressed concern about the department's willingness to actually use its enforcement tools and called for more proactive regulation.
“There is no doubt these are all good changes, but I remain concerned. I am concerned because the department has—and has had for a long time—a multitude of enforcement tools at its disposal and failed to use them.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as demonstrating the government's commitment to protecting the community and Queensland's natural environment with contemporary and responsive regulatory powers.
“It demonstrates our government's commitment to protect the community as well as Queensland's natural environment.”— 2024-05-02View Hansard
Strongly supported the bill as delivering stronger tools for regulators to act on odour and environmental harm in the Ipswich region, praising the expanded enforcement powers and the inclusion of nuisance in serious harm definitions.
“The laws we are enacting now will deliver stronger tools for the regulator to act.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Did not oppose the bill but raised concerns from agricultural stakeholders including pork producers, lot feeders and canegrowers about lack of consultation, regulatory overreach, and the need for practical and workable regulations.
“Continually failing to consult and dismissing practical solutions will significantly undermine the growth of our agricultural sector and reduce the economic viability of those industries. Queensland cannot afford this.”— 2024-05-02View Hansard
Did not oppose the bill but raised significant concerns about the lack of detail on how provisions would work in practice, the potential impact on businesses, and the inadequate consultation process.
“The opposition will not oppose this bill; however, we do have a number of concerns.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as the minister responsible, defending the new enforcement tools and environmental principles as necessary to protect communities and hold polluters accountable.
“This bill will give the environmental regulator additional tools to prevent environmental harm before it occurs.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Assent date: 18 June 2024
Referenced Entities
Legislation
Sectors Affected
Classified using AGIFT/ANZSIC Australian government standards