Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail

Opened the debate

Chaney moved amendments to insert a clause requiring a review of the restoration contribution charge methodology every two years, with reports published within 20 days. The amendments also sought to mandate that regulations prescribing the charge method must consider administration, forgone use, management, insurance, and risk costs. Chaney argued that failing to price offsets correctly would lead to an ecological deficit, as seen in other jurisdictions where underpricing resulted in underfunded restoration projects. The member contended that including these factors would ensure financial and ecological integrity, preventing a pay-to-destroy model.

Government response

Burke stated that the government would not support the amendments because the bill already introduced a new rulings power allowing the minister to determine when restoration contributions were inappropriate. The minister argued that the proposed amendments would remove necessary flexibility and limit the ability to deliver larger strategic restoration actions, such as creating wildlife corridors. Burke noted that the reforms shifted the focus from no net negative to net positive outcomes and established a Restoration Contributions Holder to pool funds for greater environmental benefit. The government believed the current bill struck the right balance between learning from past failures and delivering restoration at scale.