Chapter 4Environment Information Australia
4.1This chapter examines the evidence received during the inquiry about the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 (EIA bill) and Environment Information Australia (EIA).
4.2It provides background information relevant to EIA and the appointment of the Head of Environment Information Australia (HEIA) including the findings of the independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) led by Professor Graeme Samuel AC (the 'Samuel Review') and the Australian Government's response as outlined in the Nature Positive Plan.
The need for improved environmental data
4.3The Samuel Review found that there was 'no effective framework to support a comprehensive, data-driven evaluation of the EPBC Act, its effectiveness in achieving intended outcomes and the efficiency of implementation activities'. To remedy this situation, Professor Samuel recommended the creation of an efficient environmental information supply chain with a custodian responsible for providing long-term stewardship and coordination.
4.4The Australian Government made a commitment in the 2023-24 Federal Budget to create the EIA 'to provide an authoritative source of high-quality environmental information'.
4.5To implement this recommendation, the EIA was established as a division of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) in June 2023, 'so that high quality and authoritative environmental data and information is available for national decision-making, allowing faster, clearer actions'. According to DCCEEW:
Improvements to national environmental data and information, will enable transparency in Australian Government environmental decisions and allow conditions and trends to be evaluated for their effectiveness in environmental protection and rehabilitation, and accurately reported on.
The establishment of the Head of Environment Information Australia
4.6As outlined in Chapter 2, the EIA Bill contains various provisions that would establish the HEIA as a senior official within DCCEEW.
4.7Evidence to the committee was widely supportive of the role of the EIA and the establishment of the HEIA, while suggesting some refinements to the legislation on issues including:
the independence of the HEIA;
provision of advice to the HEIA;
collecting and protecting confidential and sensitive information;
recognition and incorporation of First Nations environmental knowledge;
defining and establishing a baseline for nature positive;
State of the Environment reporting; and
preparation of Environmental Economic Accounts.
Independence of the HEIA
4.8As noted in Chapter 2, the HEIA would not be subject to the direction of the EnvironmentMinister or the DCCEEW Secretary in relation to the core functions of their role. However, several submitters proposed that positioning the HEIA within the department might affect their independence, as they would still ultimately report to the Secretary and the Minister.
4.9For example, Humane Society International Australia highlighted the dual role of the HEIA as a departmental employee and a statutory office holder. It submitted that it would be important to establish strong governance arrangements to ensure transparency and accountability while avoiding conflicts of interest and inappropriate indirect influence.
4.10The Biodiversity Council shared the view that, although the HEIA was to be guaranteed independence in performing their statutory duties, they had limited separation from the Commonwealth. It noted that the HEIA's power to release information to Commonwealth entities was very broad and raised concerns that full access to EIA data might be provided routinely to DCCEEW and other Commonwealth agencies, which could lead holders of data to resist sharing information with the EIA. It suggested that the EIA would be more likely to secure access to comprehensive data if it were established as an independent entity, with the ability to make commitments to confidentiality to protect traditional knowledge or commercially valuable data.
4.11The Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia recommended that EIA exist independently of DCCEEW. The Chamber recommended co-locating EIA with Geoscience Australia as a portfolio agency of the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, to allow for stronger collaboration across existing datasets, such as those held by Geosciences Australia or the Bureau of Meteorology.
4.12The Australian Academy of Science submitted that the independence and reputation of EIA would be improved if it were established as a statutory body with an independent and suitably qualified governing board, creating separation between the HEIA and the Commonwealth.
Advice to the EIA
4.13As outlined in Chapter 2, the HEIA would be assisted in carrying out their duties by staff of DCCEEW or contracted employees as assigned by the Secretary of DCCEEW. Some submitters called for the provision of non-departmental sources of advice to the HEIA.
4.14For example, the Australian Academy of Science noted that there were no provisions for the HEIA to establish advisory mechanisms to assist their decision making. The Academy proposed that the HEIA be required to seek advice from an Expert Advisory Committee, with that advice made publicly available.
National environmental information assets
4.15As described in Chapter 2, the EIA bill provides for the HEIA to make declarations about national environmental information assets and to record these assets in a public online register. These provisions would allow the HEIA to collect information, establish a framework for appropriately sharing that information with other Commonwealth, state and territory entities, and enact penalties for unauthorised disclosure of information.
Protection of confidentiality
4.16Several submitters raised concerns about the protection of sensitive information, such as commercially sensitive data or First Nations traditional knowledge. For example, the Biodiversity Council proposed that the HEIA should have the power to require information to be provided, but urged that this power should be used sparingly, with compensation on just terms provided where intellectual property was acquired. The Biodiversity Council also sought clarification on the EIA's commitment to confidentiality in the cases of First Nations traditional knowledge and commercially valuable data.
Commercially sensitive information
4.17Some submitters raised issues regarding the collection and protection of commercially sensitive data. For example, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia welcomed the provisions of the EIA bill that provided for information held by the EIA to be subject to confidentiality and established penalties for unauthorised disclosures. However, the Chamber raised concerns that project proponents could be compelled to provide commercial‑in‑confidence information.
4.18BirdLife Australia suggested that the EIA should be given legislative powers to compel access to data, based on concerns that some data holders might 'withhold data quite deliberately so as to hold back some of the tough decisions that should be made in protection of nature'.
4.19The Law Council of Australia submitted that the EIA bill did not provide for the protection of commercially sensitive information, or information that may cause harm to a project proponent, individual, or company. The Law Council recommended that the EIA bill be amended to provide protections, including:
the ability for entities providing information to preview the form in which the information would be published, prior to publication; and
a mechanism to apply for sensitive information to be removed from public registers, with processes to facilitate urgent removal of sensitive information.
4.20Some submitters sought to balance the need to protect commercially sensitive information with the public's right to engage in informed consultation. For example, the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) discussed the potential misuse of commercial-in-confidence designation to frustrate community engagement. The EDO recommended that the EIA make information publicly accessible and in a form that is easy to understand and use, to promote transparency, support community engagement and encourage improved decision making.
First Nations environmental knowledge
4.21Several submitters called for First Nations environmental knowledge to be incorporated in the register for national environmental information assets, with appropriate protections for culturally sensitive information. For example, the Nature Conservancy suggested that a First Nations Participation and Engagement Standard, designed by and for First Nations people, could provide guidance on how First Nations knowledge should be respectfully and consensually shared and used.
4.22Mr Richard Swain—a Wiradjuri man who appeared in a private capacity, and who is also an ambassador for the Invasive Species Council and an honorary Associate Professor at the Australian National University—characterised the incorporation of First Nations knowledge as part of a joint journey of healing country, incorporating 'the best of Aboriginal respect for country, culture and knowledge, hand in hand with the best of regenerative science.'
4.23Seed Indigenous Youth Climate Network highlighted the importance of ensuring that First Nations ecological knowledge is given the same consideration as Western scientific studies in establishing the baseline for nature positive. The network also gave evidence that the baseline should be established swiftly, as cultural heritage and country was 'at grave risk of being destroyed by further delays'.
4.24This view was supported by Dr Jack Pascoe—a Yuin man who appeared in a private capacity, and who is also the Co-Chief Councillor of the Biodiversity Council, and a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne—who emphasised that baselines should be established as quickly and comprehensively as possible, as many projects were currently being approved that were having impacts on cultural, intangible and tangible heritage.
Commissioner for Country proposal
4.25Several submitters recommended other measures to improve environmental management and protect cultural heritage by working in partnership with First Nations peoples. These included calls to appoint a Commissioner for Country, to ensure that First Nations people have a voice under national environmental protection laws.
4.26A collective group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives from several environmental, conservation, scientific and First Nations groups proposed the establishment of a Commissioner for Country as an independent, authoritative Indigenous voice to guide the protection and management of natural and Indigenous cultural heritage values protected under national law.
4.27The proposal is not intended to 'replace or supersede the voice of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities', but rather to elevate and empower those seeking to care for Country.
4.28The Biodiversity Council suggested a range of functions for a Commissioner for Country, including:
supporting First Nations people as land managers;
facilitating capacity building and cultural knowledge exchange;
representing the views of First Nations peoples and organisation to the Minister, the department, and other government agencies; and
liaising with the Minister, the department, and government agencies on environmental issues, especially on biodiversity, culturally significant species, and First Nations cultural heritage.
4.29The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists contended that the EPBC Act has been unsuccessful in harnessing First Nations knowledge systems or considering the connection to country of First Nations people. It supported the establishment of a Commissioner for Country alongside an Indigenous Advisory Body and a mechanism for delivering and funding an ongoing Caring for Country program.
4.30Dr Jack Pascoe supported this position, and submitted that there should be an ongoing, identified Indigenous position with roles and responsibilities defined in law, to provide advice to the Environment Minister.
4.31Seed Indigenous Youth Climate Network also supported the establishment of a Commissioner for Country, giving evidence that environmental policy reform should truly value First Nations knowledge and culture while establishing adequate representation and free, prior and informed consent. The network also recommended that state and national bodies 'incorporate and reintroduce traditional practices such as cultural burning and other practices to help mitigate our climate risks and restore our degraded lands, waterways and ecosystems', with these practices to be 'led by Indigenous people and have an accurate representation of male, female and kinship knowledge systems within those frameworks'.
4.32DCCEEW gave evidence that the department is aware of the Commissioner for Country proposal from the collective group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives:
The department is considering the proposal and its implications in the context of the nature positive reforms and reforms being developed in partnership with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance to strengthen the protection of First Nations cultural heritage.
Nature positive monitoring, evaluation and reporting
Defining 'nature positive' and establishing a baseline
4.33As discussed in Chapter 2, the EIA bill defines nature positive as 'an improvement in the diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems from a baseline'. The baseline from which achievements would be evaluated is to be determined by the HEIA.
4.34Several submitters called for the definition of nature positive to be more specific and reflective of Australia's international commitments. For example, the Law Council of Australia described the definition in the EIA bill as 'watered down' and 'out of step' with 'the widely accepted definition of nature positive' to 'halt and reverse nature loss by 2030 on a 2020 baseline, and achieve full recovery by 2050'.
4.35The Law Council noted that the latter definition reflected commitments made by nation states at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity Conference of Parties in December 2022, which included the adoption of the Kunming‑Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). Australia was actively engaged in the negotiations that led to the adoption of the GBF.
4.36The Environmental Defenders Office similarly suggested that the EIA bill's proposed baseline should reflect the commitment to the GBF, and be defined:
…to recognise the need to increase in the natural diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity (meaning the completeness, functionality and health) of species, populations and ecosystems with a goal of halting and reversing nature loss by 2030 and achieving full recovery by 2050, measured against a 2020 baseline.
4.37The Australian Land Conservation Alliance (ALCA) explained that for Australia to define nature positive differently to the international definition would be 'confusing' and 'not helpful'.
4.38The Australian Marine Conservation Society suggested that nature positive could be measured against a 2020 baseline, reflecting the GBF commitments, or a 2021 baseline as anticipated by the 2021 State of the Environment report.
4.39The Humane Society International Australia submitted that the data informing the 2021 State of the Environment report was gathered in 2020, therefore, setting the nature positive baseline in accordance with that report would be compliant with the GBF commitments and monitoring requirements.
4.40Several other submitters, including the Australian Conservation Foundation and Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action, also argued that the baseline for nature positive should be set at 2021.
4.41Others submitted that, whatever the baseline, it should be incorporated in the legislation to provide a firm basis for future measurements. For example, Farmers for Climate Action noted that if the baseline were to be established by the HEIA and not set within the Act, there would be a risk of the baseline moving or changing over time.
4.42The Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ) suggested that there might need to be different baselines for different protected matters and ecosystems. EIANZ submitted that establishing baselines early and including them in the legislation would ensure their integrity.
4.43The National Farmers' Federation sought clarification on what the baseline would mean, how it would be applied, and at what scale. The National Farmers’ Federation called for nature positive to apply only at the national scale and not for individual projects or properties. They also suggested that, as Australia's nature and biodiversity were reportedly declining, it would be difficult to demonstrate progress against a retrospective baseline and called for meaningful co-design of the baseline with regulated industries.
4.44DCCEEW noted that the legislation provided for the baseline to be appropriately set to the Australian context, based on input from scientists, including information about data availability, ecological cycles, and the impact of recent disasters on ecological functions. The department argued that this approach was consistent with guidance under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.
4.45DCCEEW also gave evidence that once the baseline for nature positive had been set by the HEIA, it was not able to be moved.
State of the Environment reports
4.46As noted in Chapter 2, the EIA Bill requires the HEIA to produce and publish biennial State of the Environment reports. There was broad support for increasing the frequency of State of the Environment reporting from the current timeframe of every five to every two years. Some submitters called for the legislation to provide more detail about what should be included in State of the Environment reports.
4.47For example, the Australian Conservation Foundation called for Australia's commitments under the GBF and the targets embedded in Australia's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan to be included in the initial set of goals to be reported against in the 2026 State of the Environment Report.
4.48The Labor Environment Action Network submitted that reducing the interval between State of the Environment reports from five to two years would enable more timely assessments. The Network called for an explicit provision that State of the Environment reports include assessments towards achieving nature positive and other national environmental goals, and recommended that State of the Environment reports be published as soon as practicable after completion. In this regard the EIA Bill requires the HEIA to publish a State of the Environment report on or before 30 September every two years.
4.49DCCEEW put forward that the provisions of the EIA bill would require State of the Environment reports to contain information about, and analysis relating to, progress towards meeting the national environmental goals. In each response to State of the Environment reports, the Minister will specify the national environmental goals to be reported on in the subsequent report. It is intended that the national environmental goals will be informed by Australia's international commitments, as well as other government policies. However, it remains at the Minister's discretion to determine whether those international commitments or other government policies should be included in the national environmental goals.
Environmental Economic Accounts
4.50Submitters generally supported the production of Environmental Economic Accounts to better understand environmental trends and underpin environmental reporting.
4.51Several submitters sought more specificity as to their purpose and scope. For example, the Institute for Development of Environmental‑Economic Accounting (IDEEA Group) recommended that the accounts should inform Australians about how natural assets are tracking over time. To that end, the IDEEA Group called for the EIA Bill to specify a date for publication of the reports. The IDEEA Group also called for the legislation to make reference to priority ecosystems such as forests, wetlands, river systems or oceans.
4.52Humane Society International Australia noted that although the HEIA would be required to update at least one of the Environmental Economic Accounts every 12 months, there was no requirement for any individual account to be updated with any specific frequency. It was therefore argued that all accounts should be updated at least once every five years.
4.53Doctors for the Environment Australia submitted that many within the community, including First Nations Peoples, do not see environmental protection as an accounting exercise. Doctors for the Environment Australia recommended that the Environmental Economic Accounts take a more holistic approach and have regard to other measures of value, such as the value of nature to human health.
Additional functions for the EIA
4.54Several submitters proposed additional functions for the EIA, beyond those proposed in the legislation. For example, the Australian Academy of Science suggested that the HEIA should have additional responsibilities including:
developing and implementing a National Environmental Data Strategy, to include an environmental data ecosystem;
independently implementing the National Environmental Standard for Data and Information, ensuring that national data sources meet agreed quality standards and are fully disclosed; and
developing formal systems to address uncertainty and data deficiencies in decision-making and enable cumulative impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance to be quantified.
4.55The Environmental Defenders Office also suggested additional responsibilities for the EIA, including:
reporting on recovery objectives and conservation plans;
enabling better understanding of climate change impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES); and
taking responsibility for State of the Forests reporting to track progress under the National Forest Policy Statement and fulfil the reporting requirements of Regional Forest Agreement legislation.
Committee view
4.56The majority of inquiry participants were supportive of the intent of the EIA bill and the need for comprehensive data to inform the ongoing operation and future evaluation of the EPBC Act.
4.57The committee notes the broad support to formally establish the statutory position of the Head of Environment Information Australia (HEIA), the development of national environmental information assets, and the proposed changes to the State of the Environment reporting and the production of Environmental Economic Accounts.
4.58The committee recognises the importance of robust and publicly available data in environmental approvals decision-making, and evaluating the performance of environmental legislation, including the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
4.59The EIA has an important role in managing an efficient environmental information supply chain to support data-driven evaluation of the EPBC Act and other environmental policies.
4.60The committee supports establishing the HEIA as a senior official within the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) to fulfil the recommendation of the Samuel Review for a custodian responsible for providing long-term stewardship and coordination of the environmental information supply chain.
4.61The committee recognises the importance of establishing a robust definition of nature positive that will better protect Australia's environment and prevent further losses of biodiversity. The committee also acknowledges the important role that the Australian Government played in establishing the Global Biodiversity Framework and sees merit in ensuring consistency between the domestic definition and the broader international framework.
4.62The committee recommends that the Australian Government undertake further consultation regarding the definition of 'nature positive' to ensure that it is consistent with Australia's international commitments, including the Global Biodiversity Framework.
4.63The committee acknowledges support from several submitters for establishing a Commissioner for Country. The committee believes that the concept of a Commissioner for Country is sound, but notes that the proposal requires additional detail and development. It further notes that the proposal is currently under consideration by DCCEEW as part of a broader work program to strengthen the protection of First Nations cultural heritage.
4.64The committee recognises the importance of valuing and incorporating traditional environmental knowledge in reforming Australia's environmental laws, including when determining the baseline for nature positive, and in the register of national environmental information assets. The committee also acknowledges the importance of implementing appropriate protections for Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property and the confidentiality of culturally sensitive information.
4.65The committee recommends that the Minister consider measures to encourage the incorporation of First Nations traditional environmental knowledge into Environment Information Australia and in particular, in determining the baseline for nature positive, and in the register of national environmental information assets, with appropriate protections for Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property and the confidentiality of culturally sensitive information.