Australian Environmental Reform Laws Face Bipartisan Criticism Ahead of Parliamentary Introduction

Proposed Reforms Under Scrutiny

Australia's federal government is preparing to introduce its much-anticipated Environmental Protection Reform Bill to parliament next week, a legislative effort designed to overhaul the nation's environmental protection framework. However, the proposed reforms are already facing substantial criticism from both the Coalition and the Greens, raising questions about the bill's pathway to becoming law. The legislation, previously known as the 'Nature Positive' bill, aims to address the shortcomings identified in the Graeme Samuel AC independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999, which concluded that the existing law was failing to prevent environmental decline.

Environment Minister Murray Watt has urged both the Opposition and the Greens to thoroughly review the bill before making premature judgments, expressing hope that the legislation will ultimately pass.

Greens Decry Lack of 'Climate Trigger' and Pro-Business Bias

The Greens have voiced strong opposition, primarily due to the government's decision to exclude a 'climate trigger' from the bill. Such a trigger would have allowed for the vetoing of major mining and development projects based on their carbon emissions. Greens environment spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young stated that the proposed reforms, 'as they stand, are not worth the paper they're printed on' and are 'too favourable to big polluting industries'. She further asserted that 'Labor's laws fast-track environmental destruction and do nothing to guarantee protection for the environment,' and are 'riddled with carve-out clauses to suit industry'. The Greens are demanding stronger climate provisions and guaranteed protections for native forests and wildlife.

Coalition Raises Concerns Over Red Tape and Approval Processes

The Coalition, while initially welcoming the exclusion of a climate trigger, remains critical of the proposed reforms. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley described the current environmental protection laws as a 'basket case' and indicated that the draft changes do not convince the Coalition that the EPBC Act is being improved. Shadow transport minister Bridget McKenzie expressed fears that the bill could 'strip farmers of the right to appeal over their land being resumed'. Opposition frontbencher Andrew Bragg argued that establishing a federal Environment Protection Agency (EPA), a key component of the reforms, would 'add red tape' and grant Environment Minister Murray Watt 'God-like powers' to veto projects. The Coalition also suggests that the reforms could hinder critical minerals projects, impacting investment.

Government's Stance and Bill Details

The government's proposed Environmental Protection Reform Bill includes several key elements: the creation of a new national environmental watchdog, increased penalties for environmental breaches (up to $825 million), and a requirement for businesses to outline expected emissions and reduction plans for new projects. It also introduces a new definition of 'unacceptable impacts' and aims to cut statutory approval timeframes from 70 to 50 days. Minister Watt has maintained that the government has 'got the balance pretty right,' noting that the Coalition views the legislation as 'too good for the environment' while the Greens see it as 'too good for business'. However, a point of contention for environmentalists is that the Minister would retain final approval powers for projects, potentially overriding the new EPA.