The response from the Australian government has been severe, and is still ongoing. Environment Minister Murray Watt is on the record supporting reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act). This effort is the third in as many years to reshape what most would agree are “broken” environmental statutes. Amidst mounting opposition, Watt has expressed his willingness to negotiate with both the Coalition and the Greens, although key demands from the latter have already been dismissed.
The reforms proposed are there to ‘cut red tape’ for industry environmental approvals, all while providing better protections for biodiversity. The plan has ignited a firestorm of criticism from libertarians to Tea Partiers to highway builders. Critics—including many within the Coalition and the Greens—are raising increasingly dire warnings over the new legislation. They worry these laws would erode property rights and may not even do a good job of addressing climate change.
Coalition’s Concerns
In a huge turnaround for the Coalition, they have been able to negotiate with the government a partial victory on a number of proposed reforms. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley in a statement which criticized the government’s dabbling in such activities as well. She thinks there’s, in her words, “far more work to be done” to convince her party on the merits of these much-needed reforms.
Ley’s concerns reflect the doubts felt by most of her fellow Coalition members. They are most alarmed by proposed “go zones,” which would contain areas with fast-tracked approval processes. Even Bridget McKenzie, one of the key players behind the rollout within the Coalition, has raised alarm. She thinks that these so-called go zones would infringe on farmers’ property rights.
“The last thing we want to see is a repeat of Victorian legislation where the Allan Labor government has seriously undermined private property rights.” – Bridget McKenzie
In addition to express policy concerns, Kevin Hogan has warned about the possible ramifications for reforestation projects under federal environmental law. He warned that the draft bill would add more barriers to industries that depend on natural resources.
“They are making it as hard as they can for people in this country to produce stuff and to employ people, and this legislation’s just going to add to it.” – Kevin Hogan
Greens Demand Rejected
The Greens are fighting hard for a “climate trigger” in the laws as proposed. Their steadfastness shows us that this measure is key to addressing climate issues in a meaningful way. This mechanism should be used to block coal and gas projects that prove harmful to the environment. We welcome Minister Watt’s recent confirmation that this provision will be dropped. Greens have heavily condemned his move.
Sarah Hanson-Young, a key figure in the Greens party, stated, “The Greens have been very clear from the start — we will not rubber stamp laws that fail to protect our native forests, wildlife and climate.” She urged that unless the new laws included strong protections against damaging projects, the reforms would fall short.
Even with this disappointment, Watt remains committed to the idea that this legislative package is historic and needed. This bill would strengthen environmental protections while expediting approvals for businesses.
“The alternative is if they vote against these bills they would be voting against improvements for business to get approvals done more quickly, they would be voting against improvements to the natural environment.” – Murray Watt
Support and Criticism
Even as Watt treads the dangerous ground of highly-charged negotiations, he has gained support from several sources. Ken Henry, a key architect of the 2010 National Environmental Policy Act discussion, supported Watt’s move to reject the Greens’ request for the climate trigger. Henry made the case that by taking climate policy out of the scope of existing environmental laws, we could pursue more ambitious climate policy.
“Ruling out a climate trigger in the legislation is something that matters a lot to a lot of people who are taking an interest in this area of policy.” – Ken Henry
He further argued that the proposed reforms represent the beginning of a larger agenda. Their goal is to raise the bar for environmental protection overall, not simply address climate change.
Reform advocates and dissenters within Parliament have called the proposed reforms too weak. Angie Bell from the Opposition lambasted what she characterized as convoluted definitions and unclear rules surrounding net gain under the new laws. More concerning, she argued that these regulations would add more bureaucratic hurdles instead of streamlining processes.
“Labor’s laws come with an unworkable definitions, unclear ‘net gain’ rules, bigger penalties, a new bureaucracy and more red tape, punishing investment instead of protecting the environment.” – Angie Bell
Path Forward
As discussions continue within Parliament, there remains a critical opportunity for lawmakers to address longstanding issues pertaining to Australia’s environmental legislation. Through these changes, their intent is to keep the spirit of those frameworks while reforming them. In doing so, they’ll provide a big improvement to the future environmental approval process.
