Environment Minister Murray Watt talks up his environmental protection legislation while addressing the National Press Club. Photo: Region.
The Federal Government’s long-awaited environment protection bill has been introduced to parliament, seeking to establish a national environment protection agency and require development projects to report carbon emissions.
However, it specifically rules out a climate trigger that would prevent projects from going ahead.
The suite of legislation is more than 1400 pages and includes provisions for a federal environment minister to approve projects on the grounds of the national interest, even if they don’t tick off all environmental guidelines.
It also allows for no-go zones where projects can be denied before applications are progressed.
Speaking on the legislation during a National Press Club address on Thursday (30 November), Environment Minister Murray Watt said the proposed reforms must be passed after recent years of failed attempts.
“In short, reforming these laws is vital to protect our precious natural environment, on which life depends, as do jobs in tourism, agriculture, resources and other industries,” Senator Watt said.
“But this act is also incredibly important to giving business certainty and achieving our national priorities.”
The minister stated that when this bill is passed, it will yield several demonstrable benefits for nature and establish a new ministerial authority to set national environmental standards.
He said the standards were the centrepiece of the review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 undertaken by Professor Graeme Samuel, adding that stakeholders broadly support the need for standards.
Senator Watt said that, beyond providing certainty and guidance for businesses, the standards will also set clear and enforceable expectations, thereby uplifting the quality and consistency of decision-making.
“Until the power to create the standards is in the law, we are unable to make them,” Senator Watt said.
“But we’ve started work on them, knowing that people want to see the direction of travel.”
When asked whether a project could be approved under the proposed new laws even if it meant the extinction of an animal or plant species, the minister said Labor had an overarching policy against such action.
“My view is the way these laws would apply is that if a project is going to drive a species extinct, it will get a no,” he said.
“I reckon I’d be confident I’d get 99 per cent support in the community for that.”
The government wants the legislation passed before Christmas, but it’s not going to get its way, with neither the Coalition nor the Greens willing yet to throw their support behind it in the Senate.
The Senate voted to refer the bill to an inquiry that will extend to March next year.
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said the bill, as it stands, weakens environmental protection in favour of big business.
It won’t stop the destruction of native habitat or logging of old-growth forests, she said.
“This bill fails the basic test right up front that it doesn’t improve environmental protections,” Senator Hanson-Young said.
“It’s been written by the business lobby and the mining lobby to fast-track their approvals.
“That means new coal and gas fast-tracked; the destruction of our forests made easier, made cheaper.”
Conservation groups also lined up at Parliament House to demand that the legislation provide greater environmental protections.
The Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace and WWF Australia said what they had seen in the proposed new laws wasn’t good enough.
The government needs the support of either the Opposition or the Greens for the bill to pass the Senate.
Early indications suggest that it may have a better chance of securing a deal with the Coalition, despite Opposition Leader Sussan Ley having publicly provided no such assurances yet.
Senator Watt said the bill wasn’t about making an either/or choice between the environment and business.
“Many commentators and politicians want to frame this legislation as a tug-of-war between the environment and the economy,” he said.
“They assert a false choice – that you can have one, but not the other.
“This is plain wrong. You don’t have to choose between the environment and jobs and business.
“We can protect and improve our environment, while removing duplication and speeding up approvals – that was the secret sauce of Professor Samuel’s report.
“In the same way we moved beyond the notion that you could act on climate change or have jobs, we have to move beyond this false choice when it comes to nature.”
