Big questions over environment policies are giving Labor and the Coalition a few challenges post-election. Photo: Supplied.
The Federal Government and the Opposition are both confronting separate battles over environment policy issues post-election.
While the Coalition partners are squabbling over their commitment to net zero by 2050, Labor has pressure to revisit shelved environmental protection laws.
New Environment Minister Murray Watt said he will be taking a fresh look at recommendations from the 2020 review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
He suggested a broader approach to changing environmental laws might help it pass the new Federal Parliament.
Former Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) chair Graeme Samuel undertook the review and recommended, among other things, a tough new environmental watchdog.
Labor supported the recommendations in its campaign for the 2022 election, but didn’t pursue the changes once it failed to get enough Senate support.
Strong opposition from the mining lobby resulted in the stalling of any changes, and also in frustrating Labor’s environment minister from last term, Tanya Plibersek.
Mr Watt said he hadn’t yet formed his own view on the way forward, but was keen to revisit the recommendations.
“You know, there would be some advantages in going along with a fairly similar bill to what we had last time, but obviously it would require some adjustments to get through,” he told ABC radio.
“But equally, I can see some advantages in trying to broaden out that reform and try to have a bigger reform package in one go.
“These are some of the issues that I want to test with different stakeholders. I’ve got an open mind about that.”
The Minister added that he would approach the issue “in the spirit” of Mr Samuel’s recommendations. However, he said one of the most contentious points was whether new environment approvals should be under his remit or that of an independent watchdog.
“He [Mr Samuel] and his team at the time put in a massive amount of work. It did seem to get broad agreement across different interest groups about the sort of package of reforms that was needed,” Mr Watt said.
“It seems to me to make sense to try to stick to the spirit of those reforms, but it’s a little early for me to commit to any particular recommendations at this point.”
Meanwhile, the Liberals and Nationals are thrashing out about whether to discard the Coalition’s commitment to the net-zero emissions goal and whether to retain their nuclear energy policy, which was roundly rejected at the 3 May election.
Liberal frontbenchers Jane Hume and Anne Ruston have been vocal in various media interviews that the Coalition should stick with the global commitment to net zero.
“On net zero, I have a personal opinion on that, of course, and you know that would be that the electorate has sent us a very clear message about what it is that they want in their government,” Senator Hume said.
“Abandoning net zero, I don’t necessarily think is consistent with that. That’s a discussion for the party room.”
Senator Ruston noted that the Coalition was split on both climate and energy policy areas.
“Emissions reduction is an important part of policy going forward because energy is the economy and we need to get the policy right,” she said.
“But there’s no secret there is a divergence of views in our party room about how we achieve that.
“But right now, I absolutely think the thing we need to concentrate on is making sure that people can afford their power bills.”
More rightwing Liberals, as well as a string of Nationals MPs and senators, have been publicly advocating for net zero to be dropped and for the Coalition to persist with its nuclear energy plan.
Nationals leader David Littleproud said he was in ongoing discussions with new Liberal Party leader Sussan Ley on the topics.
“I think you can’t get to net zero without nuclear energy,” he said.
“Now, whether it’s specifically the policy that we took [to the election] around government-owned [nuclear power plants] or whether it’s simply removing the moratorium, I think you have to be pragmatic.
“You cannot do an all-renewables approach and keep the economy going. And we’re starting to feel that.
“We were promised three years ago a $275 reduction in our energy bills. They’ve gone up over $1300.
“Unfortunately, physics and economics are going to catch up with it at some point.”
