The Australian government has reached an agreement with the Greens to amend the national environmental legislation, specifically the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. This deal, announced on March 15, 2024, aims to address some of the shortcomings of the existing law, which was originally designed to facilitate development rather than prioritize environmental protection.
The EPBC Act, established in 1999 under former Prime Minister John Howard, has been criticized for failing to safeguard Australia’s unique biodiversity. Instead of scrapping the act entirely, the government chose to make amendments, believing that this approach would benefit both environmental integrity and the business sector, which has long complained about approval delays.
While the urgency of these changes has been questioned, the deal reflects a political strategy by the Greens, who feared that delaying negotiations could lead to a weaker agreement with the Coalition government next year. This urgency raises concerns about the thoroughness of the review process. Independent senator David Pocock has characterized the situation as a “farce,” suggesting that vital details may be overlooked in the rush to enact the reforms.
Key Improvements and Ongoing Concerns
From an environmental standpoint, the amendments do introduce several significant improvements. A cornerstone of the deal is the establishment of a national Environment Protection Agency, which will be empowered to enforce compliance and impose stricter penalties for violations. Furthermore, the introduction of minimum national environmental standards for assessing development applications is a notable advancement, although the full scope of these standards remains unclear, with only two drafts currently available.
The commitment to close loopholes allowing state-sanctioned native forest logging and agricultural land-clearing to evade national laws represents a necessary win for conservation efforts. While it will not eliminate such practices, it will increase accountability for the logging industries in Tasmania and New South Wales. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese acknowledged on the day of the announcement that the forestry industry is increasingly reliant on plantation timber, which already supplies nearly 90% of Australia’s wood. The government’s proposed $300 million investment in a “forestry growth fund” aims to support this transition.
Another key aspect of the deal is the Greens’ insistence that fossil fuel projects cannot be fast-tracked in the same manner as developments in renewable energy and housing. This decision aligns with the government’s retraction of a proposal that would have allowed states and territories to make decisions on large coal mining and unconventional gas projects affecting water resources. The management of water resources is a matter of national significance and warrants federal oversight.
Yet, political motivations behind these changes remain murky. Questions linger regarding whether Labor genuinely intended to relinquish control over the so-called “water trigger,” a mechanism that safeguards water resources. Some of the concessions made to the Greens, such as the logging loophole elimination, were previously suggested by the government but withheld until final negotiations.
Challenges Ahead
A contentious aspect of the debate has been the definition of “unacceptable impacts,” which is intended to streamline decision-making and facilitate quicker denials of harmful development projects. While this definition has been retained, the effectiveness of its implementation will largely depend on the details and interpretations applied.
Moreover, the amended laws heavily rely on offset schemes, which permit environmental degradation in one area as long as conservation occurs in another. Critics argue that these offset schemes often fail to deliver the promised benefits. The government’s plan to establish a “restoration contribution fund” allows developers to pay a fee in exchange for permission to cause environmental harm. This “pay-to-destroy” model has previously faced criticism in New South Wales for its ineffectiveness.
While the government has introduced some limitations through negotiations with the Greens, skepticism remains regarding the promised “net gain” for nature. Fast-tracking non-fossil fuel developments, with decisions potentially made in as little as 30 days, raises concerns about community rights to contest projects.
The current framework continues to grant significant discretion to the environment minister regarding the application of the act. Experts note that this discretion includes the authority to approve developments deemed “in the national interest,” which could limit opportunities for legal challenges.
Finally, the amended laws largely overlook what many experts consider the most pressing threat to the environment: climate change. Although developers must disclose expected emissions, this information will not affect project approvals, a decision that has drawn widespread criticism.
As conservationists celebrate certain victories achieved through years of advocacy, the ongoing debate about the adequacy of these reforms underscores the need for further action to protect Australia’s natural heritage effectively. The conversation is far from over as stakeholders assess the implications of these legislative changes.
