Political integrity experts have expressed concern about WorkThe government's proposed new nature laws, including a controversial new “national interest” exception, while the Albana government comes under increasing pressure to rethink key parts of the reform.
As debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act review bill resumed in the Lower House on Tuesday, the Center for Public Integrity has identified several “integrity risks” that threaten to undermine efforts to fix a broken system.
The think tank joined a chorus of critics, including environmental groups, of the former finance minister Ken Henry and Labor MP Ed Husic, raising the alarm over a new exemption that would allow the minister to approve a project that breaches new environmental laws if it is in the “national interest”.
While Environment Minister Murray Watt insisted the capacity was for projects related to defence, security or national emergencies, he was unable to rule out the possibility of it being used for other purposes, including fossil fuel development, due to the discretionary nature of the exemption.
“Despite claims of limited application, the center has serious concerns about the scope, transparency and accountability of the exercise of powers,” the think tank wrote in an analysis of the bill released Tuesday.
The think tank was also concerned about the apparent lack of independence of the government's proposed independent environment agency.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
Under Labour's model, the regulator would carry out some functions at arm's length from the government, including monitoring compliance with environmental laws, but the minister would retain the power to approve projects.
Retaining ministerial decision-making powers was a key demand of the Coalition and industry groups, but was criticized by environmentalists.
The center's report said it was “highly unusual” for an independent regulator to cede such “significant powers” to a minister.
“Public trust and confidence in environmental decision-making would be better secured if responsibility lay with an independent body free from political influence and less susceptible to vested interests,” the report says.
The head of the research center, Gabrielle Appleby, said the government bill was wrong.
“Environmental decision-making is particularly susceptible to vested interests – which is why integrity guarantees must be strong,” she said.
“However, these bills leave serious gaps: the new regulator lacks independence and relevant powers, and the minister retains broad powers to circumvent environmental protections. The government has solutions – it just needs the will to close these loopholes and build a system Australians can trust.”
The think tank criticized the government for drafting legislation largely behind “closed doors” in consultation with select stakeholders.
He also raised concerns about the process of creating new national environmental standards, which were the main recommendation of the Samuel review that inspired the reforms.
Although the Bill gives the Minister the power to create, amend or repeal new green regulations, the standards themselves are not included in the legislation.
The think tank said the standards should have been detailed in legislation and subject to parliamentary approval. The Minister plans to consult on the development of standards before they are introduced, starting with those that apply to issues of national environmental significance and compensation.
Labour's Environment Action Group is now lobbying the government to make two amendments to the bill it ultimately wants to pass after years of internal campaigning to fix the EPBC Act.
The first option would eliminate or limit the “national interest” clause, giving Parliament the power to overrule it by a majority vote in either house.
The second option would remove the “continuous use” exemption, which allows clearing of historically legal agricultural land, particularly in Queensland, to continue without the need for approval or oversight from the federal government.
This exception is also used by state governments to justify shark fishing programs that pose a threat to endangered whales.
Environment Action Network national secretary Janalyn Oh said there was a strong case for a national interest exemption that could be used in national emergencies, but there was a significant risk that the minister could abuse the powers and the powers should be limited.
“Where a project is of such overriding national interest that even unacceptable impacts may be tolerated, the government should undergo an additional parliamentary review process,” she said.
