A select group of environment and industry leaders will be brought together in a fresh attempt to build consensus on a long-awaited rewrite of federal nature laws, Guardian Australia can reveal.<\/p>\n
The environment minister, Murray Watt, will soon detail the next phase of consultation as he presses ahead with an ambition to enact sweeping changes<\/a> to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) in the next 18 months.<\/p>\n After the first-term Albanese government shelved proposed reforms<\/a> amid lobbying from miners and the Western Australian government, Watt has restarted the process.<\/p>\n The past failures, combined with the approval of major fossil fuel projects and the rushed passage of laws to protect Tasmania\u2019s salmon industry<\/a>, have environmentalists worried about Labor\u2019s second term.<\/p>\n But they also believe Labor\u2019s resounding election victory gives it scope to act \u201cquickly and boldly\u201d to deliver serious reform.<\/p>\n \u201cAustralians are tired of the bush being bulldozed and burnt and elected a government that will act on nature and on climate,\u201d the Wilderness Society\u2019s national campaigns director, Amelia Young, said.<\/p>\n A new standard<\/p>\n Almost five years have passed since Graeme Samuel handed his review<\/a> of the EPBC Act to the then environment minister Sussan Ley, exposing how the systemic failures of successive governments had left Australia\u2019s unique species in unsustainable decline.<\/p>\n The centrepiece of Samuel\u2019s 38 recommendations was a set of national environmental standards turning Australia\u2019s laws from a process-focused system to one focused on outcomes.<\/p>\n Standards that deliver outcomes for the environment and reverse wildlife decline are one of the big demands of the environment movement in this term.<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019d want to see national environmental standards stipulating places that development should be off limits, such as critical habitat or essential breeding populations,\u201d said James Trezise, the director of the scientist-led Biodiversity Council.<\/p>\n Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton\u2019s Clear Air column as a free newsletter<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n A suite of national environmental standards<\/a> was supposed to form the third stage of Labor\u2019s Nature Positive Plan, which never saw the light of day as the government prioritised its ultimately doomed environment protection agency (EPA).<\/p>\n The decision of Watt\u2019s predecessor, Tanya Plibersek, to split the reform into stages<\/a> \u2013 starting with the federal EPA \u2013 was widely criticised as delaying the urgent task of fixing the EPBC Act.<\/p>\n Senior Labor sources confirmed Watt was leaning toward a different route, pursuing an EPA and amendments to the EPBC Act in one package to avoid dragging out the process.<\/p>\n Environmental organisations also want an end to the \u201cclimate blindness\u201d of Australia\u2019s environmental laws, an end to loopholes such as the effective exemption granted to logging under regional forest agreements, and a clearer focus on what\u2019s needed for the recovery of threatened species.<\/p>\n Brendan Sydes, the Australian Conservation<\/a> Foundation\u2019s national biodiversity policy adviser, said any reform package needed to address the \u201chighly discretionary\u201d nature of the existing laws.<\/p>\n \u201cBecause otherwise we just continue to have a situation where people can continue to bring forward proposals that destroy threatened species habitat,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n A watchdog with teeth<\/p>\n The biggest point of tension between industry and environmental groups might be something the Samuel review never even recommended.<\/p>\n Whereas Samuel advocated for a commissioner to monitor and audit<\/a> the processes governments used to make environmental decisions, Labor proposed an entirely new agency<\/a> that would both enforce nature laws and assess projects.<\/p>\n Anthony Albanese offered to strip the agency of decision-making powers in a failed attempt to win the Coalition\u2019s support in the previous term.<\/p>\n The design of the EPA 2.0 is up in the air \u2013 and will be fiercely contested.<\/p>\n Environment groups including the Australian Conservation Foundation maintain the watchdog must have compliance and decision-making powers and be governed by an independent board.<\/p>\n \u201cWe need an independent regulator with responsibility for decision-making on assessments and approvals, rather than just a compliance and enforcement EPA,\u201d Sydes said.<\/p>\n Industry groups that represent major mining companies are staunchly opposed to such a model, instead favouring Samuel\u2019s approach.<\/p>\n skip past newsletter promotion<\/a><\/p>\n Sign up to Clear Air Australia<\/p>\n Adam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisis<\/p>\n Privacy Notice: <\/strong>Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy<\/a>. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy<\/a> and Terms of Service<\/a> apply.<\/p>\n after newsletter promotion<\/p>\n The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia \u2013 whose members include BHP and Rio Tinto \u2013 argues a new federal decision-maker would add another layer of \u201cbureaucratic duplication\u201d to an already lengthy and complex environmental approval process.<\/p>\n Bran Black, the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, said the existing laws were not working for the environment or industry.<\/p>\n \u201cAustralia urgently needs faster approvals for projects, so we can deliver more renewable energy projects, build more homes and access more critical minerals,\u201d Black said.<\/p>\n A balancing act<\/p>\n Even if he can broker agreement between environment and industry, Watt would still need to negotiate the laws through federal parliament.<\/p>\n Labor will have two clear, distinct pathways to get legislation passed in the new Senate: deal with the Coalition or deal with the Greens.<\/p>\n Both sides are under new leadership, with the ascension of Ley \u2013 who commissioned the Samuel review \u2013 offering Labor hope that the Coalition will adopt a more conciliatory approach.<\/p>\n The opposition will face pressure to work with Labor from industry groups including the Minerals Council of Australia, which is desperate to sideline the Greens.<\/p>\n The new shadow environment minister, Angie Bell, said the Coalition would \u201ccarefully consider\u201d any proposed reforms.<\/p>\n \u201cWe all want to see our outdated environmental laws fixed, but the approach of the Labor government in the previous parliament didn\u2019t get the balance right, and did not have industry or environmental groups on board,\u201d Bell said.<\/p>\n \u201cOur environmental laws must find a balance that protects the environment while not wrapping industries in unnecessary green tape.\u201d<\/p>\n The Greens environment spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, said the overhaul would only be \u201ccredible\u201d if it included an end to native logging and a \u201cclimate trigger\u201d \u2013 the term used to describe a mechanism to account for a project\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions in environmental assessments.<\/p>\n The Greens dropped the climate tigger<\/a> as a demand during negotiations with Plibersek, which almost ended in a deal before an intervention<\/a> from Albanese killed it off.<\/p>\n Watt\u2019s provisional approval of a 40-year extension of Woodside\u2019s North West Shelf<\/a> gas plant has renewed the case for some form of trigger mechanism.<\/p>\n