Seeking a reset on the environment debate, Murray Watt gathers business and conservation groups in search of a deal

Environment laws in desperate need of change will require business groups and environmentalists to compromise, the environment minister warns, ahead of a major meeting he hopes can be used to reset the debate and find common ground on the outdated act.

Representatives for miners, environmentalists, farmers, urban developers and more are due to meet with Environment Minister Murray Watt today to hash out disagreements on long overdue reforms to the laws governing Australia’s environment.

The heart of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act has changed little since it was written in 1999, and two successive terms of government have failed to update it, following a major review under the former Morrison government that concluded it was broken.

The Graeme Samuel review in 2020 found that Australia’s natural environment was in decline, and outdated EPBC laws were allowing piecemeal decisions that cumulatively led to the environment and Indigenous heritage being harmed.

“The environment has suffered from two decades of failing to continuously improve the law and its implementation. Business has also suffered,” Mr Samuel wrote at the time.

Environment and business minds meet to find common ground

This morning, Senator Watt will convene a meeting of the minds that will include business and mining groups, environment and renewable energy stakeholders, agriculture, urban development, and others in the hopes that some agreement can be struck that would see a rewritten EPBC Act passed this term.

“I think everyone knows we didn’t get as far in the last term as we hoped, and I think all participants in this debate are disappointed we weren’t able to make more progress last term,” Senator Watt said.

“I think it’s very easy in these sorts of big debates for people to get in their corners and take their own position and not listen enough to the ‘other’ side. This is a good opportunity to hear from everyone.”

The minister said since taking over the portfolio from Tanya Plibersek last month, he had met one-on-one with many of the stakeholders in the debate, and was optimistic a deal could be reached.

“There’s a lot of goodwill there … people have said to me they are prepared to give and take, and they know there will need to be some compromise,” he said.

“Everyone agrees that our current laws are broken. They are not working for the environment, they are not working for business.”

EPBC Act’s plagued history

Last term, the government proposed reforms to speed up decisions on approvals, rewrite regulations to focus on environmental outcomes that would avoid habitat degradation over time by numerous small projects, and establish an environmental watchdog to enforce the laws.

The 2020 Samuel Review, handed down by then-environment minister Sussan Ley, recommended an overhaul underpinned by what would be called ‘National Environmental Standards’ that could take a big picture approach to protecting habitats, with an independent Environmental Protection Authority ensuring the standards were kept.

But the government was unable to find a pathway through parliament to pass its laws, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese ultimately stepped in to shelve them, after protest from West Australian Premier Roger Cook that it could harm the state’s gas and mining projects.

Taking on the role, Senator Watt confirmed he would rewrite the laws and try again.

Senator Watt said after the government’s romping election win, it had a mandate to pass its reforms, and there was a “unique” opportunity to do something bigger that could “solve a whole bunch of problems in one go”.

That included discussion of whether to stitch back together reforms to environmental approvals with the creation of a new federal environment watchdog, after those proposals were split into two bills by Ms Plibersek in an attempt to see some of it passed last term.

Adding climate considerations not ‘a good idea’

Senator Watt’s decision last month to approve the operating life of Woodside’s North West Shelf project, the largest gas installation in the country, out to 2070, prompted an explosion of criticism from environmental groups, and reignited debate over whether energy projects seeking environmental approval should have to answer climate concerns in those applications.

Ms Plibersek’s original ‘Nature Positive Plan’ was intended to include “mandatory consideration” of climate change in environmental planning, but that was walked back as resistance to the EPBC reforms mounted.

The minister said he was open to hearing suggestions that climate change considerations be written into the laws, but in an early warning likely to put the Greens offside, said he did not consider that to be a good idea.

“I’m not ruling things in or out at this early stage, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to duplicate laws to achieve the same purpose. We have strong laws in place which the Greens party voted for to require heavy industry to reduce its emissions year-on-year,” Senator Watt said.

“I would make the point that the North West Shelf project, like all heavy-emitting projects, is already subject to the government’s ‘Safeguard Mechanism’, which requires it to reduce its emissions by about 5 per cent every year and to get to net zero by 2050

“We do already have strong rules in place … they may be sitting in a different law to the EPBC laws, but we do have those laws, and companies are now following them.”

The safeguard mechanism requires the nation’s biggest polluters in the mining, oil and gas, transport, manufacturing, and waste sectors to reduce their emissions each year.

However, those rules only apply to the direct emissions of those facilities, such as the recently extended North West Shelf’s emissions from drilling for and processing gas, not the much larger “scope three” indirect emissions from households and industry consuming the fuel they sell.

And that mechanism does not apply to projects unless their direct emissions are likely to be above 100,000 tonnes a year (as a comparison, North West Shelf’s direct emissions are roughly six million tonnes a year).

Environmentalists have argued for a “climate trigger” in the EPBC laws that could be used to block projects based on their climate impact.

Mr Albanese, when he was shadow environment minister in 2005, was among those who proposed including a climate trigger in the laws, though as prime minister, he has argued that the safeguard mechanism covers climate concerns.

Labor backbencher Jerome Laxale told the ABC last week he would personally agitate for climate considerations to be included in the new EPBC Act.

The government will need either the support of the Coalition or the Greens for reforms to be passed through parliament.

“The EPBC reform train is leaving the station and I want to have as many people on that train as possible, rather than standing behind at the platform shouting and criticising,” Senator Watt said.

Senator Watt said he was determined to make sure this term would be the one where the laws were finally brought up to date.