Australian Greens – Dissenting Report


Australian Greens – Dissenting Report

1.1        The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Retaining Federal Approval Powers) Bill 2012 will remove the Commonwealth’s ability to hand its responsibilities for approving developments that significantly impact matters protected under our national environmental laws to a State or Territory.

1.2        As has been demonstrated in evidence throughout this inquiry, the changes proposed by this bill have the support of environmental experts, lawyers and the broader Australian community. In fact, well over 90% of the 175 submissions to this inquiry supported this bill.

1.3        The Australian Conservation Foundation submitted:

The current sections of the EPBC Act which allow the Commonwealth to delegate its powers in relation to Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) to the states are contrary to the Commonwealth’s responsibilities to protect the environment, and should be removed.[1]

1.4        Humane Society International believes it will never be appropriate for the Federal government to hand over their federal approval powers to the States. Accordingly, the power to do so should be removed from the EPBC Act.[2] 

1.5        The New South Wales Conservation Council submitted:

If the Federal Government hands over its approval powers under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to the states, as it is currently legally able to do, important environmental protections, established over 30 years, will be in jeopardy. We are unequivocally opposed to the delegation of approval powers to the states and territories under the EPBC Act and therefore support the Bill.[3]

1.6        The Australian Law Council submitted:

The Law Council urges the application of the non-regression principle in any assessment of environmental law reform. Consistent with that principle, and in the absence of any assurance that state legislation offers equivalent protections, we support the retention of approval responsibilities under the EPBC Act by the Federal government.[4]

1.7        The Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices submitted that it believes that Commonwealth involvement in environmental regulation in Australia is vital, and ANEDO does not support the delegation of Commonwealth approval responsibilities under the EPBC Act to States and Territories.[5]

1.8        Professor John Quiggin, of the University of Queensland’s School of Economics submitted:

It is in Australia’s national interest that environmental standards for the approval of major projects should be nationally consistent and predictable over time. Attempts by competing state governments to attract investment by offering favorable [sic] treatment under such slogans as ‘fast-tracking’ and ‘cutting green tape’, will undermine this goal. Maintenance of federal approval powers under the EPBC Act will promote this goal.[6]

1.9        Sustainable Business Australia submitted:

The role of our national environmental regulatory system is to ensure that it properly assesses the environmental impact of proposed capital investment on our national natural asset, the environment. This Bill will ensure that important economic development meets the required standards, and achieves a more effective and efficient system of environmental, and reinforce the significant role the Commonwealth Government has to play in securing this asset for all Australians, both for now and for generations to come.[7]

1.10      The inquiry provided an invaluable opportunity for committee members, and the community at large, to carefully scrutinise whether there should be provisions under our national environment laws for the handover of national responsibilities to states and territories.

Of great note are the findings of the committee:

  • Most submitters expressed grave concern about the risks to the environment associated with granting approval powers to the states and territories. [para 2.1]
  • The committee was presented with no compelling evidence to show how an approval agreement would improve business efficiency [para 2.12]
  • The committee is concerned that if the Commonwealth were to lose its oversight and approval power in relation to matters for national environmental significance, this may encourage competitive federalism [ para 2.28]

1.11      And most importantly:

  • The committee’s view is that it is not appropriate for the states and territories to exercise decision making powers for approvals in relation to matters of national environmental significance. [para 2.47, underline added]

1.12      Yet, the majority recommendations fall short – failing to act on the committee’s own unequivocal findings, and support this bill that would prevent state and territories from being able to be the sole regulators of our nation’s most environmentally destructive projects.

1.13      Sadly politics appears to have trumped sound evidence based policy.

1.14      Instead the committee recommends a very welcome but oddly unrelated reform - that the government create an independent National Environment Commission. This reflects the position in the Greens’ Too Precious To Lose: Principles to Protect Australia's Environment released in June 2012, and we urge the Government to act promptly on this recommendation.

1.15      While the independent review of the EPBC Act reported in October 2009, the Government took over 18 months to release its policy position in August 2011, and we are still yet to see any amending legislation come before the parliament. On this trajectory it is unlikely that any national environment commission would be established in a timely manner.

1.16      Sadly, the recommendation for a national environment commission appears to be a gesture to distract the community from the fact that the committee is not prepared to stand with them and act on all the evidence before them; that the committee has failed to recommend that Australia’s environment be permanently protected from the risk of state governments being handed responsibility for our most precious places and species.

1.17      In the face of statements by the Opposition that they will use these provisions to hand off federal powers, and in the face of overwhelming evidence before the committee that the hand-off provisions should be repealed as this bill would do, the Government has a window to remove these provisions. Failure to do so would make the Government complicit when any future government sought to use these provisions. Failure to do so would also undermine the legacy of Commonwealth oversight of our nationally important species and places – which Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke was instrumental in establishing.

1.18      If the Government has genuinely backed away from its support to hand off federal environment powers to states, it should support this bill. Anything less is an admission that they are not prepared to put the needs of our national environment ahead of vested interest lobby groups.

1.19      This bill provides the opportunity for the government to future proof the EPBC Act, and ensure ongoing national protection for our nationally important species and places.

1.20      The Australian Greens commend this bill to the Senate.

 

Senator Larissa Waters

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page