From ‘net zero’ to ‘net gain’. The platypus-to-possum exchange rate

In the wake of the Libs’ ‘Net Zero’ battle, ‘Net Gain’ will be the focus this week as Murray Watt pushes for changes to environmental laws. Rex Patrick reports.

One of the changes in Minister Watt’s Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation reform is the introduction of a requirement for a proposed project to pass the ‘net gain’ test.

What does ‘net gain’ mean?

‘Net benefit’ simply means that a proposed project must have a positive impact on the environment overall. If a development is to have a negative impact on a ‘matter of national environmental importance’ (e.g. world or national heritage site, Ramsar wetland, threatened species, listed migratory species, protected marine area etc.) then there will need to be complementary and compensatory activities (offsets) that exceed the expected negative impact.

Platypuses and Opossums

So how does it all work? This has not yet been defined. But there are already big concerns.

Australia Institute chief executive Richard Denniss testified at the recent Senate hearing on the bill. It turns out that ‘net gain’ allows/requires the use of dissimilar offsets:

“If someone else protects the opossum habitat, I can destroy the platypus habitat. And a bureaucrat will literally have to improve the platypus-possum exchange rate. I’m not kidding; a bureaucrat will have to do it.”

Develop exchange rates for different forms of environmental destruction.

He described how the government could get paid by developers to destroy a particular piece of natural heritage, receive a cash payment, and government officials would then have to try to buy another piece of land to offset the destruction.

“…if there’s no possum land on the market, maybe we’ll have to go with a fast parrot. And if there’s no platypus land on the market, we’ll have to go with something else.”

Denniss stated to the Senate: “CHear evidence from NSW that this is a tried and true failure. The NSW Parliament is currently implementing this plan. The Ken Henry Review said it failed. The NSW Auditor General said this had failed. It failed at the state level but forms the basis of the equalization provisions in this document. [Bill].”

Others were slightly more optimistic in their presentations to the Senate inquiry but agreed that the devil is in the details. This much needed detail is not currently available.

History of environmental protection legislation

Environmental protection has gradually developed for more than a century. By 1866, the Jenolan Caves were made a protected area. Sydney Royal National Park was established in 1879 (but only received the title ‘Royal’ in 1955).

Until the 1970s, states were mainly responsible for protecting the environment. It was Prime Minister Billy McMahon’s Coalition Government that first established the Federal Department for the Environment in 1971. Gough Whitlam’s Labor Government further expanded the Federal Government’s role with the passage of the first national environmental impact assessment laws (the Environmental Protection (Effect of Proposals) Act 1974) through Parliament.

Other Federal Acts were to follow, including the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1975 (now repealed) and the World Heritage Properties Protection Act of 1983 (also repealed); these were both involved in the 1983 Supreme Court case Commonwealth v Tasmania; where the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal to conduct work on a Gordon construction below the Franklin Dam without written permission from a federal minister.

Available Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act It came into force in 1999 and 2000.

All these Laws aim to protect the natural environment in various ways and to prevent the implementation of proposals that will harm the environment. The laws themselves prevented projects from being approved and allowed courts to intervene where laws were violated or misapplied.

But when the tide turns, we are now seeing approvals of projects designed to respond to climate change being slowed and rolled back. If climate change is to be combated, something needs to change and

‘Net gain’ seems like a pragmatic approach, at least on paper

– is not a new field in terms of environmental and development law. Everyone agrees that something needs to change.

I’m rushing

Complicated. And so, rightly, when the Senate was asked to consider the legislation, it resisted the Government’s calls for a speedy inquiry and set the report date for 24 March 2026.

Senate Standing Orders prevent further discussion of the bill until after the investigative reports in March. Of course, this date could be overridden by another vote of the Senate. This is one of the things Watt will insist the Coalition or the Greens will support if the bill is agreed upon.

Watt wants this bill to pass this week. He is signaling to the public that he will either make an agreement with the Greens in opposition to make this happen.

This is ‘huff and puff’ to put pressure on the Coalition and the Greens.

MWM Watt had already reported on this ‘huff and puff’ as we predicted he would not be able to get the bill approved in the previous session week.

It would be watts. A Labor deal on the environment with the Coalition or the Greens?

The Coalition will struggle to get party room approval (for anything) this week and the reality is that the Greens will be betraying their supporters if they allow the bill to be rushed through.

There are many things that need to be solved by reform bills. National Environmental Standards have not yet been completed, policies have not been properly developed and regulations do not exist.

The government actually presented only part of the reform package and said “trust us” regarding the rest.

The Greens may drive a hard bargain but realize they have been duped at a later date when weak National Environmental Standards are announced by Watt. Of course, if these standards are too weak or problematic, they may be disallowed by the Senate, but if Labor joins forces with the Coalition in the Parliament the Greens and the Cross Bench will not have enough numbers to do so. I can see the smile on Watt’s face as the Greens’ intolerance fails.

Net gain in vain

Perhaps the ‘net gain’ debate will come to nothing.

Watt can do whatever he wants about this, because the Bill also has a “national interest” provision which allows the Minister, on the Minister’s own initiative or on the application of the project owner, to approve an action that is not consistent with national environmental standards and does not meet the net gains test, even if it has unacceptable effects.

It will come back to “trust me” regarding approval of coal and gas projects. And trust is something we know we cannot do with the Albanian Government.

Environment Minister Murray Watt confirms 4.3 billion tonnes of carbon emissions