‘Highly unusual’ exemption in Labor’s environment laws open to interference, integrity experts say | Australian politics

Political integrity experts have raised concerns about Labor’s proposed new natural laws, including a controversial new “national interest” exemption, as pressure mounts on the Albanian government to rethink key parts of the reform.

As legislative debate to overhaul the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act continues in the lower house on Tuesday, the Center for Public Integrity has identified several “integrity risks” that threaten to undermine attempts to fix the broken system.

The think tank joined a chorus of critics including environmental groups, former Treasury secretary Ken Henry and Labor MP Ed Husic in raising the alarm about a new exemption that would allow the minister to approve a project that breaches new natural laws if it is in the “national interest”.

Although environment minister Murray Watt insisted the electricity was intended for projects linked to defence, security or national emergencies, he could not rule out the possibility that it could be used for other applications, including fossil fuel developments, due to the voluntary nature of the exemption.

“Despite claims of limited implementation, the center has serious concerns about the scope, transparency and accountability of the exercise of discretion,” the think tank wrote in an analysis of the bill published Tuesday.

The think tank was also concerned about the apparent lack of independence of the government’s proposed independent environmental protection agency.

_{Sign up: AÜ Breaking News email}

Under Labour’s model, the regulator would carry out some functions at arm’s length from the government, including policing the laws of nature, but the power to approve projects would remain with the minister.

Protecting ministries’ decision-making power was a key demand of the Coalition and industry groups, but was criticized by environmentalists.

The centre’s report said it was “highly unusual” for an independent regulator to delegate such “significant powers” to a minister.

“Public trust and confidence in environmental decision-making will be better served if responsibility rests with a body that is independent, free from political influence and less susceptible to vested interests,” the report said.

The centre’s head of research, Gabrielle Appleby, said the government’s bill was flawed.

“Environmental decision-making is particularly prone to being hijacked by vested interests, so integrity measures need to be strong,” he said.

“Yet these bills leave serious gaps: the new regulator lacks independence and appropriate powers, and the minister has broad powers to circumvent environmental protections. The government has solutions ahead of it; it just needs the will to close these gaps and build a system Australians can trust.”

The think tank criticized the government for developing the legislation largely “behind closed doors” in consultation with selected stakeholders.

It also raised concerns about the process of establishing new national environmental standards, a key recommendation of the Samuel review that inspired the reforms.

While the bill gives the minister the power to introduce new green rules, amend or repeal them, the standards themselves are not included in the legislation.

The think tank said the standards should be detailed in legislation and subject to parliamentary approval. The Minister plans to consult on the design of standards prior to their introduction, starting with those that apply to matters of national environmental significance and offsetting.

Labour’s grassroots environmental action group is currently lobbying the government to make two changes to the bill, which it wants passed after years of internal campaigning to fix the EPBC Act.

First, it would eliminate or limit the “national interest” distinction by giving parliament the power to disallow a decision by a majority vote in both houses.

The second would eliminate the “continuous use” exemption, which has allowed the clearing of farmland, which has historically been legal in Queensland in particular, to continue without the need for federal approval or oversight.

This exemption is also used by state governments to justify shark nets that pose a threat to endangered whales.

Janaline Oh, national secretary of the Working Environment Action Network, said there was a strong case for a national interest exemption which could be used in national emergencies, but there was a significant risk of a minister abusing this power and this power should be limited.

“If a project is of such overriding national interest that it is even allowed to have unacceptable impacts, the government must go through an additional parliamentary review process,” he said.