Labor to rule out controversial ‘national interest’ exemption for coal and gas if Greens back nature laws | Environment

Guardian Australia can reveal Labor will prevent the use of a controversial “national interest” exemption to approve coal and gas projects if the Greens agree to support nature laws.

The proposal comes after growing criticism of the discretion, including from Graeme Samuel, the author of the review that inspired the new laws, and former treasury secretary Ken Henry.

Concession alone may not be enough to win the support of the Greens, who are demanding that native forests be protected and the climate impacts of projects taken into account in return for backing the proposed revision of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

As the government remains desperate to pass legislation in the final parliamentary session of the year, environment minister Murray Watt is locked in talks with the Greens and the Coalition in the hope of striking a deal next week.

Neither party supports the bill in its current form, putting the onus on Labor to make concessions if it is to prevent the long-awaited reform from collapsing for the second time in 12 months.

Opposition leader Sussan Ley is ready to support the legislation if Labor agrees to scrap environmental safeguards and roll back the powers of her proposed environmental protection agency (EPA).

_{Sign up: AÜ Breaking News email}

A senior government source has confirmed to Guardian Australia it will rewrite the proposed “national interest” test as part of a possible deal with the Greens to prevent it being used to approve fossil fuel projects.

Critical mineral projects can still be approved.

Under the provision, which Samuel first supported as a “rare exception” in his 2020 review of the EPBC Act, the minister will be able to ignore environmental standards and green-light a project if it is deemed to be in the “national interest”.

Although Watt emphasized that the provision was aimed at projects related to defence, national security and emergencies, the level of discretion built into the legislation left him unable to rule out the possibility of exemptions for coal and natural gas.

Labor MP Ed Husic has previously warned that a future Coalition minister could abuse power; Henry and Samuel, however, predicted that a “conga line” of developers would lobby for specific changes.

Labor’s grassroots environmental action group also was called the power to be abolished or at least subjected to parliamentary control.

As of Friday afternoon, the Greens’ environment spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young and shadow environment minister Angie Bell were still awaiting Labour’s options on a potential deal.

The changes will need to be put forward in the coming days to give both sides time to reach an agreement in their respective party rooms early next week.

EPBC invoices listed for discussion in the Senate on Wednesday. Parliament meets on Thursday this year.

On Friday, Hanson-Young reiterated that the Greens would not support the legislation without extra protection for forests and the climate.

Labor repeatedly described the Greens as “obstructionists” in the previous term of parliament, but Hanson-Young said the party did not feel pressure to bow to the government’s demands.

“What I’m thinking about is not letting this government off the hook for pushing for legislation that will accelerate coal and gas,” he said.

Ahead of Friday’s hearings, an alliance of leading environmental groups including the Australian Conservation Foundation, Wilderness Society and law firm Environmental Justice Australia said:[does] “We cannot protect nature.”

Among the proposed changes, the alliance called for removing the minister’s new discretionary powers, closing loopholes for native forest logging, better engagement with First Nations communities, scrapping or limiting a proposed “restoration contributions” fund, considering climate impacts and reversing the decision to delegate decisions to the provinces under the so-called “water trigger.”

The alliance also wants the federal EPA to be the main decision-maker on projects and for the minister to be allowed to intervene only in “exceptional cases”.

Under the government model, which critics say is not truly independent, the minister would either make decisions or delegate that responsibility to an EPA official.

“We call on the Labor government to significantly improve the bills and negotiate in good faith with members of the Senate who care about nature and a vibrant, healthy Australia,” the groups said.

At inquiry hearings on Thursday, renowned environmentalist and former Greens leader Bob Brown said the laws were “an insult to Australia’s environmental awareness”.

Not requiring decision-makers to consider a project’s greenhouse gas emissions (colloquially known as a “climate trigger”) is akin to stripping a treasurer of his taxing authority, he said.

“And I say this needs to be taken seriously because that’s the way it is,” he said.