Minister to retain final say on controversial projects under Labor’s long-awaited nature laws | Australian politics

The environment minister will still be responsible for approving projects under new federal nature laws after Labor rejected calls for a fully independent watchdog with full decision-making powers.

Retaining the decision-making powers of ministries meets a key demand from the Coalition and industry, and the Greens do not oppose it.

But it has been criticized by environmentalists who argue the model could allow developers to put pressure on the minister.

Environment minister Murray Watt announced the environment protection agency’s powers on Sunday under a bill to rewrite the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act that will be tabled in parliament this week.

_{Sign up: AÜ Breaking News email}

Watt’s hopes of passing the legislation before Christmas were dealt a blow last week when the Coalition and the Greens criticized separate aspects of the bill, preventing Labor from pursuing a clear path in the Senate and setting off a political fight in the final three sitting weeks of the year.

While the coalition argues the laws are anti-business, the Greens claim the opposite, accusing Watt of drafting laws that “have the fingerprints of big corporations and mining companies all over them”.

Speaking to Sky News on Sunday morning, Watt said the government was open to considering changes but was adamant the regeneration would not collapse for the second time in 12 months.

“People should have no illusions… we will pass these laws through parliament,” Watt said. “The only question is how fast we do it and with whom.”

One of the most controversial parts of the reforms has been the scope of the promised federal environmental watchdog; Industry and environmentalists have disagreed over whether an independent body, rather than the minister, should be responsible for approving projects.

Previously, the environment minister made decisions on projects either directly or through an official acting under delegated powers.

In practice, the minister personally considers only a small number of significant applications, such as Woodside’s North-West shelf expansion and the Robbins Island wind farm. Ministry officials sign more than 90% of the decisions.

The new regime will be largely the same, but rather than delegating decisions to a departmental bureaucrat, that responsibility will fall to officials in the new EPA.

The minister’s decisions will be based on advice from the EPA rather than ministerial officials.

The new agency, which will be formally known as the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA), will also have other functions independent of the minister, including overseeing natural laws and compliance with project conditions.

“An independent NEPA will have strong compliance and enforcement oversight to better protect our precious environment and ensure that those who seek to illegally destroy it pay a high price,” Watt said.

Paul Sinclair, acting chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation, was disappointed that the proposed EPA was not fully independent.

The top green group favored a model in which the minister sets conservation rules and the EPA then evaluates projects against them.

“Decision making at a distance from everyone is better for both nature and business,” he said.

Greens environment spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young said the EPA would become “just another arm of government bureaucracy” if it didn’t have strong laws to enforce.

With a “climate trigger” that could officially block or restrict fossil fuel projects, Hanson-Young signaled the Greens were ready to negotiate with Labor on other mechanisms to address climate impacts.

Under the new laws, proponents of heavily polluting projects will be required to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and how they plan to reduce them as part of the application process.

But the law will not force decision-makers to consider these potential climate impacts; This means projects such as Woodside’s North-West Shelf expansion could still be approved under the new regime.

“They have taken the climate issue off the table because they are doing the bidding of fossil fuel companies,” Hanson-Young said.

“If we negotiate now, the government will need to set out what it is prepared to do to protect the climate and our forests.”