Anthony Albanese pulls rank on Tanya Plibersek over new environment agency

Anthony Albanese has ruled out adding a climate trigger to his proposed environmental watchdog, overriding Tanya Plibersek, who said such a measure was being discussed with the Greens.

Anthony Albanese in Canberra on Monday. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Anthony Albanese has ruled out adding a climate trigger or considerations to his proposed environmental watchdog, overriding Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek after she confirmed such a measure was being discussed in negotiations with the Greens.

The Prime Minister’s declaration that climate considerations were off the table prompted Greens accusations he was being a “bulldozer” and arrogant, with Mr Albanese also refusing to bow to the minor party’s demands to claw back tax concessions for wealthy property investors in exchange for its support on Labor’s signature housing bills.

Ms Plibersek and Mr Albanese have both said the safeguard mechanism – which requires Australia’s highest greenhouse gas emitters to reduce emissions – was how the government considered climate but the minister went further last week, saying: “I’m not going to pretend to you that there’s no discussion of climate considerations as part of this negotiation.”

Incorporating climate considerations or a trigger in environmental assessments is a key ask of the Greens as they attempt to negotiate on the government’s federal environment protection agency, but Mr Albanese rejected it on Monday.

“I don’t support adding a trigger to that legislation. Climate issues are dealt with through the safeguard mechanism,” he said.

“They (Senate) need to get on with it. All of this legislation that is before the Senate, whether it be Build to Rent, whether it be this legislation for shared equity (Help to Buy), whether it be the environmental legislation, whether it be the superannuation legislation on accounts of above $3m.

“The Senate have a week where it’s just them, okay, there’s no distractions here … Can they get anything done this week? That’s the question. If not, I reckon Australians will question what they are doing.”

Opposition environment spokesman Jonno Duniam said Mr Albanese and Ms Plibersek were “clearly not on the same page” on EPA negotiations, and questioned who was in charge.

“Is it the Environment Minister who would do a deal with the Greens to shore up votes in her inner-Sydney seat, or is it the Prime Minister who knows that a climate trigger would cause enormous economic and social damage in Western Australia?” Senator Duniam said.

“Environment and business stakeholders have made clear to the ALP that there is a need to update the main national environmental Act before other changes.”

Labor Environment Action Network national co-convener Felicity Wade urged the government and Senate to “grab the opportunity” to create the EPA, warning that “kicking this off into the long grass” would be bad for the economy and environment.

“The peak groups such as the MCA (Minerals Council) and BCA (Business Council) are being rabid, but plenty of businesses that are trying to get things done on the ground are crying out for the certainty and clarity that will drive faster, better environmental approvals,” Ms Wade said. “These reforms were election promises. What’s more the Labor rank-and-file backed them: 500 Labor local branches called for the creation of the EPA. It’s time to get this done.”

Greens leader Adam Bandt said winding back negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions would be “incredibly popular” with voters and the party was willing to give some ground.

“If the government has different ways they want to tackle that – they want to phase it in or … do it for certain types of property – it might not be the Greens’ position but of course we would go to those discussions in good faith,” he said.

“The Greens are willing to negotiate but Labor is not.”

Ms Plibersek did not mention a climate trigger or considerations on Monday as she noted the government was “talking to people across the parliament”.

“From the beginning, I have said that delivering improvements to national environment laws would require a bit of common sense, co-operation, and compromise,” she said.