Business wants states to handle approvals under EPBC reform bill

The push from a top business group comes as Labor MP and former minister Ed Husic takes aim at part of the Albanese government’s proposed green-tape reforms.

BCA chief executive Bran Black. His council wants proposed rules for protecting nature to stay in­active until the federal government strikes deals with the states on streamlining approvals. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Business is calling for environmental approvals to be solely in the hands of state ministers, as a senior Labor MP takes aim at aspects of the Albanese government’s proposed reforms to green tape laws.

With the backing of business crucial to the Coalition coming to the table and negotiating on the Environmental Protection Reform Bill, the Business Council of Australia is demanding proposed rules protecting nature stay in­active until the federal government strikes deals with the states on streamlining approvals.

The bill is designed to be passed before the federal government strikes separate deals with each state and territory over streamlining approvals, while nationally consistent environmental standards will be developed only after the legislation passes parliament.

With there being several potential models for streamlining approvals, the BCA is calling for Environment Minister Murray Watt to provide both assessment and approval rights to the states, which would be bound by new ­national standards.

BCA chief executive Bran Black said the new environmental regulations under the proposed reforms should not become active until “at least one state government must be accredited to assess and approve projects under a revised EPBC Act”.

He told The Australian: “These changes are needed to lock in faster approvals for housing, critical minerals and infrastructure projects that Australia urgently needs. The changes we are calling for should be a no-brainer for anyone focused on streamlined approvals and fixing the EPBC Act.”

The Coalition is expected to provide clarity over its position on the bill on Wednesday, ahead of it being introduced into the House of Representatives on Thursday.

The Australian understands the government will move to establish a quickfire Senate inquiry that will provide a report before the final parliamentary sitting week begins on November 24.

The Coalition will raise similar concerns to those held by ­business, including the ability of a new green cop to shut down a worksite with a verbal order and for an unspecified time.

The Coalition and business are worried about a vague definition of an “unacceptable impact” to the environment, a provision allowing a minister to quickly cancel a proposed development.

There is also opposition to the design of new emissions reporting requirements, with business ­wanting specific wording in the bill banning ministers from ­considering the carbon footprint of a project during the approvals process.

Business sources say the bill as it is drafted leaves it open to interpretation over whether a project could be ­rejected if it has high emissions, arguing this would be “worse” than a climate trigger.

In a caucus meeting in Canberra on Monday, Labor MP Ed Husic condemned a provision in the bill allowing a minister to ignore green-tape laws in “rare circumstances” to push through projects deemed in the national interest.

Mr Husic said Labor never would have accepted such an amendment if it was proposed by the former Morrison government.

He also warned it could be used for inappropriate reasons by a ­future Coalition government.

Former industry minister Ed Husic is opposing a measure to allow an environment minister to make exceptions to standards under the new bill. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

While sections of the bill distributed to Labor MPs said the ministerial power could be ­triggered if it was deemed to be in the national interest, Senator Watt told MPs that it would be used only for defence or ­national security projects.

However, some Labor MPs believe this was a broad criteria and could pave the way for critical minerals mines being approved at the behest of a minister even if it was negative for biodiversity.

While the bill was ultimately backed by Labor’s caucus, Senator Watt also faced questions over how MPs should respond when coming under pressure over the absence of a climate trigger.

Business sources claim the bill requires many proponents to prove their projects will be a “net gain” to the environment, forcing them to provide environmental offsets.