Business sees red over reforms of green tape for new projects

Labor’s environmental reforms face an uncertain future as both business groups and the Greens condemn the draft legislation’s approach to emissions reporting.

­Environment Minister Murray Watt. Picture: NewsWire / Monique Harmer

Anthony Albanese’s planned overhaul of environmental ­approvals is a long way from winning over business, which has flagged concerns that Labor’s draft proposal increases the burden of green tape without any firm assurances of deregulation.

The Greens were also critical of the draft, while a group of ­Coalition MPs warned Sussan Ley against supporting the proposal, leaving its path through parliament uncertain despite it being one of the few concrete ­initiatives to come out of Jim Chalmers’ economic reform roundtable.

New requirements to report the carbon footprint of a potential project and outline a plan to ­reduce its emissions – as revealed by The Australian on Wednesday – are among the issues that have raised industry concerns that the overhaul of approvals is being skewed towards striking a deal with the Greens.

There will also be a need for projects to consider the Albanese government’s backing of a target of net-zero emissions by 2050, ­according to Labor sources.

Other issues being raised by business sources are a “vague” plan to immediately block a ­proposal that poses “unacceptable” risk to the environment, as well as a failure to make firm ­commitments on the powers of an Environmental Protection Agency or on how duplication will be cut.

Business and Coalition sources say they have been privately told by Murray Watt that the ­Environment Minister will retain power to make the final decision, but this was not included in draft extracts of a bill distributed to stakeholders.

The bill to overhaul the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act will give the minister power to set new standards for environmental ­approvals, which sources say may not be finalised for up to 12 months.

The Coalition is leaving the door open to backing the bill but several Liberal MPs said any ­reference to the climate targets would make it hard to support, setting the scene for another difficult internal issue for the Opposition Leader.

Greens environment spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young said: “We need environment laws that protect our forests and the climate. These laws do neither, they are not worth the paper they’re printed on.

“While industry will no doubt say they haven’t got enough, their grubby fingerprints are all over it. These laws are written to help big business and the mining companies, at the expense of nature.”

Australian Energy Producers chief executive Samantha McCulloch raised concerns about the new reporting requirements for projects that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon a year to submit plans on how they will lower emissions of a project in line with the government’s climate targets.

“Australia’s oil and gas producers already meet extensive emissions reporting requirements under existing frameworks, ­including the Safeguard Mechanism, and these should not be ­duplicated in the EPBC Act,” Ms McCulloch said.

While some industry figures were worried the new requirement would act as a “back door” climate trigger, this was rejected by Senator Watt.

The minister told The Australian the new reporting requirement would not have any impact on whether a project was approved, as would be the case for a climate trigger.

But he admitted a project would not be assessed unless it ­included plans on how it would ­reduce its carbon footprint in line with the requirements of the safeguard mechanism.

“It’s simply a requirement to disclose their emissions, that’s part of the assessment package,” Senator Watt said.

“They can’t be rejected on the basis that their emission levels are too high, or anything like that but what it would do is more clearly link these projects with the safeguard mechanism.”

He also rejected concerns about the new provision to block projects that caused an “unacceptable” risk to the environment, ­arguing it would allow for quicker decisions.

Senator Watt said the draft proposals released on Wednesday contained about 70 per cent of what would be contained in the final bill to be introduced in ­parliament over the next ­fortnight.

With Labor’s environmental wing pushing for all approval ­decisions to be made by an ­independent environmental protection authority, Senator Watt said the government had not ­“exactly nailed down” what ­powers would be given to the agency.

Senator Watt said he would “take into account” the public ­support from the Coalition and the Greens for ministerial discretion over project approvals, but he was also listening to green groups who wanted the EPA to have the approval power.

There will be increased fines for breaching environmental laws of up to $825m for businesses and $1.6m for an individual.

Opposition environment spokeswoman Angie Bell said the “devil was in the detail”, although she welcomed the absence of a ­climate trigger and retention of ministerial discretion.

Liberal MP Garth Hamilton said he had serious concerns that a ­revamp of environmental rules would restrict housing development.

“No one told Australia that net zero would have an impact on our housing supply. We have to talk about it,” Mr Hamilton said.

“This is why the Liberal Party cannot go in half pregnant on net zero.”