Critical minerals projects may bypass environmental checks under EPBC changes: King
Resources Minister Madeleine King says Labor’s EPBC changes could let projects proceed despite failing environmental checks, raising concerns over ministerial overreach.
Critical mineral projects that fail environmental checks could still be signed off under Labor’s planned overhaul of the EPBC Act, Resources Minister Madeleine King says, throwing into question the scope of sweeping ministerial override power contained within the legislation.
Labor’s proposed changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act tabled in parliament on Thursday include so-called “national interest” power permitting the minister to approve select projects that would otherwise be barred.
The bill states the minister “may consider” Australia’s defence, security or emergency needs when determining the national interest, but does not specify what would qualify for exemption – meaning projects such as solar farms or housing developments could still be signed off despite breaching environmental standards.
Asked on Friday if critical minerals projects would be considered in the national interest, and therefore subjectable to a ministerial override, Ms King confirmed they could.
“There’s no doubt under the reforms it could be,” Ms King told ABC Radio, noting that such decisions would be applied on a project-by-project basis.
“It would be a very particular and rare moment where those powers would be used, but they would be because of national security and national interest matters.”
Ms King’s response contrasts with that of her ministerial colleagues.
When asked whether the provision might apply to critical mineral projects, Environment Minister Murray Watt said he was “not going to speculate” on what projects the proposed override powers could be used.
“I’m not going to give hypotheticals about the kind of situations they could be used,” he told the National Press Club on Thursday.
Australian Conservation Foundation acting chief executive Paul Sinclair said he was “deeply concerned” with the proposed exemption, arguing its application was “wide open” to interpretation and could easily be misused.
“I think it’s evidence of overreach by the Albanese government in the drafting of these bills,” Dr Sinclair said. “Too often the national interest is falsely conflated with the coal and gas industry and their commercial interests.”
“I haven’t heard any compelling case for why these powers are needed – they would put Australia’s climate, forests, rivers and wildlife at greater risk, not provide better protection.”
Concerns with the legislation have been raised by former Treasury secretary Ken Henry, who has called for exemptions to the ministerial override to be codified in the legislation, while former industry minister Ed Husic this week broke ranks with his Labor colleagues, cautioning that the power could be abused by future Coalition governments.
Conservation groups have pointed to then-opposition leader Peter Dutton’s pre-election vow to use similar national-interest powers to fast-track Woodside’s contentious North West Shelf gas project as evidence of that risk.
The ministerial override is a recommendation of a 2020 probe of the nation’s environment laws that was authored by ex-competition tsar Graham Samuel and commissioned by then environment minister Sussan Ley.
Senator Watt has signalled he may be open to clarifying which projects could be exempt from a ministerial override, as he faces a challenging passage through a Senate where both the Coalition and the Greens strongly oppose the bill in its current form.
Business groups, however, back the override power, with Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry boss Andrew McKellar calling for an “appropriately structured” national interest test that preserves ministerial discretion.
“It is important that the final decision on environmental approvals remain the responsibility of the minister,” he said.
More Coverage
To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register
Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout