Australian Greens – Dissenting Report
1.1
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment
(Retaining Federal Approval Powers) Bill 2012 will remove the
Commonwealth’s ability to hand its responsibilities for approving developments
that significantly impact matters protected under our national environmental
laws to a State or Territory.
1.2
As has been demonstrated in evidence throughout this inquiry, the
changes proposed by this bill have the support of environmental experts,
lawyers and the broader Australian community. In fact, well over 90% of the 175
submissions to this inquiry supported this bill.
1.3
The Australian Conservation Foundation submitted:
The current sections of the EPBC Act which allow the
Commonwealth to delegate its powers in relation to Matters of National
Environmental Significance (MNES) to the states are contrary to the
Commonwealth’s responsibilities to protect the environment, and should be
removed.[1]
1.4
Humane Society International believes it will never be appropriate for
the Federal government to hand over their federal approval powers to the
States. Accordingly, the power to do so should be removed from the EPBC Act.[2]
1.5
The New South Wales Conservation Council submitted:
If the Federal Government hands over its approval powers
under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC
Act) to the states, as it is currently legally able to do, important environmental
protections, established over 30 years, will be in jeopardy. We are
unequivocally opposed to the delegation of approval powers to the states and
territories under the EPBC Act and therefore support the Bill.[3]
1.6
The Australian Law Council submitted:
The Law Council urges the application of the non-regression
principle in any assessment of environmental law reform. Consistent with that
principle, and in the absence of any assurance that state legislation offers
equivalent protections, we support the retention of approval responsibilities
under the EPBC Act by the Federal government.[4]
1.7
The Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices submitted that
it believes that Commonwealth involvement in environmental regulation in
Australia is vital, and ANEDO does not support the delegation of Commonwealth
approval responsibilities under the EPBC Act to States and Territories.[5]
1.8
Professor John Quiggin, of the University of Queensland’s School of
Economics submitted:
It is in Australia’s national interest that environmental
standards for the approval of major projects should be nationally consistent
and predictable over time. Attempts by competing state governments to attract
investment by offering favorable [sic] treatment under such slogans as ‘fast-tracking’
and ‘cutting green tape’, will undermine this goal. Maintenance of federal
approval powers under the EPBC Act will promote this goal.[6]
1.9
Sustainable Business Australia submitted:
The role of our national environmental regulatory system is
to ensure that it properly assesses the environmental impact of proposed
capital investment on our national natural asset, the environment. This Bill
will ensure that important economic development meets the required standards,
and achieves a more effective and efficient system of environmental, and
reinforce the significant role the Commonwealth Government has to play in
securing this asset for all Australians, both for now and for generations to
come.[7]
1.10
The inquiry provided an invaluable opportunity for committee members,
and the community at large, to carefully scrutinise whether there should be
provisions under our national environment laws for the handover of national
responsibilities to states and territories.
Of great note are the findings of the committee:
- Most submitters expressed grave concern about the risks to the
environment associated with granting approval powers to the states and
territories. [para 2.1]
- The committee was presented with no compelling evidence to show
how an approval agreement would improve business efficiency [para 2.12]
- The committee is concerned that if the Commonwealth were to lose
its oversight and approval power in relation to matters for national
environmental significance, this may encourage competitive federalism [ para
2.28]
1.11
And most importantly:
- The committee’s view is that it is not appropriate for the
states and territories to exercise decision making powers for approvals in
relation to matters of national environmental significance. [para 2.47,
underline added]
1.12
Yet, the majority recommendations fall short – failing to act on the
committee’s own unequivocal findings, and support this bill that would prevent
state and territories from being able to be the sole regulators of our nation’s
most environmentally destructive projects.
1.13
Sadly politics appears to have trumped sound evidence based policy.
1.14
Instead the committee recommends a very welcome but oddly unrelated
reform - that the government create an independent National Environment
Commission. This reflects the position in the Greens’ Too Precious To Lose:
Principles to Protect Australia's Environment released in June 2012, and we
urge the Government to act promptly on this recommendation.
1.15
While the independent review of the EPBC Act reported in October 2009,
the Government took over 18 months to release its policy position in August
2011, and we are still yet to see any amending legislation come before the
parliament. On this trajectory it is unlikely that any national environment
commission would be established in a timely manner.
1.16
Sadly, the recommendation for a national environment commission appears
to be a gesture to distract the community from the fact that the committee is
not prepared to stand with them and act on all the evidence before them; that
the committee has failed to recommend that Australia’s environment be
permanently protected from the risk of state governments being handed
responsibility for our most precious places and species.
1.17
In the face of statements by the Opposition that they will use these
provisions to hand off federal powers, and in the face of overwhelming evidence
before the committee that the hand-off provisions should be repealed as this
bill would do, the Government has a window to remove these provisions. Failure
to do so would make the Government complicit when any future government sought
to use these provisions. Failure to do so would also undermine the legacy of
Commonwealth oversight of our nationally important species and places – which
Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke was instrumental in establishing.
1.18
If the Government has genuinely backed away from its support to hand off
federal environment powers to states, it should support this bill. Anything
less is an admission that they are not prepared to put the needs of our
national environment ahead of vested interest lobby groups.
1.19
This bill provides the opportunity for the government to future proof
the EPBC Act, and ensure ongoing national protection for our nationally
important species and places.
1.20
The Australian Greens commend this bill to the Senate.
Senator Larissa Waters
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page