The federal government on Wednesday introduced legislation to establish national environmental watchdog and information gathering bodies, but the move has been criticised by business and environmental groups alike, highlighting deep divisions in Australia’s nature reform space.

Environment and Water Minister Tanya Plibersek introduced the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) and the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) bills to establish the respective federal agencies.

“We’re moving quickly to deliver Environment Protection Australia (EPA) and Environment Information Australia (EIA),” she said in a statement.

“Combined with a significant investment in funding, this stage of the reforms will deliver stronger environment protection powers, faster environment approvals, more environment information, and greater transparency.”

Plibersek said she would ask the new EPA to examine illegal land clearing and offset conditions as a priority, after a recent audit found that one in seven developments could be in breach of their offset conditions.

The EIA bill also provides a legal definition of and reporting measure for ‘nature positive’, a move the government described as a world first.

The legislation describes nature positive as “an improvement in the diversity, abundance, resilience, and integrity of ecosystems from a baseline”.

“These are big steps forward – for the environment and for business – and it’s all new under this government,” Plibersek said.

EVERYONE DISLIKED THAT

Environmental groups have previously said the government’s decision to establish the EPA and EIA without reforming the laws underpinning them, known as the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, will make them largely ineffective.

The Greens and independent Senator David Pocock – who the government relies on to pass legislation in the Senate – told media Wednesday the legislation’s introduction was “a waste of time” and “a terrible day for nature”.

The Wilderness Society, Environmental Justice Australia, and the Conservation Council of Western Australia released a joint statement saying the government’s legislation lacked integrity.

“The groups are calling for both strengthening of the proposed EPA model and key urgent reforms to address deforestation and protect critical habitat of threatened species,” the joint statement said.

They called for the EPA to have an independent board, which would appoint the EPA’s CEO, clear duties and objectives, effective public participation in decision-making, and strong civil enforcement provisions, and adequate funding.

Green groups have already been put offside by the Albanese government after it committed limited funding to the environment in its latest budget.

At the same time, the Business Council of Australia (BCA) released a statement saying that too many of the minister’s powers were being delegated to the EPA.

It said this entity could make project decisions “without proper accountability and with the risk of sidelining the broader social and economic benefits of a specific project”.

“Many of the issues raised by business during the consultation process have not been taken up and that concerns us,” BCA Chief Executive Bran Black said.

“In practice, the minister’s delegable power to consider important projects will be given to an unaccountable EPA, with the risk of downplaying a project’s broader economic and social benefits.”

However, environmental groups have previously argued that the current legislation gives the minister of the day too many call-in powers to approve a project, up until a final decision by the EPA has been made, in the national interest.

The Australian Conservation Foundation welcomed the introduction of the EPA and EIA, but said maintaining their independence was critical.

“A strong, independent, and well-resourced regulator is critical so Australia can move beyond the present situation, where vested interests influence decision making and undermine nature protection,” Brendan Sydes, national biodiversity policy adviser with ACF, said.

“While a new EPA is welcome and necessary, stronger nature protection and laws that prevent climate pollution must be urgently prioritised.”

In her statement, Minister Plibersek emphasised that the government would deliver the reforms to the EPBC Act, saying they would make the laws less bureaucratic and fit for purpose.

“We will continue this work to get the laws right – for the environment and for business,” she said.

Green groups fear that the government’s lack of stated timeline on when the EPBC reforms will be finalised mean they will unlikely be passed before the next election. At the same time, the government has faced considerable pressure from business and resource sector groups over fears more stringent environmental approvals will jeopardise new projects.

However, the government has previously committed to reforming the country’s nature laws, in response to the Samuel Review, which described nature in Australia as in an accelerating state of decline, with the current EPBC laws incapable of halting it.

There’s a strong likelihood the EPA and EIA bills will be sent to a parliamentary committee for further consideration.

“As the parliament scrutinises and debates these bills, we will look to MPs and senators to examine the government’s proposals closely and push for improvements,” Sydes said.

By Mark Tilly – mark@carbon-pulse.com

*** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter ***