Australia’s major conservation organisations have taken the Albanese government to task over what they say is a lack of urgency on environmental reform.
In a 6 September letter to the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, released to Guardian Australia under freedom of information laws, the groups also expressed serious concern about some of the reforms under consideration.
These include a proposal that would give the environment minister powers to override a proposed decision from a new independent environment protection agency (EPA) and another that would allow developers to pay money into a fund rather than identify direct offsets to compensate for the destruction of habitat caused by their projects.
The letter, signed by nine groups from the Places You Love alliance, including WWF Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation, BirdLife Australia and the Wilderness Society, was sent a few weeks before the government announced it would selectively consult key stakeholders and experts instead of releasing draft legislation for public consultation before the end of the year.
The groups behind the letter said it still reflected their views.
The government outlined on Thursday some of the detail about its plan to overhaul the national laws, known as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, beginning with a proposal for the drafting of six national environmental standards.
“We are writing as lead organisations of the Places You Love alliance (PYL) to share our concerns regarding the direction and scope of the Government’s proposed reforms … and the lack of urgency and political prioritisation which has characterised the reforms to date”, the letter states.
The groups wrote that while they welcomed the government’s commitment to reform they “will not be able to endorse a reform package that fails to put in place a strong framework to address the dire state of Australia’s natural environment”.
They said they were concerned the government had not met its promised timeline for passing legislation and that it was yet to engage other members of parliament whose support it would need to pass a reform package. They said the government had instead prioritised other pieces of legislation, such as a bill for a nature repair market, that “distract” from its larger commitments.
They also wrote that encouraging elements of the proposed reforms that had been presented in draft form to stakeholders risked being undermined by other components.
Among nine examples, they said they were particularly concerned about a proposal that would allow the minister to “call in” and make an approval decision that would otherwise be made by an independent EPA.
They also feared “there will not be sufficient constraints on the use of offsets and that conservation payments will enable payment for destruction”.
Historically, offsets have been required to be delivered for the same species or habitats affected by development. The approach proposed by the government would relax these requirements by giving developers the option of paying into a fund that could be spent on conservation for a different species or habitat type.
Danya Jacobs, special counsel at Environmental Justice Australia, said: “The proposed laws aren’t there yet but we remain hopeful that the ambition is there, and that government will continue working with stakeholders to make the transformational changes required.”
A spokesperson for Plibersek said “we’ll keep working with stakeholders to get the laws ready for introduction into the parliament next year”.
The government is running a staged consultation process with key stakeholders and experts, as well as a series of public webinars in which it presents elements of the proposed reforms.
In a webinar on Thursday, the environment department said the reform package would ensure Australia’s new laws were “outcomes focused” and guided by new national standards, in line with the Samuel review’s key recommendation.
Six standards would be drafted initially, including one for matters of national environmental significance and another for First Nations engagement.
Biodiversity offsets would be rebranded as “restoration actions and restoration contributions”.
The proposed new EPA, to be called Environment Protection Australia, would be responsible for decisions about whether a development could proceed and for enforcing the law, which the department said would “take the politics out of decision-making”. The environment minister would be able to issue a statement of expectations but could not otherwise direct the new agency.
