5 November 2025

ALAN HAYES

 

WHILE the government was trying to position itself as an honest broker for the environment, between the Neanderthal Coalition and the and the Greens, in the lead up to Murray Watts introduction of changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) last Thursday, the heated debate has revealed a darker side to the government’s agenda. There is little doubt that the existing regulations have become a political thorn in the government’s side that they want to expeditiously remove.

 

Under the proposed changes, which the Grapevine reported on last week – Big business first: environment last - the government is not merely proposing that there should be no independent approval process under the reformed EPBC - with politicians to exercise approvals rather than independent agencies - but also that it should have an absolute override power as well. One can only imagine the authoritarian regime that will follow, if politicians are enabled to approve a project that clearly breached the EPBC, provided it was deemed to be in the public interest.

 

But what constitutes public interest? What we, as a society, have learned over too many years is that public interest is what the ‘big end of town' want – profits above everything else, with no middle ground.

 

Murray Watts’ narrative to try and convince Australians that the EPBC changes are mutually beneficial for the environment as well as industry is nothing more than a smoke screen to protect the reality that industry has no inbuilt obligation to not destroy everything (and everyone) in its drive for production and profit. No wonder, former Labor minister Ed Husic broke ranks over the EPBC changes to express his concerns! "That’s a really consequential power,” he said.

 

The government's Environment Protection Bill 2025 was introduced into the House of Representatives last Thursday by the Minister Representing the Environment, Minister Tony Burke.

 

Minister Burke said, "This package of bills is a once in a generation opportunity to reform our environmental laws.”

 

The problem for the government is that this now or never moment was not supported by either the Coalition or the Greens to pass the bill through the senate - neither party would pledged their support.

 

A kick in the guts for the government

 

According to the government, the changes in the environment laws will create a new requirement for proponents of high-polluting projects to disclose their expected greenhouse gas emissions, along with a plan to mitigate them, as part of the application process.

 

The new rule – which would apply to projects with predicted emissions above 100,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent each year – was a recommendation from Graeme Samuel’s review of the EPBC Act.

 

“By ensuring projects disclose their emissions, for the first time the public will know exactly what to expect from new projects and how they are accounting for our key climate policies, like the safeguard mechanism,” Minister Murray Watt said.

 

Labor, however, still made it quite clear that the climate impact of fossil fuel projects would not be considered before they were approved under the revamp of the EPC. The Greens labelled the government’s plan “worse than the status quo”.

 

The Senate, however, sent the Government's controversial environment legislation to an inquiry, which will report back in March next year, despite the Minister’s attempt to rush the pro-mining, pro-logging laws through the parliament.

 

Labor’s push to get its EPBC Amendment Bill passed before the 2025 parliamentary rising on 27 November hit a massive brick wall.

 

Senator Hanson-Young said that the bill in its current form weakens environmental protection and does the "bidding of big business".

 

She said the bill failed to stop the logging of native forests and the destruction of native habitat.

 

"This bill fails the basic test right up front that it doesn't improve environmental protections," Hanson-Young said.

 

"It's been written by the business lobby and the mining lobby to fast track their approvals. That means new coal and gas fast tracked, the destruction of our forests, made easier, made cheaper," Hanson-Young went on to say.

 

“Big business and the mining companies have had their grubby fingers all over this package. There’s no wonder the Government wanted to rush the laws through without scrutiny.

 

“Labor’s laws fail to protect our forests and fail to protect our climate. Despite the Government spin, this package leaves nature for dead.

 

“The Albanese Government’s proposed environment bill will make things worse for nature and the climate. It will take environment protections backwards while fast tracking approvals for business.

 

“The Senate sent the Bill to an Inquiry, to ensure the laws are properly scrutinised and that the community is given a say.

 

“Now that we have seen the full Bill, it’s clear the only thing being protected here is the profits of the mining companies and big business.

 

“These are meant to be environment protection laws, not big business approval laws.

 

“This bill is riddled with weasel words and carve-out clauses for big business. It makes approvals quicker and cheaper for the mining and big business lobby, and fails to provide proper protections for nature.

 

“The Greens have been clear from the start: we will not rubber stamp laws that fail to protect our native forests, wildlife and climate.

 

“We need laws that protect nature, not make way for big business to make big profits. The Greens cannot pass these so-called environment laws in their current state.”

 

The proposed new reporting rules fall short of the sort of mechanism the Greens and environmental groups have long called for, which would require decision-makers to consider climate impacts when assessing applications.

 

Glenn Walker, the head of nature at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said, “The minister or the EPA needs the powers to assess those emissions and, in the right circumstances, reject a project if the emissions are going to have an impact on our threatened species, for example, or on the Great Barrier Reef.

 

Secrecy and executive dominance

 

Harking back to the government’s desire for an override power under the new EPBC to approve a project, even if it breached environmental laws, is a step-up to authoritarian power – the Mad King of America would be pleased!

 

Murray Watt has attempted to justify the government’s position by quoting the recommendation of the Graeme Samuel’s 2020 EPBC review. Samuel recommended that the act should: "include a specific power for the minister to exercise discretion to make a decision that is inconsistent with the National Environmental Standards. The use of this power should be a rare exception, demonstrably justified in the public interest and accompanied by a published statement of reasons, which includes the environmental implications of the decision."

 

Of course, the glaring problem stands out like a festering pimple! Can you trust a politician? NO, you can’t! Especially when fossil fuel interests are involved. The Albanese government has approved at least four gas and coal projects in 2025, with four major coal mine expansions (Caval Ridge, Lake Vermont, Vulcan South, and Ulan modification 6) receiving approval, despite detrimental reports on the projects from Environmental Justice Australia and The Australia Institute. In addition to these, the government has approved offshore exploration permits and other projects that increase the total number of gas and coal projects approved since 2022 to at least 31, according to the Climate Council.

 

Before it won the 2022 federal election, the Labor Party promised stronger action to curb climate change. Since then, it has approved coal and gas projects that will emit a cumulative 6.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

 

So, why the government’s desire for an override power under the EPC changes? It all come down to Samuel’s naive trust in politicians — that they be allowed a discretionary power of total override with no guardrails beyond having to publish a statement of reasons, which means that whatever the minister decides, goes.

 

No doubt there was already a line up of hopeful 'Big End Mates' anticipating the approval of the EPBC changes and for them to short-circuit the hitherto approval process and evade environmental protections - dreaming up the banter to convince an environment minister to ignore any independent assessment of a project and wave it through on the grounds that it will create a few jobs or generate a few exports! How disappointed they must now be!

 

The other looming problem is Labor’s FOI reforms, which would significantly widen exemptions and give the political executive much greater power to hide its actions from scrutiny — including the abuse of any EPBC override power, because all the public would get is a “statement of reasons” as to why a project was approved. The whole process  of assessing projects that would impact on the environment would lack any transparency as to why any environmental issues were dismissed. Legislation would be simply ignored as the government approved what it wanted at the behest of the big end of town.

Name (First & Last):

Email:

Submitting Form...

The server encountered an error.

Subscription received.

SUBSCRIBE