Between the cost of living, the housing crisis and energy; one crucial talking point which seemed to fall under the election campaign rubble was each party’s environmental policies and promises.
In the first year Labor was elected, they promised to provide a ‘nature positive’ plan to take control of Australia’s degrading environment and animal populations.
This plan was warranted by the Samuel Review, released in early 2021, which highlighted the need for stronger environmental protection laws under the current Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.
The review determined that the EPBC was weak in trying to protect the country’s biodiversity, which is still on an overall decline, and “changes should be made immediately to deliver the best possible outcomes from dated law.”
The response to the review was spearheaded by Tanya Pilbersek, the Minister for Environment, who introduced the Nature Positive Plan in late 2022.
The main recommendation from the review and the subsequent follow up with the new plan was the need to establish a national Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
However, late last year all it needed was to pass the senate.
It narrowly didn’t.
What was the proposed EPA?
The EPA would look at any new projects that may harm the environment, stop them if they breach these new laws and provide hefty fines for those that don’t comply.
Dr Justine Bell-James, a professor in Environmental and Climate Change Law at the University of Queensland, says that an EPA would “have the power to make certain decisions under federal environmental law, like whether proposals should go ahead.
So it’s taking it out from the minister’s hands, where it ultimately ends up being a bit political, and putting it in this independent body that would also be subject to some pretty strict control on things that they have to act in accordance.”
Would it have worked?
Dr Bell-James highlighted that an effective EPA should consist of a committee of people compared to a single CEO and the agency should have substantially strong powers in deciding on projects.
Josh Meadows, a representative at the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), also says that the proposed model isn’t “perfect, but it’s a good start.
“…we need not only a strong independent EPA, but also complete reform of the nature laws, because they’re not fit for purpose.”
What happened to the EPA?
It all collapsed in November of last year when a long-awaited deal between Labor, The Greens and other cross bench senators finally agreed on the proposed national watchdog.
However, it was Prime Minister Anthony Albanese who interjected the deal after pressure and lobbying from the resources sector, particularly in WA.
Roger Cook, the premier of WA, reached out to the Prime Minister reciting the negative reaction of the mining industry which made Albanese cancel the agreement, without Pilbersek’s knowledge.
What now?
After reassuring the mining sector that an EPA wouldn’t happen earlier this year, Albanese reversed his decision a couple of weeks later by yet again adding an EPA to his election promises.
He stated that the new EPA will be different to the original legislation.
Since then, not much has been promised or discussed by Labor about how different it would be compared to the original proposal.
Both Dr Bell-James and Mr Meadows from ACF are hopeful that a national environmental agency is established now that Labor are in power for the next few years.
“I am hopeful that [Labor] will try to do what they can, and I think it all just depends on the composition of the senate as well,” said Dr Bell-James.
“It’s certainly something that is needed if we’re going to pass on an Australia that includes koalas in the wild and Gang – gang Cockatoos in the wild to future generations of Australians,” Mr Meadows reiterated.
“We need to make our natural laws stronger because otherwise the extinction crisis is just going to get worse and we won’t be passing on the unique, amazing nature that we have in Australia presently.”
After many forms of campaign distractions shrouded the EPA in mystery, it will be a matter of waiting patiently until the agency is discussed again now that the campaign is over and the election dust has settled.
