Labor Seeks Greens Support with Fossil Fuel Project Veto in Environmental Law overhaul
The Australian Labor government is offering to prevent a controversial “national interest” exemption from being used to approve coal and gas projects in exchange for the Greens’ support of its proposed environmental protection laws. The move comes as criticism mounts over the broad discretionary power granted to the minister,even from those who initially supported the legislation.
With parliament’s final sitting week underway, Environment Minister Murray Watt is engaged in intense negotiations with both the Greens and the opposition Coalition, aiming to secure a deal by next week. Currently, neither party supports the bill in its current form, placing meaningful pressure on Labor to make concessions to avoid the collapse of the long-awaited reform – which has already failed once in the past 12 months.
A senior government source confirmed to Guardian Australia that the proposed rewrite of the “national interest” test would specifically block its application to fossil fuel projects, while still allowing for approvals of critical minerals projects. The original provision, initially endorsed by Graeme samuel in his 2020 review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act as a “rare exception,” would have allowed the minister to bypass environmental standards if a project was deemed to be in the “national interest.”
Despite Minister Watt’s assurances that the provision was intended for projects related to defense, national security, and emergencies, concerns remained that it could be exploited to greenlight coal and gas ventures. Labor MP Ed Husic previously cautioned that a future Coalition minister could misuse the power, a prediction echoed by both Samuel and former treasury secretary Ken henry, who anticipated a “conga line” of developers seeking special exemptions. Even within Labor’s ranks, environmental action groups have called for the power to be eliminated or subjected to parliamentary oversight.
As of Friday afternoon, Greens environment spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young and Coalition shadow environment minister Angie Bell were awaiting detailed proposals from Labor. Amendments would need to be presented in the coming days to allow both parties sufficient time to secure internal approval early next week. The EPBC bills are scheduled for debate in the Senate on Wednesday, with parliament adjourning for the year on Thursday.
Photograph: Auscape/Universal Images Group/Getty Images
Hanson-Young reiterated on Friday that the Greens would not support the legislation without stronger protections for native forests and a thorough consideration of climate impacts from proposed projects. Dismissing accusations of obstructionism – a tactic Labor employed during the previous parliamentary term – Hanson-Young stated, “What plays on my mind is not allowing this government off the hook when they’re pushing for laws that will fast-track coal and gas.”
an alliance of leading environmental organizations – including the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society, and Environmental Justice Australia – has urged significant changes to the bill, warning that it “does not protect nature.” Their proposed amendments include removing discretionary powers for the minister, closing loopholes related to native forest logging, enhancing engagement with First Nations communities, reconsidering a proposed “restoration contributions” fund, mandating climate impact assessments, and reversing the delegation of decisions under the “water trigger” to state governments. The alliance also advocates for the federal EPA to be the primary decision-maker,with the minister’s intervention limited to “extraordinary circumstances.” They argue the current model lacks genuine independence, allowing the minister to either make decisions directly or delegate them to an EPA official.
At Thursday’s inquiry hearings, celebrated environmentalist and former Greens leader Bob brown condemned the laws as “an insult to the environmental conscience of Australians.” He specifically criticized the absence of a requirement to assess a project’s greenhouse gas emissions – a so-called “climate trigger” – comparing it to stripping a treasurer of their authority over taxation. “And I say that must be taken seriously, as that’s how the situation is,” he stated.
The outcome of these negotiations will determine whether Labor can deliver on its promise to overhaul Australia’s environmental laws, or whether the reform effort will once again fall short, leaving the nation’s natural heritage vulnerable to growth pressures.
