Australia’s environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, has just undergone its mandatory, once-in-a-decade review. Led by former ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel, the committee assessed how the federal government has delivered on its duty to protect our environment. No points for guessing its findings – the report hasn’t been released to the public yet – with independent parties condemning the laws aren’t doing what they were set out to do. Far from it.
Introduced by the Howard government in 2000, the laws were designed to protect species threatened with extinction. It contains protections for unique ecosystems and guides the government’s decisions on whether it can approve new developments, mines and land clearing.
The laws must also undergo a mandatory review once every 10 years. The development approval laws have been controversial for years – the Adani mine a prime example – and many are anticipating the findings.
Ahead of its release, many are calling for an urgent review of the laws. The federal Auditor-General, Grant Hehir, just tabled a damning report. He found Australia’s premier environmental law is administered neither efficiently or effectively, “The department’s regulatory approach is not proportionate to environmental risk.”
Environment department boss Andrew Metcalfe said the department will take on board the Auditor-General’s findings. It is expected that more reform is needed after that. “The EPBC Act is complex and difficult to administer and many of the decisions made are contested,” Metcalfe said before adding, “It is anticipated the (Samuel) review recommendations will result in significant changes to the EPBC Act.”
“Clearly it’s not working well,” former Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett added in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald. “The most obvious failure is despite the fact conditions can be attached to project approvals, there are just so many cases where conditions aren’t adhered to. There are no efforts to check and no penalties.”
The Guardian further reported that Australia has not updated a register of habitat critical for the protection of threatened species for 15 years. With this register, the government identifies land important to the survival of a species and lists it on the national critical habitat register.
All areas listed on this register cannot be deliberately damaged (for example by logging), so the changes of the species’ survival are boosted. The register has rarely been used since the Act was introduced, with only five places registered, the most recent of which was in 2005.
It’s yet more proof that the laws are failing.
We need a national conversation on how to fix our environmental protection laws. The destruction of the Juukan Gorge rock shelters, unlawful logging of Victorian forests and the Auditor-General’s report have started the conversation, now let’s hope that Samuel’s report recommends comprehensive action and that the final report (due in October) follows through.
We need it for our biodiversity to survive.
