
To the new environment minister, Murray Watt: it's time to get reforms right
Long overdue reform of national environment laws is unfinished business for the 48th parliament and the re-elected Albanese government.
Senator Murray Watt, a Queenslander, is well respected within the government and has a reputation for taking hard decisions and bringing together diverse stakeholders. Both of these attributes will be at a premium if the minister is to succeed where others have not.
Throughout the election campaign, expectations were raised that the failed attempts in the last parliament to overhaul and reform the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 would be a priority for the prime minister in this term.
Get Guardian Australia environment editor Adam Morton's Clear Air column as an email
Three major attempts to reform environment laws have failed over the past 15 years, including in the first term of the Rudd government, during the Morrison government and again last term. All ended in more division and confusion.
For environmentalists, the need for the Australian government to play a stronger and clearer leadership role in stemming the protracted decline in the health of the natural world is an article of faith, backed by a depressing array of scientific reports that highlight the inextricable loss of wildlife and biodiversity, compounded by the real time impacts of climate change.
Extinction is not a moment in time but rather a consequence of thousands of small and piecemeal decisions over many years. A bitter harvest of large-scale extinction has been hard baked into our nation's future. Without urgent change, including large scale restoration and reforestation of previously cleared country, we are leaving the future a landscape devoid of birdsong and wonder.
From the perspective of the natural world, the existing laws have so many loopholes that you could drive a truck through them. The logging of native forests and large-scale land clearing of carbon-rich and biologically important regrowth forests and woodlands continues to get the green light.
For business, the laws are perceived as placing a complex and environmentally ineffectual brake on economic development, including the rollout of renewables, new housing developments on the outskirts of our major cities and new mines.
The curse of our federated system of government and a constitution drafted to meet the needs of Australia in the late 19th century means that when it comes to protecting the environment and supporting new development, decision-making between all layers of government is conflicted, complex and confusing. We get the worst of all worlds, where process trumps environmental and development outcomes on every level.
Despite this, a blueprint for durable reform was put forward by Graeme Samuel, who conducted an independent review of the effectiveness of the laws in 2020. These recommendations became the heart of the Nature Positive Plan which was developed by then minister Tanya Plibersek in late 2022.
The Nature Positive Plan was centred on three key concepts. The first was an unambiguously pro-environment commitment by the Australian government to create and enforce clear national environmental standards.
These new and powerful standards were intended to make sure the government fulfilled its obligation to protect 'matters of national environmental significance' in all its decision-making and to support long-term conservation planning, including support for recovery plans, regional plans and embedding genuine partnerships with First Nations communities.
The second element of the reform aimed to simplify decision-making in respect to major development projects, including through reform and possible accreditation of state government assessment and project approval systems, consistent with the requirements of the national environmental standards.
The third reform was the creation of an independent environment protection agency to build trust and accountability in decision-making, to ensure standards were applied, projects were compliant and to remove politics from the day-to-day of environmental policy.
These three pillars of policy reform remain critically important to build a durable pathway forward. To deliver them needs leadership from the highest levels of government at state and federal level. Attempts to drive these complex reforms through the environment ministry alone have failed every time over the past 15 years.
Furthermore, unless the states are brought in at the outset, many of the on-ground reforms required to stem the loss and to promote the restoration of nature will fail, as ultimately the states retain most powers to protect the environment.
The role and influence of the Western Australian government in helping to scuttle reforms in the past term are a case in point. It is easy to throw rocks from outside the tent – it is time for the state premiers to become part of the solution rather than blockers.
Long-term reform is not going to be easy, but we have now wasted 15 years since the first reforms to the national environment laws were mooted, and everyone has lost, especially the natural world. Watt has a massive responsibility, as does the prime minister and his cabinet, to get it right this time and to bring the parliament with them. Without support in the Senate, reforms will again languish and whither on the vine.
Lyndon Schneiders is executive director of the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
AP PHOTOS: Protesters tear-gassed in Los Angeles after federal immigration arrests
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.


The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Scott Morrison sought advice to obstruct Nauru asylum seekers from accessing abortions, documents reveal
Scott Morrison overrode medical advice in the case of an asylum seeker in offshore detention trying to access an abortion, and had previously sought advice that would effectively prevent access to terminations entirely, ministerial advice reveals. Documents released under freedom of information laws show Morrison, in 2014 as immigration minister, had sought advice to deny the transfer of women to a hospital on the Australian mainland to access termination services before 20 weeks' gestation. Abortion is illegal on Nauru, except to save the mother's life, and carries a prison term of up to 14 years. Termination laws differ across Australian states, but if pregnant women in offshore detention were prohibited from accessing abortion services in Australia until after 20 weeks, it would be far more difficult to access those services at all. A handwritten note by Morrison, on a document dated June 2014, stated: 'I would also like advice on denying transfer pre 20 weeks for pregnant women.' In the same document, Morrison specified that women should only be transferred to Brisbane, not South Australia, the Northern Territory or Victoria for abortion services. Morrison did not respond to requests for comment, and Guardian Australia cannot confirm what advice he received. In the case of a woman, who was not identified in the redacted documents, medical advice recommended she be transferred to Victoria for an abortion, over Brisbane where she would have had to have waited a week for a hospital ethics panel to consider her case. That policy was in place in Queensland for women seeking a termination after 20 weeks' gestation. In Victoria, a woman could seek a termination without approval of a hospital ethics board until 24 weeks. Guardian Australia understands the woman was taken to Brisbane, rather than Melbourne, where the panel deliberated on her case. One senior source, who spoke to Guardian Australia on the condition of anonymity, said Morrison did not specifically target abortion access. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email David Manne, a prominent refugee advocate and lawyer, said in his view the broader immigration policy at the time was part of an 'extreme deterrence agenda'. 'Inherent in the [broader] policy was conscious, calculated cruelty,' he said. 'Clearly, [the policy] was far more than reckless indifference, it was deliberate. '[It was] part of a system that was underpinned by the extreme deterrence agenda … the basic rights and dignity of people subject to the policy were essentially irrelevant.' Jana Favero, the deputy CEO of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC), who was an advocate for the centre at the time, said the documents were 'outrageous' and 'consistent' with the ASRC's experience trying to help asylum seekers get medical transfers. 'It was extremely challenging and difficult for the medical transfer from people offshore, in particular women who were pregnant,' she said. Manne claimed the Abbott government was concerned asylum seekers and refugees were using medical transfers as a back door to get into Australia. Once in Australia, and in the Australian onshore detention system, an asylum seeker could go to the court to seek an injunction to prevent being sent back to offshore detention. '[They] could plead their case under law to resist being sent back to Nauru, to further dangers of the kinds that they'd already faced,' Manne said. This wasn't the only concern held by the government. Manne said the policy was based on deterrence, to stop others seeking asylum arriving by boat. 'If we make some exception, if there's a perceived crack of light in this policy, this could see the resumption of boat arrivals, that was clearly the thinking.' Later, in 2019, Peter Dutton, by then the home affairs minister in the Morrison government, accused women in Nauru refugee centres of using rape and abortion claims as a ploy to get to Australia. Over the 18 months from 1 January 2013 to 20 June 2014, IHMS, the government contracted healthcare provider for Nauru, said there were six pregnant transferees who were taken to the mainland for a termination. In June 2014, there were 289 women in detention on Nauru, according to data collated by the Refugee Council of Australia. Numerous internal and external reviews of offshore detention centres found instances of violence and traumatic living conditions, amid allegations and reports of rape, sexual assaults. An independent investigation, by the former integrity commissioner Philip Moss, commissioned by Morrison in October 2014, found evidence of rapes and sexual violence on Nauru and Manus Island, and said incidents were often under-reported. In 2016, Guardian Australia released the Nauru files, a collection of 2,000 leaked incident reports detailing harrowing instances of abuse on the island between May 2013 and October 2015. More than half of the reports (51.3%) involved children, even though children made up only about 18% of those in detention on Nauru during the time covered by the reports. Favero said the ASRC had performed its own audit on medical transfers at the time, and said it sometimes took up to 18 months for an asylum seeker to get help on the mainland. 'From the point where there was a [doctor's] recommendation for a medical transfer, sometimes it took up to 12 to 18 months for that to happen, and it only happened as a result of a huge amount of pressure including legal action,' Favero said. In February 2019, five years later, after Morrison became prime minister, Labor and the crossbench passed the medevac bill, against the Coalition government, that established a medical panel to oversee medical transfers of people from offshore detention. That law lasted less than 10 months, before it was repealed by the Morrison government in December that year. 'The decision [to transfer a patient] should have been in doctors' hands not in bureaucrats and politicians hands which is what that legislation was,' Favero said.


The Independent
5 hours ago
- The Independent
AP PHOTOS: Coco Gauff's emotional triumph at the French Open final
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.