Senior members of the federal government have indicated that a review of proposed laws that would restrict environmental groups’ ability to challenge development projects could be on the cards, in the leadup to a Senate inquiry issuing its findings on the controversial bill.
Last month the attorney general, George Brandis, proposed repealing section 487 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act after the federal court overturned approval for the $16bn Adani Carmichael coalmine owing to the impact the project could have on two vulnerable species.
This would narrow the range of people and organisations who can appeal an EPBC Act decision to anyone who can prove they are “directly affected” by a project. Brandis pushed for the changes in August, warning that the act allowed “vigilante” green groups to engage in “lawfare”.
On Sunday, the attorney general did not rule out a review of the laws, saying he could not “pre-empt what discussions may occur in the future”.
“At the moment, as I say, we have made no decision not to proceed,” Brandis said.
The resources and energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, told The Bolt Report on Channel 10 he was confident senior members of the government would review the laws at some stage.
“This is our policy,” he said. “I’m sure there will be further discussions [between the environment minister] Greg Hunt, George Brandis, the prime minister.”
Farming groups have opposed the bill, expressing concerns that it could reduce their ability to challenge projects on prime agricultural land.
The president of the National Farmers’ Federation, Brent Findlay, said in a submission to the inquiry that his organisation had not “received sufficient assurances from government that the passing of this amendment will not impact on farmers and their representative bodies’ ability to have continued access to the court system to ensure their interests are fully considered during the EPBC assessment process”.
“Limiting the test of legal standing to landholders who are subject to immediate impacts is also not sufficient as the effects of some major projects can be felt beyond the immediate vicinity of neighbouring farms, which implies that broader standing is warranted,” the submission said.
The Minerals Council of Australia supports the amendments, saying changing the laws will “reduce the opportunity for frivolous or vexatious legal challenges to delay development projects that have met all regulatory requirements, without compromising the ability of genuinely interested parties to pursue their legitimate interests”.
But the Law Council of Australia disagreed, saying the courts already have a way of weeding out frivolous claims.
It said the existing EPBC Act had improved the federal government’s accountability in human rights and environmental obligations, noting that it “operated effectively, had not opened the floodgates to litigation, and should be maintained”.
A Senate inquiry looking at the proposed changes is due to report back on 12 October. The inquiry has received 135 submissions, the vast majority from environmental groups opposed to the measures.
- This article was amended on 28 September 2015 to reflect the fact that it is the whole of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that Brandis has proposed the repeal of, not just section 2.
