28/03/2024
 
Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
GPO Box 3090,
Canberra ACT 2601,
Australia
 
Australia’s new Nature Positive laws 
To whom it may concern,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission into Australia’s new Nature Positive laws and taking the time to consider my submission.
 
While acknowledging and supporting the Federal Government’s ambitious agenda to reform of our outdated, inefficient, and ineffective environment laws with the new Nature Positive laws, necessary improvements are needed, and further ambition is required to set Australia on a path of ecologically sustainable development to deliver “long-term economic growth, environmental improvement and the effective protection of Australia’s iconic places and heritage for the benefit of current and future generations”.[1]
 
I live in the Lake Macquarie / Newcastle region in NSW.  In 2023 I coordinated the development of a detailed Emission Reduction Plan for the City of Newcastle.  In a volunteer capacity, I am a committee member of several organisations including the Hunter Community Alliance, Newcastle Climate Change Response, Hunter Innovation and Science Hub, and the Clean Energy Association of Newcastle and Surrounds.  I am also a member of the Hunter Jobs Alliance and the Newcastle chapter of The Wilderness Society. I am involved in what could be termed environmental outreach, informing the public on environmental information, news, and activities through newsletters, conducting seminars, events, and conferences. I recently ran the Newcastle Climate Summit in November 2023.
 
The EPBC Act is now over 24 years old and has failed to address the loss in biodiversity and extinction prevention of plants and animals or habitat destruction within Australia.  The Act is complex and unwieldy and is in drastic need of reform.  The Act needs to address the environmental threats and challenges that we face including cumulative impacts, climate change and habitat destruction through land clearing.  The implementation of the Act is also constrained by significant resourcing issues.
We need environmental laws that can effectively tackle the major environmental challenges Australia faces and to reverse the declining environmental trends in this country.

I have provided feedback via submissions of the 2019-2020 Independent Review of the EPBC Act, and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020 and appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback here.
 
Matters of National Environmental Significance
Matters of national environmental significance (MNES) (triggers) are an essential part of the Act that trigger assessment processes under the Act.  These triggers should be retained and expanded to include vulnerable ecological communities (alongside other threatened specifies and ecological communities), significant land-clearing activities, significant water resources (in addition to unconventional gas, coal seam gas, and large coal impacts), the National Reserve System, nationally important ecosystems (key biodiversity areas and areas of high conservation value), and significant greenhouse gas emissions.

I welcome the expansion of the water trigger to cover all forms of unconventional gas, in addition to coal seam gas and large coal mining development.
 
However, there is a clear policy gap in that emissions-intensive activities are not currently considered as a matter of national environmental significance under the Act.  The addition of a ‘climate trigger’ to the list of MNES, would ensure that high emitting projects, or project extensions, could be assessed, approved, or rejected, based on their emissions contribution. A climate trigger would allow the consideration of the amount of greenhouse gas an action would emit in considering whether a proposed action can be approved. [2]

The Safeguard Mechanism as the primary legislative mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia’s industrial sector is purported to be the key mechanism to manage proposed actions resulting in significant greenhouse emissions.  However, the Safeguard Mechanism is insufficient and ill-suited to considering the impact of fossil fuels and climate change on the environment.

The threshold for the Safeguard Mechanism is currently greater than 100,000 tonnes of CO2-e annually of Scope 1 emissions only. Furthermore, it appears not to consider land use change, such as significant land clearing.  This is grossly insufficient in addressing greenhouse gas emissions in Australia.

For example, Newcastle Port exports around 160 million tonnes of thermal coal each year. [3] The combustion of this which equates to around 400 Mt CO2-e emissions per annum.[4]  The total measured Newcastle LGA GHG emissions that in theory could be subject to the safeguard mechanism is equivalent to only 0.5% of emissions resulting from the use of exported coal from Newcastle Port. Putting it more starkly, the emissions resulting from the export of coal through Newcastle Port are equivalent to 3.4 times the emissions for the whole of NSW and just short of the total measured GHG emissions for Australia (401.4 Mt CO2-e for 2020/21). [5]  None of the 400 Mt CO2-e emissions are subject to the safeguard mechanism.  Stating the obvious, the environment is impacted by increased GHG emissions whether they are Scope 1, 2 or 3.

Projects projected to have over greater than 100,000 tonnes of CO2-e per year including Scope 3 emissions, should be captured by a Climate Trigger. Furthermore, a Climate Trigger would prevent new entrants to the Safeguard Mechanism reducing increases in GHG emissions, decrease pressure on existing facilities subject to the Safeguard Mechanism resulting from less overall reductions in the Safeguard Mechanism and reduce administration overheads of ongoing management on new entrants. A Climate Trigger would complement the Safeguard Mechanism and other legislation such as the Climate Change Act and would likely capture several high GHG projects that the Safeguard Mechanism would miss.
 
Australia continues to remain the only developed nation in the world listed as a deforestation hotspot and ranks 5th in the world in deforestation rate. [6]  Beef cattle farms are responsible for almost 75% of all deforestation.  862 plants and 286 animals listed as threatened have deforestation and resulting habitat fragmentation or degradation listed as threats.[7]

Since 2000, Australia has lost 21% of its tree cover, representing 8.85 million Ha and 2.16 Gt of Co2-e emissions.  NSW had the lions share of this at 3.01 million Ha lost.[8]
The recent 6th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) detailed the opportunities for scaling up climate action through mitigation options.  They found that, like replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar, the reduction in the destruction of natural ecosystems was one of the most effective methods of climate mitigation, with a potential contribution to emission reduction of over 4 Gt of Co2-e emission per annum.[9]

The addition of a ‘land clearing trigger’ to the list of MNES, would ensure that projects, or project extensions that would result in land-clearing in areas over a designated size that may contain listed threatened species would be assessed, approved, or rejected, based on their potential impact.
A land clearing trigger would ensure land clearing would be subject to the same regulations as other areas withing the nature laws.
 
Threatened species need our protection regardless of whether they are considered extinct in the wild.  Please ensure that species that are listed as extinct in the wild remain part of our environment laws as a MNES.
 
National Environmental Standards
New strong legally enforceable National Environmental Standards should form the basis of reforms to Australia’s environment laws to ensure all decisions lead towards improved national environmental outcomes.[10]   The environmental standards, through use of best practices should be subject to continuous improvement and non-regression to allow adaptation to pressures on the environment such as land clearing and climate change.
 
With my involvement with the Mined Land Rehabilitation Conferences, I have seen the effects of cumulative approvals of mines and mine expansion in the Hunter Valley on the environment, the decreased resilience to change, the health impact on individuals living and working within the area.  For example, there is a cumulative issue relating to air quality in the Upper Hunter that needs attention.  Average levels of coarse particle pollution in the Hunter Valley have increased at a rate higher than the rest of NSW. Air quality in the local area has been deteriorating over time, reaching 470 air quality alerts in 2019 prior to the bushfires. The top three for PM10 particulate levels of air pollution in NSW are in the local area. This air pollution contributes to heart disease, stroke, deaths, diabetes, low birth weight for babies, restricted lung growth in children, lung cancer in non-smokers, asthma, and emphysema.  For example, a recent planned expansion of an open-cut coal mine in the area would exacerbate an already dire set of circumstances with respect to air quality and health issues in the local area. However, the mine expansion went ahead as cumulative impacts are not considered in planning laws.  The new Nature Laws needs to explicitly consider cumulative impacts of past, present and future developments and decisions.  The use of strategic assessments and regional planning may assist in assessing cumulative impacts.
 
The Samuel review recommended that the full suite of National Environmental Standards be developed and implemented.  Standards for Threatened Species and Ecological Communities as detailed in the review need to be included in our new Nature Positive Laws.

These include:

• Critical habitat for listed species and ecological communities are protected from destruction by avoiding adverse impacts.  These impacts need to be clearly defined and the process of to avoid them be consistently applied.
• A clear requirement to maintain and improve population numbers of all threatened species and to improve their habitat and to rule out any impacts that would result in population declines.
• Actions do not exacerbate key threats to listed threatened species or ecological communities and are consistent with recovery plans and threat abatement plans.
• Management plans address both the key threats and cumulative impacts to listed threatened species and ecological communities and support their recovery.

 
Furthermore, “Nature positive outcome” must relate to each individual threatened species or ecological community and not be some net positive outcome across all species.
 
Climate change
The impacts of climate change on the environment are significant and severe. The present scientific consensus is that the earth's climate is warming due to human activity, and the negative impacts of increased greenhouse gas emissions are measurable globally and nationally.[11]

Australia’s climate has warmed on average by 1.47 ± 0.24 °C since national records began in 1910, which has led to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events.[12] The Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO reported that there has been an increase in extreme fire weather, and in the length of the fire season, across large parts of the country since the 1950s, as evidenced by the catastrophic bushfires in the summer of 2019/2020.  They also noted changes in rainfall, with decreases in the southeast and southwest of Australia as shown by the devastating drought in 2019.  Oceans around Australia they stated are acidifying and have warmed by about 1°C since 1910 bringing longer and more frequent marine heatwaves.  In the past 5 years there have been three major mass-bleaching events at the Great Barrier Reef resulting from these marine heatwaves, and resulting in the destruction of over half of the reef’s corals.[13]  The Great Barrier Reef has an economic, social and iconic asset value estimated at $56 billion, contributes around $6.4 billion annually to the Australian economy and supports over 64,000 jobs. [14]  Sea levels are also rising around Australia, increasing the risk of coastal inundation and damage to infrastructure and communities.

The government is responsible for the environment, the health and wellbeing of its citizens, and the financial security of the nation. As we see the impact of increased carbon emissions, we also find evidence of the deleterious impact on Australian native wildlife, the Australian people and the wealth of the nation. 

To address the issue of dangerous climate change, Australia, along with 196 other parties, is a signatory to the Paris Agreement, which entered into force on 4 November 2016. The Paris Agreement aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, by:

Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognising that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.[15]

In 2020 Australia emitted 1.1% of world greenhouse gas emissions. This made Australia the world’s 16th biggest emitter of greenhouse gas pollution, despite having just 0.33% of world population.[16]  On a per capita basis. Australian emissions are the highest in the OECD and among the highest in the world. The only countries with higher per capita emissions than Australia are smaller petro-states like Kuwait, Qatar and UAE and some Small Island Developing States. [17] [18] [19]

The IPCC stated that global emissions need to reach net zero by 2050 to be consistent to limiting warming to 1.5 °C.5  The Australian Government has now committed to developing a 2050 Net Zero plan and 2035 emission reduction targets consistent with Australia’s international and domestic commitments.[20]  However, since May 2022, 4 new coal mines or expansions were approved in Australia that will result in an additional 156 million tonnes of carbon emissions. An additional 25 additional proposals for new or expanded coal mines are currently awaiting Federal Government approval. All up the 29 new coal mines would release over 12 billion tonnes of carbon emissions if approved.[21]  The International Energy Agency (2021) stated that to achieve net zero by 2050, no new oil and gas fields can be approved for development together with no new coal mines or mine extensions.[22]

As the new Nature Positive Laws will regulate approvals of new fossil fuel projects, the new laws and standards should be sufficient to prevent projects that result in high emissions and consequently impact the climate and damage biodiversity.  The new laws must recognise the impact of climate change on the environment and the requirement to reduce emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. Climate change considerations need to be embedded into all aspects of the new Nature Positive laws, including in decision-making. The contribution of biodiversity to climate change mitigation, the importance of adaptation and resilience, and need to protect carbon sinks also need to be prioritised.
 
Of the natural ecosystems that need protection to mitigate climate change, carbon sinks are the most effective.  Significant carbon sinks in Australia include natural forests, savannas, the vast arid to semi-arid areas, coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, tidal marshes, seagrasses, and kelp forests.  The new Nature Positive Laws need to increase protection of such carbon-rich ecosystems, particularly for those that are under threat.
 
As stated above, the impact to the environment from climate change is independent of what country the GHG emissions from a project are produced.  Therefore, a project or an extension to an existing project that is going to result in increased emissions needs to be evaluated based on total emissions (Scope 1, 2, and 3).  Therefore, developers should be required to provide an upfront estimate of all emissions associated with the project (not just domestic ones) and this should be made publicly available.
 
Following the 2019/2020 catastrophic bushfires, koala populations are at a crisis point and it is imperative that urgent action be taken to ensure the survival of this iconic species within south-eastern Australia.

Climate change is predicted to affect koala habitat conditions and cause more severe weather conditions (such as the recent severe drought and catastrophic bushfires) which will impact koala survival rates. Climate change is predicted to affect koala habitat by altering the structure and chemical composition of koala food trees, changing the composition of plant communities, and changing the range of important habitat species.

In my local area, changing sea levels because of climate change will impact on low lying priority habitat within the Port Stephens area and Stockton Bight, further fragmenting habitat stands.

The ability of Koalas to migrate because of climate change are impacted by the connectivity across the landscape.  Particular attention is required to remove or mitigate the barriers to connectivity and to preserve and enhance existing connectivity, such as undertaken in the Hunter Valley with the Great Eastern Ranges initiative.  For example, regional and local conservation planning should consider protecting existing connectivity and enhancing connectivity of koala habitat patches that are within 100m of another patch.[23]

Climate change considerations need to be included in the new Nature Laws to identify and protect habitat and corridors that will support species resilience to more extreme heat and natural disasters, even if there is no population in those areas now.

To be able to protect at risk carbon sinks, climate refuge habitat, and climate corridors, areas subject to Regional Forest Agreements must be subject to the new National Environmental Standards once implemented to prevent further destruction.
 
Community engagement
To ensure government accountability and effective decision making, greater public transparency is required together with effective community consultation and the right of appeal.  Decisions should be informed by community engagement (including public submissions) and the reasoning behind the decisions documented, including how community feedback was incorporated, and provided back to the community.  Specifically, the new Nature Laws should provide information on policies, policy changes, and specific assessments, decisions, and actions to the public in a timely and accessible manner.  It should not be necessary to undertake lengthy and expensive FOI requests to get the reasoning behind decisions.  The right of appeal should extend to the courts with judicial review of government decisions such that is available in the states.  Similarly interested parties should be able to seek merits review of decisions as detailed in the Samuel review.

The community consultation process should be strengthened to ensure developers meet standards for effective community engagement and this is reviewed by the EPA to ensure effective engagement is undertaken throughout the process. For example, how communities’ views were considered need to be explained by developers.

Community feedback also needs to be considered at each stage of the decision-making process.
 
Conservation planning
The new laws introduce the concept of unacceptable impacts which is a good thing.  However, these need to be clearly defined, include damage to critical habitats, and capture impacts that are likely to occur as well as those that will occur. As unacceptable impacts relate to the viability of the species, this also needs clear definition, such as that a species is not in decline.
The concept of critical habitat needs to be retained as it has an existing and accepted meaning.  In addition, it has legal standing. 

Critical protection areas providing hard protections for habitat essential for the survival of a species are a good thing.  Critical habitat should be protected within a Critical protection area and not be subject to damage or destruction or able to be offset.  Critical protection areas only work if their implementation is mandatory.
 
Environment Information Australia & Environment Protection Australia
The Samuel review noted that decision-makers, developers, and the public do not have access to the best available data, information, and science, resulting in substandard decisions, additional costs to business and poor transparency. 

With the new body Environment Information Australia providing environmental data for use in assessing environmental impacts, decision making, this should require the use of the best available science to ensure the new Environment Laws result in decision making is firmly grounded on science, and not on influence or politics.

The new Environment Protection Australia authority as the chief environmental regulator and to assess and approve projects, monitor compliance, and take enforcement action and is a good thing.  The EPA needs to be able to independently assess impacts on the environment based on the best available science, be properly resourced, have sufficient time to make assessments, and be able to act without political interference.

The CEO of the EPA should be accountable to an independent board of directors.

The proposed “call-in powers” by the Minister undermines both the EPA and environmental protection strategies. Similar things in the past through the EPBC Act have been subject to abuse.  I am not sure how this would not happen again.
 
Decision Making
Environmental assessments and approvals need an effective, robust, and fair process using rules-based, science-based decision-making, not the current system using disproportionate decision-maker discretion resulting in sub-optimal outcomes for the environment.  This should not continue with the new system.  Decisions should be based on the best available science.  If the science shows that a project will likely have unacceptable impacts to the environment, then the project should not go ahead.  Pretty simple.  Furthermore, decisions or projects must be compliant with the National Environmental Standards, not just be “not inconsistent with” the standards.  Moreover, environmental assessments and approvals need to be compliant with the Precautionary Principle not just take it into consideration.

If a project or project-extension has the potential to have significant environmental impact it should not be allowed to utilise the low-impact pathway and be required to go through a proper assessment.

For controversial or complex projects, a more flexible assessment option may be warranted, the option to conduct an assessment by public inquiry should be available.
 
Accreditation
I am concerned with the proposed accreditation of states and third parties for decision making (not assessment).  We have a bad track record of this.  The Samuel interim report noted that past attempts to devolve decision-making had been unsuccessful due to “lack of defined outcomes and concerns that decisions would be inconsistent with the national interest.” 

State and territory laws were not designed to address matters of national environmental significance nor adequately address the current national environmental standards encompassed in the EPBC Act.  Significant law reform would be required together with substantial resourcing to ensure national standards were applied consistently.

An analysis of 30 case studies across the country illustrated how state and territory laws, processes and policies do not meet current national standards nor provide assurances of delivery of environmental outcomes under such a system devolved responsibility. [24]  It found that state and territory laws do not adequately address cumulative impacts, cross border impacts, or adequately implement international obligations. There was also no guarantee that national standards would be implemented.

The audit and case studies highlight the need for comprehensive legislation and governance reform at all levels, and the importance of the Commonwealth taking a long-term primary role in the effective management of the environment to protect our unique environment.

With a well-resourced and effective EPA supported by the best available data through Environment Information Australia and clear National Environmental Standards and Laws, quick and effective decisions can be made without compromising environmental protection.  Accreditation for decision making adds complexity and risk to the process and may result in substandard decisions impacting deleteriously on the environment and should be avoided.
 
Regional planning and strategic assessments
Regional planning and strategic assessments provide for consideration of cumulative impacts at a landscape phase.  This is a good thing.  These should include cumulative climate impacts and future climate scenarios.

These regional plans and strategic assessments will be essential for the renewable energy transition.  This will allow for the opportunity to consult early and strategically on the appropriate siting of renewable energy projects.[25]

The ability of the minister to use call-in powers to approve a regional plan with substandard environmental outcomes seems a dangerous move.  It is one thing to call in an individual project but something else to apply this to regional plans.  Regional plans are to improve protection and restoration of priority conservation areas and not the other way around.

Furthermore, this should not be a short-cut for approval of projects where there are potentially significant impacts on a MNES.

In addition, offsets should not be able to be applied under regional plans and should be specific to species being impacted by an individual project or project extension. Similarly weaker offsets or financial offsets should not be allowed.

And lastly, regional planning should not allow for exemptions for specific sectors – such as native forest logging.
 
Other - Offsets
Offsets should be a last resort.  Offsetting should only be allowed in limited circumstances using best available science. The proposal for like-for-like offsetting is a good thing. In addition, the quality of the offsite site should be as good or better than the site being impacted.

Furthermore, some things cannot be offset such as critical habitat for all threatened species, all World Heritage places. National Heritage places, and Ramsar wetlands.  This needs to be reflected in the new Nature Laws.

Financial offsets (restoration contributions) should not be permitted. This is a bad move and a retrograde step from the EPBC Act. You should not be able to buy your way out of protecting the environment.  This will likely lead to the extinction of some threatened species, ecological communities, and migratory species.
 
Other – pre-emptive carve-out of the NOPSEMA endorsed program from existing accreditation laws
Offshore gas extraction poses significant risks to our oceans, reefs, and marine life, and it also contributes significantly to climate damage, impacting Australian communities and our natural environment. The proposal to exempt offshore gas projects from scrutiny under Australia’s new Nature Positive laws through the proposed addition of section 790E to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth) (OPGGS Act) undermines the environmental laws and standards being discussed here while granting offshore oil and gas companies streamlined approvals. We should focus on strengthening environmental laws, not weakening them.
​
The proposed amendment appears to allow regulatory changes under the OPGGS Act not to trigger a review of accreditations under the existing endorsed NOPSEMA program through the EPBC Act.  Without any safeguard, changes to regulations and legislation that may be deleterious to the environment, climate, and people of Australia would be automatically included under the existing NOPSEMA accreditation program without any scrutiny or recourse.  Furthermore, it is unclear how this bill would interact with the proposed new nature positive laws.
 
Thank you for your consideration of my submission.
 
Sincerely,
 
Alec Roberts
Chair CLEANaS


[1] Samuel, G, (2020). Independent Review of the EPBC Act—Interim Report, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra, June. CC BY 4.0.

[2] Parliament of Australia. (2024, February).  Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2] Report – February 2024. The Senate. Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.  https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/ClimateTriggerBill2022/Report

[3] Port of Newcastle. (2022). Trade Report 2022. Retrieved 16 October 2023, from https://www.portofnewcastle.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/20230404-Annual-Trade-Report-2022-1.pdf

[4] Department of Climate Change. (2008) National Greenhouse Accounts (NGA) Factors. Retrieved 16 October 2023, from http://www.globalbioenergy.org/uploads/media/0801_Australia_-_National_Greenhouse_Accounts__NGA__factors.pdf 

[5] Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) (2023). Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors, Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Retrieved 16 October 2023, from https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/national-greenhouse-accounts-factors-2023

[6] Cox, L. (2021). Australia the only developed nation on world list of deforestation hotspots. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/13/australia-the-only-developed-nation-on-world-list-of-deforestation-hotspots

[7] Thorpe, D. (2023). Deforestation: how does Australia fare in global comparisons? https://thefifthestate.com.au/business/deforestation-how-does-australia-fare-in-global-comparisons/

[8] Global Forest Watch. (2024). Tree cover loss in Australia. Accessed on 27/03/2024. Retrieved from www.globalforestwatch.org

[9] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/

[10] Samuel, G, (2020). Independent Review of the EPBC Act—Final Report, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra, October. CC BY 4.0.

[11] NASA (n.d.) Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming.  Retrieved from https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[12] BOM (2022) State of the Climate 2022.  Retrieved from http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/2022/documents/2022-state-of-the-climate-web.pdf

[13] Readfearn, G. (2020, April 7). Great Barrier Reef's third mass bleaching in five years the most widespread yet. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/07/great-barrier-reefs-third-mass-bleaching-in-five-years-the-most-widespread-ever

[14] Deloitte Access Economics (2017, June 23). At what price? The economic, social and icon value of the Great Barrier Reef. Retrieved from https://www.barrierreef.org/the-reef/the-value

[15] IPCC (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

[16] World Population Review. (2023).  CO₂ Emissions by Country 2023. Retrieved 23 November 2023, from https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/co2-emissions-by-country

[17] Swann, T. (2019, July). High Carbon from a Land Down Under:  Quantifying CO2 from Australia’s fossil fuel mining and exports. Retrieved from https://www.tai.org.au/sites/default/files/P667%20High%20Carbon%20from%20a%20Land%20Down%20Under%20%5BWEB%5D_0_0.pdf

[18] Ritchie, H. (2019, October 4). Where in the world do people emit the most CO2? Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/per-capita-co2

[19] Statistica. (2023). Per capita carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in 2021, by country. Retrieved 23 November 2023, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/270508/co2-emissions-per-capita-by-country/

[20] Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW). (2023). Net Zero, Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the
Environment and Water. Retrieved 23 November 2023, from https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction/net-zero

[21] The Australia Institute. (n.d). Project Coal Mine Tracker. Retrieved 23 November 2023 from https://australiainstitute.org.au/initiative/coal-mine-tracker/

[22] IEA. (2021). Net Zero by 2050. A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050

[23] Eco Logical Australia (2013). Lower Hunter Koala Study. Prepared for Dept Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities’.

[24] EDO. (2020). Devolving Extinction: The risks of handing environmental responsibilities to state & territories. https://www.edo.org.au/2020/10/05/devolving-extinction-the-risks-of-handing-environmental-responsibilities-to-state-territories/

​[25] Walmsley, R. (2023). A new pathway for the renewable energy transition: national environment laws that deliver for nature, climate and communities. https://www.edo.org.au/2023/09/26/a-new-pathway-for-the-renewable-energy-transition-national-environment-laws-that-deliver-for-nature-climate-and-communities/

14 March 2024
 
The Hon. Madeleine King,
Minister for Resources
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
 
 
 
Re: Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Dear Minister

I am writing to you regarding the proposal to exempt offshore gas projects from scrutiny under Australia’s national nature protection laws through the proposed addition of section 790E to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth) (OPGGS Act).

I am writing to you directly as there was inadequate time given to make a submission on the Bill.

Offshore gas extraction poses significant risks to our oceans, reefs, and marine life, and it also contributes significantly to climate damage, impacting Australian communities and our natural environment.

The government is responsible for the environment, the health and wellbeing of its citizens, and the financial security of the nation. As we see the impact of increased carbon emissions, we also find evidence of the deleterious impact on Australian native wildlife, the Australian people and the wealth of the nation.  There is only 3 years left at present emission rates of the 2013-2050 emission budget to stay below 1.5°C with Australia having exceeded its carbon budget for 2050 by 2027. By 2055 Australia will experience economic losses on par with covid, getting worse every single year due to unchecked climate change.

The proposed changes would undermine the environmental protection standards established by the EPBC Act while granting offshore oil and gas companies streamlined approvals. This compromise is unacceptable. Instead, we should focus on strengthening environmental laws, not weakening them.
The proposed amendment appears to allow regulatory changes under the OPGGS Act not to trigger a review of accreditations under the existing endorsed NOPSEMA program through the EPBC Act.  Without any safeguard, changes to regulations and legislation that may be deleterious to the environment, climate, and people of Australia would be automatically included under the existing NOPSEMA accreditation program without any scrutiny or recourse.

The timing of this proposed legislative amendment is not ideal, as the Federal Government is consulting on significant changes to the EPBC Act with new nature positive laws, including new National Environment Standards that will impact on the operation of this bill.  It is also unclear how this bill would interact with the proposed new nature positive laws.

The ambitious nature law reforms deserve our attention and support. We must resist any pre-emptive carve-outs that favour destructive industries. Approving new offshore oil and gas projects would exacerbate climate challenges and harm our communities and nature.

It is crucial that our government stands firm against pressure from companies like Woodside and Santos, prioritizing transparency and public scrutiny over rushed approvals. Let us work together to protect our environment and ensure a sustainable future for all Australians.
 

The proposed carveout of the NOPSEMA endorsed program from existing accreditation laws under the EPBC Act is untimely considering the current reforms of the EPBC Act and introduces serious undermining of the nature and effectiveness of accreditation through the EPBC Act.
 
Please remove section 790E Approval under Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999—interaction with this Act and Environment Regulations from the Bill.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my views and perspectives.

Yours faithfully,
​
Alec Roberts
Gateshead, NSW