Al-Amn Magazine

University of Queensland, said the legislation should not come down to ministerial discretion if decisions were made based on scientific facts. “You’re giving a political decision-maker the power to determine something that has already been proven by a scientific expert,” Professor Bell-James said. “If this [legislation] goes through as it is … it will be really interesting to see how a court deals with that.” She said the legislation would be stronger if it were worded: the minister must not approve a project if it would have unacceptable impacts. Professor Bell-James said, as a whole, there were aspects of the legislation that could be used for good outcomes for the environment, but also negative ones. “There’s so much in there if it fell into the hands of the wrong person who didn’t have the interests of the environment at heart; it could be used in a really negative way,” she said. One big unknown is how a proposed set of “national environmental standards”, to be regulated if legislation passes, would guide decision-making. A review of the EPBC Act five years ago suggested that rigorous standards should be the central framework for reform.  However, Professor Bell-James said the issues around ministerial discretion and the national interest exemption would still exist even if the standards were scientifically robust. The ‹pay-to-destroy’ clause Under the proposed legislation’s principle of providing “net gains”, critical habitat for threatened species and ecosystems that are not considered “irreplaceable” would need to be offset if destroyed for a project. These critical habitats, according to the draft, are areas that include: • Activities such as foraging, breeding, roosting or dispersal of threatened species • The long-term maintenance of a threatened species or ecological community • The maintenance of genetic diversity and long-term evolutionary development • The reintroduction of populations or the recovery of the threatened species or ecological community Developers would either need to come up with offsets that result in a net gain themselves or pay money into a new restoration fund administered by the federal government. But state government versions of these types of funds have a spotty history. “We know the NSW biodiversity offset scheme has ended up amassing huge amounts of money that can’t be spent because they can’t find equivalent habitat to restore,” Professor Bell- James said. The NSW government updated its laws to try to fix the problem late last year, but there have also been similar issues with a scheme in Western Australia’s Pilbara mining region. “It only works where you’re paying into a fund to do offsetting on something that is demonstrably offset-able,” Professor Wintle said. Otherwise, a developer could pay into a fund, no longer be liable, and the problem would rest with the government and the taxpayer. Restoration funds will also be crucial for new bioregional plans that will try to deliver landscape-wide offsets in locations with tricky tenure issues, like the Pilbara. The idea of net gains could be on the chopping block, however, if Mr Watt decides to seek a deal with the opposition to get his legislation through parliament. Shadow environment minister Angie Bell told ABC News Breakfast, on the day the legislation was tabled, that including “net gain” definitions had big problems. Mr. Watt said he was open to hearing proposals from other parties, but the goal was still a balanced package. But losing fundamental targets like having net gains, or even no net loss, could lose what the reform was about in the first place. abc.net.au