The Albanese government is drifting from its environmental commitments – it’s time for transparency and good faith
After less than two years in power, the Albanese government is showing signs of getting comfortable. Consultation, transparency and coherent policy appear to be out. Cosiness with powerful stakeholders and policy onthe-run appear to be in.
Parliament is now debating amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act, which, if passed, could carve out oil and gas approvals from Australia’s environmental law.
In 2020, a landmark review of Australia’s environmental laws found they were ineffective and needed fundamental reform. Two main findings were that people had lost confidence in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, and that Indigenous knowledge and views were not being fully valued. Environment minister Tanya Plibersek accepted these findings and announced plans for major reforms in 2022.
Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup
But just as Plibersek began implementing the government’s Nature Positive Plan, the federal court handed down two important decisions affecting the offshore petroleum regulator that upheld the requirement for Traditional Owners to have a fair say in decision-making.
The response from Santos and others was to lobby resources minister Madeleine King to amend the petroleum regulations to “increase certainty”. King has since initiated a consultation review, which remains incomplete.
Indigenous Australians have expressed concern that the government is trying to bypass the need to appropriately consult with them – a right the federal court has found to exist. They argue that this is an outrageous breach of the human rights principle of free, prior, and informed consent.
In the meantime, the government has introduced amendments to the Offshore Act. Most of the amendments are aimed at improving safety, but they also include an amendment that would allow the resources minister to change the environmental and consultation rules for the offshore oil and gas sector. Regardless of what those changes were, they would automatically be accredited under national environmental law.
These amendments are sly policy, seemingly introduced without consultation beyond the resources sector. They also run completely counter to the government’s pledge to restore trust and integrity to Australia’s environmental law, and to include proper Indigenous engagement, oversight and transparency.
A small saving grace is that new government amendments now include a sunset clause after 12 months, meaning the Nature Positive reforms, due in parliament mid-year, should apply to the offshore regime, just like anything else.
As Tanya Plibersek herself put it in the foreword of the Nature Positive Plan, “we will take them [our environmental laws] from being nature negative, where we oversee an overall decline in our environment, to nature positive, where we protect our land and leave it in a better state than we found it”.
That’s the theory. In practice, there are two big problems. First, Plibersek’s reforms are months overdue, and are running so late that there is speculation they will be cut back hard to make sure that at least some reforms go through this year. This would come at the cost to the environment.
Second, the government has forgotten its own policy commitments and principles of good government.
Environmentally, the government is starting to look adrift. Urgent change is required, as is a commitment to work in good faith with traditional custodians of the land who are the customary guardians of all life in Sea Country.
• Dr Jack Pascoe is a Yuin man and senior research fellow at the University of Melbourne where he focuses on understanding and managing biocultural landscapes. He is the Biodiversity Council’s co-chief councillor.