Speakers: Business Council Chief Executive, Bran Black
Topics: EPBC reform bill
E&OE
Bran Black, Chief Executive: Well, I do want to start by saying that we appreciate the steps that the Government has taken to respond to some of the concerns that we raised with respect to these EPBC reforms. However, from a global perspective, we consider that this is a missed opportunity to deliver the type of economically transformational reforms that the country needs and what we need to do now, and I really do stress this point, our focus has got to be on state accreditation to administer the federal scheme.
That is so important. That is the one point that I hope everybody takes away from today. That is where we get productivity gains, because that’s how we can go about extracting one layer of assessments from what is clearly a broken and convoluted system. That is so very important, but particularly so in light of yesterday’s CPI figures, 3.8 per cent.
We know that in order to really address our challenges, with respect to inflation, the very best thing that we can do is look to enhance our productivity. Right now, it is at a six-decade low. For the last 12 months, it only increased by point one of a percent against the long run average of 1.2 per cent. We need to turn our productivity around. And these reforms … were a central component, in our view, in order to help deliver on that.
Now, I just wanted to touch on some of the key points that were raised as part of our submission process, individually as the Business Council of Australia, but also as one of 26 members of an alliance of industry associations. I won’t take too long, I hope, but I just wanted to give you a sense of where we’ve got to, the areas where the Government provided a good degree of engagement and has ultimately made some important changes, and where there hasn’t been change.
So first and foremost, in terms of where we have seen change. Our concerns with respect to unacceptable impacts have been partially addressed. We’ve had our concerns addressed in terms of guardrails around environmental protection orders, particularly the timeframe within which they can be made. We’ve also had our concerns addressed with respect to the removal of existing assessment pathways, and particularly the retention of the preliminary documentation pathway.
We’ve also had our concern addressed in terms of the capacity of the Minister to be able to extend approvals beyond an initial five-year period. Where we are concerned that our concerns haven’t been addressed is with respect to the accreditation point that I raised before regarding states and territories, the decision making capacity of the new Environmental Protection Agency, the ability, or the lack of ability, for the Minister to remove the head of the EPA for poor performance.
Our concerns also haven’t been addressed in terms of the use to which disclosures of greenhouse gas emissions will be put, and equally, our concerns regarding the ambiguity in the net gain test and ambiguity with respect to penalty provisions have also not been addressed.
We’ve also seen that there are some concerning developments that have come through in relation to the Greens deal, particularly with respect to excluding coal and gas from streamlined processes such as regional planning and the new streamlined assessment pathway, and equally, the water trigger being excluded from bilateral agreements. Those points to us are of a concern.
As I say at the end of the day, we are pleased to see that there have been some changes that do respond to the issues that we raised in the course of submissions, but overall, we consider that this is a missed opportunity to deliver the type of transformational economic reform that our country needs right now. Very happy to answer questions.
Journalist: Mr. Black with the concerns you’ve listed, can you name any specific projects that will be impacted by these reforms?
Bran: The challenge that we have here is that there are going to be many, many, many years determining how these assessments apply. But what I can say is that if we look at unacceptable impacts as an example, there is still ambiguity in terms of how that language is to be applied. And what that means is that right across the board, there is the potential that projects that are presently capable of being assessed that will no longer even be capable of being assessed under that new system. And that’s been a concern that we raised right from the outset.
Journalist: On the net gain definition, the Minister has said they are going to tighten that, but it’ll be done in the standards, the regulations, have you seen where those changes are and that you’re saying it still doesn’t address the concerns that you held?
Bran: So, our concerns with respect to the ambiguity associated with net gain is that, at the moment, it’s just two words, net gain that appear in the legislation without clarification.
Now, the intention behind that is that the words will be clarified or that more meat will be put on the bones in the standards. But our position has always been because those are ambiguous words, include them in the standards and then flesh them out more in the regulations beyond that, and I do stress that if you include them in the standards, there was already a provision in this Bill that said you couldn’t go backwards once you put a point in the standards. So that was already a protection that was going to be in place with respect to environmental interests.
Journalist: You mentioned that you know, like the statements you’ve read, are on behalf of not just yourselves, but 26 other organisations, is there a sense of frustration that this has all actually happened before the Senate inquiry wrapped up, before everyone was given a chance to actually bring this into the public domain.
Bran: Look, we’ve always said that we wanted these reforms to move quickly if they could move quickly, and to that end, our position has been, if we could get to the right outcomes this week, we would very happily do that.
The challenge that we’ve got is that we haven’t achieved the right outcomes this week. As I’ve noted, there are still a series of matters which we think are really key that haven’t been addressed. And I do want to come back to that point in terms of state accreditation. If there is one thing that we should take away from today and focus on, it’s the absolute fundamental criticality of getting that right, getting on with the job.
I know that premiers are looking forward to having the opportunity to have their destiny in their own hands, with respect to project approvals. This is how we cut out a layer of government, and this is also how Australia goes about trying to be more competitive in the race for global investment.
We see, for instance, in Canada, they’ve recently said that if a province, their equivalent of a state, has agreed to a particular project, then that is sufficient for federal purposes. We don’t have that type of option. If we can get that state accreditation, we will.
Journalist: It’s been said today about the Coalition’s approach to negotiations. Do you think that what we’ve seen is just that the Greens were a better outfit in terms of being more mature in how they approached this?
Bran: Look, I can’t comment on the politics. From our perspective, there are always policy focus. There were key issues that we regarded as being important in order to be addressed and as I said, there are still a number of key issues that haven’t been addressed.
Journalist: Do you think that there’s space to look at a lot of these concerns that you’ve raised in the new year?
Bran: Well, I think that the key thing again, is that we do need to see how that state accreditation piece plays out, and no doubt that will be in the new year. The Minister has indicated that he’s very open to having these processes put in place, but we haven’t seen any tangible step as yet towards doing that, and that’s what we’ve been calling for.
Our initial position has been that we wanted to see the full package turned on only at such time when there was at least one state or territory that had been accredited. That remains our position, but we know obviously that the Government has taken a different direction on that particular point. That underlines the importance now of making sure that we can work towards full state accreditation, not just for assessments, but for approvals as well.
Journalist: How could they take any tangible steps on state accreditations when the laws, I mean, they haven’t even passed Parliament yet?
Bran: I think it’s already clear what those laws are likely to look like, and we also know that chances are they’ll be going through the Parliament reasonably quickly. I’d be urging the Government to get on with the job of working with states and territories that want to be accredited right away. And I know from my conversations with a number of premiers around the country that they are looking forward to the opportunity to have that power.
Journalist: Just looking at the process broadly. So, this was something that was originally brought up during the Productivity Roundtable, and we’re now six months into this next term of Parliament.
Does it feel like the way that the Government has gone about this, by having people involved from the start to then sort out this reform, has that been the best way to go about this process?
Bran: As I’ve said previously, I take my hat off to the Minister in terms of the consultation process that he’s run. It has been genuine engaging for stakeholders, and we’ve been grateful to be part of that process.
I’m disappointed that the outcomes that we sought have not been achieved through this process, but in terms of the process itself, I think that’s been as textbook as you could probably get from a stakeholder management perspective.
I can’t, of course, speak to the politics and how that’s played out in the Parliament, but in terms of stakeholder engagement, we’ve been very pleased. We’ve also been pleased with our engagement with the Opposition as well, they’ve always been very receptive and very willing to listen to our concerns.
Journalist: So this Bill, isn’t exactly what you wanted, but is it still a net positive for Australian business, for the Australian economy?
Bran: Look, as I’ve said, there are a series of key changes that we were calling for, both on our part as the Business Council of Australia, but also as a part of the Alliance of Industry Associations. And in our view, we think that these reforms fall short of delivering the outcomes that we were seeking.
Journalist: But still a net positive?
Bran: As I say, I think it falls short of the outcome that we were seeking overall. We were saying that there needed to be a net benefit for business and a net benefit for the environment. From an environmental perspective, I think it’s very clear, based on the statements that have been made so far today, that environmental stakeholders consider that that threshold has been achieved from a business perspective, we do think it falls short.