Event: BCA Chief Executive Bran Black interview on Sky News AM Agenda
Speakers: Sky News AM Agenda Host Laura Jayes; Business Council of Australia Chief Executive Bran Black
Topics: EPBC reform, approvals, investment, business conditions
E&OE
Sky News AM Agenda Host Laura Jayes: Environmental laws are being debated in Parliament. It’s a consequential week as well. We’re not hearing much about it. The BCA is there. It’s Chief Executive Bran Black, joins me now. This is a really crucial week for you as well. Bran, what is on the table and what do you like in this legislation, but what are you most concerned about?
Bran Black, Business Council Chief Executive: Thanks, Laura, it’s good to see you. Look, I should say it’s really useful that we are having this process of considering environmental law reform. It’s something that industry and environmental groups have been calling for now for decades.
The system is broken, so we like the fact that this issue is on the table. What we see is that there are still a number of key concerns in the draft bills that have been made available to us that really do need to be addressed. These key concerns relate to the definition of unacceptable impacts, net gain, the role and the powers of the CEO of the EPA, particularly in the context of issuing stop work orders, but also in relation to whether or not they should undertake assessments and approvals in addition to compliance work.
But then in addition to that, there is the critical work that needs to be done to make sure that we actually deliver more streamlined processes, because for business, ultimately, that’s what will essentially ensure whether the process is a success or a failure. We have to get these processes improved so that we can deliver the renewable energy, the housing, the critical minerals projects that the country requires.
Laura: Okay, so what I’m hearing is that essentially there are two core concerns. Is that this Bill does nothing to streamline anything. The states haven’t signed up to it, so you still got that state federal overlap there. And also, Bran, is it fair to say that it is still tipped too far in the way of the environment, rather than encouraging investment and infrastructure?
Bran: Well, just to address that second question, first, I think, as I say, we want to be in a position at the end of this process to be able to say we think these bills and this package ultimately delivers a net benefit for business. That’s the test here. And of course, we’ve got to make sure there is a net benefit for the environment as well. But from my side of the ledger, if you will, our test is, is there a net benefit for business?
And right now, as I mentioned, there are concerns that we have that need to be addressed. Now, to that first point that you raised, in terms of streamlined approvals, there is significant work there that we think needs to be done. And one of the things that we’ve mentioned, and you might have seen today in our remarks, is that we think it’s important that you only turn on those elements of the bill that are intended to improve environmental outcomes at the same time that you are able to achieve and turn on assessment and approvals being undertaken by states, because ultimately, that accreditation of states to do Federal assessment processes and approval processes is really where you’re going to get those reductions in time and those streamlined processes.
And the key point that I’d make there is that we need to do this just to be competitive. If you look at a jurisdiction like Canada, their new Prime Minister came in and within months, said, all right, from now on, if a province in Canada says that a project can proceed, that’s good enough for the Federal Government.
Laura: Right, and so what happens now, a state government would say, okay, it’s good enough for us. It could proceed on all of these things within state legislation. Then it goes to the Federal Government. They’ve got a whole other set of criteria?
Bran: That’s absolutely right. So, there are two sets of criteria that need to be assessed, and they differ. Now what that means is that you get a drawn-out process where a state will undertake its assessment on its criteria. It will then have an approval that will go through a minister, and then you’ll take that to the Federal Government, and you’ll have the same steps now…
Laura: That can sometimes Bran, sorry to interrupt, that can sometimes work in the favour of business investment infrastructure. Can’t it? Because the Federal Government can say, well, this is crucial for the economy and can override the state. So, we’ve got to be careful there, don’t we?
Bran: Well, I think that the key figures that speak to the challenges that we’re facing now really prove the point that we’ve got to try and find a better way to streamline processes. And if you take renewable energy alone as an example, there are 76 projects that were submitted for EPBC assessment and approval in the years 2023 and 2024. Not a single one of them has been approved.
I’m also aware, through my own membership, of members that have tens of thousands of homes that are sitting within the EPBC system awaiting approval. And the law firm, Herbert Smith Freehills, has described the existing system as the single greatest impediment to the green energy transition. So, the system is broken, and we need to find ways of streamlining it, and that’s why getting the states to be accredited to do the Federal work is so important, and everybody in industry is arguing for this position.
Laura: Okay, so the states need essentially more power.
Bran: I think that’s right. They need to be able to, of course, be accredited to do this work, and they need to be accredited properly. But what we’re saying is, if you’re going to switch on all of these provisions which have the effect of securing benefits for the environment, you should make sure that at the same time you’re switching on these benefits that secure those streamlined pathways for business, because if you don’t do that, you will miss out on the capacity to deliver the housing, the renewable energy, the major projects, the critical minerals projects and so on that the country needs in order to progress our economic fortunes.
Laura: Yeah, look, as I understand it, there’s a lot of frustration at state level with the EPBC. Anyway, I know the South Australian Government, Chris Minns here in New South Wales, absolutely, because it is an impediment to getting more houses built more quickly, putting the renewable projects aside just for one moment. So, you’ve said in your op-ed today that you want at least one of the states on board with an agreement with the Federal Government before this is signed into legislation. But why does that need to be done concurrently? Is it more that, Bran, that you just don’t want this legislation to pass, set and forget and then no other progress is made for months or years to come?
Bran: Well, I do stress we want a form of change to pass, provided, of course, it secures an overall net benefit for business in addition to securing that net benefit to the environment. But what we would say is that if we just have that one side of the piece confirmed with increased protections for the environment, in the absence of also securing those streamlined pathways for businesses and the accreditation for states, then, to your point, we’re worried that there will be a set and forget, or there won’t be sufficient priority afforded to the process of accrediting states and territories so that they can undertake this work.
We need to see that progressed with the same degree of enthusiasm and with the same degree of momentum so that we can secure the outcomes that genuinely deliver a balanced result. And it’s that balanced result, that net overall balanced result, that’s good for the environment, and that’s good for business that is critical. If we can’t secure net benefits for business at the end of the day, then from our perspective, it’s a reform process that won’t have achieved what we set out to do. And therefore, you ask yourself, why would you try?
Laura: Okay, one final question, how are negotiations going down there? It does seem that the Coalition is engaged with the Government on this one, you would be happy if that is happening, wouldn’t you, so the Greens don’t get the kind of the power here to make changes and pass it in the Senate.
Bran: Look, I think the conversations that I’ve had so far have been very useful. Of course, we’ve got bills, and as I mentioned, we do need to see improvements to those bills so that we can say that there is a net overall benefit for business. But I cannot compliment the Minister enough in terms of the engagement that he’s had so far, he’s done a lot of it, and it’s been useful in terms of being able to have those conversations. But we’ve also been very engaged with the Coalition, and I compliment them on their capacity and willingness to come to the table and work with us, work with environment groups and work with the Government to try and see if there is a way through.
I do stress, and this goes directly to your point, that we consider that with changes like this, ultimately, it is so important that it’s the two parties of government that ultimately make the call and support a position if it is to go ahead. And that is so that you get that longevity in terms of outcomes, you get that balance that comes of knowing that you’ve got those parties of government engaged.
Laura: Okay, good luck. Compliments all around. Thanks so much, Bran, appreciate it.