Federal watchdog weakened
Print
Australia’s new environmental watchdog could end up baring blunt teeth.
The Federal Government's plan to establish Australia's first independent national environmental protection agency, Environment Protection Australia (EPA), is facing significant changes before it is even operational.
The EPA, originally designed to administer and enforce Australia's environmental laws with stronger compliance measures, might now have its powers curtailed as part of a political compromise.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, during a visit to Western Australia, suggested that the new agency could be limited to a “compliance-only” role.
This would restrict the EPA to enforcing existing laws without the authority to approve or reject major projects, a power initially intended to strengthen the agency's role in environmental protection.
This shift is seen as an effort by the government to secure support from the opposition, particularly from the Coalition, which has expressed reservations about the EPA's original scope.
Albanese's remarks indicated a willingness to align the EPA’s functions with the Coalition's preferences, which would bring it closer to the environmental framework under the former Coalition government.
This strategy appears aimed at bypassing demands from the Greens, who have been critical of the government's environmental policies.
Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek had envisioned the EPA as a “tough cop on the beat” capable of imposing hefty fines and even prison sentences for severe violations of environmental laws.
However, with the new potential changes, this vision might be significantly diluted.
The Greens and environmental groups have reacted strongly to the proposed dilution of the EPA's powers.
Greens leader Adam Bandt has warned that if the government strikes a deal with the Coalition to further weaken the agency, it would severely damage Labor’s environmental credibility.
Environmental advocates, including Greenpeace, have described this development as a betrayal, particularly concerning the ongoing need for robust environmental laws to address climate change and protect biodiversity.
Instead, the ongoing negotiations and potential concessions indicate that the EPA could be stuck focusing on compliance rather than active regulation of new developments.
