Alcoa gallium plant: Industry insiders raise alarm over Labor’s proposed environmental law overhaul

Business and mining groups are raising red flags over Labor’s proposed overhaul of environmental laws, as details of the long-awaited legislation emerge just days before it is expected to be introduced to Parliament.

Industry insiders who have seen the first parts of the draft legislation released for consultation fear a new definition of “unacceptable impacts” from mining proposals is too broad, open to legal challenge and would halt projects

One such project considered under threat by Environment Minister Murray Watt’s draft laws is the Alcoa gallium plant in WA, lauded by Donald Trump this week during his meeting with Anthony Albanese.

Under the draft, an “unacceptable impact” would be defined as a proposal that would seriously impair the viability of something that is protected and impacts it in a significant way.

Alcoa’s existing bauxite operations, pictured, have raised concerns under WA approvals about their impact on nearby jarrah forest and Perth’s water supplies. Some industry sources claimed the gallium plant wouldn’t get up under the proposed new Federal laws but Alcoa believes it would only require State approval.

Business and environmental groups are concerned about another part of the legislation that would require proposals to disclose likely carbon emissions and a plan to abate them — although industry says it’s a “back door” to a climate trigger while green groups say it doesn’t go far enough.

One mining figure told The Nightly there is also concern about repeated references stating that new mining proposals “must pass the net gain test”, meaning significant environmental abatements.

The Government released about 70 per cent of the draft legislation but held back key parts, including the full powers of a Federal Environmental Protection Agency and whether the minister would retain final decision-making powers.

Stakeholders from all sides said it was impossible to cast final judgment without seeing how the known parts interacted with these key elements.

“The devil’s always in the detail ... as far as how we feel about where it’s going to land, we really need to see the detail of legislation to make a comment about that,” Urban Development Institute of Australia national president Oscar Stanley said.

“It’s a big nut to crack but we appreciate the balance that needs to be struck.”

Greenpeace’s head of nature Glenn Walker said it wasn’t possible to give a view on whether this is “a good, bad or ugly package” without seeing the details about the EPA and the minister’s role.

Mr Watt, pictured, is widely expected to put the legislation to Parliament as soon as next Wednesday and he wants it passed by the end of November.

“Everyone who’s been complaining about the lack of progress for years now, they’ve got an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is,” Senator Watt told The Nightly.

So far, elements related to bilateral agreements with States that would allow them to do assessments, regional planning, and streamlined assessments, Environmental Information Australia, and the National Environment Standards including arrangements for offsets, have been released.

Senator Watt’s renewed consultation on the EPBC overhaul has been lauded for its spirit of goodwill from all sides, but multiple industry sources, speaking anonymously so they could continue the process, said on today they were wondering whether had been heard.

They feared the parts of the legislation release leaned too far towards stronger environmental protections, while the promised trade-off of faster approvals for businesses was all promise with no detail.

While business groups and WA Government figures who spoke with Senator Watt when he visited Perth earlier this month believed he had assured them he would retain final sign-off on projects — rather than giving the power to the EPA like green groups want — the minister said that was still undecided.

“It’s one of the items we’re still settling, but I’m very clear on industry’s view that you want the minister to continue having that power,” he said.

“All of the stakeholders are OK with an EPA having compliance and enforcement powers.

“The point I’ve made to the all the stakeholders, including the mining groups, is that they’ve got to be able to do that independently to ensure community confidence in the system.”