Editorial: New environmental laws must recognise reality and need common sense

Australia can trace much of its economic good fortune to shifting tectonic plates, billions of years ago.

Supercontinents crunched together and crumbled. In their place formed a new one, rich in the mineral resources that mean Australians today enjoy among the highest standards of living in the world.

But these quirks of geology can’t take all the credit.

Iron ore, gold, lead, coal and diamonds aren’t worth anything when they’re buried beneath the ground.

Getting them out and to market takes an enormous slog.

It requires infrastructure. Rail lines, ports, roads and bridges.

It requires millions of hours of labour from workforces in the tens of thousands.

It takes entire towns and cities to be built to support these workforces.

The industry pioneers get a lot of the credit for doing much of the heavy lifting by providing the capital to make Australia’s resources industry the powerhouse that it is today.

But government departments deserve a share of the kudos too.

In decades past, they understood the significance of these then-nascent industries. They recognised the scale of the task ahead.

And they did what was necessary to clear the way to turn that unrealised potential into economic phenomenon.

Take the Pilbara’s iron ore industry. Just a few years separated the discovery of major deposits to first export.

Accomplishing such a feat today would be virtually impossible.

Departmental approvals drag on years. Those decisions are then subject to appeal after vexatious appeal brought by eco-agitators bent on frustrating resources ambitions.

Now, the Government wants to introduce yet more layers of bureaucracy and red tape.

Labor has released about 70 per cent of its proposed environmental legislation reform.

But industry insiders fear the sting will be in what the Government has chosen to hold back. That includes the full powers of a Federal environmental protection agency, and whether the minister will retain final decision-making powers.

What we have seen already has caused some alarm, in particular a new definition of “unacceptable impacts”, which could be used by environmental groups to slam the handbrakes on just about any project which attracts their ire.

That includes Alcoa’s planned gallium plant in WA which is to be one of the first two Australian critical minerals projects to be greenlit under the new $13 billion deal struck this week with Donald Trump’s administration.

This is the Labor Government’s second go at reforming these laws. The first attempt, under then-environment minister Tanya Plibersek, was shrouded in secrecy and ultimately abandoned.

Industry figures say the process this time around under new minister Murray Watt has been more consultative. They’re at the table and willing to contribute.

The result needs to be a workable system that recognises the preciousness of our natural environment, but balances that with Australia’s economic and ethical imperative to help shore up the supply of rare earths, critical minerals and other resources that the world desperately needs.

Responsibility for the editorial comment is taken by WAN Editor-in-Chief Christopher Dore