Industry fears environment law makeover could threaten the WA gallium plant that was key in $13b Trump deal

The Federal Government’s new environmental laws could kill off a WA critical minerals project lauded by Donald Trump this week during his historic meeting with Anthony Albanese.

Industry groups were on Wednesday poring over details of parts of the draft legislation, with concerns raised over potential negative impacts on future project approvals.

Environment Minister Murray Watt is widely expected to put the legislation to Parliament as soon as next Wednesday, and was telling stakeholders 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,” he told The West.

A new definition of “unacceptable impacts” outlined in the proposed laws is a top concern for industry, with claims it is too broad, open to legal challenge and would halt projects like those the Prime Minister and US President highlighted as part of their critical minerals deal this week.

Under the proposal, 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 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.

Senator Watt took over the portfolio from Tanya Plibersek and his renewed consultation on the overhaul of the environmental laws had been lauded for its spirit of goodwill from all sides.

But multiple industry sources said on Wednesday they were wondering if anything they said had been heard.

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

The minister has said the proposed Environmental Protection Agency would be able to issue stop work orders, including verbally during compliance visits, to immediately halt activity its inspectors thought created an imminent risk of serious harm to the environment or were already damaging it.

Fines for significant breaches would increase to $825 million for a business and $1.6 million for an individual, and businesses could be stripped of any profits made from crossing the line.

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 okay 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.”

WA Government agencies were being consulted on parts of the legislation this week.

“It’s our expectation that there will be ministerial sign-off,” a senior State Government source said.

The legislation also sets up a new requirement that projects must initially seek to avoid or mitigate environmental damage, and if they can’t do that, they need to outline offsets that would offer an overall net gain to the environment.

Senator Watt said this was based on recommendations from Graeme Samuel’s 2020 EPBC review and would mean that “there’s got to be some level of improvement to the environment compared to how it currently stands”.

Both business and environmental groups are also worried about a part of the legislation that would require proposals to disclose likely carbon emissions and a plan to abate them.

Industry said it was a “back door” to a climate trigger, while green groups argue it does not go far enough.

Senator Watt has repeatedly ruled out including climate impacts as a legal measure to assess projects against. But it is a key demand from the Greens whose support he may need to pass the package.

The Government released about 70 per cent of the draft legislation on Wednesday but held back key parts, including the full powers of a Federal EPA. Only two of the six proposed national environmental standards are ready, relating to matters of national significance and offsets.

Stakeholders from all sides said it was impossible to cast final judgement 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 it was a “ good, bad or ugly package” without seeing the details about the EPA and the minister’s role.

That faster timeframe to push through the new laws is another concern for stakeholders.

“I would expect that, given the speed in which the bills have been prepared, is that having some due diligence on the content of those bills from the Senate is going to be important,” Australian Conservation Foundation campaign director Paul Sinclair told The West.