Following the Nature Positive Plan

In September 2024, the Greens proposed adding a “climate trigger” to the government’s proposed Nature Positive legislation. This suggestion has stirred up significant debate, particularly among business groups like the Business Council of Australia (BCA) and the Minerals Council, who opposed to the idea.

An Overview of the Nature Positive Plan
The Nature Positive Plan is the government’s key policy initiative to reverse environmental decline and restore biodiversity. Launched by Tanya Plibersek, Minister for the Environment and Water in late 2022, the plan outlines major reforms to environmental laws and policies to ensure that economic development coexists with nature conservation.

Three Bills have passed the House of Reps and are now before the Senate:

  1. Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024
  2. Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024
  3. Nature Positive (Environmental Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024

The Climate Trigger: A Controversial History

At the heart of the current debate is a longstanding issue: how to limit high-emission projects through the approvals system.

In 2020, a review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, led by Professor Graeme Samuel, highlighted the need for greater transparency around the emissions of development projects. However, it stopped short of recommending how emissions should influence project approvals. This gap led to discussions around introducing a “climate trigger.”

The climate trigger would place higher regulatory hurdles on projects with significant emissions, requiring them to undergo environmental assessments. While the Greens first proposed a climate trigger in 2022, the idea has been floating around since the early 2000s, though it has never been embedded in legislation. If implemented, this trigger would require the Federal Environment Minister to assess projects based on their contribution to climate change, in addition to other environmental factors.

History of the Climate Trigger

Problem: how to use an approvals system to limit high-emissions projects.

A review of the Howard-era Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act in 2020, led by Professor Graeme Samuel, recommended changes including the disclosure of a project’s full emissions. However, it didn’t specify how this should be handled in approvals.

Solution: a climate trigger that places higher regulatory hurdles on high-emitting projects.

A proposed solution is the climate trigger, which would require projects with significant emissions to undergo environmental assessment.

The Greens suggested a climate trigger in 2022, and the idea has been discussed since the early 2000s, but it has never been included in legislation. The climate trigger would add climate change as a factor in project approvals, requiring high-emission projects to be assessed by the Federal Environment Minister.

Concern: The Greens support a climate trigger, and the government has said it is under consideration.

Although a climate trigger was rejected in Professor Samuel’s review, the debate has resurfaced. The Greens support the trigger, and while the Federal Government hasn’t fully endorsed it, recent comments from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese suggest it may be under consideration.

This has caused concern among business groups, who fear the economic impact of stricter climate-related regulations under the Nature Positive reforms.

Current State (as of 10th October 2024)

Political context: The Greens and a number of crossbench senators want a climate trigger.

Earlier this week, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton told the mining industry executives he was yet to be swayed on the need for an Environmental Protection Agency. “I don’t believe the Greens and the government can arrive at a position that wouldn’t destroy the Labor Party in WA. I don’t think the prime minister is going to take that risk, is my political judgement.”

“Dutton’s demands for more fossil fuels, more pollution and more destruction make the choice for the Albanese government clear: work with the Greens and the crossbench to protect the environment or capitulate to Gina Rinehart and the big polluters,” Senator Hanson-Young said.

Business community: Fierce debate and opposition from business community.

In the context of the Nature Positive Bill, the inclusion of a climate trigger would mean that any proposed developments would be subject to an assessment of their climate-related impacts, such as carbon emissions, in addition to their effects on biodiversity and ecosystems.

The business lobby likely opposed this because it could lead to stricter regulations, higher costs, or delays for projects that have significant environmental or economic impacts.

Government position: The bill was withdrawn from debate on Thursday

On Thursday 12th of September, the Labor government withdrew its Nature Positive bill from the Senate agenda following intense opposition from the business lobby, which argued that including a climate trigger would severely impact the economy.

In the retail sector, our assessment indicates that a climate trigger is unlikely to have a direct impact, and thus, it’s improbable that the ARA will be drawn into the conversation. We will continue to follow the conversation, and update this blog as needed.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

FURTHER READING

ARA marks Mental Health Awareness Month

October is Mental Health Awareness Month, a time to reflect on the significance of mental well-being, particularly in the workplace. For the Australian Retailers Association (ARA), this month serves as