Just a small thing, but the prime minister and the most of the government when speaking on the environment laws always say it’s ‘a good deal for business and the environment’, or it ‘strikes the right balance for business and the environment’ – business is always first. Always.
That tends to tell you the order of importance in how someone is thinking of a subject. Business is more important than the environment. It has always been thus with governments – the only thing that trumps the economy is national security.
2 Comments
So disappointing,undemocratic and unconscionable to force more broken laws onto high risk communities.
Submission 97 to the Environment and Communication Committee. Highlights 9 integrity issues with the 7 bills.
1. the lack of consultation that preceded the Bills;
2. flaws in the design and independence of the proposed National Environment Protection Agency;
3.the division of powers between the NEPA and the Minister;
4.the need for independent, transparent and merit-based appointments to all committees under the legislation;
5.the worrying inclusion of national interest discretions to create exemptions;
6.the determination of significant matters in the National Environmental Standards without sufficient accountability;
7.the use of ‘streamlined assessments’ that reduce public consultation obligations;
8.the introduction of ‘rulings’ by the Minister;
9. the qualifications and independence of the Head of Environment Information Australia.
Link: https://publicintegrity.org.au/research_papers/submission-environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-act-reforms-2025/
Yeah, I'd noticed that too, and agree with you. In some sense, Labor is worse in this regard that the Coalition: they rely on, especially "Big", business to employ the union members whose unions support Labor. To me, it's something of an "unholy pact". I support unions in general, but I see the above as a problem, at least with regard to environmental, including climate, reforms.