The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is the Australian Government’s central piece of environmental legislation, providing a legal framework to protect and manage ‘matters of national environmental significance’. The legislation covers environmental assessment and approval processes for new developments in Australia, including major energy projects. The second independent review of the EPBC Act commenced in October 2019, which included a discussion regarding the inclusion of a climate trigger within the scope of the legislation. In February 2020, the EPBC Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2020 was introduced to the Senate, which proposed penalties for emissions-intensive actions.
Energy Transition & Zero Carbon Technologies; GHG Emission Regulation
Not Proceeding: Lapsed at end of Parliament 25 July 2022
Energy Transition & Zero Carbon Technologies; GHG Emission Regulation
Not Proceeding: Lapsed at end of Parliament 25 July 2022
On 26 February, the Australian Energy Producers Strongly supporting maintenance of high GHG emissions energy mix released a plan for Australia’s Economic and Energy Security, calling for new fossil gas supply ahead of the federal election, which must be held by 17 May. The report argues that increased gas production would ease cost-of-living pressures, reduce emissions, and support continued exports. It also appears to advocate for weakening the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to fast-track fossil fuel approvals and for including gas in the Opposing renewable energy standards Capacity Investment Scheme, a mechanism designed to incentivize renewables.
On 15 October, Rio Tinto published an updated position statement appearing to outline its support for reforms to Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. The company’s statement included calls for reforms that result in “strengthened and independent compliance and enforcement powers” and transparent “disclosure of project climate emissions”. This contrasts with the company’s position in a March 2024 letter to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, in which it advocated for Australia's Prime Minister to “personally intervene” to rule out the introduction of climate considerations into the EPBC Act. However, although Rio Tinto's statement acknowledged the "interdependencies between nature and climate", the company does not clearly state whether it supports the inclusion of climate considerations into project assessment processes as part of the Government's Nature Positive reforms.
In a 10 September address at Minerals Week 2024, Minerals Council of Australia Chief Executive, Tania Constable advocated against the inclusion of climate considerations into Australia’s Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. Constable appeared to call on the mining industry to lobby the Coalition Party to support Labor’s watered-down Nature Positive Bill as a means of sidelining the Greens Party from negotiations, who have proposed several amendments to the Bill, including the introduction of climate considerations and tighter restrictions around native forest logging.
As reported in a 24 July ABC News article, Business Council of Australia chief executive, Bran Black, advocated for the Australian government to rule out introducing a climate trigger into the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act. Black appeared to suggest that there was no need to incorporate climate considerations into the Act as Australia’s emissions are already regulated by its Safeguard Mechanism policy. The Business Council of Australia previously expressed opposition to the introduction of a climate trigger in its July 2024 submission to a Senate Inquiry into Australia’s Nature Positive Bills
In a March 28 personal letter to Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Rio Tinto advocated for the Australian Government to weaken reforms to its Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act). The letter, released under freedom of information laws, calls on the Prime Minister to personally intervene in the environment laws’ drafting process, including to rule out the inclusion of a climate trigger and other climate change requirements from its planned reform to the EPBC Act.
A broad group of industry associations advocated against the inclusion of a climate trigger in Australia’s EPBC Act in July 2024 submissions to a Senate Inquiry into the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024. The Business Council of Australia, Minerals Council of Australia, Australian Energy Producers, Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, and Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia all actively opposed the inclusion of a climate trigger as part of reforms to the EPBC Act, emphasizing potential risks of regulatory duplication, project approval delays and economic impacts to suggest that greenhouse gas considerations are more effectively dealt with by existing climate policy instruments.
The Australian Energy Council appeared to emphasize concerns regarding the introduction of a climate trigger into Australia’s EPBC Act in a 6 June blog post. Although the association noted a climate trigger could improve the effectiveness of mitigation measures under the Act, it appeared to qualify these statements by emphasizing that a climate trigger risks extending assessment and approval timelines for all referred projects under the Act.
The Carbon Market Institute actively supported the proposed reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism in its February 27th submission, advocating for the ratcheting of baseline decline rates from 2030 and the expansion of the scheme. Further, in a statement on the Safeguard Mechanism Reforms at the 27-28th February Senate Standing Committee Public Hearing on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill, CMI actively supported the policy, calling for broader coverage of the scheme. CEO John Connor also appeared to express support for a "budget approach" to limit future fossil fuel investment. CMI Director Kurt Winter went on to issue support for the implementation of a climate trigger in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
On the 11th October, the Business Council of Australia (BCA) entered a submission to the Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022. In the response, the BCA stated that it opposed the introduction of a climate trigger to the policy.
The table below lists the entities tracked by InfluenceMap which have publicly engaged with the policy. InfluenceMap tracks around 300 companies and 150 industry associations globally. Each entity links back to the entities’ full InfluenceMap profile, where the evidence of its engagement can be found.
| Influencemap Performance Band | Organization | Policy Position | Policy Engagement Intensity |
|---|
