“If the proposed changes are adopted, we will support the legislation next week,” she declared, signaling a potential shift in support depending on forthcoming amendments.
On the other side, Angie Bell, the opposition’s environment spokesperson, has consistently maintained that the Coalition has been involved in “good faith negotiations.” However, she argues that the current legislative proposals are “unworkable,” claiming they hinder both productivity and investment.
The Greens have voiced their dissatisfaction, criticizing the laws for failing to put an end to native forest logging and for not including a climate trigger, which would necessitate that projects assess their climate change impact.
The Opposition is advocating for a clear and practical definition of the unacceptable impact test for projects with high pollution levels. They argue that the current definitions are overly complex and could lead to an excessive number of rejections.
Concerns have also been raised about the elimination of existing streamlined pathways for project approvals and the introduction of new emissions reporting requirements, which some see as burdensome.
“Our main issue is that the current definitions of unacceptable impact achieve the opposite of clarity. Instead, they increase ambiguity,” a committee member explained, highlighting the need for more precise language in the legislation.
‘Take the time’: Groups echo warning
“What we’re concerned about is that the existing definitions of unacceptable impact deliver everything but. What it does is enhance vagueness,” he told the committee.
