Association of Mining and Exploration Companies says miners given a ‘fait accompli’ on Nature Positive

The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies has argued the furore about a lack of consultation on Nature Positive has masked real concerns from industry about the contents of the contested environmental approvals reform.

The Warren Pearce-led industry group emphasised there would be “severe implications” for new mining projects in its submission to a Senate Committee regarding the proposed set-up of a new Federal Environment Protection division.

The Nature Positive plan would establish a national independent environmental approvals body as well as existing offices at a State level among other items, but has so far drawn a frosty reception from business and industry groups.

Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA’s chief economist Aaron Morey on Monday decried the reforms as a threat to national infrastructure investment and a path to further cost blow-outs.

AMEC aired similar concerns, but also put forward that “ongoing conversation around the challenges of the consultation process has obscured the substantial concerns from across industry of what is being proposed in the Nature Positive Plan reforms”.

“Moving forward AMEC would ask for genuine consideration of a wide range of views when the legislation is being formulated, rather than being presented a fait accompli.”

The group recounted worries on behalf of its 570 member companies, including concerns regarding the so-called “climate trigger”, which would seemingly allow the Federal Government to intervene in projects if they breached carbon footprint specs.

AMEC also raised that five business days to respond to requests for further information about a proposal was “unrealistic” and should be extended to 14 days.

AMEC’s submission backed in the approach of WA’s Environmental Protection Authority, which independently reviews projects and then makes recommendations to the State Environment Minister to ultimately decide whether it goes ahead, as a “best-practice model”.

“It is unclear why this model was not adopted, and no rationale has been supplied,” AMEC said.

The governance structure of the new body would also put decisions about new projects “into the hands of an un-elected person”, AMEC argued.

“The Federal EPA CEO should be held accountable for any mismanagement, similar to any other executive position. The sustainable development and national interest expectations that are decided upon should drive the subject of the CEO’s performance.”