Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020

High-Level Summary
The bill proposes to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to clarify that forestry operations covered by Regional Forest Agreements are exempt from Part 3 of the Act. This aims to ensure that compliance matters for these operations are handled through state regulatory frameworks.

Summary
The bill affects the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002 by clarifying the exemption of forestry operations within Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) from Part 3 of the EPBC Act. From the explanatory memo:
The Bill makes a necessary amendment to subsection 38(1) of the EPBC Act and section 6(4) of the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002 to clarify the meaning of forestry operations covered by Regional Forest Agreements for the purpose of those provisions.
This clarification addresses the ambiguity highlighted by a Federal Court decision (Friends of Leadbeater’s Possum Inc v VicForests [2020] FCA 704) regarding the interpretation of 'undertaken in accordance with a Regional Forest Agreement.' The bill, therefore, seeks to ensure that any forestry operation within an RFA area is exempt from Part 3, even if minor breaches of state regulations occur, thereby avoiding operational delays and providing legal certainty for the native forestry industry.

Argument For
Normative Bases
  1. Hobbesianism
  2. Environmentalism
  3. Propertarianism

The bill should be supported because it resolves legal ambiguity that threatens the stability and operational viability of Australia's native forestry sector [Judgment]. By clarifying the exemption for forestry operations under Regional Forest Agreements, the bill reduces unnecessary bureaucratic duplication and ensures that state-level regulations are the primary compliance mechanism. This supports efficient land use and resource management, which is crucial for both economic and environmental sustainability.

Furthermore, the bill aligns with the principle of streamlined governance by entrusting state frameworks, which are already accredited and equipped to handle these operations, thus preventing federal overreach and preserving the sector's economic contributions and jobs.


Argument Against
Normative Bases
  1. Environmentalism
  2. Legal Principle
  3. Non-Discrimination

The bill should be opposed because it potentially weakens environmental protections by exempting forestry operations from federal oversight under the EPBC Act, even when breaches of state regulations occur. This could lead to inadequate accountability and enforcement in the protection of biodiversity and natural ecosystems [Judgment]. By removing federal checks, the bill risks prioritizing economic interests over environmental sustainability and may allow environmentally harmful practices to persist unchecked.

Moreover, the bill could undermine the legal framework designed to ensure that all forestry operations meet national environmental standards, creating a disparity in the protection of ecological values across states. It could also disproportionately impact communities reliant on forest ecosystems, reducing their voice in how those resources are managed.


Date:

2020-12-09

Status:

Before Senate

Sponsor:

MCKENZIE, Sen Bridget

Portfolio:

Unspecified

Categories:

Climate Change / Environment, National Security, Discrimination / Human Rights

Timeline:
09/12/2020
01/08/2022

Comments (0)