Image: Tanya Plibersek gave a speech and fielded questions at the meeting. Photo: Mark Dickson.
By JUSTIN COOPER
The federal government has announced an audit into construction developers and their obligations to environmental offsets, but many perceive the environmental offset system in its entirety as broken and in desperate need of overhaul.
Last week, the Albanese Government announced they would investigate over a thousand approved offset sites from the past 20 years to ensure developers have addressed their environmental impacts during developments.
Minister for Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, announced the audit as a policy designed to ensure that nature protection coincides with sustainable developments and developers are held accountable.
“When developers agree to offset the impacts of their projects, it’s not an optional exercise. It’s a legal obligation,” said Plibersek. “For too long, projects have gotten away with promising one thing and not following through.”
Plibersek noted that investigations will “begin immediately,” and warned companies to check their plans have been properly addressed before departments “come knocking.”
“Developers should do everything they can to avoid habitat destruction and reduce impacts on nature. Properly managed offsets are a last resort but will help to make sure nature is better off overall,” Plibersek explained.
“An important step”
Research Director at the Institute for Sustainable Futures UTS, Alison Atherton, spoke with City Hub on the significance of the audit following concerns on the execution of offsets.
Atherton said that offsets, whilst being a means of compensation for environmental damage, “should be treated as a last resort only when all other options have been exhausted” – due to a lack of clarity on whether offsets are particularly effective.
“Where offsets are used, it is critical that they are high quality, credible, effective and additional to what would have happened otherwise,” said Atherton.
“This requires robust governance, enforcement and monitoring arrangements.”
Regarding the announcement, Atherton said this audit suggests there is significant concerns about offset schemes. She noted that the audit follows last year’s review into the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme by the state Auditor General, which identified serious deficiencies in the design and implementation of offset schemes.
“Given the seriousness of current environmental issues, including species and habitat loss in Australia, it’s essential that steps are taken as quickly as possible to ensure that environmental degradation is reversed,” she continued.
“The audit is an important step in the process but ultimately much more needs to be done to reverse the negative trends.”
Similarly, the Nature Conservation Council of NSW (NCC) said the audit as being a “necessary first step” in addressing the extinction crisis from habitat destruction. The environmental advocacy organisation said this announcement is an opportunity for the government to “raise the bar” for future developments.
NCC CEO, Jaqui Mumford, noted that the audit would help “respond to the fact that there has been no reporting to track whether developers are actually delivering on their responsibilities.”
“Threatened ecosystems cannot be seen as a tradable commodity that can be purchased to offset other destructive practices” said Mumford.
While the environmental organisation acknowledged the audit announcement as evidence of progress in nature protection, it has also issued a word of warning.
“To solve the extinction crisis, we must stop habitat destruction at its source, not continue to allow it by permitting offsets to act as ‘compensation’”, the organisation wrote in a press release. “That means stopping development in places of ecological value, period.”
Following the government’s announcement, City Hub spoke with the Shadow Minister for Environment Jonathon Duniam, who explained the Coalition welcome the investigation if the plans are “genuine and well-targeted.”
“If there are individuals or businesses who have done the wrong thing, then it is appropriate that they be held to account,” says Duniam.
However, Duniam noted the ambiguity of the plans for the audit and questioned how beneficial these investigations will be.
“We don’t yet fully know what forms it will take and how many resources it might take away from work on other environmental decisions and projects,” Duniam continued.
Duniam called out past choices from Plibersek, calling the minister’s actions “puzzling and dubious” in questioning the audit’s integrity and potential.
Labelling Plibersek’s actions as “puzzling and dubious”, Duniam said, “the timelines of many of her key decisions are blowing out and, on innumerable occasions, she has also failed to even consult with crucial stakeholders, instead making decisions which have stifled their work.”
Policies on environmental offset are outlined in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 are “designed to protect national environmental assets, known as matters of national environmental significance, and other protected matters.”
The EPBC Act explains that all types of offsets and mitigations are “efficient, effective… and scientifically robust” in ensuring companies are transparent with plans to other stakeholders and provide environmental consistency throughout development.
Whilst environmental offset plans are assessed and approved by the Government on a case-by-case basis, responsibilities are left to companies to follow which the audit intents to examine and expose.
