Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt is facing calls for greater clarity around the Albanese Government's new environmental legislation, with growing concerns from across the political spectrum and key stakeholders in Western Australia. WA Premier Roger Cook has called for a clear and legally binding definition of what constitutes "unacceptable impacts" in order to avoid future governments exploiting vague terminology. The current draft of the legislation reportedly contains 37 different definitions, raising fears of inconsistency and legal ambiguity.
Cook, who was instrumental in convincing the Prime Minister to delay the initial version of the "nature positive" laws introduced by Tanya Plibersek earlier this year, expressed support for the revised legislation but insisted it must now be finalised with proper safeguards in place. “Let’s get it done… I just want to make sure that WA’s interests are protected,” he said ahead of his meeting with Minister Watt in Canberra. He also warned that the combined opposition of the Greens and Liberals could delay the bill’s passage through the Senate.
Independent MP Kate Chaney has voiced her own concerns, specifically around the proposed “national interest test” that would allow the Environment Minister to expedite approval for certain projects. Chaney acknowledged that such powers might be justified in cases of defence or emergencies but cautioned against broader application. “I don’t want to see it just being used for any project at all,” she told The West Australian, indicating her intention to seek amendments that would more tightly constrain ministerial discretion.
Chaney’s stance reflects a consistent theme in her parliamentary work: advocating for transparency, accountability, and environmental rigour, while supporting sustainable development. Her concerns mirror those of environmental groups and legal experts who fear that vague or expansive ministerial powers could be used to sidestep proper environmental assessment—particularly for high-impact developments, including fossil fuel projects.
Senator Watt, meanwhile, is actively negotiating with both the Greens and the Coalition to secure the legislation’s passage, stating that he has no preferred partner in the Senate. “To get this through we’re prepared to make adjustments… I’m not prepared to have a Bill that doesn’t deliver those wins for the environment and business,” he said on Monday. His comments suggest that the government is open to structural changes to the bill but is holding firm on achieving dual outcomes for conservation and economic certainty.
The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of WA has also criticised the draft legislation, pointing to the proliferation of definitions as a barrier to project certainty. Their concerns align with those of industry players who want clearer, more consistent regulatory settings to support long-term investment decisions.
The upcoming Senate debate will be pivotal in shaping the future of Australia’s environmental protection framework. As negotiations intensify, crossbench voices like Kate Chaney’s are playing a key role in demanding legislative safeguards that prevent political overreach while maintaining environmental standards. Her call for tighter rules on ministerial intervention underscores the importance of ensuring that environmental policy is not just expedient but durable and principled.