Sustainability Bites

There is no such thing as a free lunch

All’s fair in love and law?

by | Jun 24, 2020 | 1 comment

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Framing environmental regulation as ‘green tape’ and challenges to environmental approvals as ‘lawfare’

By Peter Burnett

‘Green tape’ and ‘lawfare’ are back in the headlines. This time the impetus comes from the Government’s latest ‘congestion-busting’ initiative and the impending publication of a new study into litigation by environment groups.

So, is there a tangle of ‘green tape’ out there that needs to be ‘busted’? What about an environmental conspiracy to bog down coal mines and other development projects in litigation? Or are we witnessing another round in the seemingly endless political struggle to control the environmental policy agenda?

These are timely questions because Australia’s premier environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is under review and due to report in October. This will lead to major policy decisions and probably new legislation.

There’s a lot at stake.

More than coloured tape

The term ‘red tape’ has been with us for a long time. It goes back to the 16th century and the Spanish king Charles V, who ordered the use of red tape to bind important state papers (the modern equivalent would be Cabinet papers). String was deemed good enough for the rest.

Only in more recent times did the term acquire the pejorative meaning of ‘unnecessary bureaucratic process’.

The term ‘green tape’ is a modern variation on this theme, and I think it may have emerged in Australia. I first noticed it when the Campbell Newman government in Queensland tabled a bill in 2012 with ‘Greentape Reduction’ in the title. It appears to be a deliberate attempt to extend the pejorative connotations of ‘red tape’ to environmental regulation.

Part of the problem in challenging this framing is that there is some truth underlying the term. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) in particular seems to take a long time, and some of this is caused by overlap, if not duplication, between federal and state EIA laws.

‘Green tape’ is also linked to things beyond the laws themselves. In 2010, compliance with statutory EIA timelines under EPBC was around 90%. From 2013 governments, initially Labor but mostly Coalition, started cutting the Public Service, including the Environment Department. Compliance with timelines dropped to about 60% in the last financial year, prompting the Morrison government to fund ‘congestion-busting’ measures that have brought compliance with timelines back up to around 90%.

In other words, it’s partly a question of resourcing. Governments take the money away, don’t like the resulting drop in performance, and then reinstate the funding and return to previous performance levels, thus ‘fixing’ the problem.

It’s complicated

Many federal EIA’s involve state EIA as well. Federal and state laws overlap but don’t necessarily align. Federal and state officials work in different cultures and usually apply different policies. All this complicates the regulatory process.

Another complication is that the time taken to assess and approve a project is the sum of the time taken by government to take its regulatory steps and the time taken by the proponent company to respond to requests for information or comment from the regulator.

Companies, especially big ones like BHP and Rio Tinto, have bureaucracies too. Sometimes they are slow to respond. Sometimes, I’m told by assessment officers, they resist providing the requested information, either because it’s expensive and time-consuming to collect, or because the information might not be convenient to their cause.

At the end of the day, there is a problem to be fixed here and the government’s recent announcement that federal and state officials will form ‘joint assessment teams’ for major projects is a good one, provided they resource the teams properly and don’t just pressure officials to meet unrealistic deadlines.

But the ‘green tape’ framing devalues the work of public servants and is, in part, caused by those who use this terminology.

‘Lawfare’ and the right to challenge

The government and some businesses have argued at several points in recent years that environmental groups have used their right to challenge environmental approvals in the Courts on a tactical basis, hoping to obstruct development. This is referred to as ‘lawfare’.

Once again, there is some factual basis to the term. In 2012, someone hacked into Greenpeace computers and subsequently leaked a document entitled Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom: Funding proposal for the Australian anti-coal movement to the media.

One element of the plan to was to ‘run legal challenges that delay, limit or stop … major infrastructure projects (mines, rail and ports)’.

Subsequent academic research has found no significant evidence that the courts have been used to delay projects.

One recent study finds that federal court records do not reveal evidence of the worst kind of delaying tactic, which is to abuse court processes by bringing unmeritorious cases.

The courts have strong powers to deal with unmeritorious claims, including throwing them straight out (‘summary judgment’) and even banning the applicant from bringing further claims without their approval (‘vexatious litigant’). So it’s not surprising that such cases are rare.

But what about meritorious cases, by which I mean cases based on arguable legal grounds? In that case, it’s hard to separate cases based on genuine objections to the individual development from cases driven by a wider agenda, such as the strategy proposed by Greenpeace. This is because the motive, and perhaps the source of funding, often remains hidden.

Further, there is an argument that if the case is meritorious, then it doesn’t matter if the applicant has a wider agenda. This is because well-founded challenges help to ensure that decisions are made properly, thus advancing once of our foundational social values, the ‘rule of law’.

You can see what a tricky issue this is.

Political framings

In the meantime, the EPBC Act is undergoing its second 10-year review and there are many serious issues to address, most especially concerning how to halt the ongoing decline of the environment itself.

‘Green tape’ and ‘lawfare’ are political framings designed to advance a particular agenda. That agenda reflects some valid concerns but there is much more at stake.

What we need is a political framing of ‘environment degradation’ that supports an agenda of ‘we need to fix this before it’s too late’.

Image by Gerhard Lipold from Pixabay

1 Comment

  1. atulloch

    Great article Peter! It’s really important to get these conversations going and see just how destructive the historical (and current!) language is in environmental communications and regulation…so much negative messaging involved in any kind of “tape”, and totally the wrong kind of conversation that we should be having about environmental protection – regulations are there to help biodiversity and help keep our environment healthy and functional, nothing more or less.

    Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. A bluffer’s guide to Australia’s premier environmental law – Sustainability Bites - […] it harder to turn a profit and get projects off the ground. They claim the approval process is green…
  2. Dbytes #434 (15 July 2020) | Dbytes - […] support the nation’s economic recovery,” said APPEA Chief Executive Andrew McConville.[And see Framing environmental regulation as ‘green tape’]In this…
  3. Environment Minister Sussan Ley is in a tearing hurry to embrace nature law reform – and that’s a worry – Sustainability Bites - […] ears of the Morrison government. From the outset, the government framed Samuel’s review around a narrative of cutting the…
  4. The bumblebee conspiracy – Sustainability Bites - […] This problem is real enough, although the Government is one-eyed about it, framing the issue pejoratively as ‘green tape’…
  5. Trust us? Well let’s look at your record – Sustainability Bites - […] initial changes are about reducing duplication and ‘green tape’ by introducing ‘single touch’ environmental decisions. They are posing as…
  6. 2020 hindsight – Sustainability Bites - […] It’s undergone two decadal independent reviews; has been the centre of an ongoing fight about green tape, farmer’s rights…
  7. Reforming national environmental law: first get rid of it, then fix it? – Sustainability Bites - […] law and ongoing environmental decline, the Government has maintained its single-track narrative of ‘cutting green tape’ and the need…
  8. We scored a ton! Open the champagne (?) – Sustainability Bites - […] about the problems facing the Reef – the delusion of the technofix [science, policy, politics]73. All’s fair in love…
  9. Crunch time for reform of national environmental law – Sustainability Bites - […] While it might seem that the government were stung into action by the release of two critical reports last…
  10. Administrative law: like the Curate’s egg, boring in parts, but environmentally useful nonetheless – Sustainability Bites - […] course, this is grist to the mill to industry and politicians running a campaign against ‘lawfare and green tape’,…

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *