The Conservation Council has rejected moves by the Abbott government to foist environmental approval responsibilities onto the states and territories, and slammed an agreement reached last week with the ACT.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The council's ACT executive director, Clare Henderson, said moves to establish a single approval process created a conflict of interest as the government raised revenue from land sales.
Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt and ACT Planning Minister Mick Gentleman have called for public comment on the draft agreement, which has been described as reducing regulation and speeding up planning processes.
Handing approval controls to the states and territories is part of efforts by the Abbott government to cut costs and regulation that it believes creates overlap in local, state and federal decision-making.
The document outlining processes for "accredited approvals" by the federal government, seeking to end duplications and specify conditions for approvals, is open for public comment until September 12.
A review of the agreement would be carried out every five years and processes for disputes between the governments are included.
Ms Henderson said a petition had been launched calling on Chief Minister Katy Gallagher to block the moves to a "one-stop shop" because it was not part of Labor's national policy or her governing agreement with Greens minister Shane Rattenbury.
She said offering states and territories increased powers would not improve environmental protections but result in poorer outcomes, including for World Heritage-protected areas such as Queensland's Great Barrier Reef and Tasmania's Franklin River.
Ms Henderson rejected suggestions by Mr Rattenbury that the agreement maintained effective requirements for federal approval requirements and said the deal did not require any action from the federal government.
"All it provides is for the ACT government to refer any proposed decision on proposals which impact on matters of national environment significance to the Commonwealth minister with responsibility for the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act," she said.
"The Commonwealth minister has only 10 days to provide advice. Ten working days is completely inadequate for the Commonwealth to adequately consider any significant proposals, the documentation of which, if assessed appropriately, would be voluminous."
Deals have been signed between Mr Hunt and his Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmanian counterparts.
Ms Henderson said Australia would probably end up with a "patchwork" of environment laws because of the changes, creating legal challenges and uncertainty for industry.
"Here in the ACT one of the greatest threats to our unique and national significant biodiversity is urban development, and the ACT derives a large percentage of its income from land sales. It can't be both the proponent and regulator for future urban development," she said.
Particular threats also include the decline in the ACT's endangered yellow box red gum woodlands.
"Over the past 10 years, the ACT has lost over 300 hectares of these critically endangered [areas] to urban development. It is likely we would have lost more if it wasn't for Commonwealth involvement," Ms Henderson said.