The Coalition’s bid to speed up environmental approvals for developments such as mines and ports will not save businesses as much money as claimed and will weaken protection for vulnerable species and ecosystems, according to a new report.



The analysis, by WWF-Australia and the Australia Institute, comes as the federal government presses ahead with plans to devolve environmental oversight of projects to the states, despite the move being blocked in the Senate last year.

The House of Representatives voted on Monday to allow states to handle the so-called “water trigger”, which is used to scrutinise the impact of mining upon groundwater supplies. The government hopes to hand over all environmental assessments and approvals to the states in a “one-stop shop”, a move it says will simplify and speed up decision making.

The federal environment minister, Greg Hunt, has said national oversight of projects “adds complexity and costs”, adding “we can cut red tape and streamline approvals, and importantly, we can do it without compromising high environmental standards”.

An analysis by Hunt’s department estimates that businesses will save $417m a year by not waiting for federal, as well as state, approval for projects. An additional $9m in administration costs will be saved by not having to deal with two different application forms, according to the government.

This stance has been backed by the Minerals Council of Australia and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, which have both bemoaned economically damaging delays to coal and gas projects.

“The industry does not seek to remove or diminish environmental standards or safeguards,” the MCA,’s chief executive, Brendan Pearson, wrote to MPs. “Rather, the minerals industry seeks only to create a more streamlined process in meeting environmental outcomes through the removal of unnecessary and costly duplication.”

But this argument has been challenged by WWF, which attacks industry justification for the move as being based upon “woefully inadequate economics”.

Its analysis argues that delays and costs are vastly overstated, with many of the approvals processes happening concurrently. It also points out that the $417m saving estimate assumes that all proposed projects will immediately proceed, when many are scrapped owing to unfavourable economic conditions.

“Teenagers view the cost of waiting until they turn 16 before learning to drive as a ‘delay cost’,” it states. “Most parents view this delay as a necessary risk mitigation strategy, while the wider community enjoys the obvious benefits of not having 14-year-olds driving cars.

“Most of the [mining industry] documents reviewed here take the teenagers’ point of view. Worse, much of the economic assessment is also of teenage standard.”

The report adds that mining lobby groups have slanted their arguments to favour their members, rather than the national interest, and points out that very few projects have been rejected under the federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

“If passed, these amendments will limit our ability nationally to protect the places and iconic creatures Australians love,” said Dermot O’Gorman, chief executive of WWF-Australia.

“The $417m in cost savings quoted by the government to justify the one-stop shop cannot be taken seriously because the government’s own modelling is completely flawed. It deceptively overstates delay timeframes and includes projects which failed to even get off the ground.”