The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is the Australian Government's environmental legislation. It covers environmental assessment and approvals, and is intended to protect significant biodiversity and integrate the management of important natural and cultural places.

Under this legislation, Australia has had (for many years now), the highest rate of mammal extinction in the world, and has become a global deforestation hotspot.

The legislation is reviewed every 10 years. And the following is a submission made 17th April 2020 by Ian G. Bruce.

Current issues:
1. The current attitude to environmental issues (including as assumed in legislation) tends to rest on an economic model, such that environmental assets can be given a monetary value. This is exemplified in the types and levels of fines and sanctions imposed on people and companies for actions that result in environmental damage.

Whilst calculating a monetary figure is important for fines etc. the attitude that this is an absolute attribution is fallacious. If you can put a figure on environmental damage, then it is implied that environmental damage can be undone with the expenditure of a similar amount of money. This is a completely misguided notion, see these instances:

A tree that has been growing for 400 years is cut down illegally. The penalty imposed may be sufficient money to plant 1,000 trees, but the ecosystem that had existed around the tree and evolved over the 400 years of its life cannot be restored by spending money, but must gradually happen over the next 400 years.

If a small arboreal native species is wiped out because of forest clearing, the species has become extinct. No amount of money can bring the species back into existence.

2. There is a prevalent notion that human life is somehow separate from the environment, and that it is more important than the lives of other creatures. We now know that there are a host of other creatures that form part of our living bodies, ranging from microbes in our intestines and on our skin to mitochondria in our cells.

Humanity is the only species that destroys its environmental niche and expands its population exponentially —  a feature we see associated with species heading for extinction, animals we class as feral and plants we class as noxious weeds.

3. Because aspects of the environment have been monetised, the extent to which perpetrators of environmental damage can be made to pay for rectification or other penalties for their actions is constrained by the financial circumstances of individuals and companies: an individual can declare bankruptcy or a company become insolvent and clean-up measures become the responsibility of innocent taxpayers.

4. Many of the serious environmental issues brought to public attention today, have been ‘happening’ for many years (even centuries) and not recognised until recently as a problem. Thus, perpetrators of environmental damage can quite rightly claim ignorance.

Suggestions for improvement.
1. Whist the imposition of fines and charges for rectification work should remain the practice, the inestimable value of undisturbed nature should be taken into account. Fines should be massive, not the tiny ‘slaps over the wrists’ we see given to huge and profitable companies. The current penalties are such that large companies are able to plan for fines etc. as a cost in a particular endeavour —  they are not punishing enough to deter.

Also, environmental damage should be considered as a criminal matter in the same realms as murder, manslaughter and grievous bodily harm. Fines and penalties should be commensurate with clean-up and restoration costs, plus a significant penalty, and the criminality, considered as a physical harm to the body of the natural environment, result in significant prison sentences for directors and workers who knowingly carry out their directions.

2. Companies will continue to wreak environmental havoc whilst they are financed by shareholders who are able to make money via dividends for such damage. It is essential that the responsibility for environmental damage extends to all parties involved: directors, workers and shareholders.

Whilst the penalties associated with criminality should not extend to shareholders of a company, the limited liability of shareholders should be abolished for environmental damage (crimes), without a time limit, or at least a significant period such as 100 years. We have seen countless example over the years of companies, directors and shareholders causing great environmental damage and disappearing behind the curtains of time or limited liability so that rectification is not taken or the taxpayer foots the bill.

3. The consequences of environmental degradation are so serious, the responsibility for the situation must be extended to the lawmakers and civil servants who have overseen the degradation.

Where faulty environmental practices can be traced back to lax laws that have been put in pace by politicians (and political parties) that have received donations, funding or other benefits, either directly or indirectly from the perpetrators of the environmental damage, the financial and criminal penalties should be extended to include those politicians and public servants.

The extreme of not being informed of a problem is in the misinformation that is often promulgated by people and media companies. Take for instance News Corporation, a company that has put forward a consistent climate change denialist position in the face of undeniable and voluminous scientific evidence to the contrary. Such a company should be open to penalties such as civil suits for damages, mounted on behalf of the human race and the natural kingdom. (see point 4).

4. The natural kingdom should be recognised as a legal entity so that legal action can be taken to gain compensation for damage and secure meaningful protection. Thus a legal firm could initiate a group action on behalf of ‘Nature’ against News Corp. for their efforts to dampen action on climate change, with its catastrophic results.

5. Because ignorance of a problem is often cited as a defence over the case of not doing anything to alleviate it. A central authority such as the federal government, should establish an on-line reporting system and data base (publicly accessible) that records environmental issues, from the large to the small. Such that individuals and companies can contribute ideas about what they consider an environmental issue, right down to the smallest, most insignificant-seeming issue.

Reports should be registered and made available for others to read with the names of the contributors held, but not made available to public perusal.

Volunteers (from the public at large), and paid experts, should test out, verify and investigate any reported problems and contribute to the integrity of the data base.

When issues are verified, notifications should automatically be sent to companies and individuals involved, so that at a later date they cannot claim ignorance of the problem.

Conclusion.
These ideas and suggestions may be primitive in their level of development, but I think they illustrate the notion that rather than the current practice of purely attending to the symptoms of a deteriorating environment, we need to take a step back in the causal chain and address the issues, attitudes and conceptualisations that are giving rise to these symptoms.