Please direct enquiries relating to requests through our contact page.
The Auditor-General responded on 9 September 2020 to correspondence from Ms Zali Steggall OAM, MP dated 24 August 2020, requesting that the Auditor-General consider an audit of the decisions and processes supporting the Commonwealth’s selection of 15 ‘major projects’ to fast-track under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
9 September 2020
Ms Zali Steggall OAM MP
Federal Member for Warringah
By email: zali.steggall.MP@aph.gov.au
Dear Ms Steggall
I am writing in response to your letter of 24 August 2020 requesting that I consider an audit of the decisions and processes supporting the Commonwealth’s selection of 15 major projects to fast-track under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
The ANAO met with Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment representatives on 1 September 2020 regarding this matter. The department informed the ANAO that major projects remain subject to the same assessment requirements and processes as all other projects under the EPBC Act. For major projects, the department undertakes additional coordination processes with proponents and states and territories, designed to reduce the assessment and decision times of those projects.
On 25 June 2020, I tabled Auditor-General Report No.47 2019–20, Referrals, Assessments and Approvals of Controlled Actions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 in Parliament. This audit examined the department’s processes for assessing projects under the EPBC Act. It included findings relating to the department’s processes for selecting priority projects. As the department has informed the ANAO that major projects are subject to the same assessment process as all other projects (which were audited in this report), I do not propose to commence an audit into the decisions and processes supporting the selection of major projects at this time.
I will continue to monitor risks relating to the department’s administration of the EPBC Act, including the implementation of audit recommendations and any changes to the process for assessing projects, for future audit coverage in the ANAO’s Annual Audit Work Program.
Yours sincerely
Grant Hehir
Australian National Audit Office
GPO Box 707
Canberra ACT 2601
AUSTRALIA
Dear Mr. Hehir,
I am writing to request you consider an audit of the decisions and processes supporting the Commonwealth’s selection of 15 major projects to fast-track under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). According to the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (the Department), major projects are determined to have national economic or strategic significance.
Due to the significant long-term impact of the projects, any decision to prioritise should be supported by clear, publicly available governance structures, guidelines and processes. In that light, I have serious concerns with how the selection of these projects has been undertaken, including the:
The major projects were announced via a single public statement, on the 15th of June, by the Prime Minister, and only a rudimentary list has been published on the Department’s website. Due to the lack of any supplementary documentation, it is unclear what guidelines and processes were used by the Commonwealth to make this selection.
This is highly unusual for decisions of this level. In contrast, the NSW State Government published selection guidelines for priority projects which include factors like jobs created, timeframe for delivery, and public benefit.
I appreciate that some of these projects that have been prioritised have been through Infrastructure Australia’s prioritisation assessment process, however, several projects such as the Narrabri Gas Project, Iron ore projects in Western Australia, Burrup Hub and the Olympic Dam extensions have not been. Nor are they considered ‘major projects’ by Major Projects Facilitation Agency
‘Recognition and support for major projects in Australia’.
It is unclear how the projects were nominated to the Department in the first instance, as some projects like the iron ore projects in Western Australia do not appear to have been referred under the EPBC Act - which is the usual pathway.
These projects are likely to have significant long-term impacts. To fast-track projects, such as mine extensions and new gas fields, departmental assessors may not adequately assess ethical, environmental and economic risks. This would go against the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013’s requirement that entities be governed in a way that is efficient, effective, economical and ethical.
There is also a lack of transparency as to what the implications of fast tracking will be for how projects are assessed. The Department’s website states, “the Australian Government will work with the states and territories to establish joint assessment teams to progress these projects. These teams will work to reduce duplication in assessment processes between the two levels of government.” This is an opaque statement - there is no clarity as to what duplication will be reduced and what other kinds of regulatory hurdles will be overlooked or bypassed.
The lack of transparency around this matter is concerning, especially given the scale of the investment of the projects. Your investigation of this matter would be beneficial to the national interest.
Kind Regards,
Zali Steggall OAM MP
Federal Member for Warringah