The Claim
“Removed the requirement for the government to consider advice about the protection of endangered species when approving projects.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim is PARTIALLY TRUE but requires critical context.
The December 2013 amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) did alter the requirement for ministers to consider conservation advice, but the changes were retrospective in nature, not prospective [1][2].
According to the Sydney Morning Herald article from December 2013, the amendments meant that "Ministers will no longer be forced to consider formal conservation advice for endangered species in projects approved before the end of this year" [1]. This specifically applied to decisions made before 2014 - effectively validating past approvals that may have been legally questionable.
The amendments were passed with bipartisan support from both the Coalition government and the Labor opposition [1]. The article explicitly states these were "changes to the national environment law agreed on by the Coalition and Labor" [1]. Greens Deputy Leader Adam Bandt criticized the move, stating "Labor and the Coalition buddied up to change the law" [1].
The legal context for these changes was a Federal Court decision in July 2013 (Tarkine National Coalition Inc v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities), which overturned a mine approval made by the former Labor government on the grounds that the Minister had failed to properly consider conservation advice for the endangered Tasmanian devil [2][3]. This case established that ministers were legally required to give "genuine consideration" to approved conservation advice documents [3].
The December 2013 amendment specifically protected past decisions from legal challenges based on failure to consider conservation advice, providing "legal immunity" for decisions made between the July court ruling and year-end 2013 [1].
Missing Context
Critical context omitted from the claim:
Bipartisan Support: The changes were agreed upon by BOTH the Coalition government AND the Labor opposition [1]. This was not a unilateral Coalition action.
Labor's Own Legal Exposure: The Federal Court decision that prompted these amendments overturned a decision made by Labor's own Minister Tony Burke in December 2012 approving a mine in the Tarkine wilderness [2][3]. The court found Burke's approval invalid specifically because he failed to consider the conservation advice for the Tasmanian devil, despite being legally required to do so [3].
Retrospective vs. Prospective: The amendment applied to past decisions, not future ones. Decisions from 1 January 2014 onward would still be required to consider conservation advice [1].
Industry and Investment Concerns: The government framed the changes as necessary to provide "certainty" for approved projects and avoid disruption to legitimate investments that had already been made based on approved decisions [1].
Greg Hunt's Position: The new Environment Minister Greg Hunt stated the changes were about "maintaining standards, making swift decisions and delivering certain outcomes" [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) is a mainstream Australian newspaper with a center-left editorial stance. According to Media Bias/Fact Check, SMH covers news with "minimally loaded language" and is generally factual in reporting, though it has a left-center bias in editorial content [4].
The article by Peter Hannam (environment journalist) appears factual in its reporting of the legislative changes. However, the headline frames the story negatively ("weaken environmental law"), which reflects the perspective of environmental advocates quoted in the piece. The inclusion of critical perspectives from the Greens and factual statements from the government provides reasonable balance [1].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Yes - Labor was complicit in this change and had previously failed to comply with the same requirements.
The Tarkine Case: The Federal Court's July 2013 decision overturned an approval by Labor Minister Tony Burke who had failed to consider the Tasmanian devil conservation advice when approving Shree Minerals' iron ore mine in the Tarkine [2][3]. The court declared this decision "void for jurisdictional error" because the Minister had not been briefed with the conservation advice and only made "cursory and generic reference" to conservation advices in his reasons [3].
Bipartisan Amendment: Labor supported the Coalition's December 2013 amendment that protected past decisions from legal challenges. The SMH article explicitly notes this was a "pact between the two major parties" [1].
Labor's Record: The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) maintained the EPBC Act framework but faced criticism for approving environmentally controversial projects, including coal mines and coal seam gas developments [1].
Key Comparison: This is not a case of the Coalition uniquely weakening environmental protections. Rather, it was a bipartisan response to a court decision that had exposed legal vulnerabilities in past ministerial decisions - including Labor's own decisions.
Balanced Perspective
The December 2013 EPBC Act amendments must be understood in their legal and political context:
Criticisms (from Greens and environmental groups):
- The amendments effectively overrode a significant Federal Court precedent that had strengthened protection for endangered species [1][2]
- They protected potentially unlawful decisions from scrutiny, preventing communities from challenging approvals that ignored expert advice [1]
- Greens Deputy Leader Adam Bandt characterized it as the major parties silencing "the community on all previous decisions, locking away any skeletons in the closet" [1]
Government/Labor Perspective:
- The changes provided certainty for projects that had already been approved in good faith, protecting investments and jobs [1]
- Future decisions (from 2014 onward) would still be required to consider conservation advice [1]
- Environment Minister Greg Hunt framed it as maintaining standards while ensuring "swift decisions" and "certain outcomes" [1]
- Labor's support may have been influenced by their own exposure, given the Tarkine decision that triggered the legal precedent involved their own minister's approval
The Broader Context:
The Tarkine case established an important legal precedent: ministers could not discharge their obligation to consider conservation advice through generic references - they had to engage substantively with the specific advice documents [3]. The December 2013 amendment was a legislative response to protect past decisions from this heightened scrutiny standard.
This is a systemic issue across Australian environmental law, where both major parties have at times prioritized development approvals over strict environmental compliance. The bipartisan nature of this amendment suggests it was driven by mutual political interest in protecting past decisions rather than purely ideological opposition to environmental protection.
PARTIALLY TRUE
5.0
out of 10
The claim that the Coalition "removed the requirement for the government to consider advice about the protection of endangered species when approving projects" is technically accurate for the specific scope of the December 2013 amendment - which removed this requirement for past decisions (pre-2014). However, the claim omits three critical facts:
- The change was retrospective only - future decisions still required consideration of conservation advice [1]
- The change had bipartisan support from Labor - it was not a unilateral Coalition action [1]
- The change was triggered by a court decision that overturned a Labor minister's approval for failing to follow this same requirement [2][3]
The claim frames this as a unique Coalition weakening of environmental protections, when in reality it was a bipartisan maneuver to protect past decisions (including Labor's own) from legal challenges.
Final Score
5.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim that the Coalition "removed the requirement for the government to consider advice about the protection of endangered species when approving projects" is technically accurate for the specific scope of the December 2013 amendment - which removed this requirement for past decisions (pre-2014). However, the claim omits three critical facts:
- The change was retrospective only - future decisions still required consideration of conservation advice [1]
- The change had bipartisan support from Labor - it was not a unilateral Coalition action [1]
- The change was triggered by a court decision that overturned a Labor minister's approval for failing to follow this same requirement [2][3]
The claim frames this as a unique Coalition weakening of environmental protections, when in reality it was a bipartisan maneuver to protect past decisions (including Labor's own) from legal challenges.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (4)
-
1
Labor teams up with Abbott government to weaken environmental law
Ministers will no longer be forced to consider formal conservation advice for endangered species in projects approved before the end of this year, under changes to the national environment law agreed on by the Coalition and Labor.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2
Tarkine National Coalition Inc v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
This case gave authoritative precedent to the notion that Ministers exercising decision-making capacity must consider Approved Conservation Advice documents that relate to threatened species provided for by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (“EPBC”). Shree Minerals proposed to develop an iron ore mine in the Tarkine, a World Heritage Area of wilderness in Tasmania, Australia. Importantly, the Tarkine is a habitat of the threatened Tasmanian Devil.
Leap Unep -
3
Federal Court overturns Commonwealth approval of Tarkine region iron ore mine
On 17 July 2013, the Federal Court of Australia (Court) delivered judgment in Tarkine National Coalition Incorporated v Minister for Sustainability…
Lexology -
4
The Sydney Morning Herald - Bias and Credibility
LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording
Media Bias/Fact Check
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.