PoliticalClaims.au

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].