Labor has vehemently denied the Coalition's request to split overdue reforms to Australia's environmental laws, labelling the proposal "desperate".
The overhaul of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) is expected to dominate the sitting fortnight, with Environment Minister Murray Watt tabling the bill in parliament on Thursday.
Watt has been working on securing support from either the Greens or the Coalition in the Senate. It is the second iteration of the package, with Watt's predecessor, Tanya Plibersek, accused of breaking a 2022 election promise after she pushed back tabling reforms.
Overnight, Opposition leader Sussan Ley and Opposition environment spokesperson Angie Bell wrote to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese asking Labor to split the bill.
They argue parliament could make "immediate progress" on pro-business initiatives, such as streamlining project approvals, while demanding that environmental protections be addressed at a later date.
"There’s a lot of complexity in this bill at the moment, and to split the bill would make it very clear for the outcomes, and the two outcomes that we want to see are faster approvals and streamlining those approvals and environmental protections," Bell told ABC Radio National on Monday.
Watt has labelled it "the maddest idea", rejecting the demands, which he argues would lead to "more habitat destruction, more species threatened, no independent regulator and slower approval times".
"Everyone understands why she's [Ley] changed her mind is because she's desperately trying to shore up her leadership ahead of some very difficult net-zero conversations with her party room," Watt told reporters on Monday.
"This week, Sussan Ley is in danger of putting her own leadership ahead of the environment and ahead of business.
"We can't split the bill, we need to do both, and we know we need to get on with it."
Ley's pitch is also out of step with the Business Council of Australia (BCA), which said one big bill would offer more certainty to businesses.
BCA CEO Bran Black listed some concerns with the bill, including "stop work" orders to prevent environmental harm, but said outcomes would be preferable if the government negotiated with the Opposition instead of the Greens.
Watt is "confident" his proposal addresses the recommendations by the 2020 Graeme Samuel report, the conclusions of which were previously supported by Ley, who commissioned the environmental laws review.
On Friday, Samuel told the ABC he was "frustrated" and "frankly, a little angry" about the Greens' and the Opposition's positions on the proposed changes.
The Greens say they are still open to negotiating with Labor, despite the government abandoning a "climate trigger" that the party hoped would be used to block coal and gas projects it says would worsen carbon emissions.
However, the minor party criticised the environmental law changes as having "big business and the mining companies' fingerprints all over it".
What we know about the environmental law reforms
With the bill not yet tabled, details of the reforms have been drip-fed to concerned parties, including business groups.
On Sunday, Watt announced the nation's first-ever National Environmental Protection Agency, tasked with ensuring compliance under the proposed new laws.
However, key powers for project approvals and accreditation of state and territory processes will remain with the minister.
Watt argues the changes will streamline approval processes, removing duplication across state and federal governments.
"What we want to do is work with the state so that at least the assessments can be done by a state government on behalf of both the state and federal government, potentially saving months or years in an approval process," he told ABC News Breakfast.
The bill also includes stiffer penalties for environmental regulatory violations, including fines of up to $825 million.
The proposed changes include an "unacceptable impact" test for high-polluting projects, requiring companies to disclose expected emissions and set up carbon abatement plans.
However, with Watt giving extreme examples of the threshold for accepting or rejecting projects, the test's threshold remains murky.
"If a mining company wanted to go and mine under Uluru, and perish the thought they would ever want to do that, but clearly that kind of thing is going to be unacceptable because of the environmental damage that it would cause," he said.
"So they're the kind of things that we're seeking to try to stop and stop early in the process."
