This doesn’t have to take a long time, but it can be handy to pull your thoughts together in a word document or similar, before you go to actually make the submission. 

When you make your submission, you’ll have the option to either upload a document or paste your words directly into the submission webform (below) - so while you’re pulling your thoughts together you might want to think about which way you will want to go with that - it’s purely your preference which is easier for you.

Your submission may be as short or as long as you like - and while it should make sense, it doesn’t have to impress your high school English teacher! One thing we do suggest you include is a brief description of why you care about this topic, or your connection to the environment.

Here are a few points you might want to consider. If you want to go into other areas, you may want to check out “Bonus for detail nerds” below. You may wish to choose 1 to 3 of these ideas to raise in your submission, and connect to your own perspective.

While there are many threats that we want the environment to be protected from, in 2024 climate change is the biggest and most all-encompassing - and set to worsen in the coming decades. It makes no sense that our most important environmental law makes no effort to control the drivers of this threat, and gives Australia no mechanism for saying “No” to a project on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions. Climate considerations, especially greenhouse gas emission levels, should be fully embedded throughout the new law. Ideally this would take the form of including climate itself as a new MNES (Matter of National Environmental Significance), which would mean that climate change is assessed from the beginning of the process. But even if that can’t be achieved, the new law should still include a mechanism for evaluating the impact of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions on other MNES.

The new law should prioritise consultation with First Nations communities for the best outcomes in environmental and cultural heritage protection.

The current proposed law doesn’t allow for “merits appeal” – meaning that if the community wishes to challenge an approval, they can only challenge the legal process of the decision, not whether or not the project itself is actually a good idea. We believe the ability for community members to undertake a merits appeal is an important safety net for the environment and should be incorporated into the new law.

Engagement and consultation with community members is not just a box to be ticked - it should be central to the law and environmental decision-making at every step in the process.

The current legislation only addresses greenhouse gas emissions created directly at the project site (like escaping methane emissions or the company’s vehicles - often referred to as scope 1 emissions) and by the goods and services the project uses (like the electricity used on site - scope 2 emissions). For many projects the other indirect emissions are by far the largest (scope 3 emissions), but these are not dealt with in the law. This is partly because they’re harder (but possible) to track, and partly because they also encompass emissions caused by people using the products that come from the project (for example, by burning the coal that comes from a mine). The Government argues that this is OK because those emissions would be accounted for by someone else who uses that product, but we believe our most important environmental law should be more careful, and avoid taking a “not our problem” approach to greenhouse gas emissions.