The end of the week, the end of the much-discussed, long-awaited and let's be frank likely over-anticipated and over-hyped Economic Reform Roundtable meetings in Canberra.

The three-day talkfest will have given Canberra much to think on and ponder and hopefully some concrete ways forward. And it's very likely retrenched some firm divisions between some of the parties.

But what's to come of the jaw-jaw exercise? Well, according to the messages being pumped out of the Treasury there's 10 issues the government thinks they can work on quickly – the so-called low-hanging fruit.

And while many of them aren't squarely in the energy sector's wheelhouse, one of them – reform to the nation's environmental laws – certainly is.

So, what's been said about the overhaul to the EPBC Act? Well to be honest, not that much…

On Wednesday, when the issue was part of that day's agenda, the Green party's Senator Hanson-Young promptly put out a statement welcoming the opportunity to push the reforms on.

"Australia needs new environment laws that protect nature, consider climate and are efficient. Our Howard era environmental laws aren't working for anyone, except the big fossil fuel companies that continue to block any changes," she said.

And now that the roundtables have wound up what have we heard from Jim Chalmers? Well, apparently, he's asked the environment minister Murray Watt to "accelerate" the reform process.

A fine objective you might think. But is there much meat in the sandwich?

Well, not really, as it was only earlier this month Watt proclaimed "We intend to deliver these reforms within the next 18 months" and while many might complain the Canberra wheels of process turn too slowly, it has to be understood they can't spin too fast. Due process must be followed and care must be taken when drafting nation-building legislation.

Similarly, the Productivity Commission is accepting written submissions on this issued until 15 September 2025, to inform its final report on investing in cheaper, cleaner energy and the net zero transformation – this too will likely feed into any new laws drafted.

So, if speed of change is nothing new and is limited by the bureaucratic process, what might we finally end up with?

The review by the former competition regulator Graeme Samuel in 2020 recommended a new national set of rules to replace the current overlapping or duplicating system of state and federal approvals processes, which everyone from the greenies to fossil fuels lobbies agrees aren't fit for purpose.

Samuel recommended a "single touch" system, whereby the states and territories would be accredited to assess and determine environmental approvals under a strict set of Commonwealth-mandated standards and rules.

And it seems Chalmers is a fan of this approach with the instruction to Watt to push the overhaul in line with these principles, including stronger standards, faster approvals and more transparency.

But then no sooner is Watt tasked with this then those afore-mentioned lobby groups intervene, keen as ever to introduce their own few cents into the debate.

"It is vital the government does not rush to introduce legislation ahead of an arbitrary and self-imposed deadline," said CME Chief Executive Officer Rebecca Tomkinson.

"Robust and considered consultation is the best way to develop enduring and workable reforms that meaningfully speed up project assessments without sacrificing environmental protections."

Isn't that what was meant to have happened this week in Canberra? 

Yours, 

Russell Yeo