The environment minister will still be responsible for approving projects under new federal nature laws, after Labor rebuffed calls for a completely independent watchdog with full decision-making powers.

The retention of ministerial decision-making powers satisfies a key demand from the Coalition and industry and is not opposed by the Greens.

But it has been criticised by environmentalists, who argue the model could allow developers to exert pressure on the minister.

The environment minister, Murray Watt, set out on Sunday the powers of the environment protection agency, under a bill to rewrite the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act due in parliament this week.

Sign up: AU Breaking News email

Watt’s hopes of passing the laws before Christmas were dealt a blow last week after the Coalition and Greens criticised separate aspects of the draft laws, denying Labor a clear path through the Senate and setting up a political fight in the final three sitting weeks of the year.

The Coalition argue the laws are anti-business, while the Greens claim the opposite, accusing Watt of drafting laws that have “big business and the mining companies’ fingerprints all over it”.

Speaking on Sky News on Sunday morning, Watt said the government was open to considering amendments but was adamant the revamp would not collapse for the second time in 12 months.

“People should be under no illusions … we will be passing these laws through the parliament,” Watt said. “The only question is how quickly we do it and who we do it with.”

One of the most contentious parts of the reforms has been the scope of the promised federal environment watchdog, with industry and environmentalists at odds over whether an independent agency – rather than the minister – should be responsible for approving projects.

Previously, the environment minister has made decisions on projects either directly or via an official acting under delegated powers.

In practice, the minister personally considers only a small number of significant applications, such as Woodside’s North-West shelf extension and the Robbins Island windfarm. Departmental officials sign off on more than 90% of decisions.

The new regime will be largely the same, except that rather than delegating decisions to a departmental bureaucrat, that responsibility will fall to officials in the new EPA.

The decisions that are taken by the minister will be based on advice from the EPA rather than department officials.

The new agency, to be officially known as the National Environment Protection Agency (NEPA), will have other functions that are independent of the minister, including policing nature laws and monitoring compliance with a project’s conditions.

“An independent NEPA will have strong compliance and enforcement oversight to better protect our precious environment and ensure those who seek to illegally destroy it pay a high price,” Watt said.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

The Australian Conservation Foundation acting chief executive, Paul Sinclair, was disappointed the proposed EPA was not fully independent.

The peak green group favoured a model in which the minister set nature protection rules and then EPA assessed projects against them.

“Arm’s length decision making is better for nature and better for business,” he said.

The Greens environment spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, said the EPA would become “another branch of government bureaucracy” if it didn’t have strong laws to enforce.

With a “climate trigger” that could block or restrict fossil fuel projects officially off the table, Hanson-Young signalled the Greens were prepared to negotiate with Labor on other mechanisms to address climate impacts.

Under the new laws, proponents of heavy polluting projects would be required to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and how they intend to mitigate them as part of the application process.

But the laws would not force decision-makers to consider those potential climate impacts, meaning projects such as Woodside’s North-West Shelf extension could still be approved under the new regime.

“They’ve taken the climate trigger off the table because they’re doing the bidding of the fossil fuel companies,” Hanson-Young said.

“Now if we negotiate, the government’s going to have to come up with what they are prepared to do to protect the climate and to protect our forests.”