A Long Time Coming: Australia Finally Confronts the Need to Fix Its Broken Environment Laws
For a quarter of a century, Australia’s national environment law—the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC)—has been criticised as outdated, weak, and far too easily gamed. For years, environmental scientists, community groups, former judges, First Nations leaders, and global climate organisations have warned that the EPBC Act was failing its one job: protecting nature.
This week, after marathon negotiations between Labor and the Greens, the Senate passed reforms that many groups hail as historic, while others call them timid, incomplete—or even dangerous. What everyone agrees on is that this step was long overdue.
Australia’s landscapes have endured the consequences of political procrastination for decades. The ecological reality, meanwhile, has refused to wait: koalas and greater gliders are declining; the Great Barrier Reef has endured repeated mass-bleaching; mega-fires and floods are worsening; and Australia remains a global deforestation hotspot.
Against that backdrop, the reforms have landed with the weight of expectation—and the sharpness of unresolved controversy.
Advertisement:
A Partial Victory for Nature—and a Political Shortcut Too Far?
Independent Senator David Pocock, whose ACT office fielded “almost 1,000” community messages in the 24 hours before the vote, described the outcome as “an improvement on current national environment laws but [one that] still falls short in six key areas.”
His frustration was twofold: the bill’s shortcomings—and the way it was rushed through parliament.
“Nature was only a partial winner in today’s deal and as a parliament we have failed to update our national environmental laws in a way that fully protects the places and species we love,” Pocock said.
He did not mince words about process: “The bills were rammed through with almost no time for scrutiny… Over 20 Senators, including myself, were denied any opportunity to speak on the bill.”
Still, despite “serious outstanding concerns,” Pocock voted for the bills, noting that some loopholes will finally close—including the notorious exemption for native forest logging, set to end on 1 July 2027.
But he emphasised that major flaws remain:
- the inability to consider climate emissions from projects
- an offsets system bordering on a “pay-to-destroy” model
- new ministerial “rulings powers” that reduce judicial oversight
- vague national-interest powers open to political misuse
- and the failure to establish a truly independent EPA.
“More nature-destroying projects will continue to be approved under these bills,” he warned.
Advertisement:
Forests Finally Get Their Due
If there is one unambiguous win, it is for Australia’s forests.
For the first time in the EPBC Act’s 25-year history, native forests will be covered by national nature protection laws. That change alone is seismic.
ACF CEO Kelly O’Shanassy welcomed the breakthrough: “This will give our forests, which are home to unique Australian wildlife like the koala and greater glider, a fighting chance… Today, those loopholes will be closed.”
WWF-Australia CEO Dermot O’Gorman echoed this, saying: “Nature now has a fighting chance… For 25 years the logging industry has had a free pass to knock down the homes of koalas, greater gliders and other endangered species.”
Greenpeace Australia Pacific also highlighted what this means on the ground. CEO David Ritter said: “There will be trees that will stand, wildlife that will survive and ecosystems that may flourish again because of this.”
The reform removes exemptions that allowed “unchecked bulldozing of Australia’s forests”—a major reason Australia has become globally notorious for deforestation rates more commonly associated with developing nations than wealthy ones.
For the conservation movement, this is a generational win.
The Climate Elephant in the Room
But even as forests receive new protections, another crisis looms larger.
The laws explicitly forbid the federal Environment Minister from considering climate pollution when assessing new coal or gas projects.
That provision has united environmental organisations, scientists, and polling data—against the government.
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie described it bluntly: “This 2025 law fails the climate test… All new coal and gas projects still get a free pass on climate pollution.”
The Council warns that 42 fossil fuel projects currently in the assessment pipeline could release 8.7 million tonnes of additional pollution each year.
As Climate Councillor Professor Tim Flannery put it: “The Greens have blocked fast-tracking of coal and gas which would have been a disastrous outcome – equivalent to pouring petrol on a fire. But the job’s far from done.”
Greenpeace agreed, saying the reforms “still leave the door open for the heedless expansion of coal and gas.” Ritter framed the stakes:
“The big sting in the tail is that the legislation still fails to address the enormous climate harm to nature.”
ACF also stressed that climate is the central missing element: “Climate remains the biggest missing piece… Our national nature law should not turn a blind eye to climate damage.”
Polling from YouGov appears to support this sentiment: seven in ten voters wanted climate change included in the law; almost half of Labor voters say they’re now less likely to vote for the government.
In political terms, this issue isn’t over—not by a long shot.
Advertisement:
A New EPA—But How Independent?
Labor and the Greens have agreed to establish a new federal Environmental Protection Agency. It will be responsible for approvals, compliance, and enforcement.
But its independence is contested.
Senator Pocock warns it is not truly independent, given:
- no independent governing board
- the CEO will be appointed by the Environment Minister
Greenpeace, WWF, ACF and Humane World for Animals all expressed strong support for the need for an empowered EPA—but with caveats: its powers must be strong, its standards measurable, its independence real, and its funding adequate.
Humane World for Animals said the reforms “must be a new chapter for our environment,” but warned that state-based accreditation and streamlining could weaken protections if not tightly policed.
Offsets, Net Gain, and the Risk of Pay-to-Destroy
The bill introduces a ‘Net Gain’ requirement and a Restoration Contributions Fund. But once again, critics warn the devil is in the detail.
Senator Pocock called the offset design a “pay-to-destroy model,” noting that similar schemes in NSW have been found by the state’s Audit Office to suffer from “issues with integrity, transparency and sustainability.”
ACF wants strict limits on using the fund to justify destruction.
WWF insists that offsets “must not undermine nature protections.”
The theme is clear: good offsets require rigour, science, and enforcement—three things Australia’s past offset systems have conspicuously lacked.
First Nations Rights and Community Consultation
ACF cautioned that consultation rights must be protected and that ministerial powers must not undermine them. Humane World for Animals also highlighted the importance of retaining the “water trigger”—a reform won by communities fighting coal seam gas extraction.
These details will matter deeply to regional and First Nations communities whose lands have been over-exploited and under-protected for decades.
The Road Ahead: A Reset, Not a Resolution
Despite the tension and criticism, almost every organisation acknowledges that this moment is historic.
- Forests are finally protected.
- Coal and gas fast-tracking has been stopped.
- A national EPA is being created.
- Exemptions and loopholes, some older than today’s CSIRO scientists, are finally closing.
But the deeper, existential challenge remains unresolved: climate change is still structurally ignored by Australia’s national nature laws.
Dermot O’Gorman of WWF put it simply: “Of course, nothing is ever perfect and there is important unfinished business… The government must do far more to protect nature from climate harm.”
David Ritter of Greenpeace sharpened the message: “Environmental protection laws have one job: to protect the environment.”
And Senator Pocock made perhaps the most sobering point: “Political considerations have prevailed over policy… We need more community representatives in parliament if we are going to leave this incredible continent in better shape for the next generation.”
The reforms mark a turning point—but not an endpoint. They are the beginning of a long process to establish national standards, define EPA powers, plug remaining loopholes, and—inevitably—come back to the unresolved climate question.
For now, Australia’s forests, wildlife, and ecosystems have a better chance than they did last week.
But climate change looms over all of it, waiting for lawmakers to find the courage they dodged this time around.
The fight for strong environmental protection, it seems, is only just beginning.
Related stories
Environment law loophole allows new coal and gas
Native forest protections are flawed, logging laws value industry over environmental protection
Murujuga Custodian Sues Environment Minister Over WA Rock Art
Illawarra Offshore Wind Zone Declaration
Reactions to new Federal Environment Protection Agency
Failures of Australian Habitat Protection Laws
NSW Waits for New Biodiversity & Conservation Laws
Land and Environment Court rules, not OK
Advertisement:
