"The Australian Parliament will soon consider proposed reforms to federal environmental laws – known as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act). Unfortunately, signals from the Government suggest this may be another reform process that fails to deliver the progress we need despite everyone agreeing that Australia’s biodiversity is in catastrophic decline.

When introduced, the EPBC Act was a historic reform by a conservative Government. For the first time since Federation, the Australian Parliament exercised the full suite of its constitutional powers to regulate environmentally harmful actions on all tenures. Previous Commonwealth environmental laws were restricted to Commonwealth land (<2% of the country), to Commonwealth decisions and to a very limited set of actions in world heritage areas. Even then, the role of the Commonwealth Environment Minister was advisory only – approval decisions were made by the Ministers responsible for the relevant portfolio, such as the Minister for Resources.

The EPBC Act rejected this approach and gave the Commonwealth Environment Minister direct control of actions impacting “matters of national environmental significance” like threatened species. Early litigation highlighted the potential of the Act – for example, a conservation group in north Queensland secured an injunction to prevent lychee farmers using large electric grids to kill spectacled flying-foxes.

Importantly, the Act was established with a framework that could evolve. Notably, the Act allows for regulations to be made to add new “triggers” (which dictate when environmentally harmful activities need approval) and to deem certain classes of actions to be within existing “triggers”.

Sadly, the Act has failed to realise its potential. There are three key reasons for this. Firstly, the Commonwealth bureaucracy has failed to enforce the existing laws. Actions that breach the Act have been taken by proponents without attracting any compliance and enforcement action. This includes land clearing activities that have routinely not been referred for approval despite having significant impacts on threatened species.

Secondly, mechanisms in the Act which could have expanded its scope, or provided certainty about its scope, have not been utilised. Regulations could have been made to deem land clearing over a specified threshold as requiring approval. A climate change trigger could have been added at any time – indeed, back in 2000, a draft climate change trigger was published by the Howard Government but never made.

Thirdly, the exemption for native forest harvesting should have been phased out. Instead, it has been extended.

The current reform process appears not to be addressing any of these issues. Unless a reset occurs, the reforms will not (and cannot) deliver substantive additional environment protection.

The highest priority for the reforms must be to ensure land clearing is properly regulated. Since the Act commenced in 2000, over 11.5 million hectares of native forest has been cleared, including over 3 million hectares of remnant (intact) native vegetation. Amendments should prohibit the clearing of remnant vegetation, subject only to a very limited exception where Parliament decides a project is essential to address a compelling need and there is a robust offset. All clearing of mature regrowth (e.g. previously cleared vegetation that has regenerated and not been disturbed for 15-25 years) should require approval if it exceeds a specified area threshold.

We suggest 3 simple KPIs for the reform process. Within 12 months, clearing of remnant vegetation should be near zero and there should be an initial 50% reduction in mature regrowth clearing. Secondly, the native forestry exemption should be removed. Thirdly, all projects likely to directly or indirectly result in 50,000 tonnes or more of greenhouse gas emissions per year - on average or at their peak – should trigger the Act and all emissions from these projects should be subject to a carbon price that aligns with the aims of the Paris Agreement. (If the Howard Government could propose a climate trigger in 2000, it can hardly be described as radical in 2025).

Unfortunately, it appears the reform process will not address these substantive issues. Instead, it has focused on the introduction of “national standards” and an EPA. Standards will be important in limiting the broad discretion that currently exists when approval decisions are made. However, such standards are of limited value if the projects that pose the biggest environmental risk – such as land clearing – are not regulated.

While there is value in a properly constituted EPA, this is also not the main game. Failure to address the scope of the Act means the EPA will be a mere observer as land clearing continues unabated, native forests are logged and our biodiversity continues to decline.

We urge real reform that provides substantive additional protection – expanding the scope of the Act, as well as introducing standards and an independent EPA. Real reform means, in 5 years’ time, we can celebrate measurable improvements rather than read another report on how the Act has failed to play its role in reversing the decline in Australia’s environment."

"A critical component of reform must be to bring a rapid halt to native forest logging. It is costing the taxpayer 100s of millions of dollars a year in financial subsidies and at the same time making forests significantly more flammable – which higher severity wildfires in turn having marked negative impacts on a wide range of species. There are also well documented negative effects on a range of threatened ecological communities, with logging underpinning elevated risks of ecosystem collapse.

Logging also contributes millions of tonnes of carbon emissions to the atmosphere every year – the equivalent of 1.1 million cars worth of emissions from Tasmania alone annually. The continuation of native forest logging in Australia can no longer be justified on financial, economic, environmental or social grounds and the EPBC Act provides an appropriate trigger to ensure a rapid transition to a plantation-only industry."

"The Albanese government must deliver a strong and well resourced environmental law reform package in order to protect the places and wildlife Australians know and love dearly. For far too long, both major political parties have played the blame game, and failed to act on expert scientific advice and increasingly urgent warnings, and as a result we are now world leaders in species extinctions and ecosystems are collapsing across the continent. These environmental impacts have substantial negative impacts on the economy and social and cultural values.

New environment laws must address all key threats, including climate change, habitat destruction, invasive species and pollution. Laws must include stringent national environmental standards and guide clear objectives, such as measurable improvements and increases in threatened species populations and ecological communities and areas of key habitat. It is essential that development proposals are assessed by an independent umpire that operates at arms length from government, and this same umpire must be well resourced to ensure they can rigorously assess project compliance with approved conditions and national environmental standards. It is vitally important First Nations’ cultural values and engagement is central to all decision making.

The reform of Australia’s nature laws is a tremendous opportunity to protect and recover what is truly special, unique, and the envy of many around the world. Biodiversity Council surveys show that the vast majority of Australians care deeply for the environment and want far greater action and investment to ensure its protection. The Albanese government must not squander their chance, they must demonstrate global conservation leadership.”

"The difficulties the Labor government is facing in seeking passage of its Environmental Protection Reform Bill reflect a deeper emerging problem. Labor’s preference has always been to seek agreement with the LNP on most issues, rather than negotiating with the Greens. This reflects both a belief that bipartisan reforms are more durable and a fierce partisan opposition to the Greens, correctly seen as a rival for the votes of Labor’s traditional supporters.  

But as the conservative parties have shifted further to the right, particularly on environmental issues, any legislation passed with LNP support is likely to make things worse rather than better. Sooner or later Labor will have to negotiate with the Greens or give up entirely on environmental issues. In this context, Minister Madeleine King’s suggestion that the legislation is essential to meet demands made by President Trump is unlikely to be helpful."

"It would appear that, while there are emissions disclosure obligations on corporate proponents in the proposed reform, there remains no climate trigger in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This would seem to be insufficient to meet the requirements of the recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion, which points to the need for states to do a full assessment of corporate projects on a state’s territory that release emissions.

In June of this year, the ICJ outlined that countries could be held internationally liable for a failure to appropriately assess climate harms when assessing and approving projects. To meet Australia's international legal obligations, reform to Australia’s environmental laws should include adequate regulation and assessment of all fossil fuel-emitting activities at the national and subnational levels, including consideration of climate harm and adaptation measures."

"Legislation that says it is to protect the environment but doesn’t address coal, oil and gas is like legislation that says it protects people from smoking but doesn't address tobacco."