Australia’s environmental reform efforts have reached another turning point. The government has introduced a fresh package of legislation aimed at overhauling the nation’s environmental framework, most notably, the 25-year-old Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. While the proposed changes reflect progress, they also reveal the same political balancing act that has long slowed environmental reform.
For years, critics have noted that the EPBC Act has been ineffective in halting biodiversity decline. Despite its purpose of protecting threatened species and regulating harmful developments, native animals continue to vanish, and widespread land clearing persists in Queensland and the Northern Territory. The 2020 Samuel Review, led by Professor Graeme Samuel, exposed deep flaws in the law and recommended a roadmap for genuine reform.
Labor pledged to follow that blueprint. Yet, political pushback and competing interests have forced compromises, many of which remain visible in the current proposal.
Balancing Ministerial Power and Accountability
One of the most persistent criticisms of the existing laws lies in the extensive discretion granted to the environment minister. Under the current system, a project identified as environmentally harmful by experts can still receive approval if the minister deems it acceptable. The Samuel Review called for this discretion to be restricted through clear, enforceable National Environmental Standards designed to safeguard biodiversity.
The draft reforms, however, fall short of making those standards mandatory. Instead, they allow the minister to create them but do not require their development. As a result, this leaves a significant gap in accountability. Although the new bill states that decisions must not be “inconsistent” with any standards, the language still relies heavily on the minister’s judgment.
Instagram | @murraypwatt | Professor Graeme Samuel’s review inspires new efforts to strengthen Australia’s environmental protection and accountability.
In theory, this approach adds structure. Yet, without concrete standards or independent oversight, environmental protection could continue to depend on political will rather than clear legal thresholds.
On a positive note, the reforms introduce the idea of “unacceptable impacts.” If a project, such as a suburban development on critical habitat, poses a severe ecological risk, it could be deemed unacceptable. This represents progress, even if the use of the term “satisfied” still grants room for subjective interpretation.
Mining companies have already expressed opposition, fearing that the clause could hinder new resource projects. Their resistance could again stall meaningful reform, as it did during Labor’s previous term.
The Offset Dilemma
Offsets remain a major sticking point. These programs enable developers to offset environmental harm by restoring or protecting similar habitats elsewhere. While theoretically sound, offsets often serve as a shortcut rather than a last resort.
The Samuel Review emphasized that avoiding damage should always take precedence over offsetting it. Yet the proposed bill maintains offsets as a central tool. Developers are encouraged, but not required, to first explore ways to minimize harm. The minister only needs to “consider” the mitigation hierarchy, leaving loopholes wide open.
A new concept, called “restoration contributions,” would let developers pay into a government-managed fund instead of completing offset projects themselves. Although this could streamline processes, it also risks becoming a system of “paying to pollute.” Without proper oversight, funds may sit unused, while the destroyed habitat remains unreplaced.
Experts argue that offsets should only apply when ecological restoration is genuinely achievable. Still, the new framework stops short of demanding such feasibility checks, maintaining the same flexibility that has weakened environmental accountability in the past.
National Environmental Protection Agency
One of the most notable proposals is the plan to establish a National Environmental Protection Agency — something scientists and environmental advocates have been urging for years. At the moment, no independent federal body exists to monitor compliance or issue meaningful penalties.
Under the draft reforms, the new EPA would take responsibility for oversight and enforcement. That alone is an improvement. But it won’t manage environmental approvals, despite earlier commitments suggesting it would. The change seems tied to pressure from industry groups, particularly mining companies that resisted giving an external agency that level of authority.
Even with a narrower mandate, the EPA could still bring overdue consistency to compliance. Clearer enforcement and visible independence would go a long way in restoring public confidence.
Delegation of Powers to the States
The new reforms also propose allowing the federal minister to delegate environmental decision-making to state or territory governments. While this could streamline processes, environmental groups are concerned that it could reduce federal oversight and weaken national standards.
The minister would need to confirm that state processes align with federal standards and avoid “unacceptable impacts.” Still, without mandatory national standards, there’s uncertainty about how consistent these decisions would be across jurisdictions.
Regional planning can be effective when it’s done well. Looking at whole landscapes rather than isolated developments allows governments to weigh conservation and growth more evenly. The real test will be keeping these plans transparent and rooted in ecological science instead of short-term politics.
Climate Change and the Missing Trigger
@australiangreens via Instagram | Advocates continue to push for climate safeguards in Australia’s updated environmental laws.
One of the most noticeable gaps in the reforms is the failure to include a climate trigger. This tool would require assessing the climate impact of major projects—a step environmental groups and the Greens have urged for years. They argue that it’s impossible to protect biodiversity without addressing climate change.
While the proposal asks developers to estimate direct emissions, it doesn’t require the minister to act on those numbers. It also excludes Scope 3 emissions, the downstream pollution created when Australian coal and gas are burned abroad.
Considering Australia’s global footprint as a significant exporter of coal and gas, the omission is striking. Without a climate trigger, the laws modernize existing protections but avoid confronting the country’s largest source of environmental harm.
Progress Wrapped in Politics
While the reforms represent a long-overdue update to Australia’s environmental framework, they’re still shaped by political compromise. Defining unacceptable impacts and establishing an EPA signal real movement, but weak offsets and the lack of a climate trigger lessen their bite.
Experts warn that lasting progress will depend entirely on implementation. Without firm standards, open oversight, and strong enforcement, the new framework risks looking more symbolic than transformative.
Building a Stronger Environmental Future
Australia’s biodiversity crisis requires an ambitious policy. These reforms attempt to meet that need, but their effectiveness will depend on how they’re executed.
With firm standards, strong regulatory bodies, and a focus on long-term ecosystem health, the package could set a new direction. If those elements fall short, the laws risk maintaining the status quo.
Given Australia’s extraordinary natural heritage, meaningful progress will demand courage and sustained effort.