Current nature protection law package fails to prioritise nature protection
Environmental law reform is one of a several critical pathways to halt and reverse Australia’s nature crisis. After decades of paralysis, these reforms are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to help turn the tide on extinction and ecosystem collapse.
What happens to these laws will set the standard for nature protection for decades, determining whether future generations inherit thriving ecosystems or a legacy of decline.
Over the past year, debate has intensified, and the Federal Government is now hoping to pass major changes to Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act before parliament rises on Thursday.
It is extremely disappointing that, overall, the second of the Federal Government’s proposed environmental reform packages takes a big step backwards for nature compared to the Nature Positive Bills package it proposed last Parliament.
As they are currently drafted, the new package of bills is an exercise in politics and not in sound policymaking. The primary purpose of environmental protection legislation is to protect our environment and the communal prosperity that it safeguards, not to help facilitate irreversible development on top of irreplaceable nature at the unaccountable discretion of the Minister of the day.
We owe future generations more than laws that facilitate the faster destruction of nature.
What next
The Australian community has until Friday 5 December 2025 to share their views on the Federal Government’s proposed Environment Protection Reform Bills with the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.
We encourage everyone to have their say, and and to submit as early as possible.
ALCA does not support the Bills in their current form. However, key amendments would ensure that Australia’s environmental protection laws focus more on environmental protection, and better safeguard the biodiversity and ecosystems that sustain life, now, and for future generations.
Our submission to the Senate Inquiry outlines the following major concerns:
Excessive ministerial discretion
The current proposal puts dramatic, wide-ranging discretionary powers into the hands of the Minister of the day. These powers are not subject to sufficient public scrutiny, and they are incompatible with the much-promised independence of the national Environment Protection Agency.
Ministerial decision-making powers must have restrictions to ensure that discretion is only used in the genuine public interest and that decisions are appropriately accountable. Without this, decisions will be open to a heightened risk of corruption.
National Environmental Standards don’t have to be applied in practice
The Standards are intended to function as legally binding rules that apply nationwide, but if decision-makers aren’t required to follow them, they will be largely useless.
Under the current proposal, decisions only need to satisfy the Minister’s judgment. Instead, all decisions must be consistent with the National Environmental Standards, and all key standards should be published prior to the passage of the Bills (currently there are only two draft Standards publicly available).
Offsets don’t belong here
Environmental offsets are compensatory mechanisms and are used to facilitate land clearance and destruction of native vegetation and habitat. Including them in the Nature Repair Market is at odds with the original purpose of the Nature Repair Act 2023.
If the Nature Repair Market is to be used as an offsets market, there should be a delay of five years to at least give market design and integrity a chance to be resolved. What counts as “net gain” needs to be legislated, as does the “mitigation hierarchy” (the need for project developers to demonstrate that avoidance, minimisation, and restoration have been satisfied in their applications).
Native forest logging remains exempt from the laws
Widespread native forest logging, a great threat to Australian nature, has again not been addressed in the laws. The continued exemption of Regional Forestry Agreements from effective Commonwealth oversight means native forest logging keeps its free pass under national laws, continuing to facilitate the destruction of nature at scale. This exemption must be removed.
Water trigger operation should remain unaltered
The bills make it possible to circumvent the water trigger — the requirement for the Federal Government to consider impacts from projects on water resources. This is especially important where water resources are shared between different States and Territories. The bills should not alter the water trigger.
Climate impacts must be considered
Climate change is a key driver of nature decline, yet its impacts are ignored when it comes to environmental decision-making in these reforms. It is in the national interest for the Minister to at least have a duty to consider climate impacts of new projects when making approval decisions under the bills.
Community consultation is lacking
It has been greatly disappointing that broad community consultation has not been undertaken on such complex legislative amendments prior to them reaching a Senate Inquiry. Given that the Senate Inquiry is now the only avenue for the broader Australian community to comment on potential wide-ranging changes to their national environment laws, the reporting date for the Senate Inquiry should not be curtailed.
Download our full submission:
