Our law to ‘save’ nature is a rubber stamp for species extinction

And crucially, the plan won’t include a climate trigger, meaning climate change won’t factor into decisions about the environment and it will most likely be something for future committees to ruminate over at length in between disasters.

Loading

Australia’s proposed approach for nature, in other words, is to have a law that doesn’t protect anything, policed by an agency that will make sure we keep not protecting anything properly. But now there will be definitions. And offsets.

On the bright side (and it’s a small bulb), the minister has announced stronger penalties for severe breaches of environmental law; improved data and reporting; the removal of duplication in approvals and assessment systems; and a requirement for projects to disclose their emissions as part of the assessment process (though these emissions figures won’t affect whether a project is approved or not). If these measures are implemented with integrity, they could partially form the faint beginnings of a credible system of environmental protection.

There is still time for amendments in the coming weeks, but in its current form, the EPBC Act is the perfect reflection of Australia’s national political psyche when it comes to nature: bureaucratically complex and functionally useless.

One of the reasons Murray Watt is championing these flaccid reforms is, presumably, his reluctance to disturb certain powerful interest groups. Despite holding the environment portfolio, his speeches reference “business”, “industry” and “productivity” far more often than “nature”, “extinction” or “environment”. For a minister whose main priority appears to be indulging Australia’s largest corporations, he should be aware of one glaring detail: businesses are wholly and irrevocably dependent on nature. Good nature law isn’t anti-business; it’s anti-extinction. It protects the greatest assets Australian businesses depend on: clean water, fertile soil, forests, oceans, a stable climate and the plants and animals that make all of that possible.

Saying that strong environmental laws hurt business is like claiming it’s bad for restaurants to have food safety standards. It might be easier in the short term to let your prawns bake in the sun all day, but poisoning your customers isn’t a sustainable business model.

Similarly, it may be expedient to level a forest today for a few quarters of profit, but harder to stay in business once there’s no living system left to sustain it. Not to mention, these living systems are the things that allow people to breathe, and breathing is important for running a business and ensuring productivity.

Australia’s nature law urgently needs reform, and there are four critical steps that must be taken.

Deforestation loopholes must be closed. In some states, native forest logging neatly sidesteps federal law under “regional forest agreements”, a series of outdated deals that allow states to keep logging without federal oversight. Meanwhile, agricultural land-clearing is often exempt from federal environmental assessment, falling under the EPBC Act’s “continuous use” exemption, a built-in clause that lets clearing continue simply because it’s been happening for decades.

Loading

Second, set clear, strong rules for nature protection (rules, or “standards” that actually protect species and habitats, not ones that make everyone feel regulated while simultaneously killing more than ever. The current law has allowed the Albanese government to approve the destruction of more koala habitat in 2025 than in any other year, according to the Australian Conservation Foundation.)

Next, establish an independent environmental regulator (one that isn’t merely a minister with a press release who has walked straight out of a closed-door meeting with the country’s biggest polluter that has an extensive history of tax avoidance).

And finally, ensure nature laws consider climate harm in all decisions (for example, laws that could potentially say no to projects that wreck the climate, such as Woodside’s North West Shelf gas expansion which was approved, despite the fact it will pump out more pollution than 153 countries in a single year, according to the Australia Institute).

There remains a narrow window to get this right. Murray Watt would do well to remember that his job is to protect the environment, which, incidentally, is also what keeps communities, businesses and humans alive.

Natalie Kyriacou is an environmentalist and the author of Nature’s Last Dance: Tales of Wonder in an Age of Extinction. She is an ambassador for the Australian Conservation Foundation.