Â鶹ÒùÔº

The Albanese government has close to a deal with the Coalition over the of Australia's environment laws. Environment Minister Murray Watt plans to introduce new legislation to parliament in November.

Can Watt deliver what is to turn around Australia's climate and nature crises? Or will we see a continuation of what former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry called "?"

However the bill is passed, the new laws must . But with pressure from all sides—including the Opposition and minor parties, mining companies, green groups and big business—will the new laws be strong enough to protect Australia's ? Here are some of the ways our environment laws should be reformed.

Not fit for purpose

Australia's key national environmental law, the (EPBC Act), is 25 years old.

Two major reviews, ten years apart in 2009 and 2020, criticized it variously as "too repetitive and " and "."

At the 2022 election, the Albanese government promised to overhaul the laws. But most of its proposed reforms were abandoned in the lead up to the next election in 2025, citing a lack of .

A strong watchdog

The success or failure of the reformed laws rests on developing well-defined —legally binding rules to improve environmental outcomes. These would apply to environmental decisions that affect nationally important plants, animals, habitats and places. Examples include in areas where threatened species occur, regional planning and Indigenous consultation.

Alongside strong standards, we need a well-resourced and fearlessly independent to assess proposals, such as applications for or to for mining. A strong EPA is essential for legal compliance.

The Coalition doesn't and wants final approval powers to rest with the minister of the day. But if an EPA can be overruled by the minister, it could further reduce public confidence in the protection system, especially given recent examples of industry pressure on .

If the minister is given powers to "call in" proposals to assess them, they should be very specific and restricted. For example, for responding to national disasters but not for purely economic purposes. The reasons for calling in a decision should be published and made public.

Habitats are homes for wildlife and need greater protection

New laws should also clarify what are considered "unacceptable impacts" of new projects. For example, irreplaceable natural areas should be saved from destruction or damage by .

Destroying or damaging habitats that are home to rare and endangered species should be illegal. Protected, "no-go" areas could be recorded on a register to guide project decisions, as .

It is vital that , designed to compensate for unavoidable impacts from developments, are legislated as a last resort.

Climate change

The EPBC Act lacks a "climate trigger" that explicitly requires consideration of climate change impacts of greenhouse gas-intensive projects.

At least ten previous attempts to introduce a climate trigger , and Watt has all but in these reforms.

Instead, "the existing Safeguard Mechanism as an effective way of controlling emissions." The legislates limits on greenhouse gas emissions for Australia's largest industrial facilities.

But it only applies to the direct or scope 1 greenhouse gas emissions. It does not include emissions produced from Australia's of coal, oil and gas. Nearly 80% of Australia's contribution to global emissions comes from its .

Even without a climate trigger, reforms to the EPBC Act must of climate change on Australia's environment. They could require climate to be taken into account in all decision making to achieve environmental outcomes under the Act, and prohibit development in places that offer refuge to native species during extreme events.

First Nations to the front

Environmental decision making must include and a required standard should be part of the Act. A would help to ensure this expectation was adhered to.

Furthermore, calls have been made by First Nations for new laws to include the protection of species based on their .

No more logging loopholes

There must be an end to industry carve-outs, including . A pact between the national government and certain states, these agreements define how native forests should be managed, harvested and protected.

For decades, they have allowed the logging of forests that are home to endangered native species, including the and . In 2024, Victoria and Western Australia both the native forestry industries in their states.

In August 2025, that bringing regional forest agreements under the operation of national environmental standards "remains our position." But so far he has avoided questions about how that would work in practice.

Clear targets

If the Labor government is serious about delivering on its promise of "" these reforms must include clear targets to better protect threatened animals, plants and their environments. Preventing further extinctions will take than Australia currently provides.

We need a better understanding of how endangered species and ecological communities are faring. The newly-created body will collect data and track progress against an agreed baseline, for example the .

Conservation leader not pariah

Australia is known globally for its unique and much-loved wildlife, and its diverse and beautiful nature places. However, in the face of enormous pressure to enable , we are gaining a reputation for our to care for and conserve this extraordinary natural heritage.

Australia must step up as a global leader in nature conservation through strong environmental laws and biodiversity . As we bid to host the UN's COP31 next year, the eyes of the world will be on our environmental and climate ambition.