The EPBC package leaves nature exposed to politics and shouldn’t be passed in current form 

Legal experts at Environmental Justice Australia say the EPBC reform package, tabled today, leaves critical decisions for nature open to political whim and fails to address the extinction and climate crisis.  

Environmental Justice Australia’s Co-CEO, Nicola Rivers said:  

“Most Australians would expect our national nature laws to actually protect nature. Instead, these reforms give ministers the power to choose how they apply the rules, fail to prevent climate and forest destruction, and sideline First Nations authority. They risk becoming a legal framework that enables decades more destruction instead of preventing it.  

“These reforms are a step backwards for Australia’s natural wonders and for communities. They need major work, or they should not be passed.  

“Better laws are still possible. That means amendments to remove king-like powers and fix the glaring gaps. We need nature laws that don’t greenlight climate damage. And we need an end to logging loopholes to prevent further irreversible loss before it occurs.” 

The reform package has small positive elements: 

• Including definitions of “critical habitat” and “unacceptable impacts” in the Act is an improvement, but they are undermined by discretionary powers elsewhere. 
• A national EPA is welcome, but it won’t have power to make positive decisions for nature. 
• Better enforcement and penalties for those that break the law are overdue and welcome. 
• National environmental standards are sorely needed as the cornerstone of meaningful reforms, but we are yet to see them, and the way they would apply would make them discretionary, weak, and too often unenforceable. 

However, the reform package also has deeply concerning elements that need fixing:  

• No assessment and prevention of climate harm to nature. 
• No end to logging and land clearing loopholes like Regional Forest Agreements and “continuous use” exemption. 
• Widespread political discretion undermines key positive improvements. 
• The offsets scheme is deeply problematic and essentially a “pay-to-destroy” model with minimal checks and balances. 
• Handing decisions of national and international significance to states and territories who are ill equipped to make these decisions.
• First Nations rights are largely sidelined: there is no Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) embedded in the Act and no First Nations Engagement Standard, as recommended by Samuel. 
• Recovery plans for threatened species and habitats can be overridden by Ministerial protection statements. 
• The Environment Minister can decide to switch off important safeguards for offshore gas and petroleum projects – impacting consultation with First Nations communities and environmental assessment  

MEDIA CONTACT: Jessa Latona, 03 8341 3110, [email protected]