LAW REFORM
National environment laws: what the Senate committee heard and what’s next
The laws may have passed Parliament, but our work is far from over.
As we shift our focus to shaping how our new national environment laws are implemented, let’s also take a moment to celebrate what we’ve achieved so far.
Last year, more than 3,000 EJA supporters from across the country took action to shape Australia’s new environment laws.
You wrote submissions. You called MPs. You added your voice to a once-in-a-generation reform process that will influence everything from coal projects to deforestation to native forest logging.
The Senate committee has now published its listening report – and your impact is clear throughout. Scroll down for a debrief on what they heard, and what comes next.
If you want a full breakdown of what changed in the laws, we’ve unpacked the detail below.
What they heard
Together, we made sure strong, evidence-based concerns were formally recorded in the Senate committee inquiry.
Even though the laws were passed before the inquiry had wrapped up, this still matters because public submissions form part of the official evidence base that shapes how these laws are interpreted.
Key issues our community raised were acknowledged directly in the Senate inquiry’s listening report, including:
- Weak offset rules: The committee noted concerns that the laws don’t guarantee genuine environmental offsets.
- Lack of public participation: Your push for proper consultation in fast-tracked assessment pathways was recognised.
- Overly broad ministerial powers: The report captured concerns about “national interest” exemptions and unchecked discretion.
- Threats to legal accountability: You raised risks that new powers could blur the line between decision-makers and the courts, a serious rule of law issue.
What’s next: the decisions that will define these laws
You’ve probably heard us say it before: the devil is in the detail.
And it’s never been truer than now.
These reforms passed Parliament faster than expected, following a late deal between Labor and the Greens, before the Senate inquiry had fully tested the fine print. For legislation of this scale, that’s unusual. When scrutiny is limited and drafting is rushed, gaps can emerge and safeguards can be weakened.
At the same time, the laws hand significant discretion to decision makers, including new powers for the minister to interpret and apply the law. Many of the most important elements, like regulations, how the EPA is set up, standards and approval pathways, are still to be set. These will determine how the law operates in practice.
Major political decisions are also on the horizon, including negotiations with the states on bilateral agreements and new pathways for activities like logging. If these agreements set weak environmental protections, they could undermine key reforms, including making the end of Regional Forest Agreements effectively meaningless.
Together, this raises the stakes for what comes next.
How this discretion is shaped, and whether it is guided by communities and the best available science, will determine whether these laws deliver real protection for nature. Continued public scrutiny and pressure will be critical to getting this right.
Gearing up for the next round
Welcome to the next phase in this long road to strong environment laws – we hope you’re not sick of writing submissions just yet!
What you did last year helped put critical concerns on the public record at a key moment. And we’re going to need that same energy again.
We’ll be focusing on:
- Pushing for strong, enforceable National Environmental Standards – which actually add protections above those in the Act. The current MNES standard as drafted does nothing above what is required in the legislation. It is not remotely close to the outcomes-based regulations promised by the government and recommended by Samuels.
- Making sure these laws actually stop native forest logging and deforestation – with no more logging loopholes or carveouts that allow ongoing habitat destruction
- Scrutinising risky approval pathways – like bilateral agreements that could hand approval powers to states and territories and undermine threatened species protection
- Making sure the offsets framework is rigorous and strong – with clear limits on what companies can pay-to-destroy, and safeguards that require like-for-like offsets so companies can’t destroy koala habitat and replace it with something else
- Protecting public participation and transparency – so communities can meaningfully engage in decisions that affect our living world
- Ensuring new powers are properly constrained and accountable – with clear safeguards, legal limits and the ability to challenge bad decisions
- Make sure the first nations Standard actually advances genuine First Nations participation and protection of Country through standards and implementation settings that increase, rather than dilute, First Nations decision-making power and safeguards.
These are the decisions that will determine whether the new laws actually protect nature in practice.
We’ll be in touch soon with ways to take action
Make a difference
The challenges we face are vast. The time to push for large-scale system change is now.
