November 1 - 30, 2025: Issue 648

 

Labor's Pro-mining - Pro-Logging 'Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025' passed by house of representatives

On 30 October 2025, the Federal Government introduced seven bills to implement its reform of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). The lengthy documents, with the Second Reading debate commencing on Tuesday November 4, gave those not in the incumbent government a whole 4 days to go through the text of the bills.

Those bills are:

The government stated the Reform Bills are designed to implement the core recommendations of Professor Graeme Samuel AC's Independent Review of the EPBC Act – Final Report (Samuel Report). The Government stated they comprise three key pillars:
  1. stronger environmental protection and restoration;
  2. more efficient and robust project assessments and approvals; and
  3. greater accountability and transparency in decision-making
However, when the first approval by the Minister FOR the Environment, immediately after the incumbents were re-elected, was Woodside's North West Shelf extension, described by opponents as a 'climate bomb that will emit 4 billion tonnes of climate pollution', the tone of what to expect by yet another Australian Government was set.

This package of 7 Bills implements the second and now final stage of the Albanese Government’s response to the second independent statutory review of the EPBC Act (Samuel Review).

The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and 11 other Acts to implement reforms. These include national environmental standards, ‘unacceptable impacts’, ‘net gain’ and restoration charges in lieu of environmental offsets, reforms to the national interest exemption and a new ‘national interest proposal’, streamlining reforms to approvals and accreditation pathways, reforms of the nuclear actions trigger, improved compliance and enforcement powers, and increases in criminal penalties and civil penalties.

The National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025 establishes a statutory agency to be known as the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA). The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is given functions and powers under 9 environmental laws. The Minister may also delegate additional functions and powers to the CEO under the EPBC Act. The Minister for the Environment will retain decision-making on environmental assessments and approvals.

The Environment Information Australia Bill 2025 establishes the SES position of Head of Environment Information Australia (EIA) within the department and sets out the Head’s functions.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025 establishes a framework to enable the imposition of restoration charges in lieu of a proponent establishing environmental offsets. The environmental offset system is widely criticised for being ineffective and allowing for significant environmental damage despite its intended purpose of compensation. Critics and inquiries have revealed a system with serious integrity issues, where offsets are often not properly implemented, enforced, or accounted for, leading to a net loss of biodiversity and a breakdown in accountability. There is evidence of a "culture of regulatory capture," where decisions are influenced by commercial interests rather than environmental needs, and concerns about potential conflicts of interest in the management of offset markets, according to the Australian Conservation Foundation.

The imposition of restoration charges, in the explanation of the bill is:
A restoration contribution charge would be imposed on an approval to take an action or class of actions granted under Part 9 or Part 10 of the EPBC Act where a condition of the approval requires the payment of a restoration contribution charge. An approval holder will be able to pay a restoration contribution charge to the Commonwealth to discharge their liability to compensate for the damage likely to be caused by the residual significant impacts of their proposed action that compensates for any such damage to a net gain.

A bioregional plan registration charge would be imposed on the registration of a priority action under a bioregional plan. A person who wishes to take a priority action that is covered by a bioregional plan will be required to pay a bioregional plan registration charge, unless the action is exempt from the requirement.

A national interest exemption charge would be imposed on the granting of a national interest exemption under section 158 of the EPBC Act in relation to an action. Similarly, a Part 13 exemption charge would be imposed on the granting of a Part 13 exemption under section 302A of the EPBC Act in relation to an action. The person to whom the exemption applies will be required to pay a national interest exemption charge or a Part 13 exemption charge (as relevant) unless the action exempt from the requirement.

The charges imposed under the Restoration Charge Imposition Bill would be credited to the new Restoration Contributions Special Account under the EPBC Act and will be able to be spent by the new Restoration Contributions Holder to deliver benefits for matters of national environmental significance. This includes delivering restoration actions to compensate for the damage likely to be caused by the significant impacts of approved actions and classes of actions, and priority actions under bioregional plans.

A separate Restoration Charge Imposition Bill was required because section 55 of the Constitution requires that taxation be dealt with in a separate Act to the EPBC Act. The Restoration Charge Imposition Bill would not set the amount of any of the charged imposed under the Bill. Instead, the regulations would set the amount of the relevant charges, either by prescribing a flat rate (bioregional plan registration charge, national interest exemption charge, or Part 13 exemption charge) or prescribing a method to work out the amount of the charge.

Essentially it is continuing the core premise of the now fast diminishing offsets capability in allowing miners, loggers and developers to be able to pay money to kill wildlife, destroy habitat and, as a result, what remains of the Australian environment.

Three additional Bills provide for regulations to prescribe general charges, customs charges and excise charges, as necessary for cost recovery purposes.

In the lead up to the introduction of the Bills, stakeholders have raised significant concerns about whether the proposed reforms will actually protect the environment or will reduce and/or remove ‘red and green tape’ for business.

The Bills have been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications for inquiry and report by 24 March 2026.

All seven bills were passed on Thursday November 6 through the incumbents majority and without any of the amendments tabled by the crossbench being agreed to, and days after six more plant species were listed as critically endangered in NSW, due to the impacts of climate change and logging, and Australia recorded its 39th marsupial extinction, that of the Christmas Island Shrew.

Dr Scamps, MP for Mackellar: EPBC reforms in their current form will fail nature

On Tuesday November 4, 2025 the MP for Mackellar stated:
“I cannot in good conscience support these bills as there are so many loopholes, exemptions, omissions - and so much ministerial discretion - that there is no guarantee our nature will be protected. In fact, this bill may even weaken nature protections.”

“For 25 years our weak environment laws have not been fit for purpose, and the result has been devastating. We now have 19 ecosystems on the brink of collapse and Australia leads the world in mammal extinctions and sits alongside Brazil and Bolivia as a global deforestation hotspot.”

“I want urgent action to turn this around, but what’s on the table now has loopholes big enough to drive a giant heavy hauler through it. Whilst we do need greater certainty for business, we also need proper protections for nature, and these reforms catastrophically fail on the later.”

“Australian nature is too precious to settle for environmental reforms that don’t address the carnage of our native forests, animals, waterways, coastlines and landscapes.”

Dr. Scamps Key concerns:
  • A broad and poorly defined ‘national interest’ exemption
  • Native forest logging and land clearing exemptions remain
  • Weakening of the water trigger, leaving rivers at risk from big developments
  • No requirement to consider climate change impacts on nature
  • Excessive ministerial discretion
  • No independent appointment process for the new National Environmental Protection Agency
  • Devolution of decision making to the states and territories
The Greens stated on Wednesday November 5, 2025 they would oppose the government’s ''so-called environmental law reform bills'' in the House of Representatives when it was voted on this week.

Greens spokesperson for the environment Senator Sarah Hanson-Young stated:

“In its current form we cannot support this package and will be voting against it in the House of Representatives. It has been written for the mining and forestry lobby and does nothing to guarantee protection for our environment.

“These laws have been criticised by every major environment and climate group, but welcomed by the likes of BHP, Chevron and the BCA. This shows exactly who the laws are written for.

“It is now up to the Prime Minister to decide if he wants to again let mining and logging lobbyists and their political representatives like Roger Cook (current premier of Western Australia) run the show, or if he wants to protect nature, forests and our climate.”

As noted in last week's Issue an above, on October 30 2025, the Senate sent the Government's environment legislation to inquiry to report back in March next year, 'despite the Minister’s attempt to rush the pro-mining, pro-logging laws through the parliament' the Green stated then.

Greens spokesperson for the environment, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, said:
“Labor’s laws fail to protect our forests and fail to protect our climate. Despite the Government spin, this package leaves nature for dead.

“The Albanese Government’s proposed environment bill will make things worse for nature and the climate. It will take environment protections backwards while fast tracking approvals for business.

“Big business and the mining companies have had their grubby fingers all over this package, there’s no wonder the Government wanted to rush the laws through without scrutiny.

“Instead, the Senate has today sent the Bills to an Inquiry, to ensure the laws are properly scrutinised and that the community is given a say.

“Now that we have seen the full bill, it’s clear the only thing being protected here is the profits of the mining companies and big business.

“These are meant to be environment protection laws, not big business approval laws.

“This bill is riddled with weasel words and carve-out clauses for big business. It makes approvals quicker and cheaper for the mining and big business lobby, and fails to provide proper protections for nature.

“The Greens have been clear from the start: we will not rubber stamp laws that fail to protect our native forests, wildlife and climate.

“We need laws that protect nature, not make way for big business to make big profits. The Greens cannot pass these so-called environment laws in their current state.”

Referred to Committee (30/10/2025): Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Report due 24/03/2026.  
Accepting submissions - details here

On October 30 the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) analysis found major gaps in the bills.

“This reform moment must be about fixing the failures of the past,” said EDO Managing Lawyer (Policy and Law Reform) Revel Pointon.

“There are positive elements — like stronger penalties, the introduction of National Environmental Standards, and restrictions on approving unacceptable impacts.

“But these Bills still leave major loopholes, wide discretion, and no requirement to assess or control greenhouse gas emissions or largescale deforestation — both significant threats to our environment and communities.

“Without stronger accountability, removal of exemptions allowing unsustainable impacts, and clear limits on discretion to ensure the laws can be upheld, these Bills may not deliver the environmental protections Australians expect and the environment desperately needs.

“One of the key findings of the Samuel Review was that too much ministerial discretion has led to poor outcomes and public distrust.

“Discretion remains a core problem in these Bills. New ministerial powers to make rulings and protection statements have been added to existing broad national interest exemptions. All of these powers are open to abuse in the wrong hands.

“We need to see the National Environment Standards before legislation is voted on to ensure that they meet Professor Samuel’s recommendations of clear, enforceable outcomes that will lead to environmental protection.

“These were the foundation of Professor Samuel’s package of recommendations.”

Ms Pointon said the government’s proposal will not ensure that major polluting projects are properly assessed for their climate impacts, contrary to international law and the recent opinion of the International Court of Justice.

“Requiring only partial disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions — and not assessing them — is not environmental protection. It’s a free pass for fossil fuel expansion,” she said.

“Claims that the Safeguard Mechanism is regulating emissions at the project approval stage are false.

“The mechanism only applies after projects are approved — it cannot prevent climate harm before it happens.

“The reforms keep in place damaging exemptions that allow large-scale deforestation and other destructive activities to continue unchecked.

“Outdated exemptions for activities like broadscale land clearing and native forest logging have no place in modern environmental law.

“The government promised stronger, fairer, more transparent nature laws.

“Parliament must now strengthen these Bills to make that promise real — and finally give Australia the modern environmental protections it needs.”

Independent MP's Dr. Scamps, for Mackellar, and Zali Steggall, for Warringah, along with other crossbench MP's, tabled amendments. The MP for Mackellar and MP for Warringah's amendments are outlined below.

Opposition leader Sussan Ley did not vote on any of the bills.

Address given Tuesday 4 November 2025 in the Australian Parliament on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025

Item: BILLS - Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025 - Second Reading

Dr SCAMPS (Mackellar) (Time - 18:59, November 4 2025):  
I rise to speak on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. There is broad agreement that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, or EPBC Act, has utterly failed to protect our environment for the past 25 years. We now have 19 ecosystems on the brink of collapse, and we are a global deforestation hotspot, along with Bolivia and Brazil. I want to begin by saying, sadly, that I cannot support the environmental reforms in these bills in their current form, because, quite simply, they do not guarantee protection for our nature.

The EPBC Act is the one piece of national legislation that we have to protect our environment. It should be our nation's safeguard for the environment—the framework that ensures that our forests, rivers, oceans and wildlife are not irretrievably polluted and destroyed but protected for future generations. This package of reforms was intended to fix our national environment laws, but instead it risks entrenching the very weaknesses of the current EPBC Act that have allowed Australia's environment to decline so sharply.

It is well understood that business needs greater certainty when it comes to project approvals. For Australia to meet our climate goals and unlock the enormous potential of renewable energy, we need clear, consistent and trusted environment laws. But right now many projects, including renewable energy projects, are being delayed or bogged down in confusion. Communities, investors and industry are all calling for the same thing: an approval process that is efficient, transparent and fair. Businesses need clarity on how decisions are made and they need to know that if they put forward a strong, environmentally sound proposal they'll get a fast 'yes' and if a project isn't up to scratch they'll get a fast 'no', so they can move on and refine their plans—not waste money—and invest with confidence elsewhere. That's what a well-functioning system delivers: speed, certainty and integrity.

But this cannot come at the expense of nature. A healthy environment underpins a healthy economy. The two work hand in hand. So it is critical that this time around our nature protection laws do actually protect nature and that we don't see another 25 years of environmental neglect. Once ecosystems are destroyed, once species are extinct, no amount of economic activity or offsetting can bring them back.

The people of Mackellar understand deeply the need to protect nature. They want their children and grandchildren to have the same connection to the coast, the creeks and the wild beauty that we've been lucky enough to grow up with. That's why they've asked me, as their representative, time and time again, to push for strong reforms to our national environment laws and to stop the destruction of our unique ecosystems, plants and animals that has occurred relentlessly in this country over the past few decades. They want a system that protects our environment and provides predictable, efficient decision-making for business. This is entirely possible, but these reforms are not it.

I have a number of concerns about these reforms that I'll go through in detail. Let me turn to the first major concern: the new national interest exemption. Under this provision, the environment minister could approve a project even if it includes what are deemed to be unacceptable impacts to the environment, so long as the minister deems that it is in the national interest. That's an enormous power. It effectively lets the minister override the law and to do so without having to explain why. While the minister must generally publish a copy of the decision, together with the reasons, this accountability mechanism can itself be avoided when the minister believes it is in Australia's national interest to not provide these details.

Ken Henry has warned that the national interest test in these reforms is likely to incentivise significant lobbying from developers, as they are all absolutely convinced that their project is in the national interest. The legislation cites projects relating to defence, security and national emergencies as the types of projects that might attract the exemption, and the environment minister has confirmed it could be used for something like a rare earth mine or a gas project if that was what the minister of the day decided. But at the end of the day the minister only needs to be satisfied that the action is in Australia's national interest.

It doesn't take much imagination to think about how this could be exploited. In fact, earlier this year, then opposition leader Peter Dutton said he would use the existing national interest test to fast-track the North West Shelf gas extension—a project that the Australia Institute estimates would release around 90 million tonnes of emissions every year, equivalent to building 12 new coal-fired power stations. This isn't about whether you trust the current minister; it's about what a future government, perhaps one less committed to protecting our environment, could do with such sweeping discretion.

That brings me to the next serious flaw—the bills' overreliance on ministerial discretion throughout. The Samuel review found that the existing EPBC Act insufficiently constrains decision-maker discretion, leading to uncertainty and poor environmental outcomes. Yet these reforms expand and entrench ministerial discretion rather than curtail it. Key decisions and tests throughout the bills depend on whether the minister is 'satisfied' that something is the case or whether an action is 'not inconsistent with' national environment standards. That kind of subjective language weakens the law.

The new environmental standards, which are meant to be the centrepiece of this reform, are riddled with this type of language and subjectivity. For example, an approval must not be inconsistent with a standard but only if the minister is satisfied that's the case. The no-regression principle, which is meant to ensure standards don't go backwards, applies only to the satisfaction of the minister. The provision requiring approvals to pass the net-gain test, which is an important guardrail on the offset provisions, is subject to the satisfaction of the minister. There is also a high level of discretion available to the minister in providing for declarations or bilateral agreements to devolve powers to the states and territories, along with many other crucial checks and safeguards. Indeed, earlier this year, when there was a threat that the EPBC Act might actually be used to protect a species—the Maugean skate—the government stepped in and amended the bills. This is not the strong objective framework the Samuel review recommended.

Next is the carve-outs and blanket exemptions. For decades, exemptions in the EPBC Act have allowed destructive activities to continue without federal assessment or approval, even when they impact threatened species or critical habitats. The most glaring examples are the regional forestry agreements, which exempt native forest logging from EPBC Act oversight and the continuous-use, or prior-authorisation, exemptions relied upon by proponents of agricultural land-clearing.

Since the EPBC Act was introduced more than two decades ago, our environment has only declined further. Australia is now the only developed nation on the list of global deforestation hotspots. Our forests are being bulldozed at pace, pushing species like the koala, the greater glider and the grey-headed flying fox to the brink of extinction. While the government has said that the national standards will apply to forestry activities it's difficult to see how this will work in practice, given the proposed standards do not yet exist and given forestry activities are exempt from the act.

I simply do not accept that native forest logging should be exempt from our national environment laws on the basis that state laws can be relied upon instead. You need look no further than my home state of New South Wales to see why. In New South Wales, environmental requirements have been repeatedly breached by the Forestry Corporation of NSW. In a judgement in the New South Wales Land and Environment Court last year, Justice Rachel Pepper noted the Forestry Corporation's lengthy record of prior convictions for environmental offences, including polluting a forest waterway, inadequate threatened species surveys, unlawful harvesting of hollow-bearing trees and harvesting in koala and rainforest habitat exclusion zones. That's why I'll be moving amendments to these bills—to repeal the exemption for the regional forestry agreements and the continuous-use exemption.

Another concern is the devolution of federal powers to state and territory governments, particularly in relation to the water trigger. The bill empowers the minister to accredit state processes and enter into bilateral agreements so that states can assess and approve projects on behalf of the Commonwealth. While this could improve efficiency, it comes with an enormous risk. Of particular concern, the water trigger will be available for devolution despite being specifically excluded from bilateral approval agreements and regional plans in the current laws.

Next, I'm deeply concerned regarding the approach to offsetting. There is no requirement for developers to avoid or reduce damage before moving to offsets under the mitigation hierarchy, only that the minister must consider the hierarchy. This will likely entrench offsetting as the default option rather than the last resort. The net gain test is designed to ensure that actions cannot be approved unless impacts on protected matters are offset through actions that result in a net gain. However, concerningly, this can be satisfied through the payment of a restoration contribution charge to the restoration contributions holder. This allows for habitat-destroying developments to be deemed to have a net gain on a protected matter despite the impact being irreversible. The proponent can simply pay into the fund and thereby bypass the true net gain test, and there are no provisions requiring adequate accounting for delivery of the net gain.

The reform package also establishes a national environmental protection authority, NEPA, which is welcome in principle. But there is a glaring flaw. The government has chosen not to create a governing board, and there is no independent appointment process for the CEO. This is exactly the kind of political appointment risk I tried to address through my own 'ending jobs for mates' private member's bill, to ensure independent and transparent selection processes for key public roles. Without those safeguards, NEPA risks being just another arm of government rather than a truly independent watchdog.

We've seen state based environmental regulators marred with this type of controversy. In New South Wales, the EPA was recently accused of bearing a report on lead contamination in children's blood to placate mining companies. In the Northern Territory, the EPA chair was involved in decisions on a major gas leak scandal without disclosing his paid role with an industry lobbying firm. In Western Australia, the EPA was forced to withdraw its 2019 emissions offset guidelines after intense pressure from the gas industry and the state government. When regulators appear to be bending to political or industry pressure, whether that bending is real or perceived, public confidence evaporates. If we want to rebuild trust, this regulator must be genuinely independent, properly resourced and protected from political meddling.

Finally, we cannot talk about environmental protection in 2025 without talking about climate change. Yet these reforms studiously avoid it. Unsurprisingly, the government has again refused to include a climate trigger, a mechanism that would require assessment of a project's greenhouse gas emissions as part of environmental approvals. The International Court of Justice's recent advisory opinion confirmed that countries like Australia are bound by international law to assess and limit greenhouse gas emissions, including those from exported coal and gas. While the government argues that the safeguard mechanism already regulates emissions, this only applies after a project is operating. It doesn't stop new, high-polluting projects from being approved in the first place. In the last term alone, the government approved 27 new coal, oil and gas projects, with four new approvals this term. Their combined lifetime emissions are expected to exceed 6.5 billion tonnes of CO2.

A reformed EPBC Act that ignores climate is a reform that fails to meet the moment. This reform is an opportunity, a once-in-a-generation chance to fix our broken system, restore trust and put nature at the heart of decision-making, while providing a more efficient process for business and investment. As it stands, the bill does not do that. It risks repeating the very mistakes that the Samuel review warned us about—too much discretion, too little accountability and too many loopholes. I urge the government to work with the crossbench, to listen to the experts and to strengthen this legislation so it genuinely delivers for our environment, our economy and future generations.

Dr Scamps Amendments tabled November 6 2025 - Leave granted  

SHEET 1

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

9. Schedule 4

At the same time as the provisions covered by table item 2.
 

(2) Schedule 1, page 5 (before line 8), before item 2, insert:

1A Section 11

Omit "it is taken in accordance with Regional Forest Agreements or".

(3) Schedule 1, item 85, page 16 (after line 3), after subsection 33(1), insert:

(1A) However, the Minister must not make a declaration under subsection (1) in relation to forestry operations.

(4) Schedule 1, item 115, page 38 (line 28), at the end of section 37, add:

; and (f) the action is not a forestry operation.

(5) Schedule 1, page 38 (after line 28), after item 115, insert:

115A Divisions 4 and 6 of Part 4

Repeal the Divisions.

(6) Schedule 1, item 117, page 39 (after line 11), after subsection 46(1), insert:

(1A) However, a bilateral agreement must not make a declaration under subsection (1) in relation to forestry operations.

(7) Schedule 1, item 117, page 39 (after line 17), after subsection 46(2), insert:

(2A) However, the Minister must not accredit a management or authorisation framework in relation to forestry operations.

(8) Schedule 1, page 64 (after line 20), after item 157, insert:

157A After subsection 68(1)

Insert:

Note: See also section 68B if the proposal involves clearing native vegetation.

(9) Schedule 1, page 64 (after line 23), after item 158, insert:

158A Subsection 68A(5)

After "subsection 68(1) or (2)", insert ", or subsection 68B(2),".

158B After section 68A

Insert:

68B Clearing native vegetation in certain areas requires referral

(1) This section applies to a proposal to take any of the following actions:

(a) an action that includes clearing one or more areas of native vegetation that total 20 hectares or more;

(b) an action that, together with one or more other actions, includes clearing one or more areas of native vegetation that:

(i) total 20 hectares or more; and

(ii) are on the same property;

(c) an action, that together with one or more other actions over a period of up to 2 years, includes clearing one or more areas of native vegetation that:

(i) total 20 hectares or more; and

(ii) are on the same property or on adjoining properties.

Note 1: For the meaning of action, see section 523.

Note 2: For paragraphs (b) and (c), the actions need not all be carried out by the same person.

(2) A person proposing to take the action for an area of native vegetation must refer the proposal to the Minister for the Minister's decision under subsection 75(1), whether or not the action is a controlled action, if:

(a) a listed threatened species is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or

(b) a listed threatened species' habitat is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or

(c) a listed migratory species is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or

(d) a listed migratory species' habitat is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or

(e) a listed threatened ecological community is known, or likely, to occur within the area; or

(f) the area is wholly or partly within a Great Barrier Reef catchment area.

The referral must comply with subsection (3).

Civil penalty:

(a) for an individual-1,000 penalty units; or

(b) for a body corporate-10,000 penalty units.

(3) The referral complies with this subsection if the referral specifies each provision of Part 3 that the person reasonably considers is, or may be, a controlling provision for the action.

Note: A controlling provision for the action may be:

(a) if paragraph (2)(a), (b) or (e) applies for the action-section 18 or 18A; or

(b) if paragraph (2)(c) or (d) applies for the action-section 20 or 20A; or

(c) if paragraph (2)(f) applies for the action-section 24B or 24C.

(4) Nothing in this section limits the operation of any other provision of this Act or prevents clearing of native vegetation from being a controlled action under any other provision of this Act.

Note: Clearing native vegetation may be a controlled action (see section 67) even if subsection (2) does not apply. Similarly, a proposal to clear native vegetation may need to be referred to the Minister (see section 68) even if subsection (2) does not apply.

(10) Schedule 1, page 70 (after line 25), after item 169, insert:

169A After subsection 75(2B)

Insert:

(2C) In deciding whether a proposed action that includes clearing of native vegetation is a controlled action, the Minister must consider the cumulative impacts of native vegetation clearing on each relevant matter protected by a provision of Part 3 as impacts of the action.

(11) Schedule 1, page 84 (after line 25), after item 193, insert:

193A After subsection 87(3)

Insert:

(3B) In deciding which assessment approach must be used for a proposed action that includes clearing of native vegetation, the Minister must consider the cumulative impacts of native vegetation clearing on each relevant matter protected by a provision of Part 3 as impacts of the action.

(12) Schedule 1, page 98 (after line 20), after item 235, insert:

235A After paragraph 136(2)(fa)

Insert:

(fb) if the action includes clearing of native vegetation, the Minister must consider the cumulative impacts of native vegetation clearing on each relevant matter protected by a provision of Part 3 as impacts of the action; and

(13) Schedule 1, item 291, page 137 (line 9), omit "section 133.", substitute "section 133; and".

(14) Schedule 1, item 291, page 137 (after line 9), after paragraph 157A(1)(b), insert:

(c) the action is not a forestry operation.

(15) Schedule 1, item 292, page 142 (after line 18), after subsection 157H(2), insert:

(2A) However, the Minister must not grant an exemption in relation to forestry operations.

(16) Schedule 1, item 323, page 160 (after line 4), after subsection 177AA(3), insert:

(3A) A bioregional plan must not permit forestry operations.

(17) Schedule 1, item 604, page 361 (before line 10), before the definition of Commonwealth entity, insert:

clearing, of native vegetation, means one or more of the following:

(a) cutting down, felling, thinning, logging or removing native vegetation;

(b) killing, destroying, poisoning, ringbarking, uprooting or burning native vegetation;

(c) severing, topping or lopping branches, limbs, stems or trunks of native vegetation;

(d) substantially damaging or injuring native vegetation in any other way.

(18) Schedule 1, page 361 (after line 22), after item 605, insert:

605A Section 528 (definition of continuation )

Repeal the definition.

(19) Schedule 1, item 614, page 366 (after line 20), after the definition of national interest proposal in section 528, insert:

native vegetation means one or more native plants, including native plants that are:

(a) trees (including saplings, shrubs or scrubs); or

(b) understorey plants; or

(c) groundcovers; or

(d) found in a wetland; or

(e) lichens.

(20) Page 473 (after line 19), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Repeal of the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002

Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002

1 The whole of the Act

Repeal the Act.

SHEET 2

(1) Schedule 1, item 77, page 14 (lines 17 and 18), omit the item.

(2) Schedule 1, item 85, page 16 (line 13), omit "the Minister is satisfied that".

(3) Schedule 1, item 104, page 25 (lines 20 to 24), omit all the words from and including "(1) If" to and including "instrument", substitute:

(1) If, in relation to a declaration in force under section 33 a situation mentioned in subsection (2) exists or will arise, or any requirements prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection are met, the Minister must, by written instrument:

(4) Schedule 1, item 117, page 39 (line 22), omit "the Minister is satisfied that".

(5) Schedule 1, item 121, page 47 (line 1) to page 48 (line 3), omit section 48B.

(6) Schedule 1, item 237, page 99 (lines 5 and 6), omit "the Minister is satisfied that".

(7) Schedule 1, item 237, page 99 (lines 32 and 33), omit "the Minister is satisfied that".

(8) Schedule 1, item 237, page 100 (line 34) to page 101 (line 1), omit "the Minister is satisfied that".

(9) Schedule 1, item 571, page 315 (lines 16 to 21), omit subsection 514YD(2), substitute:

(2) A national environmental standard must:

(a) promote the objects of this Act; and

(b) not be inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the international agreements specified in subsection 520(3).

(10) Schedule 1, item 571, page 317 (lines 1 to 10), omit subsections 514YF(2) and (3), substitute:

(2) The variation or revocation of a national environmental standard must:

(a) promote the objects of this Act; and

(b) not be inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the international agreements specified in subsection 520(3).

(11) Schedule 1, item 571, page 317 (line 12) to page 318 (line 2), omit subsections 514YG(1) to (3), substitute:

(1) A variation or revocation of a national environmental standard:

(a) must not reduce protections of the environment; and

(b) must not reduce the likelihood that environmental data or information provided to the Minister, Secretary, Department or a Commonwealth agency under this Act or the regulations is appropriate, including as to quality, for the purposes for which it is provided; and

(c) must not reduce the likelihood that appropriate consultation or engagement (including with Indigenous persons) will occur under the Act; and

(d) must not reduce the likelihood that outcomes or objectives specified in the standard will be achieved; and

(e) meet the prescribed requirements (if any).

(12) Schedule 1, item 571, page 319 (lines 26 and 27), omit "a decision prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection", substitute "a relevant decision".

(13) Schedule 1, item 571, page 320 (line 1), omit "may", substitute "must".

These amendments address multiple issues. Firstly, they remove the sections of the bill that hand federal responsibility to the states regarding fossil fuel developments that affect water resources. In October of 2023, together with Senator Hanson-Young in the Senate, I introduced a bill to expand the existing water trigger in the EPBC Act to include unconventional gas projects, and later that year the government finally responded, expanding the water trigger to cover unconventional gas projects through the Nature Repair Bill. That was a massive win for our nature, for wildlife and for future generations, but now we are being taken backwards. 


Mackellar MP Dr. Scamps speaking on her amendments

The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 will give power back to the state and territory governments to make decisions about large coalmining and unconventional gas projects that affect groundwater reserves or waterways, rather than the federal government. Numerous experts and environmental organisations have warned that the states and territories are likely to favour developments which they profit from over the environment. Handing approval powers back to the state and territory governments, as this bill does, puts Australia's waterways, groundwater and agriculture at even greater risk from coal and gas fracking projects.

My amendments also address native forest logging and deforestation. First, they repeal the exemption for the regional forestry agreements in the EPBC Act; second, they repeal what is called the continuous use exemption; third, they insert a new provision that makes clear that, for any area over 20 hectares where threatened or migratory species may exist, actions must be referred for assessment under the national EPBC Act; and, fourth, they prohibit forestry operations from being allowed through bioregional plans and bilateral agreements and prohibit national interest exemptions from applying to forestry operations.

Australia is facing a deforestation crisis. We are the only developed nation on the global list of deforestation hotspots, and we hold the record for the highest number of mammal extinctions. It was very sad to hear that we have just clocked up our 39th extinction (Christmas Island Shrew: Oct. 2025). Despite the minister saying that the regional forestry agreements will be subject to the new environmental standards, there is no mechanism in this bill to achieve that. These amendments are urgent, and they are possible. We cannot delay, and our wildlife cannot wait.

Finally, these amendments strengthen decision-making in the proposed reforms by shifting subjective provisions and language towards an objective decision-making framework. The Samuel review found that a fundamental shortcoming of the current EPBC Act is that it does not provide sufficient constraints on discretion, resulting in uncertainty and poor environmental outcomes. With key decisions and tests throughout the bill dependent on whether the minister is satisfied something is the case or whether an action is not inconsistent with something, this bill risks entrenching the very weaknesses of the current EPBC Act that have allowed Australia's environment to decline so sharply and seriously.

With 19 ecosystems on the brink of collapse and an extinction and deforestation crisis in this country right now, the subjective language that pervades this bill simply does not provide a guarantee that, in another 25 years, the situation for Australia's nature will not be even worse. We cannot allow this to happen when we know full well the power and influence that industry lobbying can exert. We simply cannot leave it to an unknown future individual's discretion, the minister of the day's, to ensure our incredible nature is protected. I commend all these amendments to the House.

Consideration in Detail - Division - Amendments
Division: NOES 59 (50 majority) AYES 9 PAIRS 0

House of Representatives on 6/11/2025
Item: BILLS - National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025 - Consideration in Detail
Speaker : Scamps, Sophie MP
Amendments
If we are serious about reversing the destruction of our nature and providing certainty for business then we must ensure that the National Environment Protection Agency, NEPA, is trusted by business, the community and civil society. To achieve that, it must be a truly independent arbiter and built on a foundation of transparency. NEPA will not be truly independent if the CEO is appointed by the minister of the day and if there is no independently selected board.

Australians are watching the decline of our nature and wildlife with growing alarm and heartbreak. They expect their government to respond with credible action to reverse this decline. My amendments to the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025 are simple and are in line with what the environmental community and integrity organisations have been calling for. My amendments create an independent board to sit above NEPA, as is common with many other organisations. This board would oversee the functions of NEPA and, importantly, select the CEO. The board's functions would include appointing the CEO, determining policies and long-term strategic plans for the CEO, advising the CEO, and assessing and reporting on the CEO's performance. The board would have up to seven members, each with substantial experience and knowledge and significant standing in an area relevant to NEPA's functions. At least one board member must be an Indigenous person.

Critically, the board would be appointed through a robust and independent selection process, a process that most people would expect to be in place for positions as important as these. The selection process would require public advertising of the board positions, assessment of applications against selection criteria, and an independent panel to conduct the interviews and shortlist three candidates for each position for the minister's final selection. The minister would also decide which board member is selected as chair.

If a perception arises that a CEO is appointed because of who they know or their political proclivities rather than what they bring to the role, public trust in the integrity of the institution will be undermined. These amendments are common sense, and I've spent years now in this place pointing out the need for a greater level of independence in major Commonwealth public appointments such as this. Having a truly independent national EPA will be a critical factor in whether we do actually turn around the decline of our nature over the next decade. Australians, business and environment groups deserve a NEPA—a National Environmental Protection Agency—they can trust, and that means it has to be established in such a way that it is truly independent. This requires both the board and the CEO to be independently appointed. I commend these amendments to the House.

Mr BURKE (MP for Watson —Minister for the Arts, Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Leader of the House) (13:53): The government will not be supporting the amendments. The model that the government has decided to adopt for the National Environmental Protection Agency is that of a non-corporate Commonwealth entity. This provides an optimal model for independence for matters of compliance and enforcement while maintaining democratic accountability for approvals. This model involves standard statutory appointment processes for the CEO and is ultimately accountable to the minister. A board is not complementary to this model. Instead, the CEO of the EPA can appoint advisory groups to be able to assist them and provide advice on their functions.

Amendments Division: NOES 85 (77 majority) AYES 8 PAIRS 0

National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025 - Third Reading - Division
Division: AYES 84 (44 majority) NOES 40 PAIRS 0

Zali Steggall, OAM MP for Warringah, speaks on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025: Amendments

Address given Tuesday 4 November 2025 in the Australian Parliament on the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025

Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025
National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025
Environment Information Australia Bill 2025
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025
CHAMBER: House of Representatives - Second Reading 

(Time - 21:44): At the outset I have to say how incredibly disappointed I am with the Labor government in the process they have followed, even just the contributions by Labor members in this debate with the greenwashing that is going on around this legislation. For the merit of those observing, this bill, the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, was provided in full on Thursday last week, and this is the explanatory memorandum that was provided on Thursday as well. I would challenge any backbenchers of government on whether they have actually read this legislation—some 1,500 pages. The question is: are we supposed to take the government on good faith that what is said to be in this legislation actually is in the legislation? There is no way, unless there have been months of consultations with backbenchers by the minister, members in this place have properly digested this legislation to be in a position to genuinely vote on its merits.

This is the biggest reform to Australia's environmental laws in 25 years. It's a major opportunity to better protect nature and the environment and ensure efficient and clear approvals for projects. We know that the current laws are broken. No-one is disputing that. Australia's rate of biodiversity loss has reached crisis point. The government's own recent State of the environment report found that at least 19 Australian ecosystems have shown signs of collapse or near collapse. These ecosystems span the entire Australian continent and include Antarctic and sub-Antarctic ecosystems. Of all Australian mammals, 21 per cent were listed as threatened under the EPBC Act. Of the 7.7 million hectares of land habitat cleared between 2017, 93 per cent was not referred by the Australian government for assessment under the EPBC Act. To suggest that this is going to change the biodiversity crisis that we have is ludicrous.

Australia is the only developed nation that is considered a deforestation hot spot, yet this is silent on the very problem. To suggest that the Albanese government, since its second term, approving 31 new fossil projects is not having an impact on our environmental and biodiversity crisis is ludicrous. When the North West Shelf Project was approved in this term of government, just after election, my community and I were outraged. You cannot talk about caring and protecting the environment or the climate and go ahead and approve projects like that. According to climate analytics, the emissions from the north-west shelf gas plant from now to 2070 will likely cause the loss of around 11,000 square kilometres of Arctic sea ice, yet this legislation does nothing to stop these kinds of projects. I've sat here and listened to members of the government talk about how this is going to help the climate crisis and this is going to help address biodiversity and environmental protection. Seriously? It's astounding that that is the level of integrity that has been put into this assessment. We know through the national climate risk assessment that the government released a few weeks ago that nature protection and climate action cannot be separated. It found Australia's unique ecosystems are under serious threat from climate change. By 2050, for example, up to 70 per cent of native plant species could face conditions outside their current climate range, and it found that ecosystems that performed critical functions, such as providing habitat and storing carbon, are at risk. Yet this legislation does nothing to address that.

Environment and climate are top concerns of Warringah and many, many voters around the nation. Our office has received so many messages from people from Warringah and across Australia who are concerned about the current state of our nature laws and the need to get on with protecting our environment and biodiversity, and improving these laws. This Albanese government was elected twice on a platform to reform environmental laws, yet it's clear that this bill is not delivering. Nature and our environment need a better system, and this bill is not the saviour that's required. It's been a long time coming. 

I was in this place when the Samuel review was first handed down, and we know that for too long it's been a political football. But, rather than genuinely create an open process with an exposure draft and consultation, the government has chosen a course of secrecy—the last-minute dumping of a massive bill, with no respect for this chamber, allowing only a curtailed debate with no proper consideration of this legislation and its effects. The Australian public deserves better. The Australian environment deserves better. Australian business deserves better—to properly understand how this legislation will in fact work.

There are good new concepts in this bill, but, unfortunately, we can't even properly give them the real consideration they deserve. A commitment to enforceable national environmental standards—I strongly agreed with and welcomed that recommendation from the Samuel review, and for too long they haven't been implemented. But the problem is there are still exemptions—and I will get to that—so that they are not universal. They are not, ultimately, a promise that they will protect the environment.

There is a definition of unacceptable impact for nationally protected matters, where environmental destruction cannot be offset and which therefore should not be touched. But there's always this provision that it can always be offset—can we pay to destruct first? There's an inclusion of a hierarchy of mitigation in the offset regime. Again, that always raises the question—can we always pay to offset the impacts and the destruction of the environment?

The inclusion of a net-gain test is welcome, but, again, there are exceptions to it. It would mean that any damage to nationally important environmental assets can't be offset by buying land with a similar habitat but can be offset by actually creating more. A net gain would be good, but this bill does not create an absolute certainty that you will get a net gain.

The creation of a federal EPA—I strongly support that because we don't currently have a watchdog, and I acknowledge there are stronger compliance powers and penalties in this legislation. But there is still, peppered through this legislation, ministerial discretion, and what we've seen is all too often ministerial discretion involves decisions that go towards approving environmental destruction, not protecting the environment.

We see there's a failure to address the compounding effect of multiple applications. This is intended to be addressed, I understand, by bioregional planning for development and conservation, which should identify clear yes and no zones, and it's being put to the House that this creates certainty for business and the environment. But, again, there are exemptions to that and there are ways in which the minister, through discretion, can actually get around those provisions.

With other members of the crossbench, in the limited time we've had, we've already identified so many weaknesses in this bill. Discretionary and subjective language is peppered all throughout the bill: an approval must not be inconsistent with national environmental standards—subject to the minister's satisfaction; there's a net-gain test, an important guardrail of offset principle—again, subject to the minister's satisfaction; and there are declarations or bilateral agreements.

The implementation of an offset fund through a pay-to-destroy model is incredibly concerning. It's been shown not to work in other jurisdictions, in state laws. Why are we replicating this again here? In briefings with the minister, there's been no satisfactory answer to say that the mistakes and the ways in which that offset fund has not worked in other examples would be any different in this situation. There's the divesting of ministerial approvals to state governments when we know we have state governments with incredibly poor records when it comes to approvals and environmental protections. I'm told the Premier of WA is in the parliament today. Jeez, I wonder why he is in this parliament—other than to make sure we do not have strong environmental protection laws that would get in the way of numerous gas approvals in WA!

We know that there is a national interest exemption that allows the minister to override any existing standards, unacceptable impacts or even an impact on matters of national significance. Again, there is no definition of natural interest in this legislation. It's identified in the explanatory memorandum—our nice little doorstop here—as potentially applying to defence matters, national emergencies or even compliance with international agreements. There is no certainty, and we are being asked to just take on good faith that somehow that discretion, those exemptions, will be okay. Ken Henry has warned that this could result in a conga line of developers seeking to exploit the exemptions. Concerns have been raised that the current government has shown a willingness to approve projects. We see that with the regular approval of fossil fuel projects.

A major issue that we continue to have is the land clearing on agricultural land, and that relies on the continuous use and prior exemption provisions of the EPBC Act. This isn't addressed in any way in this bill. In New South Wales, agriculture remains the biggest driver of land clearing, with 77 per cent of all clearing in 2024 due to agriculture. However, the absence of reform of this provision means that this land clearing will continue under this EPBC Act. Following this, a removal of the existing exemption for regional forestry agreements under the EPBC Act remains completely absent from this bill. So we talk about protecting the environment, but there is nothing about that exemption for regional forestry agreements. Again, I ask all the members of the government that have waxed lyrical about the benefits of this legislation: where is the removal of that existing exemption?

We cannot seriously talk about protecting the environment without talking about the impact on the environment from climate change. We know one of the biggest threats to biodiversity loss is the changing environment. The government adamantly tries to artificially separate climate from the environment when one is the biggest threat to the other. The environment and the climate cannot be treated separately. The government repeatedly relies on the safeguard mechanism as somehow addressing climate impacts, but that's fundamentally flawed because so many projects and impacts are not caught. We also know the current measurement of emissions is profoundly flawed. We know under the NGER Act review that there is so much work to be done.

Then, of course, the process around this legislation has been so deeply flawed that, under the current circumstance, it is simply impossible to support this legislation. I have no way of being satisfied that, on the balance of the explanatory memorandum and this legislation, I cannot in good faith say to the people of Warringah that this is good legislation that deserves support.

I note that the opposition and crossbench in the other place have voted for an inquiry into this legislation to report back by March 2026. So what is the rush in this place other than a complete disrespect and disregard for a due process and due scrutiny of this legislation? If it's as good as you say it is, let it be scrutinised. Let us actually properly consider it. Let not-for-profit groups and all interest groups properly analyse it. Respect for this chamber would be to allow proper consultation and proper analysis of this legislation.

There will be amendments, and who knows how much time we will be granted for the consideration in detail process. I'll be moving amendments to this legislation around cumulative impacts because we know that too often proponents break up components of projects to seek individual approval so that the sum of the environmental impact is not truly known. We know there have to be clear lines in the sand for unacceptable impact. There has to be a consideration of stranded assets. I'll move an amendment to propose that proponents should disclose greenhouse gas emissions to be in line with sustainability reporting requirements that this very government passed themselves previously and that such disclosure should be a matter for consideration by the minister because, if a proposal is going to lead to a stranded asset, it should not be granted approval. It cannot be offset by becoming a stranded asset.

We also need to see a review of an environmental protection order. There's currently power for the National Environmental Protection Agency to issue an environmental protection order which could result in a stop work order. The organisation should be able to appeal this decision, and there should be a natural justice and review framework. This would align with the New South Wales EPA's current review provisions.

Unfortunately for the people of Warringah, these environmental reforms seem to reflect a profound compromise due to the intensely political environment and past failures to progress reform. At its heart, there's a real disconnect about what we can achieve, so I urge the government to rethink its approach and respect this chamber.


Amendments moved November 6: Nature does not experience Climate and Environment Separately

The amendments seek to integrate the existing climate-related financial disclosure into project assessment and approval processes. I should note these are disclosures that have been legislated by the government. So this is something they have supported and advocated for in other contexts.

Fundamentally, we cannot have an environmental legislation that is separated from climate impacts of proponents. Inherently the two are interconnected. The Albanese government's insistence on claiming that climate impacts are not relevant to protecting the environment and biodiversity in our environment—that they are with dealt elsewhere through other legislation—is simply wrong and highlights that it is not serious about protecting the environment and arresting biodiversity loss.

Nature does not experience climate and environment separately, neither should our laws. Every decision on our land, water and biodiversity is also a decision about the impact on our climate, which is then also an impact on our environment. Financial regulators APRA, RBA and the Climate Change Authority have all warned of climate risks to the economy, such as stranded assets and rising insurance costs, yet environmental assessments under this bill proposed by the Albanese government ignore these realities.

My amendments would require proponents to include climate-related financial disclosures in their applications, something that businesses are already familiar with; and require decision-makers to ensure projects do not pose unacceptable climate-related transition or financial risks—that is, become stranded assets. This is a financial viability consideration, not a climate consideration.

Amendments (3) and (4) would embed duty of care into our environmental protection legislation. It would introduce a legislative duty of care to protect children and future generations from the impacts of climate change. This follows the case of Sharma v Minister for the Environment, where the court initially found the minister owed such a duty, though it was overturned on appeal due to the legislation. This amendment fixes the problem.

The proposal responds to public support for the reform, including the duty of care bill which attracted over 400 supportive submissions. The amendment clarifies that, under the EPBC Act, the minister must act with reasonable care not to cause harm for future generations when approving projects. Enshrines the principles that today's decisions must not endanger tomorrow's citizens.

Amendment (7) would ensure that cumulative environmental impacts are properly assessed under the EPBC Act. It seeks to prevent the project fragmentation that we see too often, where large developments are split to avoid scrutiny and proper assessment of their true impact. The amendment would ensure an evaluation where the combined projects collectively cause unacceptable harm—that is, habitat loss, water degradation. The change reflects recommendations from the Samuel review, which found the EPBC Act's project by project approach insufficient.

By including the requirement in primary legislation, it ensures it cannot be delayed or weakened later. The amendment aims to halt the incremental degradation of ecosystems and enable informed, transparent and responsible decision-making.

Amendment (6) would introduce and establish a clear right of appeal for any person subject to an environmental protection order. This is important for business. The amendment adequately balances efficiency with accountability and procedural fairness so that businesses and proponents can gain certainty and a fair process if they need to challenge a stop work order.


In summary, these amendments aim to embed climate accountability into financial environmental approvals, to establish a duty of care towards future generations, to strengthen environmental governance by considering cumulative impacts and to provide a fair appeals process for environmental protection orders. Collectively, they promote a sustainable, transparent and responsible framework for decisions-making that aligns economic development with Australian environmental and climate goals.

It's disappointing to see how little participation in this process members of government have engaged with. To all MPs, especially members of LEAN (Labor Environment Action Network) who go to their communities with claims of being here for climate and protecting the environment: I urge you to consider the amendments that are being debated today. They are all seeking to improve legislation that is inadequate and will fail in its stated purpose to protect the environment. It is essential that, in this place, we have an informed debate and we test this legislation. It is disappointing that the government is choosing to ignore so many people trying to improve this legislation, but I hope that in the other place improvements will be made.

Consideration in Detail - Division - Amendments
Division: NOES 59 (50 majority) AYES 9 PAIRS 0


CHAMBER: House of Representatives - Third Reading 
Division: AYES 88 (46 majority) NOES 42 PAIRS 0

Where’s nature positive? Australia must ensure environment reforms work to restore what’s been lost

Kai Wing Yiu/Getty
Emille Boulot, University of Tasmania and Jan McDonald, University of Tasmania

For decades, conservation was focused on stemming how much nature was being lost. But a new era of nature positive environmental policy is taking hold worldwide, shifting from preventing further harm to restoring what’s been lost.

In 2022, almost 200 countries signed up to the goal of 30 by 30 – restoring 30% of lands and seas by 2030. Globally, the goal is to restore an area almost the size of India. Australia is working towards this international goal of increasing protection and restoring the highest priority areas under its Strategy for Nature. Over the last two centuries, Australia has already lost much biodiversity.

Laws should play a key role in protecting and restoring nature. But Australia’s national Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is not currently fit for purpose. The 2020 Samuel Review concluded the existing laws do not “facilitate the maintenance or restoration of the environment”.

In 2022, the Australian government promised to reverse the decline of nature with new nature positive laws which would repair ecosystems and help species recover. Shortly afterwards, parliament created a national Nature Repair Market to provide incentives for land managers to restore degraded ecosystems.

After a failed attempt at reform last year, the federal government last week announced its long-awaited broader reform package. In introducing the bill, Environment Minister Murray Watt said the laws would enable “stronger environmental protection and restoration”. Will these reforms be a game changer for restoration? It’s not so clear.

dense Australian bushland and blue sky.
Protecting habitat isn’t enough – restoration will be essential to stop the decline of nature. Adam Campbell/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

What would the proposed laws do for restoration?

Labor’s reform bills run to over 550 pages. This level of complexity means it’s hard to give a definitive answer on what the reforms would do for restoration.

At this stage, it appears that while the package contains long-awaited reforms, it falls short on ecosystem restoration.

The cornerstone of the reforms will be a new power for the Environment Minister to create National Environmental Standards, as called for in the Samuel Review. Once in place, they would work by requiring environment approvals not to be inconsistent with any standard.

These standards have been watered down somewhat. The Samuel Review recommended binding national standards which would outline clear requirements for protecting endangered species and other nationally significant matters. Under the current reforms, the minister is not obliged to make any standards and environment approvals need only be “not inconsistent” with them.

The reform package continues Australia’s reliance on environmental offsets – the practice of allowing developers to destroy habitat in one place by “compensating” for it by restoring habitat elsewhere.

The text of the draft bills suggests a developer must compensate for any long-lasting significant impact through offsets or paying a restoration contribution. The goal is to have a net gain for nature.

This sounds promising, but the concept of “net gain” is unclear and the focus on offsets still assumes the loss of nature somewhere.

A better option would be if developers were legally required to explore ways to avoid or mitigate environmental damage first before relying on offsets. While the minister must “consider” this hierarchy of options in making decisions, they’re not actually obliged to apply it.

Overall, this is disappointing. Rather than creating new incentives for restoration at a landscape scale, restoration work will instead be linked to the traditional legal model of approval for specific, environmentally degrading projects through the use of offsets and restoration elsewhere.

The new “restoration contributions” scheme is even more troubling. It would allow developers to contribute to an offset fund rather than undertake the work themselves. This would be a shortcut, allowing developers to pay for environmental destruction.

Offsets should only be used where habitat can genuinely be replaced. But as they stand, these reforms don’t require assessment of whether offsets are even feasible for a particular project. Biodiversity offsets have also been thoroughly criticised for their failure to prevent loss of nature, let alone generate nature positive outcomes.

The reforms would also allow biodiversity certificates issued under the Nature Repair Market to serve as offsets, despite the government ruling this out in 2023. Linking the nature repair market to offsets may divert investment away from some types of restoration projects. It diminishes the net gain from voluntary restoration when the results merely compensate for a loss elsewhere.

Planning across landscapes

To boost ecological restoration, the Samuel Review recommended better planning at the national and regional scale. Taking a zoomed-out view would help environmental planners connect habitat, safeguard climate refuges and protect critical habitat on a landscape scale.

These new reforms seem to be a step forward on this front. The minister, though, would retain a power to make bioregional plans at their discretion. If plans are made under the environment laws, they should specify zones for development and areas where restoration will be undertaken.

It’s heartening to see restoration included in these plans. The problem is, restoration is still tied to land-degrading activities such as mining or land clearing. That is, it’s done as a response to new damage caused to the environment, not to repair already degraded landscapes.

a view over a forested valley and pasture, signs of erosion.
Landscape-scale planning will be essential in arresting nature’s decline. Ant Le Breton/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Time for a new model

What’s missing from the proposed reforms is a positive agenda to address Australia’s deep historic losses of nature.

As the draft laws are debated in parliament, the best outcome would be if clear measures to actually restore nature at landscape-scale and to do it actively, rather than as a response to development damage.

An excellent example Australia could look to is the European Union’s Nature Restoration Law adopted last year. It sets ambitious targets to restore the EU’s heavily degraded ecosystems: 30% by 2030, 90% by 2050.

The targets would help restore biodiversity while combating climate change and boosting nature-based adaptation. Under the law, EU states must prepare their own national restoration plans. Prototype ecosystem restoration laws are also being developed by the international Society for Ecological Restoration.

After decades of decline and species loss, Australians deserve environment laws which genuinely protect and restore unique wildlife and ecosystems. The government’s proposed reforms have promise. But they don’t yet make restoration the national priority it must be.The Conversation

Emille Boulot, Lecturer of Law, University of Tasmania and Jan McDonald, Professor of Environmental Law, University of Tasmania

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

View from The Hill: Nationals dump net zero – say Australia shouldn’t cut emissions faster than comparable countries

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Once again, the Nationals have got out in front of the Liberals on a key issue, this time net zero, announcing on Sunday they were dumping their commitment to it.

This is not unexpected, but more than awkward for their Coalition partner. It makes it trickier for the Liberals to retain the target – which is politically important in city seats – albeit in some watered-down form. It raises the question: if the Liberals stick with net zero what does that mean for the Coalition relationship?

And it puts the Liberals under greater pressure to get a policy out quickly. The party will now speed up its release – it was already planning to do this before Christmas.

The early positioning follows the pattern of the Voice referendum, where the Nationals announced their opposition ahead of the Liberals. In climate and energy debates over the years, the Nationals have been earlier out and more stridently conservative than the Liberals.

The Nationals party room, after several hours of discussion on Sunday, agreed unanimously to a revised policy that says Australia should cut its emissions in line with the developed world, rather than moving faster in order to achieve net zero by 2050.

On Saturday, the party’s federal council called on the parliamentary party to drop the net zero commitment. The Nationals signed up to it in 2021 when Scott Morrison was prime minister and Barnaby Joyce was deputy prime minister and Nationals leader.

The council’s resolutions are not binding on the parliamentary party, but the timing of the council and the parliamentary party meeting was coordinated, given it was clear where the party was moving.

Nationals leader David Littleproud told a Sunday news conference, “We are not walking away from reducing emissions. We can peg ourselves to the rest of the world. If the world moves we move with them”.

He described this as an “agile” model, and was anxious to distance it from denying climate change.

Litteproud said Australia had cut emissions more than like countries. “OECD countries have been cutting their emissions by 1% per year. Australia has been cutting its emissions by about 2% per year – double the OECD rate.”

The Nationals policy would tie the reduction to the average of OECD countries (this would exclude China and India which are not full OECD members). Under this formula the Albanese government’s 2035 target of a 62% to 70% cut on 2005 levels would come down to a 30% to 40% cut.

“Our emissions cuts will be capped and calibrated, which is common sense,” Littleproud said.

“The responsibility will be shared and transparent,” he said.

He pointed to the “proven model” of the Emissions Reduction Fund, saying that in 2014–2023 it “facilitated real emission reductions that didn’t ruin the economy.

"We will incentivise lower emissions through a renewed Emissions Reduction Fund. This will be a small fraction of the $9 billion now being spent each year on net-zero subsidies, regulations, and administrative costs.

"Our approach will increase investment in cheaper electricity by broadening the Capacity Investment Scheme [which presently excludes coal and gas] to include all energy technologies and remove the moratorium on nuclear energy,” Littleproud said.

Senator Matt Canavan, one of those leading the work on the new policy, said that under the Albanese government’s plans Australia would be cutting its emissions at a rate three times more than the rest of the world.

Littleproud said he had informed Opposition Leader Sussan Ley of the Nationals’ position. After the Liberal Party reached its position the two parties would talk. He would not speculate on what the Liberals would do.

Liberals gave their views on net zero on Friday at a meeting organised by a Coalition backbench committee.

Within the Liberal Party there is a spectrum of views, with hardline conservatives wanting to ditch the net zero commitment, some moderates strongly believing in keeping the 2050 target firmly in place, and yet others seeking a compromise such as retaining the target as an aspiration.

Environment Minister Murray Watt said once again in the Coalition “we’re seeing the tail wagging the dog”.

“We’ve got the National Party, which didn’t even rate 4% of the vote in the last federal election, dictating terms to the Liberal Party who claim to be the majority party in a coalition,” Watt told the ABC.

He said it was a repeat of the nuclear issue “where the National Party went out first to drag the Liberal Party into supporting nuclear, only to be resoundingly rejected by the Australian people at the last election”.

The Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young denounced the Nationals’ policy move – and sought to invoke it in relation to another issue, the government’s attempt to get a deal with the opposition or the Greens for its changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

“The question I have for the Labor party now is how on earth can you work with such a ridiculous, out-of-touch party like the Coalition in order to pass your environment laws over the next few weeks, or indeed into next year?” Hanson-Young said.

Crossbencher Zali Steggall said the Nationals’ decision showed they were “captured by fossil fuel interests”.

Another independent, Allegra Spender, said the Liberals “are left with a choice – either be honest that the Nationals are once again setting the Coalition’s climate policy, whatever words the Libs come up with to dress up their own policy, or split with the Nationals altogether”.The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Week 1 - November 2025 Reports:


Introduction of Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025

October 30 2025: Statement by Senator the Hon Murray Watt, Minister for the Environment and Water
The Australian Parliament must make a choice - support reform that will protect our treasured natural environment and drive productivity, or keep the broken, outdated laws we have which are failing business, the environment and our community.

It is five years to the day since Professor Graeme Samuel AC delivered his independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to then-environment minister Sussan Ley.

Today we have introduced the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 to the House of Representatives.

Environmental law reform is long overdue, and we have the best opportunity right now to pass a modern, balanced set of laws in the spirit of the Samuel Review that are firmly in the national interest.

The legislation we have introduced to the House of Representatives today has been informed by extensive consultation with key environmental, industry, First Nations and community stakeholders as well as the Coalition, the Greens and independent parliamentarians.

What has resulted is a targeted and balanced package of reforms to the EPBC Act centering on three key pillars:
  1. Stronger environmental protection and restoration
  2. More efficient and robust project approvals
  3. Greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision making
Minister for the Environment and Water, the Hon. Murray Watt said:

“Today we’ve introduced a package of reforms that delivers stronger environmental protections, faster project approvals and more transparency.

“I have consulted widely with stakeholders, holding 100 meetings, forums and roundtables since coming into this role five months ago.

“This is not a zero-sum game - we can and are delivering legislation that is better for the environment, and better for business.

“Every day we delay the passing of these laws we see the environment suffer and we see business and the community suffer.

“It’s now up to the Parliament to decide whether or not to support these important reforms, or team up to keep the broken laws we have now, which aren’t protecting the environment and are stifling business and investment.”

Additional information:

Stronger environmental protection and restoration
  • A new Ministerial power to make National Environmental Standards.
  • Providing a clear definition of unacceptable impacts to deliver greater protection for the environment and more certainty to industry.
  • A new robust offsets regime including new net gain and the establishment of a Restoration Contributions Holder.
  • Higher penalties for intentional and severe breaches of environmental law.
More efficient and robust project approvals
  • Removing duplication in the approvals and assessment systems through new and updated bilateral agreements with states and territories.
  • A new Streamlined Assessment Pathway to significantly reduce the assessment timeframe for proponents who provide sufficient information upfront.
  • Regional planning to streamline development in areas with lower environmental impacts, while avoiding development impacts in areas with higher ecological value.
  • Improving consistency in environmental decision making.
Greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision making
  • Establishing Australia’s first national, independent environmental protection agency.
  • The National EPA will be an independent watchdog with stronger new powers including the ability to issue ‘stop-work’ orders and to audit approval holders to ensure they are compliant.
  • The Minister for the Environment will retain decision-making on environmental assessments and approvals.
  • Requiring the disclosure of emissions and details of how they will be managed in line with the Government’s climate policies like the Safeguard Mechanism.
  • Establishing a statutory Head of Environment Information Australia to oversee better environmental data and reporting.
Referred to Committee (30/10/2025): Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Report due 24/03/2026

Accepting submissions - details here

Labor’s big business approval laws leave nature for dead: Greens - referred to committee for 2026 report - submissions from public open

October 30, 2025
The Senate has today sent the Government's controversial environment legislation to inquiry to report back in March next year, despite the Minister’s attempt to rush the pro-mining, pro-logging laws through the parliament.

Greens spokesperson for the environment, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, said:

“Labor’s laws fail to protect our forests and fail to protect our climate. Despite the Government spin, this package leaves nature for dead.

“The Albanese Government’s proposed environment bill will make things worse for nature and the climate. It will take environment protections backwards while fast tracking approvals for business.

“Big business and the mining companies have had their grubby fingers all over this package, there’s no wonder the Government wanted to rush the laws through without scrutiny.

“Instead, the Senate has today sent the Bills to an Inquiry, to ensure the laws are properly scrutinised and that the community is given a say.

“Now that we have seen the full bill, it’s clear the only thing being protected here is the profits of the mining companies and big business.

“These are meant to be environment protection laws, not big business approval laws.

“This bill is riddled with weasel words and carve-out clauses for big business. It makes approvals quicker and cheaper for the mining and big business lobby, and fails to provide proper protections for nature.

“The Greens have been clear from the start: we will not rubber stamp laws that fail to protect our native forests, wildlife and climate.

“We need laws that protect nature, not make way for big business to make big profits. The Greens cannot pass these so-called environment laws in their current state.”

Referred to Committee (30/10/2025): Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Report due 24/03/2026

Accepting submissions - details here

Labor’s environmental law overhaul: a little progress and a lot of compromise

Andrew Merry/Getty
Justine Bell-James, The University of Queensland

The 25-year-old Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act has been repeatedly criticised for failing to stem Australia’s biodiversity decline. These national laws are meant to protect threatened species and scrutinise some developments over the damage done to ecosystems.

But they haven’t worked. Species have kept going extinct, land clearing in Queensland and the Northern Territory has continued at high levels, and threatened species have declined every year since 2000.

The act’s flaws were laid bare in the 2020 Samuel Review. Lead author Graeme Samuel and his technical panel also laid out a reform blueprint.

Labor promised to overhaul these laws in its first term, using this blueprint as a guide, but ran into intractable political challenges.

Today, the government has tried again, tabling a reform package in parliament that includes bills to reform environmental protection and establish a national environmental protection agency.

Environment Minister Murray Watt has pitched the reforms as a win for both the environment and for business, which would benefit from faster approvals. It remains to be seen whether the legislation will get the support it needs to pass into law.

Could these draft laws really stop the steady decline of Australia’s unique species? My assessment is that some good features are included, but signs of compromise are everywhere.

Ministerial discretion wound back, no national standards yet

A key criticism of the existing laws is the almost unfettered discretion given to the environment minister of the day. A project found likely to cause significant environmental harm by the environment department can still be given a green light by the minister.

The Samuel Review recommended this discretion be tightened up by developing National Environmental Standards to help promote the survival of threatened species.

The minister’s decision would need to be consistent with these standards unless, as the review states, there was a “rare exception, justified in the public interest”.

On these grounds, the draft laws aren’t enough. The reforms would let the minister make standards, but not require them to be developed. The standards would be statutory instruments rather than laws, and are under development, according to the government.

This is a glaring absence, given the standards were described by Samuel as the “centrepiece” of his reform proposal.

If standards are created, they will have some effect on decisions. Under the new bill, the minister must not approve an action unless satisfied the approval is “not inconsistent” with them. The same requirement would apply to a state government if a decision is delegated to them.

This seems promising. But the use of the term “satisfied” means the minister still retains more discretion than Samuel intended. Much also depends on the standards themselves.

More positively, the bill addresses the question of unacceptable impacts. For instance, if a developer wants to build a new suburb on grasslands that represent one of the last remaining tracts of habitat for a critically endangered species, this could be considered an unacceptable impact.

Under the bill, the minister must not approve a development unless satisfied it will not have unacceptable impacts. Again, the word “satisfied” makes it a subjective assessment, but the inclusion of unacceptable impacts is an improvement over the current law.

This amendment is already shaping up to be unpopular with the mining lobby, so it’s yet to be seen if it becomes law. Mining company pushback was influential in killing Labor’s reform efforts in its first term.

Finally, all of these slight improvements in discretion can be overridden if the minister deems it to be in the “national interest”, a phrase not defined in the act.

Offsets still too prominent

The existing laws have long been criticised for their overreliance on biodiversity offsets, where a development doing damage to habitat can offset this by buying or restoring equivalent habitat elsewhere.

In his review, Samuel noted offsets had become the default option, rather than a last resort. It’s far better if damage can be avoided in the first place.

Unfortunately, offsets are still front and centre. The reform bill doesn’t require project developers to explore avoiding or reducing damage before moving to offsets under the so-called mitigation hierarchy. The minister must ‘consider’ the hierarchy, but is not obliged to apply it.

The bill tabled today also introduces “restoration contributions”. These essentially allow applicants to pay money into a offset fund rather than doing it themselves. A New South Wales scheme like this has attracted controversy as the fund has amassed money that can’t be spent as there’s no suitable replacement habitat. Without proper safeguards, these contributions are likely to become a payment for doing harm.

Offsets should only be used where habitat is actually replaceable. Despite this, the reform bill doesn’t require consideration of whether offsets are feasible for a project. The minister can’t apply offsets to unacceptable impacts, but again, this is a matter of discretion.

A new national EPA with few teeth

Today’s amendments provide for the creation of a new National Environmental Protection Agency. This seems like an improvement, as there’s no federal watchdog at present.

But at this stage, its proposed powers would extend only to compliance and enforcement, not environmental approvals as originally proposed last year. Giving an independent body power to approve or refuse projects proved highly unpopular with the mining lobby. The amendments do include some strengthened compliance and enforcement powers to be administered by the EPA.

Who will sign off?

The reforms allow the federal minister to delegate environmental decision making to the relevant state or territory government. This greatly concerns environmental groups, as it would avoid the existing extra layer of federal oversight of controversial proposals.

To delegate, the minister must be satisfied the state process is not inconsistent with any national environmental standard, and meets other requirements. The minister must also be sure any actions will be approved in accordance with the planned federal standards and that they will not have unacceptable impacts.

The reforms also allow for planning at a regional scale. This allows governments to zoom out to the landscape scale and zone areas for development and conservation. If done well, regional planning can be a good way to provide certainty for developers, while stemming the trend of habitat being carved up into smaller, disconnected islands. The devil will be in the detail – any new regional plans will need to be scrutinised carefully.

What about climate change?

Environment groups and the Greens have repeatedly called for the reforms to contain a “climate trigger”. This has been roundly rejected by two independent reviews of the act and by government.

A climate trigger would mean proposed projects would have their impact on the climate thoroughly assessed, which would increase scrutiny of coal and gas projects.

As anticipated, the amendments provide only a small concession to climate change considerations. Project developers will be required to provide an estimate of their direct emissions, but the minister doesn’t have to consider these. There’s no mention of the very large Scope 3 emissions caused by the burning of Australian coal or gas overseas.

Some progress amid many compromises

These environmental reforms are unsurprisingly a product of significant compromise due to the intensely political environment and past failures to progress reform. Even so, they face a rocky path to become law.

While the proposed reforms fail to fix some of the most problematic parts of the current laws, creating a federal EPA and legislating unacceptable impacts could lead to some improvement for the environment if other weak spots are addressed.The Conversation

Justine Bell-James, Professor, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

View from The Hill: pressure on embattled Ley to do a deal on EPBC reform

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Sussan Ley will survive “the killing season”, as commentators dub the fag end of the political year. But she’s in bad shape.

In an Essential poll published this week, Ley polled just 13% when people were asked who, from a list, would be best to lead the Liberal Party.

On 10% each were Andrew Hastie and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, with Angus Taylor on only 7%. Tim Wilson (who defeated teal Zoe Daniel to return to parliament) was on 3%, behind teal MP Allegra Spender at 4%. A whopping 42% weren’t sure about anyone.

Ley’s poor judgement and the unwillingness of some colleagues to support her publicly were highlighted again this week, when she called for Anthony Albanese to apologise for wearing a T-shirt celebrating the band Joy Division, as he exited his plane after his trip to the United States.

Joy Division was the name given to brothels in Nazi concentration camps where women were forced into sexual slavery. The shirt had been highlighted on “Sky After Dark” (where Ley has critics she may hope to placate) the night before she took up the matter.

But, as with her call last week for Kevin Rudd to lose his ambassadorship after the incident with Donald Trump, some of Ley’s Coalition colleagues obviously disagreed when they faced the inevitable questions over her latest foray. Once again, the embattled Ley had overreached.

If she is not to go into Christmas in even worse shape than she’s in now, Ley has to meet two immediate challenges. She must have the opposition settle its position on net zero. And she needs it to reach an agreement with the government on proposed changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) act.

Net zero is by far the more fraught of these two challenges, and the internal fractures in the Coalition are dangerous and deep.

The Nationals’ federal council meets this weekend and is set to pass a motion condemning net zero. The Nationals parliamentary Party is moving to an early decision.

More generally, Coalition parliamentarians are in the middle of intense discussions about the way forward, with an opportunity on Friday for all-comers to state their views at a special meeting called by the Coalition’s policy committee for the Australian economy. Some Nationals have complained they can’t attend because of commitments around the federal council.

Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who did the net zero deal with the Nationals in 2021, is now endorsing a reteat. He posted on social media Wednesday,

“It’s common sense to ensure our policy settings are right and practical for the world as it is, not as it was or what you would like to pretend it is. That’s where you find the national interest. Net Zero at any cost on any rigid timetable is not policy, it’s just ideology.”

Despite Dan Tehan, who is leading a review of the Opposition’s energy policy, suggesting time is needed to get it right, it would be a disaster for the Liberals, and the Coalition as a whole, not to have clarity about their position by Christmas.

For his part Environment Minister Murray Watt wants to have a settlement on his proposed changes to the EPBC act by year’s end.

Watt is making it clear he will do a deal with whichever of the opposition or the Greens Party is willing to come closer to what the government wants.

Both have issues with the bill, which the government is introducing on Thursday.

Watt’s plan is to have the bill pass the House of Representatives next week. His aim is then for a short Senate inquiry and, assuming a deal, to pass the bill through the Senate in the final sitting week, which is at the end of November.

The pressure is on Ley to do the deal. Business also has problems with some features of the bill, but wants an agreement reached because the present approvals process for projects seriously hampers development. But business wants the deal done between the “parties of government” – that is, with the Coalition rather than the Greens.

That would give the outcome more certainty into the future – a key consideration for business – as well as being more acceptable in terms of detail than whatever a deal with the Greens would entail.

Business Council of Australia chief executive Bran Black told Sky News on Wednesday,

“It is so important that it’s the two parties of government that ultimately make the call and support a position if it is to go ahead. And that is so that you get that longevity in terms of outcomes, you get that balance that comes of knowing that you’ve got those parties of government engaged”.

So far, before the horse-trading has begun in earnest, there have been more than a dozen meetings between Watt and the opposition, Greens and other crossbenchers. Watt is encouraged by his discussions with shadow environment minister Angie Bell and the Greens Sarah Hanson-Young

The government says that approvals times have blown out by 70 weeks in the 25 years since the present laws were introduced. It estimates its proposed reforms to facilitate developments, ranging from housing projects to wind farms, could inject up to $7 billion into the economy.

When she was environment minister Ley commissioned the report from Graeme Samuel, on which the proposed changes are based. She will be marked down by the business community if she can’t now help get these changes (belatedly) done.The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Fast approval for Western Downs battery as Nationals dump Net Zero

On October 29 2025 Senator the Hon Murray Watt, Minister for the Environment and Water, announced the Government has approved a new battery energy storage system (BESS) located near Chinchilla, in the electorate of Nationals’ leader David Littleproud, in just 19 days thanks to considered site selection.

The 400MW storage project will power up to 101,500 households for 4 hours at peak demand. It will be located adjacent to the Edenvale Solar Park and be connected to the existing Orana substation via an underground transmission line.

On Saturday November 1 the Nationals Party's Federal Council in Canberra voted to remove support for net zero from its federal platform. The shift was widely regarded as a formality given that every state branch of the party had already passed similar motions.

Nationals leader David Littleproud said on Saturday a special party room meeting would be held tomorrow to consider the party's climate and energy policy.

"We've been on a long considered process around understanding the implications of energy and climate policy in this country," he said.

"And whether there are better ways, fairer ways, cheaper ways for Australians to be able to contribute globally, but to make sure that Australia remains strong."

The motion called on the parliamentary party to "abandon" support for achieving net zero emissions but retains support for "emissions reductions", which it says should be balanced with "growing and protecting key industries such as the mining, agriculture and manufacturing sectors".

Meanwhile, the project for his electorate will support energy grid stability and reduce curtailment and energy wastage from nearby solar farms and renewable projects by capturing excess energy generation, the incumbents state.

The facility will be constructed on previously cleared land, with clearing of a small amount of remnant vegetation expected to have a minimal impact on the local environment.

The project will create 150 jobs during construction and a further 5 jobs once in operation.

Minister for the Environment and Water, Murray Watt said the project shows fast environmental approvals are possible with considered site planning.

“The project site is good for the environment and for Australia’s energy transition,” Minister Watt said.

“Construction of the Belah BESS can go ahead with minimal environmental impact.

“While David Littleproud and his Coalition colleagues continue to debate whether climate change is real, their own communities are getting on with the transition to cheaper, cleaner energy.

“Renewable energy projects like this, which support the delivery of clean, green and affordable power, can and do coexist with Australia’s incredible natural environment.”