Australia is embarking on a significant overhaul of its national environmental laws, a move the government says is designed to halt and reverse the ongoing decline of the nation’s unique ecosystems. The reforms, framed under the “Nature Positive” agenda, respond to years of scientific reports and official reviews concluding that existing legislation has failed to protect Australia’s biodiversity from escalating threats like habitat loss, climate change, and invasive species.
At the heart of the proposed changes is a fundamental shift in environmental management, from merely slowing down destruction to actively restoring and repairing natural habitats. Central to this new approach is the establishment of two new federal bodies: an independent Environment Protection Australia (EPA) to enforce the law and a separate agency, Environment Information Australia (EIA), to centralize and standardize environmental data. The reforms aim to deliver stronger legal protections, more streamlined decision-making for development, and greater transparency, though the ambitious plan has faced political hurdles and criticism from various sectors.
A Response to Environmental Decline
The impetus for these reforms is the widely acknowledged crisis in Australia’s environment. A key catalyst was the 2020 independent review of the primary national environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). That review, led by Professor Graeme Samuel, delivered a stark verdict, finding the Act was outdated, ineffective, and not fit for purpose. It concluded that the legislation had failed to arrest the decline of Australia’s iconic places and wildlife.
This assessment was reinforced by the 2021 State of the Environment Report, which painted a grim picture of a natural heritage in poor and deteriorating condition. The report highlighted the compounding pressures of climate change, habitat destruction, invasive species, and pollution. In response, the government outlined its “Nature Positive Plan,” a comprehensive strategy intended to reform the EPBC Act and introduce new frameworks for managing and restoring the environment. The plan’s overarching goal is to ensure that nature is being repaired and regenerated rather than continuing to decline.
New Institutions for Enforcement and Data
A cornerstone of the reform package is the creation of two new, powerful institutions intended to restore trust and integrity to the environmental regulation system. The establishment of these bodies addresses long-standing criticisms that the federal environment department has been under-resourced and that ministerial decisions have lacked independence.
Environment Protection Australia (EPA)
The new Environment Protection Australia is designed to be the nation’s first independent federal environmental regulator. Its primary role will be to handle compliance and enforcement of national environmental laws, taking over assessment and approval functions that have traditionally been managed by the environment department and its minister. Proponents argue this independence is vital for ensuring decisions are based on science and law, free from political interference.
The EPA will be vested with significant new powers. These include the ability to issue “stop work” orders—formally known as Environment Protection Orders—to prevent or halt activities causing significant environmental harm. The agency will also have enhanced auditing powers to ensure businesses and projects comply with approval conditions. To act as a further deterrent, the reforms include substantially increased financial penalties for environmental breaches, with fines for corporate bodies potentially tied to their annual turnover.
Environment Information Australia (EIA)
Working alongside the EPA will be Environment Information Australia, a body tasked with improving the quality, accessibility, and transparency of environmental data. A major challenge identified in previous reviews has been the fragmented and inconsistent nature of environmental information, which hampers effective decision-making. The EIA will be responsible for collecting, managing, and disseminating reliable environmental data to the public, the EPA, and the government.
A key function of the EIA will be to produce a State of the Environment Report every two years, providing a regular and authoritative account of the nation’s environmental health. By creating a centralized and trusted source of information, the government hopes to streamline development approval processes for businesses while ensuring that decisions are based on the best available science and data.
Global Goals and National Ambitions
The “Nature Positive” agenda aligns Australia with a growing global movement aimed at reversing biodiversity loss. In 2022, Australia joined nearly 200 other countries in adopting the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. A central pillar of this framework is the “30 by 30” target, a commitment to protect and conserve 30% of the world’s land and marine areas by 2030.
Australia’s reforms are a direct response to this international commitment. The government’s Sustainable Ocean Plan is being developed to meet the 30% marine protection target, while the Threatened Species Action Plan aims for zero new extinctions. These initiatives are supported by funding mechanisms like the Natural Heritage Trust, which directs investment to on-ground activities addressing key environmental threats.
The Nature Repair Market
A more contentious element of the reforms is the creation of a national Nature Repair Market. This market-based mechanism is intended to stimulate private investment in environmental restoration projects. Under the scheme, landholders who undertake activities to restore or protect biodiversity—such as replanting native vegetation or improving soil health—can generate tradable biodiversity certificates.
The government’s intention is for these certificates to be purchased by corporations, philanthropists, and other parties seeking to invest in positive environmental outcomes. However, the proposal has drawn sharp criticism. Environmental groups have expressed concern that the market could be used to facilitate “environmental offsetting,” where developers are permitted to destroy habitat in one area by purchasing certificates from a restoration project elsewhere. Critics argue this could lead to a net loss of nature, particularly if mature, complex ecosystems are replaced by newly restored, less valuable habitats. There are also doubts about whether there will be sufficient voluntary demand to make the market viable on a large scale.
Challenges and Criticisms
The path to implementing these reforms has been fraught with political difficulties. The legislative package has been broken into stages, and some elements have been delayed or shelved after failing to secure enough support to pass the Senate. This has led to uncertainty and criticism from both industry and environmental stakeholders.
Some business groups have voiced frustration over the slow pace of reform, arguing that the current approval processes under the EPBC Act are inefficient and cause costly delays for development projects. On the other hand, many environmental advocates argue the proposed reforms do not go far enough. A key point of contention has been the independence of the new EPA, with some critics concerned that the Environment Minister will retain the power to make final decisions on projects, potentially undermining the agency’s authority. There are also calls to expand the scope of the reforms to include a “climate trigger,” which would require the climate impacts of new projects to be explicitly assessed under national environmental law—a measure the government has so far ruled out.