The Coalition has reportedly released their list of demands to do a deal with the Government on our national environment law reforms. The Climate Council has undertaken rapid analysis of these proposed amendments and why they would fail on climate.
The five reasons a Coalition deal on environment law would fail on climate:
- Climate accountability gutted: climate impacts would be completely ignored in approval decisions – even though climate change is the greatest threat to Australia’s environment.
- Free pass for polluting fossil fuel projects: By rejecting any inclusion of climate, the Coalition’s approach effectively gives new coal and gas developments a free ride through approvals. Under this deal, mega-polluting fossil fuel projects would continue to be approved unchecked by climate considerations and no guardrails would be put in place to prevent the fast-tracking of fossil fuels.
- Undermines an independent EPA reducing accountability of project impacts.
- Dilutes key guardrails and safeguards designed to protect our environment: including the ‘net gain’ and definition of ‘unacceptable impact’, that are crucial to stopping irreparable environmental damage and ensuring developments leave nature better off.
- Fails to fix logging loopholes and land clearing exemptions that are currently contributing to the destruction of our native forests and critical habitat.
In contrast to the Coalition, the Greens’ key demands have been reported as:
- A strong, independent EPA
- An end to native forest logging – such as closing existing loopholes
- Adequate protections for critical habitat, including from land clearing
- Consideration of climate impacts to some degree (even if a ‘climate trigger’ is off the table)
- No fast-tracks for polluting coal or gas projects
- No wholesale handover to states of approvals – including the water trigger
Rapid analysis of Coalition deal
Watering down climate pollution information provided by companies and the requirement for companies to make plans to reduce climate pollution
Climate accountability gutted: A Coalition deal would explicitly exclude emissions disclosure and consideration of direct climate pollution from projects. This would represent an abject failure to address climate change or climate harms in any way, and risk undermining Australia’s climate targets, policies like the Safeguard Mechanism and Australia’s international commitments.
Emissions disclosure requirements and plans to reduce pollution would either be gutted completely, or left toothless – in direct contradiction to the recommendations of the Samuel Review of the EPBC Act, which recommended disclosure of “the full emissions of the development”.
This would leave our national environment law completely out of step with existing emissions disclosure requirements (that include Scope 3) in many states i.e. Environmental assessments in both New South Wales and Queensland, Environmental assessments from the Federal offshore oil and gas regulator NOPSEMA, and the Albanese Government’s own climate-related financial disclosure framework.
Fossil fuel projects given a free pass: By rejecting climate safeguards, the Coalition’s approach effectively gives new coal and gas developments a free ride through approvals. There would be no obligation to assess whether a proposed mine or gas field undermines Australia’s climate targets, nor any ban on fast‑tracking polluting projects
No guardrails against fast tracking of fossil fuels
There are currently several approval pathways in the bill that could inadvertently enable this – such as the streamlined assessment pathway, the bioregional plans, state accreditation pathways and NOPSEMA. A deal with the Coalition doesn’t set any guardrails at all to ensure polluting coal and gas projects aren’t fast-tracked, alongside the environmentally responsible clean energy and housing projects Australia needs.
The Minister retaining responsibilities, particularly around the assessment and approval of projects, and weakening the EPA’s ability to enforce the rules
Undermining an independent EPA: A core Coalition condition is to weaken the new independent Environmental Protection Agency. They want to extend political control over the EPA’s leadership – for example, by giving the minister power to sack the EPA’s CEO. This undermines the whole point of an independent watchdog. Effective oversight requires a strong, arms-length EPA. The new EPA must be free to enforce the rules without fear of political interference, otherwise environmental protections will be hollow.
Reinstating streamlined approval pathways that industries are demanding
This prioritises approval pathways and efficiency for business and industries over environmental protection.
It is noteworthy that the Coalition supports the creation of more approval pathways, when this law is supposed to reduce complexity and avoid duplication.
This is about industry trying to have a foot in both camps: if the fast lane doesn’t work for them, then they want to keep a back door open.
Redefining or watering down the “unacceptable impact” safeguard
Dilution of the ‘unacceptable impact’ safeguard: The reforms propose a new test to block projects that would cause “unacceptable impacts” on protected matters – a crucial safeguard to stop irreparable environmental damage. The Coalition appears to be attempting to water this down by weakening the definition or making it easier for decision-makers to bypass.
This test needs to be strong and objective, not weaker: it should clearly condition or prevent projects that would irreversibly harm critical ecosystems or drive species extinctions.
Redefining or diluting the concept of “net gain”
The Coalition also objects to provisions requiring developments to leave nature better off. Notably, they oppose the “net gain” requirement – a rule that any environmental damage from a project must be more than offset by repairs or improvements elsewhere.
If this requirement is watered down or scrapped, companies could tick a box with token efforts that don’t actually make up for the harm done. The result? Big projects go ahead, while our wildlife and ecosystems continue to decline.
Weaker penalties
A watered down penalty regime: Reduced accountability and compliance – letting industries/projects that break the rules or cause environmental damage off lighter by reducing penalties.
Nothing on the table regarding native forest logging, or land clearing
A deal with the Coalition would leave a gaping hole in the law by keeping native forest logging exempt from federal oversight. Right now, logging conducted under Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) isn’t subject to the EPBC Act at all – and the Coalition is not prepared to change that. This means destructive logging of our native forest could continue without meeting national environmental standards or scrutiny by the new EPA.
This decades-old loophole must be closed to protect wildlife and carbon-rich forests. A deal with the Coalition would perpetuate business-as-usual logging, undermining the credibility of any “once-in-a-generation” reform. Graeme Samuel himself strongly critiqued these exemptions for forestry, describing them as “untenable loopholes” in the context of strengthening Australia’s environmental laws. The deal also preserves a free pass for continued land clearing – exactly the kind of loophole that has contributed to Australia’s nature emergency.
Learn more about the Government’s proposed environment law reforms here.
