Anyone watching last week’s Senate hearings into Australia’s new environmental laws – the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) – could be forgiven for mistaking the greater purpose of the legislation.
What was presented as a framework for safeguarding Australian biodiversity increasingly looks like a vehicle for environmental lawfare, one that risks being weaponised to block forestry, farming, and agricultural activity without proper oversight or accountability.
Over the weekend, Environment Minister Murray Watt vowed that the EPBC National Environmental Standards will be fully enforceable on forestry within three years. (When the Bill is passed, it will impact agriculture, mining, and commercial activity immediately.) That timeline may sound reassuring to those in forestry who want certainty, but it raises deeper questions about whether the system being built is fit for purpose.
If the hearings revealed anything, it is that the proposed regulatory architecture is riddled with flaws that undermine both fairness and governance:
- Environmental protection orders can be issued without a right of hearing. Landholders and businesses may face binding restrictions without the opportunity to contest or even properly understand the grounds.
- The Environment Protection Authority is positioned as both licensor and compliance enforcer. In corporate governance terms, those functions should be separated to avoid conflicts of interest. Concentrating power in one body erodes trust and transparency.
- The legislation grants sweeping powers to issue rulings, yet provides no mechanism for independent review. In a system where decisions can reshape livelihoods and industries, the absence of checks and balances is indefensible.
- National environmental standards are delegated legislation, but there appears to be no way for stakeholders to review or comment on their content. Such opacity is inappropriate for rules that will carry the force of law and shape land-use across the country.
Forestry, farming, and agriculture are not fringe activities; they are the backbone of regional economies and national supply chains. Yet under the EPBC framework, these sectors risk being tied up in litigation and regulatory uncertainty. Instead of delivering environmental outcomes, the legislation could become a blunt instrument wielded to obstruct legitimate activity.
The irony is that genuine environmental protection requires credibility, balance, and accountability. Without those, the EPBC risks losing the confidence of the very communities it seeks to regulate. Worse, it risks becoming a tool for activists and litigants rather than a framework for stewardship.
Australia deserves environmental laws that protect biodiversity while respecting livelihoods. What it does not need is a system that confuses conservation with control, or accountability with unchecked power.
If the EPBC proceeds in its current form, it won’t be remembered as a landmark in environmental protection – but as the moment lawfare replaced good governance.
