Just before Christmas, federal politicians quietly signed off on the biggest shake‑up of Australia’s national environment law in 25 years. They passed a package of reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act in late November 2025. One of the headline ideas is that new development should not just do “less harm”, but actually leave the environment in better shape overall – a goal now widely called “nature positive”.
In July last year, former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry told the National Press Club forcefully that Australia’s national environment laws were “broken”. He described our environmental decline as nothing short of “a wilful act of intergenerational bastardry”. This deterioration is made worse, Ken Henry explained, because it quietly accumulates as individual approvals are each assessed and passed “one project at a time”. This term of Parliament, he said, was our “last, best chance” to do something.
The reform package answers that call by allowing new “National Environmental Standards” and agencies to steer decisions toward restoring nature. In practice, this means approvals will increasingly have to show how damage is avoided, minimised, or offset in ways that genuinely improve habitats at a landscape scale.
What does “nature positive’’ mean?
“Nature positive” is a simple phrase for a demanding idea: after a development, there should be more healthy habitat and more secure species than before. This shifts the question from “how much can we afford to lose?” to “how do we start to repair what has already been lost?”.
Rather than looking at each project in isolation, the new approach aims to consider whole landscapes – the mix of farms, suburbs, bushlands, waterways, and coastlines that we actually live and work in. These regional, or landscape plans will spell out clearly one of three options: no‑go areas, acceptable impacts, or areas where restoration must occur.
What does all this mean for state governments?
The main reform Acts have passed, but many changes will roll out over the next 1–2 years as bilateral agreements with the states are put in place. During this time, there will be further consultation on the draft National Environmental Standards.
For state governments, the message is: lift your game or lose the pen. If states want to keep doing most day‑to‑day assessments, their systems will need to match the new federal standards aimed at delivering nature‑positive outcomes. Over time, this is likely to reshape planning rules about land clearing, offsets, and where new housing and infrastructure can go.
What will it mean for local governments?
Local councils will feel the change through updated state and regional plans, new mapping of high‑value habitat, and tougher expectations around urban tree coverage, wetlands, floodplains, and other aspects in coastal areas. Developers may find some sites effectively off‑limits, while other areas will attract support for restoration, green corridors, or for nature‑friendly design of housing.
As this simply stated but demanding concept is discussed, the academics are suggesting we need to say plainly what our assumptions are: how are we balancing biodiversity issues against social and intergenerational fairness, and against economic development? In other words, whose backyard birds, fishing spots, or cultural sites count most when the trade‑offs are made? Trade-offs will be inevitable. Is compensation needed?
And as the new “nature positive” rules are worked out, the community’s task is not just to argue for or against particular projects but to help decide what kind of whole landscapes we want to leave to our grandchildren.
- Judith McNeill
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.