There has been some hope that the Federal changes to the EP(BC) Act (the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act) may result in improvements for native forests, such as by adopting and applying strong environmental standards that over-ride RFAs, though an assessment of the new laws by EJA maintains that we will be worse off on most counts (https://envirojustice.org.au/environment-law-reform-scorecard/). EDO also consider that the positives are undermined by extensive exemptions and opportunities for ministerial discretion (https://www.edo.org.au/2025/10/31/epbc-act-reforms-make-it-to-parliament-edos-first-impressions/). It seems that for forests we will still suffer under 25 year old “evergreened” RFAs, applied through nice sounding intents, such as ‘ecologically sustainable’ and ‘adaptive management’, that can actually mean whatever the Governments want (usually nothing). Given that we already have species recovery plans that are meant to apply to forestry, but in practice make no difference, it seems the national standards will be more of the same.
You can have a say as a Senate Inquiry is inviting public submissions between now and 5 December 2025 (https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/EPRBill48P), with the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee to report by 24 March 2026. Both EDO and EJA will be providing submission guides. EJA have a webinar on Monday 10 November at 6.30pm if you want to learn more.
Regarding Deforestation and land clearing, EJA state:
- The Albanese government’s current proposed reform package keeps these old logging and land clearing loopholes.
- This means logging in forests covered by Regional Forest Agreements will continue to avoid federal environmental assessment.
- The government has also refused to remove the “continuous use” exemption, which allows land clearing practices that were occurring before 2000 to continue without assessment.
- The reforms will, in theory, apply National Environmental Standards to deforestation and land clearing. But what this means for logging and land clearing depends on the detail of the Standards themselves, which haven’t yet been released.
- The reforms mean that the application of the Standards, once developed, will be highly discretionary, weak and too often, unenforceable. Under this current draft, the Environment Minister of the day would get to choose if and how to apply them to a project like a logging coupe or industrial agricultural expansion – and with so much discretion, these standards will not provide for uniform, reliable environmental protection for threatened species and their habitat.
Regarding National environmental standards, EJA state (in part):
- The Albanese government’s reforms would give the Environment Minister new powers to make national environmental standards – a long overdue cornerstone of meaningful environment laws.
- But as drafted, the standards would fall far short of what’s needed. They’re not mandatory, don’t guarantee strong environmental outcomes, and wouldn’t set a clear, enforceable bottom line for protection. Instead, they’d apply only to some decisions, and their use would be largely discretionary.
- Decision-makers would merely need to “have regard to” the standards or be “satisfied” their decisions are “not inconsistent with” them – weak language that means standards could be applied inconsistently.
- The draft package also includes several positive concepts, but each is undermined by significant loopholes.
- A definition of “unacceptable impact” is included – an important step to ensuring that projects with unacceptable impacts on the environment cannot proceed – yet the test is subjective and set at an unreasonably high threshold.
- An impact would only be deemed unacceptable if it “seriously impairs the viability of” a threatened species, while the test for water resources is limited to human interests and nationally significant sites, leaving broader ecological impacts unaddressed.
- There’s a proposed mitigation hierarchy – but corporations could effectively be able to pay to override it and continue destructive activities. And while a non-regression principle is included, it’s largely discretionary and wouldn’t apply to projects within the first 18 months after a standard is made.
- Together, these gaps mean that while the concept of national standards is introduced, the reforms stop well short of creating strong, enforceable rules that would deliver consistent protection for nature.
Environmental Justice Assessment Pic:
