What’s happening — the reforms and the push-back
Australia is preparing for the most significant overhaul of its environmental framework in more than two decades. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is being rewritten under the Albanese government’s ambitious “Nature Positive” agenda, which aims not only to protect Australia’s environment but to actively restore it.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek have described the proposed changes as essential to reversing biodiversity loss and modernising outdated environmental laws. The reforms are part of a global shift toward “nature-positive” economies — ensuring that economic activity leads to an overall improvement in environmental health, rather than its decline.
Key proposed elements include:
- National Environmental Standards: Clear benchmarks to define environmental outcomes and guide decision-making.
- Independent Regulator: The establishment of Environment Protection Australia (EPA) to enforce environmental laws and ensure compliance.
- Regional Planning and Accreditation: Empowering states and territories to manage approvals under national standards, streamlining processes while maintaining accountability.
- Nature Repair Mechanisms: Requiring “net gain” or “nature repair” offsets for developments that impact biodiversity.
- Conservation Targets: A commitment to protect 30% of Australia’s land and sea by 2030.
Despite the government’s optimism, the reforms have met fierce resistance from several quarters — most notably the Liberal–National Coalition and sections of the business community. On 22–23 October 2025, the Coalition confirmed that it would not support the proposed legislation in its current form, arguing that the laws would harm economic growth.
Opposition Deputy Leader Sussan Ley labelled the reforms “a red light to jobs” and “a hand-brake on investment,” warning that they would deter businesses and burden the resource sector.
Why the Coalition is opposing
The Coalition’s objections are centred around four main concerns — economic impact, regulatory burden, pace of reform, and political positioning.
1. Economic growth, jobs, and investment
The Coalition argues that the reforms would impose heavy costs on industries such as mining, construction, and agriculture. According to Ley, the new laws risk sending “a message to investors that Australia is closed for business.” She claimed that the reforms would advantage overseas competitors while threatening local employment opportunities.
2. Regulatory burden and uncertainty
The creation of a new environmental watchdog, the EPA, has raised alarms within the Coalition and among industry leaders. They fear the independent regulator could add bureaucracy, increase compliance costs, and delay approvals for major projects. The Coalition’s environment spokesman warned that the laws would “add layers of complexity without guaranteeing better outcomes for nature.”
3. Scope and pace of reform
Critics say the government is rushing the legislation through Parliament with limited consultation. With only a few Senate sitting weeks remaining before the end of the year, the Coalition insists it needs more time to review the full draft bill, assess its impacts, and consult stakeholders before supporting any vote. (The Guardian)
4. Political positioning
Politically, the Coalition’s opposition places the Albanese government in a difficult position. Without a majority in the Senate, Labor must rely on either the Coalition or the Greens to pass the reforms. The Coalition’s firm resistance forces the government to negotiate with smaller parties — a process that may involve significant compromises.
What the government is aiming for — and the criticisms
The government’s case
The Labor government argues that Australia’s existing environmental framework has failed. More than 2,000 species and ecological communities are now threatened, and the country continues to record one of the world’s highest rates of mammal extinction.
By creating national standards and an independent regulator, the government believes it can achieve clearer rules, faster approvals, and greater accountability. The new system, they argue, would provide both certainty for investors and protection for nature.
Regional planning and accreditation of state authorities aim to cut duplication between state and federal systems — a longstanding complaint from developers — while ensuring environmental standards remain consistent nationwide.
The criticisms
However, the government’s “Nature Positive” plan has also drawn criticism from environmentalists and crossbench senators.
The Australian Greens argue that the reforms may actually weaken environmental protections. They claim the proposed legislation fails to address the climate impact of fossil fuel projects and lacks a mandatory “climate trigger” to assess emissions before approvals. “These laws are worse than the status quo,” the Greens said in a statement.
Independent Senator David Pocock has also criticised the draft framework, describing the EPA design as “toothless” and lacking binding standards. His dissenting report urged the government to strengthen enforcement powers and explicitly define what constitutes an “unacceptable impact.”
Environmental groups worry that the “net gain” offset system could allow developers to damage ecosystems in one area while promising to restore others — an approach that, in practice, may fail to deliver genuine biodiversity benefits.
Meanwhile, business and industry bodies have voiced frustration at the speed of reform and limited access to draft legislation, arguing they have not had adequate time to assess its implications.
The political arithmetic and timing
With only 12 sitting days left in Parliament for the year, the government is racing against time to introduce and pass the legislation before the summer break. Environment Minister Murray Watt has reportedly told industry representatives that the government is targeting passage by 27 November 2025.
However, Labor’s minority in the Senate complicates the process. Without Coalition support, the government must negotiate with the Greens and independents — whose demands for stricter climate measures are unlikely to win business backing.
For the Coalition, the opposition serves a dual purpose: blocking what it views as overreach while reinforcing its image as the pro-jobs, pro-investment party. This stance appeals particularly to voters in regional and resource-rich areas.
Implications — what it could mean
For environment and biodiversity
If implemented effectively, the reforms could usher in stronger protection for endangered species, improved transparency in approvals, and measurable environmental restoration. The establishment of an independent regulator could also enhance public trust in environmental decision-making.
However, if the laws are watered down or delayed by political gridlock, Australia risks continuing its trend of biodiversity decline and missing global conservation targets.
For industry and investors
While the business community fears new compliance burdens, a well-structured system could actually benefit industry by providing certainty, consistency, and faster approvals. Accreditation of states and regional planning may reduce overlap and improve efficiency.
For politics and Australia’s global image
The legislative battle highlights the enduring tension between economic growth and environmental stewardship in Australian politics. Internationally, the outcome could affect Australia’s credibility under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which calls for nations to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.
What’s next
The government is expected to formally introduce the Nature Positive bills in Parliament within weeks. Debate is likely to be intense, with both environmental and business groups lobbying heavily.
If the Coalition maintains its opposition and the Greens demand major amendments, the government may have to delay passage into 2026 or split the legislation into smaller components. In that case, only the less controversial measures — such as the creation of the EPA — might pass initially.
Environmental advocates, meanwhile, continue to push for stronger climate-related triggers, a clear definition of “unacceptable impacts”, and more independence for the EPA. As Senator Pocock’s dissenting report warned, “Without robust enforcement, the promise of ‘nature positive’ will remain only words.” (Parliament of Australia)
Summary
The Albanese government’s “Nature Positive 2.0” laws represent one of the most ambitious environmental reforms in Australia’s history. Supporters believe they could restore damaged ecosystems and modernise environmental governance. Critics, however, warn of economic harm, excessive red tape, and inadequate climate safeguards.
With limited time left in the parliamentary calendar and strong resistance from the Coalition, the fate of the reforms remains uncertain. What happens in the coming weeks will determine not only the future of Australia’s environmental policy — but also the balance between development and conservation for years to come.
