The recent changes to environmental legislation in New South Wales Australia have generated heated debate. Now experts, politicians, and advocacy groups are all locked into a historic debate over their potential impacts. The legislation brings in the much-debated idea of “net gains” to help produce better environmental results while protecting economic interests. Views on how these changes will be applied and interpreted are extremely varied. This troubling variant injects political discretion into the heart of federal environmental policymaking.
Professor Brendan Wintle from the Biodiversity Council said that the way “net gains” can be interpreted is, in reality, much broader. This discrepancy mostly depends on which order of government is responsible. That creates a real consistency and accountability concern when it comes to enforcing these laws. Opposition Shadow Environment Minister Angie Bell expressed alarm. She stressed that the geographic definitions of “net gains” have created major conflicts that require immediate resolution.
Just last year, the New South Wales government overhauled its legislation. Their decision came as a necessary step to address the continued crisis of habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity. Five years ago, The Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act found they were extremely lacking in urgent, rigorous standards. These standards should be the guiding framework of smart reform. During the 10 years to 2021, around 200,000 hectares of threatened species habitat were expected to be destroyed with the approval of these rules.
The Role of Science in Environmental Decision-Making
Scientists and policy makers alike implore the need for decisions to be driven by the best available science, not political judgement or discretion. Professor Justine Bell-James highlighted the importance of ensuring that legislation does not depend on ministerial discretion when it is based on clear scientific evidence. She cautioned that any attempts to open the door for political decision-makers would pose a serious risk of hollowing out the integrity of environmental protections.
“You’re giving a political decision-maker the power to determine something that has already been proven by a scientific expert,” – Professor Bell-James
Our Professor Wintle was a fierce champion of this perspective. He promised that those decisions made without scientific soundness would be sued. He stated, “And presumably it will be open for contestation in the courts, and nobody wants that.” This important lens highlights the need for transparency and accountability to be built into the new regulatory framework.
Most notably, the legislation responds to serious environmental crises, including restoring habitats essential for protecting endangered species such as Australia’s iconic koalas. Koalas in Queensland and New South Wales have been disproportionately affected by habitat loss facilitated by national environment laws.
Balancing Business Interests with Environmental Protections
Minister for the Environment Murray Watt is genuinely trying to put together a balanced package. We appreciate his commitment to producing outcomes that benefit the environment and business community alike. His approach is focused on making sure that positive economic development does not have to come at the cost of the state’s ecological health.
Watt assured stakeholders that new provisions would prevent actions such as drilling in sensitive areas, such as in the Great Barrier Reef. At the same time, these provisions will help save species from going extinct. He stated, “If there was conclusive evidence that a particular project was going to drive a species to extinction, then without wanting to prejudge a future decision, I think it’s likely that a minister would knock that back.”
Industry reps have raised alarms that the definitions of unacceptable impacts set forth in the draft laws are far too broad. Rep. Angie Bell criticized the increase in bureaucracy and red tape. She contended that it risks killing development initiatives and wouldn’t do a great job protecting the environment anyways.
“Bigger bureaucracy, more red tape, more green tape for proponents who would like to get an assessment approval,” – Angie Bell
Professor Bell-James cautioned that bad actors—individuals or organizations—could exploit these provisions. Further, they may be beset with a lack of true commitment to environmental sustainability. She reflected on the dangers of creating such broad definitions that can backfire against conservation projects.
Implementing Effective Environmental Strategies
Here’s how these draft laws create two important tools to deliver better environmental results. These tools will lead to more rigorous reviews for projects that impact biodiversity. The intent of the new framework is to provide explicit guidelines for what qualifies as a meaningful impact on natural habitats.
Despite these intentions, experts are still skeptical about if these measures will be enough to address past failures in environmental protection initiatives. Professor Wintle stressed that without effective implementation, losing fundamental targets like net gains could undermine the very purpose of the reforms.
“It only works where you’re paying into a fund to do offsetting on something that is demonstrably offset-able,” – Professor Wintle
Environmental science, legislative intent, and political influence collide, often resulting in heavily mismanaged environments. Together, they will decide how successful these new laws will be. All stakeholders are looking forward to what comes next. It’s going to be very important to see how these regulations are going to be interpreted and enforced going forward.
