Danielle Ryan, NPA Conservation Campaigner
Environmental issues have certainly lost their shine of late as a national or global topic, replaced by stories of war and destruction. Yes, we may be living in a poignant moment in time where a Trump America aims to undermine the international system, which includes the system that develops and defines environmental international standards. For example, Trump’s America recently pulled out of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The IUCN sets the standards for protected area planning, and assessment of species extinction risks, which informs international and domestic policymaking.[1] And, yes, national and state nature law reforms will likely fall short of what is required for Australia to meet its global commitments to the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, I believe there is hope. It’s about remembering the golden age of Australia’s environmental law and being persistent with our activism and, most importantly, being patient — waiting for another golden moment to seize the opportunity for progressive reform.
Remember the good moments in history — Why the golden age of national environmental law matters
I was born during the golden age of environmental law in Australia, which spanned the 1970s and 1980s. My birth year, 1983, coincided with the landmark Tasmanian Dam case—the most influential law case in Australia’s history. The Tasmanian Dam case was pivotal because the High Court ruled that the Commonwealth had the power to intervene and stop the construction of the Gordon-below-Franklin Dam under Australia’s obligations to the World Heritage Convention.[2]
You may remember the enchanting photo of a Franklin riverbend (by Peter Dombrovskis) which is famously attributed to elevating the Gordon-below-Franklin campaign to its eventual success? People power, combined with clever marketing and sustained activism, played a major role in making the Franklin a hot election issue.
I was clearly unaware of the Franklin’s election significance at the time, but my mother (an environmental law expert) would one day tell me that Gordon-below-Franklin case was a significant milestone in the development of Australian environmental law. It essentially rewrote the relationship between our federal and state governments as one of the most momentous decisions by the High Court in Australian Constitutional Law, deciding the Commonwealth could override states on environmental issues. This was based on the premise that the Commonwealth holds the power to enact domestic legislation to fulfil Australia’s external affairs obligations.[3][4]
During this ‘Golden Age’, my mother had emerged as an academic founder of environmental law in Australia, [5] including developing and teaching the first environmental law course in 1971. I only connected with her career and passion as an adult, when I studied international relations in the early 2000s and began to understand environmental law within the global system. This experience and learning journey left me with the strong belief that we were on a trajectory towards continually improving protections, even if there were major pitfalls along the way.
Over the next couple of decades, progress on multilateral actions to safeguard the environment garnered momentum on an international stage, with countries globally joining forces to improve safeguards for our natural world, including for climate and biodiversity. These changes reflected a positive change in the political mindset and attitudes of many nations towards the environment.
The mismatch between international aspirations and domestic reality
Many readers may disagree with my unwaning optimism, that progress on international agreements matters and is still relevant today. They rightly feel disappointed that subsequent Australian governments have not taken their international obligations more seriously with reforms under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). There has always been a discrepancy between international agreements and the domestic reality of nations.
However, Australia’s passage of international environmental laws, such as the World Heritage Convention, the RAMSAR convention, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, provide a genuine legal foundation to protect Australia’s threatened species and areas of outstanding values. International law plays an important role in Australia considering our Constitution does not give the Australian Government powers to create environmental law, thus why the High Court decision on the Franklin Dam is so significant.[6]
Despite the passage of powerful international instruments, the government’s reforms have continued to leave large holes in our domestic environmental law in terms of coverage and application of protections for our terrestrial and marine environments. Australia’s environmental law centrepiece, the EPBC Act, essentially cherry picks what environmental matters ‘matter’, including which aspects of international conventions and agreements. In theory, the EPBC Act could be used by a progressive government as a very powerful tool to more effectively lay out what parts of our environment are worthy of special layers of protection, whether it be threatened species or the water you drink. However, since the Act’s creation, governments of both sides of politics have failed to embrace the opportunity to adequately do so.
Key international conservation and biodiversity agreements covered under the EPBC Act:
· Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 1992[7], including supplementary agreements, eg the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022 (including the 30×30 target).[8]
· Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 1971.[9] Listed RAMSAR wetlands are protected under the EPBC Act.
· Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) 1975, which regulates trade in endangered species.[10]
· Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (the Bonn Convention) 1979, which protects migratory animal species including whales.[11]
· World Heritage Convention 1972, on protection of world cultural and natural heritage. Listed World Heritage sites are protected under the EPBC Act.[12]
The following areas presently enjoy special protection under the Act due to the agreements above:
- world heritage areas
- national heritage places
- wetlands of international importance (listed under the Ramsar Convention)
- listed threatened species and ecological communities
- listed migratory species (protected under international agreements)
- Commonwealth marine areas
- Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
- nuclear actions (including uranium mines)
- water resources (that relate to unconventional gas development and large coal mining development).
- Land clearing (is now a trigger as of 2025)
These ten matters of Environmental National Significance receive protection under the Act (and are also known as ‘triggers’). The 10th trigger, land clearing, was only added with recent reforms for specific circumstances, including for native regrowth vegetation that hasn’t been cleared in the past 15 years.
Land clearing is an impressive additional to the list but the continuation of loopholes, and the absence of federal oversight in the EPBC Act, makes the Act porous and weak, unable to fully protect many of the environmental concerns that international agreements aspire to protect. For example, climate change is having a huge impact on the survival of species and on humans, but it is not adequately covered under the EPBC Act. It is not listed as a trigger. Australia has signed the Paris Agreement, which is legally binding at an international level, but neither the Coalition nor Labor have fully passed it into legislation. The political will is clearly lacking to ensure the Paris Agreement is covered under the EPBC Act.
Are the reforms genuine?
It is a progressive move to list land clearing as a trigger, but government decisions to act on the issue are dependent on the environment minister’s political judgement. Anointing ministers with king-like powers, limiting public comment, fast-tracking and streamlining, and becoming more heavily reliant on offsetting rather than regulation, are the major themes that seem to be emerging from State (NSW) and Federal nature law reforms. Despite some improvements, what is concerning is reduced oversight and public scrutiny on both levels of government, potentially exposing our native species to increased risk of destructive and damaging pressures, as decisions become even more reliant on political discretion rather than fact and science-based decision-making.
But the health of our natural world is in turmoil — why are our laws failing us?
A large part of the problem is that our national and state planning laws are geared towards permitting development growth, while other resource-focused legal instruments, like our fisheries and agricultural management laws, do little to prevent the largescale decline of species. Due to poor environmental resource legislation, NSW has seen a jump in land clearing by 40% in just one year, [13] and a 6% depletion of fish stocks over three years.[14] Over 1,000 plant and animal species are at risk of extinction in NSW.[15] NSW could lose roughly 500 species within 100 years as nature struggles to survive escalating threats, including habitat loss and climate change.[16]
NPA NSW recently lost a major legal battle over state infrastructure development in Kosciuszko National Park. This defeat highlights a serious issue: our nature laws are so porous that even our rarest and most unique national park environments lack guaranteed, perpetual protection.
Kosciuszko is home to Australia’s highest mountain, Mount Kosciuszko, and our only true alpine environment, so if our nature laws are failing Kosci, it means the fate of our less charismatic landscapes are far less secure.
Why are the new reforms so risky? Streamlining and fast-tracking projects
The anti-conservation argument has argued for decades to cut ‘green tape’ (e.g. public consultation), to make it easy for business to operate, but this argument does not add up. The reduction in consultation periods may lead to an increase in the number of projects being approved with perverse outcomes for the environment. Previously, over 75% of nationally referred projects dropped out under the first stage of approval, sometimes within weeks of being referred.[17] The huge drop out of destructive project was ‘thankfully’ due to all that so called ‘green tape’ designed to do its job, creating an assessment pathway to protect nature. While far from perfect, the Act was playing an important role in acting as a deterrent to large-scale destructive projects.[18] The Act has been an important tool, rarely used, with only 50-400 referrals under the Act per year, in contrast to the more than 250,000 development applications under state and territory planning laws each year.
Why are the states approving so many destructive projects? Australia’s constitutional dilemma for environmental matters
States and councils handle local planning permits, which means they have the power to decide on most developments. Certainly, a barrier for creating strong national environmental legislation rests in an Australian Constitutional dilemma, which gives states primary responsibility for land use and development, thus limiting Federal Government reach to protect wildlife and habitats.
The result for NSW: a land clearing crisis in NSW which has persisted for almost a decade after the NSW Baird Government replaced the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act and Native Vegetation Act with the far weaker Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Local Land Services Act 2016. Rules and penalties have been replaced by the nonsensical idea of voluntary codes for land clearing whereby, say a prospective agricultural land-clearer decides whether they are applying the rules correctly.
The ’golden’ lining — pathways to strengthen nature protection already exist
A 2025 Biodiversity Council Survey found not only that 50% of Australians rank the environment as one of the most important policy issues (closely ranked in line with other critical issues like health and housing), but two thirds of the nation are in favour of stronger environmental laws to protect nature.
If governments are to be the voice of the people, they must commit to a pathway for reform which already exists, with subsequent government reviews selling the idea of strengthening nature laws. Existing pathways for reform are clearly laid out:
The Samuel Review: the Federal Government’s Samuel Review called for a re-write of the inadequate national environmental laws, finding that standards were subpar to deal with environmental decline. Three of the findings included that 1) the Acts Objectives needed a complete overhaul to better include current and emerging threats, including climate change, 2) rather than assess projects on a project-by-project basis, it is better to consider the cumulative impacts through regional planning, giving priority to protection, conservation and investment and 3) and rather than devolved Commonwealth power, work towards strong and clear binding national standards to create consistency across the country on a federal and state level.[19] [20]
The Henry Review: the NSW Henry Review calls for similar reforms as listed above but goes further in calling for a root-and-branch reform of the Biodiversity Conservation Act, providing a damaging assessment of NSW’s biodiversity laws. It called for the insertion of Nature Positive at the centre of reforms, to reverse the decline of nature and to give the Act primacy over other competing legislation, recognising that the business-as-usual approach of balancing growth with environmental needs had failed.[21] [22]
What can you do to help? Write to our national and state Environment Ministers.
- Share your personal stories about nature decline and how the laws are failing. Our personal stories matter.
- Request that the NSW Environment Minister opts for environmental primacy in decision-making, and also embeds the 30×30 target to protect our terrestrial and marine ecosystems within the NSW Nature Strategy.
- Point out that recent state and federal planning law reforms show there are too many development exemptions, much of the language is vague or weak, with weak monitoring, too many loopholes, and the laws give too much power to the minister.
- To counter the ‘cutting green tape’ argument, argue instead for a ‘Green Safety Net’ to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and an overall healthy place for all wildlife and humans to live in.[23]
For letters to the federal minister, argue that Matters of National Significance (MNES) should be expanded to at least include immediate obligations under international law, such as:
The National Reserve System
Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity includes establishing a system of protected areas with special measures to conserve biodiversity, and to regulate or manage those biological resources inside protected areas with a view to ensure their conservation and sustainable use.[24] Currently, however, the EPBC Act falls short of Australia’s obligation to effectively manage protected areas. For example, the National Heritage List (NHL) captures some marine and terrestrial reserves, but it is focused on individual park nominations with specific values rather than considering broad ecosystem processes. This is why NPA NSW has been advocating for the inclusion of the full National Reserve System as a MNES.[25]
Climate Change
The exclusion of climate change as a trigger under the EPBC Act (e.g. for climate impacts or emissions) is a missed opportunity to enhance protection for our natural world. Safeguards for our natural environment fall woefully short of the Paris Agreement goals, with current climate legislation failing to lift ambition and pursue the implementation of domestic mechanisms. The EPBC Act should at a minimum work with Australia’s Climate Change Act 2022.
Stay optimistic. Keep writing submissions, writing letters. Stay engaged in advocacy and share your story.
Progressive nature law reform seems impossible within a Trump universe that has captured global and national media and social airways with war and destruction, making it impossible to make the environment headline news. Even on its best day, environmental and planning law reform is far for a headline grabber. It’s a dry and complex topic. The solutions have been presented to us and debated for decades, yet the environmental movement has not successfully overcome oppositional messaging for cutting green tape.
Conservationists continue to grapple with too many loopholes, too many exemptions, too many carve outs, and weak language. This is why it is critical that we share stories to help people understand and connect with nature law reform.
The NPA community is also in a key position of understanding — we have the knowledge and power to help within our networks. NPA branches and members must stay actively engaged in environment law reform. Our nature laws are incredibly abstract to the majority unless they experience an imminent threat. These threats may take the form of a large-scale housing development or major infrastructure project, which could destroy the natural environment or the local wildlife in an area that individuals have a personal connection to.
If you have a great story to share on nature law reform, please share it with NPA to publish in Nature News.
I have met numerous NPA members who are either experts in this field or are going on the same learning journey that I have gone. Keen learners (like I still am) are quickly drawn into a matrix of problems presented by our current legal system. They can be overwhelmed with the realisation that there are more barriers than solutions to preventing environmental destruction. Too often, however, learners are told that it is too hard to win their local battles, to change the existing legal and policy landscape, but this isn’t true. Learners should not be dissuaded: we are at a critical moment in time where we must speak up and share our stories. My mother is one of many, many advocates who fought hard, persistently so, for a paradigm shift in attitudes and thinking. Her voice filled a vacuum. My mother’s attitude and achievements, as well as others (including within our incredible NPA network), are a constant reminder of what is possible.
Tell us about your woes, and also about those golden moments in history, whether it be the Gordon-below-Franklin, or for NSW, the astonishing progress under Premier Bob Carr’s leadership. He introduced the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997, halting runaway land clearing including moratoriums on land clearing in some regional areas, created 350 new national parks and introduced the 1997 Marine Parks Act, the first system of NSW marine parks was declared.[26] [27] [28] I am sure there are NPA members out there who have interesting stories about their contribution to making major state reforms happen.
Our advocacy work was not easy then and nor is it any easier today — but let’s not give up hope. A return to a Golden Age of environmental law and big advocacy wins is entirely possible again. We must continue to clang and bang our pots and pans, agitating for a new window of opportunity, no matter the reform outcomes for 2025-26.
[1] Cressey, D, January 2026, Trump abandons international climate, biodiversity and energy bodies, Dialogue Earth. https://dialogue.earth/en/climate/trump-abandons-international-climate-biodiversity-and-energy-bodies/
[2] Environmental Law Australia, The Tasmanian Dam Case. https://envlaw.com.au/tasmanian-dam-case/
[3] McGrath, C, 2005, Key concepts of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), Environmental and Planning Law Journal (EPLJ), Volume 22. https://envlaw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/key_concepts.pdf
[4] McGrath, Chris, Lecture 10 (2020) – EPBC Act, YouTube. (n.d.). [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72gozd1HhwQ
[5] Corbett, J, 2022, Advocate, Issue 29, National Tertiary Education Union.https://issuu.com/nteu/docs/advocate_29_01/s/15008652
[6] McGrath, Chris, Lecture 10 (2020) – EPBC Act, YouTube. (n.d.). [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72gozd1HhwQ
[7] Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), updated August 2025, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/wildlife-trade/cites
[8] Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), updated February 2025, Global Biodiversity Framework (Convention on Biological Diversity).https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/biodiversity/international/un-convention-biological-diversity/global-biodiversity-framework
[9] Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), updated January 2026, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.https://www.dcceew.gov.au/water/wetlands/ramsar
[10] Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), updated August 2025, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/wildlife-trade/cites
[11] The Australian Treaties Database, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Convention on Biological Diversity – treaty text. https://www.info.dfat.gov.au/Info/Treaties/treaties.nsf/AllDocIDs/45AFEC2436701AD0CA256B6E0075FDCF
[12] UNESCO World Heritage Centre, States Parties. https://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/
[13] WWF-Australia, July 2025, Disturbing 40% jump in NSW land clearing. [Media Release]. https://wwf.org.au/news/2025/disturbing-40-jump-in-nsw-land-clearing/
[14] NSW Environment Protection Authority, 2024, Coastal and marine waters, NSW State of the Environment Report. https://www.soe.epa.nsw.gov.au/all-themes/waters/coastal-and-marine#:~:text=Ongoing%20declines%20in%20all%20coastal,grows%20and%20our%20climate%20changes .
[15] NSW Department of Environment and Heritage, Threatened species. https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/threatened-species
[16] SBS News, May 2024, How this state could lose hundreds of species within 100 years. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/how-this-state-could-lose-hundreds-of-species-within-100-years/jz1qze69o
[17] McGrath, C, 2013, Explainer: One-stop shop for environmental approvals, The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/explainer-one-stop-shop-for-environmental-approvals-19515
[18] McGrath, Chris, Lecture 10 (2020) – EPBC Act, YouTube. (n.d.). [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72gozd1HhwQ
[19] Samuel, G, 2020, Independent review of the EPBC Act: Final report, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/epbc-act-review-final-report-october-2020.pdf
[20] Walmsley, R, 2021, Trajectory unsustainable: 10 key findings of the EPBC Act review, Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), https://www.edo.org.au/2021/02/04/trajectory-unsustainable-10-key-findings-of-the-epbc-act-review-final-report/
[21] Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), 2023, NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act is failing and requires urgent reform [Media Release]. https://www.edo.org.au/2023/08/24/report-finds-nsw-biodiversity-conservation-act-is-failing-and-requires-urgent-reform/
[22] NSW Department of Environment and Heritage, Statutory review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/biodiversity/overview-of-biodiversity-reform/statutory-review-of-the-biodiversity-conservation-act-2016
[23] McGrath, C, November/December 2012, Mending Holes in the Green Safety Net, Precedent, Issue 113, https://envlaw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/green_safety_net.pdf
[24] Convention on Biological Diversity, 2007, Article 8: In-situ conservation.https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-08
[25] Dunnett, G. 2020. NPA Submission on EPBC Act Review NPA submission on EPBC review.pdf
[26] Bob Carr Blog, About Bob Carr.https://bobcarrblog.wordpress.com/about/
[27] Carr, B, June 2024, New appointments to the Australian Heritage Council, [Media release], Australian Government.https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/plibersek/media-releases/new-appointments-australian-heritage-council#:~:text=APPOINTEE%20BIOS-,The%20Hon%20Bob%20Carr,regarded%20Institute%20for%20Sustainable%20Futures .
[28] Smith, S, 1998, National parks in New South Wales, NSW Parliament, https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/national-parks-in-nsw/22-98.pdf