Where Labor and the Coalition stand on nature and environment policies this federal election

One face you may not have seen this election belongs to the Irwin’s turtle (Elseya irwini).

The freshwater snapping turtle, named after zookeeper and wildlife documentarian Steve Irwin and his dad Bob, was one of 23 additions to the national threatened species list this year.

With one of the highest rates of extinction in the world and more than 7.7 million hectares of threatened species habitat destroyed since 2000, Australia is considered by many to be in a biodiversity crisis.

So what are political parties offering when it comes to our nature laws?

What happened to Labor’s ‘nature positive’ plan?

Labor has increased funding to national parks and threatened species during its time in power.

The party’s biggest new commitment this election has been $250 million to put 30 per cent of Australian land into some sort of protected reserve by 2030.

The Labor government also used its 2024–25 budget to allocate $96.6 million over four years towards speeding up environmental approvals related to critical minerals projects and renewable energy generation and transmission.

But there has been little electioneering around Labor’s “nature positive” plan that was revealed last term.

That was Labor’s policy to change several environment-related laws to ensure threatened species and their habitat were not lost.

Australia’s central piece of nature legislation is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

The Act is supposed to protect ecosystems, native species and cultural heritage. It also enables a key regulatory process for would-be developers that might harm these values.

The scathing 2020 Samuel’s review of the EPBC Act, commissioned by the previous Liberal government, found it was not effective in protecting the environment, which had, overall, declined and was under increasing threat.

When Labor took power, it took a staged approach to addressing some of the review’s recommendations but reform has since stalled, with neither the Coalition nor Greens backing it.

Will there be an environment watchdog?

One of the key hurdles for Labor’s nature reforms has been legislation to make an independent Environment Protection Authority (EPA) that could decide the outcome of major developments and police compliance.

An EPA has been a Labor commitment since 2019, but there are concerns in the resources industry that it would create more paperwork.

The Coalition is also against the formation of an EPA which it claims would drive up housing and energy costs.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reportedly shut down negotiations to get an EPA through the senate where Labor lacks the numbers to pass laws itself.

But he said in March Labor would still pursue the creation of the watchdog post-election using a different model.

“What we’ll do is work it through, we’ll consult widely, make sure that we get it right and that is what we will legislate,” Mr Albanese said.

“Something that provides certainty for industry and the way that processes occur, but also provides for sustainability. That’s what we’re after.”

Chamber of Minerals and Energy WA chief executive Rebecca Tomkinson said her organisation, which represents major resource companies, questioned the need for a federal EPA in WA when a state-based version already existed.

“The resources sector has long advocated that future environmental reforms be grounded in genuine consultation to ensure outcomes that deliver for both the environment and for business,” she said.

“The aim must be to protect Australia’s environment while removing duplication, providing a higher degree of process certainty for proponents and speeding up project assessments.”

Labor’s nature positive plan had included a mechanism for state and territory governments to be accredited to make decisions on national environmental approvals.

Reform is still on the agenda and a government taskforce has continued to work on legislative proposals.

Environment Minster Tanya Plibersek told ABC News Weekend Breakfast last month Labor still wanted to see stronger environmental laws. 

“They’re not fit for purpose, they don’t protect the environment, they’re not good for business,” she said.

“We know we need to reform them, but it’s going to take commonsense and compromise, and that means the Greens can’t hold out for everything they want, and the Liberals and the Nationals will have to agree to better protect our environment.”

Coalition’s nature approach

Many of the Coalition’s commitments around environment law reform focus on cutting “green tape” for industry.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton told a mining conference last year that a Coalition government would “unequivocally and unashamedly champion our mining and resource sectors”.

The Coalition also wants to speed up housing development environmental approvals.

Both promises would be met through a range of measures including:

• halving environmental approval times for projects
• introducing a “national interest” test to give greater consideration to economic and social interests in environmental approval decisions
• accrediting state and territory governments processes for national environmental approvals
• restricting use of the “stop the clock” provision, which is where the government halts an environmental assessment as it seeks more information
• finalising environmental applications for housing developments within 12 months
• “simplifying” environmental assessment processes
• “clarifying” rules for project offsets (schemes where you create a nature covenant or give the government land with habitat similar to what you plan to remove).

Mr Dutton has also promised to defund the Environmental Defender’s Office (EDO), a not-for-profit community legal office, after he accused the organisation of using taxpayer funds to wage “lawfare” to impede resource projects.

The EDO was reprimanded by a federal court judge last year for coaching a witness while representing traditional owners from the Tiwi Islands against a gas development by Santos.

Mr Dutton wants to end the $8.2 million grant agreement between the EDO and the federal government before it expires in 2026. A review by the federal government last year found the EDO had not breached the conditions of its grant.

Another promise by Mr Dutton to fast-track an approval decision on the North West Shelf extension gas project, within 30 days of being elected, could leave a Coalition-led government open to a future legal challenge.

Biodiversity Council director James Trezise was critical of the Coalition’s environment policies, and said there was nothing on offer that would meaningfully benefit Australia’s biodiversity.

“In simple terms, their agenda is entirely geared towards fast-tracking development, seemingly irrespective of its potential environmental impact,” he said.

“There have also been no commitments to investing in recovering our iconic threatened species or protecting Australia’s unique ecosystems, which is critical if we are to stem the loss of wildlife across the country.”