Victoria’s Healesville Sanctuary is playing a crucial role in saving the endangered orange-bellied parrot. With only about 50 of these birds left in the wild, the sanctuary runs a breeding program aimed at releasing up to 20 pairs of these migratory birds each year. This initiative highlights the sanctuary’s commitment to protecting various threatened species, drawing around 400,000 visitors annually, many of whom are schoolchildren eager to learn about nature.
Graeme Samuel, who authored a 2021 review of Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, considers the plight of these parrots as a powerful reminder of what’s at stake. He emphasizes that discussions about nature should prioritize its intrinsic value rather than veering into political debates. The conversation isn’t just about the environment or the economy; it’s a blend of both.
The latest iteration of the EPBC Act addresses a broad range of issues, from renewable energy to cultural heritage. As former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry noted, Australia has a chance to create a thriving, low-emission economy that is rich in nature. However, this ambitious goal requires effective environmental regulations.
Histories of environmental legislation reveal a long-standing struggle between conservation and development. The last major reform took place over 25 years ago, during the Howard government, and is now outdated. Over the years, numerous reports have pointed to alarming biodiversity loss. For instance, the Biodiversity Council highlighted ongoing and accelerating species extinction.
Business leaders like Bran Black from the Business Council of Australia express frustration with existing regulations, calling them a barrier to progress and claiming they hinder efforts to reach net-zero emissions. This interplay of interests—between business growth and environmental protection—creates a tense political landscape where compromise seems elusive.
Since Samuel’s review, there have been pushes for change. The Albanese government introduced a “nature positive plan,” which faced backlash and was shelved ahead of the 2025 elections due to pressures from business interests. Now, the question remains: can the Labor Party, the Coalition, and the Greens find common ground to enact significant nature laws?
Among the ongoing discussions is the issue of a climate impact trigger in the legislation, which is currently absent. Although new standards would require development plans to consider their environmental effects, the lack of explicit protective measures raises concerns. Part of the bill aims to make business decisions more predictable while ensuring that nature is safeguarded.
Critics worry that a lengthy bill of over 1,500 pages—set for a House vote next week—may be rushed, leaving little room for necessary adjustments. They argue for a more thorough examination to improve its effectiveness.
As we navigate the complexities of environmental law, it’s evident that the solution isn’t perfect. It must benefit communities, support economic growth, and protect natural habitats. Samuel’s reminder that we need to consider the future—our children and grandchildren—rings true. A balanced approach can help us build a sustainable future, one that respects both nature and progress.
For further insights into Australia’s environmental challenges and legislative updates, visit the Australian government’s Environment Department.
