Australia’s new nature laws: Are birds better off? 

Australia’s new nature laws: Are birds better off? 

BirdLife Australia welcomes some big changes to Australia’s national nature laws, but gaps remain in the legislation and upcoming decisions about the destruction of bird habitat will test the strength of the new laws. 

The deal struck between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens last week has closed some extremely damaging loopholes. Forestry no longer gets a free pass to destroy nature, and the outdated “continuous use” exemption for land clearing can’t be exploited to destroy vegetation older than fifteen years. These are positive developments that should see destructive actions undergoing proper scrutiny of their environmental impacts. Deforestation is one of the major drivers pushing species toward extinction and these outcomes could help species like the Swift Parrot, which depends on native forests, and many other birds that require established vegetation such as hollow-bearing trees. 

At BirdLife Australia, we were calling for mandated recovery plans for threatened species, and this hasn’t happened. We are pleased that ‘protection statements’ will start to be issued for whole or part of nationally significant habitat ranges, but it’s not clear how effective this new mechanism will be, or if they will be able to override existing recovery plans for the species that do have them. The development of Recovery Plans continue to be dependent on Ministerial discretion. With 14 out of 18 Critically Endangered birds lacking an up-to-date plan and the growing threat of H5N1, we see this as a significant gap in the new legislation. 

We were also advocating for the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to be given the independence it needs to make good, objective decisions. The new legislation has taken some positive steps in this direction, but hasn’t closed the door on ministerial discretion. The Environment Minister can rule on how parts of the bill will apply to different projects, and the wording of the bill only requires the Minister to be ‘satisfied’ that a project abides by the law. There is still plenty of room here for lobbyists and vested interests to influence Ministerial decision making. 

The final amendments to Australia’s nature laws have managed to avoid some proposed changes that could have been disastrous. The “water trigger” that requires the federal government to assess significant impacts to water resources from coal and gas will stay in place. New ‘streamlining’ pathways can’t be used to fast-track coal and gas projects, but these new pathways do create an opportunity for fast tracking the destruction of nature for other types of development, potentially robbing communities of their opportunity to be consulted. 

Handing important approval powers to states and territories, and relying on the EPA to advise the Federal Minister of any state and territory breaches of National Environmental Standards is risky and relies heavily on the independence and effectiveness of the newly established EPA. We welcome the introduction of National Environmental Standards that will play a pivotal role in the new legislation, but as these are yet to be defined, it’s impossible to say how effective these are going to be.  

The laws still allow for ‘offsets’ to compensate for environmental destruction through protections elsewhere. For instance, a wind development on Tasmania’s Robbins Island that impacts orange-bellied parrot habitat has been approved with some offsetting conditions including financial contributions to captive breeding and protections for other areas of habitat. For a species on the brink of extinction, simply protecting a second area of habitat doesn’t offset the damage done to the first, and captive-bred birds will be released into diminishing habitat and exposed to new risks. This already flawed system of ‘offsets’ is being compromised further. A new fund for restorations will be used with less requirements for “like for like” protections, meaning species impacted by habitat destruction may not benefit from the actions supposedly ‘offsetting’ that impact. There are obvious problems with this, such as, as Independent Senator David Pocock asked while debating the bills, “How are you going to work out the exchange rate? What does a swift parrot translate to in terms of bettongs, phascogales or antechinuses?”  

We won’t need to wait long before the effectiveness of the bills is put to the test. Important decisions are looming that may have severe consequences for threatened Australian birds. In WA, Baudin’s Black-cockatoo habitat could be destroyed to expand Bauxite mines. Some of the last remaining habitat left for the Eyre-Peninsula Southern Emu-wren could be blasted by rocket launches at Whalers Way in SA. And of course, there’s the Robbin’s Island development in Tasmania that threatens migrating Orange-bellied Parrots, including those precious captive-bred birds. Whether birds like these are better off under the new laws is yet to be seen. 

Kate Millar

BirdLife Australia CEO

Read BirdLife Australia’s EPBC reforms scorecard.