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.
Federal election live updates: Get the latest news from the campaign trail
Catch the latest interviews and in-depth coverage on ABC iview and ABC Listen
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 says the resources industry wants better outcomes for the environment but bureaucratic double-ups on approvals must be fixed. ( ABC News: Jack Stevenson )
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 Minister Tanya Plibersek says Labor still wants nature reform. ( ABC News: Luke Stephenson )
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".
Peter Dutton's policies as opposition leader have been geared around speeding up development. ( ABC News: Matt Roberts )
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
halving environmental approval times for projects introducing a "national interest" test to give greater consideration to economic and social interests in environmental approval decisions
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
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
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
finalising environmental applications for housing developments within 12 months "simplifying" environmental assessment processes
"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.
James Trezise from the Biodiversity Council says the Coalition policies do little for the environment. ( ABC News: Claire Moodie )
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."
Shadow environment minister Jonathon Duniam said an environmental law overhaul was the portfolio's foremost priority.
"The uncertainty from the secret consultations with select groups has alienated environmental stakeholders and industries, and set the path of reform backwards, not forwards," he told the ABC.
"The Coalition will continue our considered approach to reform that we took in government to get the balance right between the need to have a functioning economy and our ability to protect our environment."
What might happen in a hung parliament?
With tight polling between the major parties, there is a possibility of a hung parliament this election.
That's where no single party has a majority of seats in the lower house, which means they need support from cross-benchers or the opposition to pass laws.
Want even more? Here's where you can find all our 2025 federal election coverage
If this happened, the ruling party might need support in not just the lower house but the Senate too, meaning they will need to negotiate what's in legislation.
Independent politicians have previously supported nature positive reform.
In April last year, independent politicians Zali Steggall, Kate Chaney, Zoe Daniel, Helen Haines, Kylea Tink, Monique Ryan, Sophie Scamps, Allegra Spender, and Andrew Wilkie all asked Labor to pass a complete package of reforms in response to the Samuel review.
The Greens also put forward a wishlist of environment policies the party would take to the negotiating table if its numbers in the lower house and senate are needed to legislate:
invest 1 per cent of federal budget into protecting and restoring nature
invest 1 per cent of federal budget into protecting and restoring nature provide $20 billion for biodiversity restoration over 10 years
provide $20 billion for biodiversity restoration over 10 years create a $5 billion protected areas fund
create a $5 billion protected areas fund establish a land and sea country commissioner as an independent First Nations voice
establish a land and sea country commissioner as an independent First Nations voice introduce a climate trigger that could stop fossil fuel projects getting environmental approval
introduce a climate trigger that could stop fossil fuel projects getting environmental approval end forest logging
end forest logging moratorium on koala habitat clearing
moratorium on koala habitat clearing mirror climate disclosures by business with a mandatory nature risk disclosure.
The Biodiversity Council, formed by 11 Australian universities to provide expert advice on biodiversity issues, has graded the major parties' policies and given the Greens top marks.
Former Queensland chief scientist and Biodiversity Council co-chair Hugh Possingham said Labor's nature policies were "minimal" and the Coalition's were a "failure".
In contrast, Professor Possingham said The Greens' policies, if enacted through a balance of power, could have meaningful improvements for Australia's environment.
Biodiversity Council grades
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
10 minutes ago
- West Australian
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has called the attack on Iran a success with ‘severe damage and destruction'
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth says Midnight Hammer 'did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people' with a senior Air Force general warning it would be an 'incredibly poor choice' for Iran and its proxies to retaliate. The US launched overnight strikes on three Iranian facilities — Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow — joining Israel's push to cripple Tehran's nuclear program. In an address to media at the Pentagon on Sunday evening (Australian time), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force General Dan Caine outlined the operation and said all three nuclear sites sustained 'extremely severe damage and destruction'. 'At midnight Friday into Saturday morning, a large B-2 strike package comprised of bombers launched from the continental United States,' he said. 'As part of a plan to maintain tactical surprise, part of the package proceeded to the West and into the Pacific as a decoy; a deception effort known only to an extremely small number of planners and key leaders here in Washington and in Tampa. 'The main strike package, comprised of seven B-2 spirit bombers, each with two crew members, proceeded quietly to the east with minimal communications. 'Once over land, the B-2s linked up with escort and support aircraft in a complex, tightly timed manoeuvre requiring exact synchronisation across multiple platforms in a narrow piece of airspace, all done with minimal communications. 'At approximately 5pm EST last night, and just prior to the strike package entering Iran, a US submarine in the Central Command Area of Responsibility launched more than two dozen Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles against key surface infrastructure targets at Isfahan. 'As the operation Midnight Hammer strike package entered Iranian airspace, the US employed several deception tactics including decoys as the fourth and fifth generation aircraft pushed out in front of the strike package at high altitude and high speed.' Mr Caine said the US dropped two GBU-57 series MOP weapons on 'several aim points' at Isfahan at about 6.40pm EST. 'The remaining bombers then hit their targets as well, with a total of 14 MOPs dropped against two nuclear target areas,' he said. Mr Caine said all three nuclear infrastructure targets were struck between 6.40pm and 7.05pm EST. 'The Tomahawk missiles (were) the last to strike at Isfahan to ensure we retain the element of surprise throughout the operation,' he said. 'Following weapons release, the Midnight Hammer strike package exited Iranian airspace and the package began its return home. 'We are unaware of any shots fired at the package on the way out ... we retained the element of surprise.' Mr Caine said the US deployed up to 125 aircrafts and 75 precision guided weapons. 'This included fourteen 30,000 pound GBU-57 MOPs marking the first ever operational use of this weapon,' he said. 'Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction. 'More than 125 US aircraft participated in this mission including B-2 stealth bombers, multiple flights of fourth and fifth generation fighters, dozens of air refuelling tankers, a guided missile submarine and a full array of intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, as well as hundreds of maintenance and operational professionals.' Mr Caine said the US remained on 'high alert' and was 'fully postured to respond to any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks' — a move he warned would be 'an incredibly poor choice'. 'We will defend ourselves,' he said. 'The safety of our service members and civilians remains our highest priority. 'This mission demonstrates the unmatched reach co-ordination and capability of the United States military.' Mr Hegseth said the attack had 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear ambitions but said it 'did not attack Iranian troops or the Iranian people'. 'We devastated the Iranian nuclear program but it's worth noting the operation did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people,' he said. 'For the entirety of his time in office, President Trump has consistently stated for over 10 years that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. 'Thanks to President Trump's bold and visionary leadership and his commitment to peace through strength, Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.'
7NEWS
2 hours ago
- 7NEWS
Scott Morrison: Donald Trump's strikes on Iran a necessary measure to achieve peace, not war in Middle East
The recent strike by the United States on Iran's nuclear facilities marks a critical turning point in global security. It is not just a matter for the Middle East or for U.S. foreign policy. It is a test for all nations that rely on the strength and credibility of the international rules-based order and the western alliance for their security, Australia included. Let me be clear, this strike was not an act of provocation. It was a necessary measure, undertaken as a last resort by a President who wants peace, not war. The purpose was clear, to disrupt the capabilities of a brutal authoritarian regime that has openly defied international norms, supported terrorist proxies, and pursued nuclear weapons with increasing brazenness. In times of geopolitical crisis, clarity of purpose and principle is essential. That is why I was compelled to speak out following the U.S. operation. What we have seen instead from the Australian government is a concerning lack of clarity and a reluctance to define where Australia stands when it matters most. It is in times like this when allies look around to see who is with them. For a country like ours, deeply integrated into global economic and security networks, reliant on open trade routes and US led allied deterrence, strategic ambiguity is not a strength. It is a vulnerability. Throughout my time as Prime Minister, I took the view that Australia's interests are best served when we speak plainly and act decisively in defence of our values. That is why we stood firmly with our allies against China's economic coercion. It is why we invested in AUKUS, strengthening our sovereign defence capabilities and deepening our technological integration with the U.S. and UK. it is why we worked so closely with our Indo-Pacific partners through the Quad to uphold regional stability. It is why we stood with Israel against those who sought their annihilation. In this context, the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities must be understood for what it is: an act of strategic deterrence, grounded in the reality that Iran has long been operating outside the bounds of good faith diplomacy. It is what President Trump meant when he spoke of peace through strength. For years, Iran has methodically violated its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), enriching uranium well beyond civilian thresholds, restricting IAEA inspections, and hardening its facilities in preparation for exactly this kind of confrontation. Attempts to revive the nuclear deal have failed, not because the West abandoned diplomacy, but because Tehran refused to comply with the very terms it had previously accepted. The question facing policymakers in Washington and, indeed, in Canberra is not whether we prefer diplomacy over conflict. Of course we do. It is whether diplomacy alone can halt a regime that has no intention of negotiating in good faith. At a certain point, the cost of inaction outweighs the risk of confrontation. That is precisely where the United States found itself. Given Iran's refusal to cooperate with international monitors and its aggressive posture across the region, including arming Hezbollah, enabling Hamas to commit atrocities on innocent Israelis, supporting Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, the Trump administration concluded that a targeted strike was the only viable option left. Only the US could have taken this step and President Trump should be commended for his courage and leadership, especially by allies. This was not a broad campaign. It was a calibrated operation aimed at degrading the most advanced elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure specifically, targeting Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. The objective was not regime change. It was to halt Iran's progression toward nuclear weapons capability and to send a clear message that the West's red lines still mean something. Yet here in Australia, the official response from the government has been muted. No strong statement of support for the United States. That silence is telling. It suggests a reluctance to confront difficult choices and to support our most important ally in the righteousness of the actions that have taken. I believe that such an approach is short-sighted and fundamentally misjudges the nature of the challenge we face. Australia cannot afford to be passive in moments like this. Our voice matters, not just because we are a U.S. ally, but because we are a middle power with global responsibilities. We sit at the intersection of East and West, of advanced democracies and rising developing powers. Our stance sends signals across the region, from Beijing to Moscow, Jakarta to Seoul. We must make the case for resistance against authoritarian arrogance. That doesn't mean we should follow Washington blindly. It means we must be clear, consistent and credible in how we support a global order that has protected our prosperity and security for generations. This is a time for strategic clarity, not importantly, we must ensure our own defences are fit for purpose. AUKUS is not a theoretical construct. It is a practical framework for dealing with the kinds of threats we are now seeing unfold. That means accelerating delivery timelines, investing in sovereign capabilities, and ensuring that deterrence in our own region is not eroded by distraction or delay. The world is entering a more dangerous phase. The era of risk aversion is over. Strategic competitors are testing our resolve, our alliances, and our willingness to act in defence of shared values. The choices we make now will define the kind of world our children inherit. We must choose clarity over confusion. Strength over silence. And principle over passivity. We must know who we stand with. That is the standard Australia has upheld in the past. And it is the standard we must uphold again now
West Australian
5 hours ago
- West Australian
Scott Morrison: Donald Trump's strikes on Iran a necessary measure to achieve peace, not war in Middle East
The recent strike by the United States on Iran's nuclear facilities marks a critical turning point in global security. It is not just a matter for the Middle East or for U.S. foreign policy. It is a test for all nations that rely on the strength and credibility of the international rules-based order and the western alliance for their security, Australia included. Let me be clear, this strike was not an act of provocation. It was a necessary measure, undertaken as a last resort by a President who wants peace, not war. The purpose was clear, to disrupt the capabilities of a brutal authoritarian regime that has openly defied international norms, supported terrorist proxies, and pursued nuclear weapons with increasing brazenness. In times of geopolitical crisis, clarity of purpose and principle is essential. That is why I was compelled to speak out following the U.S. operation. What we have seen instead from the Australian government is a concerning lack of clarity and a reluctance to define where Australia stands when it matters most. It is in times like this when allies look around to see who is with them. For a country like ours, deeply integrated into global economic and security networks, reliant on open trade routes and US led allied deterrence, strategic ambiguity is not a strength. It is a vulnerability. Throughout my time as Prime Minister, I took the view that Australia's interests are best served when we speak plainly and act decisively in defence of our values. That is why we stood firmly with our allies against China's economic coercion. It is why we invested in AUKUS, strengthening our sovereign defence capabilities and deepening our technological integration with the U.S. and UK. it is why we worked so closely with our Indo-Pacific partners through the Quad to uphold regional stability. It is why we stood with Israel against those who sought their annihilation. In this context, the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities must be understood for what it is: an act of strategic deterrence, grounded in the reality that Iran has long been operating outside the bounds of good faith diplomacy. It is what President Trump meant when he spoke of peace through strength. For years, Iran has methodically violated its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), enriching uranium well beyond civilian thresholds, restricting IAEA inspections, and hardening its facilities in preparation for exactly this kind of confrontation. Attempts to revive the nuclear deal have failed, not because the West abandoned diplomacy, but because Tehran refused to comply with the very terms it had previously accepted. The question facing policymakers in Washington and, indeed, in Canberra is not whether we prefer diplomacy over conflict. Of course we do. It is whether diplomacy alone can halt a regime that has no intention of negotiating in good faith. At a certain point, the cost of inaction outweighs the risk of confrontation. That is precisely where the United States found itself. Given Iran's refusal to cooperate with international monitors and its aggressive posture across the region, including arming Hezbollah, enabling Hamas to commit atrocities on innocent Israelis, supporting Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, the Trump administration concluded that a targeted strike was the only viable option left. Only the US could have taken this step and President Trump should be commended for his courage and leadership, especially by allies. This was not a broad campaign. It was a calibrated operation aimed at degrading the most advanced elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure specifically, targeting Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. The objective was not regime change. It was to halt Iran's progression toward nuclear weapons capability and to send a clear message that the West's red lines still mean something. Yet here in Australia, the official response from the government has been muted. No strong statement of support for the United States. That silence is telling. It suggests a reluctance to confront difficult choices and to support our most important ally in the righteousness of the actions that have taken. I believe that such an approach is short-sighted and fundamentally misjudges the nature of the challenge we face. Australia cannot afford to be passive in moments like this. Our voice matters, not just because we are a U.S. ally, but because we are a middle power with global responsibilities. We sit at the intersection of East and West, of advanced democracies and rising developing powers. Our stance sends signals across the region, from Beijing to Moscow, Jakarta to Seoul. We must make the case for resistance against authoritarian arrogance. That doesn't mean we should follow Washington blindly. It means we must be clear, consistent and credible in how we support a global order that has protected our prosperity and security for generations. This is a time for strategic clarity, not importantly, we must ensure our own defences are fit for purpose. AUKUS is not a theoretical construct. It is a practical framework for dealing with the kinds of threats we are now seeing unfold. That means accelerating delivery timelines, investing in sovereign capabilities, and ensuring that deterrence in our own region is not eroded by distraction or delay. The world is entering a more dangerous phase. The era of risk aversion is over. Strategic competitors are testing our resolve, our alliances, and our willingness to act in defence of shared values. The choices we make now will define the kind of world our children inherit. We must choose clarity over confusion. Strength over silence. And principle over passivity. We must know who we stand with. That is the standard Australia has upheld in the past. And it is the standard we must uphold again now Scott Morrison was Australia's 30th Prime Minister.
