Australia's environmental crisis is a stark reminder of the delicate balance between economic growth and ecological preservation. The Albanese government's commitment to ending environmental neglect has been a promising start, but the recent budget and environmental law reforms paint a concerning picture. The nation's 'green Wall Street' is struggling to take off, and the future of its unique and imperilled wildlife and ecosystems hangs in the balance.
The decline in environmental funding is a major concern. From a meager 0.06% of the federal budget for on-ground nature programs, it is set to drop to less than 0.04% by 2028-29. This reduction, despite the overwhelming public desire for more action on nature care, is a step in the wrong direction. The government's focus on a contentious nature repair market further exacerbates the issue, as it seeks to absolve itself of legal and moral responsibilities while favoring business imperatives.
The national environmental standards, a cornerstone of the EPBC Act reforms, are also in peril. Despite the initial promise of 'clear, demonstrable outcomes for regulated activities', the department has shifted its focus towards 'giving business clear rules' and 'helping decision-makers be fair and consistent'. This shift dilutes the emphasis on environmental outcomes, and experts in biodiversity and environmental law have identified major flaws in the draft national standard for matters of national environmental significance. The slow progress on these standards significantly hinders the National Environmental Protection Agency's ability to assess proposals and set conditions for approvals, further eroding public trust in the government's environmental protection efforts.
The nature repair market, touted as a solution, has a lackluster track record. Despite decades of grand claims, there is precious little evidence to support its effectiveness in halting and reversing environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. The biodiversity market register, after spending tens of millions on policy development, currently lists only one project with no biodiversity certificates issued. This raises questions about the market's ability to deliver meaningful conservation outcomes.
The enthusiasm for nature markets, including from prominent figures like Ken Henry and the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation, seems premature. These markets are prone to poor governance and outcomes, and risk becoming an excuse for governments to sidestep their obligations to conserve nature and delay urgent action. Australia, a wealthy and sovereign nation, can easily afford to increase direct investment in environmental protection and restoration, and most Australians want this. The current approach, prioritizing 'single-touch' assessments and fast-tracking pathways for approvals, is entirely the wrong approach in the face of existential threats and will only serve to bake in Australia's already atrocious conservation record.
The declaration that the environment was 'back' under the Albanese government was met with optimism and goodwill. However, the government must not settle for the mere appearance of action. Australia deserves the promised serious investment in its collective future, and the nation's unique and imperilled wildlife and ecosystems demand better than the current state of affairs.
