Australia’s parliament will soon consider proposed reforms to federal environmental laws – known as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Unfortunately, signals from the government suggest this may be another reform process that fails to deliver the progress we need – despite everyone agreeing that Australia’s biodiversity is in catastrophic decline.

When introduced, the EPBC Act was a historic reform by a conservative government. For the first time since federation, the Australian parliament exercised its full suite of constitutional powers to regulate environmentally harmful actions on all tenures.

The EPBC Act gave the federal environment minister direct control over actions affecting “matters of national environmental significance”, which include threatened species (like koalas, potoroos, bandicoots, swift and superb parrots and more than 1,400 plant species) and our world and national heritage sites. Early litigation highlighted the potential of the act – for example, a conservation group in north Queensland secured an injunction to prevent lychee farmers using large electric grids to kill spectacled flying foxes.

Importantly, the act established a framework that could evolve. Notably, it allows for regulations to be made to add new “triggers” (which dictate when environmentally harmful activities need approval) and to deem certain classes of actions to be within existing triggers.

Sadly, the act has failed to realise its potential. There are three main reasons for this.

First, the commonwealth bureaucracy has failed to enforce the existing laws. Actions that breach the act have been taken by proponents without attracting any sanctions. This includes land-clearing that has routinely not been referred for approval, despite having significant impacts on threatened species.

• Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletter

Second, mechanisms in the act that could have expanded its scope, and provided certainty about its scope, have not been utilised. Regulations could have been made to deem land-clearing over a specified threshold as requiring approval. A climate change trigger could have been added at any time – indeed, back in 2000, a draft climate change trigger was published by the Howard government but never enacted.

Third, the exemption for native forest logging should have been phased out. Instead, it was extended.

The reform process appears not to be addressing any of these challenges. Unless a reset occurs, the reforms cannot deliver substantive additional environment protection. Australia’s extinction rate – already one of the highest in the world – will get worse.

The highest priority for the reforms must be to ensure land-clearing is properly regulated. Since the act commenced in 2000, more than 11.5m hectares of native forests have been cleared, including more than 3m hectares of remnant (intact) native vegetation. Amendments should prohibit the clearing of remnant vegetation, other than in exceptional circumstances where parliament decides the clearing is needed for an essential project. All clearing of mature regrowth (previously cleared vegetation that has regenerated and not been disturbed for 15 to 25 years) should require approval if it exceeds a specified area threshold. And any clearing should only be approved if its impacts on threatened species are fully offset through the restoration of cleared or degraded examples of the same ecosystem.

We suggest three simple KPIs for the reform process. Within 12 months, clearing of remnant vegetation should be near zero and there should be an initial 50% reduction in mature regrowth clearing. The native forest logging exemption should be removed. And all projects likely to directly or indirectly result in 50,000 tonnes or more of greenhouse gas emissions a year – on average or at their peak – should trigger the act and all emissions from these projects should be subject to a carbon price that aligns with the aims of the Paris agreement. If the Howard government could propose a climate trigger in 2000, it can hardly be described as radical in 2025.

Unfortunately, rather than fixing the gaps in the triggers and what is regulated, the reform process has focused instead on the introduction of “national standards” and the creation of an environment protection authority (EPA) to oversee the enforcement of the act’s requirements.

Standards will be important in limiting the broad discretion that now exists when approval decisions are made. However, such standards are of limited value if the projects that pose the biggest environmental risk – such as land-clearing – are not regulated. Similarly, while there is value in a properly constituted and independent EPA, this is also not the main game. Failure to address the scope of the act means the EPA will be a mere observer as land-clearing continues unabated, native forests are logged and our biodiversity continues to decline.

Real reform means that, in five years’ time, we can celebrate measurable improvements rather than read another report on how the act has failed to play its role in reversing the decline in Australia’s environment.

Australia’s parliament will soon consider proposed reforms to federal environmental laws – known as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Unfortunately, signals from the government suggest this may be another reform process that fails to deliver the progress we need – despite everyone agreeing that Australia’s biodiversity is in catastrophic decline.

When introduced, the EPBC Act was a historic reform by a conservative government. For the first time since federation, the Australian parliament exercised its full suite of constitutional powers to regulate environmentally harmful actions on all tenures.

The EPBC Act gave the federal environment minister direct control over actions affecting “matters of national environmental significance”, which include threatened species (like koalas, potoroos, bandicoots, swift and superb parrots and more than 1,400 plant species) and our world and national heritage sites. Early litigation highlighted the potential of the act – for example, a conservation group in north Queensland secured an injunction to prevent lychee farmers using large electric grids to kill spectacled flying foxes.

Importantly, the act established a framework that could evolve. Notably, it allows for regulations to be made to add new “triggers” (which dictate when environmentally harmful activities need approval) and to deem certain classes of actions to be within existing triggers.

Sadly, the act has failed to realise its potential. There are three main reasons for this.

First, the commonwealth bureaucracy has failed to enforce the existing laws. Actions that breach the act have been taken by proponents without attracting any sanctions. This includes land-clearing that has routinely not been referred for approval, despite having significant impacts on threatened species.

• Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletter

Second, mechanisms in the act that could have expanded its scope, and provided certainty about its scope, have not been utilised. Regulations could have been made to deem land-clearing over a specified threshold as requiring approval. A climate change trigger could have been added at any time – indeed, back in 2000, a draft climate change trigger was published by the Howard government but never enacted.

Third, the exemption for native forest logging should have been phased out. Instead, it was extended.

The reform process appears not to be addressing any of these challenges. Unless a reset occurs, the reforms cannot deliver substantive additional environment protection. Australia’s extinction rate – already one of the highest in the world – will get worse.

The highest priority for the reforms must be to ensure land-clearing is properly regulated. Since the act commenced in 2000, more than 11.5m hectares of native forests have been cleared, including more than 3m hectares of remnant (intact) native vegetation. Amendments should prohibit the clearing of remnant vegetation, other than in exceptional circumstances where parliament decides the clearing is needed for an essential project. All clearing of mature regrowth (previously cleared vegetation that has regenerated and not been disturbed for 15 to 25 years) should require approval if it exceeds a specified area threshold. And any clearing should only be approved if its impacts on threatened species are fully offset through the restoration of cleared or degraded examples of the same ecosystem.

We suggest three simple KPIs for the reform process. Within 12 months, clearing of remnant vegetation should be near zero and there should be an initial 50% reduction in mature regrowth clearing. The native forest logging exemption should be removed. And all projects likely to directly or indirectly result in 50,000 tonnes or more of greenhouse gas emissions a year – on average or at their peak – should trigger the act and all emissions from these projects should be subject to a carbon price that aligns with the aims of the Paris agreement. If the Howard government could propose a climate trigger in 2000, it can hardly be described as radical in 2025.

Unfortunately, rather than fixing the gaps in the triggers and what is regulated, the reform process has focused instead on the introduction of “national standards” and the creation of an environment protection authority (EPA) to oversee the enforcement of the act’s requirements.

Standards will be important in limiting the broad discretion that now exists when approval decisions are made. However, such standards are of limited value if the projects that pose the biggest environmental risk – such as land-clearing – are not regulated. Similarly, while there is value in a properly constituted and independent EPA, this is also not the main game. Failure to address the scope of the act means the EPA will be a mere observer as land-clearing continues unabated, native forests are logged and our biodiversity continues to decline.

Real reform means that, in five years’ time, we can celebrate measurable improvements rather than read another report on how the act has failed to play its role in reversing the decline in Australia’s environment.