We should start at the beginning in assessing the Labor-Greens deal to revamp Australia’s national environment law. And the beginning is that, ideally, you would not start from here.

Despite its name, the 1999 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act was designed under John Howard to allow developments to go ahead, usually with conditions attached that may limit the damage to nature.

The law does not prioritise environmental protection. It shouldn’t be a shock that it has spectacularly failed to deliver it. There is a case that the best approach would have been to scrap and replace the act.

Labor instead chose to amend the existing legislation, arguing it could improve it for both the environment and business, which has complained of long delays in approval decisions. It means the deal announced on Thursday is a repair job, not a complete rethink of how to best protect Australia’s unique wildlife and wild places as the country faces what scientists say is an extinction crisis.

It is worth noting there was no need for the changes to be rushed through this year. A committee inquiry is still under way. The Greens cut a deal at least in part because they feared if they didn’t, the government’s offer would evaporate and it would be content to make a much weaker agreement, from an environmental perspective, with the Coalition next year. The deadline was only political.

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

The result is the changes have not had proper scrutiny. The independent senator David Pocock had a point when he described the process as a farce. It means there are likely to be gremlins in the laws that will not be uncovered for a while.

But let’s look at what we do know.

From an environmental perspective: is this deal an improvement on the existing law? In some key ways, clearly yes.

The creation of a national Environment Protection Agency with the power to enforce compliance and apply beefed-up penalties is a step forward – if well used. The same applies to the creation of minimum national environment standards against which development applications will be assessed.

Plenty about the standards is still not known, though. Only two draft standards have been released, with more to come. As with so much of this, the details will matter.

The commitment to tighten loopholes that made state-sanctioned native forest logging and agricultural land-clearing effectively exempt from national laws is a significant and necessary win for nature. The revamp would have been a joke without them.

This change won’t stop logging or land-clearing, but will boost legal and social pressure on the logging industries in Tasmania and New South Wales. Anthony Albanese basically acknowledged this on Thursday, saying the forest industry was increasingly reliant on plantation timber – it already provides nearly 90% of wood in Australia – and that the government would kick in $300m for a “forestry growth fund” as it moved in that direction.

The Greens’ demand that fossil fuel projects cannot be fast-tracked in the way other developments can – renewable energy and housing, for example – makes obvious sense as far as it goes.

It also makes sense that Labor has dropped a proposal to give states and territories the power to make decisions on large coalmining and unconventional gas projects that affect groundwater or waterways under plans to “streamline decision-making”. Water resources are a national issue, and should have federal oversight.

Here the politics get a little murky. Did Labor actually ever really plan to give up power over what is known as the “water trigger”? At least some of the “concessions” to the Greens – the commitment to axe the logging loophole, for example – were steps the government had said it was prepared to make, but held back for the final negotiations.

Similarly, it’s an open question whether the environment minister, Murray Watt, and those around him really believed an agreement was could be landed with the divided and self-destructing Coalition, despite repeated claims that he was prepared to make concessions either way. If a deal was done it was always likely to be with the Greens. They don’t call Watt a political fixer for nothing.

Back on the positives: one of the more contentious issues in the debate over the laws has been whether to include a definition of “unacceptable impacts” that should in theory lead to quick “no” decisions on some developments. It stayed in. Again, the details and interpretation will be crucial.

But there are also problems, and many unanswered questions.

The amended laws lean heavily on the use of offsets, which basically allow some nature to be bulldozed as long as other areas are protected. As Guardian Australia’s Lisa Cox has shown, offset schemes have repeatedly not delivered anything like what has been promised.

The government has proposed a “restoration contribution fund” that will allow developers to kick in cash in return for permission to do some environmental damage. This sort of model, which critics have called a “pay-to-destroy” fund, failed spectacularly in NSW. The negotiations with the Greens have introduced some limits, but many people will be sceptical whether the “net gain” for nature that Watt has promised can be guaranteed.

Non-fossil fuel developments will be able to be fast-tracked, with decisions promised in as little as 30 days and in some cases left to the states. The country needs a rapid rollout of renewable energy, but this timeframe risks squashing the rights of communities to test and object to developments.

The laws also maintain the existing approach of giving the minister of the day significant discretion over how the act is used. Experts say this includes in some cases the authority to approve developments they consider in the national interest, and a “rulings power” that could limit legal challenges.

Finally, the laws go close to ignoring what will ultimately be the greatest threat to much of the environment – the climate crisis. Developers will have to disclose their expected emissions, but this information will have no bearing on whether a project goes ahead. As has been said many times before, this defies logic.

It means that – even as some conservationists celebrate victories that have been the result of years of dedicatedcampaigning – the arguments over what more is needed to give Australian nature the protection it deserves will continue.