Nature Positive? Then Why Are the Bulldozers Still Running?

Last year the Albanese Government congratulated itself for fixing Australia’s environment laws. It spoke proudly about “Nature Positive” reforms, restoring trust in environmental protection and repairing Australia’s “broken” system.

This week we’re getting a glimpse of what that actually means. The Environment Centre NT is in the Federal Court trying to stop nearly 3,000 hectares of habitat destruction approved by Environment Minister Murray Watt after the new laws came into effect. And here’s the thing, the application came from a company previously caught illegally bulldozing threatened species habitat. The land supports endangered species like ghost bats, gouldian finches, red goshawks and freshwater sawfish.

And this is the part Australians should really pay attention to: the Minister's approval for the bulldozing isn’t a failure of the system. It is the system. Because despite all the rhetoric, despite the glossy “Nature Positive” branding, despite endless promises to “fix” Australia’s environment laws, the bulldozers are still winning. Australia’s environmental laws are still regulating and legitimising environmental destruction rather than preventing it.

That might sound harsh. But let’s look at the evidence. Australia has one of the worst extinction records on Earth. We continue to clear habitat at industrial scale. Rivers are collapsing. Native species are disappearing. Old-growth forests are still being logged. Carbon-rich ecosystems are still being bulldozed. Yet somehow, project after project continues to receive approval. Why? Because our laws are built around allowing and managing impacts rather than preventing them.

Under the EPBC Act, the central question is not:“Will this damage nature?” Of course it will! The question is:“Can this damage be justified, offset, conditioned, managed or politically defended?” And once you understand that, the contradiction at the heart of Australian environmental politics is impossible to ignore. Governments misuse the language of conservation to operate a system structurally geared towards development.

Labor’s reforms are procedural rather than ecological - streamlining approvals, reducing uncertainty for proponents, creating new institutions and new language, while avoiding the deeper political question: How much destruction are we actually willing to stop? Because if nearly 3,000 hectares of threatened species habitat can still be cleared, what exactly counts as unacceptable? If habitat for species already facing extinction doesn’t trigger overwhelming federal caution, then when does the system finally say no?

And this isn’t just a biodiversity story. It’s a climate story too. Land clearing releases carbon. It fragments ecosystems. It weakens landscape resilience to drought, fire and heat. Northern Australian savannas are not “empty land”. They’re ancient ecological systems that store carbon, support biodiversity and sustain cultural landscapes tens of thousands of years old. Yet across northern Australia, we continue to see a relentless push for agricultural expansion, water extraction and industrial-scale development, all wrapped in the language of “growth”, “jobs” and “unlocking the north”.

The problem isn’t development itself. Human societies need food production, infrastructure and economic activity. The problem is a political and legal system that still treats intact ecosystems as expendable unless they are profitable.

And once destroyed, these systems don’t simply regenerate because a consultant writes an offset plan. A freshwater sawfish can’t survive in a spreadsheet. A ghost bat doesn’t care about ministerial talking points. A gouldian finch can’t live inside a media release titled “Nature Positive”.

This is why so many Australians increasingly distrust the rhetoric from both major parties. Because the language might sound like its getting greener, but the ecological outcomes keep getting worse. We’re told Australia is becoming a global environmental leader while extinction rises, land clearing continues and climate impacts intensify around us.

The reality is uncomfortable but simple: Australia doesn’t have environmental laws designed to stop environmental destruction. We have environmental laws designed to decide how much destruction is politically acceptable. And until that changes, the branding means very little. Because if the bulldozers are still running through threatened species habitat at industrial scale, then “Nature Positive” isn’t environmental protection. It’s public relations.

Photo from ABC News.