Like ChatGPT, we need clear goals and rules. Otherwise, we could make bad decisions
Loading
'Yet here we are, in the winter of 2025, and nothing has changed,' Henry points out.
That's despite the clear warning signs and relatively broad support for such change.
Could it be that political focus has shifted to the economic issue of the day? Treasurer Jim Chalmers, having moved past inflation, has made it clear the government's second term will be focused on boosting the country's lagging productivity growth. Never mind the existential issue we face.
But as Henry points out, even if productivity is our focus, no reform is more important to the country's ambition to pump out more of what we want (with less work hours or materials) than environmental law reform. 'If we can't achieve [that], then we should stop dreaming about more challenging options,' he says.
There's been no shortage of activity on environmental reform – from policy papers to bills and endless rounds of consultation – yet little to show for it.
Henry rejects the idea that this 'policy paralysis' comes down to a conflict between climate warriors and those wanting to charge ahead with economic growth. If this were the case, then why, he asks, is the pace of environmental damage speeding up at the same time our economy is stagnating?
Henry acknowledges reforms won't be easy. Businesses and politicians are good at seizing moments of uncertainty when new changes are floated to send those changes to the graveyard.
For some, he says, the stakes are high: 'We have whole industries with business models built on the destruction of the natural world.'
Loading
But we've done hard things before. And Henry points out it's now or never.
While Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his team won't want to hear it, changes have to be made within this term of parliament.
The Labor Party may have been swept into a second term in power with a huge majority despite doing little to improve environmental laws. However, the growing national vote for the Greens is solid proof that voters have more appetite for environmental reform than the major parties have been serving.
Many of these reforms are clear and supported by a wider range of people with different interests.
So, what reforms are we actually talking about?
Well, Graeme Samuel's review made 38 recommendations. But a big focus was on fixing what's known as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which Samuel said was complex, cumbersome and essentially powerless.
Us humans are full of shortcomings, but by recognising them and changing the frameworks we work with, we can improve the way we look at our choices and make decisions.
Samuel's suggestions ranged from introducing a set of mandatory National Environmental Standards and enforceable rules to apply to every environmental decision made around the country. These standards would be detailed, based on data and evidence, use clear language and leave very little wriggle room.
He also recommended wiping out all special exemptions and moving from a species-to-species and project-by-project approach, to one that focused on the needs of different regions: areas that shouldn't be developed, those needing to be revived, and those where development assessments could be waved through more quickly.
This would help give businesses greater certainty, but also help us overcome one of our biggest shortcomings.
Because nature is so vast, when we assess the negative environmental impact of one project at a time, it will often seem tiny and irrelevant. That leads us to underestimate the environmental damage we are allowing over time, especially in particularly vulnerable ecosystems.
The remarkable thing is that Samuel's recommendations were – and still are – widely supported by both business and environmental organisations.
Yet, there has been no movement five years on.
Loading
That's a problem because there are plenty of big projects we need to get cracking on: huge investments in renewable energy generation and the government's ambitious target of building 1.2 million homes by 2030.
In 2021, assessment and approval of a wind farm or solar farm blew out to 831 days – up from 505 days in 2018.
And between 2018 and 2024, 124 renewables projects in Queensland, NSW and Victoria needed to be assessed under the Environment Protection Act. Only 28 received a clear 'yes' or 'no' answer.
There could also be a way to give accreditation to state and territory decision-makers if they proved they could protect the national interest. That would remove the double-ups and complexity in approvals processes, and cut down the time taken to assess development proposals.
Of course, developers have stressed the importance of the types of reforms which fast-track development, while environmentally-focused groups have pushed for more focus on new protections.
Samuel also recommended an expert, independent and trusted decision-maker, in the form of a national Environmental Protection Authority, to work with the government to protect the national interest.
Us humans are full of shortcomings, but by recognising them and changing the frameworks we work with, we can improve the way we look at our choices and make decisions.
One of our problems is that, under the current Environment Protection Act, we tend to undervalue the environment. Part of that, as we've discussed, comes down to the vastness of nature (which needs to be matched by a broader regional lens, rather than our project-by-project approach).
The other is our short-sighted view. Because the cost of damaging nature is overwhelmingly shouldered by future generations, Henry points out we have found it very difficult to stop ourselves stealing from the future.
Loading
Like bad eyesight, these issues are not unsolvable. We just need clear goals, rules and accountability measures to keep us on track.
As Henry puts it, economics is concerned with optimising choices. That requires carefully defining what we're wanting to achieve and, just as importantly, determining the constraints that shape the choices we're incentivised to make. 'If the constraints are mis-specified, then decisions will be suboptimal,' Henry says.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Sky News AU
18 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
‘Sneaky': Albanese government moves to strip questions from opposition during Question Time in display of supermajority muscle
The Albanese government has been accused of attempting to avoid scrutiny under new standing orders which could take questions away from the opposition during Question Time. During parliamentary sitting weeks, Question Time gives politicians the chance to ask questions of government ministers on matters of importance. However with the Labor Party's new supermajority, Leader of the House Tony Burke moved to change the rules on Wednesday, which may strip the opposition of questions. The revised order follows Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's blunt post-election message to his opponents to 'Get out of the way'. Manager of opposition business Alex Hawke has since warned that the Question Time Changes were 'anti-democratic'. 'On the veneer of increased transparency and democratic operation, we have some anti-democratic measures that the government is proposing,' he told the chamber. 'In its first term, this government under prime minister Anthony Albanese reduced the number of questions that we have in question time. 'The average number of questions asked by the opposition went from ten in the 46th parliament… to just seven in the 47th parliament. 'These changes that are proposed by the Leader of the House do something very sneaky.' Under sessional order 65a, the crossbench will be allowed to ask questions 5, 13, 17 and 21 while the opposition will receive 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 19, 23, 25, 27 and 29. However, because the average number of questions only reached 18 in the last term, this could mean the opposition will get just five questions in before the session ends. Mr Hawke said that the government re-ordering the numbers of question time would lead to less democratic scrutiny. 'When things are going badly for the government, the prime minister routinely guillotines Question Time, as is his right,' Mr Hawke said. 'So there will be less opposition questions in this parliament. As there was last parliament. And there will be less crossbench questions during Question Time. 'That in our view is a sneaky attempt to … reduce questions bit by bit by bit by bit.' With 94 seats of the 150-member House of Representatives, the Labor Party dominates the chamber and its members occupy three-quarters of the seating layout. 'We have a clear mandate,' Mr Albanese said at a press conference just days after the May 3 federal election. 'The message from Australians is to get on with it. If you want more housing, more jobs, more reform — then get out of the way and let us build it.' Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has rejected Mr Albanese's call to get out of the way and promised to hold the government to account. 'Now Mr Albanese is giving interviews, and he's suggesting that we should just get out of the way,' Ms Ley told her party room on Monday. 'Well, we won't be getting out of the way.' The first Question Time of the 48th Parliament of Australia begins at 2pm on Wednesday.

Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Albanese government roasted for ‘socialist left' taking over Israel-Gaza rhetoric since elected
Radio 2CC host Stephen Cenatiempo has slammed the Labor government for the 'ideological bent' they have on the Israel-Hamas war. 'It's been pretty clear that they've been anti-Israel since they were elected,' Mr Cenatiempo told Sky News host Chris Kenny. 'It's been a dramatic shift in the Labor Party since the socialist left took over. 'When the Labor Party was run by the sensible right, you would never have had this kind of rhetoric.'

Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Authoritarian, aggressive, unlikeable': Greens co-founder on his party
A co-founder of the Australian Greens who was removed from the party over an online debate on trans people has accused the party of tolerating no dissent on the issue that has caused the expulsion of dozens of 'good environmentalists'. Drew Hutton, 78, co-founded the national Greens alongside Bob Brown in the early 1990s, but was formally ejected from the party at the weekend in part for refusing to delete comments made by others on his Facebook page that the party organisation deemed to be transphobic. 'Over the last decade or so, it would seem that some people have come into the Greens with the determination to take it over,' Hutton said. 'To convert it into the sort of party whose, one of whose, main preoccupations is with transgender rights. 'They've got an absolutely rigorous determination to stop any dissent from occurring to the things they think are important. The main things they think are important are we get rid of the notion of biological sex and replace it with gender identity,' he told ABC 7.30 on Tuesday night. While Hutton said he did not have an issue with transgender rights, he criticised campaigners for having 'a closed set of beliefs. They have a closed language, which they understand but nobody else does'. On one side of the debate within the party are people who believe allowing people to self-identify as another gender, with full legal rights, is a critical step to protect the dignity and health of trans people. Others are more critical and argue there should be safe spaces for cisgender women and greater safeguards on the transition process. Greens leader Larissa Waters said the situation was 'really sad' given Hutton's history in the party, but she defended its administrative wing and its stance on trans issues. However, Waters noted the process whereby he was expelled was run by party members, and the Greens 'are a safe party for trans people … and will always be'. Waters dismissed claims of an authoritarian bent within the party, saying there was room for 'robust debate' and differences of opinion within the party code of conduct.