GLOBAL – In a significant and contested move on Thursday, 27th November 2025, the Australian government secured a deal to overhaul its national environmental laws, sparking intense political debate over climate policy, corporate responsibility, and the pace of legislative scrutiny. The agreement, struck between the ruling centre-left Labor party and the Greens, passed parliament on the final sitting day of the year, but has drawn sharp criticism for being rushed and potentially inadequate.

The legislative overhaul is inspired by a landmark 2020 review led by former competition watchdog chief Graeme Samuel, which concluded that Australia's primary environmental legislation—the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act—was outdated, ineffective, and failing to halt the country's significant environmental decline. The new laws will establish an independent national Environment Protection Agency (EPA), set to be operational by July 2026, with powers to enforce compliance and issue stop-work orders. The deal also includes provisions to tighten loopholes on agricultural land-clearing and, after 18 months, subject native forest logging to national standards.

A Deal Under Fire

Despite being hailed by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as a “landmark day for the environment,” the process has been condemned by independent Senator David Pocock as being “rammed through with almost no time for scrutiny.” Pocock argued that the accelerated timeline undermines the Senate's role as a house of review and risks creating flawed legislation. Key concessions made to secure the deal include preventing the fast-tracking of new coal and gas projects, a major demand from the Greens. However, critics, including Pocock, contend the package displays a “lack of policy courage” and fails to fully address the scale of the environmental crisis.

Climate Targets and Global Implications

The debate unfolds against a backdrop of sobering new government projections showing Australia is not on track to meet its 2035 climate targets. Under current policies, emissions are expected to fall by only 48% below 2005 levels by 2035, significantly short of the legislated target range of a 62-70% reduction. This gap has profound implications not just for Australia, a major fossil fuel exporter, but for global climate efforts under the Paris Agreement, which directly impact East Africa.

For Kenya and other nations on the front lines of climate change—experiencing increasingly severe droughts and floods—the policy decisions of developed countries like Australia are critical. Australia's per-capita emissions remain among the highest in the world, and its success or failure in transitioning to a low-carbon economy has a tangible effect on the global carbon budget and the severity of future climate impacts.

Deep Political Divisions Exposed

The legislative battle has also exposed deep fissures within Australian politics. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, from the opposition Liberal party, launched a scathing attack on his own party's stance, decrying what he called “reality denial and physics denial” on climate change. He stated that energy policy should be driven by “engineering and economics, not ideology and idiocy,” highlighting the internal turmoil that has paralysed the opposition Coalition on climate action. This division was further underscored by Graeme Samuel's comment that the Coalition had “manoeuvred themselves into irrelevance on this matter.”

Adding to the political turbulence, former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce formally announced his departure from the National Party, a key partner in the Coalition, citing frustrations with the party's leadership and direction, including its previous support for a net-zero policy. He will now sit as an independent.

Controversy Over Nauru Resettlement Deal

In a separate but concurrent issue, Prime Minister Albanese defended his government's A$2.5 billion resettlement deal with the Pacific island nation of Nauru. The 30-year agreement is facing renewed scrutiny following allegations of “money laundering and corruption” against Nauru's president, which were aired in parliament. Transparency advocates have raised concerns that Australian taxpayer funds could be fueling a “kleptocracy,” calling for greater oversight of the secretive offshore processing arrangements.