Damn­ing Find­ings from Review of Bio­di­ver­si­ty Con­ser­va­tion Act

The find­ings from the 5‑year statu­to­ry review of the Bio­di­ver­si­ty Con­ser­va­tion Act 2016 (NSW) (BC Act) are in, and it does­n’t make for hap­py reading. 

Pur­suant to sec­tion 14.11(1) of the BC Act, the Min­is­ter is to review this Act to deter­mine whether the pol­i­cy objec­tives of the Act remain valid and whether the terms of the Act remain appro­pri­ate for secur­ing those objectives. 

The short answer from this statu­to­ry review is that they do not. Lead Inde­pen­dent Review­er Dr. Ken Hen­ry AC states that it is clear to the Review Pan­el that the oper­a­tive pro­vi­sions of the Act are inca­pable of sup­port­ing its objectives”. 

The Review Pan­el finds the diver­si­ty and qual­i­ty of ecosys­tems is not being main­tained’ and the objects of the BC Act are already obsolete.’

The pur­pose of the Act (sec­tion 1.3) is to main­tain a healthy, pro­duc­tive, and resilient envi­ron­ment for the great­est well-being of the com­mu­ni­ty, now and into the future, con­sis­tent with the prin­ci­ples of eco­log­i­cal­ly sus­tain­able development. 

One of the chal­lenges here is that for some inter­est groups, there is no such thing as eco­log­i­cal­ly sus­tain­able devel­op­ment.’ Even the Review con­cludes that the prin­ci­ples of sus­tain­able devel­op­ment are no longer fit for purpose’.

The counter-argu­ment we hear from clients is that poten­tial projects become mired in red and green tape, caught up in the con­fu­sion of Bio­di­ver­si­ty Off­set Pay­ment Cal­cu­la­tions, bio­di­ver­si­ty cred­its, and stew­ard­ship agree­ments, among myr­i­ad others.

The Review Pan­el finds the reg­u­la­to­ry pro­vi­sions of the BC Act are com­plex and uncer­tain, with high com­pli­ance costs. There is crit­i­cism that the integri­ty of the Bio­di­ver­si­ty Off­sets Scheme is being com­pro­mised by pay­ments being made into the Bio­di­ver­si­ty Con­ser­va­tion Fund, rather than cred­its being sourced directly. 

Tra­di­tion­al farm­ing prac­tices are com­ing under greater pres­sure; so too are irri­gat­ed crop­ping, native tim­ber har­vest­ing, pri­vate native forestry, and pest and weed control. 

The Review Pan­el con­cludes that the BC Act’s objec­tives lack pri­ma­cy, being under­mined by a range of oth­er leg­is­la­tion – the key tar­gets are the Forestry Act 2012 and the Local Land Ser­vices Act 2013.

The com­plex­i­ty and con­fu­sion are only added to by a lay­er of Com­mon­wealth leg­is­la­tion, includ­ing the Envi­ron­ment Pro­tec­tion and Bio­di­ver­si­ty Con­ser­va­tion Act 1999 (Cth). A 2020 review of that Act found it was duplica­tive, inef­fi­cient, and cost­ly for the envi­ron­ment, busi­ness, and the community. 

The ques­tion is how to unscram­ble the leg­isla­tive egg, par­tic­u­lar­ly against the back­drop of a nation­al hous­ing cri­sis that requires an increased sup­ply of hous­ing, increased devel­op­ment, urban sprawl, and the poten­tial for fur­ther habi­tat loss. 

This review pro­motes the notion of a Nature Pos­i­tive Strat­e­gy’ seek­ing not only the pro­tec­tion and restora­tion of bio­di­ver­si­ty but improve­ments over time, pre­serv­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties for future generations’.

What might this mean for the devel­op­ment of renew­able projects like wind and solar farms? 

The world of devel­op­ment is com­pli­cat­ed enough – in seek­ing to improve bio­di­ver­si­ty out­comes by giv­ing the BC Act pri­ma­cy over oth­er pieces of leg­is­la­tion, there is the very real risk that the path­way toward a project deter­mi­na­tion will only become more con­fus­ing, cost­ly, and uncertain

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

Ope­nAI’s screen­less future on pause amidst trade mark dispute

Back­groundIn ear­ly May, Ope­nAI sur­prised the tech world with news of an esti­mat­ed $6.4 bil­lion part­ner­ship and acqui­si­tion involv­ing ​“io”…

Impor­tant Stra­ta Law Changes — Effec­tive 1 July 2025

The Stra­ta Schemes Leg­is­la­tion Amend­ment Act 2025 (Amend­ing Act) intro­duces fur­ther reform in Gov­ern­men­t’s ongo­ing review of the stra­ta legislation. On 1 July…

Own­ers Cor­po­ra­tions / Asso­ci­a­tions now sub­ject to Unfair Con­tract Terms 

Under the new stra­ta law reforms com­menc­ing 1 July 2025 (the Stra­ta Schemes Leg­is­la­tion Amend­ment Act 2025 (No. 14) NSW) a key change…

In the News

Press Release | We are pleased to announce five senior pro­mo­tions in key prac­tice areas of the firm effec­tive, 1 July 2025

Con­grat­u­la­tions:Maris­sa Arag­o­na — AssociateRamesh Chamala — AssociateAaron Boz — AssociateWilliam Clement — Senior AssociateKel­lie Van Mun­ster — Spe­cial Counsel “I am per­son­al­ly delight­ed…

Michael Byrnes quot­ed in the arti­cle, “‘Creep­ing’ unfair dis­missal thresh­old will increase to $183k on 1 July”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 27 June 2025

Michael Byrnes quot­ed in the arti­cle, “‘Creep­ing’ unfair dis­missal thresh­old will increase to $183k on 1 July”, pub­lished in HR Leader…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ABC may face sig­nif­i­cant penal­ties’ after can­cel cul­ture’ sack­ing ruled unlaw­ful”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 26 June 2025

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“ABC may face ​‘sig­nif­i­cant penal­ties’ after ​‘can­cel cul­ture’ sack­ing ruled unlaw­ful”, pub­lished in…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information