Anthony Albanese’s government swept to power in 2022 and, among many promises made to voters, it firmly committed to end a decade of environmental neglect. Four years later, the federal budget – as well as the newly passed national environmental law reforms – make it abundantly clear that it is failing to deliver on that promise.

This failure is more than just political; it is existential for this country’s remarkable, unique and increasingly imperilled wildlife and ecosystems.

Environmental funding is set to decline from an already paltry 0.06% of the federal budget for on-ground nature programs to less than 0.04% in 2028-29. Even as it retunes its environment policy settings to favour business imperatives, the government is seeking to further absolve itself of its legal and moral environmental responsibilities by doubling down on a highly contentious and unproven nature repair market.

All this flies in the face of the fact that 96% of Australians surveyed want more action to care for nature, and 76% believe a minimum of 1% of the annual federal budget should be dedicated to protecting, conserving and recovering nature.

One must ask why the federal government is so comfortable continuing to ignore the wishes of most Australians, and continuing to condemn our life-sustaining environment and wildlife to profound decline and destruction?

National environmental standards were the centrepiece of the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act reforms in response to the scathing Samuel review. Their purpose was to “improve environmental protections and guide decision-making by setting clear, demonstrable outcomes for regulated activities”. At least these were the statements on the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water’s website from January 2023 until April 2025.

Yet, despite striking a deal with the Greens to pass the EPBC reform bill in December 2025, only two national environmental standards have been released for consultation and none have been finalised. Worryingly, the department has dropped “setting clear demonstrable outcomes for regulated activities” and instead inserted language diluting focus on environmental outcomes and highlighting business demands. These include “give business clear rules” and “help decision-makers be fair and consistent”.

Experts in biodiversity and environmental law have found major flaws in the draft national standard for matters of national environmental significance, which concerns entities such as threatened species and communities, world heritage properties, wetlands of international importance and the Great Barrier Reef, and found it will do little to protect nature.

Slow progress on standards, that are still far from fit for purpose, significantly handicaps the National Environmental Protection Agency in carrying out its key responsibilities of assessing proposals, setting conditions for approvals, education, compliance and enforcement. This is unlikely to restore public trust in the more than three in four Australians who lack strong trust in any political party or candidate to protect the environment.

Nature markets have been touted as a solution for environmental protection and repair. But despite decades of grand advertised claims, there is precious little evidence they are effective at halting and reversing environmental degradation and biodiversity loss.

Threatened species and nationally and internationally significant places we love exist in specific locations and have specific requirements. Australia is protecting more land than ever but still failing to protect our (growing) list of threatened species and communities because their habitats are not protected. Market-driven nature repair projects will not help address this deficit.

After spending tens of millions on policy development, the biodiversity market register now shows one listed project with no biodiversity certificates issued against it. A “green Wall Street” is failing to launch. Despite this lacklustre track record and dim prospects of meaningfully contributing to urgent conservation management, a further $36.9m has been allocated in the budget for the nature repair market and biodiversity offsets.

Enthusiastic optimism about such markets, including from Ken Henry, the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation and others, is premature given that they are prone to poor governance and outcomes and risk giving governments an excuse sidesteppng their obligations to conserve nature and delaying urgent action.

Australia is a wealthy and sovereign nation. The government can easily afford to greatly increase direct investment in environmental protection and restoration, today – and most Australians want this. The climate crisis and biodiversity loss will amplify each other’s impact. A minuscule and still declining environmental budget, prioritising “single-touch” assessments and fast-tracking pathways for approvals for development, is entirely the wrong approach in the face of these existential threats and will only serve to bake in Australia’s already atrocious conservation record.

The declaration that the environment was “back” under the Albanese government was met with much public optimism and goodwill. It would be a betrayal of Australia’s most important public good to settle for the mere appearance of action – we deserve the promised serious investment in our collective future.