Western Australia’s Regulatory Retreat: When Environmental Protections Become the Sacrifice

From the moment Western Australia quietly removed its ability to regulate emissions from major projects, a signal flashed across the landscape: the state might be placing industrial priorities ahead of climate responsibility. In many democracies, environmental oversight evolves gradually. In WA, the change has come with speed, opacity, and growing alarm. For TMFS, this is not a conflict of values but a test of leadership. How governments choose to balance regulation, growth, and trust will define generational legitimacy.

In recent months, WA’s state Labor government has enacted policy changes that significantly weaken environmental regulation. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), once empowered to assess and impose conditions on greenhouse gas emissions for large projects, has had this power stripped. The state has effectively handed over authority in this domain to the federal safeguard mechanism. ABC+1

Meanwhile the reform of EPA’s governance has further raised concerns. Key changes include fast-tracking approvals, allowing overlapping regulatory bodies to begin work while the EPA process still unfolds, and filling EPA board positions with members tied to industry rather than environment, diminishing independent oversight. ABC+1 These moves were justified publicly as removing duplication, reducing “green tape,” and streamlining approvals. ABC

One of the starkest manifestations has been WA’s decision no longer to require its own regulatory conditions on emissions in major fossil fuel projects. The state government claims that the federal safeguard mechanism will suffice. But experts warn that the safeguard mechanism is weaker in many respects: less stringent in emission thresholds, reliant on offsets, and often permitting emissions that under stricter state rules would have been curtailed or mitigated more aggressively. ABC+2The Guardian+2

Equally troubling is the legislative ambivalence toward climate goals. WA is now the only Australian state with no legally legislated target for emissions reductions by 2030, and without renewable energy or climate laws enshrined in statute, despite previous election promises. The Guardian+1 Public sentiment in WA, by contrast, shows strong support for more ambitious environmental and nature protection legislation. The Guardian+1 The tension is real: government action appears misaligned with community expectations.

Consider real outcomes already visible. Projects that once would have faced stricter emission constraints may now proceed under less rigorous oversight. The Woodside Burrup Hub / North West Shelf extension plans benefit: regulatory changes mean fewer state-level hurdles. The EPA’s advisory role, and its criteria for emissions, has been downscaled. The Guardian+3The Guardian+3ABC+3 Experts argue that this will lead to higher emissions locally, elevated health risks from pollutants, and degradation of protected natural and cultural heritage. ABC+1

What puzzles many is the choice to act quietly. These changes have proceeded with limited parliamentary deliberation, often without full consultation with environmental groups, or public awareness until articles and commentaries began spotlighting them. The Guardian+1 WA appears to be making a calculated bet: that the east coast or national media will not maintain pressure, that federal frameworks will absorb criticism, and that voters will prioritize jobs, exports, or economic growth over regulatory strictness. It is a strategic wager with high stakes. The Guardian

There are deeper implications beyond WA’s borders. Weakening environmental protections in a major resource-rich state like WA risks dragging down national efforts on emissions, climate commitments, and biodiversity. It sends signals to industry that regulatory rollback can become precedent. For Indigenous heritage and conservation, it can mean loss of protection for sites of cultural importance, increased pollution, and more irreversible harm. For communities living near heavy industry, it may translate to poorer health, less environmental resilience, and loss of trust in government oversight.

But the story also offers opportunity. Transparent engagement, independent oversight, and renewed legal commitments can reverse the drift. In other states, the expectation of strong environmental laws is no longer fringe. Across Australia, voters increasingly demand that climate risk, pollution, and conservation be core to governance. At TMFS, we believe that societal resilience hinges on the integrity of regulation, especially when economic prominence grows.

Let this be a turning point rather than a quiet descent. Western Australia’s current trajectory challenges the idea that growth must come at the cost of environmental responsibility. The evidence suggests that prosperity and ecological protection are not mutually exclusive. If leaders attend to both, they can prime a state and a nation for sustainable security and shared wellbeing.

TMFS calls on policymakers to restore the independence and authority of environmental bodies, to legislate enforceable emission targets, to ensure meaningful consultation with Indigenous custodians and communities, and to align state frameworks with national science-based climate imperatives. For citizens, it is time to demand visibility in the decisions that shape air, land, and water. Leadership in environmental protection today is trust for tomorrow.

All rights belong to their respective owners. This article contains references and insights based on publicly available information and sources. We do not claim ownership over any third-party content mentioned.