The rule of law

Recently there was a federal court decision that said essentially that governments have to follow the law, in this case the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Preservation Act, to protect endangered species from loggers.

Everyone is supposedly obliged to follow the law, even governments and large contributors to those governments, because if the law is only applied arbitrarily it is essentially meaningless.

However, the response from the government has been if they or the loggers are breaking the law, then clearly it is the law that is in the wrong, it is the law that is broken and needs fixing. So they will simply change the law so that it has no effect.

What is the point of having a law that has no effect? Well obviously they are keeping the name of the act presumably based on the Orwellian theory of law very popular with this government (eg Workchoices).

It seems it is the government's intention to have an Environment Protection and Biodiversity Preservation Act that ensures there is no way to protect the environment or preserve biodiversity.

Does the rule of law mean anything if those who break the law can rely on the government to simply change it to reflect the wishes of the lawbreaker? Can this really be said to be an equality before the law?