On 30 October 2025 the Government introduced into Parliament its long-awaited reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act). Last week the Environment Protection Reform Bills passed the House of Representatives where the Government has a majority.
The Government is reported to still be hopeful of passing the legislation in the Senate before the last Parliamentary sitting days of 2025, but has also referred the Environment Protection Reform Bills to a Senate Committee for inquiry and report, with hearings scheduled for November and written submissions accepted until 5 December 2025. Assuming the legislation is not passed this year, the Senate Committee is due to report in March 2026.
The first of the National Environmental Standards (NES) on Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) has also been released for consultation with submissions due by 30 January 2026.
Leading up to this point, and drawing on previous reform proposals, we have monitored the likely scope and direction of the reforms in our two-part alert series. For a detailed overview, see our Part 1 alert and our Part 2 alert.
This update addresses the key components of the proposed legislative reforms. We will provide a separate update on the NES for MNES and Environmental Offsets (when it is released).
The Environment Protection Reform Bills
The reforms were introduced as a series of 7 bills (together, the Environment Protection Reform Bills), with the key bills being:
- the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 (Cth) (Reform Bill), which contains substantive amendments to the EPBC Act and consequential amendments to other Federal legislation;
- the National Environment Protection Agency Bill 2025 (Cth) (NEPA Bill), which establishes the National Environment Protection Agency (NEPA); and
- the Environment Information Australia Bill 2025 (Cth) (EIA Bill), which establishes the statutory office of the Head of Environment Information Australia to improve accessibility and accountability of environmental data and information.
In the Second Reading in the House of Representatives, the Government outlined that the reforms were informed by three key pillars:
Firstly, there is stronger environmental protection and restoration—to not just look after our special places, but to restore and regenerate them for future generations.
Secondly, there is more efficient and robust project assessments and approvals, delivering a system which can better respond to big national priorities like the renewable energy transition, a future made in Australia and the housing that we need.
And finally, there is greater accountability and transparency in decision-making, so that all Australians can have confidence in these laws, including delivering our election commitment for Australia's National Environment Protection Agency.
We have structured our summary of the proposed reforms under these key pillars. In this update we focus on the substantive changes to the EPBC Act proposed in the Reform Bill, including its key components and how project referral, assessment and approval may look.
Many of the matters we considered in our two-part alert series will be up for debate in Parliament. Following the Senate Committee report, the Government will need to negotiate with either the Greens or the Coalition to get the reforms through the Senate, and the Government is prepared to do a deal with either. Minister Watt has strongly made the point, including in his National Press Club address on 30 October, that this will be the last opportunity to get the important reforms through Parliament which were recommended in the Samuels Review of the EPBC Act.
Analysis of the Reform Bills
What is not proposed to change
The Reform Bill proposes to make amendments to the existing EPBC Act, retaining the basic structure and the requirement for proponents to refer their project for a decision on whether an action is a ‘controlled action’ requiring assessment and approval. The key assessment and approval provisions are still contained in Chapters 2 to 4 as follows (the underlining shows some of the headings that are proposed to change):
|
Chapter 2
|
Chapter 3
|
Chapter 4
|
|
Protecting the environment
Part 3 – Requirements for environmental approvals Part 4 – Cases in which environmental approvals are not needed Division 1- Actions covered by bilateral agreements Division 2 – Actions covered by Ministerial declarations and accredited management or authorisation frameworks Division 2A – Actions covered by Ministerial declarations and NOPSEMA management or authorisation frameworks |
Bilateral agreements
Part 5 – Bilateral agreements |
Environmental assessment and approvals
Part 7 – Deciding on whether approval of an action is needed Part 8 – Assessing the impact of controlled actions Part 9 – Approval of actions Part 10 – Strategic assessments Part 12 – Bioregional guidance plans Part 12A - Bioregional plans |
Under the Reform Bill, the matters of national environmental significance (MNES) and ‘controlling provisions’ (also referred to as ‘protected matters’) in Chapter 2, Part 3 remain largely unchanged – including World heritage, National heritage, Wetlands of international importance (Ramsar), listed threatened species and communities, listed migratory species, ‘nuclear’ actions, the Commonwealth marine environment and Commonwealth land. Consultation documents have been published, including a NES for MNES, out for consultation until 30 January 2026. This includes a draft MNES Standard Policy Paper and legislative instrument.
The Reform Bill proposes to amend the controlling provision relating to ‘protection of the environment from nuclear actions’, changing the trigger from ‘nuclear’ to ‘radiological exposure’, and inserting a new definition of ‘radiological exposure action’ to include: actions related to nuclear installations; transport or storing spent nuclear fuel or radioactive waste; uranium mining or milling; ‘mining, processing, stockpiling, or disposing of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs) if the action exceeds the activity level prescribed by the regulations’; establishing or significantly modifying a large-scale disposal facility for radioactive waste; and decommissioning or rehabilitating a nuclear related facility. The underlined action is the main new addition to the controlling provisions. Importantly, the Reform Bill will allow associated regulations to set a threshold over which these mining, processing, stockpiling or disposing of NORMs are covered by the trigger. This will allow regulation of such activities to be restricted to those activities involving potentially harmful levels of radioactivity.
A referral is still required where an action will have, or is likely to have, a ‘significant impact’ on an MNES. There is still no definition of ‘significant impact’ in the EPBC Act, presumably still to be defined by way of the Significant Impact Guidelines for MNES and Commonwealth actions. There is, however, a definition of ‘unacceptable impacts’ as outlined below.
Many of the other important project-related provisions of the existing EPBC Act remain the same, including (for example):
- particular manner decisions (s.77A)
- reconsideration of decisions on referrals (s.78), although the Reform Bill requires that a request for reconsideration by a person other than the proponent be made within 28 days of the decision on the referral being published, and sets out a more detailed list of requirements to be included in an application for reconsideration
- requirements for principals under a contract to ensure that contractors are informed of conditions of an EPBC approval and comply with those conditions (s.134)
- the assessment approaches in Chapter 4, Part 8 are largely the same, however the assessment pathways of ‘assessment on referral information’ and ‘assessment on preliminary documents’ and ‘assessment by public environment report’ are removed and substituted with a new assessment pathway of ‘streamlined assessment’. The other assessment pathways are retained, namely the ‘accredited assessment’ approach, the ‘environmental impact assessment’ and the ‘public inquiry’ approach. The new streamlined assessment approach is described in a new Division 5A which involves assessment and preparation of a recommendation report.
Under each assessment approach, it is proposed that the proponent must satisfy greenhouse gas (GHG) disclosure requirements including setting out a reasonable estimate of scope 1 and 2 emissions, strategies and measures to manage those emissions, and how those strategies and measures are consistent with relevant Commonwealth government laws and policies.
- Chapter 5, Part 14 on Conservation Agreements
- Chapter 6, Part 17 Enforcement provisions are largely unchanged, but with some important amendments to environmental audits (Division 12) and environmental protection orders (new Division 13A)
- powers relating to injunctions (Division 14) and remediation determinations (Division 14B)
- liability of executive officers (Division 18) (s.493 – 496)
- landholder liability provisions (ss.496A – 496D)
The three pillars and reform proposals
We have organised our comments on the Reform Bill to reflect the Government’s three key reform pillars as follows:
Below are some preliminary comments on these proposed reforms. We will continue to monitor the political debat on the reforms, and submissions to the Senate Committee inquiry, and will provide future updates as this develops.
The National Environmental Standards (NES)
The Minister will have the power to make (or vary or revoke) binding NES, which will prescribe environmental outcomes or objectives to be achieved, and the parameters or processes needed to achieve those outcomes. The NES will be made under the legislation as legislative instruments like regulations.
Decision makers with the power to approve projects under the EPBC Act must consider the NES, and the Minister must not approve the taking of an action if it is inconsistent with any NES. The only exception to this is where the action is a ‘national interest proposal’, where the inconsistency with NES is reasonably necessary for the action to result or be likely to result in the intended outcome for the national interest proposal.
The NES will not be made until the Reform Bill is passed and the Minister is afforded the power to create NES. As noted above, the draft NES on MNES has now been published and is open for consultation, and the NES on Environmental Offsets is to follow. Other priority NES to follow relate to First Nations engagement and environmental data.
To ensure protections are not eroded over time, the Reform Bill includes a ‘no regression’ clause, meaning that NES cannot be changed or updated unless the new NES would deliver equivalent or improved environmental outcomes. The ‘baseline’ of where the first NES are set will be critical to the passing of the Reform Bills, particularly the baseline for the NES on MNES and Environmental Offsets.
The Government has published a Draft Policy Position on the NES for MNES, which identifies decision-related outcomes and action-based principles that will guide approval decision making:
Decision-related outcomes:
- Decisions provide for the protection, conservation, and (where necessary) restoration of protected matters
- Decisions contribute to the promotion and enhancement of the diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of protected matters
- Decisions facilitate ecologically sustainable development
Principles for decision making:
- Actions appropriately consider the application of the ‘mitigation hierarchy’, which comprises four sequential steps of avoidance, mitigation, repair and offsets, and is designed to minimise adverse significant impacts of actions on protected matters
- Actions appropriately consider impacts to protected matters
- Actions with residual significant impacts to protected matters are compensated (e.g. through delivery of an offset)
- Actions are supported by evidence
As part of the reforms, the Minister as decision maker will be required to consider whether residual significant impacts have been appropriately minimised before deciding to attach compensation conditions to an approval. ‘Unacceptable impact criteria’ will be defined for each protected matter, as explained below.
The ‘Unacceptable Impacts’ Test
Currently the EPBC Act includes a ‘clearly unacceptable’ category for referred decisions, but the term ‘unacceptable’ is not defined.
The Reform Bill would insert a new definition of ‘unacceptable impacts’, and the Minister retains discretion to determine that a referral is clearly unacceptable. The Minister must not approve an action unless they are satisfied the action will not have (or be likely to have) an ‘unacceptable impact’ on a protected matter, unless the national interest proposal exception applies.
A new definition for ‘unacceptable impacts’ is set out at section 527F, which includes reference to each protected matter and criteria of what constitutes an ‘unacceptable impact’. For example, for a listed threatened species an unacceptable impact is -
‘a significant impact that:
- seriously impairs, will seriously impair, or is likely to seriously impair, the viability of the listed threated species; or
- causes, will cause, or is likely to cause, serious damage to the critical habitat of the listed threatened species where the habitat is irreplaceable and necessary for the listed threated species to remain viable in the wild’.
Clarity is still required as to the nature and extent of evidence required where this concept is linked to the ‘viability’ of certain MNES. This could potentially be achieved via guidelines or practice directions.
The Reform Bill also proposes to restrict the conditions that a Minister can impose on an approval, so they are prohibited from attaching conditions for the purpose of compensating for damage that will or may have an unacceptable impact on a protected matter.
Protection statements
The Reform Bill introduces a new power for the Minister to make a ‘protection statement’, which is a legislative instrument for a particular listed threatened species or community. Where a protection statement exists for a threatened community, it will be the primary consideration that the Minister will have regard to when assessing an action referred under the EPBC Act, and will effectively turn off the requirement for the Minister to not act inconsistently with the recovery plan for the relevant species or community. This will reduce ambiguity regarding what a decision-maker must consider when assessing such referrals.
In deciding whether to approve an action which will have a significant impact on threatened species and endangered communities, the Minister must have regard to relevant international agreements (CBD, CITES), a threat abatement plan, a protection statement and a recovery plan for the relevant species or community.
Stronger powers in compliance and enforcement by NEPA
The role of the NEPA, and its compliance and enforcement powers, is an important part of both Reform Pillars 1 and 3. The role of NEPA is summarised under Pillar 3 below.
Net Gain requirements
Projects will be required, by law, to avoid, mitigate and repair damage to protected matters, wherever possible. Any ‘residual significant impacts’ on nationally protected matters must be fully offset to achieve a ‘net gain’ for the environment, a change from the existing policy of ‘no net loss’.
A ‘net gain’ could be achieved either by the proponent directly delivering an offset or through an upfront financial contribution to a restoration fund, which is managed by an independent statutory officer in the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW).
The Reform Bill provides that if an action will have, or is likely to have, a residual significant impact on a protected matter, it will need to pass the ‘net gain’ test in order to be approved.
This requires that:
- condition(s) be attached to the approval requiring the holder of the approval to compensate for the damage to the protected matter, or to pay a restoration contribution charge (or both); and
- compliance with the condition(s) results in a ‘net gain’ for the protected matter; and
- if any other requirements are needed, those requirements are met.
The definition of ‘net gain’ will be critical consideration for proponents seeking project approvals. The explanatory memorandum relating to the Reform Bill notes that regulations will be made to set out the quantum of net gain that is required for particular protected matters, and an example of 10% is provided. However, if no such regulations are made, the required threshold will be the ‘net gain’ that the Minister considers appropriate. The explanatory memorandum notes that the regulations would also be able to prescribe protected matters for which a ‘no net loss’ test, rather than a ‘net gain’ test, would apply, although this power is expected to be reserved for exceptional circumstances. The Reform Bill also defines ‘residual significant impact’ to mean that the impact is significant, and that the impact will not be avoided, mitigated or repaired in the course of taking the action or complying with any conditions.
A new restoration contribution framework is proposed, which will allow proponents to meet their obligations by either delivering their own offsets or by making an upfront payment into a government restoration fund, or both. A nominated Restoration Contributions Holder will be responsible for overseeing these contributions, and can use the funds to strategically deliver offsets to have greater environmental benefits, including through pooling funds for similar impacts.
The Reform Bill also introduces a power to make regulations for ‘advanced restoration actions’, including the circumstances in which advanced restoration actions may satisfy the conditions included in an EPBC Act approval.
Accreditation / reducing duplication through bilateral agreements
The EPBC Act currently enables assessments and approvals to be undertaken by states and territories under bilateral agreements. However, the Government considers that these bilaterial agreements are inflexible, unresponsive and easily broken over time. Also, as noted in our previous update, the Commonwealth, states and territories to date have only agreed bilateral assessment agreements, not bilateral approval agreements.
The proposed reforms will enhance the Federal government’s ability to enter bilateral agreements, which would see states and territories undertake one set of assessments and, over time approvals, against both their state requirements and Federal standards.
To give effect to this change, an accreditation framework will need to be established for state and territory processes to ensure they meet the new NES. An audit process must also be implemented and managed by the CEO of NEPA, with the first audit occurring within 3 years of the commencement of a bilateral agreement and a second after 5 years. The accreditation of a state or territory management or authorisation framework must be tabled in Parliament and can be opposed by resolution of one of the Houses of Parliament.
Landscape scale approaches
Bioregional planning
The Reform Bill includes new powers for the Minister to make ‘bioregional guidance plans’ to guide the preparation of bioregional plans. The preparation of these plans is proposed to be subject to public consultation requirements.
Bioregional planning provisions are intended to improve government led planning and facilitate faster approvals. The government’s intention in doing the work upfront to map areas of higher and lower biodiversity is to provide certainty on where development can occur, while protecting areas of high environmental value. This means that projects covered by a bioregional plan development zone can be registered (as a ‘registered priority action’) as compliant with the bioregional plan without needing to seek project level approval under the EPBC Act.
Bioregional plans are intended to give clear signals about where development is inappropriate with conservation zones delineating where certain activities can't be undertaken. Strategic assessments will also be made more flexible and efficient, better enabling state or territory governments or a partner to gain a strategic assessment approval.
Levels of government, industry and community will work together to identify upfront ‘go zones’ and ‘no go zones’ in a particular region. This is intended to allow projects in areas of low environmental value to be approved quickly and gives clarity on areas where development is unlikely to proceed, because of its high environmental value.
The Government has stated that this is intended to overcome a weakness in the current laws, which focus on project-by-project assessments and approval decisions, without considering the cumulative impacts of those projects on the environment.
The bioregional guidance plans and bioregional plans are detailed and will be the subject of a separate update. This regional planning framework will be important to streamlining decision-making for renewable energy projects in the new renewable energy zones.
Strategic assessments
The strategic assessment provisions of the EPBC Act are retained in Part 10 of Chapter 4, but with new provisions under the Reform Bill requiring that an action or class of actions approved under a policy, plan or program must not be inconsistent with prescribed NES, must not have an ‘unacceptable impact’, and must pass the ‘net gain test’.
Streamlined assessment - alternate pathways
The Reform Bill retains the main mechanisms of referral and assessment by the Minister of a decision on whether an action is a controlled action, including the requirement for referral by the principal under a contract for a particular action. Once an action is determined to be a controlled action, the offence provision is retained making it an offence to proceed without approval of the action. The offence provision in section 74AA (with some modifications to allow for minor or preparatory works or subject to the Minister’s written agreement) is also retained, making it an offence to take an action before a decision is made in relation to a referral (that is, whether or not it is a controlled action).
What is different is the inclusion of ‘alternate pathways’ including:
- Chapter 3 declarations (declaration of accredited management or authorisation framework in Ministerial declaration or bilateral agreement);
- Alternate pathway – actions covered by a Part 10 approval (an action in accordance with an endorsed policy, plan or program in a strategic assessment);
- Restricted action in a conservation zone in a bioregional plan; and
- Priority action in a development zone in a bioregional plan.
The Government has stated that the reforms will create faster and clearer environmental assessments through a new streamlined pathway for proponents who provide sufficient upfront information and design their proposals in line with the environmental and other requirements of the reformed EPBC Act. The new pathways would reduce assessment and approval timeframes by 20 days, cutting the current 70-day statutory period to 50 days or less. Faster approvals through this pathway are estimated to save over half a billion dollars across the economy, and potentially as much as $7 billion.
However, the success of each of these new pathways (and time and money savings) in streamlining assessment and approvals depend on the making of the NES, implementation of accredited management or authorisation framework in a Ministerial declaration or bilateral agreement, and preparation of bioregional plans. All of these statutory instruments will need to be prepared and consulted on before there is clarity on whether processes and approvals have been streamlined. DCCEEW is only at the early stages of making NES and some early pilots of regional planning.
National interest exemption
The other new proposed feature of Chapter 4 of the EPBC Act is the introduction of the concepts of ‘national interest proposals’ and a ‘national interest exemption’ in Divisions 2A and 3 of Part 11.
Whilst the ‘national interest’ has always been a consideration for the Minister when considering whether to exempt an action from provisions in Chapter 4, the Reform Bill proposes to expand this by providing a broader set of targeted exemptions to the approval and other requirements in Chapter 4, for ‘national interest proposals’, as well as a general national interest exemption.
For a ‘national interest proposal’, the Minister may approve an action that is inconsistent with a NES, or that will have, or is likely to have an ‘unacceptable impact’ on a protected matter (provided that the impacts are reasonably necessary for the intended outcome for the national interest proposal). A national interest proposal would also not need to pass the ‘net gain test’ (for residual significant impacts), to the extent that requiring the ‘net gain test’ would prevent, or be likely to prevent the intended national interest outcome.
When considering Australia’s national interest for the purpose of a ‘national interest proposal’, the Minister may also consider Australia’s defence, security or ‘strategic interests’ or Australia’s obligations under an agreement with one or more other countries. It is unclear what Australia’s ‘strategic interests’ may cover, but the consideration is a potentially very broad one.
The national interest exemption can be made on the Minister’s initiative or by application by a proponent. In determining the ‘national interest’, the Minister may consider:
- Australia’s defence or security; and
- a national emergency, including an emergency to which a national emergency declaration relates (under the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020).
The Government has stated that this exemption is designed to be used rarely, where projects are demonstrably in the national interest and require the Minister to publish a statement of reasons in support of the decision. The reforms would also make the current national interest exemption a more responsive mechanism, particularly in emergency situations, like where roads need to be made safe following natural disasters.
Ministerial rulings
The Reform Bill introduces a new power for ministerial rulings, assisting in the interpretation and clarity of decision making under the EPBC Act. Rulings will clarify how laws, regulations or subordinate instruments will apply in specific circumstances and will be made publicly available so that assessments are predictable and visible.
The NEPA and compliance and enforcement measures
The NEPA Bill establishes the NEPA, which is designed to support the delivery of accountable, efficient, outcomes-focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making.
Under the Reform Bill, the CEO of the NEPA will have strong enforcement powers, including the power to issue environment protection orders (EPOs) in urgent circumstances to prevent and mitigate imminent significant environmental risks and harm, and powers to require a compliance audit or a directed environmental audit. It will also be an offence to fail to comply with an EPO.
The maximum penalties for contravening civil penalty provisions under the EPBC Act will be increased under the Reform Bill. The maximum penalty for a company will be the higher of 50,000 penalty units ($16.6M based on the Commonwealth penalty unit of $300), three times the benefit obtained (or detriment avoided) by the contravention, or 10% of the company’s annual turnover.
EIA
The EIA Bill would establish the Head of Environment Information Australia. This is a new statutory position within the DCCEEW, with a mandate to provide environmental data and information to the National EPA, to the minister, and to the public.
The head of the EIA will be tasked with transparently reporting on trends in the environment, collecting information and producing consistent tracking of the state of Australia's environment.
GHG emissions disclosure
As noted above, the reforms include new emissions disclosure requirements. Project proponents will need to disclose estimates of Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions as part of applying for an EPBC Act approval. Proponents will also be required to disclose their plans to reduce those emissions and explain how those measures are consistent with government laws and policies.
First Nations engagement in decision-making
The reforms codify the involvement of First Nations people in environmental governance and decision-making through the Indigenous Advisory Committee.
The reforms also create statutory advisory functions for the Committee in the development of NES and in species listings and conservation planning.
How will this all work in practice?
Assuming the reforms progress largely as proposed in the Reform Bill, we set out below a simplified outline of the steps that a project will need to proceed through to obtain an EPBC Act approval, and some important new considerations including: consistency with NES; the no ‘unacceptable impacts’ test; and the requirement that residual significant impacts be offset to achieve a ‘net gain’.
There are a range of streamlining measures which may affect this simplified outline, removing or partially removing a particular project from the assessment and approval process under the EPBC Act. All of these streamlining measures will require the NES and regulations to be in place. The Reform Bill requires that when making these instruments, the Minister must be satisfied that the relevant instrument is not inconsistent with any NES that is prescribed in the regulations as relevant to the decision. These instruments are also required to be tabled in Parliament and can be subject to a notice of motion opposing the instrument.
These streamlining instruments include:
- (Chapter 2, Part 4, Division 1) Actions covered by an accredited management or authorisation framework in a bilateral agreement with the states and territories accrediting the state and territory assessment and approval frameworks, and effectively delegating assessment and approval of actions which trigger the EPBC Act to the states and territories.
While bilateral assessment agreements are in place, we expect these will need to be reviewed and renegotiated in accordance with the new provisions in the Reform Bills relating to the making of bilateral agreements, including the requirements for consistency with NES and no ‘unacceptable impacts’.
- (Chapter 2, Part 4, Division 2) - Actions covered by Ministerial declarations and accredited management or authorisation frameworks
- (Chapter 2, Part 4, Division 2A) – Actions covered by Ministerial declarations and NOPSEMA management or authorisation frameworks
- (Chapter 2, Part 4, Division 3) – Actions covered by bioregional plans
Bioregional planning contemplates a process with the states and territories which will involve identifying and mapping development zones, identifying priority actions and classes of actions in the development zones and proponents registering those actions. Actions not requiring approval under bioregional plans are proposed to include the following which may be specified in a bioregional plan:
- actions taken in a development zone;
- the action is a ‘a priority action in a priority class of actions specified in a development zone’;
- the matter protected is an ‘impacted protected matter for the priority action’;
- the action is a ‘registered priority action in relation to the person’; and
- the action is taken in accordance with relevant conditions specified in the bioregional plan.
DCCEEW has published some information on ‘regional planning’ and pilot plans with some of the States (Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales) here. These is a considerable amount of detail in the Reform Bill on bioregional planning which we will cover in a separate update.
Simplified outline of project referral, assessment and approval under the Reform Bill
|
Step 1:
|
Referral - Where the action will have or is likely to have a ‘significant impact’ on a MNES, the proponent refers the action to the Commonwealth Environment Minister for a decision on whether it is a ‘controlled action’. |
|
Step 2:
|
Unacceptable impacts - Minister may consider that the action has ‘unacceptable impacts’ after which the proponent may withdraw the referral or request the Minister to reconsider, after which the Minister can refuse to approve the action or decide that there will not be ‘unacceptable impacts’ and the action referred can be assessed. |
|
Step 3:
|
Assessment approach - Once the Minister has determined the action is a ‘controlled action’, it may be assessed under state or territory legislation in accordance with an accredited management or authorisation framework in a bilateral agreement or the assessment approaches under Chapter 4, Part 8 of the EPBC Act. The action will be required to avoid, mitigate and repair damage to protected matters, wherever possible. Any ‘residual significant impacts’ on nationally protected matters must be fully offset to achieve a ‘net gain’ for the environment, a change from the existing policy of ‘no net loss’. A net gain could be achieved either by the proponent directly delivering an offset or through making an upfront financial contribution to a restoration fund. |
|
Step 4:
|
Approval – to approve an action, the Minister will need to be satisfied that the action is not inconsistent with relevant NES and will not have any ‘unacceptable impacts’. Where the project is expected to have an impact on threated species or communities the Minister must not act inconsistently with any protection statement published for the particular species or community. |
Next Steps
We will continue to monitor the debate in Parliament, and the changes which may be made to the Environment Protection Reform Bills in order to get them through the Senate, or as a result of the Senate inquiry.
We encourage industry to consider making a submission to the Senate inquiry before 5 December 2025. If you would like to discuss your submissions or have any queries about the reforms and how they may affect your business or sector, please contact us.
As we support businesses confronting a myriad of tech-driven possibilities, we’re guided by the human imperative - the choices we make must provide us all with better long-term opportunity.
