Environment Protection And Biodiversity Conservation Act Reforms Announced

The long-awaited reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) have been tabled in Parliament today. If passed by Parliament, this will usher in the most significant reforms to Australia's Commonwealth environmental laws since the Act commenced in 2000.

The proposed amendments represent a fundamental overhaul of Australia's environmental approval framework, introducing stricter environmental safeguards whilst streamlining assessment pathways for project proponents.

We summarise some of the key components of the new reforms below.

The reform package comprises seven bills, including:

• the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 (Reform Bill);
• the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025 (NEPA Bill);
• the Environment Information Australia Bill 2025; and
• four separate bills concerning the imposition of general, restoration, customs and excise charges under the EPBC Act.

National Environmental Protection Agency and enhanced compliance and enforcement

Under the NEPA Bill, a new independent National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) will be established (section 9) with an independent CEO (section 14).

NEPA's CEO has an advisory and regulatory compliance role and is required to maintain a register of 'registrable decisions' as prescribed under the Act or rules (sections 13 and 18 of the NEPA Bill). They may direct environmental audits and compliance audits to be undertaken in certain circumstances. The NEPA CEO also has broad powers to issue environment protection orders where, for example, the CEO reasonably suspects a breach of the Act or there is an imminent risk of serious damage to the environment (section 551 of the Reform Bill).

Penalties for various offences, including for Part 3 contraventions and approval condition breaches, are proposed to increase substantially: up to 50,000 penalty units ($16.5 million) for corporations (section 673 of the Reform Bill).

National Environmental Standards (New Part 19B of the EPBC Act)

National Environmental Standards (NES) will become binding legislative instruments guiding approval decisions. Before making a NES, the Minister for Environment and Water (the Minister) must be satisfied that it promotes the objectives of the EPBC Act, and is not inconsistent with relevant international agreements.

A NES must specify outcomes or objectives, and the parameters, processes or actions for achieving those outcomes or objectives.

When varying or revoking a NES, the Minister must comply with the 'no regression' principle, that the variation or revocation does not:

• reduce protections of the environment;
• reduce the likelihood that environmental data or information provided to the Minister, Secretary, Department or a Commonwealth agency under the EPBC Act or the regulations is appropriate, including as to quality, for the purposes for which it is provided;
• reduce the likelihood of appropriate consultation occurring under the EPBCAct; or
• reduce the likelihood that outcomes or objectives in the NES will be achieved.

The NES must be applied in making certain decisions under the EPBC Act. Those decisions are indicated in the relevant provision of the EPBCAct or regulations. For other decisions, where the NES do not need to be applied, a decision maker can still choose to apply them.

New approval tests

The following criteria apply to the approval of actions by the Minister:

The action is not inconsistent with any prescribed NES (proposed section 136A of the EPBC Act)

The Minister must not approve the action unless satisfied that, taking into account the conditions to be imposed, the approval is not inconsistent with any prescribed NES. Despite this, the Minister may approve the action if it is a national interest proposal (as set out in a determination made by the Minister) and the inconsistences with NES are reasonably necessary for the taking of the action to result in, or be reasonably likely to result in, the intended outcome for the national interest proposal.

The action will not have, or is unlikely to have, 'unacceptable impacts' on protected matters (proposed section 136B of the EPBC Act)

What constitutes an 'unacceptable impact' varies depending on the particular matter of national environmental significance (MNES) (section 588 of the Reform Bill), but includes, for example, a significant impact that seriously impairs, will seriously impair, or is likely to seriously impair, the viability of a listed threatened species. A new definition of 'seriously impair' is proposed, which means a matter is seriously altered for the worse, compared to the action not being taken, having regard to the nature, intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic extent and context of the impact (proposed section 527H of the EPBC Act). The 'unacceptable impact' criteria are proposed to be enshrined in the Act, not a NES.

Approval for action with residual significant impact must pass net gain test (proposed section 136C of the EPBC Act)

Where there is a residual, significant impact on a protected matter, the approval should pass the 'net gain test' in relation to the residual significant impact. Under proposed section 527J of the EPBC Act, a 'residual significant impact' is one which cannot be avoided, mitigated or repaired in the course of taking the action or complying with any approval conditions. Under proposed section 527K of the EPBC Act, an approval passes the 'net gain test' if the approval conditions to holder to either compensate for damage caused by a residual significant impact or pay a restoration contribution charge. Compliance with the condition(s) must also result in a net gain for the matter that is at least equivalent to the prescribed net gain for that matter.

Streamlined assessment pathways

A new 'streamlined assessment' pathway is introduced in section 189 of the Reform Bill in lieu of the 'assessment on referral information', 'assessment on preliminary documentation' and 'public environment report' assessment pathways. Under streamlined assessments, the Secretary or CEO prepares a recommendation report, compressing approval timelines (proposed sections 84B and 94 of the EPBC Act).

Mandatory requirements for providing information relating to scope 1 and 2 (but not scope 3) greenhouse gas emissions for controlled actions are introduced under proposed section 84A of the EPBC Act. As has been reported prior to the introduction of these reforms, there is no 'climate trigger' proposed for inclusion in the EPBC Act.

The proposed introduction of defences into section 74AA of the EPBC Act intends to permit minor preparatory works on referred projects to proceed. This would be with the Minister's written agreement, in accordance with any regulations prescribed for the purposes of that section, with the potential to reduce project delays.

Bioregional plans

Certain registered 'priority actions' may be undertaken without an approval under Part 9. This is if the action is taken in identified development zones in a bioregional plan, subject to conditions and bioregional restoration measures (proposed section 37 of the EPBC Act).

Accreditation and bilateral frameworks

Accreditation and bilateral frameworks remain a feature of the EPBC Act, but are refocussed around 'management or authorisation frameworks' aligned to NES, unacceptable impact criteria and net gain requirements.

Actions covered by Ministerial declaration and NOPSEMA management or authorisation framework

An action may be taken without an approval under Part 9 of the EPBC Act where:

1. the action has been approved in accordance with a NOPSEMA management or authorisation framework approved under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth); and
2. the action also benefits from a Ministerial declaration made under proposed section 36H of the EPBC Act. Before making any such declaration, the Minister must be satisfied that certain conditions are met, including to ensure that actions approved in accordance with the NOPSEMA framework are not inconsistent with any prescribed NES and do not result in unacceptable impacts or residual significant impacts.

Transitional provisions

A general rule will apply whereby actions which have been referred before the commencement of the Act (regardless of whether they are assessed or approved before that time) will not be subject to the new NES, unacceptable impacts and net gain compensation requirements under amendments to Part 9 of the EPBC Act which deals with the approval of actions.

A decision that an action is not a controlled action or not a controlled action if taken in a particular manner will lapse after five years if the action has not substantially commenced before that time (this does not apply to actions which have already secured such decisions before the commencement of the Act).

Implications for project approvals and environmental assessments

Proponents should expect more front-end design work to satisfy NES and 'net gain' requirements, moving beyond traditional offset policy approaches. The legislated 'net gain' test means residual impacts must be compensated through measurable environmental improvements.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) disclosure would become standardised and mandatory for key assessment tracks, with methodologies set by regulation. This introduces climate considerations directly into the assessment process, requiring proponents to quantify and address emissions impacts.

The streamlined assessment pathway, where government prepares recommendation reports, should compress approval timelines, potentially reducing assessment periods. The ability to commence minor preparatory works by Ministerial agreement also reduces idle time during assessment phases.

However, enhanced audit powers and environment protection orders significantly increase post-approval compliance scrutiny, particularly where actual impacts exceed predictions. Proponents are well advised to invest in robust monitoring and adaptive management systems, to minimise regulatory scrutiny during project delivery.

EPBC Act implications for proponents, regulators and stakeholders across key sectors

Infrastructure

Within bioregional plans identifying development zones, registered 'priority actions' can proceed without individual EPBC Act approval, whilst meeting plan conditions. This may prove particularly valuable for linear infrastructure programmes, creating greater certainty for major transport and utilities projects such as energy transmission projects that are aligned with strategic planning.

Resources and energy

For petroleum and GHG storage projects to which the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth) (OPGGS Act) applies, certain actions may be taken without an approval under Part 9 of the EPBC Act where they benefit from both a Ministerial declaration made under proposed section 36H of the EPBC Act, and where the action is approved in accordance with a NOPSEMA management or authorisation framework under the OPGGS Act. This will assist in reducing duplication of assessments and approvals for those projects.

Many of the general approvals-related reforms will have significant implications for energy and resources projects in particular. Notably, mandatory GHG emissions disclosure requirements for scope 1 and 2 emissions will be introduced for key assessment tracks, requiring proponents to provide detailed emissions estimates, mitigation measures and abatement targets, as part of environmental assessment. Achieving project approval will require establishing that there are no unacceptable impacts on protected matters, and residual significant impacts may require costly restoration contributions to be made in order to pass the 'net gain test'.

Cross-sectoral impacts

Higher penalties, enhanced audits and environment protection orders elevate compliance risk across all sectors. Turnover-based penalties for contraventions mean large corporations face substantially increased financial exposure, necessitating stronger environmental management systems.

Alignment with broader federal environmental and climate policy objectives

The reforms aim to balance environmental protection with regulatory efficiency. This would create pathways for sustainable development while establishing stronger alignment with Australia's natural heritage and climate objectives.

Nature protection and recovery

Legislated 'unacceptable impact' prohibitions reflect stronger nature protection commitments, establishing clear 'no go' criteria for development.

The statutory 'net gain' regime advances biodiversity recovery objectives, moving beyond 'no net loss' to require measurable environmental improvements. This aligns with international biodiversity commitments and nature-positive policy frameworks.

Climate integration

Mandatory GHG reporting integrates climate considerations directly into environmental assessment, ensuring emissions impacts are transparent and considered in approval decisions. This supports Australia's emissions reduction commitments and climate risk disclosure expectations.

However, GHG reporting relates to scope 1 and 2 emissions, not scope 3 emissions, and there has not been any climate trigger introduced via the reforms.

Institutional strengthening and independence

Creation of an independent NEPA strengthens accountability and transparency in environmental regulation, addressing longstanding criticisms about political interference in environmental decisions.

Strategic and efficient regulation and approvals

Bioregional planning mechanisms enable strategic environmental management at landscape scale, moving beyond project-by-project assessment to address cumulative impacts.

The streamlined assessment pathway, where government prepares recommendation reports, should compress approval timelines, potentially reducing assessment periods. The ability to commence minor preparatory works by Ministerial agreement also reduces idle time during assessment phases.

Further details to come

There has been much speculation about the scope of the reforms in the lead up to today's announcements. Further detail will follow in the form of future NES and other guidance material, and we will continue to provide updates on implications as further information becomes available.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Lawyers Weekly Law firm of the year 2021	Employer of Choice for Gender Equality (WGEA)