Key amendments to the Environment Protection Reform Act 2025 and their implications for the EPBC Act

Executive summary

The Environment Protection Reform Act 2025 (Cth) (EPBC Reform Act) and related legislation passed the Senate on 27 November 2025 and the House of Representatives on 28 November 2025, following negotiations between Labor and the Greens on key amendments. Royal Assent was received on 1 December 2025.

While the changes primarily impact the resources, energy, and agriculture sectors, significant amendments to the application of proposed standards, regulatory powers, and assessment processes hold broader relevance.

We have prepared this analysis of the key amendments to the EPBC Reform Act as part of our ongoing guidance on the reform of Federal environmental laws and will continue to provide updates as the full suite of National Environmental Standards (Standards) and regulations are released.

The key amendments addressed in this article are as follows:

1. Fossil fuel actions are not subject to fast-tracked approvals.
2. Assessment and approval of “water trigger” actions retained by the Commonwealth.
3. Existing use provisions narrowed for land clearing.
4. Extended lapsing of “not a controlled action” decisions.
5. Minister must be satisfied of direct consistency with the Standards.
6. Limits on payment of restoration contribution charges.
7. Revised definition of “unacceptable impacts”.
8. Changes to National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) stop work powers.

This article builds on our earlier publication on the initial Bill to amend the EPBC Act, available here. Each key amendment is considered in detail below.

Fossil fuel actions are not subject to fast-tracked approvals

The EPBC Reform Act introduces a new assessment pathway for actions requiring approval under Part 9 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act): the streamlined assessment process.

The amendments agreed to in the Senate remove fossil fuel actions from the new streamlined assessment process. The definition of a “fossil fuel action” in the EPBC Reform Act is an action that involves the production or extraction of petroleum within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth), or coal.

Such projects are also incapable of being classified as a national interest proposal, or a priority class of actions for the purpose of bioregional plans.

Several existing assessment pathways, including the environmental impact statement process, will continue to apply to petroleum and coal actions. The preliminary documentation pathway was also retained under the amendments.

Proponents seeking to progress fossil fuel projects should take this into account and monitor the release of draft and final Standards as they become available.

Assessment and approval of “water trigger” actions retained by the Commonwealth

The initial Bill provided for actions that would meet the ‘water trigger’¹ to be assessed and approved by states and territories in accordance with any bilateral agreements as part of the streamlining of approval processes. This approach was opposed by the Greens given their concerns over the cumulative impacts of fossil fuel developments on water resources.

Amendments in the EPBC Reform Act preserve Commonwealth oversight of large coal and unconventional gas projects governed by the ‘water trigger’. Proponents of such projects will therefore need to continue to consider requirements for both state / territory approval and, separately, Commonwealth assessment and approval.

Existing use provisions narrowed for land clearing

The amendments narrow the operation of the existing use provisions that permit the continuance of actions occurring prior to the commencement of the EPBC Act (on 16 July 2000) from the requirement for approval under Part 9. These provisions have historically been relied on for the clearing of agricultural land in areas where there has been regrowth of native vegetation.

The amendments remove the exemption for land clearing where the action involves:

• Clearing native vegetation within 50 metres of a watercourse, wetland or drainage line in the catchment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
• Clearing vegetation on land that has not been cleared at least 15 years prior to the time the action is taken (and the action is not a forestry operation).

These amendments commenced on 2 December 2025. Landowners and proponents of actions that engage in land clearing under existing use rights may need to investigate whether the land remains subject to the exemption under s 43B of the EPBC Act to ensure compliance with the EPBC Act.

Extended lapsing of “not a controlled action” decisions

The initial Bill provided that a decision by the Minister that an action was “not a controlled action” would lapse if the action had not “substantially commenced” within five years from the date of such decision.

The amendments in the EPBC Reform Act require the Minister to notify the person to whom the decision was given six months prior to the decision lapsing and allows the Minister to approve an extension up to ten years after the original decision date.

The requirement that an action is “substantially commenced” to prevent lapsing of a decision is a complex question of fact and law. In Drummoyne Municipal Council v Lebnan (1974) 131 CLR 350, the Court held that the question whether the work or development has been “substantially commenced” depended on whether the work or development had been begun by the performance of some substantial part of it and not on whether the work done formed a large proportion of the whole work to be done, or on whether the whole work was “substantially completed”.

Minister must be satisfied of direct consistency with the Standards

The initial Bill provided that the Minister must not approve an action unless satisfied it is “not inconsistent” with the prescribed Standards. A requirement that an action is “not inconsistent” with a standard has been considered by courts to be more flexible than a requirement for direct consistency.

The amendments adopt the stricter approach, requiring that the Minister is satisfied that the taking of the action, subject to conditions, is “consistent with” the Standards.

Limits on payment of restoration contribution charges

The initial Bill provided that an action with residual significant impacts can be approved if it meets the “net gain test” through two mechanisms - either or both compensation through direct offsets and/or payment of a restoration contribution charge.

The amendments limit the circumstances in which a condition can be imposed on an EPBC Act approval requiring the payment of a restoration contribution charge.

Such a condition is not capable of being imposed where the Minister has made a protection statement that specifies certain impacts to listed threatened species or communities for which a condition requiring payment should not be available.

The kinds of impacts that would not be capable of being the subject of a restoration contribution charge are not described in the EPBC Reform Act. The regulations will prescribe impacts to protected matters which cannot be compensated.

Revised definition of “unacceptable impacts”

The initial Bill introduced a definition of “unacceptable impacts” as part of a threshold test above which actions cannot be approved. If an action would have an “unacceptable impact” on a Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES), the Minister must not approve the action.

The EPBC Reform Act retains the separate criteria for what constitutes an unacceptable impact on a protected matter but fine-tunes aspects of the definition:

• Removing references to actions that are “likely” to have an unacceptable impact so that now the test is whether the action has an unacceptable impact.
• Clarifying that “seriously impairs” constitutes “an impairment or alteration of the thing that is of a severe nature and extent”.
• Clarifying that “serious damage” means “the damage is of a severe nature and extent”.

The complex definition of “unacceptable impacts” remains and proponents will need to navigate the various limbs and definitions relevant to their proposal when considering the viability of projects and preparing referral and assessment materials.

National Environmental Protection Agency stop work powers

NEPA will have the ability to issue Environmental Protection Orders (EPOs) in urgent circumstances. These can include “stop work” orders to immediately halt activities causing or threatening to cause serious environmental harm.

The amendments introduce a time limit of 14 days before an EPO expires unless extended for up to another 14 days, meaning that an EPO cannot operate beyond 28 days.

While the Chief Executive Officer of NEPA will not need to observe any requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in issuing an EPO, NEPA must provide the recipient of an EPO with the information, evidence and reasons supporting the belief that led to the EPO and the recipient will be given an opportunity to respond.

Transitional provisions and commencement

The EPBC Reform Act and associated legislation received Royal Assent on 1 December 2025.

The bulk of the substantive reforms are scheduled to commence by Proclamation or, in their absence, automatically 12 months after Royal Assent. Importantly and as mentioned above, the amendment of the land clearing exemption already commenced on 2 December 2025.

The NEPA and associated enforcement powers, and Environment Information Australia (EIA), provisions will begin on 1 July 2026.

The transitional provisions in the reform legislation are complex and will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Further reforms in the pipeline

The passing of the EPBC Reform Act and related legislation will be followed by the development and finalisation of the full suite of Standards and associated regulations. These are anticipated to be released in draft form soon.