Understanding the EPBC Act reforms: A practical guide

Executive summary

Australia’s long-awaited overhaul of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) took a major step forward yesterday, with the introduction of a package of reform bills to Parliament.

The Australian Government tabled the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 (Cth), along with a suite of additional bills (collectively, the EPBC Act Reforms), representing the most ambitious reform of federal environmental law in a quarter of a century.

The key features of the reforms fall under the following themes:

• National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA): establishes an independent regulator with the power to enforce compliance, require audits and issue environmental protection orders. It is likely that NEPA will assess and approve proposals under delegation, with the Minister for the Environment and Water (Minister) retaining final approval powers.
• National Environmental Standards (Standards): introduces legally binding, measurable Standards for matters of national environmental significance (MNES), regional planning, restoration actions and contributions, community engagement and consultation, and First Nations engagement.
• Streamlined environmental impact assessment: introduces a new streamlined assessment process to replace three of the current pathways. Actions with ‘unacceptable impacts’ on protected matters will not be approved. The Minister will have the power to approve ‘national interest proposals’ (such as social housing and renewable energy projects) which do not have to strictly comply with the Standards, may have unacceptable impacts and may not be required to deliver a net gain for nature. The Bill also retains and expands the national interest exemption.
• Offsets and restoration contributions: completely revamps the offset framework. Proponents will have to deliver a ‘net gain’ for nature via traditional land-based offsets or payments to a new Restoration Contributions Special Account, which will be managed by an independent Restoration Contributions Holder for restoration actions.
• Regional (bioregional) planning: introduces bioregional plans to map areas for development and protection, and seeks to streamline approvals for compliant projects. Certain restricted actions will be prohibited in high-value areas (called ‘conservation zones’). Priority actions will be permitted without assessment and approval in ‘development zones’ and offset delivery will be coordinated. Pilots are already underway in some states.
• Environment Information Australia (EIA): establishes the EIA as an independent body responsible for producing State of the Environment reports every two years. It will also provide the Minister, NEPA, and the public with access to high quality environmental information and data, while maintaining environmental economic accounts and a public register of national environmental information assets.
• Working with First Nations partners: embeds First Nations involvement in assessment and planning processes, and in the development of Standards and bioregional plans. Additional details will follow in regulations and policy.

Despite extensive debate, there is no new ‘climate trigger’. Proponents will be required to disclose emissions and mitigation measures, but greenhouse gas considerations are simply informational.

The EPBC Act Reforms seek to reduce duplication and increase certainty for proponents. Proponents that adapt early - by designing projects in accordance with the Standards, engaging with First Nations partners from the outset, and planning for direct offsets or restoration contributions - are likely to navigate this transition more effectively. Transitional provisions will apply to projects already subject to assessment, so understanding how they operate will be critical.

What’s driving the reform

The case for environmental law reform is not new. The Samuel Review¹  concluded that the existing federal framework is not fit for purpose. It was criticised as being too complex, slow, and ineffective in protecting biodiversity. The Government’s ‘Nature Positive Plan’, released in December 2022, responded to these findings by committing to a suite of reforms.²

The current reform package represents a second attempt to legislate these commitments after earlier proposals stalled in 2024.

You can find more details about the background of these reforms in our previous article here.

Currently, the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee is expected to report back on its inquiry by 24 March 2026, with submissions closing on 5 December 2025.

Deep-dive analysis of the key elements of the reforms

National Environmental Protection Agency

The NEPA Bill proposes to establish a new independent statutory entity, the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA), with broad ranging powers and functions, including the power to:

• Issue Environment Protection Orders (EPO), requiring (for example) work to cease;
• Require a broader range of people to carry out a directed environmental audit; and
• Require a new form of audit called a compliance audit.

Background

The Samuel Review included several recommendations related to the compliance and enforcement regime under the EPBC Act. While the Samuel Review did not recommend the establishment of the NEPA, it did recommend consolidating compliance and enforcement powers, and emphasised that the current regime is ineffective for several reasons:

• Powers for enforcement and compliance are restrictive and outdated and can only be applied in a piecemeal fashion;
• ‘Serious enforcement action’ is rarely used;
• Increased surveillance and monitoring of compliance with the EPBC Act is required; and
• Penalties are not commensurate to the offences.

At a high level, the reforms respond to the recommendations in the Samuel Review.

NEPA’s functions and powers

NEPA will administer Australia’s national environmental laws that implement Australia’s international commitments and obligations, including the EPBC Act, and laws that regulate sea dumping,³ hazardous waste,⁴ ozone protection and synthetic greenhouse gas management,⁵ product emissions,⁶ recycling and waste reduction,⁷ and underwater cultural heritage.⁸

It will have significant compliance and enforcement powers (more below).

What’s new?

The core function of NEPA will be to act as independent regulator with administration and enforcement powers and functions.

Under the current EPBC Act, the Minister has the power to apply to the Federal Court for an injunction or remediation order. However, often this does not provide the Minister with adequate powers to prevent imminent or serious damage to MNES.

The reforms will empower the CEO of NEPA to issue Environment Protection Orders which may require work to cease - either in writing or in urgent circumstances, verbally. This power may be exercised if there is a likely or actual contravention of the EPBC Act which poses an imminent risk of serious damage to the environment. Notably, the CEO is not required to observe any requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in issuing an Environment Protection Order.

As part of its compliance function, the CEO:

• Will have powers to require a broader range of people⁹ to carry out a directed environmental audit, extending beyond the holder of an approval, to persons who are subject to an EPO, a conservation order, a remediation determination, or a remediation order; and
• Can require a new form of audit called a compliance audit, to monitor compliance with matters such as approval conditions, EPO requirements or the scope of an exemption.

These audits must be carried out by an authorised officer (that is, a warden or inspector) or registered auditor. NEPA will establish a register of third party auditors for the purposes of the Act. Regulations will determine such matters as the form and content of the register, how it is published and the requirements auditors must meet in order to maintain registration.

The CEO will also have the power to:

• Issue various permits including trading of, keeping or moving listed marine species of wildlife, (noting that the CEO must take the precautionary principle into account in making certain decisions;
• Request information relating to the performance of the CEO’s functions from any person or body;
• Disclose information to various Commonwealth entities, State or Territory bodies for the purposes of law enforcement, to assist the Head of Environment Information Australia or if the CEO reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious risk to the environment or human health;
• Monitor and audit the operation of:
  • Declarations made by the Minister:
    • That a specified class of actions do not require approval because they are approved under an accredited management or authorisation framework;¹⁰
    • Accrediting a management arrangement or authorisation (i.e. ensuring the Minister does not give preference to one State over another in accreditation);
  • Bilateral agreements; and
  • Bioregional plans
• Make recommendations to the Minister to improve regulation.

Increase in penalties

The reforms significantly increase the maximum penalties that can be imposed under the EPBC Act. The reforms propose to introduce a new formula for determining penalties which take into account the benefit derived by the non-compliance and ensure that non-compliance is not perceived as merely the ‘cost of doing business’. While the penalty units for the offences remain consistent with current penalties, the ability to seek fines as a proportion of turnover could result in a penalty of up to $825,000,000.

We set out a comparison of the current maximum civil penalties that can be imposed under the EPBC Act and the maximum penalties under the EPBC Act reforms (including for breaching a condition of an approval issued under the EPBC Act and a range of other offences):

National environmental standards

Consistent with a central recommendation in the Samuel Review, the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 (Cth) (the Bill) introduces a power for the Minister to make, vary and revoke National Environmental Standards (Standards) by legislative instrument.

The Standards are therefore not included in the Bill, but Minister Watt has indicated that draft Standards relating to at least offsets and MNES will be published imminently.

A Standard must prescribe outcomes or objectives, and may also prescribe parameters, principles, processes or actions for achieving the outcomes or objectives. The Minister has a broad discretion to make a Standard, subject to following a prescribed procedure (including public consultation), and being satisfied that the Standard promotes the objects of the EPBC Act and is not inconsistent with relevant international agreements. In revoking or varying a Standard, the Minister must comply with a ‘no regression’ principle by ensuring that environmental protections are not reduced.

The Bill provides for the mandatory use of the Standard in a number of decision-making processes, although regulations (which are not yet available) will prescribe which Standards are to be applied in each case. For example, the following actions by the Minister under the EPBC Act must not be inconsistent with a relevant Standard (to be prescribed by regulation):

• A decision to approve the taking of an action;
• A decision to revoke, vary or add to a condition of an approval;
• A decision to extend an approval period;
• A decision to enter into a bilateral agreement, or to accredit a State or Territory management or authorisation framework; and
• A decision to make a bioregional plan or protection statement.

Additionally, the Bill will also give the Minister power to make rulings on how the law, regulations or subordinate instruments (including the Standards) should be applied in particular circumstances. The Minister, the CEO of NEPA and other delegated decision makers must act consistently with any such ruling. How, and how often, this power is intended to be used by the Minister is yet unknown.

The existing list of MNES has not been amended, with the new Standards mainly shaping how those existing matters are assessed and protected.

Even where a Standard is not required to be applied in making a decision under the EPBC Act, a decision maker can still choose to have regard to it in making a decision if they consider it to be relevant to the decision.

Transitional arrangements

The Minister’s power to make Standards will commence on the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The provisions that provide for the Standards to be applied in decision-making processes will commence on the earlier of a day (or days) fixed by Proclamation, or 12 months after the provisions receive Royal Assent.

The Standards will be relevant to all projects which trigger the need for assessment under the EPBC Act. As enabling legislation, the Bill leaves much of the detail to the subordinate regulations and the Standards themselves.

New streamlined assessment process and a focus on assessment and approval bilateral agreements

The Bill proposes several changes to the assessment framework for controlled actions, which are intended to streamline assessments and achieve a quicker turnaround on approvals.

Mechanisms to streamline the assessment framework include:

• Repealing existing Division 3A (assessment on referral information), Division 4 (assessment on preliminary documentation) and Division 5 (assessment by public environment report) of Part 8 of the EPBC Act and replacing them with a new Division 5A, which would contain a new streamlined assessment pathway; and
• Clarifying that if approval of the taking of an action is dealt with in another way (such as under a bilateral agreement or in a bioregional plan), the action cannot generally be referred for assessment.

One key change relates to Ministerial decisions that a referred proposal is not a controlled action (including decisions that it is not a controlled action if undertaken in a particular manner). Such decisions will cease to have effect after five years if the action is not substantially commenced.

Significant changes have been made to the bilateral agreement framework and the reconsideration framework. We will provide more detailed updates on these critical processes in the near future.

Unacceptable impacts

For each protected matter, the Bill sets out a range of unacceptable impacts. An approval cannot be granted for a proposal which will have an unacceptable impact.

National interest proposals

The Minister will, however, have a specific discretionary power to approve the taking of an action that would be inconsistent with a Standard, results in unacceptable impacts, or does not deliver a net gain for nature, in circumstances where:

• The proposed action is a ‘national interest proposal’; and
• The Minister is satisfied that, if the approval of the taking of the action is inconsistent with one or more of the Standards, the inconsistencies are reasonably necessary for the taking of the action to result in the intended outcome for national interest.

The Bill provides a process for a proponent to apply to the Minister for a determination that the taking of an action is a ‘national interest proposal’. The information that is required to be included in any such application will be included in subsequent regulations. In considering the proposal, the Minister will consider the intended outcome of the proposal and whether that outcome is in Australia’s national interest. This may include considerations of Australia’s defence, security, strategic interests or international obligations.

National interest exemption

The Bill provides for an expanded national interest exemption, which would be subject to conditions and limited to a specific timeframe. When deciding whether to grant a national interest exemption, the Minister may consider Australia’s defence, security or a national emergency (but may consider other matters). The exemption was recommended in the Samuel Review as something to be granted in only extraordinary and rare circumstances. However, the provisions in the Bill do not constrain the Minister’s power or discretion. Any decision to grant a national interest exemption must be supported by a statement of reasons.

No climate trigger – but emissions reporting mandatory

Despite extensive debate, there is no new ‘climate trigger’. Proponents will be required to disclose emissions and mitigation measures, but greenhouse gas considerations are simply informational. We foreshadowed this in our previous article (which you can find here), which reflects the Government’s intention to continue addressing climate policy through the Safeguard Mechanism.

Transitional arrangements

If the Bill passes, the provisions will commence by proclamation, or within 12 months of Royal Assent (whichever is earlier). Different transitional arrangements will apply to different projects:

• Projects with a referral decision but no final decision will continue to be assessed under the current provisions of the EPBC Act (including projects assessed under existing bilateral arrangements);
• Projects with no referral decision at the time the provisions commence will generally be subject to the amended legislation; and
• Amendments to the bilateral agreement framework will generally apply to agreements entered into or varied on or after the date of commencement.

The new assessment and approval requirements will not apply to projects currently under assessment which have received a referral decision but are yet to be finally determined.

These amendments will have a significant impact in project design and assessment timelines, particularly for major infrastructure, renewable energy, critical mineral, and housing projects.

Offsets and restoration contributions

The Samuel Review criticised the EPBC Act environmental offsets policy, finding that it was “ineffective at compensating for loss and inconsistently implemented”.¹²

Currently, environmental offsets may be required as a condition of EPBC Act approval to ensure that a project does not result in a net loss to protected matters.

Offsets, ‘net gain’ and mitigation hierarchy enshrined

The EPBC Act Reforms propose to enshrine environmental offsets in the EPBC Act, consistent with a new “avoid, mitigate, repair, offset” hierarchy (the ‘mitigation hierarchy’) and net gain requirement,

When might offsets be required?

Under the EPBC Act Reforms, offsets may be required if an approval to undertake a controlled action is issued and there is a “residual significant impact” on protected matters (i.e. where they will not be avoided, mitigated or repaired).

Where an action will have a residual significant impact on a protected matter, the Minister can impose conditions on the approval, requiring the project proponent to:¹³

• Compensate or offset the impact; and/or
• Pay a restoration contribution charge.

In making such a decision, the Minister must consider whether the project proponent has taken appropriate measures to avoid, mitigate or repair the relevant impact or damage to protected matters.

Offsets for residual significant impacts must also pass the ‘net gain test’ under the Bill,¹⁴ without which the taking of an action cannot be approved by the Minister.¹⁵ The net gain test is met if the approval includes a condition requiring the holder to compensate for damage and / or pay a restoration contribution charge, and requirements prescribed in the regulations are met. It is possible for the Minister to approval a national interest proposal even where the net gain test is not satisfied.

Payment as alternative to securing direct offsets (restoration contribution charge)

The Minister cannot impose a condition on an approval requiring the payment of a restoration contribution charge unless the proponent consents to the condition.

The amount of the restoration contribution charge will be calculated using a methodology to be prescribed in further regulations. This will factor in the complex range of costs that would be required to deliver restoration actions, including monitoring, management and other administrative costs.

The restoration contribution charge will be paid into the new Restoration Contributions Special Account. A new independent office of the Restoration Contributions Holder will be created to deliver on restoration actions strategically directed at offsetting aggregated impacts from projects which have been approved subject to conditions requiring a ‘net gain’.

It is understood that a Standard for offsets will be released shortly, which will contain the requirements for delivery of offsets.

Nature Repair Market certificates’ use for offsetting purpose

The Bill will modify the current prohibition under the Nature Repair Act 2023 (Cth) on using biodiversity certificates issued under that Act for an environmental offsetting purposes.¹⁶

Certificates will be able to be used to offset impacts if:

• The methodology determination for the registered biodiversity project specifies that a biodiversity certificate for the project may be used for an environmental offsetting purpose; and
• Any requirements under the Nature Repair Market are met.

When offsets cannot be used

As an approval cannot generally be granted for a proposal which will have an unacceptable impact, offsets cannot be used to compensate for unacceptable impacts on protected matters.

Potential impacts

Creating a government procurer of offsets (that is, the Restoration Contributions Holder) will provide flexibility to achieve larger, landscape-scale conservation and restoration actions funded by project proponents. This may also create potential revenue streams for landowners within conservation zones.

The ability for biodiversity certificates to be used for environmental offsetting purposes brings an opportunity to increase the demand for biodiversity certificates under the Nature Repair Market.

Regional planning

The EPBC Act currently includes two mechanisms for approving actions at a landscape scale, thereby facilitating the consideration of cumulative impacts. These are bioregional plans and secondly, endorsement of a policy, plan or program following a strategic assessment. Actions undertaken in accordance with a bioregional plan or an endorsed policy, plan or program do not require separate approval under Part 9 of the EPBC Act.

The Samuel Review concluded that both bioregional plans and strategic assessments have a history of limited use. The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 (Cth) seeks to address recommendations of the Samuel Review in relation to bioregional plans and strategic assessments. The Bill does not propose to make wholesale changes to strategic assessment so we have focused on the bioregional planning framework below.

Bioregional plans

The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 (Cth) repeals most, if not all, of the existing provisions pertaining to bioregional plans and starts afresh. Under the new regime, a bioregional plan will apply to a specified region, and will identify:

• Development zones, and the class of action (or classes of actions) that can be undertaken in each development zone (referred to as a ‘priority action’); 
• Conservation zones, and the class of action (or classes of actions) that are prohibited in each conservation zone (referred to as a ‘restricted action’); and
• Bioregional restoration measures (i.e. measures required to mitigate, repair or compensate for likely damage to nationally protected matters, such as the payment of a bioregional plan restoration contribution).

A proponent will be able to undertake priority actions in development zones without requiring further approvals under the EPBC Act, if they have registered the priority action and comply with the relevant conditions contained in the bioregional plan. Restricted actions will not be able to be undertaken in a conservation zone, unless the proponent has obtained an exemption.

The boundaries of development zones and conservation zones will be determined having regard to certain specified matters such as the location and habitat of any listed threatened species, ecological communities or migratory species.

A proponent will (generally) not be able to refer an action for assessment and approval under other relevant provisions of the EPBC Act if the action is addressed under a bioregional plan.

Before making a bioregional plan, the Minister must be satisfied that impacted nationally protected matters will be compensated to a net gain. Bioregional plans will be initiated and developed in collaboration with States and Territories, and they cannot be made by the Minister without the relevant State or Territory’s agreement.

Implications

The new bioregional plans will allow proponents to identify both ‘go’ and ‘no-go’ zones for development, providing greater certainty in relation to project approvals and reducing assessment timelines in ‘go’ zones.

It is understood that a number of bioregional plans are already in the pipeline, including plans relating to renewable energy projects (Victoria and Queensland), critical mineral projects (Victoria and Queensland), and urban development (South East Queensland and New South Wales).

While increased certainty is good for proponents, it is also anticipated that an uptake in the use of strategic assessments and bioregional plans will result in better environmental outcomes, by shifting the focus from impacts at a project level to a landscape scale, thereby better accounting for and addressing cumulative impacts.

However, the determination of ‘no go zones’ will need to be carefully managed to ensure they do not adversely affect property values.

Environment Information Australia

A separate Environment Information Australia Bill 2025 (Cth) (EIA Bill) has been reintroduced, remaining largely consistent with the 2024 version (discussed here), with the exception that the definition of ‘nature positive’ and associated monitoring and reporting frameworks have been removed. The EIA Bill establishes a new statutory framework for the provision, management and reporting of environmental information and data at the national level.

The EIA Bill creates the independent position of Head of Environment Information Australia (Head), located within the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) but operating independently of direction by the Secretary or Minister. The Head is responsible for:

• Providing the Minister and the CEO of NEPA with high quality environmental information and data relevant to their statutory functions;
• Providing the community with access to high quality information and data relating to the environment;
• Preparing and publishing biennial State of the Environment reports by 15 December, drawing on scientific and First Nations knowledge;
• Developing environmental economic accounts in collaboration with the Australian Bureau of Statistics, to statistically describe the condition of the environment and its relationship with the economy, which will be tabled in Parliament; and
• Declaring and maintaining a register of national environmental information assets.

Within six months of each State of the Environment report, the Minister will be required to table a response in Parliament, specifying the environmental targets to be achieved and the period to achieve them. These are the national environmental goals.

The Explanatory Memorandum states:

These responsibilities would require the Government to regularly consider its environmental policy settings and targets and respond with actions to protect the environment.¹⁷

The provision of a public environment data portal is also anticipated.¹⁸

Entrusted persons will be able to use or disclose certain information in accordance with the EIA Bill, with civil penalties for unauthorised use or disclosure of protected information. An entrusted person is defined narrowly and includes the Head, public servants in DCCEEW and prescribed persons performing functions or exercising powers under the EIA Bill.

The EIA Act will commence concurrently with the National Environmental Protection Agency Act, and will be subject to five-yearly independent reviews. Further detail will be provided in ministerial rules and the anticipated Standard for environmental data, once available.

Working with First Nations partners

The Samuel Review identified shortcomings in the EPBC Act for failing to fulfil its objectives regarding the role of Indigenous Australians in protecting and conserving biodiversity, working in partnership with them and promoting the respectful use of their knowledge.¹⁹  The EPBC Act does not require explicit consideration of First Nations’ values and knowledge when making environmental and heritage management decisions.

Consultation and engagement

The EPBC Act Reforms seek to improve and enshrine consultation and engagement requirements with First Nations peoples.

Under the reforms, the Minister must invite the Indigenous Advisory Committee to provide comments before making, varying or revoking a Standard that relates to engagement with Indigenous Australians. The proposed ‘no regression principle’ will require the Minister to be satisfied that appropriate consultation or engagement with Indigenous persons will not be reduced, before varying or revoking a Standard.

The Government has indicated that a separate Standard for First Nations consultation will be released in due course. We are unaware of any consultations on the Standard to date.

The EPBC Act Reforms propose to also expand the role of the Indigenous Advisory Committee to providing input on a range of matters, including the environment, policies, plans or programs developed under the EPBC Act, and responding to requests for advice from DCCEEW or NEPA.

Heritage protections

Anticipated concurrent reforms to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) have not yet been tabled, and there is no indication from the Government about whether we are likely to see a draft package of amendments to this Act.

The Government has not sought to establish an Indigenous Engagement and Participation Committee and has instead maintained the existing Indigenous Advisory Committee, a strictly advisory body that is unable to make binding requirements on matters relevant to First Nations peoples.

Next steps and how to have your say

The EPBC Act Reform bills have now been introduced to Parliament, and the reform process has entered its next phase. The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee is tasked with examining the legislation and yesterday confirmed that the inquiry, which was initially expected to conclude within a month, will instead report in five months.²⁰

While the Government originally signalled an intention to expedite passage of the legislation before the end of 2025, this timeline has since been revised.

The extension provides stakeholders with a longer window in which to engage with the detail of the reforms, and make submissions before the deadline on 5 December 2025.

Please contact us if you would like more information about the reforms, assistance with planning for future projects, or support in preparing submissions for the Senate Committee.

We will be hosting a series of sector-focused roundtables and webinars exploring the reforms. You can subscribe for future updates here.

Glossary

DCCEEW means the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.

EPBC Act means the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).

EPBC Act Reforms means the following bills as first read in the Parliament of Australia on 30 October 2025:

• Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025
• National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025
• Environment Information Australia Bill 2025
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025

Minister means the Minister for the Environment and Water.

MNES means the Matters of National Environmental Significance.

NEPA means the proposed National Environmental Protection Agency.

Senate Committee means the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.

Standards means the National Environment Standards.