Queensland environmental reform continues
What you need to know
- Another round of proposed amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) were introduced into Queensland Parliament in November 2025. This follows ongoing reforms to the Act during 2023 and 2024.
- The latest round of proposed amendments largely reflect changes flagged during consultation in early 2025, though some proposals have since been abandoned.
- Key amendments include the introduction of "ERA codes" as an alternative to environmental authorities for low-risk activities, increased time limitations for prosecuting summary offences, and amendments to the transitional PRCP provisions.
- The Health, Environment and Innovation Committee has recommended that the Bill be passed, and it is likely to receive Assent sometime in the first half of 2026.
Reform of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EP Act) continued in 2025, with the Environmental Protection (Efficiency and Streamlining) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (Bill) introduced into Queensland Parliament on 20 November 2025.
The Bill proposes amendments to a range of environmental legislation in Queensland, including the EP Act. According to the explanatory notes, the Bill's primary policy objective "is to improve administrative efficiency and ensure the regulatory frameworks within Queensland's environmental legislation remain contemporary, effective and responsive".
The Bill's introduction followed targeted government review and consultation during 2025, including the consultation paper Realising efficiencies and streamlining in the Environmental Protection Act 1994 and other portfolio amendments (Consultation Paper), and the consultation report Consultation outcomes for proposed amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1994 and other portfolio legislation (Consultation Report).
We wrote about these reforms in our 25 February 2025 alert, "A big year for Queensland environmental law reform but Federal EPBC Act reforms stall", and our 18 December 2023 alert, "Potentially significant changes to Queensland environmental legislation released for public consultation".
In this article, we discuss some of the key proposed amendments, as well as key proposals that were abandoned following consultation.
Key proposed amendments to the EP Act
ERA codes as an alternative to environmental authorities
Currently, an environmental authority (EA) is required to carry out an "environmentally relevant activity" (ERA).
The Bill proposes the introduction of new "ERA codes" for certain ERAs that have well known environmental risks, and where practices to avoid the risks are "well established, understood by industry and able to be routinely implemented". Under the amendments, an EA would not be required for these ERAs, with proponents instead registering and operating under an ERA code.
The Consultation Paper estimated that more than 30% of EAs may be suitable for conversion to the proposed mandatory code regime.
In response to consultation feedback, the Bill proposes an "opt-in" or "hybrid" approach that would:
- allow existing operators to elect to remain subject to an existing EA rather than transition to a new ERA code; and
- give operators the option to apply for a site-specific EA where they cannot comply with a new ERA code.
While proposed ERA codes are yet to be developed, the Consultation Paper suggested that small-scale mining activities may be transitioned first, with ERAs currently subject to an ERA standard to follow.
Increased time limitations for prosecuting summary offences
The Bill also proposes to extend the timeframe within which the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation can commence a prosecution under the EP Act.
Most environmental prosecutions under the EP Act proceed "summarily", in the Magistrates Court. Current provisions require such proceedings to commence:
- within one year after the commission of the offence; or
- within one year after the offence comes to the complainant's knowledge, but within two years after the commission of the offence.
Under the proposed amendments:
- the timeframe for commencing proceedings would be extended to three years for key offences under the Act (including contravening an EA condition, and unlawfully causing serious or material environmental harm), and two years for other offences; and
- the timeframe linked to when the offence "comes to the complainant's knowledge" would be removed.
Where an incident or non-compliance has occurred, this has the potential to add a year (or more) of uncertainty regarding potential proceedings. However, it is still an improvement on the original proposal, which suggested a five-year period to commence summary proceedings.
Amendments to progressive rehabilitation and closure plan (PRCP) provisions
The Bill also contains a number of proposed amendments to EP Act provisions relating to PRCP assessment and approval processes.
Removal of public interest evaluation process
First, the Bill would remove the requirement for a "public interest evaluation" for proposed PRCPs.
According to the Consultation Report, "the administrative process for public interest evaluations does not deliver", with the process considered "effectively redundant". However, factors that are currently relevant to a public interest evaluation will remain in the Act, as "public interest considerations" relevant to non-use management areas in a proposed PRCP schedule.
Historical context to be relevant for non-use management areas
The EP Act currently requires a proposed PRCP to, among other things, state the proposed methodology for achieving best practice management of each proposed non-use management area. This can present a potential challenge when, for example, outcomes for non-use management areas are transitioned from existing land outcome documents.
Amendments proposed in the Bill will expressly permit the Department to consider historical context and constraints, and the extent to which it is practicable to apply current standards, when assessing a transitional PRCP. The Consultation Report states that "the intent is to ensure that approvals that existed prior to the introduction of the PRCP framework are not fettered, and a PRCP schedule to progressively rehabilitate can consider best practice management in the context of historical considerations".
Amendment of the section 431A offence provision
Currently, the holder of an EA for a site-specific mining activity must not carry out, or allow the carrying out of, activities under the EA – including rehabilitation and environmental management works – unless there is an approved PRCP schedule for the EA.
The Consultation Report states that the Bill proposes to replace section 431A, to ensure that "operators who have fallen out of the PRCP framework are not prevented from conducting activities such as rehabilitation and maintenance". The new section 431A will require the holder of an EA for site-specific mining activities to also hold a PRCP schedule, with a penalty for contravention of that requirement.
While it is true that this amendment will remove the express prohibition on carrying out mining activities – including rehabilitation – without an approved PRCP schedule, the potential exposure for operators that have fallen out of the PRCP framework remains. Further, while under the current version of section 431A an operator could avoid committing an offence by discontinuing its activities, the proposed amendments will create a contravention where a PRCP schedule is not in place, whether mining activities continue or not.
In this context, it is not clear how the amendment achieves its aim of ensuring such operators "are not prevented" from conducting rehabilitation.
Clarifications regarding lapsed and refused PRCP applications
For operators still working their way through the transitional PRCP process, the proposed amendments also provide some welcome clarifications. Under the proposed amendments:
- if an application for approval of a PRCP schedule is refused or lapses, the EA holder can resubmit the PRCP for assessment by the Department (and a PRCP can be resubmitted more than once);
- the section 431A offence will not apply while a resubmitted application is being assessed, or for 60 business days after the assessment ends without the PRCP schedule being approved; and
- section 431A will not apply for 60 business days after commencement, allowing a period for resubmission before the offence provision applies.
This provides some additional certainty that refusal of a PRCP schedule application will not immediately expose EA holders to a section 431A offence.
Abandoned proposals
Several proposals outlined in the Consultation Paper were abandoned, including:
- Mandatory general administrative provisions - general administrative conditions that would be applied across all environmental authorities. This proposal received limited support, with most stakeholders indicating the proposal would not improve administrative efficiency.
- Codifying best practice environmental management principles - a mechanism allowing the chief executive to make codes of practice specifying what constitutes 'best practice environmental management' for specific activities or types of activities. It was envisaged that this would be used to guide the government's environmental assessments, providing greater certainty for businesses on the likely requirements to gain an EA.
The proposal did not receive broad support. Stakeholders did not consider that it would increase outcome certainty, and several submitted that codification could pose significant challenges as the principles of 'best practice' evolved with contemporary standards. Instead, the Consultation Report indicated that the government would consider administrative mechanisms, such as the development of additional guidance material, to provide further clarity.
What's next?
The Health, Environment and Innovation Committee tabled its report on 30 January 2026, recommending that the Bill be passed. It concluded that the measures proposed in the Bill are proportionate and sensible and reduce regulatory burden while still providing appropriate safeguards for the environment.
Accordingly, we expect that the Bill will soon receive Assent.
Other author: Brigid Horneman-Wren, Lawyer.
