Ten things you should know about Australia's proposed new environmental laws

What you need to know

• On 30 October 2025, the Federal Government introduced seven bills to implement its long-awaited reform of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).
• If passed, these reforms will comprise the most significant change to Australia's environmental approvals process in over 20 years. They will particularly impact major project approvals, environmental compliance for existing projects, management of environmental incidents and engagement with stakeholders (including First Nations groups). They will also change the way that environmental decision-making occurs at both a State and Federal level.
• The Government is keen to see the Reform Bills passed as soon as possible but will need either the Coalition or Greens for support to achieve this. Meanwhile, the Reform Bills have been referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for a report by 24 March 2026.

What you need to do

• Proponents should carefully monitor the progress of the reforms and particularly whether the Government looks to the Coalition or the Greens for support.
• We will provide more detailed updates about the reforms in the coming weeks.

Federal Government introduces new national environmental protection laws

On 30 October 2025, the Federal Government introduced seven bills to implement its long-awaited reform of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. They are:

• Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025;
• National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025;
• Environment Information Australia Bill 2025; and
• four Bills relating to customs, excise and charges (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025), together the "Reform Bills".

The Reform Bills are designed to implement the core recommendations of Professor Graeme Samuel AC's Independent Review of the EPBC Act – Final Report (Samuel Report). The Government says that they comprise three key pillars:

• stronger environmental protection and restoration;
• more efficient and robust project assessments and approvals; and
• greater accountability and transparency in decision-making.

This is the first in our series of alerts about the reforms and contains a high-level overview of the key issues.

Ten things you should know about the Reform Bills

1. New National EPA (NEPA) 

As anticipated, the Reform Bills create a new National Environment Protection Agency (NEPA). The NEPA's role will be twofold:

• Independent regulatory, compliance and enforcement functions: including powers to investigate breaches of the legislation, issue environment protection orders and impose fines for environmental offenders (see heading 4 below). This will eventually include functions under a range of Commonwealth legislation.
• Advisory and delegated functions (like that currently played by the Department): to advise the Minister on assessments and approval applications and accreditation processes and to exercise delegated authority to undertake environmental assessments and decide project approvals and conditions.

Some stakeholders have raised concerns about transparency and accountability for an independent NEPA. The Minister will issue a statement of expectations for the CEO of the NEPA. The NEPA will have an online public register of its decisions and other governance mechanisms like annual reports and a five-yearly independent review. The appointment of the CEO of the NEPA will be an independent statutory appointment for a fixed term.

The Reform Bills also create an office called Environment Information Australia to improve the availability and accessibility of high-quality environmental information and data and to provide regular, comprehensive and transparent reporting.

2. Minister keeps final say on major projects

The Reform Bills ensure that the Federal Minister for the Environment retains decision-making power for major project approvals. This was a key issue for the Coalition, WA State Government and many industry bodies. The Minister will have power to delegate certain assessment decisions to the NEPA.

Further, the Government has adopted the Samuel Report recommendation that the Minister have power to approve major projects that do not otherwise meet the new national environmental standards where it is deemed in the national interest to do so (and with a clearly articulated statement of reasons).

The Minister may also allow the continuation of an existing development that was determined to be a controlled action under a reconsideration decision, while EPBC Act assessment occurs (subject to conditions to limit the environmental impacts of the development).

3. New "unacceptable impact" definition

The EPBC Act already includes a power for the Minister to decide that a proposed action would have unacceptable impacts on a protected matter, with the effect that the proposal no longer proceeds through the assessment phase and cannot be approved. The purpose of this power is to allow actions that are clearly unacceptable to be refused upfront, without having to go through a full assessment process.

However, the term "unacceptable impact" is currently undefined. The Reform Bills introduce a full definition of "unacceptable impact" for each protected matter under the EPBC Act that will apply to the exercise of the Minister's existing power to reject a proposal without assessment.

The definition varies for each protected matter. Generally, the impact must cause some "serious" or "irreversible" loss, damage or impairment to an aspect of the protected matter to be deemed unacceptable. For example, for listed threatened species, ecological communities and migratory species, an unacceptable impact is generally a significant impact that either:

• seriously impairs or is likely to impair the viability of the particular species or community; or
• causes or is likely to cause serious damage to the critical habitat of the listed species or community where the habitat is irreplaceable and necessary for the listed species or community to remain viable in the wild.

The "unacceptable impact" criteria is also relevant to approval decisions and accreditation of State/Territory processes. Under the Reform Bills, the Minister cannot approve the taking of an action (other than a national interest proposal) unless the Minister is satisfied that it will not have, or be likely to have, an unacceptable impact on a protected matter. Further, the Minister may not accredit alternative processes, including State/Territory processes under a bilateral agreement, unless satisfied that actions which are approved under these processes will not have, or be likely to have, unacceptable impacts on protected matters.

However, there are still a lot of unknowns in relation to definitions of "unacceptable impacts" which could lead to uncertainty and potential challenges. The definition will need to be carefully worked through.

4. New Enforcement Powers

Enhancing compliance and enforcement has long been touted by the Government as a key objective of the reforms.

Environment Protection Orders

The Bills introduce a new power for the CEO of the NEPA to issue an "environment protection order" to address, prevent, treat and mitigate imminent significant environmental risks and harm in urgent circumstances. The power to issue an Environment Protection Order is enlivened if the NEPA CEO reasonably believes that:

• a person has engaged, is engaging or is likely to engage in conduct consisting of an action/omission that constitutes a breach of the EPBC Act or Regulations, one or more conditions of an environment authority or environmental exemption; and
• the contravention or likely contravention is causing, or poses an imminent risk of, serious damage to a protected matter ; and
• it is necessary to issue the order to ensure the person's future compliance with the EPBC Act or Regulations or the conditions of the authority or exemption, and/or prevent or mitigate the damage caused, or eliminate/reduce the risk of damage posed by the contravention or likely contravention.

The order may impose any requirements on the person that the NEPA CEO reasonably believes are necessary, including requiring the person to stop work, not start specified activities, take specified action, change the manner of carrying on activities or otherwise restrict the manner in which the person carries on the activities.

The environment protection order may be issued by notice in writing or, in urgent circumstances, by notice given orally. The order remains in force until it is revoked (unless the order contains a time period).

There will be a range of both fault based and strict liability offences relating to breach of environment protection orders.

This reflects comparable powers under State and Territory legislation, for example the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld). The Commonwealth also has similar powers in other contexts, such as the power to make an emergency declaration to prevent imminent harm under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth).

Stakeholders have raised concerns about how the CEO of the NEPA is held to account and the rights of affected parties to appeal/seek review of decisions. The CEO of the NEPA would not be required to observe any requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in issuing environment protection orders and there will be no merits review available for those decisions. However, a decision to grant or vary such an order may be subject to judicial review in the Federal Court to determine if it was made lawfully.

Higher penalties

As anticipated, the Bills also include significant new penalties.

The most significant proposed change relates to civil penalties. The Reform Bills propose a new civil penalty formula to ensure that the court is authorised to determine the maximum penalty for these contraventions by reference to either or both of the benefit derived, and detriment avoided by the contravention, or by reference to the annual turnover of a body corporate.

According to the Explanatory Memorandum, this is intended to provide a mechanism to deter corporate environmental wrongdoing and ensure that civil penalties are not perceived as a ‘cost of doing business.’ The civil penalty formula would apply to contraventions of the civil penalty provisions in Part 3 (requirements for environmental approvals), subsection 142(1) (compliance with conditions of approvals) and Part 12A (bioregional plans) because these are the most serious contraventions in the EPBC Act and the ones most likely to result in serious damage to the environment. The proposed formula is modelled on comparable schemes in Commonwealth legislation targeting financial crime.

Under the proposed new formula, the maximum civil penalty for the above breaches by an individual will be the greater of:

• $1.65 million; or
• three times the value of the benefit derived from/detriment avoided by the breach; or
• three times the value of the benefit derived plus the detriment avoided by the breach.

For a body corporate, the maximum civil penalty for the above breaches will be the greater of:

• $16.5 million;
• three times the value of the benefit derived from/detriment avoided by the breach;
• three times the value of the benefit derived plus the detriment avoided by the breach; or
• either 10% of the annual turnover of the body corporate for the 12-month period before the breach or $825 million.

The maximum criminal penalties for individuals will be increased to $330,000 and for a body corporate to $1.65 million. No increase in jail time is proposed.

The Bills also include new compliance audit powers.

5. New National Environmental Standards

As anticipated, the Bills provide for the making of National Environmental Standards (NES), which was the key pillar of the Samuel Report.

The Bills empower the Minister to make a range of NES to cover a broad range of issues, which will apply to decisions made under the EPBC Act across the various approval pathways. The NES will be legislative instruments and subject to the same Parliamentary scrutiny as regulations. The power to make NES cannot be delegated.

A NES must prescribe one or more outcomes or objectives and may also prescribe parameters within which, or principles by which, an outcome or objective is to be achieved and/or processes or actions to be followed or taken in achieving an outcome or objective. It may also prescribe any matters required or permitted by the EPBC Act to be dealt with by standards, or other matters incidental to those required or permitted to be included in a standard.

The Minister must undertake public consultation before making, varying or revoking a NES (with particular obligations for consultation with Indigenous people if the NES relates to Indigenous engagement).

Before making a NES, the Minister must be satisfied that the NES promotes the objects of the EPBC Act and is not inconsistent with Australia's international obligations.

Every NES must be reviewed within 18 months of commencement of the NES and at five-year intervals thereafter, with the report to be made publicly available.

The Reform Bills set out the decisions that must not be inconsistent with NES (eg approval decisions, accrediting bilateral agreements and making bioregional plans), but decision makers can also choose to have regard to the NES in making other decisions.

It is not clear how long it will take for the suite of NES to be finalised and whether the other pillars of the reforms (eg relating to the NEPA, compliance and enforcement) will commence before this occurs. The Government has said that priority standards include those for Matters of National Environmental Significance and Offsets, with other standards including for First Nations Engagement and Data and Information to follow. The Government has said that "draft priority standards will soon be available for consultation so that there is clarity on the direction of new protections before the passage of this legislation" (Second Reading Speech, Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025).

The Samuel Report included four draft NES (5 years ago), and the Government released five draft NES for consultation in early 2024 as part of the Nature Positive Reforms. It is yet to be seen whether the new NES will differ significantly from these. Once made, the NES will comprise a significant component of the new regime. It will be important to review the detail of the draft NES when they are released for consultation.

6. States and Territory processes can be accredited

As anticipated, the Bills are designed to reduce duplication between Federal and State environmental assessment. This was a key pillar of the Samuel Report.

The Minister may, by legislative instrument, accredit a State or Territory framework and declare that actions approved in accordance with the framework do not require separate Federal approval. In doing so, the Minister must be satisfied that, among other things:

• the framework is not inconsistent with any prescribed NES;
• actions approved under the framework will avoid “unacceptable impacts” (referred to in heading 3 above); and
• any residual significant impacts would pass the “net gain test” (referred to in heading 8 below).

The Minister must also obtain undertakings from the relevant State or Territory that its decision-makers will not depart from the accredited framework and that approvals granted under it will themselves remain consistent with the criteria prescribed. These safeguards respond to concerns expressed in the Samuel Report that earlier “one-stop-shop” initiatives did not result in nationally consistent environmental outcomes.

The reduction of duplication is reliant upon the accreditation of State and Territory processes, which can only occur if they meet NES that have not yet been released. It is likely to be some time before these steps are completed. This is a key sticking point for the Business Council of Australia, which argues that the Bills should not commence until at least one major State has been accredited (ABC Radio National Breakfast interview with Bran Black, 30 October 2025).

7. Streamlined assessment pathway

The Reform Bills are designed to simplify, streamline and improve the existing EPBC Act assessment and approvals pathways, which was another key recommendation of the Samuel Report.

In addition to the other measures described in this alert (eg, accrediting State/Territory processes, bioregional plans, NES etc), the Reform Bills remove three of the six existing assessment pathways and replace them with a single new streamlined assessment pathway designed to reduce assessment and approval timeframes. The Government has said that:

"The reforms 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 this Bill. It rationalises three existing pathways and is responsive to a recommendation of the Samuel Review. The new pathway would reduce assessment and approval timeframes by 20 days, cutting the current 70-day statutory period to 50 days or less." (Second Reading Speech, Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025).

The Minister can only choose to apply the new streamlined assessment pathway if satisfied that they have sufficient information to make an informed decision about whether to approve the taking of the action. This will incentivise proponents to provide as much information as possible upfront in their referral applications. Once the Minister has chosen to apply the new streamlined assessment pathway (there is no statutory timeline for this decision to be made), the Minister has only 30 business days to make a decision.

Additionally, the Reform Bills seek to consolidate and streamline existing assessment pathways to deliver more transparent and efficient processes under the EPBC Act, including by:

• allowing a change of assessment pathway if an alternate pathway becomes more appropriate;
• discouraging "land banking" by ensuring that non-controlled decisions cease to have effect after 5 years if the action is not substantially commenced;
• establishing the ability to the surrender an approval by request;
• simplifying publication obligations and clarifying when requests for further information can be made;
• allowing minor works to proceed (with the consent of the Minister) during the evaluation of a broader action;
• allowing works with existing approval to proceed during the evaluation of a larger action (eg an upgrade or development extension); and
• allowing post-approval modifications in relation to minor variations to policies, plans or programs and variations related to the person taking the action, for approvals under section 146B.

8. New approach to offsets

The EPBC Act currently allows the Minister to include environmental offset conditions in an approval to ensure that a project does not result in a "net loss" to a protected matter.

The Reform Bills will amend the EPBC Act to ensure that offsets require a "net gain", not just "no net loss". This is a clear principle from the Samuel Review.

The Reform Bills provide that the Minister must consider whether the proponent has taken appropriate measures to avoid, mitigate or repair any impact or damage, before deciding to attach conditions directed to compensating for damage (ie offsets).

There is a proposed new concept of "residual significant impact" on a protected matter, which is a significant impact that will not be avoided, mitigated or repaired in the course of taking the action or in the course of complying with any conditions attached to the approval of the action .

The Minister must not approve an action with a residual significant impact unless the Minister is satisfied that the approval passes the "net gain test". An exception is made for national interest proposals – see heading 2 above.

An approval "passes the net gain test" in relation to a residual significant impact, if either or both of the following conditions are applied to the approval:

• a condition requiring the holder to compensate for damage to the matter that has been caused by the residual significant impact; or
• a condition requiring the holder to pay a restoration contribution charge in relation to the residual significant impact.

"Net gain" for a matter is achieved if it is equal to any net gain prescribed in the regulations, or otherwise, to the satisfaction of the Minister.To support the shift in the offsets framework and deliver time savings for proponents, a new restoration contribution framework will be introduced. This framework will allow proponents to meet their obligations by either delivering their own offsets, by an upfront payment into a government restoration fund, or both. The new Restoration Contributions Holder will be able to use the funds to strategically deliver offsets to have greater environmental benefits, including through pooling funds for similar impacts.

It is not clear how the Government fund will interact with existing State and Territory offset programs.

9. No climate trigger, but need to give emissions information

The Minister ruled out a climate trigger shortly after the Federal election, including because it would duplicate existing policies such as the Safeguard Mechanism.

However, the Reform Bills introduce a requirement for proponents to provide Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions information as part of the assessment of a controlled action. Proponents would also be required to show how the emissions align with national policies. The Government has said in the Explanatory Memorandum for the Reform Bills that the disclosure requirements are an information provision only and not a balancing consideration for decision making.

The Bills do not link to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting and Safeguard Mechanism legislation and definitions.

10. Regional plans to guide development

As anticipated, the Reform Bills include a new regime for bioregional planning. This was recommended in the Samuel Report.

The Minister may make bioregional plans in collaboration with States and Territories that identify:

• development zones where certain classes of actions can occur without EPBC Act approval (and the conditions that apply to various classes of actions);
• conservation zones where certain classes of actions are prohibited; and
• bioregional restoration measures.

Bioregional plans can only be made if impacted protected matters will achieve a "net gain " (see heading 8 above).

The plans are designed to support the roll out of important infrastructure development and improve environmental outcomes.

First Nations people's involvement

The Samuel Report recommended a much larger role for First Nations peoples and Indigenous knowledge in environmental decision-making and urgent reform to the Federal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth).

The Reform Bills codify the involvement of First Nations people in environmental governance and decision making through a greater role for the Indigenous Advisory Committee. They also create new statutory advisory functions for the Committee in the development of the NES and in species listings and conservation planning. We will discuss this in more detail in a further alert on this issue.

When will these amendments commence?

Even if the Reform Bills are passed, for the most part they will not come into immediate effect.

The bulk of the provisions in the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 will commence either on a day to be fixed by proclamation or 12 months after the Bill receives royal assent. However, the Bill also gives the Minister the power to delay the application of particular amendments in relation to different matters and things – which may be necessary if any relevant frameworks are not in place by the date on which the provisions are to commence.

Two of the main exceptions to this regime are:

• National Environmental Standards: the provisions which establish the framework for making National Environmental Standards are to commence the day after that Bill receives royal assent – giving the Minister some time to prepare these standards before the remaining provisions commence; and
• Certain consequential amendments to the establishment of the NEPA: The Environmental Protection Reform Bill also includes several amendments which relate to the proposed NEPA, many of which transfer powers and responsibilities currently held by either the Minister or the Secretary of the Department to the NEPA CEO. These amendments will only commence if and when the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill commences, which is currently proposed to occur on 1 July 2026.

Given the potential variance in commencement for each of the provisions, proponents should be careful to monitor the progress of these Bills both before and after passage to ensure they are prepared for changes as and when they occur.

What's next?

The Government is keen to see the Reform Bills passed as soon as possible and will look to either the Coalition or Greens for support to achieve this.

Although the Government pushed for a short Senate Inquiry to enable the Reform Bills to be passed by the end of the year, the Senate voted on 30 October 2025 to refer the Bills to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for a report by 24 March 2026. Submissions to the Committee are due by 5 December 2025.

We will publish more detailed alerts as matters progress.

Want to know more?

• Overhaul of Australian environmental laws begins in earnest, 13 February 2024. Provides an overview of the 2024 Nature Positive Reforms and outlines the proposed new Environmental Protection Australia (EPA) and Environment Information Australia (EIA).

• Assessment pathways under Australia's proposed new Federal environmental laws, 28 February 2024. Outlines the differences between the current system and the proposed new assessment pathways in the Nature Positive Reforms.

• Australia's proposed National Environmental Standards, 16 April 2024. Outlines the proposed environmental standards in the Nature Positive Reforms and includes a Stop Press about the Federal Government's announcement to stage the release of the reform legislation.

• What does the 2024-25 Federal Budget say about environment, planning and First Nations issues? 20 May 2024.

Other authors: Shayne Solin, Lawyer; Martin Doyle, Lawyer; Alice Jiang, Lawyer; Anna Seddon, Senior Associate and Connor Davies, Senior Associate.