Federal environmental reform: recasting the EPBC Act

Bioregional plans

A new concept of bioregional assessments, allowing for broad-scale assessments to be undertaken to establish 'development' and 'conservation' zones, with 'priority actions' in development zones not to require further assessment and approval.

Latest updates

Key provisions in the EPR Bill, include:

  • Bioregional plans: the power for the Minister (with the agreement of the relevant state or territory) to make bioregional plans to facilitate priority development activities at the landscape and/or seascape scale and facilitate faster approvals. The Minister must be satisfied that a bioregional plan would be consistent with any national environmental standards. 
  • Zones: bioregional plans will identify 'development' zones and 'conservation' zones:
    • 'Priority class of actions' within the development zones will have access to a new assessment pathway. A bioregional plan must not, however, specify a priority class of actions that includes a fossil fuel action. A fossil fuel action means an action that involves the production of petroleum or coal. 
    • Proponents will be required to register the action with the Minister and comply with the conditions of the bioregional plan instead of needing to seek a project-level controlled action approval. The registration will have effect for an initial period of five years, and may be extended, with the consent of the Minister, for a total period of up to 10 years.
    • 'Restricted actions' within the conservation zones will be prohibited, unless the proponent has obtained an exemption. The Minister must not grant an exemption if the restricted action is a fossil fuel action.
  • Bioregional restoration measures: bioregional plans will specify 'bioregional restoration measures' and the person responsible for the delivery of the measure (a federal, state or territory government or agency, or other person who has consented to be specified).
  • Consultation: bioregional plans will be the subject of public consultation and advice from the Australian Heritage Council, the CEO of the NEPA, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee, the Indigenous Advisory Committee and the Restoration Contributions Advisory Committee. 

How we got there

What did the Samuel Review identify for reform?

The Samuel Review identified the need for a 'fundamental shift in focus—from project-by-project development transactions, to effectively planning at the right scale for a sustainable environment and for sustainable future development'.

In particular, the Samuel Review emphasised the need to address cumulative impacts and key threats through national and regional plans, ecologically sustainable development plans and strategic assessments.

The development of regional plans was identified as a means to support the management of the environment at the right scale, with the following regional planning tools being recommended:

  • Government-led regional recovery plans: that identify recovery priorities for multiple threatened species and ecological communities at the landscape scale.
  • Ecologically sustainable development plans: that identify environmental, economic, Indigenous and social priorities, incorporate outcomes for MNES and support the regulation of development.
  • Strategic assessments: that consider the staged proposed development by proponents in a coordinated manner.

The Samuel Review recommended that the EPBC Act set out the explicit criteria the Government should use to make its own regional plan, or to assess and accredit plans developed by other parties, and that the plans be developed in a way that would allow national outcomes to be fully integrated into state and territory planning systems.

What did the Nature Positive package propose?

Under the Nature Positive Plan, the Government embraced the recommendation for the development of regional plans, identifying that the Government had committed $29.3 million to make an immediate start on regional planning and guide sustainable development.

It was proposed that regional plans would adopt a three-level spatial system:

  • Areas of High Environmental Value: where development would largely be prohibited.
  • Areas of Moderate Environmental Value: where development would be allowed, subject to an approval process and any agreed rules.
  • Development Priority Areas: where the planning process has determined that development can proceed without a separate federal environmental approval.

It was also proposed that regional plans would identify areas necessary for restoration and management.

How did the nature positive position evolve over the consultation phase?

Over the consultation phase from October 2023 to March 2024, the Government proposed the development and implementation of regional plans as a tool to facilitate priority development activities and net positive outcomes for protected matters at the landscape and/or seascape scale.

In particular, it was proposed that the Minister would have power to make a regional plan creating two regulatory zones:

  • Conservation Zones: where specific actions would be prohibited; and
  • Development Zones: where priority activities may proceed under set conditions, and subject to registration of the activity with Environment Protection Australia. Restoration measures would offset development impacts, with responsibilities assigned to governments or consenting third parties.

Regional plans were also proposed to be developed in two stages, each underpinned by robust data, modelling and consultation:

  • Stage 1: the Government will work with state and territory governments to map environmental and other values and identify areas important for development; and
  • Stage 2 (after the mapping is complete): the priorities, objectives and strategies to achieve a nature positive outcome will be determined, which may include the development of a regional plan.

A draft National Environmental Standard for Regional Planning (draft Standard) was also iteratively refined setting out additional requirements for ongoing monitoring, evaluation and reporting, and specifying that Regional Plans would be developed through engagement with local communities, local government, First Nations groups and other relevant stakeholders.

Pilot programs were subsequently announced in QLD, NSW, Vic and SA.

Key policy questions

This shift in approach has the potential to reduce duplication in the environmental assessment approach at federal, state and territory levels, although its success will depend upon the cooperation of government at all levels and the balancing of other stakeholder interests. In particular, it will depend on the alignment between bioregional plans at the federal level and the constraints imposed by state and local government regulations within development zones.

The ability for the Government to implement workable bioregional plans is also fundamentally interconnected with the quality of mapping information able to be obtained and the mechanism for determining restoration contributions under the proposed National Environmental Standards.

Questions facing the Government include:

  • Whether bioregional planning mapping will recognise areas of land featuring both high environmental value and development potential / need for essential infrastructure or priority resources, thereby using the bioregional planning process to balance competing priorities of environmental conservation with other factors.
  • Relatedly, whether areas of high environmental value can nonetheless be eligible for assessment and approval in defined circumstances, eg for essential infrastructure or to allow for development of high value resources (eg critical minerals to support energy transition objectives).
  • Transitional arrangements in bioregional plans for application of development prohibitions for existing proponents / landholders in new areas of high environmental value.
  • Perhaps least likely, provisions to ameliorate the impact on landowners who experience decreased property values as a result of bioregional planning outcomes, noting that the EPR Bill contains no compensation measures.
  • Opportunities to promote high environmental value areas for advanced offset programs.

Read more on headline issues

National EPA (NEPA)

A new, independent National Environmental Protection Agency. The CEO of the NEPA will be a statutory appointment and not subject to direction by the Minister. The CEO of the NEPA will be given a number of responsibilities under the Act, including compliance and enforcement functions, assurance of accreditation arrangements and the issuing of new enforcement tools such as environment protection orders.

Environment Information Australia (EIA)

A new function within the Department is to be headed by an independent statutory officer and is to be focused on the management of environmental data. The EIA would provide national leadership for the improvement of the availability and accessibility of high-quality, national environmental data and information, and ensure there is independent reporting and accountability for the state of the environment. 

National Environmental Standards (NES)

A framework to establish legally enforceable National Environmental Standards that are intended to set the boundaries for decision-making to deliver the minimum protections to be achieved under the Act. These are intended to be subordinate legislation and will initially relate to matters such as the existing Matters of National Environmental Significance and environmental offsets.

Streamlined assessments and approvals

To remove certain lower-tier assessment pathways (such as assessment on referral information and public environment reports) and replace them with a 'streamlined assessment' pathway, intended to result in faster approvals timeframes. The bills also introduce a number of new tools to enable the Minister to ensure the protection of the environment, including 'Rulings' and 'Protection Statements' about how the Act should be interpreted and protections implemented. 

Strategic assessments

Strategic assessments under Part 10 are retained, with new flexibility proposed, including to allow for the relevant policy, plan or program to evolve without necessarily requiring a new strategic assessment to be undertaken.

Bioregional plans

A new concept of bioregional assessments, allowing for broad-scale assessments to be undertaken to establish 'development' and 'conservation' zones, with 'priority actions' in development zones not to require further assessment and approval.

Biodiversity offsets and net gain

A new concept of passing the 'net gain' test will apply to compensate for significant residual impacts on protected matters. This can be achieved either by the proponent compensating for damage by securing an environmental offset, or by paying a restoration contribution charge in respect of the residual significant impact (unless the Minister has declared that a restoration contribution charge is not available for the relevant MNES).

First Nations engagement

Requirements for consultation with First Nations peoples are not included in the Bills, however new requirements are to be proposed through a National Environmental Standard consistent with the approach recommended in the Samuel Review.  

Climate change

No 'climate trigger' is included. Instead, the EPR Bill requires certain proponents to disclose greenhouse gas emission information and reduction plans—this is anticipated to apply at least to facilities covered by the Safeguard Mechanism. This information is intended to be made available for transparency purposes only and will not inform decisions under the Act. 

Penalties, merits review and third-party enforcement

Increased enforcement powers and, for certain large turnover body corporates, much higher maximum penalties for certain civil penalty provisions apply up to $825 million. 

Unacceptable impacts

A redefined concept of an 'unacceptable impact', which varies for each protected matter. If an action has an unacceptable impact, the Minister must not approve it. Similar restrictions apply to other decisions made under the Act (eg to approve a regional plan, or when accrediting states/territories' assessment and approval powers). 

Accreditation of states/territories for approval decisions

Various changes to the existing accreditation processes, placing a greater emphasis on the role of accredited state and territory processes to issue 'one-touch' approvals without the need for duplicative assessment by the Government. 

National interest proposals and exemptions

The reforms introduce a strengthened national interest pathway, giving the Minister broad discretion to approve projects that serve Australia’s strategic priorities (noting that these exemptions are not available for fossil fuel actions). Under this approach, a project may proceed even if it conflicts with NES, has unacceptable impacts or fails the net gain test, where it is deemed critical to Australia’s defence, security or international obligations. At the same time, refinements to the existing exemption mechanism allow the Minister to dis-apply certain controlling provisions for protected matters, while imposing conditions and prescribing requirements to limit adverse impacts. Together, these changes create a more flexible framework for projects of national significance, balancing strategic imperatives with environmental safeguards.

Restoration fund

Proponents will be able to discharge their offset compensation liability (including under the new 'net gain' framework) by paying a restoration contribution charge to the Government. The money provided under this charge will be spent by a new independent Restoration Contributions Holder, supported by an expert advisory committee.

'Minor or preparatory' works

Authorisation to commence minor or preparatory works for an action after referral and before an approval has been issued. The Minister may also provide written agreement for other works that may commence.

Lapsing of not controlled action decisions

NCA and NCA-PM decisions will lapse after five years if the action has not 'substantially commenced'. The five-year period may be extended once by the Minister for a further period of up to five years (the total maximum being 10 years, lapsing from the date of the initial decision).

'Grandfathering' arrangements

Actions that are a lawful continuation of a use will no longer be exempt from approval if they involve clearing of vegetation from land within 50 metres of a watercourse, wetland or drainage line in a catchment area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park or the land has not been cleared of vegetation for at least 15 years (and the action is not a forestry operation).

Regional Forest Agreements

The exemption from approval for actions undertaken in accordance with an RFA will sunset on 1 July 2027.