Federal environmental reform: recasting the EPBC Act
Environment Information Australia
A new body 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.
Latest updates
The EPR Bill, in combination with the Environment Information Australia Bill 2025 (Cth) (EIA Bill), includes the following provisions:
- The establishment of a statutory Head of Environment Information Australia (Head of EIA) as an independent position within the DCCEEW. The Head of EIA will not be subject to the direction of any person in the performance of its functions.
- Although the EIA Bill reflects substantially the same form as the earlier Exposure Draft of the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 that was tabled in Parliament in May 2024, a significant shift is that the Head of EIA will be tasked with monitoring, evaluating and reporting on whether and to what extent nature positive is being achieved, nor determining the baseline for nature positive. The key functions of the Head of EIA are:
- providing the Minister, the CEO of the NEPA and the public with access to high-quality information and data relating to the environment, bringing data together from a variety of sources and establishment of a public environment data portal.
- declaring national environmental information assets to be recorded in a public online register.
- preparing and publishing reports on the state of the environment.
- establishing and maintaining environmental economic accounts.
The EIA Bill is an evolution from the previous attempt at reform in the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024.
How we got there
The DCCEEW currently makes certain environmental data publicly accessible on its website through its 'Find Environmental Data' portal, which hosts various geospatial catalogues, datasets and databases. However, the Samuel Review described the existing environmental data and information framework as complex, unreliable and incomplete, and identified issues in the information supply chain as depicted in the following figure:
Source: Samuel Review page 165
The key concerns included:
- Fragmented and inconsistent data collection: environmental data is collected in a disparate and uncoordinated manner, leading to significant gaps in fundamental information.
- Lack of a central, trusted source: there is no single authoritative source of environmental information that stakeholders can rely on.
- No standardisation: data collected through assessments, research, monitoring or restoration programs is not required to be submitted in a standardised, electronic format, limiting integration with state and territory systems.
- Insufficient information for decision-making: critical data is often unavailable when needed to support sound environmental decisions.
- Outdated systems: DCCEEW’s current systems for analysing and sharing environmental information are outdated and not fit for purpose.
To address these issues, the Samuel Review recommended the assignment of a custodian to provide national level leadership for the national environmental information supply chain; the identification of National Environmental Information Assets; implementation of a National Environmental Standard for sharing data and information; and a 'federated' data platform for environmental information.
Under the Nature Positive Plan, the Government broadly accepted the key data and information items from Samuel Review. The Government initially proposed that a Data Division would be established within the DCCEEW to oversee and coordinate improvements to the management of environmental data and information, and that the Data Division would develop and implement a monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework. The Data Division was to be charged with the preparation of a Standard for Data and Information.
Over the consultation phase from October 2023 to March 2024, a draft National Environmental Standard for Data and Information (Data Standard) was iteratively refined (see our previous Insight), along with development of the Exposure Draft of the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 to establish Environment Information Australia (EIA) as the national custodian of environmental data and reporting (see our previous Insight).
Environment Information Australia
The EIA was to be a new government agency led by a statutory appointee and responsible for:
- developing and implementing a Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting framework.
- reporting on progress toward environmental goals, including a 'nature positive' Australia.
- maintaining a public environment data portal and public register of National Environmental Information Assets.
- preparing State of the Environment reports.
- establishing and maintaining environmental economic accounts.
It was proposed that the EIA would provide a public data portal aggregating data from various sources, including proponents and state and territory regulators. This portal was to feature a mapping visualisation tool offering spatial data on protected areas, critical habitats and environmental values. Significantly, the EIA was also proposed to use datasets to establish a baseline for achieving the goal of a 'nature positive Australia'.
The Government introduced the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 in May 2024, but it did not pass prior to lapsing at the February 2025 election.
National Environmental Standard for Data and Information
The final draft of the Data Standard (March 2024) identified its objective to guide assessment of appropriate and suitable data and information crucial for informing relevant decision-making under the Act.
The draft Standard set out the following six core principles to guide assessment of appropriate and suitable data and information:
- Fit for purpose: meet the specific needs of the decision being made.
- Ethical: demonstrably compliant with relevant legislation protecting sensitive data and information; obtained and managed under appropriate ethics approvals and in a transparent and inclusive manner for stakeholders.
- Reliable: demonstrably robust scientific foundation and/or collected under a recognised and enduring survey protocol or traditional knowledge system.
- Reusable: adequate metadata to ensure it remains meaningful for decision-making.
- Accessible: made available under the least restrictive conditions possible.
- Discoverable: made available on an enduring, searchable and interoperable platform.
These principles are drawn from existing international and national frameworks. Some such frameworks include the FAIR Guiding Principles, CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance and ABS Data Quality Framework.
The extent to which these principles are followed will determine the suitability of data and information for relevant decision-making under the Act, in accordance with a tiered structure: 'Tier 1 - suitable', 'Tier 2 - potentially suitable' or 'Tier 3 - unsuitable'.
A key issue was whether the Government retained the previously proposed EIA model as a separate function to the DCCEEW, albeit introduced again as a component of a holistic reform package rather than as a separate staged reform as was done during the previous Parliament.
The previous draft of the proposed Standard would have imposed significant new requirements on data submitted for environmental assessments and approvals. The Government needed to strike the right balance between ensuring reliable and accessible information and avoiding excessive obligations on project proponents that could slow application and approvals processes.
One of the challenges for the data management function will be the suitable integration of indigenous knowledge and information.
The manner in which the DCCEEW uses environmental data to identify the baseline for achieving 'nature positive' goals will be a fundamental element for future decision-making and approvals.
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.