National Environmental Standards

The National Environmental Standards (NES) are a key legislative foundation of the EPBC Act reforms. The Standards respond to the Samuel Review's recommendation for clear, enforceable environmental outcomes under the EPBC Act. The NES are intended to strengthen environmental protection, deliver nationally consistent standards and provide greater certainty for proponents and decision-makers. The NES are legislative instruments.

The first four NES relate to:

Making the NES: The Minister may make, vary or revoke an NES by legislative instrument. This process is subject to public consultation for at least 20 business days, and consultation with the Indigenous Advisory Committee for any NES relating to Indigenous engagement.
Safeguards and review: A 'no-regression' principle prohibits any change that would reduce environmental protections or compromise the quality of environmental data or consultation processes. Each NES must be reviewed within 18 months of commencement, and subsequently reviewed every five years, ensuring continuous improvement. The 'no-regression' principle will not apply to variations or revocations of an NES within the first 18 months of commencement.
Binding effect on approvals: The NES will directly bind approval decisions. For individual controlled actions, the Minister (or accredited decision-maker) must not approve an action unless satisfied that the approval is consistent with the relevant NES. A limited exception applies for national interest proposals, where an inconsistency may be approved only if reasonably necessary to achieve the intended national interest outcome.
National-interest proposal exceptions to the NES: The Minister may designate a controlled action as a national interest proposal if the action would deliver, or be likely to deliver, an outcome in Australia’s national interest. Relevant considerations include defence, security, strategic priorities and international obligations, but the list is not exhaustive. In such cases, the Minister may approve an inconsistency with the NES only where it is reasonably necessary for the action to achieve its intended national interest outcome.

National Environmental Standards - The first National Environmental Standards (NES) have now been made by the Minister for Environment and Water.

Two NES commenced on 21 August 2026, relating to:
- Matters of National Environmental Significance; and
- Data and Information.
Two further NES commenced on 22 August 2026, relating to:
- Environmental Offsets; and
- Community Engagement.
These NES will apply immediately to any new bilateral agreements with states and territories. However, they will not apply to individual project assessments and approval decisions until the new approval tests commence (1 December 2026, if not commenced sooner by proclamation).
Development of the First Nations Engagement NES is still underway.

The Matters of National Environmental Significance Standard (MNES Standard) is an essential component of the NES framework recommended by the Samuel Review, and is foundational to the EPBC Act reforms.

The MNES Standard sets the requirements to ensure that decisions made under the EPBC Act provide for the protection, conservation and, where appropriate, management, restoration and recovery of protected matters.

The decisions to which the MNES Standard will apply include decisions to approve taking an action or class of actions and making management and authorisation frameworks, bioregional plans and bioregional guidance plans.

A decision to which the MNES Standard applies must be consistent with the Standard and the principles in the Standard. In some cases (for example, the NOPSEMA and other management or authorisation frameworks), a decision must not be inconsistent with the Standard and may either be consistent with the principles in the Standard, meet equivalent requirements or provide more extensive engagement.

Further objectives of the MNES Standard are to promote and enhance the diversity, abundance, resilience, and integrity of protected matters across their entire range or geographic area to support the long term survival and continuation of each protected matter, consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. In addition to its overarching objectives, the MNES Standard contains specific objectives for each of the matters protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act.

The MNES Standard provides three outcomes that promote both the objectives of the Standard and specific protected matter objectives:

Provide for the protection, conservation, and, where appropriate, management, restoration and recovery of protected matters (noting that management, restoration and recovery interventions will generally only be appropriate where they will not compromise, and are suitable for, the protected matter, based on its nature, context and the likely impacts from an action);
contribute to the promotion and enhancement of the diversity, abundance, resilience, and integrity of protected matters across their entire range or geographic area; and
facilitate ecologically sustainable development.

The MNES Standard establishes four principles to achieve the objectives and outcomes, and sets out how a decision-maker may be satisfied that the relevant decision will be consistent with the principles. In practice, the principles shape how proponents must design their actions and address environmental impacts on protected matters:

Consistency with this requirement will generally require ongoing consideration of the mitigation hierarchy throughout the design process. The rigorous application of the mitigation hierarchy is a central tenet of the Samuel Review recommendations and the EPBC Act reforms. The steps of the hierarchy are as follows:

Avoidance - First, 'all reasonably practicable measures' must be taken to avoid any significant impacts on a protected matter through the design of the action. The Explanatory Statement for the MNES Standard explains that this may mean that the location or site of the proposed action is selected to avoid impacts on protected matters, and that the size and scope of the proposal may be relevant to whether all reasonably practicable measures are taken;
Mitigation - Second, where a significant impact on a protected matter cannot be avoided, the impact must be mitigated through a demonstrated process of identifying and implementing all reasonably practicable measures to reduce the impact (including, where possible, to below the level of significance). This may include opportunities to directly reduce significant impacts to protected matters by addressing the scale, duration, timing, location and intensity of impacts that cannot be completely avoided. Mitigation measures generally form the basis for management plans and monitoring of an action to reduce, prevent, control and react to adverse impacts throughout the lifespan of the action;
Repair - Third, any impact that cannot be avoided or mitigated must be repaired where viable. Repair requires 'all reasonably practicable measures' to be taken to repair any damage to the protected matter to as close as possible to the relevant impact site baseline for the protected matter. For repair to be viable, all of the following must be met:
- the damage is temporary and occurs over a short timeframe;
- repair can be completed in a timeframe relevant for the protected matter;
- repair will reduce the impact on the protected matter; and
- repair is feasible in the long term for the protected matter.
  
  Repair may include rehabilitation, progressive rehabilitation, remediation or restoration, and will involve on-site work with specific goals for the re-establishment of values to reduce residual significant impacts to the impacted protected matter;

Compensate - Fourth, after all reasonably practicable avoidance, mitigation and repair measures have been applied, any residual significant impact must be compensated for by an 'offset activity', or a payment of a restoration contribution charge or a bioregional plan restoration contribution (or a combination of these). The MNES Standard includes a note that an offset activity may include a payment into a state or territory offset fund or an advance restoration action.

The decision-maker must consider the context in which the nature, extent or severity of an impact might occur. Context might include interactions between different stressors or the cumulative effect of actions (for example, within a bioregional plan or strategic assessment area).

Compensation must only be considered after the prior steps in the mitigation hierarchy (avoidance, mitigation and repair) have been reasonably exhausted. Notably, the final MNES Standard specifies that all earlier steps must be 'reasonably' exhausted before compensation via offsets becomes available, as opposed to the consultation draft version, which required that the previous steps must be exhausted. Further, note that a residual significant impact cannot have an unacceptable impact or impact certain protected matters to be prescribed by regulation.

Proposals for actions must be supported by appropriate data and information regarding the nature and scope of potential impacts on protected matters. Engagement with the public and with Indigenous persons is included as a Note to the Principle, rather than as a mandatory prerequisite as was stated in the consultation draft for this Standard.

In relation to the requirement for 'all reasonably practicable measures' to be taken to avoid any significant impacts on a protected matter, the Explanatory Statement for the MNES Standard notes that what is reasonably practicable will depend on the circumstances of the particular action. The Statement acknowledges that 'if the costs of avoiding a significant impact (that is not an unacceptable impact) is sufficiently high that it could potentially jeopardise the action being taken, avoiding the significant impact may not be considered reasonably practicable'.

Under the amended EPBC Act, an action or class of actions seeking approval will need to demonstrate that any residual significant impacts of the action or class of actions (being a significant impact the action will have that will not be avoided, mitigated or repaired) on protected matters will be compensated to a 'net gain.'

The NES for Environmental Offsets (Offsets Standard) sets the framework for ensuring that offset activities (where permitted) adequately compensate for residual significant impacts of an action or class of actions on a protected matter, delivering the required net gain in a way that contributes to the protection, conservation, restoration and recovery of that matter.

The decisions to which the Offsets Standard will apply include decisions to approve the taking of an action or class of actions and the making of management and authorisation frameworks, bioregional plans and bioregional guidance plans. A decision to which the Offsets Standard applies must be consistent with the Standard. The Offsets Standard provides three outcomes that promote its objective:

offset activities compensate for damage that will or may be caused by residual significant impacts to protected matters to protect, conserve, restore or recover those matters;
offsets deliver a measurable improvement equal to or greater than the required net gain (measured against the relevant offset site baseline for the affected protected matter – being the likely condition of the protected matter at the site of the offset activity, determined at a specified time); and
offset activities provide a high level of confidence that the long-term survival and continuation of the affected protected matter will be promoted and enhanced.

To achieve these outcomes, the Offsets Standard prescribes eight principles:

There must be a high level of confidence that the offset will contribute to the protection, conservation, restoration or recovery of the affected protected matter, achieve the required net gain, and do so within a timeframe relevant to that matter.

An appropriate protection mechanism must be in place (or demonstrably underway) that gives a high level of confidence that the required measurable improvement will be delivered and, for direct offsets, maintained for the applicable maintenance period (generally 20 years or until durable for short-term or temporary damage; the period of the approval or until durable for long-term or permanent damage). Alternative mechanisms may only be used where a legal mechanism (such as covenants, land purchase, or state/territory offset schemes) is unavailable or not feasible, the risk of compromise is low, and the mechanism identifies protection or recovery as a management objective.

The offset must provide a tangible benefit and demonstrate a high level of confidence that the offset activity both has a quantifiable or qualitative benefit to the affected protected matter and contributes to the protection, conservation, restoration or recovery of the affected protected matter. An offset must be a direct offset unless a relevant conservation planning document identifies an indirect offset (such as scientific research or education on threats to the protected matter) as a higher priority measure.

There must be a high level of confidence that the offset will deliver a measurable improvement to the affected protected matter, assessed against the relevant offset site baseline.

The offset must be likely to deliver an additional benefit that would not otherwise have occurred. Activities required by another law, or that would occur regardless, do not qualify. However, approved state or territory offsets, advanced offset activities, and sites previously or currently managed for environmental benefit are not precluded, and may still deliver an additional benefit.

The offset must deliver a like-for-like result, meaning it must protect, conserve, restore or recover the same kind of environmental feature, attribute or habitat of the affected protected matter that will or may be damaged. A non-like-for-like result may be permitted if the decision-maker is satisfied the offset activity will deliver a greater benefit and is consistent with the protection, conservation, restoration or recovery priorities for the affected protected matter in a conservation planning document.

The offset must be located in an area relevant to the affected protected matter – generally near the area of residual significant impact. Where proximity is not reasonably practicable (or the offset is a bioregional restoration action), it must be in an area relevant to the protected matter and likely to produce an equivalent or greater benefit.

The offset must be secured and registered, and management must have commenced before the relevant residual significant impact occurs. Despite this, the impact may proceed where security for the offset is demonstrably underway and it is reasonable in the circumstances. Where an offset involves payment into a state or territory offset fund, only the payment (not identification of the ultimate offset activity) must occur before the impact.

Principles 1 to 4 each require a ‘high level of confidence’ in the offset's efficacy, demonstrated by appropriate evidence (which may include expert advice, peer-reviewed science, information or data from Environment Information Australia, or comparable offset management data).

Principles 5 to 8 apply distinct thresholds: likelihood (Principle 5), the decision-maker's satisfaction (Principle 6), location-based tests (Principle 7), and timing (Principle 8), based on or demonstrated by appropriate evidence.

Proponents may discharge their compensation obligation either by delivering their own offset activity consistent with these principles, or by paying a restoration contribution charge into the Restoration Contributions Special Account. The Offsets Standard does not apply to offsets delivered by the Restoration Contributions Holder, as Part 12B of the EPBC Act already governs how that office spends restoration funds.

Following statutory consultation, the final Offsets Standard has clarified several key points:

‘Required net gain’ takes its meaning from the Act and is measured against the impact site baseline (being the likely condition of the protected matter at the sites where the residual significant impact will or is likely to occur). An offset activity may include payment into a state or territory offset fund or an advanced restoration action.
Principle 3 was amended from 'direct and tangible' to ‘tangible’ to accommodate indirect offsets where identified as a higher priority by a conservation planning document.
The Offsets Standard confirms that a residual significant impact may proceed where security for the offset is demonstrably underway, addressing concerns that third-party administrative delays could unreasonably hold up approved actions.

The Community Engagement Standard establishes a baseline for community engagement practices and procedures. At its core, it provides a framework for undertaking community engagement and dealing with the responses received.

The objective of the Community Engagement Standard is to ensure decisions made under the EPBC Act relating to protected matters are supported by meaningful public engagement and assist in the implementation of Australia's international obligations.

To promote this objective, the outcomes focus on seeking public input to inform decisions in a way that is transparent, inclusive and respectful, so as to increase confidence, trust and accountability in decision-making under the EPBC Act.

The decisions to which the Community Engagement Standard will apply include decisions to approve taking an action or class of actions and making management and authorisation frameworks, bioregional plans and bioregional guidance plans.

A decision to which the Community Engagement Standard applies must be consistent with the Standard and the principles in the Standard. In some cases (for example, the NOPSEMA and other management or authorisation frameworks), a decision must not be inconsistent with the Standard and may either be consistent with the principles in the Standard, meet equivalent requirements or provide more extensive engagement.

The four engagement principles identified in the Community Engagement Standard are:

Engagement must be planned with regard to how the public can be made aware of its purpose, the level of information available, and the level of influence the public can have. It must include an invitation to comment published in a publicly accessible medium (eg a website, newspaper, posters and social media) with a reasonable comment period (dependent on the volume and complexity of information). The person undertaking the engagement must monitor its effectiveness and adapt it as needed. One way to demonstrate compliance with this principle is to develop an engagement plan. It is anticipated that compliance with this principle will generally require consultation during the planning and design phase of a project.

Engagement must help the public understand the proposal and provide informed input by ensuring that the information provided is accurate, objective and comprehensive, discloses the information sources, and contains relevant performance, compliance and monitoring results. The person undertaking the engagement must be transparent about how public input has or will influence the proposal's planning and design, while upholding privacy. So far as reasonably practicable, engagement should support two-way dialogue with affected persons by providing contact details, promptly responding to queries and offering follow-up conversations, where appropriate.

Engagement must be undertaken in a way that ensures the privacy of persons providing input is protected. The invitation to comment must include information about the collection, recording, storage, use and disclosure of data and information, and the person undertaking the engagement must take steps to implement these commitments.

Engagement must be accessible to the public, including people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, reasonably allowing them to understand the proposal and its potential impacts on protected matters. Engagement must provide a reasonable opportunity for public comment and involve active attempts to overcome barriers to participation. This principle applies to the information provided (eg the use of plain English and non-technical and jargon-free language), the way in which it is provided (eg using an online engagement method or an alternative in areas with low internet usage or connectivity) and how it is provided (eg at venues that are physically and logistically accessible).

The Community Engagement Standard establishes a framework for community engagement that is formal and rigorous. It will require proponents to invest more time and resources in community engagement and sets a high standard for community engagement compliance.

The Data and Information Standard's objective is to ensure the evidence used in decision‑making under the EPBC Act is based on appropriate data and information, while extending the availability of credible data and information assets more broadly.

The Standard is relevant to a range of decisions under the EPBC Act, including data and information provided by proponents in referrals and assessments, as well as data underpinning bioregional plans and management or authorisation frameworks.

The decisions to which the Data and Information Standard will apply include approving the taking of an action or class of actions and making management and authorisation frameworks, bioregional plans and bioregional guidance plans. A decision to which the Data and Information Standard applies must be consistent with the Standard and the principles in the Standard. In some cases (for example, the NOPSEMA and other management or authorisation frameworks), a decision must not be inconsistent with the Standard and may either be consistent with the principles in the Standard, meet equivalent requirements or provide more extensive engagement.

The Data and Information Standard also sets out how a decision-maker may be satisfied that data and information used to inform a decision is consistent with the Standard.

The Data and Information Standard provides three outcomes to promote its objective – namely, that data and information used in decisions made under the EPBC Act is:

transparently described and representative;
comparable and reusable; and
ethically collected, managed and used.

To achieve these outcomes, the Data and Information Standard establishes five principles:

Data and information must adequately reflect and describe the context of the relevant protected matters, with suitable accuracy. Data must be collected via a robust method, be created or modelled using appropriate scientific or other suitable processes, be accompanied by explanations or mitigation strategies to manage uncertainties, and be based on authoritative sources (or the provider must explain why other sources are accurate and representative).

Data and information must be reliable and sufficiently described to enable informed use. This requires adequate metadata, contextual information about quality assurance and quality control processes, a description of technical or scientific methods applied, the provenance of the information, and version and change controls.

Data and information must be internally consistent in their practices, formats, structures and measurements to enable easy comparison. This requires presenting data in an appropriate structure, the use of consistent taxonomic and ecological classifications, and consistency with references and definitions in 'conservation planning documents'. Notably, the final Standard defines ‘conservation planning document’ to include 'a relevant state or territory conservation document (however described)', which was absent from the consultation draft.

Data and information must be collected, managed and provided in a way that promotes reuse with minimal additional effort, where practicable. This is satisfied where data is provided in a reusable format and accompanied by appropriate information to determine its suitability for reuse, including information about methods and limitations, sensitive data categories, attribution, retention and disposal obligations, security controls, licensing and rights, and consent arrangements.

Data and information must be collected, managed and used responsibly to minimise harm, protect rights and privacy, and, where possible, incorporate cultural values. The provider must make all reasonable efforts to ensure consistency with Commonwealth, state or territory laws and relevant ethical data principles. Notably, the final Standard does not directly incorporate by reference the CARE and FAIR principles (which were referenced in the consultation draft). Rather, it includes illustrative examples of what ‘reasonable efforts’ may involve, including identifying the appropriate custodian of culturally sensitive data, respecting Indigenous rights and cultural governance (including establishing Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property agreements where appropriate), considering collective benefit, respecting relevant consent and cultural protocols, and providing information about the source, custodianship and permitted uses of information.

Each of these principles includes an alternative compliance pathway if the primary requirements are not satisfied. For a bioregional plan or bioregional guidance plan, the plan may still be consistent with the Data and Information Standard where other evidence demonstrates data and information has been treated ethically and managed responsibly. For all other decisions, the person providing the data and information must similarly provide alternative evidence that the data and information has been treated ethically and managed responsibly.

The centrepiece of the reforms recommended by the Samuel Review are the proposed National Environmental Standards (NES). The Review found that the EPBC Act had no comprehensive mechanism to describe the environmental outcomes it was seeking to achieve or to ensure individual decisions contributed to them.

The Review called for enforceable standards to guide all decisions, ensuring that activities at every scale contribute to national environmental objectives. The intent was to produce a suite of NES that are relevant to all decision-makers operating or accredited under the EPBC Act, which establish clear outcomes and that set the boundaries for decision-making supported by comprehensive guidance on assessment processes.

Initial detailed draft standards (to be supplemented in future) were produced following significant stakeholder consultation through the Review process, for:

Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES)
Indigenous engagement and participation in decision-making
Compliance and enforcement
Data and information.

The platform of proposed Standards was designed for implementation not only by the Minister as a decision-maker, but also by accredited state / territory or other third-party decision‑makers to adhere to the Standards in making decisions for the purposes of the EPBC Act. As such, the NES would facilitate the aim of achieving a 'one touch' environmental approval process, effective for federal and state / territory purposes.

The NES are intended to be concise, specific and focused on the outcomes required. They would constitute brief legislative instruments that clearly define the environmental outcomes to be achieved for environmental approvals under the proposed reformed regime.

The Government’s Nature Positive Plan endorsed the NES approach, addressing the lack of clear policy guidance under the current EPBC Act.

Over the consultation phase from October 2023 to March 2024, five draft NES were prepared for consultation (and, in some cases, iteratively revised):

MNES: outlining specific outcomes and requirements for decisions relating to MNES currently under the Act, focused on achieving nature positive results.
Restoration actions and contributions: detailing the mitigation hierarchy for offsetting environmental impacts, as well as reporting requirements.
Regional planning: setting out how regional plans should be developed, including consultation requirements and mapping of areas.
Data and information: establishing standards for the quality, accessibility and reliability of environmental data used in decision-making.
Community engagement and consultation: requiring proponents to publish information about proposals and provide opportunities for public feedback early in the process.

The consultation packages also included proposals for:

the Minister to have the power to make, vary and revoke NES, and that the NES must be reviewed at least every five years and cannot be weakened.
the Minister to seek advice from statutory committees, particularly for standards relating to Indigenous engagement.
accreditation of decision-making processes and approvals to require compliance with the NES.
under transitional provisions, actions referred but not determined as controlled actions before commencement must be assessed under the new legislation (ie against the NES).

A key issue to be resolved is whether the suite of NES as drafted will in fact streamline assessment and approval processes, particularly where the need for earlier, more comprehensive data and assessment documentation will be borne by proponents when preparing a referral.

Industry will be looking for the NES to provide early guidance for potential issues or constraints on project locations and approval conditions, such that they successfully reduce the uncertainty of outcome and the time and costs incurred reaching the decision stage.

The policy challenge will be whether the NES strike the right balance between giving business a clearer picture up‑front of what is required to develop and submit a proposal, and providing the flexibility needed for effective decision-making while ensuring environmental protection outcomes are clear and upheld.

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 EPR Act also introduces 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 EPR Act, 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 Act 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 EPBC 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 declared 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.

Bill is a Partner who specialises in environmental, town planning and valuation/resumption law.

+61 7 3334 3049

Eve is a Partner specialising in environment, town planning and native title law.

+61 8 9488 3911

Emily is a Partner who specialises in environment and planning law, with a particular focus on renewable energy and major infrastructure projects.

+61 3 9613 8162

Naomi is a Partner, specialising in environmental and climate change law, with expertise in climate risk and compliance matters.

+61 2 9230 5646

Jillian is a Partner and co-head of ESG, specialising in climate change, environmental and sustainability matters.

+61 3 9613 8557

Rebecca is a Partner specialising in environment & planning.

+61 2 92305246

Felicity is a Partner specialising in all aspects of environment and planning practice.

+61 2 9230 4366

Emily is a partner in the Disputes & Investigations Practice Group focusing on commercial litigation, regulatory enforcement, and material investigations.

+61 444 547 111

Federal environmental reform: recasting the EPBC Act