Federal environmental reform: recasting 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. 

Latest updates

Key provisions outlined in the EPR Bill, include:

  • Environment protection orders: the EPR Bill introduces a new regulatory tool—an environment protection order (EPO)—which can be used by the CEO of the NEPA to respond to potential non-compliances that require urgent steps be taken. An EPO will remain in force for a specified period of up to fourteen days (which may be extended once for a further period of 14 days). 
  • Higher penalties: penalties for large turnover body corporates for certain civil liability provisions have been increased to a maximum of $825 million.
  • Limit on time period for reconsideration request: in an increase in protections for proponents, the EPR Bill introduces a 28-day deadline for third parties to lodge a reconsideration request for a decision that an action is a controlled action, or a decision about which provisions in Part 3 are controlling provisions.
  • No expansion of third-party appeal rights: the EPR Bill contains no expansions of merits review/appeal rights.

 

How we got there

Current regime

The EPBC Act currently has limited scope for 'appeals' of project decisions. There are three avenues of review:

  • Reconsideration: a person may, in limited circumstances, request that the Minister reconsiders a decision that a particular action is or is not a 'controlled action'.
  • Merits review: an application can be made to the Administrative Review Tribunal for review of a decision under Part 13A (International Movement of Wildlife Species) of the EPBC Act. Other than internal review of controlled action decisions, there is currently no avenue for merits review of decisions made in relation to 'controlled actions' (or environmental impact assessment decisions generally).
  • Judicial review: a 'person aggrieved' by a decision under the EPBC Act (which can include an Australian conservation or protection organisation) can seek judicial review of that decision via the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).

Third parties that are 'interested persons' can also seek injunctions for contraventions of the EPBC Act or the regulations.

What did the Samuel Review identify for reform?

The Samuel Review rejected suggestions that judicial review proceedings had been overused by third parties for 'lawfare', and that the standing provisions ought to be narrowed. Instead, the Review reiterated the importance of third-party review rights given the protective purpose of the EPBC Act, while also finding that overlaying an entirely new legal review process and extending standing rights is not warranted.

The Review did recommend the introduction of a limited merits review 'on the papers' for development assessment and approval decisions, suggesting this avenue would provide a more appropriate appeal process for cases that otherwise would go through the judicial review process.

What did the Nature Positive package propose?

In welcome news for proponents, the Government's Nature Positive package rejected the Samuel Review's recommendation of introducing limited merits review into the EPBC Act. The Government's position in the package is that the introduction of an independent EPA and National Environmental Standards would be a more effective way of improving decision-making and public trust in the national environmental regime. No change was proposed to the existing judicial review avenue in relation to the opportunity to challenge errors of law.

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

After initial indications the Government would strengthen third-party enforcement rights, following consultation, the Government confirmed it would not be doing this. No other proposed changes were disclosed during, or following, the 2023-24 consultation phase.

Key policy questions

Since the Nature Positive plan was put on hold, little was disclosed about the Government's reform intentions when it came to third-party review and enforcement rights. While the Government has reiterated its commitment to establishing a national EPA, its remit and powers remain uncertain.

Proponents would benefit from clarity on both.

We note, however, the Government has been clear that it wants to establish a regime that equally balances environmental protection with business and industry needs. Any future reforms to third-party review and enforcement rights will likely be reflective of this.

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.