What the consultation paper proposes—and why it matters 7 min read
Consultation is now open on proposed amendments to Queensland's environmental legislation. In a recently published consultation paper, the Queensland Government sets out several proposals to improve efficiency and modernise existing environmental regulatory frameworks, including by transitioning low-risk activities from environmental authorities to mandatory codes of practice. Have your say by 14 July 2025.
This Insight discusses the key proposed changes and their potential impacts on Queensland's environmental regulatory framework.
Key takeaways
On 10 June 2025, the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (DETSI) released a consultation paper proposing wide-ranging amendments to environmental legislation in Queensland. Key proposals include:
- Introducing 'mandatory codes of practice', which would replace the requirement to hold an environmental authority (EA) for certain low-risk, environmentally relevant activities.
- Introducing new mechanisms such as State Environmental Protection Priorities (SEPPs) to identify the state's priorities for protection and 'best practice codes' to provide guidance about management actions that will constitute 'best practice environmental management' under the EP Act.
- Reforming the PRCP regime, including by removing the Public Interest Evaluation (PIE) process.
- Enhancing enforcement powers, including by increasing the time limit to commence proceedings for summary offences under the EP Act, and providing courts with enhanced powers to confiscate property and order forfeiture of proceeds from environmental crimes.
- Consultation is open until 5PM on 14 July 2025, and submissions can be made [here].
Changes to environmental legislation
Mandatory codes to replace certain environmental authorities
The consultation paper proposes amendments to establish mandatory codes of practice, which will replace the requirement to obtain an EA for activities with low environmental risk. The proposal would see certain low-risk, environmentally relevant activities progressively transition to being authorised in accordance with mandatory codes.
Some examples of activities that could transition to a mandatory code include:
- Certain mining exploration activities
- Regulated waste transport
- Small water treatment facilities
- Certain thresholds of extractive and screening activities
- Certain thresholds of waste disposal and recovery operations.
DETSI estimates that approximately 3000 existing EAs could be converted under this model, significantly reducing administrative and regulatory burdens.
State protection priorities, best practice codes and other efficiencies
DETSI is proposing a range of amendments designed to ensure the regulatory framework in the EP Act is efficient, clear and more responsive to emerging environmental risks. These reforms include:
Currently, the EP Act refers to a range of environmental values, including by cross-referencing different legislation and subordinate legislation. DETSI is proposing to introduce the concept of a SEPP to consolidate and clearly identify the state's priorities for protection under the EP Act. In doing so, DETSI suggests the amendments will support a risk-based approach to defining levels of regulatory oversight and will provide clarity to stakeholders about which environmental values will trigger greater oversight. Some examples of proposed SEPPs include certain existing MSES (such as fish habitat areas), existing Environmental Protection Policies (such as qualities of air, water and the acoustic environment), and regional ecosystems.
DETSI proposes to include a mechanism in the EP Act to codify 'best practice codes'. Compliance with these codes would be required in order to demonstrate 'best practice environmental management' under the EP Act. Some examples which may be subject to a best practice code include dust, stormwater, or erosion management practices. If adopted, it is proposed that existing EA holders would have one year to transition to the new requirements.
DETSI is proposing to include amendments that would allow standardised general administrative conditions for EAs to be set by regulation, to produce more consistent regulatory outcomes. These standardised conditions would address matters such as record-keeping, complaints and reporting requirements and would apply to all EAs of a certain type, with no opportunity for an individual EA holder to negotiate these conditions.
PRCP regime reform
The consultation paper sets out a suite of amendments to the PRCP regime, including:
DETSI proposes to remove the PIE process for PRCP applications, which is currently required where an application involves approval of non-use management areas (NUMAs). DETSI cites regulatory burden, approval delays and redundancy as reasons for the proposal, for the reason that public interest is already, and will continue to be, considered as part of the PRCP approval process.
The EP Act currently requires that land in a PRCP Schedule achieves one of two outcomes: rehabilitation to a stable condition; or managed as a NUMA. A new land outcome category is proposed for transitional PRCP applications—a Management Post Mining Land Use. This would allow a post mining land use to be approved on land that needs ongoing management, where DETSI is not satisfied the land would be able to achieve a stable outcome at the point in time the PRCP Schedule is approved. This category would apply where land requires ongoing management, but does not meet NUMA criteria (eg because a land outcome document may not adequately identify land outcomes).
Amendments to section 431A of the EP Act are proposed to clarify that the offence of operating without a PRCP Schedule applies even when mining activities are not actually occurring. In such cases, DETSI is also proposing a power to issue rehabilitation directions that must be complied with, in the absence of an approved PRCP Schedule.
To reduce investment risk during asset sales, DETSI is proposing to allow deferral of PRCP application deadlines when an EA is transferred and no PRCP Schedule has yet been approved.
The three-year audit cycle currently prescribed for PRCP Schedules is proposed to be replaced with a discretionary model which would allow DETSI to require audits as desired.
Other proposed amendments
Other proposed amendments include:
DETSI proposes to remove the requirement to notify the terms of reference for an EIS under the EP Act. The justification for this proposal is that it unnecessarily duplicates the notification process already required at the point in time the EIS is prepared.
Including:
- streamlining underground water impact report (UWIR) processes;
- mandating groundwater bore data reporting via the Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment; and
- introducing internal and external review rights for landholders regarding bore direction notices.
To accommodate delayed detection of environmental harm, DETSI is proposing to extend the limitation periods under the EP Act for summary offences. This would allow DETSI to commence proceedings up to five years after the commission of an offence (compared to the current limitation period of one to two years, depending on the circumstances). Other proposed amendments include enhancing the powers of a court to order forfeiture of property and confiscation of proceeds from environmental crimes.
Where a resource activity has been carried out, the EP Act requires an EA surrender application to be accompanied by a post-surrender management report containing a residual risk assessment of the land. The EP Act allows the administering authority to impose a residual risk requirement, obliging the applicant to pay an amount within a reasonable period. DETSI is proposing amendments that would include a default period of six months to meet the residual risk requirements. If an EA holder does not comply with residual risk requirements within the stated period, a new surrender application must be made.
The EP Act currently recognises industry Best Management Practice programs which enable producers (holding agricultural ERAs) to demonstrate compliance with prescribed standards. DETSI is proposing minor administrative amendments to this process, including amendments clarifying the records that must be kept and reported by operators of accreditation programs.
Actions you can take now
- Have your say by making a submission. The submission process is an opportunity to comment on DETSI's proposed reforms, including by suggesting lower risk environmentally relevant activities that may be suitable to transition to a mandatory code.
- Watch this space. Feedback received during the submission process will be used to inform the drafting of a bill responding to the issues raised in the consultation paper.
For more detailed information about all proposed changes and to access the consultation paper, visit DETSI's website.