Nature Positive November 2025: Inside Australia’s Historic Environmental Law Overhaul

Executive Summary

In November 2025, the Australian Parliament enacted a transformative suite of environmental legislation, fundamentally reshaping the Commonwealth’s approach to biodiversity conservation, project assessment, and regulatory enforcement. This report provides an analysis of the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, the National Environment Protection Agency Bill 2025, and the Environment Information Australia Bill 2025.¹ Collectively framed as the “Nature Positive Plan,” these reforms represent the most significant overhaul of national environmental law since the introduction of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) a quarter of a century ago.³

The legislative package operationalises the Australian Government’s response to the 2020 Independent Review led by Professor Graeme Samuel AC, which declared the existing EPBC Act “outdated,” “ineffective,” and incapable of halting Australia’s environmental decline.³ The 2025 legislation dismantles the discretionary, minister-centric model of the past, replacing it with a new institutional architecture anchored by an independent regulator, Environment Protection Australia (EPA), and a rigorous data custodian, Environment Information Australia (EIA).⁶

Crucially, the passage of these bills through the Senate required a complex political negotiation. The Albanese Government secured the support of the Australian Greens by agreeing to end the Regional Forest Agreements (RFA) exemption—bringing native forest logging under federal jurisdiction for the first time in decades—and by tightening the “streamlined assessment” pathways to prevent the fast-tracking of coal and gas projects.⁸ However, the legislation stops short of introducing a “climate trigger,” a key demand of the crossbench and environmental groups, instead mandating the disclosure of Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions while excluding Scope 3 (downstream) emissions from mandatory assessment.¹¹

This report provides an in-depth examination of the new legal framework. It scrutinizes the shift from “significant impact” to “unacceptable impact” tests, the enforcement powers of the new EPA, the mechanics of the “Nature Positive” standard, and the profound implications for industries ranging from forestry and mining to renewable energy and housing. It further analyzes the funding models underpinning these new agencies and synthesizes the divergent views of legal experts, industry leaders, and conservationists regarding the legislation’s potential to deliver on its promise of halting species extinction.

Download a copy of Nature Positive November 2025: Inside Australia’s Historic Environmental Law Overhaul with my compliments – Kevin Parker Site Publisher. Associated news article Labor–Greens Deal: A New Era for Australia’s Environment Laws.

1: The Context of Reform

1.1 The Legacy and Failure of the EPBC Act (1999)

For twenty-five years, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) served as Australia’s primary environmental law. Enacted to protect Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES)—such as World Heritage areas, Ramsar wetlands, and threatened species—the Act was intended to provide a national safety net. However, over the decades, it faced mounting criticism for its complexity, bureaucratic delays, and, most critically, its failure to achieve its core objective: the protection of the environment.³

The 2020 Independent Review, led by Professor Graeme Samuel AC, provided a damning autopsy of the Act. The review found that Australia’s natural environment was in a trajectory of decline, with the Act failing to address cumulative impacts, resulting in a “death by a thousand cuts” for threatened species.³ Professor Samuel identified a “duplication of effort” between Commonwealth and State systems and a reliance on process over outcomes. The review concluded that the Act was not fit for current or future environmental challenges, lacking the mechanisms to manage the complex interactions between development pressures and ecological integrity.¹³

The Samuel Review’s central recommendation was a pivot towards “National Environmental Standards”—granular, legally enforceable descriptions of environmental outcomes—that would bind decision-makers and provide certainty to business. It argued that the focus should shift from bureaucratic box-ticking to achieving tangible environmental results.⁶

1.2 The “Nature Positive” Agenda

Following the 2022 election, the incoming Labor Government committed to a “Nature Positive Plan,” creating a legislative definition for “nature positive” that implies not merely sustaining the status quo but achieving an improvement in the diversity, abundance, and resilience of ecosystems from a baseline.⁶ This conceptual shift marks a departure from traditional conservation law, which often focuses on mitigation of harm rather than restoration.

The “Nature Positive” concept is rooted in the idea that environmental laws should do more than just slow the rate of destruction; they should actively contribute to the recovery of the environment. This aligns with global movements towards restorative sustainability and the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. The plan, launched in December 2022, set out the government’s commitment to reform Australia’s environmental laws to better protect, restore, and manage the unique environment, responding directly to the State of the Environment report and the Independent Review of the EPBC Act.⁶

1.3 The Staged Reform Process

The reform process was executed in stages, reflecting the complexity of the overhaul and the political necessity of securing support.

• Stage 1: Delivered in late 2023, this stage involved the expansion of the “water trigger” to unconventional gas projects and the establishment of a Nature Repair Market.⁷ This initial step addressed immediate gaps in the regulatory framework regarding gas development and created a mechanism for private investment in conservation.
• Stage 2: Originally intended to establish the EPA and EIA as standalone entities, this stage faced delays and was eventually merged into the broader reform package passed in late 2025.¹⁵ This consolidation allowed for a more integrated approach, ensuring that the new agencies were established alongside the legislative powers they would administer.
• Stage 3: The final stage, representing the full suite of reforms including the new bills, represents the culmination of years of consultation, political maneuvering, and drafting. It aims to balance the “faster yes, faster no” demands of industry—seeking reduced approval times—with the rigorous protection demands of the scientific community and environmental groups.¹⁶

2: The Legislative Architecture

The 2025 reforms are delivered through three primary bills and a transitional provisions bill, which together construct a new regulatory ecosystem. This section analyzes the key components of each bill.

2.1 Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025

This Bill acts as the engine room of the reform, amending the EPBC Act to integrate the new institutions and standards. It fundamentally alters the decision-making framework.

National Environmental Standards (NES):

The Bill empowers the Minister to make National Environmental Standards that are legally binding. Crucially, the legislation mandates that decisions must not be inconsistent with these standards.17 This is a significant departure from the previous regime, where guidelines were often advisory or could be overridden by discretionary powers. The NES provide the “rules of the road,” setting clear boundaries for acceptable impacts.

Unacceptable Impacts:

A rigorous definition of “unacceptable impacts” is introduced, creating a hard red line for development. Projects meeting this threshold cannot be approved, removing ministerial discretion to override scientific advice in egregious cases.1 This mechanism is designed to provide certainty early in the process—if a project is deemed to have unacceptable impacts, it receives a “fast no,” saving proponents time and money on doomed applications.

Assessment Pathways:

The Bill replaces the existing, convoluted assessment methods with a dual-track system:

1. Standard Assessment: For complex projects with significant impacts, requiring a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and comprehensive public consultation.
2. Streamlined Assessment Pathway: A new mechanism for lower-risk projects or those in identified “Go Zones” where regional data is already available. Proponents must provide sufficient information upfront to qualify.¹⁸ Notably, following negotiations with the Greens, this pathway was amended to explicitly exclude coal and gas projects, ensuring these high-impact sectors remain subject to rigorous scrutiny.⁹

Climate Disclosure:

While stopping short of a “climate trigger,” the Bill introduces mandatory climate disclosure requirements. Proponents of large projects must disclose Scope 1 (direct) and Scope 2 (indirect electricity) emissions and outline their management plans.12 This transparency mechanism aims to integrate climate considerations into the assessment process without establishing a hard emission limit within the EPBC Act itself.

2.2 National Environment Protection Agency Bill 2025

This Bill establishes Environment Protection Australia (EPA) as an independent statutory authority. The creation of the EPA addresses the “trust deficit” identified in the Samuel Review, separating the role of “regulator” from “policymaker”.¹⁹

Key Provisions:

• CEO Powers: The EPA CEO is granted significant powers previously held by the Minister, including assessment and approval functions (delegated), compliance auditing, and the issuance of Environment Protection Orders (EPOs).²⁰
• Independence: The CEO is an independent statutory appointment, designed to insulate the regulator from political cycles. While the Minister can issue a “Statement of Expectations,” they cannot direct the CEO on specific cases, preserving the integrity of individual regulatory decisions.²¹
• Restoration Contributions Holder: The Bill establishes the EPA as the holder of restoration contributions, managing funds paid by proponents in lieu of physical offsets. This centralizes the management of offsets, aiming to improve transparency and ecological outcomes.¹⁸

2.3 Environment Information Australia Bill 2025

This Bill establishes Environment Information Australia (EIA) and the statutory position of the Head of Environment Information Australia. The EIA’s mandate is to provide the “source of truth” for environmental data, underpinning the entire regulatory system.⁷

Key Provisions:

• “Nature Positive” Baseline: The EIA is legally required to define “Nature Positive” and set a baseline (likely using 2020 or a similar proximate year data) against which progress is measured.¹⁴ This baseline is critical for determining the success of the reforms and for assessing “net gain” claims.
• State of the Environment Reporting: The Bill mandates the preparation of the State of the Environment Report every two years, an increase in frequency from the previous five-year cycle.⁷ This ensures that decision-makers and the public have access to up-to-date information on environmental trends.
• Public Data Portal: The EIA is tasked with maintaining a public portal of environmental data, ensuring transparency and accountability. This “custodian of data” role addresses the previous lack of centralized, comparable data which hindered cumulative impact assessments.

3: The New Regulator – Environment Protection Australia (EPA)

The establishment of the EPA represents a paradigm shift in Australian environmental governance. Previously, the Environment Minister was the sole decision-maker, a structure that led to perceptions of political interference and a lack of public trust. The new EPA is designed to be a “tough cop on the beat,” armed with strong powers and statutory independence.

3.1 Independence and Governance Structure

The EPA is established as an independent statutory authority. Its CEO is appointed for a fixed term and can only be removed for specific reasons, similar to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police or the Auditor-General.²⁰ This structure is intended to insulate the regulator from the day-to-day pressures of politics.

Ministerial Call-In Powers:

A key point of contention during the legislative drafting was the extent of the Minister’s power to intervene. The final legislation retains a “call-in” power, allowing the Minister to take decision-making authority for projects of national significance.15 This compromise retains ultimate democratic accountability for major economic decisions while ensuring that the vast majority of regulatory assessments are handled by the independent regulator. Critics, including the Greens, argued for full independence, but the government maintained that elected officials must retain responsibility for decisions with economy-wide implications.23

3.2 Powers and Functions

The EPA’s remit is broad and consolidates functions previously dispersed across the department:

• Assessments and Approvals: The EPA undertakes the regulatory assessment of projects. While the Minister retains the approval power for the most significant projects (unless delegated), the EPA conducts the rigorous scientific assessment that informs these decisions.⁷ In practice, the Minister is expected to delegate the bulk of routine approvals to the EPA CEO, freeing up ministerial time for strategic policy and high-stakes decisions.⁸
• Compliance and Enforcement: The EPA is the primary enforcement body. It has the power to issue stop-work orders (EPOs), conduct audits, and prosecute breaches of the Act. This centralizes compliance, addressing the criticism that the previous department was a “toothless tiger”.¹⁹
• Permitting: The EPA handles permits for activities in Commonwealth areas, trade in wildlife, and other regulated activities, streamlining the administrative interface for business.

3.3 Funding the Watchdog: The Cost Recovery Model

A robust regulator requires robust funding. The 2025 reforms implement a “polluter pays” cost recovery model to ensure the EPA and EIA are financially sustainable and less reliant on fluctuating budget appropriations.

Assessment Fees:

The EPA will charge fees for assessments, aiming to recover the full cost of regulatory activities.24 This means that proponents of large developments—mines, infrastructure projects, housing developments—will pay fees commensurate with the complexity of the assessment required.

• Rationale: The principle is that the taxpayer should not subsidize the regulatory approval of private profit-making ventures.
• Scale: Fees for a standard Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assessment could reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, reflecting the staff hours and technical expertise required.²⁵
• Risk: Critics argue this could create a “pay for service” expectation, where proponents expect approval because they have paid for the assessment. However, the legislation includes safeguards to ensure the independence of the assessment process is not compromised by the funding source.

Mixed Funding Model:

While assessment costs are recovered from industry, core functions that serve the public good—such as regional planning, data management (EIA), and enforcement against illegal operators (where no proponent exists)—will be funded by government budget appropriations.25 This mixed model aims to balance financial sustainability with public service obligations.

4: Data as a Driver – Environment Information Australia (EIA)

One of the critical failures of the old EPBC regime was the lack of centralized, comparable data. Information was often locked in PDFs, fragmented across states, or simply non-existent, making cumulative impact assessment impossible. The EIA is designed to solve this “data crisis.”

4.1 The “Source of Truth”

The EIA is established as the custodian of national environmental data. Its mandate is to provide a single, authoritative source of information that decision-makers, industry, and the public can rely on.⁷

• Data Integration: The EIA will aggregate data from state agencies, research institutions, and industry monitoring reports, creating a comprehensive national database.
• Accessibility: A key function is to maintain a public portal, democratizing access to environmental information. This allows communities to see what is happening in their local environment and empowers citizen scientists and NGOs to scrutinize decisions.

4.2 Defining “Nature Positive”

The EIA has the statutory responsibility to define and measure “Nature Positive.” This is not just a slogan; it is a technical standard.¹⁴

• Baseline Setting: The EIA must establish a baseline for the state of the environment, likely using data from 2020 or a similar proximate year.²² This baseline serves as the reference point for determining whether the environment is improving or declining.
• Net Gain: The baseline is critical for assessing “net gain.” For a project to be approved, it may need to demonstrate that it contributes to a net gain in biodiversity relative to the baseline. Without a clear baseline, “net gain” is mathematically impossible to prove.

4.3 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting

The EIA’s role extends to continuous monitoring of the system’s performance.

• State of the Environment (SoE) Report: The Bill increases the frequency of the SoE report to every two years.⁷ This rapid reporting cycle is intended to force adaptive management. If the data shows a strategy isn’t working—e.g., a particular species is continuing to decline despite protection—the Standards or regional plans must be adjusted.
• National Environmental Accounts: The EIA will prepare annual Statements of Environmental Accounts, tracking the stock and flow of environmental assets (e.g., extent of native vegetation, water quality) similar to how the ABS tracks economic data. This integrates environmental health into the nation’s core accounting framework.

5: Key Legal Mechanisms

The reforms introduce several new legal mechanisms that fundamentally alter the operation of environmental law in Australia.

5.1 National Environmental Standards (NES)

The introduction of National Environmental Standards is arguably the most transformative element of the reform. Under the old Act, decisions were guided by “significant impact” guidelines which were often subjective and open to interpretation. The NES are legislative instruments: they set hard, legally binding boundaries.⁴

Priority Standards:

Two priority standards were released for consultation alongside the bills, providing a glimpse into the new regime:

1. Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) Standard: This standard details exactly what constitutes an impact on protected matters such as threatened species, World Heritage areas, and wetlands. It moves away from process (did you look for the koala?) to outcomes (you must not reduce the viable population of the koala).²⁷
2. Environmental Offsets Standard: This standard tightens the rules around offsets, enforcing a strict hierarchy where avoidance and mitigation must be proven before offsets are considered. It aims to eliminate “pay-to-destroy” schemes where proponents could simply buy their way out of destruction without delivering genuine environmental gains. It aligns with the “Nature Positive” goal by requiring that offsets deliver a net gain, not just no net loss.⁶

Legal Effect:

The Minister must not make a decision inconsistent with these Standards. This creates a justiciable line; if an approval violates a Standard, it can be overturned by the courts. This provides the “certainty” requested by business—knowing where the line is—and the “protection” demanded by conservationists.17

5.2 Regional Planning: “Go” and “No-Go” Zones

The legislation empowers the Minister to approve “Bioregional Plans.” These plans shift the focus from project-by-project assessment to landscape-scale planning.⁴

• “Go Zones” (Development Zones): Areas identified as having lower environmental sensitivity or where impacts can be managed. Projects in these zones benefit from streamlined assessments and faster approvals. This is particularly targeted at facilitating the rollout of renewable energy infrastructure and critical minerals projects.⁴
• “No-Go Zones” (Conservation Zones): Areas of high ecological value where development is prohibited or strictly limited. Identifying these zones upfront saves industry millions in feasibility studies for projects that would ultimately be rejected.²⁹
• Strategic Assessment: Regional plans allow for the strategic assessment of cumulative impacts. Instead of assessing the impact of one wind farm in isolation, the plan assesses the capacity of the region to accommodate multiple wind farms while maintaining ecological integrity.

5.3 “Unacceptable Impacts”

The introduction of a statutory definition for “unacceptable impacts” creates a clear “red light” mechanism.

• Definition: The legislation defines impacts that are “unacceptable,” such as those that “seriously impair the viability” of a threatened species or cause “irreversible damage” to a World Heritage property.³¹
• Effect: If a project is assessed as having unacceptable impacts, it must be refused. This removes the ability for a Minister to approve a project on “national interest” grounds if it crosses these hard ecological lines, except in extremely limited circumstances defined by the National Interest Exemption (NIE).¹

6: The “Climate Gap” and Emissions

The treatment of climate change within the new legislation was one of the most contentious aspects of the reform debate. Environmental groups and the Greens campaigned hard for a “climate trigger”—a mechanism that would require the rejection of projects based on their contribution to climate change. The final legislation represents a compromise that falls short of this demand.

6.1 Scope 1 and 2: Mandatory Disclosure

The legislation requires proponents of large projects to disclose their Scope 1 (direct emissions from the project) and Scope 2 (indirect emissions from electricity use) greenhouse gas emissions.¹²

• Management Plans: Proponents must also outline how they will manage and mitigate these emissions.
• Safeguard Mechanism: This requirement aligns the EPBC Act with the government’s Safeguard Mechanism, ensuring that large emitters are accounting for their onsite emissions.

6.2 Scope 3: The Exclusion

Crucially, the legislation does not mandate the disclosure or assessment of Scope 3 emissions—the downstream emissions generated when Australian fossil fuels are burned overseas.¹¹

• Government Rationale: The Labor Government argued that regulating Scope 3 emissions is a matter for international climate agreements and the importing countries, not domestic environmental law. They maintained that a “climate trigger” would be duplicative and economically damaging to Australia’s export industries.¹³
• Criticism: The Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) and Climate Council labeled this a “major loophole” and a failure of the “Nature Positive” promise. They argue that climate change is the single biggest threat to biodiversity, and ignoring the emissions from Australia’s massive coal and gas exports undermines the entire premise of the legislation.¹²
• Legal Risk: Legal experts warn that this exclusion leaves the government open to future litigation, as international law increasingly recognizes the responsibility of states for their contribution to global climate change.³²

6.3 The Water Trigger

While a climate trigger was rejected, the legislation retains and expands the “water trigger.” This mechanism requires federal assessment of coal seam gas and large coal mining developments that have a significant impact on water resources.⁷ This ensures that fracking and other unconventional gas projects remain under intense federal oversight regarding their impact on aquifers and surface water, a key concern for agricultural communities and environmentalists.

7: Ending the Exemption – The Forestry Sector Overhaul

One of the most significant and immediate impacts of the 2025 reforms is the removal of the exemption for Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs). This change, secured by the Greens in the Senate negotiations, effectively federalizes the regulation of native forest logging.⁹

7.1 The End of RFAs

For over 20 years, native forest logging operations conducted under RFAs were exempt from the assessment and approval requirements of the EPBC Act. This “special treatment” was based on the premise that state-based forestry management provided equivalent protection. However, the Samuel Review and subsequent court cases found that this was often not the case, with state regimes failing to protect federally listed threatened species.³³

The Repeal:

The new legislation repeals this exemption. Native forestry operations will now be subject to the same National Environmental Standards and EPA assessment processes as any other industry.34

• Impact: This means that logging in habitat critical for species like the Swift Parrot (Tasmania), Greater Glider (NSW/Victoria), and Leadbeater’s Possum (Victoria) will likely face “unacceptable impact” findings, effectively halting operations in high-conservation-value forests.

7.2 Transition Funding

Recognizing the economic impact of this regulatory shift, the government established a $300 million Forestry Growth Fund.³⁵

• Purpose: The fund is designed to assist the industry in transitioning away from native forest logging towards plantation-based timber and higher-value processing.
• Support: It provides grants for upgrading sawmills to process plantation timber (which has different characteristics to native hardwood) and supports workers in native forestry regions to transition to new employment.
• Innovation: An additional $100 million is allocated to the Australian Forest and Wood Innovations institute to drive research and development in sustainable timber products, supporting the sector’s long-term viability in a post-native-logging era.³⁷

8: Implications for Mining and Energy

The mining and energy sectors face a complex new regulatory landscape. While the industry avoided the “climate trigger,” it faces tighter scrutiny and higher compliance costs on other fronts.

8.1 “Unacceptable Impacts” and Sovereign Risk

The Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) expressed significant concern regarding the rigid definition of “unacceptable impacts”.³⁸

• Rigidity: The legislation defines impacts that “seriously impair the viability” of a threatened species as automatically unacceptable. This removes the flexibility for a Minister to approve a mine that might wipe out a local population of a species on the promise of offsets elsewhere.
• Investment Chill: The MCA argues that this creates “sovereign risk” and uncertainty, as projects could be rejected outright based on strict ecological criteria, regardless of their economic value.³⁸
• Counter-Argument: The government argues that clear “No-Go” lines actually increase certainty by preventing companies from spending millions on approvals for projects that should never proceed.

8.2 The Water Trigger

The expansion of the water trigger to all unconventional gas projects creates a significant hurdle for the gas industry.⁷ Projects that impact water resources—a common feature of fracking and coal seam gas extraction—will require rigorous federal assessment. This empowers the EPA to scrutinize the hydrological models of gas companies, potentially delaying or blocking projects in sensitive water catchments like the Murray-Darling Basin.

8.3 “Streamlined Assessment” Exclusion

A key concession to the Greens was the exclusion of coal and gas projects from the “Streamlined Assessment Pathway”.⁹

• Effect: This means that all new coal and gas proposals must go through the full, standard assessment process. They cannot access the faster, simplified approvals designed for lower-risk projects.
• Politics: This acts as a procedural brake on fossil fuel expansion, ensuring maximum scrutiny and public consultation for every new project.

9: Facilitating the Transition – Renewables and Regional Planning

The reforms are explicitly designed to facilitate the “green energy transition” by streamlining approvals for renewable energy projects.

9.1 “Go Zones” for Renewables

The Regional Planning framework allows the Minister to declare “Go Zones” for development.⁴

• Renewable Energy Zones (REZs): The government intends to use this power to designate Renewable Energy Zones where wind and solar projects are prioritized.
• Pre-Assessment: In these zones, the government will conduct strategic environmental assessments upfront. This means the cumulative impact of development is managed at a regional level.
• Speed: Individual projects within a “Go Zone” that comply with the regional plan can access the Streamlined Assessment Pathway, drastically reducing approval times. The government argues this “faster yes” capability is essential for meeting Australia’s 2030 and 2050 climate targets.¹⁶

9.2 Balancing Green Energy and Biodiversity

The reforms attempt to resolve the tension between building renewable infrastructure and protecting local biodiversity.

• Conflict: Large-scale solar and wind farms often require land clearing, which can impact threatened species. Under the old system, this led to delays and conflicts.
• Resolution: By identifying “No-Go Zones” (Conservation Zones) upfront, the system directs renewable investment away from the most sensitive ecological areas, reducing conflict and delay.²⁹

10: Compliance, Enforcement, and Penalties

The EPA is equipped with a formidable arsenal of enforcement powers, representing a shift from a “soft touch” educational approach to a “hard edge” regulatory posture.

10.1 Environment Protection Orders (EPOs)

The EPA CEO can issue Environment Protection Orders—effectively “stop-work” orders—in urgent circumstances where a breach of the Act is suspected or imminent.¹⁹

• Immediacy: These orders can be issued without the standard natural justice hearing requirements (though judicial review remains available), prioritizing immediate environmental protection over procedural delays.
• Duration: Following negotiations with the Coalition, the duration of these orders was limited (e.g., to 14 days initially) to prevent open-ended project freezes, although the EPA can extend them if the risk persists.⁸

10.2 The Penalty Regime

The legislation introduces a massive escalation in financial penalties, recalibrating the cost of doing business for environmental offenders.

• Civil Penalties: The maximum penalties for corporations have been increased dramatically. While the EPBC Act previously had penalties up to ~$16.5 million, the new regime aligns with corporate law multipliers. For serious breaches, penalties can reach up to $780 million (or higher, depending on the benefit obtained), calculated as 3 times the benefit gained or 10% of annual turnover, similar to consumer law breaches.¹⁹
• Penalty Units: As of November 2024, the value of a Commonwealth penalty unit was set at $330. The legislation applies multipliers of these units to determine fines. For example, a corporation might face a fine of 50,000 penalty units for a specific breach type.⁴³
• Criminal Liability: The reforms introduce new criminal offenses for providing false or misleading information to the EPA, reinforcing the integrity of the assessment process.¹⁹

10.3 Audit and Monitoring

The EPA has expanded powers to audit approval holders. Historically, compliance with EPBC conditions (e.g., “plant 1000 trees”) was rarely checked. The EPA will implement a risk-based audit program to ensure that “paper promises” translate into on-ground action.²⁰

11: Political Dynamics and Stakeholder Analysis

The passage of the 2025 reforms was a high-stakes political drama, revealing the shifting power dynamics in the Senate.

11.1 The “Deal”

The Albanese Government found itself navigating between the Coalition, which opposed the “green tape” of the EPA, and the Greens, who demanded a “climate trigger.”

• Greens Strategy: The Greens leveraged their balance-of-power position to secure the forestry ban and the exclusion of fossil fuels from fast-track pathways. They accepted the bill without the climate trigger, a pragmatic calculation that securing the EPA and forestry protections was better than no reform at all.⁹
• Coalition Opposition: The Coalition, led by Peter Dutton and Shadow Environment Minister Sussan Ley, fiercely opposed the bills. Ley characterized the reforms as a “handbrake to investment” and a “red light to jobs,” arguing that the EPA would be an unaccountable bureaucracy that would stifle economic growth.¹⁷
• Business Lobby: The Business Council of Australia (BCA) and Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) lobbied hard against the “unacceptable impacts” definition, fearing it would lock up resources. They secured some concessions on the clarity of definitions but failed to block the EPA’s establishment.⁴⁵

11.2 Stakeholder Reactions

• Environmental Groups: Groups like the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) welcomed the EPA but remained critical of the “Nature Positive” definition’s lack of a climate component. They view the reforms as a “necessary first step” rather than a complete solution.⁷
• Legal Experts: Legal commentators note that the clear statutory definitions will likely lead to increased litigation. The “unacceptable impacts” test, in particular, is expected to be tested in court early in the EPA’s life to establish legal precedent.¹⁵

12: Conclusion and Future Outlook

The enactment of the Environment Protection Reform Act 2025 marks the end of the “discretionary era” of Australian environmental law and the beginning of the “standards-based era.” By establishing an independent EPA and codifying the “Nature Positive” goal, the legislation attempts to align economic development with ecological restoration.

However, the success of this ambitious framework rests on implementation.

• Funding: The EPA must be adequately resourced to perform its expanded functions. The cost recovery model provides a revenue stream, but budget appropriations will be critical for its public good functions.
• Culture: The transition from a departmental division to an independent regulator requires a cultural shift towards enforcement and scientific rigor.
• Climate: The exclusion of Scope 3 emissions leaves a gaping hole in the regulatory net. The battle over Australia’s contribution to climate change will continue to be fought outside the EPBC framework—in the courts, the markets, and the court of public opinion.

As the Senate inquiry reports in March 2026 and the new EPA opens its doors, Australia enters a new regulatory reality: one where “no” is a faster, more likely answer for high-impact projects, and where the price of entry for development is a demonstrable gain for nature.

---

Table 1: Institutional Comparison – Old vs. New Regime

Feature	Old Regime (EPBC Act 1999)	New Regime (Reform Act 2025)
Regulator	Minister for the Environment (Political)	Environment Protection Australia (EPA) (Independent Statutory Authority)
Data Custodian	Departmental Division (Internal)	Environment Information Australia (EIA) (Independent Statutory Authority)
Decision Standard	“Significant Impact” Guidelines (Discretionary)	National Environmental Standards (Legally Binding)
Approval Test	Mitigation of harm (offsetting allowed)	“Unacceptable Impact” (Strict prohibition) & “Net Gain” (Restoration required)
Forestry	Exempt under Regional Forest Agreements (RFA)	Exemption Removed – Subject to EPBC assessment
Climate	No specific trigger	Scope 1 & 2 Disclosure (No Scope 3 / Climate Trigger)
Planning	Project-by-project assessment	Regional Planning (“Go” / “No-Go” Zones)

Table 2: 2025 Reforms Penalty Increases (Indicative)

Violation Type	Previous Max Penalty (Approx)	New Max Penalty (2025 Reforms)
Individual Breach	~$1.65 Million	~$1.65 Million (or 3x benefit) 42
Corporate Breach	~$16.5 Million	~$780 Million+ (Greater of: $825m, 3x benefit, or 10% turnover) 42
Providing False Info	Criminal Offence	New/Enhanced Criminal Penalties
Stop Work Order	Limited scope	Environment Protection Order (EPO) (Immediate effect, significant fines for non-compliance)

Note: Penalty amounts are estimates based on penalty unit values ($330 as of Nov 2024) and multipliers cited in legislation summaries.

Note: This report has been compiled with the help of Gemini 3.0 Pro. Please check that all information is to your satisfaction as no responsibility taken for error.