Environmental law reforms ‘miss the mark’, business bodies say

On Thursday last week (30 October), the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 was introduced to the House of Representatives in a bid to create stronger environmental protection and restoration, efficient and robust project approvals and greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision making.

The Bill, introduced by Labor, aimed to support reforms that would protect the natural environment and drive productivity.

Murray Watt, Minister for the Environment and Water, said the Australian Parliament needed to make the crucial decision between reform or “keeping the broken, outdated laws we have which are failing business, the environment and the community”.

Watt noted that environmental law reform was long overdue, as it had been five years since professor Graeme Samuel AC delivered an independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to then-environment minister, Sussan Ley.

“We have the best opportunity right now to pass a modern, balanced set of laws in the spirit of the Samuel Review that are firmly in national interest,” he said.

“This is not a zero-sum game – we can and are delivering legislation that is better for the environment, and better for business. Every day we delay the passing of these laws, we see the environment suffer, and we see business and the community suffer.”

The reform bill was welcomed by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) as it saw it as a “unique opportunity” to get the balance right in protecting the environment and creating certainty for businesses.

Despite the welcome elements within the legislation, such as bilateral agreements with the states and territories to align environmental protections, other elements of the legislation were considered a concern.

A major concern highlighted by ACCI included the new watchdog power proposed under the ‘greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision making’ pillar.

“The powers proposed for the CEO of the Natural Environmental Protection Agency go beyond the Samuel recommendations of a commissioner, raising concerns about the limited accountability of such an economically important position,” said Andrew McKellar, ACCI chief executive.

“It is important that the final decision on environmental approvals remain the responsibility of the minister.”

McKellar also said there needed to be greater clarity around the definition of ‘unacceptable impact’ and an upfront environmental offset, and that the lack of a mechanism for banking offsets would add an unnecessary cost burden to projects.

It was important to get the legislation right, rather than meet an artificial deadline, McKellar said.

“The new requirements for emissions reporting are unnecessarily duplicative of other legislation and would appear unnecessary given the information cannot form part of the decision on an environmental approval trigger.”

“We encourage the major parties to work through all issues and to negotiate in good faith to get a timely and balanced outcome in the national interest.”

The Business Council of Australia (BCA) also shared similar views to those of ACCI, and said the reforms were an opportunity to fix a broken system, but further changes were needed to ensure they worked for the economy and the environment.

Bran Black, BCA chief executive, said the business sector needed reform that accelerated the delivery of housing, energy and critical minerals projects, which were the key elements needed to make sure Australia “remained a leading economy”.

Black added that the reform was a long-overdue step toward modernising a broken system; however, businesses still had many concerns that needed addressing if the EPBC system was to effectively support growing the economy.

“We urgently need an approvals system that works, but without significant changes to this Bill, with bipartisan support from the parties of government, we risk embedding a system that’s even slower, more complex and lacking the clarity and certainty needed for investment,” he said.

“Without reforms that strike the right balance, we won’t get the homes, the renewable energy or the critical minerals projects that are vital to Australia’s future prosperity.”

Key improvements to the reform bill proposed by BCA included clarity of ‘unacceptable impacts’, strengthened guardrails on Environment Protection Orders, a guarantee of timely accreditation of states and territories, and retained existing assessment pathways.

Other proposed reforms included a net gain test, ensuring new tests applied prospectively only, an extension of the non-controlled action sunset period, and clarified greenhouse gas disclosure requirements.

“If we don’t move on accreditation at the same time as these new standards are introduced, we’ll simply be entrenching more delays rather than genuinely addressing the challenges businesses presently face,” Black said.

“We want to see a system that protects the environment and drives investment. That’s the balance Australians expect – and it’s achievable if we get these reforms right.”