Last 7 days

Bill introduced & sales pitch: The government tabled its Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, pitching it as a fix for slow approvals and stronger protections, with a push to pass it by year-end. Reuters+2Minister for the Environment and Water+2
No split: The Coalition asked to split streamlining from tougher protections; Labor and key business voices rejected that, saying a split kills certainty. ABC+2ABC+2
Ministerial “override” flashpoint: Drafts indicate a national-interest override letting the minister approve projects inconsistent with new standards—Watt says it won’t be used for coal/gas; critics call it a carve-out. The Guardian+1
Climate “trigger” ruled out: The bill won’t include a climate trigger to block high-emitting projects; instead, emissions disclosure/mitigation plans are flagged. Greens say that’s not enough. ABC
Stakeholders diverge: Business wants clarity and speed; environment groups warn about discretion, offsets, and enforcement teeth; Greens want a climate test. Reuters+2ACF+2

What’s in the bill (headlines)

National Environment Standards with an “unacceptable-impact” test to knock out projects with irreversible harm up-front. Reuters+1
Independent EPA-style regulator for compliance/enforcement, while final approvals stay with the minister (subject to published reasons). The Canberra Times+1
Streamlined approvals via clearer rules and fewer Commonwealth/State duplications. Reuters
Offsets/restoration pushed toward “net-positive”/“nature-positive” outcomes (details still contentious). Allens
Harsher penalties & stop-work powers to lift compliance. Reuters

Override power: Environmental groups fear the national-interest override blunts the standards; government says it’s narrow and accountable. The Guardian+1
Climate test: No climate trigger is a hard red line for the Greens; Labor argues Samuel didn’t recommend one and prefers other climate tools plus disclosure. ABC
Offsets & “net-positive”: Concerns over like-for-like, permanence, and leakage. ACF
Split vs package: Business and Labor want a single package; Coalition still pressing for a split to fast-track approvals. ABC+1
Litigation risk: Lawyers flag early court tests around definitions (eg, unacceptable impact, override scope). Capital Brief

Samuel Review (2020)	Bill direction this week
Legally enforceable National Environment Standards; decisions (including accredited state processes) must be consistent with them. Rare, reasoned public-interest override permitted. DCCEEW	Standards form the core; unacceptable-impact gate built in. A national-interest override is included with reasons—exact guardrails are politically hot. Reuters+1
Independent compliance & enforcement separated from politics (EPA-like office). DCCEEW	EPA-style regulator created for monitoring/enforcement; minister retains approvals. Debate is over independence/teeth. The Canberra Times
Streamline & accredit states against Standards to cut duplication. DCCEEW	Streamlining is central—explicit aim to reduce duplication/timeframes. Reuters
Better data & measurable standards; move toward granular, quantitative tests. DCCEEW	Directionally aligned; details on datasets/thresholds still to surface publicly. Reuters
Climate: consider climate scenarios in impact/avoid-mitigate hierarchy, but no separate “climate trigger” in EPBC. DCCEEW	No climate trigger (consistent with Samuel’s framing), with emissions disclosure/mitigation planning instead. ABC