EPBC reforms: What the draft regulations could mean for proponents
Draft EPBC regulations propose changes to approvals, unacceptable impacts, bioregional plans and restoration contributions. What proponents need to know.
The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is consulting on draft regulations for the next stage of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) reforms. Most changes are proposed to commence on or before 1 December 2026. Submissions close on 13 October 2026.
The reform Acts passed Parliament on 28 November 2025 and are not open for comment. This consultation covers the regulations and rules beneath them. These are the parts I think matter most for proponents.
The streamlined pathway depends on what “complete” means
Four assessment pathways become three. A new streamlined assessment replaces Assessment on Referral Information, and the Public Environment Report merges into the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pathway. The pathway will be chosen by how ready a project’s information is for an approval decision, not by how complex the project is. DCCEEW states a project could be approved within 50 business days of a valid referral. Fossil fuel projects are excluded.
The pathway addresses a real bottleneck and is needed. My concern is where the time is actually lost. In my experience, most delay comes from reaching agreement between the proponent’s team and the regulator on survey methods, habitat and impact scoring, offset suitability and the documentation that goes with them.
The papers do not define a “valid” referral. The required information will be listed in updated schedules to the EPBC Regulations, described as “a clear checklist”, but the checklist is not in this package. Where minor gaps are found, the assessment moves to preliminary documentation, a 70-day statutory timeframe. Without a clear technical standard for completeness, I do not expect the pathway alone to shorten referral timeframes much beyond the status quo.
The papers propose fewer stop clocks, with the Minister required to publish reasons when further information is needed. They do not say which stop clocks will go. In my view, publishing reasons will not in itself compress timeframes.
A new unacceptable impacts test, with little detail yet
From commencement, an action must not have unacceptable impacts on protected matters to be approved, alongside consistency with the National Environmental Standards and a net gain test for offsets. The Minister may still approve an action in the national interest, excluding fossil fuel actions, even where it results in unacceptable impacts.
This could be one of the most significant changes for proponents. The papers do not exclude any sector from the unacceptable impacts test and do not explain how unacceptable impacts will be identified or assessed.
Landscape-scale pathways need ground-level information
The papers cover three distinct instruments: bioregional guidance plans, new bioregional plans with regulatory zones, and strategic assessments. Under a bioregional plan, registered priority actions in development zones would not need project-level approval, and restricted actions in conservation zones are prohibited.
Landscape-scale planning is essential to managing ecological systems. To work, these plans must rest on ground-truthed information about the area’s ecological features and functions. A large scale plan built on desktop review produces broad “blobs” that do little to direct locality-level patterns of development (since they are blind to actual features and functions on the ground. Large scale and desktop produced planning leaves each landholder to survey and plan in isolation, the piecemeal outcome the pathway is meant to avoid. This also reduces options for rapid approval for development that is situated within strategic development footprints.
The draft regulations would require a bioregional plan to identify the location and relevant habitat of all matters of national environmental significance (the protected matters under the EPBC Act) in the plan area, and to justify its zone boundaries. The papers do not say how this expectation is to be met or whether field survey is expected. Guidance plans and strategic assessments carry lighter requirements.
Restoration contributions: pooling is provided for, price is not
Proponents will be able to pay a restoration contribution instead of, or alongside, delivering an offset. The Restoration Contributions Holder would then have three years to secure a restoration action and begin management, or four if it moves to an alternative action.
I see this as a step toward landscape-level investment in ecological systems. To succeed, funds must be pooled so acquisition follows a strategic pattern, and the option must compete with the offsets market to be commercially viable.
Making a submission
If these settings affect your projects, a submission is worthwhile. DCCEEW asks whether you support each proposal, in part or not at all, and why. The papers and online survey are on the DCCEEW consultation page. Submissions close at 9.00pm AEDT (8.00pm Brisbane time) on Tuesday 13 October 2026.
We are working through the draft regulations now. If you would like to discuss what they may mean for your approvals program, please get in touch.
This article is general commentary on proposed regulatory changes and is not legal advice or advice on any particular project or application.