The deal between the Federal Government and the Greens to pass the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills is an inferior and disappointing outcome which fails to strike the right balance between protecting Australia's unique environment while enabling responsible and efficient project development.
Despite the industry's disappointment, we are now firmly focused on encouraging the government to rapidly accredit all states for both assessments and approvals which would support a more competitive Australian minerals sector.
This would be a major step forward for Australian mining companies which currently face a laborious, lengthy and complex double-track assessment and approval process on issues which are mostly identical.
The MCA has been advocating with all parties in recent weeks on behalf of Australia's world-leading mining industry for amendments which would have strengthened the bill and supported the objectives of the EPBC Act.
Some elements of the MCA's submission have been adopted in the final bill. These include:
- A simplified definition of unacceptable impacts - a critical new test where projects will either be rejected outright or move forward for detailed assessment
- Environment Protection Orders will be limited to a maximum of 28 days
- The retention of some key existing approval pathways in relation to preliminary documentation - the most used pathway for resources projects.
Other amendments which have not been accepted would have allowed our industry to deliver investment, jobs and regional benefits faster for the benefit of all Australians.
Faster approvals for mines means we can deliver the critical minerals and other commodities the world needs quicker, responsibly and more efficiently.
Yet the government's deal with the Greens will increase red tape by requiring mining operations to make climate disclosures under the EPBC Act despite this already being a clear legal requirement under the Safeguard Mechanism, which could open new avenues for legal challenge.
The failure to restrict the Federal EPA to compliance, enforcement and assurance functions only creates more power for unelected officials when the agency should be accountable to the public through elected officials.
And the nuclear actions definition as drafted in the bill will capture commodities and activities unrelated to the nuclear fuel cycle - such as critical minerals, universities and medical facilities, when simple changes could have maintained the focus on radiological risk.
