The Senate Committee Inquiry into the Bills reforming federal environment laws has released its final report, available here.    

The Inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications (Committee) into the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and six related bills (the Bills) reforming the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) framework commenced in October 2025, upon the Bills being introduced to parliament.  

The Albanese Government rushed the Bills through parliament, passing them on 28 November 2025, three months prior to the due date for the Inquiry’s final report. This was a concerning departure from legislative drafting standards with no reason to rush the Bills through except seemingly political motivation.  

EDO’s expert environmental law team was involved throughout the Inquiry by making submissions, supplementary submissions after the Bills passed, and appearing as witnesses before public hearings.  

What did the Committee inquire into?  

Given the ‘size, significance and complexity of reforms’,1 the Committee decided to continue the inquiry even after passage of the legislation. In particular they continued to take evidence on one key aspect of the reforms: the National Environmental Standards (Standards).  

At around the same time the Bills were introduced into Parliament, two draft Standards were also released for public consultation – one on Environmental Offsets and one on Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES).2 The Committee considered these draft Standards as part of the Inquiry.  

What did EDO submit to the Inquiry?  

EDO made submissions to the Inquiry on the Bills prior to their passage. You can find our original submission to the EPR Bill and related bills here, the transcript of EDO’s evidence given to the Committee prior to passage of the Bills here, and EDO’s assessment of the Bills that eventually passed here. EDO urged the Parliament to draft amendments to strengthen the Bills so they would actually protect the environment and deliver outcomes for nature, climate and community. We were pleased with many of the amendments to the Bills: to tighten land clearing loopholes, protect native forests, place safeguards on the devolution of EPBC Act powers, and exclude fossil fuels from certain assessment pathways, to name just a few.  

After the Bills passed, EDO made a supplementary submission to the Inquiry regarding the two draft Standards released to the public.3 EDO submitted that these drafts fall significantly short of the ambition stated by Government: that is, for Standards to contain clear, measurable and legally enforceable environmental outcomes that must be met through EPBC Act decisions.4 

 As originally drafted, both the Environmental Offsets and MNES Standards are unlikely to result in environmental protection, as they are unclear and imprecise, focus on process not environmental outcomes, include discretionary language, and are likely to be difficult to enforce. 

EDO made 48 recommendations to improve the Standards.  

You can read EDO’s submission on the draft Environmental Offsets Standard here, and its submission on the draft MNES Standard here. EDO expert lawyers also appeared as witnesses in a public hearing held by the Committee, which focused on the Standards. You can read the transcript of their evidence here. 

What did the Committee recommend in their Final Report?  

The Final Report made 14 recommendations. EDO is pleased to see some of the Committee’s recommendations reflect EDO’s submissions and evidence given in public hearings.  

In relation to the Bills, the following recommendation of the Committee picked up aspects of EDO’s submissions:   

  • The Committee recommended the Minister issue further guidance regarding the application of the national interest exemption and national interest approval pathway.5 EDO supports this recommendation, following our serious concerns about the Minister’s broad interpretation of the national interest test for the continuation of a bauxite mine in Western Australia. The national interest exemption was used to regularize ongoing clearing of jarrah forest by the mine where that clearing had been determined by the Department to have been occurring illegally for 15 years prior, but no enforcement action was taken. This example demonstrated the need for guidelines, ideally enforceable rulings, to limit the application of this test. EDO emphasized this concern at the Inquiry’s final public hearings.  

In relation to the Standards, the Committee made recommendations which also reflected EDO’s submissions. The Committee recommended the following: 

  • The Standards should facilitate clear, consistent, timely, and effective decision-making under the EPBC Act and to provide clear standards and benchmarks to allow the National Environmental Protection Agency to enforce compliance. This reflects EDO’s repeated call for the Standards to clearly specify environmental outcomes and set out clear, legally enforceable 6.7 
  • The draft Environmental Offsets Standard should clarify whether offsets can be deemed capable of commencement prior to the action, and clarify the nature, scope and application (and any variance) of the ‘like-for-like’ offset rule.8 This picks up EDO’s recommendation that the Environmental Offsets Standard should allow the setting of conditions that require offsets to be secured before commencement of a project, and the like-for-like principle should apply to all offset activities.  
  • The Committee made a number of recommendations regarding the operation of the Restoration Contributions Holder, including a recommendation for clarity on how to assess and calculate the quantum required to offset relevant impacts.9 This reflects EDO’s calls for the Restoration Contributions framework to be tightly regulated to remove risks of this ‘pay to destroy’ offset pathway which risks having no environmental outcomes. 

What happens next?  

EDO supports, in principle, the Committee’s recommendations, and urges the government to accept them in full. However, the federal government must do much more to ensure the reformed environmental laws prevent the rapid decline Australia’s most significant environmental values are suffering. This includes ensuring the Standard’s live up to the government’s stated intention: clear, binding Standards that lift environmental outcomes. 

The two draft Standards that have already been made publicly available – on Environmental Offsets and MNES – will be out again for public consultation for a 20 business day period, to comply with the statutory consultation requirements. 

Further standards are expected to also be released in the coming months, being Standards on First Nations Engagement, Community Engagement and Data and Information.  

Stay tuned for more updates and analysis from EDO as Standards are released.