An exposure draft of the National Environmental Standard for Community Engagement (Community Engagement Standard) has been released for public comment.  

See the consultation page here for more information and to read the updated documents:

Submissions are due by 11.59pm, Tuesday 7 July 2026.

The Community Engagement Standard is one of the Standards recommended by Professor Graeme Samuel AC in his independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Professor Samuel recognised that “(t)he processes of the EPBC Act limit avenues for community participation in decision-making” and “(e)ffective, outcomes-based decision-making, where the community can engage with the process and understand the reasons for decisions, is the primary way to improve trust”.

Community participation is important because it improves the quality and integrity of decision making by ensuring that local knowledge, scientific expertise and diverse community perspectives are considered alongside other interests.

There are some key ways in which this important Standard needs to be strengthened to ensure that community engagement is genuine, timely and meaningful. EDO is concerned that:

  • The Outcomes, Objectives and Definitions need strengthening. For example:
    • The definition of “engagement” must be strengthened and refer to “meaningful engagement” in line with the Objective of the Community Engagement Standard.
    • The outcomes should be strengthened, for example, by referring to “early and ongoing participation” rather than simply “input” from the public.
    • How the Community Engagement Standard applies to different subsets of the general public (e.g., “affected persons”) must be clarified and not overly restricted.
  • The Objective and Outcomes have been made largely irrelevant. Subsection 7(2)–(7) operate to effectively displace the Outcomes and Objective – by only requiring the decision-maker to be satisfied that proponent has undertaken “engagement” (which is not well defined), and applied the process-based Principles, rather than being satisfied the Objective and Outcomes have been achieved.
  • The detailed requirements for meeting the Principles, as set out in the Standard, don’t actually need to be met because the Standard allows a proponent to meet the Principles in some other way by simply providing “other evidence” that demonstrates the engagement meets that Principle. This creates uncertainty for both proponents and the public in understanding exactly what is required by the Standard, and discretion for decision makers in determining whether the Standard has been met. This is at odds with the purpose of Standards, which is to create clear and objective benchmarks and boundaries for decision making.
  • There is uncertainty about how Community Engagement Standard applies, for both approval decisions and pathway decisions, including the streamlined assessment pathway. This should be clarified.
  • It is unclear how the Community Engagement Standard will interact with the (not yet released) First Nations Engagement Standard.

Our key concerns with the draft Community Engagement Standard are set out in more detail in our EDO Submission Guide: Key Concerns with the Exposure draft of the National Environmental Standard (Community Engagement) 2026 – June 2026.