Australia’s mining and energy industries have warned of greater bureaucracy and project delays following a deal between the federal government and the Greens to pass the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and associated legislation, which reforms the nation’s key environmental law — the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
The EPBC Act is Australia’s central environmental framework, designed to protect nationally significant species and ecosystems.
Under proposed reforms, the new laws will introduce stronger national standards, establish a federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and expand the “water trigger” to include all forms of gas projects.
The government has argued the reforms are essential to deliver greater environmental accountability and transparency, but industry groups are warning of unintended consequences.
Queensland Resources Council (QRC) Chief Executive Officer Janette Hewson said her state’s resource sector faces “continued duplication and excessive regulation” that could jeopardise future investment.
“This deal fails to recognise the commitment and work that Queensland resources companies put in each year to responsibly develop resources within Queensland’s unique environment and progressively rehabilitate post mined land,” she said.
Hewson noted the sector’s contribution to the state economy, “from 0.1 per cent of the state’s land mass”, arguing that the new framework undervalues coal, gas, metals and minerals that Queensland supplies to domestic and global markets.
“The Commonwealth government must urgently engage the Queensland government to ensure state environmental approvals processes are accredited as quickly as possible,” she said, warning of “significant delays for new and existing projects in the state”.
The QRC is reviewing the deal’s impact, including the retention of federal approval powers for coal and gas projects under the water trigger and new “unacceptable impact” and “net gain” tests.
Hewson said these additions could increase regulatory uncertainty.
“The inclusion of climate disclosure requirements increases the risk of further legal challenge of projects,” she said, adding that such obligations are already covered by the Safeguard Mechanism.
Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) Chief Executive Officer Tania Constable echoed the sector’s frustration, calling the deal “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”.
Constable said the MCA supports faster environmental accreditation for states to streamline assessments and approvals and reduce duplication.
“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.”
She noted that some MCA proposals were included in the final bill, such as a simplified “unacceptable impacts” definition and limits on Environment Protection Orders to 28 days, but warned that the new climate disclosure rules would “increase red tape” and expose projects to “new avenues for legal challenge”.
Constable also criticised provisions expanding the “nuclear actions” definition, saying it could capture “commodities and activities unrelated to the nuclear fuel cycle — such as critical minerals, universities and medical facilities”.
The government maintains the EPBC reforms are vital to restore trust in Australia’s environmental laws and better align development with net-zero goals.
