Stop These Things’ Weekly Round Up: 7 September 2025

One thought on “Stop These Things’ Weekly Round Up: 7 September 2025”

1. National Environmental Protection
   Agency Bill 2025 (NEPA Bill)

   The Bill establishes the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) as the new federal regulator that will implement and enforce the re-written EPBC framework and related Commonwealth environmental laws. NEPA is promoted as an independent “tough cop on the beat” with powers to enforce compliance, require audits, and issue environmental protection
   orders.

   In practice, NEPA’s independence and accountability are weakly built in:

   • The Minister retains broad control through appointments, accreditation powers and the ability to issue binding “rulings” on how the law should be applied.
   • NEPA operates inside a framework designed to fast-track approvals and devolve decisions to states via accredited regimes, while claiming to strengthen standards.

   So this Bill is not just about creating a regulator; it is about who ultimately controls environmental decision-making and how much is shielded from scrutiny.

   RED FLAGS

   1. Weak independence – “tough cop” that answers to the Minister

   • NEPA is presented as an independent regulator, but its design allows significant political influence, which EDO flags as “significant deficiencies… that will potentially undermine its independence and reduce its accountability.”
   • The Minister retains strong powers to direct how the EPBC framework is applied, including through rulings and accreditation decisions, which can override or pre-empt NEPA’s technical judgement.

   Instead of a genuinely arm’s-length regulator, NEPA risks becoming a delivery arm for government priorities (housing, renewable corridors, critical minerals) rather than an independent guardian of MNES.

   2. Ministerial “rulings” – quasi-judicial power with minimal safeguards

   • The Bills introduce a new power to issue binding “rulings” on how the EPBC law should be applied, by either the Minister or NEPA’s CEO.
   • These rulings can override other decision-makers and effectively stand in the shoes of courts or Parliament, but without equivalent checks and balances.

   Risk: This is a very unusual power in environmental law, and EDO notes it risks further politicisation and uncertainty rather than the constrained, rules-based system Samuel recommended.

   4. Fast-tracking and “priority” projects built into NEPA’s operating logic

   • Once actions are classed as “priority actions” in development zones, they can proceed via registration rather than full EPBC approvals, with no project-level public scrutiny.

   Risk: NEPA’s workload will skew towards facilitating pre-screened development rather than robustly testing whether particular projects should be refused or heavily conditioned.

   2. Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 Executive summary

   This is the core Bill of the seven-bill package. It rewrites the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and introduces a new bioregional planning framework. The stated goal is to “modernise” approvals and “streamline” environmental decision-making, but the mechanism effectively shifts control from project-level assessment to
   up-front regional zoning.

   Under the Bill, the Minister can divide Australia into Development Zones and Conservation Zones, based on perceived “environmental values.” Projects classed as “priority actions” in Development Zones are registered rather than assessed, meaning no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), no project-specific public comment, and limited review rights.

   The Bill also introduces new tools—offset funds, protection statements, and “rulings”—that replace scientific assessment with administrative shortcuts and give the Minister broad discretion to waive or reinterpret protections.

   Major dangers / big issues

   1. Bioregional planning replaces assessment

   • The Bill’s Part 10A allows the Minister to pre-approve Development Zones years before any specific proposal exists.
   • Once a zone is declared, projects can proceed with only registration, bypassing Part 9 EPBC assessment.
   • This removes site-specific scrutiny, independent science review, and the public’s right to object.

   Effect: Environmental protection becomes a one-time regional map exercise, not a continuing duty to test individual impacts.

   2. “Lower environmental values” concept is a loophole

   • Zones are classified by relative rather than absolute values.
   • A remnant forest may be deemed of “lower environmental value” simply because it is not World Heritage-listed.
   • The term “remnant” does not appear anywhere in the Bill.

   Effect: Thousands of hectares of unlisted but ecologically critical native vegetation could be opened to clearing.

   3. Offsets and “restoration charges” legitimise destruction

   • Developers can pay into a “restoration fund” to claim a “net gain” elsewhere.
   • No equivalence or success-rate tests are defined.
   • Time-lag and geographic mismatch make the approach scientifically invalid for oldgrowth or remnant ecosystems.

   Effect: Converts the EPBC’s avoid-mitigate principle into a “pay-to-destroy” scheme.

   4. Ministerial discretion and “national interest” exemptions

   • The Minister may override any restriction if a project is deemed in the “national interest” (e.g., renewable energy, housing).
   • These exemptions are subjective, undefined, and non-reviewable.
   • The Bill also limits judicial review and standing rights.

   Effect: Political expediency can trump environmental law.

   5. Public participation eroded

   • Public input moves to the planning stage—long before any project details exist.
   • No right to comment or seek reconsideration once a project is registered in a Development Zone.

   Effect: Citizens lose practical ability to object to real, on-the-ground proposals.

   6. Critical habitat weakened

   • Only “registered critical habitat” receives legal protection; unregistered habitat can be cleared.
   • Registration is discretionary and may exclude large areas of viable habitat.

   Effect: Creates a two-tier system—listed sites protected, the rest expendable.

   Reply