EPBC Reform Part 2 – the Details of the Offsets Changes
The changes to the EPBC Act as of 28 November 2025 are the largest public facing changes to the act in its history – since 1999.
These changes are fundamentally driven by the fact that the application of the act has become inconsistent, timelines for assessment have blown out, expectations of what developers should be doing have become entirely unpredictable, and for offsets – changes in the assessment process, protocols, and application of legislation almost week to week.
Ultimately – these changes to the act (plus the addition of associated legislation and policy) are aimed at bringing commonsense to the EPBC approval process through three key pillars –
- The creation of the National Environment Standards
- Encouraging consistency between state and federal approval pathways
- Guiding results and expectation consistently at a strategic scale via bioregional planning.
Two of the new NES are currently open for public consultation (closing January 30 2026) – specifically the Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) standard and the Offsets standard.
The goal of both is to create clarity around expectations on what developers should be looking to give DCCEEW when going through the process. New definitions around expectations for legal security of offsets, the potential for financial offsets, and the requirement for a “net gain” all at least provide guidance on what will be expected when the NES are made.
However – underlying issues with the offsets process still remain. Lack of fixed terms and definitions, no guarantees around a robust and clear application of the new process, and the obvious fact that many state processes will need to adapt to enable goal streamlining leaves much to be desired.
To really pain this picture – for projects impacting the same MNES in Central Queensland, we have experienced 3 completely different regulatory interpretations of the process in the last 12 months alone.
In the last month alone, we have had 2 different regulatory interpretations of the approvals process for projects on the same EPBC pathway.
For all developers, be it mining, renewable energy, urban development, infrastructure, this inconsistency leads to delays, inflated costs, and ultimately uncertainty.