Australia Minerals Council Blasts EPBC Bill’s Lack of Environment and Mining Balance

“The deal between the Federal Government and the Greens to pass the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and related bills is 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,” the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) said about the Environment Protection Reform (EPBC) Bill 2025.

EPBC amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and was passed by both houses on November 28. It was first read to the House of Representatives on October 30, then to the Senate on November 24.

Included in the objectives of the bill are:

• Streamlining the assessment and approvals process.
• Updating provisions relating to accreditation and bilateral agreements.
• Providing a framework for the minister to make, vary and revoke national environmental standards.

The MCA said some of its recommendations were added to the final bill, such as a simplified definition of unacceptable impacts. Through a new test, projects will either be rejected outright or move forward for detailed assessment.

The council’s suggestion to limit Environment Protection Orders to a maximum of 28 days, and to retain some key existing approval pathways in relation to preliminary documentation, were also adopted.

“Other amendments which have not been accepted would have allowed our industry to deliver investment, jobs and regional benefits faster for the benefit of all Australians,” the MCA said. “Faster approvals for mines means we can deliver the critical minerals and other commodities the world needs quicker, responsibly and more efficiently.”

MCA CEO Tania Constable added that the government’s deal with the Greens “will only add red tape,” as it will force miners to make climate disclosures under EPBC, even though they’re already legally required to do so under the Safeguard Mechanism. She highlighted that this could “open new avenues for legal challenge.”

“The failure to restrict the Federal EPA to compliance, enforcement and assurance functions only creates more power for unelected officials when the agency should be accountable to the public through elected officials,” the MCA said.

“And the nuclear actions definition as drafted in the bill will capture commodities and activities unrelated to the nuclear fuel cycle — such as critical minerals, universities and medical facilities, when simple changes could have maintained the focus on radiological risk," its statement concludes.

Don’t forget to follow us @INN_Australia for real-time news updates!

Securities Disclosure: I, Gabrielle de la Cruz, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.