Australia is preparing to rewrite its environmental laws in what the government describes as a move toward a “nature positive” future. At first glance, the draft EPBC Reform Bill looks like a technical update, full of new definitions, modern language and references to improved data and transparency. But beneath its polished exterior, the Bill marks a profound shift — one that risks reshaping the country’s resource industries and, with them, the economic foundations that have underpinned national prosperity for decades.
The reform package is vast. It embeds new triggers, expands Commonwealth oversight, creates multiple new agencies and includes a sweeping set of obligations for industries already working within tightly regulated frameworks. Nowhere is the impact more profound than across the uranium, petroleum and minerals sectors — industries that have powered Australia’s export economy and energy security. These reforms may not simply tighten environmental law; they risk suffocating the very industries that secure the country’s strategic and economic future.
One of the most consequential changes is the quiet retirement of the long-standing “nuclear action” trigger. In its place appears an innocuous-sounding term: “radiological exposure action.” But the simplicity of the words belies their reach. The new definition captures a broad spectrum of activities involving radiological material — not just the large-scale nuclear installations historically under Commonwealth oversight, but the routine, low-level processes that occur at almost every uranium mining operation in the country. Where a uranium mine once required EPBC assessment only under specific circumstances, the new framework expands federal jurisdiction to ore handling, transport, tailings management, waste storage and even some exploration activities.
In effect, the law stops distinguishing between a nuclear facility and a truck carrying drums of yellowcake. For an industry already subject to comprehensive regulation by state radiation authorities, ARPANSA and international safeguards frameworks, the added Commonwealth layer risks choking projects in duplicative bureaucracy. Approval timelines will lengthen. Costs will climb. And a sector that should be benefitting from the global resurgence of nuclear energy could instead find itself paralysed by paperwork.
The petroleum industry fares no better. Offshore oil and gas projects, already overseen by one of the world’s most respected regulators — NOPSEMA — will now face an uncomfortable duality. The Bill introduces “alternate pathways” for approvals, but in practice, these pathways overlap rather than replace. An offshore project may comply with NOPSEMA’s exhaustive environmental plan requirements, only to find itself pulled back into EPBC assessment on the basis of new or expanded triggers related to marine species, cumulative impacts or underwater noise. What promoters frame as simplification instead opens the door to duplicated governance, competing interpretations between agencies, and renewed opportunities for projects to be delayed in court.
Where the reforms become most sweeping, however, is in their treatment of Australia’s broader minerals sector. The Bill empowers the Commonwealth to impose binding “priority actions” across entire bioregions — effectively allowing regional restrictions or quasi-moratoriums to be introduced without parliamentary debate. Exploration programs that have operated predictably for decades may now be curtailed based on cumulative impact modelling or seasonal biodiversity surveys. Even low-impact activities such as drilling and trenching could find themselves unexpectedly pulled into federal assessment.
For mid-tier and emerging miners, this introduces a high level of operational risk. Exploration windows could rapidly shrink. Financing could become harder to secure as investors confront layers of uncertainty. And at a time when the world is increasingly reliant on critical minerals — lithium, nickel, copper, rare earths and graphite — Australia risks constructing barriers that push new development offshore.
Layered on top of this are mandatory greenhouse gas assessment requirements that apply even to projects with minimal emissions, along with an expanded regime of audits, data demands and public compliance reporting under a newly established National Environmental Information Agency. Combined, these measures create a labyrinth of overlapping approvals, duplicated reporting requirements and grounds for legal contestation. Environmental litigation, once an occasional threat, could become a standard project milestone.
All of this comes at an extraordinary moment in global resource markets. Nations around the world are restructuring their energy systems, rebuilding supply chains and racing to secure rare earths, strategic minerals, nuclear fuel and reliable gas supplies. Canada is streamlining approvals for critical minerals. The United States is using the Defense Production Act to fast-track strategic extraction. Namibia, Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan are aggressively courting investment. Australia, meanwhile, appears poised to erect a more complex and unpredictable regulatory architecture than any of its competitors.
The contradiction is stark. The same government advocating for electric vehicles, decarbonisation, energy security and sovereign capability is proposing a law that risks slowing or halting the very industries required to deliver those outcomes. Uranium becomes ensnared in radiological red tape. Offshore gas becomes a two-agency battleground. Mineral explorers face uncertain ground rules across vast portions of the continent. And major projects — from iron ore expansions to rare earth developments — confront new layers of delay, cost and risk.
Environmental protection is essential. No serious voice in industry or government contests that. But protection is only effective when built on clear standards, efficient assessment pathways and predictable decision-making. The EPBC Reform Bill, as drafted, does not offer clarity, efficiency or predictability. It offers complexity, duplication and uncertainty. It risks slowing the nation’s shift toward cleaner energy, undermining strategic industries and driving investment to more agile jurisdictions.
Australia stands at a regulatory crossroads. The path chosen will shape the next generation of national development. A balanced framework can safeguard both the environment and the economy. But a sprawling, over-engineered system risks delivering neither. Unless carefully amended, the EPBC reforms could become a case study in how well-intentioned legislation can undermine the very future it seeks to secure.
Learn more about the industry attend one our courses:
