The Albanese government’s deal with the Greens to pass sweeping EPBC reforms marks a structural shift in how major projects will be approved, regulated and contested in Australia. For the mining and energy sectors, this is less about politics in Canberra and more about a recalibration of investment risk, regulatory certainty and long-term project sequencing.
For months, industry had hoped Labor would secure a more business-aligned deal with the Coalition. Instead, the government has chosen to anchor the package to Greens support, locking in a framework that strengthens federal oversight, tightens environmental tests and places new limits on fossil fuel projects and native forestry. The headline message for proponents is clear: federal intervention will increase, standards will harden, and the pathway for project approvals will become more dependent on demonstrating credible, defensible environmental outcomes.
The reforms introduce a national regulator with expanded enforcement powers, a suite of binding environmental standards, a revised “unacceptable impacts” test and a sharper Commonwealth “call-in” mechanism for projects moving through accredited state processes. At the same time, a new streamlined assessment process is being rolled out for sectors the government views as nationally significant, including renewables and housing, while fossil fuel developments are expressly carved out of these faster lanes. This bifurcation in approvals pathways represents a material change in how project risk must now be assessed.
For the resources sector, the immediate concern is not simply tougher rules but increased ambiguity. Retaining 37 separate “unacceptable impact” criteria, alongside more subjective thresholds around species viability and environmental damage, creates room for divergent interpretations across the new regulator, state partners and the courts. Business had sought simplification; instead, proponents will need to invest in more robust baseline studies, clearer modelling, and early engagement to avoid lengthy stop-start assessments.
Energy proponents, particularly those in the renewables pipeline, may see upside. The reforms promise quicker, more predictable approvals for projects that sit within the national standards and demonstrate low environmental risk. Given the current bottlenecks facing transmission, wind and solar approvals, any improvement in cycle time will be welcome. But the price of that speed is higher upfront information requirements and greater scrutiny of cumulative impacts, offset integrity and biodiversity outcomes.
Fossil fuel developers face a more structural constraint. Exclusion from streamlined assessment, tighter provisions around the water trigger, and reduced access to national-interest designations will lengthen timelines and reduce optionality for sequencing large projects. None of these changes make new developments impossible, but they do weight federal discretion more heavily into feasibility decisions and final investment approvals.
Across mining, energy and infrastructure, the commercial implications are already becoming clear. Project pipelines will need re-profiling. Contingency allowances may rise as proponents factor in a more interventionist regulator and more frequent federal review points. Native forestry operations, integrated mining-forestry supply chains and proponents relying on land-clearing exemptions will face particular disruption as long-standing carve-outs expire and transition periods close.
Stakeholder divergence will sharpen this complexity. Conservation groups are preparing to pressure-test the new system; the Greens will campaign on these reforms as evidence of stronger federal control; and business groups will seek clarity on how the new standards will be applied in practice. The first tranche of assessments under the new framework will likely set precedents that shape the next decade of project approvals.
In this new environment, proponents who invest early in compliance strategy, environmental design, community engagement and approvals sequencing will be best placed to navigate uncertainty. The reforms are not designed to stop development – but they will reward those who can demonstrate clear alignment with national standards and expose those who cannot to longer, costlier regulatory pathways.
The legislation has passed. The real test will be implementation. For mining and energy proponents, the next 12 to 24 months will be decisive in determining whether the new EPBC regime becomes a predictable approvals system or a materially higher regulatory hurdle that reshapes Australia’s project pipeline.
