National EPA CEO outlines strategy to streamline EPBC Act approvals and reduce state regulatory duplication.

National EPA Strategy for EPBC Act Reform

The incoming Chief Executive Officer of Australia’s first independent federal environmental regulator, John Bradley PSM, has used a Sydney industry conference to set out how the newly established National Environmental Protection Agency (National EPA) intends to manage project approvals and reduce duplication with state environmental regulators. The address, delivered as the agency formally begins operations, responds directly to developer concerns about approval backlogs and overlapping Commonwealth-state oversight under the reformed Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

This matters for Australian environmental professionals because it signals how a two-tier regulatory system, state EPA plus a new federal EPA, will actually function in practice rather than just in legislation. For contaminated land consultants, ecologists, planners and lawyers advising developers on major projects, the shift changes how environmental impact assessments, baseline data and remediation strategies need to be structured from the outset. Getting the evidentiary base wrong under the new National Environmental Standards (NES) framework risks delays that ripple through financing, construction programmes and settlement timeframes.

For councils and state agencies, the announcement also clarifies the trajectory toward bilateral agreements that will determine how much assessment work remains with the states versus the Commonwealth. Understanding this trajectory now, while agreements are still being negotiated, gives practitioners a window to shape how transitional arrangements apply to projects currently in the pipeline.

Bilateral Agreements and National Environmental Standards Alignment

Bradley confirmed that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been agreed with Western Australia, with a final bilateral agreement targeted for completion by late 2026. This WA agreement is the most advanced of the state negotiations disclosed publicly. Advanced discussions are also underway with New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, though no firm completion dates have been set for those jurisdictions.

A key statistic underpinning the Commonwealth’s approach is that New South Wales already assesses more than 60 per cent of EPBC-assessable growth matters under existing bilateral arrangements. Bradley indicated the Commonwealth intends to lean on this existing capacity, relying on state decision-making frameworks wherever those state regimes satisfy the new statutory National Environmental Standards for Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and offsets. In practice, this means the National EPA will not duplicate assessment work where a state framework is deemed NES-compliant, but it retains independent oversight and enforcement powers where standards are not met.

The regulatory architecture sits within the Environment Protection Reform Act 2025 (Cth) and the National Environmental Protection Agency Act 2025 (Cth), which together establish the National EPA as an independent statutory body separate from the department. Draft National Environmental Standards for MNES and offsets are the mechanism by which state bilateral agreements will be tested and accredited. Streamlined assessment routes and transitional pathways were also flagged as part of the framework, intended to accelerate major infrastructure, housing and clean energy developments while the agency maintains independent compliance enforcement functions.

Importantly, the transition is not a simple handover. Where state frameworks do not yet meet NES thresholds, or where a bilateral agreement is still at MoU stage rather than finalised, proponents may face concurrent assessment by both the state EPA and the National EPA. This dual-track exposure is the central compliance risk Bradley’s remarks were aimed at addressing, and it remains live for NSW, Queensland and Victoria until their respective bilateral agreements are finalised.

Australian context: NES alignment and state bilateral agreements

For contaminated land practitioners working under the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (NEPM 2013, as varied), this development does not replace existing state contaminated land regimes but adds a federal overlay wherever a project also triggers EPBC Act matters of national environmental significance. In NSW, this means site assessments prepared under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 may need to be structured to also satisfy Commonwealth NES criteria if the site intersects with protected matters such as threatened species habitat, Ramsar wetlands or World Heritage areas.

In Victoria, the Environment Protection Act 2017 already imposes a general environmental duty and detailed contaminated land provisions. Projects triggering both state EPA notification requirements and EPBC Act referral will need environmental due diligence reports and remediation action plans (RAPs) drafted with an eye to Commonwealth evidentiary standards, not just state audit requirements. This is a material shift from current practice, where state and federal assessments have often been prepared somewhat independently, with federal referrals treated as a separate, later-stage exercise.

Queensland and South Australian practitioners should note that although their states were not named as having advanced bilateral discussions to the same degree as NSW, WA and Victoria, the direction of travel is clear. The Commonwealth’s stated preference to defer to state frameworks where NES-compliant means all states will eventually be assessed against the same national standards, and consultants working across state lines should expect convergence in evidentiary expectations over the next 12 to 24 months.

Practical implications for site assessment and approval pathways

Practitioners preparing environmental assessments for projects with potential MNES triggers should now scope their baseline studies against both state requirements and the draft National Environmental Standards from the outset, rather than treating Commonwealth referral as a later add-on. Front-loading survey effort, particularly for threatened species, ecological communities and water-dependent matters, reduces the risk of a second round of data collection if a project ends up in dual-track assessment.

For projects already in the pipeline, the transitional arrangements flagged by Bradley will determine which regime applies at each stage. Advisers should confirm with the relevant state regulator and the National EPA how referrals lodged before bilateral agreements are finalised will be handled, and document that position in project risk registers and client advice. Where a bilateral agreement remains at MoU stage, proponents should budget time and cost contingency for concurrent Commonwealth assessment.

Finally, contaminated land consultants should review report templates, sampling and analysis quality plans, and offset strategies against the draft NES for MNES and offsets as they are released for consultation. Early alignment positions reports to satisfy both tiers of regulation without rework, and gives practitioners a practical basis for making submissions on the draft standards while they can still be shaped.

References and related sources

• Primary source: theenergy.co
• packagingnews.com.au
• minterellison.com
• claytonutz.com
• minterellison.com
• EPBC Act

How iEnvi can help

iEnvi provides specialist consulting services relevant to this topic. Our team includes CEnvP Site Contamination Specialists with experience across contaminated land, groundwater, remediation, ecology, and regulatory compliance.

• iEnvi contaminated land services
• iEnvi remediation services
• iEnvi expert services and independent review services

---

This is an iEnvi Machete news summary. Prepared by iEnvi to summarise the source article for contaminated land, groundwater, remediation, approvals and site risk professionals.

Published: 02 Aug 2026

Need advice on this topic? Speak to an iEnvi expert at info@ienvi.com.au or 1300 043 684, or contact us online.