Victoria introduces civil penalty proceedings and commercial benefit disgorgement orders under amended planning law

Overview

Victoria has commenced Part 7 of the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Act 2026, introducing the most significant expansion of planning and environmental enforcement powers the state has seen in over a decade. The reforms amend the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) to give councils, prosecuting authorities and the courts new tools to pursue non-compliance on private and commercial land, including unapproved clearing, illegal fill placement and unpermitted site works.

For environmental consultants, planning lawyers and land developers operating in Victoria, this is not a minor procedural update. The reforms fundamentally change the risk calculus around treating planning or environmental non-compliance as a manageable cost of doing business. Courts can now strip offenders of every dollar of commercial benefit gained through unlawful works, and can do so on a civil standard of proof rather than the criminal standard previously required.

This matters well beyond Victoria’s borders. Site auditors, remediation contractors and due diligence practitioners working across state lines will need to understand how this regime compares with existing enforcement frameworks in NSW, Queensland and South Australia, and whether similar reforms are likely to follow. The commercial benefit disgorgement mechanism in particular sets a precedent other jurisdictions may look to adopt.

Key details

The centrepiece of the reform is the introduction of civil penalty proceedings under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic). Historically, planning and environmental prosecutions in Victoria required proof beyond reasonable doubt, the criminal standard. Under the new regime, prosecuting authorities can pursue civil proceedings on the balance of probabilities, a substantially lower evidentiary bar. This change alone is expected to increase the volume of enforcement action, since matters that previously stalled due to evidentiary difficulty can now proceed to court with a realistic prospect of success.

Courts have been granted explicit statutory power to issue Commercial Benefit Orders. These orders require an offender to pay an amount equivalent to the financial advantage or profit gained through non-compliant conduct, effectively disgorging any commercial upside from skipping permit conditions, commencing remediation without sign-off, or clearing vegetation ahead of approval. This closes a longstanding loophole where the cost of a fine was simply absorbed as a business expense against the profit made from expedited works.

Three additional sanctioning tools sit alongside the financial penalties. Adverse Publicity Orders require offenders to publicly disclose their non-compliance, typically through mandated notices or media statements. Supervisory Intervention Orders allow courts to impose ongoing oversight requirements on a site or entity following a breach. Industry Exclusion Orders can bar repeat or egregious offenders, including company directors, from operating within the development or construction sector for a defined period. These tools give courts graduated response options beyond a simple fine, particularly relevant for corporate entities with a pattern of non-compliance.

Authorised officers have also received expanded entry, search and inspection powers, allowing investigation of suspected planning and environmental offences on both private and commercial land without the procedural constraints that previously limited access. Limitation periods for commencing prosecutions have been extended to between two and three years from when the authority becomes aware of the non-compliant activity, a significant increase from prior timeframes. This means historical breaches, even those completed and seemingly closed out, remain exposed to enforcement action for a much longer window than practitioners may be used to.

How this compares with NSW, Queensland and SA enforcement frameworks

Victoria’s move to a civil standard of proof for planning and environmental prosecutions puts it ahead of most other Australian jurisdictions in terms of enforcement reach. In NSW, prosecutions under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) generally still require the criminal standard for indictable offences, though the NSW EPA has its own suite of civil and administrative tools including clean-up notices, prevention notices and mandatory audits. Queensland’s Environmental Protection Act 1994 similarly relies on a mix of criminal prosecution and administrative enforcement, with penalty infringement notices used for lower-level breaches. South Australia’s Environment Protection Act 1993 follows a comparable structure, with civil penalty provisions available for specific categories of contravention but not the broad disgorgement mechanism now available in Victoria.

The Commercial Benefit Order concept is notable because it directly targets the economic logic that has historically underpinned calculated non-compliance in land development. Where other states rely primarily on fixed penalty scales or infringement notices, Victoria’s approach ties the financial consequence directly to the actual gain achieved, removing any incentive to weigh a fine against a larger profit margin. Practitioners working on interstate portfolios should not assume equivalent exposure exists in NSW, Queensland or SA under current settings, though the trend toward strengthened environmental enforcement is consistent across all jurisdictions following the broader shift toward stricter environmental duties, including Victoria’s own general environmental duty under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic).

None of the changes alter the substantive contamination assessment frameworks that underpin site assessment work, such as the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 2013 or the associated Victorian EPA guidance. The technical standards for investigating, assessing and remediating contaminated land remain exactly as they were. What has changed is the consequence of getting the compliance side wrong. For consultants, lawyers and developers, the practical takeaway is straightforward: verify that permits, conditions and sign-offs are in place before works commence, document compliance thoroughly, and treat historical breaches on acquired sites as live enforcement risks rather than closed chapters.

References and related sources

• Primary source: www.holdingredlich.com
• holdingredlich.com
• holdingredlich.com
• https://www.holdingredlich.com/key-changes-under-the-planning-amendment-better-d

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 remediation services
• iEnvi contaminated land investigation 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: 20 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.