Victoria’s Environment Protection Act 2017 in 2026: Stricter Duty to Manage Obligations and Contaminated Land Due Diligence Requirements

Overview

Victoria’s regulatory environment for contaminated land and environmental due diligence has entered a materially more demanding phase in 2026. The transition period following the commencement of the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic) has effectively closed, and the EPA Victoria is now applying strict, evidence-based expectations to how contamination risks are identified, documented, and managed across the property development and investment sectors. This is not a minor procedural update. It represents a fundamental shift in how regulators assess compliance, moving away from a system that tolerated passive, paper-based responses to legacy contamination toward one that demands verifiable, on-ground risk management that can withstand close regulatory scrutiny.

For property developers, investors, legal practitioners, and environmental consultants operating in Victoria, the practical consequences are significant. Standard desktop due diligence assessments that rely on historical reports, basic database searches, and broad assumptions about site condition are no longer adequate to satisfy regulatory expectations or to protect clients from transaction risk. Regulators are actively seeking clear and traceable evidence that the legal obligations under the Act are being met in practice, not simply acknowledged in documentation. The gap between what has historically been considered sufficient and what is now required is widening rapidly.

This development matters beyond Victoria’s borders as well. As the most substantive overhaul of environmental protection legislation in Australia in decades, the Victorian framework is being watched closely by practitioners in other jurisdictions. The principles being enforced in Victoria in 2026, particularly the proactive duty-based model, reflect a direction that other state and territory regulators are progressively moving toward. Understanding the Victorian experience now will better position practitioners to respond when equivalent regulatory tightening occurs in Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia, and elsewhere.

Key details

The Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic) replaced the Environment Protection Act 1970 (Vic) and introduced a duty-based framework that fundamentally changed the obligations of landowners, occupiers, and persons in management or control of contaminated land. Three duties are particularly central to the 2026 enforcement focus. The General Environmental Duty (GED) requires any person whose activities may give rise to risks of harm to human health or the environment to understand those risks and take reasonably practicable steps to minimise them. This duty applies broadly and is not limited to industrial operations. It applies to property developers, landowners, and anyone managing a site with known or suspected contamination.

The Duty to Manage Contaminated Land applies to a person in management or control of land who knows, or reasonably should know, that the land is contaminated. That person must take reasonably practicable steps to minimise risks to human health and the environment from that contamination. Crucially, the duty does not require certainty of contamination. Reasonable grounds for suspicion are sufficient to trigger the obligation. The Duty to Notify applies where a person becomes aware that land is contaminated to a level that exceeds prescribed concentration limits, and they must notify EPA Victoria of that contamination in accordance with the prescribed notification framework. The combination of these two duties creates a situation where early identification of contamination is not only good practice but a legal imperative. Discovering contamination and choosing not to act, or deferring management decisions indefinitely, is a position that regulators are now actively scrutinising and that carries real legal exposure.

The Preliminary Risk Screen Assessment (PRSA) pathway is one of the key procedural tools that has come into sharper focus under the 2026 enforcement environment. A PRSA is a structured assessment designed to determine whether a site poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment for a proposed or current land use, and whether a full statutory environmental audit is required. The PRSA is not a statutory audit in itself, but it can establish that a full audit is unnecessary where the site data supports that conclusion. Critically, the quality of the underlying site characterisation data determines whether a PRSA delivers a defensible outcome. Where site investigations are incomplete, outdated, or rely on assumptions rather than measured data, the PRSA is unlikely to withstand regulatory scrutiny. This means that practitioners who are planning to use the PRSA pathway must invest adequately in the site investigation phase rather than treating it as a box-ticking exercise.

The statutory environmental audit pathway, conducted by EPA-appointed environmental auditors under the Act, remains the highest standard of independent assessment available for contaminated land in Victoria. Audits are required for certain categories of sensitive land uses, including residential development, childcare facilities, and schools, where contamination is known or suspected. The audit process produces a Statement of Environmental Audit, which provides the level of assurance that planning authorities, financiers, and purchasers require to proceed with confidence. In the current regulatory environment, sites that require a statutory audit but have been progressed through the planning and transaction process without one represent a significant category of risk for all parties involved, including the legal practitioners and environmental consultants who provided advice along the way.

Australian context

Victoria’s duty-based framework under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic) sits alongside a broader national shift toward proactive environmental risk management in property transactions. Other Australian jurisdictions maintain their own contaminated land regimes, but the Victorian model is among the most prescriptive in terms of the affirmative obligations it places on landowners and those in management or control of land. Practitioners operating across state borders should be aware that the assumptions and thresholds that apply in one jurisdiction do not automatically translate to another. As regulatory settings in Queensland, New South Wales, and Western Australia continue to evolve, the Victorian experience provides a practical reference point for how enforcement posture can change materially even where the underlying legislative framework has been in place for some time. Staying current with EPA Victoria guidance and primary documentation remains the most reliable basis for advising clients on compliance obligations in this environment.

Background and context

Headline Summary: Stricter Due Diligence and Contaminated Land Scrutiny Expected Under Victoria's EP Act in 2026

Regulators and investors in Victoria are significantly intensifying their expectations for environmental due diligence and contaminated land management as we move further into 2026. Under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic), the regulatory landscape is shifting from reactive compliance to a strict, evidence-based risk management approach. Regulators are demanding clear, traceable evidence of how legacy contamination is being managed. There is a renewed crackdown on ensuring that compliance extends beyond mere paperwork and translates into verifiable, on-ground practices that align with emerging national standards.

Why It Matters for Environmental Professionals and Their Clients

For environmental consultants, property developers, and investors, standard desktop checks are no longer sufficient for site acquisitions or redevelopments. Due diligence in 2026 requires a proactive and structured approach to identify contamination triggers before they derail a transaction. Practitioners must explicitly determine if a site triggers the Duty to Notify or Duty to Manage, and whether a Preliminary Risk Screen Assessment (PRSA) or a full statutory environmental audit will be required for the intended land use. Relying on outdated historical reports or assumptions will carry far less weight with decision-makers this year, meaning consultants must equip their clients with highly defensible, proactive contamination management strategies to maintain investor confidence and avoid regulatory delays.

[INDEX]

References and related sources

• Primary source: www.pjra.com.au
• EPA Victoria

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 and validation 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: 22 Mar 2026

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