Fed Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) (including Review of EPBC Act (2019) & EPBC Amendment Bill (2020))

Policy Engagement Overview

• The evidence collected on corporate and industry lobbying on the EPBC Act from 2019-2021 demonstrates that corporate influence on the policy has been overwhelmingly unsupportive of increased climate ambition under the legislation.
• In 2020, Rio Tinto and industry associations including Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, NSW Minerals Council (NSWMC), and Queensland Resources Council directly advocated for policymakers to exclude climate change considerations and/or HH emissions requirements from the EPBC Act.
• In 2020, Anglo American and NSWMC lobbied to repeal Section 487 of the Act which extends special legal privileges to community groups to challenge federal environmental project approvals.

Impacts on Policy Ambition

There has been no change to the scope of the original EPBC Act to date. The recommendations of the Final Report of the Review, released in October 2020, did not support proposals to broaden the scope of ‘environmental matters’ under the EPBC Act to include climate change, in order to avoid duplication and the “muddling of responsibilities.” However, the Final Report found merit in mandating proposals assessed under the EPBC Act to “transparently disclose the full emissions profile of the development”. The reporting deadline for the EPBC Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2020, which aims to broaden the scope of the original bill, is October 2021.

*The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee was granted an extension of time to report until 20 October 2021.