Chapter 4 - Efficiency
The EPBC Act is duplicative, inefficient and costly for the environment, business and the community.
The interaction between Commonwealth and state and territory laws and regulations leads to duplication. Despite efforts to streamline, significant overlap remains.
Past attempts to devolve decision-making have been unsuccessful due to lack of defined outcomes and concerns that decisions would be inconsistent with the national interest.
The key reform directions proposed by the Review to remove duplication between the EPBC Act and state and territory systems are:
- devolve decisions to other jurisdictions, where they demonstrate National Environmental Standards can be met
- to base devolution on sound accreditation, quality assurance and compliance, escalation (including step-in capability) and regular review.
The reform directions proposed (National Environmental Standards, regional plans, information and data, modern regulatory systems) provide confidence for devolution, and will improve interoperability between the Commonwealth and jurisdictions.
Even with greater devolution, the Commonwealth is likely to have an ongoing role in directly assessing and approving some developments. Therefore, it is also important to address inefficiencies in Commonwealth-led project assessment and approval processes.
There is duplication with other Commonwealth regulations, and some activities are effectively regulated by others. The interplay between regulations is often more onerous than it needs to be.
The laws for permitting wildlife trade exceed international obligations, are inflexible and unnecessarily burdensome.
Proposed key reform directions to further streamline the EPBC Act are:
- Assessment pathways should be rationalised and implemented with clear guidance, modern systems and appropriate cost recovery. Small investments can dramatically reduce cost and uncertainty and improve decision-making.
- These, and other reform directions proposed (National Environmental Standards, regional plans, information and data, modern regulatory systems) create opportunities for significant streamlining and efficiency, including where low risk actions will not require approval.
- Streamline provisions for permitting of wildlife trade and interactions with other environmental frameworks.
Australians reasonably expect regulation that protects the environment in the national interest. The way the EPBC Act operates does not effectively protect the environment in the national interest (see Chapter 1), and there is a high degree of mistrust in the community (see Chapter 5).
It is reasonable for industry to expect governments to regulate efficiently and, wherever possible, harmonise regulation and ensure its interoperability. This reduces the costs of regulation to businesses that must comply with the law, and governments who administer it. The Review does not support suggested expansions to the remit of EPBC Act that intersect with state and territory responsibilities or other Commonwealth regulation (see Chapter 1).
4.1 - There is duplication with state and territory regulation
4.2 - Proposed key reform directions
4.3 - Commonwealth-led assessment processes are inefficient
4.4 - Proposed key reform directions
Supplementary navigation and content
- The Review and how to have your say
- Summary points
- Executive Summary
- Chapter 1 - National level protection and conservation of the environment and iconic places
- Chapter 2 - Indigenous culture and heritage
- Chapter 3 - Legislative complexity
- Chapter 4 - Efficiency
- Chapter 5 - Trust in the EPBC Act
- Chapter 6 - Data, information and systems
- Chapter 7 - Monitoring, evaluation and reporting
- Chapter 8 - Restoration
- Chapter 9 - Compliance, enforcement and assurance
- Chapter 10 - Proposed reform pathway
- Appendix 1 - Prototype National Environmental Standard for Matters of National Environmental Significance