Skip to main content


Submission in response to discussion paper

Some have argued that past changes to the EPBC Act to add new matters of national environmental significance did not go far enough. Others have argued it has extended the regulatory reach of the Commonwealth too far. What do you think?

I think the environmental protection doesn't go far enough, and in addition the enforcement is greatly lacking. There are too many ministerial discretion opportunities to effectively ignore the environmental arguments and concerns. I think we need a separate agency to enforce the EPBC to avoid a conflict of interest.

What additional future trends or supporting evidence should be drawn on to inform the review?

There should be tangible targets and objectives assessed in each review.

What innovative approaches could the review consider that could efficiently and effectively deliver the intended outcomes of the EPBC Act? What safeguards would be needed?

An agency that enforces the rules and regulations and works towards specific goals it is accountable for.

What changes are needed to the EPBC Act? Why?

Guidelines are great but there should be specific targets and accountability for results. The ability to enforce rules without conflict of interest is key to protect our fauna and flora and should be a priority.

Additional information

Supplementary navigation and content


Submission ID

In response to

Discussion paper
Stakeholder Category
Scientific and Technical Services


Threatened species
The objects of the Act
Great Barrier Reef
Compliance and enforcement
Commonwealth National parks