This opinion article by Business Council of Australia Chief Executive Bran Black was published in The Australian on 24 November 2025.
This week the Albanese government is pushing to pass the most far-reaching overhaul of Australia’s federal environmental project approval system in decades, and, with the right amendments, the opposition should support it.
What happens in parliament over the next few days will decide whether this country takes a major step towards growth – or whether we consign ourselves to more delays, bottlenecks and missed opportunities.
The reforms to the EPBC Act are not mere bureaucratic tidying. They will determine whether Australia builds the homes, energy infrastructure and critical minerals projects that underpin living standards and economic competitiveness, while also protecting the environment.
Right now, tens of thousands of homes, major energy projects and billions of dollars in investment are stuck in approvals gridlock. At the very moment Australians face a housing crisis, rising power bills and slowing economic growth, the country’s ability to build is sputtering.
If parliament gets this wrong, Australia will not simply grow more slowly – it will fall behind. Jobs will vanish overseas before they are created. Investment will divert to countries that can make – and are making – decisions. Energy projects will miss timelines. We’ll struggle to deliver new housing supply. Productivity will slide further.
This week matters because parliament can choose whether Australia continues to drift, or whether we put in place a system that both protects the environment and enables the economic growth on which Australian living standards depend. The Greens have made their position clear: they are comfortable with Australia building slower – if at all.
That leaves the government and the opposition with a responsibility – and an obligation – to progress a suite of reforms that are genuinely in the national interest. And the path to that deal is already on the table. An alliance of 26 major industry groups, representing every part of the economy, including small and large businesses, has identified practical amendments that would deliver stronger environmental protections and help restore investor confidence.
These include tightening the definition of “unacceptable impacts”. Without clarity, we invite endless litigation, inconsistent decision-making and projects unjustifiably being knocked back without proper assessment and consideration.
We must appropriately temper the EPA’s important but significant enforcement powers. Strong compliance is essential, but unchecked “stop work” powers, without court oversight and timing limitations, will repel investment and increase sovereign-risk perceptions.
We must keep project assessment and decision-making responsibility with ministers and agencies that are directly accountable for them. An unelected regulator cannot replace democratic accountability. The new chief executive of a national EPA should also be required to adhere to a ministerial statement of expectations. If they don’t, then the minister should be empowered to direct their removal.
We must deliver more efficient approvals from day one, with the new stronger environmental protections commencing simultaneously with at least one state or territory being accredited to administer the federal requirements.
Our major competitors for investment, including the US and Canada, are taking steps to dramatically streamline their major project assessment pathways; doing so here is no longer just a nice-to-have.
We must preserve mid-tier assessment pathways that work. Abolishing existing processes that cater to different project types will make the system slower, not faster.
We must address the proposed all-too-short five-year time limit before project proponents have to reapply for a new approval. Major developments often take several years to get under way. Without the ability for sensible extensions, proponents will be unfairly forced back to square one.
We must include the proposal for “net gain” in the new standards, supported by regulation, not in the legislation.
This will allow the time we all need for greater consultation to get the all-important detail right. And while emissions reduction is an appropriate national imperative, we must ensure that reporting isn’t a relevant factor for project assessments. This must be clear in the legislation, as we have other mechanisms for achieving climate outcomes.
The consequences of failure are stark. If the government and opposition cannot agree on essential amendments, Australia will be left with a system that is unworkable, uncertain and economically damaging. Projects will stall. Jobs will move offshore. Housing supply opportunities will be lost. Environmental protection won’t improve.
Our country needs a functional approvals system to help secure its economic future. We cannot afford political grandstanding. We need the major parties to sit down, negotiate in good faith and deliver a balanced, credible, durable system that supports the aspirations and living standards of all Australians.