Event: BCA Chief Executive Bran Black interview on Sky News NewsDay
Speakers: NewsDay, Host Tom Connell; Business Council of Australia Chief Executive Bran Black
Date: 28 October 2025
Topics: EPBC reform, approval processes, Federal EPA
E&OE
Tom Connell, NewsDay Host: Joining me now, Business Council of Australia, CEO, Bran Black. You’ve had more briefings, so you kind of know more than me on this. What’s the latest? How would you summarise where you’re at on these laws?
Bran Black, Chief Executive: Thanks for having me on the show, firstly. The key thing that I’d say is that we’ve been calling for this type of process, that is a genuinely engaging process, where there is an attempt to find consensus for decades, and it is sorely needed, because EPBC processes are holding everything up.
With what we’ve seen so far, we still have concerns, and at the end of the day, we are looking for a package that delivers a net benefit for business. We need to see a net benefit for business. If there isn’t that type of impact, at the end of the day, when these reforms are fully considered, when you’ve got the full package, then there’s no point undertaking this exercise, because it is painful and it’s a difficult exercise, so we need to get to that net benefit position at the end of the day.
Tom: So to assess net benefit, presumably you need to see the whole thing otherwise, drips and drabs just like that, that’s a bit concerning, it’s hard to weigh it up.
Are you getting pressured to say, support this now and indeed, tell the Coalition to support it before you have all the information?
Bran: No, we’ve always been clear that we need to see the full package and to be able to weigh up those elements that are good for the environment against those elements that are good for business.
Tom: Have you seen all of it yet?
Bran: We’re not sure. We’ve still got, I guess, a few days or perhaps more before it’s ultimately introduced. We’ve seen a large part of the Bill, or the Bills, so we’ve got a good sense of the types of changes that are coming in.
And if you look at, for instance, issues that we’ve raised on the environmental side of the ledger, in terms of net benefit definitions, unacceptable impacts, the powers of the EPA CEO with respect to issuing stop work orders. We have concerns in those areas and a few others.
Tom: I’ll go into that in just a moment. But you’re not even sure if you’ve seen the whole thing. That just strikes me as unusual.
Bran: Well, you just don’t know until you see the final Bill —
Tom: And you’re not told you say, ‘Is this it?’ And they say, ‘Oh, we’ll let you know. We’ll keep you posted.’
Bran: Well, it’s a matter for the Government, at the end of the day, they may have changes right up to the point that they introduce it. I’m not so concerned at the moment by the fact that I might not necessarily have seen the whole thing, provided we have an appropriate opportunity to consider the full detail once it’s available.
Tom: So, of what you’ve seen in terms of the positives, how much confidence do you have that some of the duplication and just delays for the sake of delays will go? Do you have some confidence that will happen from what you’ve seen?
Bran: So that is what I describe as the pro-business side of the ledger, with respect to this Bill. There are still issues that we’ve got on that side, and we think that there is improvement that needs to be made so that we can get that full streamline —
Tom: Anything specific there that you go, ‘Well, why is this still in here? I thought this was going?’
Bran: Well, one of the key things that we’d like more clarity on is how we can be guaranteed that there is going to be an accreditation of states to undertake the federal processes. That’s really critical, because at the moment, as you’d appreciate, there are two desks that are required to consider approvals.
Tom: Yeah, so even if it’s the same assessment, if it’s all done on one desk with one person, you don’t have handover and delay, and you’re not convinced about the legality or whatever it might be of making sure the state can do that.
Bran: So, at the moment, there is a question as to whether or not a state would undertake assessments as well as approvals. Now, if a state is just undertaking assessments, you still need a federal process to consider whether or not that state assessment is sufficient to satisfy federal requirements.
Tom: And so often we hear, ‘I’m weighing this up. It’s on my desk. It’ll be out soon.’
Bran: That’s right.
Tom: The one person, it’s done, you’re saying? In case you want to clarify that.
Bran: That’s right, so we’re looking for a much faster process. And if you look at the Canadians, by way of example, they’ve recently made the call that if a state or province makes the determination that a project should proceed, that’s good enough for them at a federal level. That’s what we’d like to see through this process.
Tom: And on the protection element, ‘unacceptable impacts.’ What do you know about this? I mean, what that’s defined by, and who makes the call on it?
Bran: Well, it’s a bit of a challenge with as things stand at the moment. So at the moment, with the existing Act, the EPBC Act, what it says is that where there is a significant impact, it’s still capable of being assessed —
Tom: — Assessed, mitigated, etc.
Bran: Exactly right. But moving forward with the new Bill, what’s proposed is that if there is ‘unacceptable impact’, then that can’t be assessed.
Tom: Which the argument is, don’t go down the path, because you’ll waste your time?
Bran: That’s right. But then, when you go to within the Bill itself, define what unacceptable means. It includes the expression ‘seriously impair.’
Now seriously and significant are synonyms, so that immediately means that you’re exposing the idea that something that’s presently assessable would not be assessable under the new Bill. So, what we’ve called for, what we’ve said would be very useful, is to have a broader power, but it’s defined by reference to a specific standard.
And the useful thing about that is that if you get it wrong, it’s not in legislation, so it doesn’t have to go back to the Parliament to be relitigated. It can be addressed in a practical way, having regard to lived experience.
Tom: And that’s power with the Minister, the Federal Minister?
Bran: That’s right.
Tom: Some talk of the EPA CEO would be able to stop work in a related manner, that’s obviously, while a project’s happening?
Bran: That’s right, and that’s something that deeply concerns us, because as things stand right now, the CEO of the EPA would be in a position to issue a stop work order. They’d be able to do it verbally, so not in writing. They’d be able to do it without providing reasons, and it would operate indefinitely. What we’re saying is that, just as a matter of natural justice, you need to have some limitations on that sort of power.
Tom: Okay, so the power is okay, and you get that there would be unacceptable risk and harm if they were to drill for oil in Sydney Harbour, if it were there. But clarifications around what definitions are for checks and balances.
Bran: That’s right. And I think that point goes to the idea that we do see that there is a sensible way through here that ultimately delivers that net benefit for business –
Tom: And for the environment?
Bran: That’s right. We think that there is a way of getting it right for business and the environment. And if we can do that, the critical thing is that we unlock new housing, we unlock new infrastructure projects, critical minerals projects, green energy projects, all of these problems that are just sitting in the system right now.
Tom: Bran Black, appreciate your time.