The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025 establishes a framework under the EPBC Act to impose excise-characterised charges on prescribed matters related to environmental approvals and other regulatory activities.
This Bill is one of three “Charging Bills” (general, customs and excise) required by section 55 of the Constitution to enable cost recovery for Commonwealth administration of the EPBC Act without creating a new budgetary burden.
The Bill will be enacted as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Charges Imposition (Excise) Act 2025. It amends the EPBC Act by empowering the Governor-General to make regulations prescribing excise-type charges for “prescribed matters” connected with the Act’s administration. Clause 7 authorises the imposition of these charges; Clause 8 requires the Minister to certify that each charge recovers no more than the Commonwealth’s likely costs and allows regulations to set flat amounts or formulae (e.g. by volume or time); Clause 9 permits regulations to grant exemptions to specified persons or activities; and Clause 10 enables ancillary regulations necessary to implement the scheme. Clauses 1–2 deal with short title and commencement (generally on Royal Assent or by proclamation), Clauses 3–4 bind the Crown in right of the states and extend the Act extraterritorially, Clause 5 ensures no tax on State property (per s 114 of the Constitution), and Clause 6 clarifies extraterritorial application. Together with companion customs and general charging Acts, the Bill completes the statutory architecture for cost recovery under the EPBC Act without immediate financial impacts on businesses or the Budget.
By ensuring that users of the EPBC regulatory system cover the full cost of services, the Bill promotes efficient allocation of government resources and prevents over-reliance on general taxation. Cost recovery allows the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment to maintain robust assessment processes and compliance activities, thereby safeguarding biodiversity and ecological outcomes more reliably [Judgment].
The “beneficiary‐pays” principle underpins fairness: those who seek approvals or trigger regulatory intervention should meet the administrative expense rather than shifting costs onto taxpayers at large. Requiring ministerial certification that charges do not exceed actual costs enhances accountability and transparency in environmental governance.
Finally, by satisfying constitutional requirements under section 55, the Bill ensures legal certainty for excise-type levies, reducing the risk of successful constitutional challenges that could paralyse the cost-recovery framework.
Even if cost recovery is desirable in principle, creating three separate charging Acts adds complexity and compliance costs for applicants, particularly small businesses, farmers and Indigenous organisations that may face multiple fee regimes for a single development proposal. This risks deterring lawful applications and could undermine environmental protection by pushing activities into unregulated or informal channels [Judgment].
Moreover, setting charges in regulations rather than primary legislation concentrates power in the executive and may lead to inconsistent or excessive fee structures over time. A value-neutral approach would favour funding EPBC administration through general appropriations, preserving simplicity and equal access for all stakeholders.
2025-10-30
Passed Both Houses
Unspecified
Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
Climate Change / Environment, Taxation