{"id":"BILL-r7396","name":"Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025","slug":"environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-excise-charges-imposition-bill-2025","collection":"bill","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":446025,"registerId":"commonwealth-BILL-r7396-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-05-05","status":"royal_assent","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[],"analysis":{"summary":{"status_summary":"The Act received royal assent on 1 December 2025 and is now Act No. 65 of 2025.","complexity_score":3,"likely_questions":["Which matters connected with the EPBC Act will attract excise charges once regulations are made?","How will the amount of any excise charge be calculated?"],"complexity_factors":["Forms part of a seven-bill package implementing EPBC Act reforms","Specific charges and matters will be set by future regulations rather than in the Act"],"plain_english_summary":"The Act authorises the Commonwealth to impose charges that qualify as excise duties for specified matters connected to administering the EPBC Act, limited to recovering the government’s likely costs. Regulations will prescribe which activities attract charges and the amounts, and the Minister must be satisfied charges do not exceed those costs.\n\nThose who engage with the EPBC regime (proponents, applicants, etc.) may become liable once regulations are made; the Act itself does not set charge amounts."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This Act is narrowly framed to enable the Commonwealth to impose excise‑type charges connected to administration of the EPBC Act. That aligns with the package purpose of allowing cost recovery for environmental administration and related schemes. The Act does not materially broaden the policy scope beyond that original purpose: it does not itself create new substantive environmental duties, offsets, or restoration mechanisms (those are in companion bills). The main expansion of authority compared with earlier practice is the explicit statutory power to impose excise charges by regulation and the specification that such charges must be duties of excise (section 7). Because the Act leaves detailed design to regulation, its practical scope will depend on regulatory choices, but the statute as enacted remains within the original, narrow cost‑recovery remit."},"complexity_factors":["Short, focused Act (10 substantive sections) — low textual length but high delegation to regulation (sections 7–10)","Broad regulatory power to prescribe charges, liable persons and exemptions (section 7 and 10)","Ministerial gatekeeping requirement to be satisfied charges recover no more than Commonwealth likely costs (section 8(2)) — introduces factual assessment by executive","Constitutional constraint tying charges to duties of excise (section 7(4)) — requires alignment with complex High Court jurisprudence on excise","Interplay with multiple related Acts and bills in the reform package (restoration, general, customs charge bills and EPBC amendments) — cross‑instrument complexity in practice","Potential administrative complexity depending on whether regulations specify flat rates or complex calculation methods (section 8(1))","Delegated rule‑making and reliance on subordinate legislation increases implementation and legal‑interpretation complexity","Commencement by proclamation with a 12‑month fallback raises timing and transition complexity (section 2)"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this Act does (mechanically)\n\n- Gives the Commonwealth power to make regulations that impose excise charges (duties of excise) in connection with the administration of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (section 7).\n- Allows regulations to set the amount of any charge either as a fixed sum or by prescribing a method for calculating it (section 8).\n- Requires the Minister to be satisfied that any charge is set to recover no more than the Commonwealth's likely costs in connection with the prescribed matter (section 8(2)).\n- Allows regulations to provide exemptions from charges (section 9) and gives the Governor‑General power to make the necessary regulations (section 10).\n- Confirms commencement mechanics, territorial reach (including external Territories and extra‑territorial application), and that the Act binds States but does not impose a tax on State property (sections 2–6).\n\nWho this affects and who decides\n\n- Who pays: people or entities specified in the regulations as liable for a prescribed matter connected with administration of the EPBC Act (section 7). The Act does not itself list liable classes — that detail will be in subordinate legislation.\n- Who decides: the executive (Governor‑General acting on regulation-making power, and the responsible Minister) sets which matters attract charges, how much they are, and who is exempt (sections 7–10). The Minister must be satisfied that amounts are limited to likely Commonwealth costs (section 8(2)).\n- Behaviour change: once regulations exist, affected businesses or individuals will face a financial charge when engaging in regulated activities or processes connected to the EPBC Act. That may alter project costs, investment decisions, and choices between doing an action, seeking an exemption, or using alternative compliance pathways.\n\nWhy the Commonwealth says it matters (official rationale)\n\n- The Act is part of a package of reforms to the EPBC Act and is intended to enable cost recovery for the Commonwealth’s administrative work under the reformed environmental law. The Explanatory Memorandum and related bills treat the charges as tools to fund administration and, where linked across the package, to support schemes (for example, restoration contributions) established by other Acts.\n\nTesting the official rationale against practical effects, trade‑offs and implementation risks\n\n- Cost and incidence (who pays): the Act does not itself define liable persons — the regulations will. That means the immediate economic incidence (which firms, project proponents, permit holders, importers, exporters, etc.) is set by regulation. The Minister’s constraint (charges designed to recover no more than likely Commonwealth costs; section 8(2)) aims to limit charges to cost recovery, not revenue raising. Practically, however, the design of the regulations determines whether costs fall heavily on a small number of firms (concentrated) or are spread across many.\n\n- Compliance and administrative burden: the Act enables new charging obligations but leaves details to regulation. This creates administrative burdens for regulated parties (tracking, paying charges, recordkeeping) and for the department (billing, collection, account management). Those burdens will rise with the number of chargeable matters and the complexity of calculation methods (section 8).\n\n- Executive discretion and delegated rule‑making: the Act confers broad delegated power to prescribe charges, amounts and exemptions by regulation (sections 7–10). Although the Minister must be satisfied about the cost‑recovery cap (section 8(2)), operational discretion over who is charged and how is largely in subordinate legislation. That increases the importance of regulatory design and transparency, and raises implementation risk if regulations are poorly drafted.\n\n- Constitutional and legal risk: the Act expressly confines charges to the portion that are duties of excise (section 7(4)) and cross‑refers to section 55 of the Constitution. What qualifies as an excise has been the subject of High Court jurisprudence and can be contested. If regulations are framed so charges are not properly duties of excise, they may be vulnerable to legal challenge.\n\n- Interaction with other reforms in the package: this Act is narrowly focused on excise‑type charges but sits alongside other bills that create restoration contributions, general charges and customs charges. The overall economic effect depends on how the separate charging regimes are allocated across activities (for example, whether paying an excise charge substitutes for providing offsets or restoration actions under other Acts).\n\n- Market effects: because the Act allows cost recovery charges to be imposed on regulated activities, it may increase marginal costs for proponents of projects that interact with the EPBC regime. For private enterprise this can affect project viability, contract pricing and competition between firms (especially if exemptions or charge levels differ across sectors). The Act itself does not set prices or allocate funds — that is done by regulation and later administrative arrangements.\n\n- Accountability and transparency: the statute builds only a narrow statutory check (the Minister’s satisfaction about cost recovery). It does not set specific transparency or reporting obligations for the use of collected monies (those arrangements will appear in other Acts or administrative rules). That concentrates importance on regulatory and administrative detail for oversight.\n\nKey practical points to watch when regulations are made\n\n- Which specific EPBC‑connected matters will attract excise charges and which classes of persons are liable (regulation detail).\n- How charge amounts will be calculated (flat amounts versus formulae) and whether the calculation meets the cost‑recovery constraint (section 8(2)).\n- The relationship between excise charges under this Act and other charges in the package (restoration contributions, general, customs) to avoid double charging or gaps.\n- Whether charges will be challenged in court on the ground they are not duties of excise (section 7(4)).\n\nSections of the Act most relevant: 7 (power to prescribe excise charges), 8 (how amounts are set and Minister’s cost‑recovery check), 9 (exemptions), 10 (regulations), and 3–6 (Crown, territorial and constitutional limits).\n"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-excise-charges-imposition-bill-2025","history":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-excise-charges-imposition-bill-2025/history","analysis":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-excise-charges-imposition-bill-2025/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-excise-charges-imposition-bill-2025/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-excise-charges-imposition-bill-2025/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-excise-charges-imposition-bill-2025/documents"}}