• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Testing the stated purpose against costs, incentives and implementation mechanics

• Who pays: developers and project proponents that exceed the thresholds pay directly through compliance costs (time and money to refer, prepare assessments, and meet any conditions), and indirectly if approvals are refused. There are also public administration costs for the Climate Change Authority and the Department to administer additional referrals and assessments.
• Who decides: final approval authority remains the Minister under the EPBC Act. The Bill adds a mandatory consideration (the national carbon budget and targets) to the Minister’s decision‑making checklist and gives the Climate Change Authority a statutory role in producing the national carbon budget.
• Behaviour changes incentivised: proponents may (a) design projects to emit less than the referral threshold; (b) delay or cancel high‑emitting projects where approvals would be refused; (c) seek to restructure projects (e.g. split activities) to stay below thresholds; or (d) pursue options outside the EPBC regime where possible. The explicit ban on approvals over 100,000 tCO2e introduces a hard limit on the largest direct‑emitting projects under the EPBC regime.
• Compliance burden and timing risk: adding another mandatory referral and assessment pathway increases administrative workload for proponents and regulators. That can extend project timetables and raise transaction costs; the scale of that delay depends on resourcing and detailed drafting of assessment procedures.
• Interaction with other laws and pathways: the Bill prevents, with stated exceptions, use of alternative approval processes for emissions‑intensive actions. This centralises decisions in the EPBC process but may create legal and administrative friction where projects previously used bilateral assessments, state approvals or other Commonwealth processes.
• Measurement scope and avoidance risk: the Bill applies to scope 1 emissions only (direct emissions from the action). That creates a concrete boundary: some emissions (scope 2 and 3) are excluded from the trigger, which both focuses the rule and creates incentives to characterise emissions differently. There is a risk of ‘threshold avoidance’ by breaking projects into parts so each falls below the thresholds unless the Bill or guidance closes that avenue.
• Enforcement: new criminal/administrative penalties create deterrence but require monitoring and clear evidentiary standards to enforce. Determining whether an action is "likely to have" a significant environmental impact is fact‑specific and may generate legal dispute.

Practical trade‑offs and likely effects on markets and contracts

• Investment and project design: firms planning large fossil‑fuel, industrial or infrastructure projects will face additional regulatory risk where scope 1 emissions are high. That can reduce project valuations or increase the cost of capital when the 100,000 tCO2e limit is a realistic ceiling.
• Competition and entry: the thresholds are absolute (tCO2e/year) rather than relative to project size or output, so capital‑intensive, high‑emission projects face relatively higher regulatory costs. Smaller operators under thresholds face lighter touches, concentrating compliance costs on bigger projects.
• Contract freedom and certainty: introducing a statutory national carbon budget as a decision factor gives the Minister a new discretionary input tied to that budget. That can be consistent with existing environmental criteria, but it also adds a policy variable (the budget and its annual updates) that affects future approvals and therefore contractual certainty.
• Concentrated benefits vs diffuse costs: any emission restrictions will concentrate costs on particular high‑emitting sectors and projects, while benefits (lower future emissions risk) are widely distributed. The Bill creates a statutory mechanism that entitles the Minister to refuse the largest direct‑emitting projects outright.

Implementation risks and operational detail that matter

• The Climate Change Authority must produce a credible national carbon budget to 2050 and update it annually. Delays, legal challenge or weaknesses in that budgeting work would directly affect Ministerial decisions under the new clause.
• Precise measurement rules (how scope 1 is measured, what counting period is used, how multi‑year projects are treated) will determine how the thresholds operate in practice. If those measurement rules are not tightly specified, uncertainty and litigation risk will rise.
• The Bill’s exceptions to the prohibition on alternative approvals and the criteria for "significant impact" will be important operational details; they are the likely focus of administrative policy and any legal challenges.

Bottom line (mechanical):

• The Bill makes direct (scope 1) greenhouse gas emissions a statutory referral trigger under the EPBC Act for actions that exceed 25,000 tCO2e/year and blocks approval of actions that would exceed 100,000 tCO2e/year. It requires the Minister to take a statutory national carbon budget and Australia’s emissions targets into account and gives the Climate Change Authority a statutory role to set and review that budget. These changes raise compliance costs for high‑emitting projects, shift decision criteria for approvals, and concentrate regulatory risk on the largest direct‑emitting proposals.

Considered by scrutiny committee (06/10/2022): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2022

Official APH document links

• First reading: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fs1344_first-senate%2F0000%22;rec=0
• Explanatory memorandum: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs1344_ems_45bb9f0f-29dd-4e16-9ef4-b10cfce4ab81%22
• All second reading speeches: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result/Second_Reading_Speeches?BillId=s1344
• Private Senator's introductory speech: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F25573%2F0111%22
• Committee report (07/02/2024): https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/ClimateTriggerBill2022
• Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2022: https://www.aph.gov.au/-/media/Committees/Senate/committee/scrutiny/scrutiny_digest/2022/PDF/d05_22.pdf?la=en&hash=BDA7E8879B585635856632354D76CC9D487D242F