The Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 2024 (the Bill) was introduced to WA Parliament in August 2024.
The Bill implements certain recommendations from the Vogel Mc-Ferran Review (the Independent Review of Efficiency of Processes and Procedures of the WA Government’s Environmental Approvals by Dr. Paul Vogel AM and Mr. David McFerran.)
The changes introduced by the Bill have far-reaching implications for WA’s environment and democratic processes.
Key concerns include:
- Erosion of EPA independence
- Reduced transparency and public involvement
- Legal uncertainty from parallel decision-making processes
- Industry-aligned governance structures that risk regulatory capture
Rather than strengthening WA’s environmental framework, these changes risk weakening environmental assessment processes and enabling further ecological decline.
Under the new laws:
- The introduction of a Statement of Expectations (Part II, Division 1A) risks undermining the EPA’s statutory independence. Section 8 of the EP Act clearly states that the EPA is not subject to Ministerial direction. The new provision may conflict with this principle by enabling political pressure to approve
priority projects. - The amended Section 7(2A) enables appointments to the EPA Boardbased on skills in "industry, commerce, or economic development"—criteria that do not align with the EPA’s core purpose. Industry and economic factors are already weighed in ministerial decision-making and should not shape the EPA's expert advice.
- The amendment to Section 41(3) permits other decision-making authorities (DMAs) to issue approvals for projects before the EPA has completed its assessment. This undermines the EPA’s role and may lead to duplication, premature project activity, and regulatory inconsistencies.
If these other agencies' decisions are made (even if not yet implemented) before the Environmental Impact Assessment process is complete, then this could:- Exert undue pressure on the EPA. It may be more difficult for the EPA to reject a proposal if other DMAs have already signed off on approvals.
- Lead to duplication – for example where a DMA approves a license or permit, but the EPA then recommends the project be rejected or amended or be approved subject to conditions, the secondary approvals will need to be re-evaluated against the EPA recommendations and subsequent conditions.
- Impact the EPA’s decision on whether to assess a project or not, based upon other government agencies having regulatory powers that do not cover environmental and social impacts.
- Lead to proponents undertaking preliminary works, despite provisions which prohibits these actions. We note that this is already a frequent occurrence which is rarely prosecuted, and fines are rarely issued.
- Limiting public appeal rights—particularly where the EPA opts not to assess a proposal—diminishes transparency, excludes community voices, and undermines trust. Appeals are a critical mechanism for public input and accountability in decisions with far-reaching environmental impacts.
Long-term protection and resilience of our globally significant ecosystems require a strong and independent EPA, backed by robust nature laws.
Read CCWA's response to these changes and recommendation here.