EPOLA Act passed with amendments to prosecution timeframes and to introduce significant environmental values in Queensland

On 16 June 2026, the Environmental Protection (Efficiency and Streamlining) and Other Legislation Amendment Act2026 (EPOLA) received royal assent. EPOLA primarily proposes changes to the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EP Act).

Two notable amendments to the EP Act have caught our attention:

1. to introduce the concept of “significant environmental values”; and
2. new timeframes for commencing summary proceedings under the EP Act.

The amendments relating to the timeframes for commencing summary proceedings have commenced and the amendments relating to ‘significant environmental values’ will commence by proclamation.

Changes to timeframes for commencing summary proceedings

Section 497 of the EP Act prescribes the following timeframes for commencing summary proceedings:

• within one year after commission of the offence; or
• within one year after the offence comes to the complainant’s knowledge, but within 2 years after the commission of the offence; or
• if an enforceable undertaking has been made in relation to the offence – within 1 year after:
  • the enforceable undertaking is contravened; or
  • the complainant becomes aware that the enforceable undertaking has been contravened; or
  • the administering authority has agreed under section 509 to the withdrawal of the enforceable undertaking.

Endeavouring to calculate these timeframes with certainty proved challenging for industry, the community and enforcement authorities because of the subjective criterion relating to the “complainant’s knowledge” or a “complainant’s awareness”. EPOLA removes this and introduces a standardised limit of within 2 years for commencing summary proceedings (including where an enforceable undertaking has been made in relation to the offence), save for a “relevant summary proceeding” which must start within 3 years after the commission of the offence.

“Relevant summary proceeding” is a new concept defined to mean an indictable offence against the EP Act or an offence against 14 specific sections of the EP Act. These offences are more complex and serious offences such as offences relating to environmental harm and to environmentally relevant activities.

This amendment potentially affords an extra year to commence a summary proceedings for a relevant summary proceeding, however the drafting brings greater certainty by removing the ambiguity in identifying the time when an offence comes to the complainant’s knowledge or awareness.

Consultation feedback and committee considerations

It is interesting to note that in considering this aspect of EPOLA, the Health, Environment and Innovation Committee (Committee) (to whom the Bill was referred) noted:

• that a 5 year timeframe for commencing summary proceedings was originally proposed in the department’s consultation paper and that this was reduced in response to feedback around long periods of uncertainty and the potential impacts on defendants; and
• the recommendation from the Queensland Law Society that guidelines be developed and published about prosecutorial decisions and communication during investigations and that the department work with stakeholders to further develop such materials.

Transitional provisions and application to existing offences

Transitional provision s846 provides that for offences against the EP Act that were committed before commencement of EPOLA, former section 497 continues to apply in relation to starting the proceeding as if EPOLA had not been enacted. The changes do not have retrospective effect on the limitation period for offences committed before commencement.

Introduction of ‘significant environmental values’ (SEVs)

Currently the EP Act contains a broad definition of what is an environmental value.

EPOLA amends the EP Act to retain that definition but introduce the concept of ‘significant environmental values’ (SEVs) as a higher order subset of environmental values. SEVs will be prescribed by regulation and can only be declared where the Minister is satisfied that the value is significant and should be protected as a priority. It is intended that SEVs will attract greater mechanisms for protection and that there will be thresholds for prescribing activities as ERAs linked to an adverse outcome on SEVs.

During consideration of the Bill, concerns were raised with respect to whether, practically, these amendments introduced a new layer of regulation and could affect existing approvals. The Committee report on the Bill records that, in response to stakeholder submissions, the department stated that existing approvals and previously approved activities will not be subject to reassessment as a result of the changes and that SEVs will not be applied retrospectively to environmental authorities. The Committee sought clarity noting that if an EA application or amendment application is made after SEVs are introduced, but where the project was not previously assessed by reference to SEVs, the EA application would be assessed by reference to these values and thus there was some potential retrospectivity. The Committee ultimately reconciled this and formed a view there would be no retrospectivity because SEVs do not introduce a new layer of regulation or new values, but simply have the effect of consolidating existing values into a single list and identifying those which are a priority. Where there are no new values, all existing environmental values should have already been assessed as part of any prior approval.

These provisions are yet to take effect and it will be interesting to see how the SEVs are developed and applied to decision making. We see the potential, in the future, for there to be offence provisions or enforcement considerations tied to SEVs. For example, the harm offences could have thresholds introduced depending on if the environmental harm relates to an environmental value or a SEV.