The Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2026 repeals a set of provisions in the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It achieves this exclusively by deleting specified sections and subsections; it does not add replacement provisions or new substantive regulatory requirements.
That statutory surgery has an outsized practical effect: by removing express federal prohibitions embedded in those Acts, the bill makes it legally possible for nuclear-related proposals — power stations, fuel-cycle facilities, and radioactive waste projects — to be considered under Commonwealth environmental law and ARPANSA’s regulatory framework. The bill does not itself set safety standards, waste-management rules, or planning approvals; it simply clears statutory bars and shifts the policy work to regulators and other legislatures.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill repeals specified prohibitions in the ARPANSA Act and the EPBC Act, taking those provisions out of the statute book effective the day after Royal Assent. It does not create new regulatory duties, definitions, or licensing mechanisms in those Acts.
Who It Affects
Energy developers, proponents of radioactive-waste facilities, ARPANSA and the Commonwealth Department administering the EPBC Act, states and territories responsible for land-use planning, and communities and Traditional Owners in proposed project areas will be directly affected.
Why It Matters
Removing express federal bans changes the legal baseline for nuclear projects: proposals that were formerly statutorily excluded can now be brought forward and assessed under existing Commonwealth processes. That creates investment opportunities but also regulatory and policy questions regulators, governments, and communities must resolve.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is narrowly framed: it lists six repeal items in a single schedule and specifies commencement as the day after Royal Assent. It does not replace the deleted text with new rules, nor does it amend other provisions that establish licensing, safety standards, or environmental assessment procedures.
In short, it removes legal impediments rather than building a new approval regime.
Practically, the repeal means actions tied to nuclear energy or radioactive materials that had been kept out of Commonwealth consideration by the deleted clauses will no longer be automatically excluded. Those projects will be able to interact with the EPBC Act’s existing referral and assessment pathways where matters of national environmental significance are engaged, and with ARPANSA’s licensing and regulatory apparatus where radioactive materials and radiation safety are concerned.Because the bill does not supply the missing operational detail, the next steps fall to regulators and governments.
The Department administering the EPBC Act will have to decide how and when to treat particular nuclear-related proposals as controlled actions, and ARPANSA will need to consider how to apply its licensing framework to proposals that previously could not lawfully proceed. States and territories retain planning, land-use and many environmental controls, so project proponents will still need to navigate a patchwork of state laws in parallel with Commonwealth processes.The repeal also raises ancillary policy tasks: establishing criteria for environmental assessment scope, designing community and Indigenous consultation processes specific to nuclear projects, setting financial assurance and waste-management standards, and aligning emergency response and transport rules.
Until regulators or new legislation address those items, proponents and regulators will operate in a transitional environment with legal permission to proceed but without a comprehensive, new statutory regime governing how to do so safely and responsibly.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill takes effect the day after it receives Royal Assent; there are no staged or conditional commencement provisions.
It amends two Acts only by repealing specific provisions — the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and several provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 — and contains no positive regulatory text.
By removing those statutory prohibitions, proposals previously excluded from Commonwealth consideration can be referred, assessed, and (where applicable) approved under the EPBC Act’s existing pathways for actions affecting matters of national environmental significance.
The bill does not alter state and territory powers: proponents will still need to satisfy local planning, environmental and development approval regimes in each jurisdiction where a project is proposed.
Because the measure provides deletion without replacement, ARPANSA and the Environment Department will face immediate rule‑making and policy work to clarify licensing thresholds, assessment scopes, consultation requirements, and financial assurance for nuclear-related projects.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Immediate commencement on royal assent
This provision makes the entire Act come into force the day after Royal Assent. For stakeholders that means there is no transitional window written into the bill: once enacted, the deleted prohibitions fall away immediately and proposals can be framed against the new statutory baseline without waiting periods specified in the bill itself.
Deletes a federal provision in the ARPANSA Act that stood as a statutory constraint
Repealing the identified section in the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act removes an express statutory constraint sitting inside the Commonwealth’s radiation‑safety statute. The practical consequence is to broaden the set of activities ARPANSA may lawfully regulate under the remaining sections of the Act; however, the bill leaves ARPANSA’s licensing, inspection and enforcement powers in place. Regulators will therefore need to interpret how the existing permit and licence framework applies to activities that were previously statutorily excluded.
Removes several EPBC Act provisions that operated as federal prohibitions on nuclear-related actions
The repeal items remove specific EPBC Act provisions that operated as legal bars to certain nuclear or radioactive actions reaching the Commonwealth assessment regime. With those bars removed, nuclear-related projects can be evaluated under the EPBC Act where matters of national environmental significance are implicated. The deletion does not change the EPBC Act’s substantive test for approval, its criteria for controlled actions, or the minister’s powers — it only eliminates statutory exclusions, so existing referral, assessment and approval mechanisms will be the immediate vehicle for federal consideration.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Proponents and investors in nuclear projects — removing federal prohibitions permits them to develop proposals that can now be considered under Commonwealth environmental and radiation‑safety frameworks, improving legal clarity for investment appraisal.
- Large energy companies and developers of fuel‑cycle or radioactive‑waste infrastructure — they gain access to Commonwealth assessment pathways and the possibility of federal approvals that were previously unavailable.
- Domestic manufacturers and engineering firms targeting nuclear supply chains — the change signals potential new project pipelines and procurement opportunities at scale.
Who Bears the Cost
- Commonwealth regulators (Department administering the EPBC Act and ARPANSA) — they will absorb the immediate workload and policy drafting to operationalise assessment, licence application processing, and guidance for nuclear projects without additional resources embedded in the bill.
- States and territories — while the bill does not change state powers, governments will face new planning and infrastructure demands, possible political costs, and coordination burdens where state laws remain restrictive or require amendment.
- Taxpayers and future generations — long‑term responsibilities for radioactive waste management and decommissioning may translate into financial obligations or contingent liabilities if commercial arrangements and financial assurance frameworks are not robustly established.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: clear the legal path for nuclear projects now to unlock investment and planning, or keep explicit statutory prohibitions until a comprehensive, detailed regulatory and policy framework (covering safety, waste, financing and community consent) is in place. This bill chooses the former — removing legal barriers immediately — which accelerates opportunity but shifts the burden of crafting the necessary rules and safeguards to regulators and future legislative action.
The bill performs a single legislative act: repeal. That simplicity is both its strength and its weakness.
It removes statutory roadblocks quickly but leaves an array of implementation questions unanswered. Repeal does not auto‑create licences, nor does it populate the operational detail regulators and industry need — scope of assessments, detailed safety and waste standards, financial assurance, transport and emergency arrangements, and the division of responsibilities between Commonwealth and states all remain to be specified.
Another practical ambiguity is timing and sequencing. Without accompanying regulatory instruments or intergovernmental agreements, proponents could submit projects into a federal system where rules are still in flux, producing legal uncertainty and contested administrative decision‑making.
The bill also creates a governance coordination challenge: aligning ARPANSA’s radiation‑safety remit with EPBC environmental assessment processes, state planning controls, and Indigenous consultation requirements will require active policy work and likely further legislation or delegated instruments to avoid gaps in safety, oversight, or community engagement.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.