Australia’s critical minerals pipeline is deep, but the number of projects reaching production remains constrained and we are at risk of falling further behind other more nimble and industry-centric jurisdictions. The limiting factor is not geology; it is the ability to rapidly convert statutory approvals into operating mines within commercially viable time frames. In this context, approvals reform is no longer an environmental or regulatory issue, it is a central lever in determining whether projects achieve financial close and are built at all. Bilateral agreements under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 were intended to streamline the statutory approvals pathway by enabling State or Territory-led assessments to reduce duplication and provide confidence of an outcome. This was then to transfer to State or Territory-led approvals for Commonwealth matters, yet no Australian jurisdictions have the ability to undertake the process end-to-end. While the bilateral assessment arrangements have delivered efficiencies in some cases, their performance has been inconsistent and remains the critical risk to project success. Variability in State or Territory processes, differing science-based evidentiary thresholds and residual Commonwealth intervention at the approval stage has meant that ‘single assessment’ has not translated into single, predictable approvals outcomes. Change is needed to enable the full use of bilateral approval powers so that there is a conventional and clear process from application through to receiving conditional approval for mining projects. Recent reforms to our National environmental legislation introduce a further layer of complexity and uncertainty. The move toward National Environmental Standards, including requirements to avoid ‘unacceptable impacts’ and deliver ‘net gain’, reflects a clear and necessary tightening of environmental expectations. However, without corresponding gains in clarity and coordination with States and Territories, there is a risk that higher standards will further extend time frames simply to achieve policy directives rather than improve environmental outcomes. This presentation will argue that the effort to increase the number of projects reaching operation requires a shift in focus from process to delivery, supported by practical reforms. First, bilateral agreements between States and Territories and the Commonwealth should evolve into transparent, outcome-based frameworks with nationally consistent standards applied uniformly across jurisdictions, providing greater certainty around approval conditions and expectations. Importantly, the mining industry continues to prove its ability to deliver world-class outcomes for the sector which should then in-turn give regulators confidence that environmental stewardship remains a key outcome for miners. Second, Governments should enable parallel rather than sequential decision-making by aligning Commonwealth, State, Territory and ancillary approvals, thereby reducing time frames without weakening safeguards. Currently, where Commonwealth approval is required, significant delays and additional conditional requirements are often applied post receipt of State or Territory authorisations. This can impose further financial stress to an already challenging capital raising process, adding unnecessary frustration to all parties, including investors. Third, early risk resolution pathways should be formalised to address high-impact issues such as biodiversity, social, water, and cultural heritage, at the outset of the process so that miners understand where and how expectations are being set. This collaborative approach would instil confidence and trust between miners and regulators so that all parties understand the rules upon commencing a statutory process so applicants can then accommodate the work needed to meet obligations appropriately.