Bill Debate · Second Reading

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025; Second Reading

House of Representatives · Tuesday 25 March 2025

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate centred on legislation to limit the environment minister's power to reconsider past decisions under the EPBC Act, specifically to provide certainty for the Tasmanian salmon industry. The government argued the bill balanced environmental protection with economic stability for established industries. Opposition and crossbench members opposed the bill, claiming it weakened environmental safeguards, endangered the Maugean skate, and served corporate interests over public promises. The bill passed the House of Representatives after divisions.

Outcome

The bill passed the House of Representatives after divisions, with the final division resulting in 111 votes in favour and 14 against.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney) (Australian Labor Party) ALP

Plibersek moved the second reading, arguing the bill addressed uncertainty for industries operating under lawful decisions for five or more years. Plibersek stated the amendment removed reconsideration powers for specific decisions that were not controlled actions if carried out in a certain way to protect jobs and investment. Plibersek highlighted government investments in threatened species recovery, including $37.5 million for Maugean skate conservation. Plibersek emphasised that the bill complemented broader environmental achievements, such as protecting 100 million hectares of ocean and bush.

Government response

Tanya Plibersek (Minister for the Environment and Water) ALP Sydney

Plibersek argued the bill provided necessary certainty for businesses while maintaining environmental protections through state and territory partnerships. Plibersek noted the government had invested significantly in conservation programs and renewable energy projects. Plibersek stated the changes would apply to reconsideration decisions made after royal assent, ensuring stability for long-operating projects.

Opposition response

Ted O'Brien (Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Liberal Fairfax

O'Brien supported the bill but moved an amendment to highlight government failures regarding the salmon industry review. O'Brien argued the legislation was a political fix for internal Labor disputes rather than a genuine environmental solution. O'Brien called for stronger guarantees against future regulatory reviews and noted scientific evidence supporting the coexistence of salmon farming and skate populations.

Stephen Bates (Brisbane) (Australian Greens) Greens oppose

Bates moved an amendment to decline the second reading, arguing the bill weakened environmental laws and endangered species. Bates claimed the legislation sidelined science and prevented legal challenges to harmful projects, including coal and gas developments. Bates stated the government was breaking promises to strengthen environmental protections and establish an independent EPA.
Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith) (Australian Greens) Greens oppose

Chandler-Mather criticised the government for rushing the bill through parliament under the cover of the budget. Chandler-Mather argued the legislation served corporate interests at the expense of environmental protection and climate action. Chandler-Mather highlighted the government's failure to uphold deals with the Greens on environmental reforms and banking fines.
Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan) (Australian Greens) Greens oppose

Watson-Brown argued the bill created loopholes for polluting industries, including foreign-owned salmon companies that pay no tax. Watson-Brown detailed environmental controversies associated with major salmon producers and their international operations. Watson-Brown claimed the legislation set a dangerous precedent for corporate influence over environmental law.
Andrew Wilkie (Clark) (Independent) Ind oppose

Wilkie described the bill as environmental vandalism that would prevent future reviews of projects operating for over five years. Wilkie argued the legislation threatened the Maugean skate with extinction and damaged the reputation of the salmon industry. Wilkie cited concerns about fish health and mortality in Tasmanian farms, suggesting the bill hastened the industry's demise.
Anne Webster (Mallee) (National Party) Nationals oppose

Webster read a statement from a constituent regarding the mental health impacts of renewable energy infrastructure on rural communities. Webster highlighted issues of confidentiality agreements and social division caused by energy projects. Webster argued the government's approach ignored the wellbeing of regional residents and contributed to community polarisation.

Votes during this debate

Division 4: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025; Second Reading Not passed 12–76 Division 5: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025; Second Reading Not passed 50–84 Division 6: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025; Second Reading Passed 111–14

Opened by

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney) (Australian Labor Party)

ALP

Bill

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025

Speeches

7 speeches, 5 other contributors

Topics

Environment & Water

Debate Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025; First Reading Bill Debate, 26 Mar 2025 · Same bill
Debate Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025; Second Reading Bill Debate, 26 Mar 2025 · Same bill
Debate Waste Management and Recycling: Plastic Packaging Take Note Debate, 15 Sep 2026 · Shared topic: Environment & Water
Debate Water Matter of Public Importance, 14 Sep 2026 · Shared topic: Environment & Water
Question Time House Question Time 17 Aug 2026 · Shared topic: Environment & Water

About House of Representatives debates

The House of Representatives debates bills, motions and matters of public importance in its main chamber. Members from all parties can take part, and the responsible minister usually replies for the government. Summaries are in reported speech, not transcripts; always check the official record before quoting.