-
French strongly supported the bills, describing them as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix failing environmental laws. French argued the reforms deliver on the Samuel review's three pillars: stronger protection, efficient assessments, and greater accountability. French highlighted the establishment of an independent National Environmental Protection Agency and the move away from 'no net loss' toward achieving 'net gain' for the environment. French claimed the reforms would streamline approvals for renewable energy projects, saving up to $7 billion annually and supporting the clean energy transition.
-
Wilson opposed the bills, characterising the government's approach as bullying and lacking transparency. Wilson argued the current laws are slow and expensive, but the proposed reforms were being rushed without adequate consultation or time for proper scrutiny. Wilson raised concerns about wide ministerial discretion and the potential for increased regulatory burden rather than streamlining. Wilson cited the Environmental Defenders Office case against Santos as an example of how the current act can be weaponised, but insisted the new legislation needed more time for public input.
-
Cook supported the reforms, citing the Samuel review's findings that the current EPBC Act is ineffective for both the environment and business. Cook outlined nine key changes, including the new EPA, national environmental standards, and a shift to net gain offsets. Cook argued the reforms are balanced and pragmatic, delivering faster decisions for renewable energy and housing while strengthening protections. Cook urged the Greens not to let perfection hinder progress and noted support from major environmental groups and industry.
-
Chaney acknowledged the need for reform but raised significant concerns about loopholes in the offsets framework and national interest exemptions. Chaney argued the offsets fund could allow developers to pay for destruction without ensuring real restoration, proposing amendments to limit its use and ensure transparency. Chaney also criticised the broad national interest proposal as a potential bypass for environmental safeguards. Chaney moved a second reading amendment calling for the government to resolve these flaws through constructive engagement.
-
Miller-Frost supported the bills, contrasting the current government's action with the previous coalition's failure to implement the Samuel review. Miller-Frost highlighted the government's record on renewable energy approvals and emissions reductions. Miller-Frost explained the new offset system requires net gain and provides certainty for investors through clear go and no-go zones. Miller-Frost emphasised the establishment of an independent EPA and increased penalties for breaches as key improvements.
-
Watson-Brown opposed the bills, arguing they prioritise big business interests over environmental protection. Watson-Brown criticised the retention of exemptions for native forest logging and the absence of a climate trigger. Watson-Brown raised concerns about new pathways for ministerial exemptions and the delegation of approvals to states, which she claimed could weaken protections. Watson-Brown cited support for the bills from fossil fuel companies and criticism from environmental groups as evidence of their inadequacy.
-
Briskey argued that the existing environmental laws were broken and failed to protect nature or provide certainty for business. Briskey outlined three pillars of the reform: stronger protection and restoration, faster decisions, and greater accountability through an independent National Environmental Protection Agency. Briskey emphasised that the reforms would enshrine national environmental standards and require a net gain for nature, rather than just preventing loss.
-
Haines welcomed the intent of the reforms but expressed significant concerns about ministerial discretion and the lack of transparency in decision-making. Haines argued that the legislation lacked sufficient guardrails to ensure decisions aligned with environmental protection goals. Haines planned to move amendments to require a national standard for community engagement, protect high-value agricultural land and drinking water catchments, and increase consultation timeframes to 60 days.
-
Kearney supported the bills as a necessary correction to years of neglect, citing the recommendations of the Samuel review. Kearney highlighted the establishment of an independent National Environmental Protection Agency and the shift from a no-net-loss to a net-gain approach for environmental offsets. Kearney argued that the reforms would provide clearer rules for businesses while protecting biodiversity and supporting the transition to renewable energy.
-
Scamps stated she could not support the bills in their current form, arguing they failed to guarantee protection for nature. Scamps criticised the broad national interest exemption powers, which allowed the minister to override environmental standards, and the overreliance on ministerial satisfaction tests. Scamps planned to move amendments to repeal exemptions for regional forestry agreements and continuous-use provisions, and raised concerns about the lack of a climate trigger and the independence of the new agency.
-
Thwaites described the legislation as a landmark overhaul of environmental laws, addressing issues identified in the Samuel review. Thwaites emphasised the creation of an independent federal EPA with powers to audit state processes and issue stop-work orders. Thwaites argued that the reforms would streamline approvals, reduce duplication, and deliver economic benefits while strengthening protections for threatened species and ecosystems.
-
Campbell supported the reforms as essential for protecting local habitats and improving decision-making efficiency. Campbell highlighted the introduction of national environmental standards and the requirement for projects to deliver a net gain for the environment. Campbell argued that the bills would remove duplication in assessment processes and provide clarity for businesses, while ensuring stronger penalties for environmental breaches.
-
Boele argued that the current laws have failed to halt biodiversity decline, noting significant drops in threatened species populations and extensive tree cover loss over the past 25 years. While acknowledging the benefits of codified national standards and stronger penalties, Boele criticised the lack of climate impact assessments for major projects and the retention of exemptions for large-scale logging. Boele opposed the bills due to concerns over wide ministerial discretion, particularly the national interest exemption, which could be used to override environmental protections.
-
Coffey supported the reforms as a necessary update to the outdated 1999 legislation, highlighting the creation of an independent regulator and clear national environmental standards. Coffey emphasised that the bills would end the profit-from-pollution model through higher penalties and require genuine net-gain restoration for projects causing harm. Coffey argued that the reforms align with expert recommendations from the Samuel review and balance environmental protection with the need for efficient decision-making and economic development.