-
Landry argued the bills threatened regional industries by introducing subjective tests like 'unacceptable impact' and duplicating existing state regulatory regimes. Landry warned that ministerial discretion and vague definitions would create uncertainty, delay projects, and reduce investor confidence in resource-dependent electorates. Landry called for clearer statutory definitions and case-by-case assessments that consider regional equity and Indigenous participation.
-
Coker supported the reforms as practical, evidence-based measures to protect threatened species and ecosystems while streamlining decision-making. Coker highlighted the introduction of protection statements, bioregional planning, and a net gain framework to ensure projects leave the environment better than before. Coker emphasised that the new National Environmental Protection Agency would enforce laws fairly and hold serious offenders to account.
-
Small opposed the bills, citing concerns that they would not stimulate new mining investment and might instead shift production to jurisdictions with lower standards. Small argued that the lack of clear guidance on net gain and the low threshold for environmental protection orders posed risks to business certainty. Small also criticised the potential for retrospective changes to project conditions and the absence of an appeal process for protection orders.
-
Albanese argued the current environmental laws were broken and obsolete, causing significant delays in project approvals that harmed the economy. Albanese stated the reforms implemented the recommendations of the Graeme Samuel review to provide clarity, speed up decisions, and strengthen environmental protections. Albanese insisted the government was determined to pass the legislation to deliver jobs, housing, and environmental restoration.
-
Claydon supported the bills as a significant overhaul that would replace inconsistent rules with enforceable national standards. Claydon argued the reforms would support the clean energy transition and provide investment certainty for renewable energy and housing projects. Claydon criticised the Greens and Coalition for previously blocking progress and asserted that the legislation balanced environmental protection with economic growth.
-
Aldred opposed the bills, describing them as rushed, unworkable, and detrimental to productivity and regional businesses. Aldred argued the legislation created regulatory duplication with state systems and imposed excessive compliance burdens on small and medium enterprises. Aldred questioned the accountability of the proposed EPA CEO and stated the reforms failed to address the nation's productivity challenges.
-
Burns argued the bills implement Professor Samuel's recommendations, including national environmental standards and a National Environmental Protection Agency. Burns stated the reforms balance business interests with environmental custodianship and ensure transparency in emissions reporting. Burns criticised the opposition for previously ignoring the Samuel review and urged parliament to pass the reforms to update outdated laws.
-
Kennedy argued the 1,500-page bill lacks practical balance and alienates both industry and environmental groups. Kennedy claimed the reforms fail to speed up approvals and risk hurting democracy by rushing legislation without proper consultation. Kennedy emphasised the need for clear environmental standards that are practical and accountable to the minister, rather than creating unchecked bureaucracy.
-
France highlighted the ecological significance of her electorate and argued the current EPBC Act is outdated and failing both nature and business. France stated the reforms deliver stronger protections, faster approvals, and an independent National Environmental Protection Agency. France urged the opposition and Greens to support the changes to address urgent environmental and housing needs.
-
Chaffey argued the reforms are being rushed through parliament without adequate scrutiny or stakeholder agreement. Chaffey cited concerns over the lack of clarity regarding 'net gain' and 'unacceptable impact', which he claimed creates uncertainty for developers. Chaffey provided examples of high biodiversity offset costs hindering housing and infrastructure projects in regional areas.
-
Sitou outlined the three pillars of the reforms: stronger protection, efficient approvals, and greater accountability. Sitou argued the current system is too slow and complex, hindering critical projects like housing and renewable energy. Sitou criticised the opposition and Greens for blocking progress and emphasised the need to act on the Samuel review recommendations.
-
Rebello argued the reforms grant the EPA CEO sweeping, indefinite stop-work powers without adequate appeal processes, risking regulatory paralysis. Rebello claimed the penalties are excessive and include strict liability provisions that could punish honest errors. Rebello stated the EPA model lacks ministerial accountability and contradicts the Samuel review's recommendation for a commissioner model.
-
Comer argued that protecting biodiversity and building housing are connected goals, not competing priorities. Comer stated the reforms address the underlying causes of delay in environmental assessments while maintaining strong standards. Comer emphasised the importance of the National Environmental Protection Agency in ensuring consistent enforcement and transparency.
-
Joyce argued the reforms encroach on private property rights and impose excessive burdens on farmers and the timber industry. Joyce cited examples of high offset costs preventing aged-care facilities and housing developments. Joyce claimed the legislation prioritises bureaucratic control over individual rights and regional prosperity.
-
Templeman argued the reforms deliver modern, fit-for-purpose laws that protect the environment and support business certainty. Templeman detailed the establishment of the National Environmental Protection Agency and the introduction of national environmental standards. Templeman explained the net gain principle for offsets and new emissions disclosure requirements, stating the reforms balance ecological protection with economic needs.
-
Katter argued that the bills undermined property rights and transferred power from landowners to bureaucrats in Canberra. Katter claimed that government intervention had disrupted natural balances, leading to issues such as exploding crocodile and pig populations in national parks, while farmers effectively manage pests on private land. Katter characterised the proposed reforms as authoritarian and detrimental to those who live and work on the land.
-
Smith contended that the reforms balanced environmental protection with economic needs, providing certainty for industries like mining and tourism in the Far North. Smith highlighted the creation of a national environmental protection agency and streamlined assessment pathways, which he estimated could save up to $7 billion. Smith argued that the bills addressed the broken nature of current laws and supported the renewable energy transition.
-
Willcox opposed the bills, arguing they threatened economic prosperity through excessive bureaucracy and lack of accountability. Willcox criticised the proposed powers of the environmental protection agency's CEO, the inclusion of emissions reporting without clear guardrails, and broad definitions of unacceptable impacts. Willcox claimed the reforms risked blocking development and incentivising environmental damage through poorly sited renewable energy projects.
-
Berry supported the reforms, citing them as faithful to the Samuel review's recommendations for stronger protection, improved productivity, and greater accountability. Berry outlined the three pillars of the package: national environmental standards, streamlined assessments, and the establishment of an independent regulator. Berry emphasised the government's track record on environmental conservation and the need for net gain outcomes rather than just no net loss.
-
Spender acknowledged the urgency of reform but expressed significant concerns about the rushed process and specific provisions. Spender welcomed higher standards and stronger penalties but criticised the broad national interest exemptions, continued logging exemptions, and the lack of true independence for the new agency. Spender also noted that climate change impacts were not adequately integrated into the decision-making framework.
-
Ng argued that the current environmental laws were outdated and ineffective, necessitating the proposed reforms. Ng detailed the benefits of enforceable national standards, bioregional planning, and the creation of a national environmental protection agency. Ng emphasised that the reforms would provide certainty for business while ensuring stronger enforcement and a net gain for the environment.
-
McCormack opposed the legislation, arguing it penalised farmers and developers with excessive offsets and enforcement measures. McCormack highlighted the importance of the forestry industry for housing construction and criticised the government's stance on land clearing and environmental activism. McCormack suggested the reforms hindered infrastructure development and ignored the practical realities of Australian agriculture and land management.