Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail

Wilkie moved amendments to restore the minister's power to reconsider past decisions if actions threaten native species extinction or cause unacceptable impacts. Wilkie argued the current bill's restrictions on reconsideration were too onerous and would prevent correcting mistakes, citing the Maugean skate decline in Macquarie Harbour as an example of regulatory failure. Wilkie contended that the reforms undermined environmental safeguards and devolved too much power to states with poor environmental records.

Scamps moved amendments to remove exemptions for regional forestry agreements and native forest logging, and to require referral for clearing native vegetation over 20 hectares where threatened species may exist. Scamps argued the bill handed too much power to states regarding water resources and failed to address Australia's deforestation crisis. Scamps also sought to replace subjective ministerial discretion with objective decision-making frameworks to prevent industry influence from undermining environmental protections.

Ryan proposed an amendment to include clean air and water among matters of national environmental significance, citing the health and ecological impacts of pollution. Ryan argued the bill lacked adequate protections for water resources and allowed ministers to bypass standards. Ryan stated that air and water pollution are key drivers of biodiversity loss and public health issues, necessitating stricter federal oversight.

Boele moved amendments to insert climate principles into the objects of the act and require consideration of climate change in project approvals. Boele argued that climate change is a primary threat to biodiversity and that the bill failed to address this adequately. Boele proposed a mainstreaming approach to ensure climate impacts were considered in all decisions, rather than relying solely on the separate safeguard mechanism.

Spender moved amendments requiring the minister to obtain advice from the Climate Change Authority on emissions for large facilities and to publish reasons for all decisions. Spender argued that upfront assessment of climate impacts was necessary to prevent pressure on the safeguard mechanism. Spender also proposed a three-year transition period for new assessment pathways to ensure business certainty and effective implementation.

Haines moved amendments to embed community engagement standards, safeguard prime farming areas and water sources in bioregional plans, and remove provisions allowing preparatory works before assessment. Haines argued that 30-day consultation periods were insufficient and that strategic planning must consider cumulative impacts and land use priorities. Haines contended that allowing preparatory works created unnecessary risks to environmental assessment integrity.

Steggall moved amendments to integrate climate-related financial disclosures into project assessments, establish a duty of care for future generations, and require consideration of cumulative impacts. Steggall argued that environmental and climate laws must be interconnected and that financial risks from climate change should inform approval decisions. Steggall also sought to provide a right of appeal for environmental protection orders to ensure procedural fairness for businesses.