Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Consideration in Detail

National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail

House of Representatives · Thursday 6 November 2025

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

At a glance

The debate centred on amendments to the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025 aimed at increasing institutional independence and transparency. Independent members Sophie Scamps and Allegra Spender moved amendments to create an independent board to appoint the CEO and to mandate the publication of reasons for regulatory decisions. The government, represented by Tony Burke, rejected both sets of amendments, arguing that the current non-corporate Commonwealth entity model provides sufficient independence and that publishing reasons for all decisions would create undue administrative burden. Shadow Minister Angie Bell criticised the government for limiting debate time and raised concerns about the lack of ministerial scrutiny over the CEO. The amendments were defeated, and the bill passed.

Outcome

The amendments moved by Scamps and Spender were not passed, and the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025 was passed.

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

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Scamps moved amendments to establish an independent Board of NEPA with the power to appoint the CEO, determine strategic plans, and assess performance. Scamps argued that true independence requires an independently selected board rather than ministerial appointment of the CEO, to ensure public trust and integrity. The proposed board would consist of up to seven members, including at least one Indigenous person, selected through a robust public advertising process involving an independent panel chaired by a former judge. Scamps contended that this structure is necessary to reverse the decline of nature and provide certainty for business by ensuring the agency is a trusted arbiter.

Government response

Burke stated that the government would not support the amendments, maintaining that the non-corporate Commonwealth entity model offers optimal independence for compliance and enforcement while preserving democratic accountability. Burke argued that a board is not complementary to this model and that the CEO can instead appoint advisory groups for assistance. Regarding the transparency amendment, Burke noted that thousands of routine decisions are made annually, making the publication of reasons for every decision an undue administrative burden. Burke highlighted that the current reforms already improve transparency by publishing recommendation reports for approval decisions.

Opposition response

Bell criticised the government for restricting debate time and preventing the opposition from asking questions during consideration in detail. Bell argued that stakeholders from both conservation and industry sectors found the bills unworkable and raised concerns about the lack of ministerial scrutiny over the CEO, who cannot be easily removed. Bell asserted that the government appeared unwilling to negotiate on the environmental protection reform bills and warned of unintended consequences from the technicalities in the legislation.

Votes during this debate

Division 30: National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail Not passed 8–85 Division 32: National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail Passed 85–40