Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024, Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024

Senator Hanson-Young argued that the government had caved to fossil fuel interests by shelving the environmental watchdog and reforms. Hanson-Young stated that the Greens had compromised on their demand for a climate trigger to secure agreement on protecting forests and wildlife, but the government failed to deliver. Hanson-Young contended that Labor had abandoned environmental protection and urged voters to support parties that would defend nature.

Senator Davey criticised the Prime Minister for repeatedly changing his mind on the bill's listing, describing it as disrespectful to Western Australia. Davey argued that the government opposed the urgency motion only because it included a guarantee that the legislation would not return, leaving the door open for future deals with minor parties. Davey claimed the bill would balloon bureaucracy and duplicate state agencies, harming mining economies in Western Australia, Queensland, and New South Wales.

Senator Roberts argued that the bills aligned with international agendas at the expense of Australian interests and created unnecessary bureaucracy. Roberts cited the Roy Hill mine fine as an example of federal overreach conflicting with state safety rules. Roberts claimed the legislation would harm mining, farming, and dam construction while failing to benefit the natural environment, supporting the motion to withdraw the bills.

Senator McKim stated that Labor had broken its promise to fix broken environment laws by yielding to fossil fuel corporations. McKim argued that without these reforms, forests continued to be logged and ecosystems collapsed. McKim asserted that the Greens would continue to fight for nature protection and end native forest logging, contrasting this with Labor's protection of political donors.

Senator Rennick argued that the bill represented government overreach and removed environmental control from states to an unaccountable federal statutory authority. Rennick claimed the federal government had usurped state responsibilities since the Franklin Dam decision in 1983. Rennick urged senators to oppose the legislation, stating it undermined democratic accountability and transparency.

Senator Payman described the government's handling of the bills as a failure of political will, refusing to compromise with industry or environmental groups. Payman argued that the current laws, identified as flawed by the Samuel review, remained in place due to Labor's political calculations. Payman claimed this approach denied Western Australia investment and job opportunities in renewable energy and sustainable industries.

Senator O'Sullivan cited an ACIL Allen report estimating the bill would raise Western Australia's wholesale electricity prices by 38 per cent and increase residential land costs by 10.6 per cent. O'Sullivan argued the legislation would reduce housing availability by 25 per cent and chill investment in the resources sector. O'Sullivan questioned why the Prime Minister would not rule out reintroducing the bill in a potential minority government scenario.