-
Faruqi stated that the Greens had worked to improve the bill by removing fast-track approvals for coal and gas projects and strengthening protections for native forests. Faruqi criticised the Labor government for initially proposing reforms that favoured fossil fuel corporations and argued that the Greens forced improvements to prevent environmental damage. Faruqi affirmed the Greens' commitment to standing with climate activists and forest campaigners.
-
McKenzie condemned the government's agreement with the Greens as a political stitch-up that dismantled the Regional Forest Agreements system. McKenzie argued this would harm sustainable forestry and farming industries, citing job losses in Victoria as evidence of the negative impacts of removing such exemptions. McKenzie also foreshadowed amendments to remove the ban on nuclear energy, arguing it was necessary for energy security and economic growth.
-
Pocock questioned the Minister on the use of the $300 million Forestry Growth Fund, asking if it could support native forest logging or only plantations. Pocock raised concerns about the duplication of flawed offset systems seen in New South Wales and asked for guarantees that restoration contributions would meet strict like-for-like principles. Pocock also sought commitments that national environmental standards would be fully implemented before accrediting entities with approval powers.
-
Brockman described the legislation as a betrayal of Western Australia and the gas industry, noting that the Labor Premier had also criticised the bill. Brockman questioned how many of the Premier's red-line issues had been addressed by the federal government. Brockman supported the opposition amendments moved by Senator Ruston, arguing they helped fix errors in the bill.
-
Roberts characterised the bill as a betrayal of democracy and everyday Australians, driven by virtue signalling rather than practical outcomes. Roberts argued that the legislation failed to define the environment properly and would increase bushfire risks by restricting routine vegetation management. Roberts stated that One Nation would support the opposition amendments to clarify environmental definitions and promised to repeal the bill if elected.
-
minister
Watt argued that the reforms deliver on the Samuel review recommendations, including a net gain test for offsets and the removal of exemptions for native forestry to ensure consistent standards across industries. Watt confirmed that exploration activities for fossil fuels are excluded from fast-tracking and that the government has no plans to remove the continuous use exemption for shark nets. Watt stated that standing to sue would not be expanded, but the timeframe for seeking reconsideration of not-controlled-action decisions would be limited to 28 days. Watt also confirmed that the precautionary principle applies to unacceptable impacts and that the National Environmental Protection Agency would be established with resources transferred from the department.
-
shadow minister
Cadell questioned whether hazard reduction burns would be affected by the new laws, expressing concern that approval processes might delay critical fire management in areas like the Pilliga. Cadell sought clarification on the $300 million Forestry Growth Fund, noting industry confusion about the transition away from native forestry and the lack of immediate communication regarding support measures. Cadell highlighted that the government had not adequately consulted with family forestry businesses before announcing the changes.
-
Pocock questioned how net gain would be determined and confirmed that fossil fuel exploration is excluded from fast-tracking. Pocock raised concerns about the national interest approval power, noting that it could allow projects to proceed without full offsetting or public disclosure of reasons in security cases. Pocock also asked about the resourcing of the new EPA and whether protection statements could override recovery plans.
-
Whish-Wilson asked why the government had not removed the continuous use exemption for shark nets, which he described as harmful to protected species. Whish-Wilson sought a commitment to review the exemption under the new laws, but Watt confirmed there were no plans to change it.
-
Steele-John stated that the Greens supported the bill due to secured amendments protecting native forests and stopping fast-tracking for coal and gas projects. Steele-John criticised the government for failing to include a climate trigger and for approving new fossil fuel projects, arguing that the reforms were insufficient to address the climate crisis.
-
Colbeck argued that the removal of the Regional Forest Agreement exemption would expose the forestry industry to continuous legal challenges and disrupt operations. Colbeck questioned how the new system would manage standing provisions and prevent environmental groups from using litigation to delay projects, citing past instances of fabricated evidence.
-
Canavan argued that the bill was rushed and would put thousands of forestry jobs at risk by tearing up regional forestry agreements. Canavan criticised the $300 million Forestry Growth Fund as insufficient and misleading, claiming the government was prioritising environmental goals over workers and selling out the industry to the Greens.
-
McLachlan stated that the bill did not sufficiently centre nature in decision-making and lacked a paradigm shift towards sustainable development. McLachlan noted that the late tabling of Greens amendments made it difficult to assess them properly, suggesting he might abstain from voting on some.
-
Pocock announced that the Greens would support the bill after securing significant amendments for native forest protection and excluding coal and gas from fast-tracking. Pocock criticised the government for refusing to include a climate trigger and for approving new fossil fuel projects, arguing that the reforms were better than the status quo but still inadequate.
-
Wong praised the work of the Minister for the Environment and Water in achieving the legislation. Wong expressed disappointment that the opposition had not participated in negotiations and appointed Senator Gallagher as Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate.
-
Ghosh asked about the benefits of landscape-scale assessment compared to project-by-project assessment. Watt explained that regional planning allows for the consideration of cumulative impacts and the identification of no-go zones and areas suitable for development.
-
minister
Minister Watt explained that regional plans would designate specific areas for development and others for conservation to streamline approvals and protect high-value environments. Watt noted that pilots were already underway in Queensland for housing, wind farms, and mining. Regarding bilateral agreements, he stated that states must assess projects against federal environmental standards, with the federal EPA auditing processes every five years. Watt confirmed that the federal government retains call-in powers for significant projects and will maintain direct approval authority for water trigger projects to manage cross-border impacts.
-
McKim argued that removing the native forest logging exemption from federal laws was a significant victory for threatened species like the swift parrot. McKim criticised the government's decision to implement an 18-month transition period, suggesting it was a political rather than policy choice, and urged that the transition fund support workers moving into sustainable sectors rather than compensating businesses. McKim acknowledged that while the reforms were an improvement over the original bills, they still fell short of addressing the climate and biodiversity emergencies, and he pledged continued support for environmental activists.
-
Ghosh sought clarification on the conceptual operation of development and conservation zones within regional plans and their role in achieving faster approvals. Ghosh also asked for details on the importance of bilateral agreements and state accreditation processes, specifically requesting information on safeguards against environmental damage under these arrangements.