Bill Debate · Second Reading

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; Second Reading

Senate · Thursday 27 November 2025

Continued from Monday 24 November 2025.

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

At a glance

The Senate debated a package of environmental reform bills, including the establishment of a National Environmental Protection Agency and new standards. The Labor government and Australian Greens supported the legislation, citing improved protections for native forests and streamlined approvals for housing and renewable energy. The Coalition opposed the bills, arguing they would harm industries, increase costs, and were rushed through without adequate scrutiny. The Greens moved an amendment regarding First Nations consultation, which was noted but not passed as part of the main motion.

Outcome

The bills were passed after the second reading debate.

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

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania) (Liberal Party) Liberal TAS

Duniam opposed the bills, characterising the process as a rushed deal between Labor and the Greens that bypassed proper committee scrutiny. Duniam argued the legislation would shut down the native forestry industry within three years, costing tens of thousands of jobs, despite a proposed $300 million bailout package. Duniam claimed the reforms would complicate approvals for gas projects and housing, thereby increasing energy prices and exacerbating the housing crisis. Duniam asserted that the Coalition had negotiated in good faith but was ignored in favour of a political agreement with the Greens.

Government response

Jenny McAllister (Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) ALP NSW

McAllister supported the bills as landmark reforms that would establish a national environmental protection agency and set national environmental standards for the first time. McAllister highlighted that the legislation would impose higher penalties for breaches and require large emitting projects to disclose greenhouse gas emissions. McAllister framed the reforms as part of Labor's long-standing legacy of environmental protection, citing historical achievements under previous Labor governments.

Opposition response

Susan McDonald (Shadow Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) Nationals QLD

McDonald opposed the legislation, arguing it would damage Australia's economy by hindering mining, gas, and agricultural industries. McDonald claimed the reforms would increase bureaucracy and costs, leading to higher energy prices and reduced food security. McDonald asserted that the deal with the Greens would deter investment in critical minerals and gas projects, ultimately lowering the standard of living for Australians.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria) (Australian Labor Party) ALP VIC support

Ananda-Rajah supported the bills as generational reform based on the Samuel review, aiming to protect nature while cutting red tape. Ananda-Rajah explained that the legislation introduces national environmental standards, a net gain approach, and an accreditation system to reduce duplication between federal and state governments. Ananda-Rajah noted that the reforms would speed up approvals for renewable energy and housing, helping to address supply crises.
Larissa Waters (Queensland) (Australian Greens) Greens QLD support

Waters supported the bills, stating that negotiations with the government secured significant improvements over the initial draft, including protections for native forests and the removal of fast-tracking for coal and gas. Waters highlighted that the reforms close loopholes regarding land clearing and retain the water trigger in federal hands. Waters moved a second reading amendment calling for the codification of free, prior and informed consent principles for First Nations consultation.
Sarah Hanson-Young (South Australia) (Australian Greens) Greens SA support

Hanson-Young supported the legislation, emphasising that it ends special treatment for native forest logging and prevents fossil fuel companies from exploiting fast-track pathways. Hanson-Young argued that the reforms deliver a blow to polluters and protect endangered wildlife, although she noted that climate considerations were not fully integrated into the assessment process. Hanson-Young stated that the Greens ensured the bills were stronger than the government's initial proposal.
Ellie Whiteaker (Western Australia) (Australian Labor Party) ALP WA support

Whiteaker supported the bills as a balanced package that modernises outdated environmental laws. Whiteaker argued that the reforms provide certainty for business while protecting the environment, estimating that the new assessment process could save over half a billion dollars. Whiteaker criticised the Coalition for opposing the changes, asserting that their stance hinders housing construction and renewable energy rollout.
Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria) (Australian Greens) Greens VIC support

Hodgins-May supported the bills, noting that they are stronger than the government's initial draft due to Greens negotiations. Hodgins-May highlighted the end of special treatment for native forest logging and the closure of loopholes for coal and gas projects. However, she criticised the government for refusing to include a climate trigger, arguing that the laws still fail to adequately address the climate crisis.
Matt O'Sullivan (Western Australia) (Liberal Party) Liberal WA oppose

O'Sullivan opposed the bills, describing the debate as a wasted opportunity to address regulatory impasses affecting businesses in Western Australia. O'Sullivan argued that the legislation was rushed through without adequate time for industry to review the implications of new terms such as 'unacceptable impacts'. O'Sullivan claimed the government prioritised a deal with the Greens over the economic prosperity of Western Australians.