This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Climate, energy & environment
Australia would get its first national independent environmental protection agency, bringing federal environmental regulation into one body with stronger powers and penalties to protect nature.
The 2021 State of the Environment ReportA national report that assessed Australia's environment as poor and getting worse, and was used here to justify the bill. found Australia’s environment was poor and deteriorating, and the Samuel ReviewA 2020 review that said Australia's national environment laws needed major reform before the environment would improve. said national environment laws needed fundamental reform. This bill creates Australia’s first independent national environment regulator, bringing federal enforcement into one body with stronger powers, penalties and public decision registers.
After the 2020 Samuel ReviewA 2020 review that said Australia's national environment laws needed major reform before the environment would improve. said Australia’s national environment laws needed fundamental reform and the 2021 State of the Environment ReportA national report that assessed Australia's environment as poor and getting worse, and was used here to justify the bill. found the environment was poor and deteriorating, the government moved to create a single independent federal regulator with stronger enforcement powers, public decision registers and more distance from day-to-day ministerial direction. The bill was introduced in May 2024 and passed the House in July, but after reaching the Senate it was discharged from the Notice PaperThe Senate's list of business to be dealt with; if a bill is discharged from it, the bill is no longer active there. in February 2025, leaving the proposed regulator unlegislated.
The main case against the bill was that it would create a powerful new federal regulator with heavy penalties and extra red tape that could duplicate state processes, delay projects and deter investment. That criticism was pushed mainly by Coalition speakers, while the Greens opposed it from the other direction as too weak to stop species loss and fossil-fuel driven damage.
Hon Tanya Plibersek MP introduced this bill. It was supported by Labor, Centre Alliance, some crossbench members; opposed by Liberal Party, Nationals, Greens, Katter's Australian Party, some crossbench members; and did not pass.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
11 recorded votes before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
252 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Australia would get its first national independent environmental protection agency, bringing federal environmental regulation into one body with stronger powers and penalties to protect nature.
Businesses and project proponents could face stop-work orders, audits and higher penalties if they break federal environmental approval conditions.
The head of Environment Protection AustraliaThe new federal regulator this bill would create to make and enforce environment decisions independently of ministers. would make regulatory decisions independently, while the minister could only publish expectations and not direct individual decisions.
The public would be able to look up Environment Protection AustraliaThe new federal regulator this bill would create to make and enforce environment decisions independently of ministers. decisions online, and the new regulator would face an independent review every five years.
The Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 (the EPA Bill) would establish a statutory Commonwealth entity known as Environment Protection Australia (EPA). An independent environmental regulator is central to a Nature Positive Australia and the restoration of public accountability and trust. EPA would be Australia’s first national, independent environmental protection agency with strong new powers and penalties to better protect and restore Australia’s unique environment.Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) explanatory memorandum
By bringing together the regulation of Australia’s key national environmental laws under one organisation, EPA would have the capability and capacity to be a modern national environmental regulator. Consistent with the recommendations of the Samuel Review, EPA would have access to stronger new powers and increased penalties to better enforce Commonwealth environmental laws, hold the regulated community to account for their obligations and better align with community expectations. This would include the ability to issue Environment Protection Orders, availability of increased penalties for non-compliance, and powers to audit proponents to ensure they are compliant with approval conditions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. EPA would also provide guidance and education to businesses and the public to increase awareness, and therefore, compliance with environmental laws.Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) explanatory memorandum
The Statement of Expectations would set out the Minister’s expectations for the CEO and EPA. The Statement of Expectations must not direct the CEO or EPA. The Minister would be required to publish the Statement of Expectations on the Department’s website. In response, the CEO would be required to give the Minister a Statement of Intent. The CEO would be required to publish the statement on EPA’s website.Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) explanatory memorandum
The Minister would be required to cause independent reviews of the administration of EPA to be conducted every 5 years. The first review would be required to be completed within 5 years of the commencement of the EPA Bill. A review would be required to consider whether, and to what extent, EPA has supported the delivery of accountable, efficient, outcomes-focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making. It would also be required to consider whether, and to what extent, the CEO and EPA have met the expectations set out in any Statements of Expectations given by the Minister in the period. The Minister would be able to direct the review to consider other matters. These measures would provide an opportunity for public informed discussion about the operation of EPA.Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) explanatory memorandum
Context
After the 2020 Samuel ReviewA 2020 review that said Australia's national environment laws needed major reform before the environment would improve. said Australia’s national environment laws needed fundamental reform and the 2021 State of the Environment ReportA national report that assessed Australia's environment as poor and getting worse, and was used here to justify the bill. found the environment was poor and deteriorating, the government moved to create a single independent federal regulator with stronger enforcement powers, public decision registers and more distance from day-to-day ministerial direction. The bill was introduced in May 2024 and passed the House in July, but after reaching the Senate it was discharged from the Notice PaperThe Senate's list of business to be dealt with; if a bill is discharged from it, the bill is no longer active there. in February 2025, leaving the proposed regulator unlegislated.
Samuel ReviewA 2020 review that said Australia's national environment laws needed major reform before the environment would improve. says national environment law needs fundamental reform
The explanatory memorandum says Professor Graeme Samuel's 2020 review found the existing national framework would not change Australia's environmental trajectory without major reform.
Australian Parliament House ↗State of the Environment ReportA national report that assessed Australia's environment as poor and getting worse, and was used here to justify the bill. finds Australia is deteriorating
The explanatory memorandum says the 2021 State of the Environment ReportA national report that assessed Australia's environment as poor and getting worse, and was used here to justify the bill. found Australia's environment was overall poor and getting worse under pressures including climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, pollution and resource extraction.
Australian Parliament House ↗Government introduces bill for an independent national environment regulator
The minister introduced the bill as part of the government's nature positive reformsThe government package of reforms aimed at improving environmental protection and repair, of which this bill is one part. to bring federal environmental enforcement into one independent body with stronger powers and penalties.
Hansard ↗House passes the bill
Third reading agreement completed the bill's passage through the House and sent the proposed regulator to the Senate.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill enters the Senate
The bill was introduced and its second reading was moved in the Senate, starting debate in the second chamber.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Senate discharges the bill from the Notice PaperThe Senate's list of business to be dealt with; if a bill is discharged from it, the bill is no longer active there.
This step removed the bill from active Senate business, halting the legislative path to establish Environment Protection AustraliaThe new federal regulator this bill would create to make and enforce environment decisions independently of ministers..
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Committee (27/06/2024): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (09/09/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 82 to 60.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main case against the bill was that it would create a powerful new federal regulator with heavy penalties and extra red tape that could duplicate state processes, delay projects and deter investment. That criticism was pushed mainly by Coalition speakers, while the Greens opposed it from the other direction as too weak to stop species loss and fossil-fuel driven damage.
Criticism split between 'too heavy-handed' and 'not strong enough', rather than one single broad objection.
More red tape and investment risk
Coalition critics argued the bill would add another layer of federal regulation, expose businesses and project proponents to stronger penalties and stop-work powers, and create sovereign-risk concerns for regional industries and exporters.
Too much power shifted to unelected regulators
Opponents said the bill took decisions away from ministers and handed too much authority to an independent EPAThe new federal regulator this bill would create to make and enforce environment decisions independently of ministers. bureaucracy, raising accountability concerns about who would control major environmental enforcement decisions.
Reform in the wrong order
Some critics said the government was setting up a tougher regulator before finishing the bigger rewrite of national environment law, and should have delivered national environmental standardsProposed baseline rules for environmental decisions that critics said should have been finished before this new regulator was created. and broader EPBC reform first.
Too weak to stop environmental decline
The Greens argued the bill was not a real answer to species loss, habitat destruction or climate harm, and described it as a smokescreen that left deeper problems in environmental law and fossil-fuel approvals untouched.
Further sources
Votes
These were the main recorded votes on the bill.
Passed 82 to 60. Support came from Labor and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Greens, and Katter's Australian Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
Defeated 9 to 93. Support came from Greens. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The House rejected a second-reading statement calling on the government to end native forest logging and protect critical habitat as part of the broader nature-positive package.
Defeated 54 to 87. Support came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and Katter's Australian Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The House rejected a second-reading statement criticising the government's approach and calling for a full package of National Environmental StandardsProposed baseline rules for environmental decisions that critics said should have been finished before this new regulator was created. and an overhauled EPBC ActAustralia's main national environment law, which the new regulator would help administer and enforce..
Defeated 13 to 40. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Katter's Australian Party, and Nationals.
The House rejected amendments aimed at putting stronger community consultation and engagement requirements into the legislation.
Defeated 13 to 31. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Nationals.
The House rejected amendments that would have given Environment Protection AustraliaThe new federal regulator this bill would create to make and enforce environment decisions independently of ministers. a board and stronger governance oversight rather than relying on the minister and CEOThe independent head of Environment Protection Australia who would make regulatory decisions and run the agency. structure in the bill.
Defeated 12 to 36. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals.
The House rejected amendments that would have established parliamentary oversight of the EPAThe new federal regulator this bill would create to make and enforce environment decisions independently of ministers. chief executive's appointment and performance.
Defeated 10 to 32. Support came from Greens. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The House rejected amendments that would have delayed key EPAThe new federal regulator this bill would create to make and enforce environment decisions independently of ministers. commencements until funding was secured and appropriated.
Senate
Defeated 27 to 31. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and Australia's Voice. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The Senate rejected a motion to treat the nature-positive bills as an urgent matter and force immediate attention to them.
Moved by Askew. Defeated 27 to 31. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and Australia's Voice. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The Senate rejected an amendment that would have made the motion call on the Liberals and Nationals to rule out any future cuts to the Environment department.
Passed 41 to 17. Support came from Liberal Party, Greens, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor.
The Senate agreed to remove the paragraph that accused the Liberals and Nationals of teaming up with the Greens and One Nation to block the package's environmental approval reforms.
Moved by David Pocock. Defeated 14 to 24. Support came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The Senate rejected an attempt to add a stronger demand that Labor guarantee the legislation never be returned to the Parliament after being discharged from the Notice PaperThe Senate's list of business to be dealt with; if a bill is discharged from it, the bill is no longer active there..
The Senate agreed on voices to Senator David Pocock’s paragraph (b) amendment to a motion about the Nature Positive bill package.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Plibersek supports the bill and says it will create an independent national environment protection agency with stronger powers, penalties and transparency to protect nature and speed up decisions.
Read in Hansard ↗Keith Pitt opposes the bill, arguing it would create a new federal "green police" with too much enforcement power and add another layer of regulation over businesses and farmers.
Read in Hansard ↗Chaney supports the bill because it sets up the EPAThe new federal regulator this bill would create to make and enforce environment decisions independently of ministers. and EIA needed for the wider nature-positive reform package, but she says the institutions need stronger independence and a clearer definition of nature positive.
Read in Hansard ↗Kylea Tink says she is prepared to support the bill only if it is strengthened, because the EPAThe new federal regulator this bill would create to make and enforce environment decisions independently of ministers. needs stronger duties for transparency, community consultation and accountability.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
24 speakers · 29 contributions · 24 support
“This bill delivers that. It establishes EPA in legislation as an independent statutory agency, separate from the environment department and the government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The fact is that these bills that we're looking at today, the three nature positive bills, represent a really groundbreaking step towards our commitment to preserving our incredible landscapes and what is, as we all know, our very unique biodiversity and our very rich ecosystems, which we are so fortunate to have in this country.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The key measures include the first national independent Environment Protection Agency, with strong new powers and penalties to better protect nature, with $121 million in the May budget for this new body—but the Greens aren't going to support it. Seriously! There will be more accountability and transparency with the new body called Environment Information Australia, which gives businesses easier access to the latest environmental data, and will release State of the environment reports every two years and report on progress on our national environmental goals, with $51.5 million set aside in the budget for this, but the Greens aren't going to support it. There will be faster environmental approvals on projects, thanks to a $100 million investment, including renewables and critical minerals, but the Greens aren't going to support it. Combined with a significant investment in funding, this stage of reforms will deliver better environmental protection laws, and that's really important.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Matt Burnell on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Burnell supports the bill, saying it creates a framework for a habitable environment that also keeps farmland productive and profitable. He rejects claims that it would shut down farming and says it is about working with farmers and the agricultural sector.
“That's what the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and the related bills essentially go towards. It's about setting a framework where you can look to the future and know with a high level of certainty that we are going to have an environment that is habitable, that is productive for food production and where farmers are profitable. This is not about shutting down farming; this is about working with farmers, working with our agricultural sector, working with our environment. It's about having a positive environment so that we can work positively with farmers and people to live in harmony. I really have to say that the member for Dawson needs to pull his head out of his proverbial and see the sunlight. We constantly hear this rhetoric about wind towers taking up land that we can't farm on. Actually, the truth is that you can still farm around your wind towers.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Burnell supports the bill and says it is part of Labor's plan to create Australia's first national environment protection agency and respond to biodiversity loss and environmental decline. He argues it will strengthen enforcement, transparency and conservation funding, while helping deliver a more sustainable future.
“by leave—The Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill and related bills embody our Labor government's commitment to safeguarding our environment and addressing the pressing issues of biodiversity loss and ecological degradation. They represent a significant move towards a sustainable and thriving future for all Australians and the natural surrounds that we occupy and act as custodians over for the next generation, ahead of successive generations to follow them in the future, highlighting our commitment to environmental stewardship and the wellbeing of future generations. These bills also highlight another commitment, an election commitment, to establish Australia's first national environment protection agency.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“The nature protection suite of bills is the second stage of our plan, and I'm proud to be talking about them today. This second stage of reform focuses on stronger environmental powers, faster environmental approvals, more information about the environment, and greater transparency. The legislation is good for the environment, good for the people of Australia and good for business. We're fixing laws so that they are less bureaucratic and provide more certainty for business. However, the key focus remains on repairing our environment. It is important that we let businesses know what they can and can't do, because most businesses, if they get certainty about a decision early, can move on and do more positive things. But, as I said, the key focus remains on repairing the environment, protecting our unique flora and fauna and preventing extinctions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Australia's environment is a national asset and a responsibility. As a government and as representatives of our local communities across Australia we have a responsibility to our constituents to protect our local environments. After a decade of neglect and active sabotage, this government is working hard to ensure that future generations can enjoy and benefit from the unique Australian environment. I commend the bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'm glad to speak in support of the bill itself, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, and the associated bills. It's a vitally important reform and it seeks to address an urgent issue.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, this bill is about improving compliance with environmental law. It is the second of the tranches in our environmental protection laws. The first, obviously, was the water trigger that we did last year. This is the EPA, and the next tranche will be a significant package of reforms in line with our election commitments around other recommendations of the Samuel review. We have a record of improving environmental standards. This bill complies with and builds on that record. I am proud of the environmental protections that are contained in this bill, and I commend them to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I commend Minister Plibersek for her carriage of this legislation and for her dedication to seeing all these laws—our response to the Samuel report—through to completion. I support these bills.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We are now moving, establishing an Environment Protection Australia and Environment Information Australia. These are crucial elements of our plans to create a nature-positive Australia. We do want to get them in place as soon as possible so that they can begin their important work, and that is an important part of why this bill is before this parliament right now. We need to begin this work. We can't keep pushing it out, waiting for something perfect to be the solution. We've got to get on with it. These reforms have been widely welcomed.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As long as I have the privilege to serve in this place, I'll work tirelessly to deliver the reforms we need to ensure we have laws that protect our environment for generations to come. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I am pleased to rise to speak in favour of this important bill that is the next stage of this government working towards the Nature Positive Plan. This involves two elements: firstly, the creation of Australia's first national independent environmental protection agency, the EPA, which will be a body with strong new powers and penalties to protect nature; secondly, it is a step forward when it comes to accountability and transparency with a new body called Environment Information Australia.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Environment Protection Australia, our national EPA, is an important part of delivering the government's Nature Positive Plan. Passing this legislation will mean that we can get on with the job of setting up the new EPA before they are asked to administer new environmental laws.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There is still a lot to be done to help futureproof the environment, but these three bills are a huge step in the right direction. Unfortunately, those opposite do not care about lowering power bills or combating climate change; all they care about is delaying progress, denying science and deceiving Australians. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Tanya Plibersek on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Plibersek supports the bill and says it will create an independent national environment protection agency with stronger powers, penalties and transparency to protect nature and speed up decisions. She argues it is a necessary response to the failures identified by the Samuel reviewA 2020 review that said Australia's national environment laws needed major reform before the environment would improve. and the offsets audit.
“This bill delivers that. It establishes EPA in legislation as an independent statutory agency, separate from the environment department and the government.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Plibersek supports the bill and says it will create Australia’s first national, independent environment protection agency with stronger powers, better data and more transparency. She says these reforms are needed to help stop environmental decline and move toward a nature positive AustraliaThe policy goal described in the explanatory material, where nature is repaired and regenerating instead of continuing to decline..
“With these bills—the second stage of the nature positive reforms—we're moving quickly to establish the institutions that will be crucial to creating a nature positive Australia. Our bills would establish Environment Protection Australia, our EPA, and define statutory functions for the head of Environment Information Australia. We are creating Australia's first national, independent environment protection agency with strong new powers and penalties to better protect nature. EPA will deliver proportionate and effective risk based compliance and enforcement actions using high-quality data and information. It will provide assurance that environmental outcomes are being met. Promoting public trust in environmental decision-making through the publication of information and the transparency of decisions will be core to EPA's business.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“The EPA that is part of this package of bills is designed to fix that. We recognise that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. This our mechanism to do that. It will provide tougher penalties for people who do the wrong thing, as it should.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We, as a parliament, have a responsibility to ensure that we preserve and protect the environment and, at the very least, stop it from degrading further. The measures proposed in this legislation, I believe, will go a long way towards doing that. Others will argue that perhaps they are imperfect, that they may cause other problems. The reality is that, as with every bit of legislation, there may be flaws, but this bit of legislation at least responds to identified problems of the current system as identified in the Samuel review and implements what I believe will be measures that will ensure that our environment is better protected into the future.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Alicia Payne on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Payne supports the bill and says it is a crucial part of Labor’s Nature Positive planThe government package of reforms aimed at improving environmental protection and repair, of which this bill is one part. because it creates a new environmental protection agency, stronger enforcement, and better reporting on the state of nature. She argues the reforms are needed because the current system is not working and penalties and compliance tools are too weak.
“This is Australia's first national environmental protection agency, and it will have strong new powers and penalties to enforce federal environmental laws. The EPA is an important part of delivering the government's Nature Positive Plan. It's ensuring that the framework behind setting up the EPA is on its way so it's ready to administer the new environmental laws. The EPA would administer Australia's national environmental laws to better protect our environment and make faster, better decisions. It will be charged with delivering accountable, efficient, outcome focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Payne समर्थन the bill as part of Labor’s nature-positive reforms and says it delivers on the government’s election commitment to strengthen environmental law in line with the Samuel reviewA 2020 review that said Australia's national environment laws needed major reform before the environment would improve.. She frames it as part of a broader record of Labor action on environmental protection.
“The Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill is an important part of the Albanese Labor government's nature-positive plan, and, importantly, part of delivering on our election commitment to implement strong environmental law reforms in line with the Samuel review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“The EPA bill is the cornerstone of the Nature Positive legislation. It seeks to establish EPA, or Environment Protection Australia—an independent statutory body dedicated to enforcing and regulating environmental standards across the country. The creation of the EPA is a significant step towards ensuring that environmental protection is not only a priority but is also effectively monitored and enforced. The EPA will provide independent oversight, comprehensive environmental standards, public participation and transparency and enhanced monitoring and reporting.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Susan Templeman on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Susan Templeman supports the bill as a significant step forward for protecting the environment and reversing species loss, because it would create an independent national environment protection agency with stronger powers. She says Labor wants to build on it further later, but makes clear she would back it now.
“I would not be backing this bill if I didn't believe that it is a significant step forward, a step in reversing the extinction and destruction of native species and protecting our environment better than it ever has been before. Finally we will have an independent national environment protection agency, which will have much stronger powers than anything the current department has.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Templeman supports the bill and says Labor is choosing progress by creating an independent Environment Protection AustraliaThe new federal regulator this bill would create to make and enforce environment decisions independently of ministers. with stronger powers, better data and tougher penalties. She argues it is needed to enforce environmental laws properly and deliver the broader Nature Positive planThe government package of reforms aimed at improving environmental protection and repair, of which this bill is one part..
“I am choosing to vote for progress and for a really big change. The only questions on this legislation should be: Do we want an independent EPA or not? Do we want better data to inform environmental decisions or not? And do we want tougher penalties for those breaking environment laws or not? They are the choices that we are making today.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“Passing this legislation will mean that we get on with the job of setting up the national EPA. It will allow a smoother transition of responsibilities from the department to the agency and underpin the establishment and administration of new environmental laws and penalties. With this considered, everybody agrees that the current regulatory system just doesn't work. Our government is committed to fixing these laws to make sure they improve nature, protect our unique native animals and plants and prevent extinctions. That's what my communities expect, and it's what we are delivering.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is an ideal outcome and this bill will help to make sure that more ideal outcomes will continue to be delivered. This bill is common sense. It makes sure that the laws we make are being followed and that our goals are being met, and it helps us to have access to the best possible information to make this happen. It's about helping to make the right decisions faster, and it's all for a cause that I don't think anyone can disagree with, making sure we better look after the environment. I commend this legislation to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Peter Khalil on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Peter Khalil supports the bill because it is a key part of Labor's Nature Positive PlanThe government package of reforms aimed at improving environmental protection and repair, of which this bill is one part. and will establish Environment Protection AustraliaThe new federal regulator this bill would create to make and enforce environment decisions independently of ministers. with stronger powers to protect the natural environment. He says the reforms fix outdated environmental law and improve transparency, compliance and data.
“The Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, which we are debating, delivers on this promise by establishing the EPA. The Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 delivers on this promise by establishing Environment Information Australia, the EIA. And the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 provides the powers to the minister to address many of the unintended outcomes or unforeseen issues related to transitioning to the EPA.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Peter Khalil supports the bill, saying it will strengthen the new Environment Protection AustraliaThe new federal regulator this bill would create to make and enforce environment decisions independently of ministers. and Environment Information Australia bodies, improve transparency, and back environmental law with tougher enforcement. He presents it as part of the Nature Positive planThe government package of reforms aimed at improving environmental protection and repair, of which this bill is one part. and says it gives business and the public confidence that real environmental protection is being delivered.
“The establishment of the EPA and the EIA increase and will increase knowledge and education, and it will also make sure that those tasked with protecting the environment are doing so with the backing of strong penalties for those who fail in their duty and fail to do what is right. As I said, these bills support stage 1 of the Nature Positive Plan, which has given us such great steps forward in protecting local environments.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“The Albanese government went to the 2022 election promising a strong EPA, and this is what these bills will deliver. They will ensure not only that there is a strong compliance body—and stronger penalties to ensure compliance—but that there is also reliable and robust information to inform environmental decisions. These bills represent the second stage of the Albanese government's ambitious environmental reforms, and I look forward to working with the minister to better protect what makes Australia so unique. I now commend the bills to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
9 speakers · 8 oppose · 1 mixed
“I oppose the legislation. I oppose the green police. I think it's not in Australia's interest, and I am incredibly concerned about the ability of an agency like this to end up like the CFMEU, to end up with rights-of-entry provisions and to end up with actual powers and warrants and authority to go on to law-abiding businesses and shut them down. No-one wants to damage the environment; no-one wants to damage the reef. They just want to be able to run their businesses without so much interference, and they are walking away, particularly those in small businesses. And my heart breaks for those individuals, those young Australians, who want to get in and have a go and who just can't get that opportunity.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, these bills only add more cost, bureaucracy and red tape, enabling a Labor government agenda that is anything but positive for nature. Labor are railroading regional communities for renewable projects that do more harm than good. Yet again, Labor robs regions to buy votes in the inner cities.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Loosely translated, what this means for those of us living and working in regional and rural areas is that Labor's renewables-only agenda is being thinly disguised as Nature Positive to ensure that Labor's renewables-only projects will take precedence over our communities, our local environments, our wellbeing, our opportunities and future developments that will support, improve and grow our communities.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This nature positive environmental bill is just another overreach; it's just more bureaucracy. I mean, we know where it starts, but the question is: where does it end? That is the major problem, and yet we've got a Labor government that is not actually doing all that well in the polls or anywhere else at the moment. The people out there are palpable with white-hot anger about how they've governed this nation, and if they lose enough seats and end up having to power share with the Greens after the election then God help Australia.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I don't support this, because I've been around here too long. I've seen this game too long. I'm telling you: when you fall down this trap, you become the endorser of socialism at the expense of private enterprise and freedom.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“You can gather, Mr Speaker, that I don't approve of the bill, and I don't recommend it to the House. I think we should leave the approval at the one-stop shop. If you have one EPA in New South Wales, one in Victoria or one in Queensland, we believe in applying the same laws for everyone. You can't cherry-pick which industries get regulated to death and which ones get a leave pass. I'll leave it at that, but I definitely recommend caution. This is putting lots of rushed, angry types of powers into the hands of very powerful bureaucrats.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This isn't an environmental protection agency; this is an environmental union. This minister wants to give this organisation union power, and the scary thing is it is going to hurt everyone. Yes, it's going to hurt big business and, yes, it's going to hurt small business too. This environmental union will be able to walk into any business—restaurants, hairdressers, accountants, engineering shops and your local fish and chip shops—and force them to stop trading. If they want to shut you down, they will be able to do this. I will not be supporting this bill. As I've clearly demonstrated, this bill is not nature positive; on the contrary, this bill is nature negative.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Very sadly, I stand here to speak against a bill that the Labor Party has introduced. This is a bad bill for our country. It's especially a bad bill for regional communities. It's a bad bill for the investment it will scare out of our communities. And, again, it doesn't surprise me, coming from a government that represents and is a government of city elites.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
4 speakers · 4 oppose
“This bill, the government's plan, won't save koalas. It won't stop native forest logging, and it won't stop the expansion of the coal and gas industry. In fact, the extinction crisis and global warming will continue to get worse. This is a broken promise that sells out our environment and the millions of Australians who want climate action. Instead, Labor has caved in to the coal and gas industry, who want faster and easier approvals for their polluting and damaging new coal and gas mines.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Let's be clear about this bill. This bill will allow for the approval of new coal and gas projects and destroying local environments. The decision today by the environment minister—151 new gas wells—will bulldoze huge swathes of koala habitat before we get to the fact that gas has an impact.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Greens do not support the indefinite delay of critical environmental and cultural heritage law reforms. The government's diminished environment policy won't save our wildlife, won't stop native forest logging and won't stop the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. It's little more than a cave-in to polluters, and our environment will pay the price.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So here we have a bill that is an environmental protection smokescreen. Again, this is Labor putting up legislation to give the impression of doing something—smoke, mirrors, a vibe. Tragically, though, it does nothing to avert the cascading crises of species extinction, habitat destruction and climate catastrophe exacerbated by Labor's inaction. For these reasons the Greens will oppose this bill in the House. We will reserve our position in the Senate and await the findings of the Senate inquiries into this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
9 speakers · 10 contributions · 4 support · 5 mixed
“Leaving consultation to matters of policy and giving proponents the power to control if, how and when that consultation happens is not in the spirit of the recommendations, observations or calls to date. The regulator should have the responsibility to ensure access to information and meaningful consultation, and the time to ensure that responsibility is now when the legislation is before us to establish the EPA. That's why we'll be proposing amendments to bring this level of responsibility, integrity and accountability into the EPA through this bill before us. Ultimately, the fix is not hard. It simply requires the bill to be strengthened to ensure the EPA is responsible for community access to information about proposed developments and that the community has an adequate opportunity and timeframe to express their views. As it currently stands, this is not the case. That responsibility is delegated to project proponents. I've got to say, that's a bit like putting the cat in charge of the milk.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Until these concerns are addressed, and until I can see the government responding constructively to proposed amendments, I'm reserving just where my support for the bills is at this time.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Over the last few weeks, I've considered, drafted and proposed to the minister's office several other amendments that experts believe would improve the stage 2 reform bills. However, I accept that the primary objective of these bills is to establish a foundational institutional framework that has the requisite capacity and expertise to administer the forthcoming substantive stage 3 reforms. I note the minister's reluctance to drag into these bills parts of the stage 3 reforms, and I can see that doing this in a piecemeal way could create a legislative framework that's unworkable, impractical or incomplete. So, whilst I have concerns about the set up of these institutions, I support the establishment of the EPA and the EIA in these bills.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“These bills can be improved. With others on the crossbench, we've sought to engage constructively with the minister on amendments to the bills before us. That engagement has been disappointing, because there's a complete refusal to hear from groups to improve this legislation based on key areas that key public interest groups have identified as shortcomings. I will be moving these amendments at consideration in detail and speaking to them in detail. Without some amendments, I simply will not be able to support this legislation. We have a high-stakes road map. How do we implement it? Where to from here?”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“With all this in mind, I will later propose two amendments to this effect. The first addresses the inadequacy of the government's definition of nature positive. It is completely mystifying to me that we have three phases of nature-positive policy rolling out, but the government is reticent to substantively define in this legislation what nature positive even means. And while on face value it appears commendable that Australia would be the first jurisdiction in the world to define the concept, the government's proposed holding definition is not remotely consistent with recommendations of the internationally recognised Nature Positive movement, nor the advice of leading Australian environmental policy experts.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“My electorate of Kooyong wants this government to act on climate and environment more quickly, more decisively and more effectively. I ask the government to accept the proposed amendments from the crossbench. They will significantly improve this legislation. Australians have lost faith in our environmental and climate protections. We need the government to act now to restore that faith.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I know the minister is sincere in her commitment to getting this right. I desperately want her to succeed, and I will be willing to work constructively with her to get a good set of laws through this parliament. But time is running out for our climate and for the environment. The reforms contained in these bills may present some progress, but we need so much more. I urge the minister to work with the crossbench in this House and in the other place to strengthen this important legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Sophie Scamps on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Scamps supports the bill in principle because she welcomes creating Environment Protection AustraliaThe new federal regulator this bill would create to make and enforce environment decisions independently of ministers., but says the proposed agency is not yet independent or strong enough to protect the environment properly. She argues it must be strengthened in the legislation, especially on board appointments, mandate and forestry exemptions, and says she will move amendments.
“Unfortunately, however, the version that the government is proposing with this bill will not create the effective, independent or fit-for-purpose EPA that is required to effectively protect our environment. It is instead a significantly flawed proposal and must be strengthened here in this legislation if the Australian public is to be able to trust that it will both be effective and truly act in alignment with the public interests and expectations to protect Australia's environment.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Scamps supports the bill and says Australia needs a national Environment Protection Agency, but argues it should be stronger with an independent board, a climate trigger and no Regional Forestry Agreement exemptions. She commends the government for creating the body while pressing it to improve the reforms now.
“Australia absolutely needs a national Environment Protection Agency—there is no doubt about it—and I thank and commend the government for their work to establish this body. But it could be so much better and stronger. If ever there were a time for strong and visionary leadership, it is now, and so I urge the minister and the government to act decisively to enact a strong and independent board to oversee the duties of the EPA. This is what environmental organisations across the country are calling for, loud and clear, as a critical step towards the true protection of our nature. I would also strongly urge the minister to include a climate trigger in the EPBC Act in this stage of the reforms and repeal the Regional Forestry Agreement exemptions in this stage of the bills because, if the intention is to truly protect nature, then it simply does not make sense to not do so.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“These bills are not perfect, but they are a significant advancement on what we currently have. I support this bill and look forward to seeing further reforms that provide certainty for our environment and stakeholders.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 82 to 60.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Discharged from Notice Paper
Discharged from Notice PaperThe Senate's list of business to be dealt with; if a bill is discharged from it, the bill is no longer active there.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (09/09/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (27 June 2024): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (9 Sept 2024)
APH bill page notes
