← Back to home Browse all bills

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations)

Current status

This bill became law on Mar 27th, 2025.

Policy area

Climate, energy & environment

What does this bill do?

Australia now blocks the Environment Minister from overturning some past decisions that let projects proceed without federal approval, if those projects meet the new legal conditions.

Why was it introduced?

Current EPBCAustralia's main federal environment law, which decides when projects need federal assessment and approval. reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. rules can force long-running lawful projects to stop if the Minister overturns old decisions after new information or changed circumstances, creating major uncertainty for workers and communities. This bill blocks that reversal for certain projects operating for at least five years under state or territory management arrangements, including pending reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. requests.

Broader context

Australia’s environment law already let the minister revisit earlier decisions that had allowed projects to proceed under state or territory management arrangements, while the 2021 State of the Environment ReportA national report on how Australia's environment is faring, used here to argue that new information about older decisions can emerge later. said worsening environmental pressures meant new information was more likely to emerge after those decisions. By March 2025, debate over the risk that long-running operations such as Macquarie Harbour salmon farming could be stopped through reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. pushed Parliament to pass a narrow carve-out for projects operating for at least five years, and the Act took effect after Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament and makes the change law. the next day.

Key criticism

Critics said the bill would weaken federal environment law by blocking ministers from revisiting some old approvals, making it harder to stop projects that could harm endangered species and ecosystems. That case was pushed mainly by the Greens and crossbenchers such as Andrew Wilkie, David Pocock and Fatima Payman, while Coalition support remained conditional on broader changes to stop long-running approval uncertainty elsewhere.

Who supported it?

Tanya Plibersek MP introduced this bill. In the House final vote, support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, some crossbenchThe non-government and non-major-opposition senators or MPs whose votes can decide whether a bill passes or is changed. members; opposition came from Greens, Centre Alliance, some crossbenchThe non-government and non-major-opposition senators or MPs whose votes can decide whether a bill passes or is changed. members.

Introduced in House 25 Mar 2025
Passed House 25 Mar 2025 Aye 111 No 14
Passed Senate 26 Mar 2025 Aye 30 No 14
Became law 27 Mar 2025

Did it become law?

Yes

Became law 27 Mar 2025

Final passage

Recorded final vote

2 counted final-passage votes were recorded.

Passage speed

2 days

From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step

Official record

View on APH

Parliament of Australia bill page

Meaning

What does this bill do?

  1. Australia now blocks the Environment Minister from overturning some past decisions that let projects proceed without federal approval, if those projects meet the new legal conditions.

  2. This protection applies when a project was originally allowed to proceed on the basis that it would follow a management arrangementA state or territory plan, policy or approval arrangement that a project must follow to rely on the special exemption discussed in this bill. made, approved or run by a state or self-governing territory government.

  3. This protection only covers projects already underway where the activity has been continuing or recurring for at least 5 years.

  4. The new rule reaches back to older decisions and also covers pending reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. requests, unless the Minister had already finished the reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. before the law started.

Show source excerpts
  1. (3A) The Minister must not revoke the first decision if:
    Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Act 2025 final Act text
  2. (b) the identified manner included that the action would be taken in accordance with a management arrangement made, approved or administered by the government of a State or self‑governing Territory; and
    Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Act 2025 final Act text
  3. (i) if the Minister is requested under subsection 78A(1) to reconsider the decision—at the time the request is made, the way in which the action is being taken has been ongoing or recurring for at least 5 years; or
    Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Act 2025 final Act text
  4. (2) The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to the first decision regardless of whether a request was made under subsection 78A(1) of the Act in relation to the first decision before this item commences, unless the Minister has made a decision under subsection 78(1) of the Act in relation to such a request before this item commences.
    Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Act 2025 final Act text

Context

Broader context for this bill

Australia’s environment law already let the minister revisit earlier decisions that had allowed projects to proceed under state or territory management arrangements, while the 2021 State of the Environment ReportA national report on how Australia's environment is faring, used here to argue that new information about older decisions can emerge later. said worsening environmental pressures meant new information was more likely to emerge after those decisions. By March 2025, debate over the risk that long-running operations such as Macquarie Harbour salmon farming could be stopped through reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. pushed Parliament to pass a narrow carve-out for projects operating for at least five years, and the Act took effect after Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament and makes the change law. the next day.

  1. 2021

    State of the Environment ReportA national report on how Australia's environment is faring, used here to argue that new information about older decisions can emerge later. warns the environment is under stress

    The 2021 State of the Environment ReportA national report on how Australia's environment is faring, used here to argue that new information about older decisions can emerge later. said Australia’s environment was under growing pressure, supporting the case that new information could later cast doubt on older EPBCAustralia's main federal environment law, which decides when projects need federal assessment and approval. decisions.

    Australian Parliament House ↗
  2. 25 Mar 2025

    Macquarie Harbour salmon reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. dispute dominates the House debate

    Opposition speakers said uncertainty around the Tasmanian salmon industry had put workers, families and communities under pressure and drove the push for a legislative fix.

    Hansard ↗
  3. 25 Mar 2025

    Government says reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. powers are creating business uncertainty

    In introducing the bill, the government said environment laws needed to provide more certainty for business as well as protection for nature.

    Hansard ↗
  4. 26 Mar 2025

    Parliament passes the bill

    Both houses passed the bill in the same form, locking in protection from reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. for certain long-running projects operating under state or territory arrangements.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗
  5. 27 Mar 2025

    Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament and makes the change law. turns the bill into law

    Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament and makes the change law. made the change operative, including for pending reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. requests that had not already been finalised.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗

Legislative route

How did it move through Parliament?

House Senate
Introduced 25 Mar 2025

The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.

Introduced and read a first time

Second reading opened 25 Mar 2025

A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.

Second reading moved

Second reading debate 25 Mar 2025

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

House second reading agreed Aye 111 No 14 25 Mar 2025

Recorded vote: 111 to 14.

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

House third reading agreed Aye 111 No 14 25 Mar 2025

Recorded vote: 111 to 14.

The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.

Third reading agreed to

Introduced 26 Mar 2025

The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.

Introduced and read a first time

Second reading opened 26 Mar 2025

A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.

Second reading moved

Second reading debate 26 Mar 2025

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Senate second reading agreed Aye 27 No 14 26 Mar 2025

Recorded vote: 27 to 14.

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

Committee of the Whole debate 26 Mar 2025

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Senate third reading agreed Aye 30 No 14 26 Mar 2025

Recorded vote: 30 to 14.

The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.

Third reading agreed to

Passed both houses 26 Mar 2025

Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.

Finally passed both Houses

Assent 27 Mar 2025

The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament and makes the change law., turning the bill into an Act.

Key criticism

The main case against this bill

Critics said the bill would weaken federal environment law by blocking ministers from revisiting some old approvals, making it harder to stop projects that could harm endangered species and ecosystems. That case was pushed mainly by the Greens and crossbenchers such as Andrew Wilkie, David Pocock and Fatima Payman, while Coalition support remained conditional on broader changes to stop long-running approval uncertainty elsewhere.

The main objections were strong but not universal, with some criticism focused on drafting and unresolved approval delays.

Weakened environmental scrutiny

Opponents argued the bill creates a carve-out from federal reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. powers for long-running projects, which could let environmentally damaging activities keep operating even when new risks to species or ecosystems emerge. They said this would make it harder to revisit harmful approvals and could favour salmon, mining, coal and gas interests over biodiversity protection.

Raised by Greens MPs and senators, David Pocock, Andrew Wilkie and Fatima Payman Source ↗

Rushed and insufficiently scrutinised

Several critics said the bill was rushed through Parliament without proper consultation, inquiry or committee review for a change that narrows environmental oversight. They argued a bill with retrospective effect and broad practical consequences should have faced more detailed scrutiny before passage.

Raised by Sarah Hanson-Young, Jordon Steele-John, Elizabeth Watson-Brown and David Pocock Source ↗

Did not fix wider approval uncertainty

Some supporters of the bill still argued it was too narrow and failed to deal with broader problems in the reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. regime, including long delays and open-ended uncertainty for major projects. Their concern was less about the bill's environmental goal than about drafting and the lack of firm time limits or stronger protections for investment certainty.

Raised by Coalition speakers including Michaelia Cash, Ted O'Brien and Jonathon Duniam Source ↗

Further sources

parlinfo.aph.gov.au ↗ parlinfo.aph.gov.au ↗

Votes

Recorded votes

How the bill itself passed

The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.

Carried

House passed the bill

Aye 111 No 14

Passed 111 to 14. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens and Centre Alliance. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

25 Mar 2025

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 67 / 0
Unknown 24 / 6
Liberal Party 14 / 0
Independent 1 / 6
Nationals 5 / 0
Greens 0 / 1
Centre Alliance 0 / 1
Carried

Senate passed the bill

Aye 30 No 14

Passed 30 to 14. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, One Nation, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

26 Mar 2025

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 19 / 0
Greens 0 / 11
Liberal Party 5 / 0
Unknown 2 / 1
Independent 1 / 1
One Nation 2 / 0
Australia's Voice 0 / 1
Nationals 1 / 0

Earlier bill-stage votes

Carried

House cleared second reading

Aye 111 No 14

Passed 111 to 14. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens and Centre Alliance. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

25 Mar 2025

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 67 / 0
Unknown 24 / 6
Liberal Party 14 / 0
Independent 1 / 6
Nationals 5 / 0
Greens 0 / 1
Centre Alliance 0 / 1
Carried

Senate cleared second reading

Aye 27 No 14

Passed 27 to 14. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, and One Nation. Opposition came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

26 Mar 2025

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 18 / 0
Greens 0 / 11
Liberal Party 4 / 0
Unknown 2 / 1
Independent 1 / 1
One Nation 2 / 0
Australia's Voice 0 / 1

Amendments at a glance

Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.

House

Defeated

Reject bill and budget rush

Aye 12 No 76

Defeated 12 to 76. Support came from Greens and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

25 Mar 2025

The House rejected the amendment, so the bill continued through the second-reading process.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 0 / 61
Unknown 6 / 11
Independent 4 / 2
Greens 1 / 0
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Liberal Party 0 / 1
Nationals 0 / 1
Defeated

Criticise salmon review and bill

Aye 50 No 84

Defeated 50 to 84. Support came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

25 Mar 2025

The House rejected the amendment, so no such statement was added to the second-reading motion.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 0 / 67
Unknown 20 / 13
Liberal Party 19 / 0
Nationals 11 / 0
Independent 0 / 2
Greens 0 / 1
Centre Alliance 0 / 1

Senate

Carried

Government closure motion carried

Aye 28 No 15

Passed 28 to 15. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

25 Mar 2025

This was a procedural vote, not a final vote on whether the bill would become law.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 19 / 0
Greens 0 / 11
Unknown 5 / 1
Independent 1 / 2
Liberal Party 2 / 0
Australia's Voice 0 / 1
Nationals 1 / 0
Defeated

Greens suspension motion defeated

Aye 15 No 28

Defeated 15 to 28. Support came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

25 Mar 2025

This was a procedural vote, not a final vote on whether the bill would become law.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 0 / 19
Greens 11 / 0
Unknown 1 / 5
Independent 2 / 1
Liberal Party 0 / 2
Australia's Voice 1 / 0
Nationals 0 / 1
Defeated

Greens same-day debate push defeated

Aye 15 No 28

Defeated 15 to 28. Support came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

25 Mar 2025

This was a main vote on the principle of the bill.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 0 / 19
Greens 11 / 0
Unknown 1 / 5
Independent 2 / 1
Liberal Party 0 / 2
Australia's Voice 1 / 0
Nationals 0 / 1
Defeated

Protect salmon industry from new controls

Aye 26 No 31

Defeated 26 to 31. Support came from Liberal Party, One Nation, and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

26 Mar 2025

The Senate rejected the amendment, so the statement was not added to the bill’s second-reading motion.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Liberal Party 18 / 0
Labor 0 / 16
Greens 0 / 11
Unknown 5 / 2
Independent 0 / 2
One Nation 2 / 0
Nationals 1 / 0
Defeated

Call to stop bill and inquire

Aye 14 No 28

Defeated 14 to 28. Support came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

26 Mar 2025

The Senate rejected the amendment, so the bill was not sent to committee by that vote.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 0 / 16
Greens 11 / 0
Liberal Party 0 / 7
Unknown 1 / 2
Independent 1 / 1
One Nation 0 / 2
Australia's Voice 1 / 0
Defeated

Note WA job risks from delay

Aye 21 No 30

Defeated 21 to 30. Support came from Liberal Party and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

26 Mar 2025

The Senate rejected the amendment, so the bill did not carry that added criticism.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 0 / 16
Liberal Party 16 / 0
Greens 0 / 11
Unknown 3 / 1
Independent 0 / 2
One Nation 2 / 0
Defeated

Send bill to committee inquiry

Aye 14 No 30

Defeated 14 to 30. Support came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

26 Mar 2025

The Senate rejected the amendment, so the bill was not referred by this vote and proceeded in the chamber.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 0 / 20
Greens 11 / 0
Liberal Party 0 / 5
Unknown 1 / 2
Independent 1 / 1
One Nation 0 / 2
Australia's Voice 1 / 0
Defeated

Limit reconsideration of active approvals

Aye 29 No 34

Defeated 29 to 34. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

26 Mar 2025

The committee rejected the amendment, so the government’s narrower reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. limits remained in place.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 0 / 19
Liberal Party 18 / 0
Greens 0 / 11
Unknown 5 / 1
Nationals 4 / 0
Independent 0 / 2
One Nation 2 / 0
Australia's Voice 0 / 1
Defeated

Require requests within 12 months

Aye 29 No 34

Defeated 29 to 34. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

26 Mar 2025

The committee rejected the amendment, so the bill kept the government’s different timing rule.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 0 / 19
Liberal Party 18 / 0
Greens 0 / 11
Unknown 5 / 1
Nationals 4 / 0
Independent 0 / 2
One Nation 2 / 0
Australia's Voice 0 / 1
Defeated

Exclude fossil fuel projects

Aye 13 No 34

Defeated 13 to 34. Support came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

26 Mar 2025

The committee rejected the amendment, so fossil fuel projects were not carved out from the bill’s reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. changes.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 0 / 20
Greens 11 / 0
Liberal Party 0 / 5
Unknown 0 / 4
Independent 1 / 1
Nationals 0 / 2
One Nation 0 / 2
Australia's Voice 1 / 0

This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.

Parliamentary debate

Who spoke, and what they said

Start here — lead voices

Sponsor speech Supports

Tanya Plibersek

Australian Labor Party • MP 25 Mar 2025

Plibersek supports the bill and says it will give certainty and stability to established projects, workers and communities while still balancing environmental protection.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead opposing voice Opposes

Andrew Wilkie

Independent • MP 25 Mar 2025

Wilkie opposes the bill and says it would weaken environmental laws to protect the salmon industry, even at the cost of the Maugean skateAn endangered Tasmanian fish species that was central to the debate because critics said the bill could make its protection harder.'s extinction.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead supporting voice Supports

Jonathon Duniam

Liberal Party • Senator 26 Mar 2025

Duniam says the coalition will support the bill, but only as an urgent fix to a government mess, and he argues it should be strengthened with amendments.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead non-major voice Opposes

David Pocock

Independent • Senator 26 Mar 2025

Pocock opposes the bill and says the Senate should reject it because it strips the environment minister's reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. power, weakens scrutiny, and could help drive the maugean skateAn endangered Tasmanian fish species that was central to the debate because critics said the bill could make its protection harder. and other species toward extinction.

Read in Hansard ↗

All speeches by bloc

Labor

4 speakers · 4 support

  1. Tanya Plibersek ★ Plibersek supports the bill and says it will give certainty and stability to established projects, workers and communities while still balancing environmental protection.
    “This bill strikes a balance between the important task of protecting our environment, and the need to provide certainty and stability to businesses which have already made substantial investment to get a project up and running, and most importantly protecting jobs.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 25 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Helen Polley Polley supports the bill and urges the Senate to pass it, saying it gives certainty to Tasmanian salmon workers and communities while the government balances environmental protection with jobs.
    “At the end of the day, it's not always easy for a government to balance the responsibility of protecting the environment and people's jobs. I am very proud to be part of this government, which has actually listened, has visited and has learnt. Now we are able to give that certainty to those workers and their families and those communities. This is the right decision, and I urge people in this chamber to support this legislation. It is important not just for the Tasmanian community but for the Australian community as well.”

    Australian Labor Party • Senator • 26 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Jenny McAllister McAllister supports the bill, saying it restores certainty and fairness for established projects while still balancing environmental protection with jobs and investment.
    “This Bill strikes a balance between the important task of protecting our environment, and the need to provide certainty and stability to businesses which have already made substantial investment to get a project up and running, and most importantly protecting jobs.”

    Australian Labor Party • Senator • 26 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  4. Anne Urquhart Anne Urquhart supports the bill because she says it fixes a flaw in the EPBC ActAustralia's main federal environment law, which decides when projects need federal assessment and approval. and protects Tasmanian workers, jobs, and communities that depend on the industry.
    “This legislation is a specific amendment to address a flaw in the EPBC Act. We're not going to stand by and see workers lose their jobs because of this broken law. The blame game which is singing out the industry and the communities whose livelihoods depend on the industry will not guide my actions, nor will it guide the actions of this Labor government.”

    Australian Labor Party • Senator • 26 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Coalition

6 speakers · 7 contributions · 4 support · 1 oppose · 1 mixed

  1. Jonathon Duniam ★ Duniam says the coalition will support the bill, but only as an urgent fix to a government mess, and he argues it should be strengthened with amendments.
    “We will support the legislation. There are amendments, which I'll come to in a moment, to ensure that this bill is as good as it possibly can be—noting that, as I said before, we were given this legislation on Monday.”

    Liberal Party • Senator • 26 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Richard Colbeck Colbeck supports the bill's passage, but says it is an unnecessary fix for a problem the minister created and that Labor should have rejected the reopening of the old decision.
    “We need to make sure that what we do ensures a sustainable future for a strong industry for Tasmania, one that I think is very important for our local communities.”

    Liberal Party • Senator • 26 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Michaelia Cash Cash supports the bill, but says the reconsiderations regime should be substantially strengthened so decisions are not left open to endless review, especially in relation to the North West Shelf gas project.
    “Senator Duniam is going to be moving an amendment—it is encapsulated in his second reading amendment and will also be moved in Committee of the Whole—that states the bill's changes to the reconsiderations regime should be substantially strengthened to ensure that all assessments of all projects across all industries do not remain subject to the open-ended review processes that currently exist. In other words, let's make sure that the minister, going forward, cannot in any way revoke a decision that has been made—in particular, in relation to the North West Shelf.”

    Liberal Party • Senator • 26 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  4. Ted O'Brien Ted O'Brien says the coalition will support the bill because it gives Tasmanian salmon workers and businesses some immediate relief after a long period of uncertainty.
    “The coalition will support this bill. We do so in recognition of the urgent need to put an end to the living hell that salmon businesses and workers in Tasmania have endured under this Albanese government and, in particular, through the actions of its environment minister.”

    Liberal Party • MP • 25 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  5. Perin Davey Davey supports the bill because she says the salmon industry needs protection from future reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. requests, but argues the government must back the Coalition’s amendments to give the industry real certainty.
    “I call on the government to support the amendments that we will be bringing forward, which will give the salmon industry the certainty that it deserves and needs, so that we can finally put this issue to bed and can get on with trying to increase productivity in Australia, focusing on relieving the cost-of-living pressures, focusing on relieving inflationary pressures and moving this country forward.”

    National Party • Senator • 26 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  6. Slade Brockman 2 contributions Brockman opposes the bill, saying it is not a sensible policy decision and arguing that Labor has stitched up a dirty deal with the Greens behind closed doors.

    Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Slade Brockman on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.

    Second reading speech Liberal Party • Senator • 26 Mar 2025

    Brockman opposes the bill, saying it is not a sensible policy decision and arguing that Labor has stitched up a dirty deal with the Greens behind closed doors. He says the government is pursuing political expediency rather than proper environmental policy.

    “I won't say this bill is a sensible policy decision, because there are many flaws with it, but I do congratulate Senator Duniam and the entire Tasmanian team for the work they've done in standing up for their home state of Tasmania.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗

    Second reading speech Liberal Party • Senator • 26 Mar 2025

    Brockman opposes the bill, arguing that it delays a long-running Western Australian gas project for political reasons and puts jobs, energy supply and export relationships at risk. He says the government should make a decision now rather than keep kicking the issue down the road.

    “You can be sure of only one thing. If you believe in the economic future of Western Australia, if you believe in the ability of households to continue to get their energy supplies, if you believe in manufacturing in Western Australia, and if you believe in the jobs of all those FIFO workers linked to the mining industry and the oil and gas industry in Western Australia, there is only one way to protect them, and that is: don't vote for Labor, don't vote for the Greens; put Liberal as No. 1. That is the only way of protecting those jobs, our economy, our future, our relationship with key partners like Japan and $30 billion worth of investment in Western Australia.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗

Greens

6 speakers · 6 oppose

  1. Peter Whish-Wilson Whish-Wilson opposes the bill, saying it weakens federal environment law to exempt the salmon industry and would help drive the maugean skateAn endangered Tasmanian fish species that was central to the debate because critics said the bill could make its protection harder. toward extinction.
    “The worst thing they have done is to bring this stupid, dangerous, immoral legislation before this chamber, before this parliament. If it's not about the workers, is it about the politics? Well, there's no doubt the Labor Party want to win the seat of Braddon.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 26 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Max Chandler-Mather Chandler-Mather opposes the bill, saying Labor is teaming up with the Liberals and Nationals to weaken Australia’s environmental laws.
    “It beggars belief that, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, a housing crisis, a climate crisis and an environmental crisis, in the dying days of this parliament, when Labor could work with the Greens to pass much-needed legislation to reduce student debt or allow people to see their GP for free, instead what Labor are doing is a dirty deal with the Liberals and Nationals to weaken Australia's environmental laws. It's disgraceful. In the context of a climate and environmental crisis devastating this country, a series of weakening laws will be passed through this parliament in a deal between Labor and the Liberals and Nationals that may well make it easier for coal and gas projects to continue into the future even where the science proves they're having a devastating impact on our environment.”

    Australian Greens • MP • 25 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Sarah Hanson-Young Hanson-Young opposes the bill, saying it was rushed through without proper scrutiny and would weaken Australia’s environment laws to give the salmon industry and other corporations a carve-out from environmental oversight.
    “This bill is a rotten, stinking deal between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party to trash our environment and to weaken our laws rather than to do what was promised.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 26 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  4. Elizabeth Watson-Brown Watson-Brown opposes the bill and says Labor and the coalition are using it to weaken environmental laws, creating loopholes that could help salmon, mining, coal and gas projects avoid scrutiny.
    “Frighteningly, this isn't just a carveout for the salmon industry. It weakens our environmental laws across all of the industries. The mining industry, coal and gas companies, and logging companies will all benefit from these changes—free reign to trash our environment with absolutely no oversight.”

    Australian Greens • MP • 25 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  5. Stephen Bates Stephen Bates opposes the bill and moves a substitute amendment to deny it a second reading, arguing it weakens environment laws and would make it harder to protect endangered species and review harmful approvals.
    “"The House declines to give the bill a second reading and notes the government is using the cover of the budget to rush through legislation that trashes environment laws instead of passing laws to cut student debt and triple the bulk billing incentive for GPs".”

    Australian Greens • MP • 25 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  6. Jordon Steele-John Jordon Steele-John opposes the bill, saying it would weaken environment laws and make it harder to properly assess projects that damage nature.
    “The government today seeks to reform our environment laws by amending the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, not for the stronger protection of our natural world but to make it even more difficult for projects that impact our environment to be properly assessed.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 26 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Minor parties and independents

3 speakers · 3 oppose

  1. Andrew Wilkie ★ Wilkie opposes the bill and says it would weaken environmental laws to protect the salmon industry, even at the cost of the Maugean skateAn endangered Tasmanian fish species that was central to the debate because critics said the bill could make its protection harder.'s extinction.
    “I hold out some hope that the opposition will oppose this bill, probably for their own self-serving interests by trying to trip up the Labor Party before the election. But I don't care what their motivation is. I just hope they oppose it and vote against it.”

    Independent • MP • 25 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. David Pocock ★ Pocock opposes the bill and says the Senate should reject it because it strips the environment minister's reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. power, weakens scrutiny, and could help drive the maugean skateAn endangered Tasmanian fish species that was central to the debate because critics said the bill could make its protection harder. and other species toward extinction.
    “I rise to speak in opposition to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025 and I foreshadow a second reading amendment circulated my name.”

    Independent • Senator • 26 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Fatima Payman Payman opposes the bill, saying it is a political rollback that shuts down reconsiderationA formal process for asking the environment minister to look again at an earlier EPBC decision because of new information or changed circumstances. of the salmon-farming case and weakens environmental oversight when species and ecosystems are at risk.
    “This bill is not just a threat to the maugean skate. It is a threat to biodiversity, habitats and our already fragile ecosystems across Australia. It is the wrong decision, and it will go down as yet another black mark on the Albanese government's environmental record—a record marked by hesitation, capitulation and political cowardice.”

    Independent • Senator • 26 Mar 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Record

Full record

Full chat