Bills — Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail
House of Representatives · 6 Nov 2025 · 12:02
Not passed by a large majority
9
Yes (ayes)
55
No (noes)
The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
See it for yourself
This vote was on these bills. Read the official text:
Official documents from aph.gov.au and legislation.gov.au, checked 21 October 2026.
What was debated: Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025
Summarised using AI from the official Hansard transcript of the debate only. It is not a record of the debate and may leave things out. Read the Hansard below to check it.
This bill rewrites Australia's national environment laws, based on the Samuel review. It adds national environmental standards, a 'net gain' rule for offsets, tougher penalties, a faster assessment pathway, a national interest approval pathway and a new national Environment Protection Agency. The debate focused on whether the changes balance protecting nature with speeding up approvals for housing, energy and mining.
Arguments made in support
Government members said the current laws are broken and are failing both the environment and business, as the Samuel review found.
Supporters said new standards, clearer rules on unacceptable impacts and a 'net gain' offset rule would better protect and restore nature.
Government members said a streamlined pathway and less duplication with the states would speed up approvals for housing, roads, renewables and critical minerals.
Supporters said a national EPA and higher penalties would mean breaking environmental law is no longer just a cost of doing business.
Government members said Labor had a mandate from two elections and that protecting nature and supporting jobs can go together.
Arguments made against, or for changes
Coalition speakers said the bill was unbalanced, would hurt productivity and could send jobs and investment overseas.
The Coalition said nearly 1,500 pages with about three weeks to review was too rushed for stakeholders.
The Coalition opposed giving the EPA assessment roles and wanted the CEO to be more accountable to the minister.
The Coalition said emissions reporting duplicated other laws, and that 'net gain' and 'unacceptable impact' definitions were unclear.
Greens senators, citing environment groups, said the bill had loopholes, including land-clearing exemptions, that could weaken nature protections.
43 speeches by 20 members in the House and Senate over 9 sitting days.
What was debated: National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025
Summarised using AI from the official Hansard transcript of the debate only. It is not a record of the debate and may leave things out. Read the Hansard below to check it.
This bill sets up a National Environmental Protection Agency, described by the Government as Australia's first national, independent environmental regulator with new powers and penalties. It was part of a package of changes to national environment law. The short debate in this transcript focused on amendments about how the agency's leaders are chosen and how open its decisions are, and on how much time the House had for debate.
Arguments made in support
The Government said the agency would be Australia's first national, independent environmental regulator, with strong new powers and penalties to protect and restore the environment.
The Government said the bill works with wider law changes to deliver stronger protections, faster and sturdier project assessments, and more trust in decisions.
The Government said its model keeps compliance and enforcement independent while the minister stays accountable for approvals.
The Government said publishing reasons for every routine decision would be an undue burden, and the reforms already publish recommendation reports for approvals.
A Labor member later said the agency, starting on 1 July 2026, answered long-standing community calls for a stronger environmental regulator.
Arguments made against, or for changes
Independent member Sophie Scamps moved amendments to create an independent board that would choose the agency's CEO, saying a minister-appointed CEO would weaken trust.
Her amendments called for public advertising and an independent panel to shortlist board members, with at least one Indigenous member.
Independent member Allegra Spender moved an amendment requiring the agency to publish reasons for its decisions, not just notice of them.
The Coalition said the Government cut debate short and stopped it asking the minister questions about the bills.
The Coalition said both conservation and business groups found the bills unworkable, and raised concerns about the agency's broad powers and limits on the minister's oversight of the CEO.
24 speeches by 7 members in the House over 2 sitting days.
What was debated: Environment Information Australia Bill 2025
Summarised using AI from the official Hansard transcript of the debate only. It is not a record of the debate and may leave things out. Read the Hansard below to check it.
This bill would create a new statutory role, the Head of Environment Information Australia, to lead work on making national environmental data easier to find and use. The minister said it would also bring independent reporting on the state of the environment. The recorded debate is short and mostly procedural, with the bill passing the House after the question was put without further debate.
Arguments made in support
The minister said a 2020 independent review found Australia's environmental data was scattered and had major gaps.
The minister argued better data would support faster, better-informed decisions by government and business while protecting important environmental areas.
The minister said independent reporting would improve transparency and confidence in environmental decision-making.
3 speeches by 2 members in the House over 2 sitting days.
What was debated: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025
Summarised using AI from the official Hansard transcript of the debate only. It is not a record of the debate and may leave things out. Read the Hansard below to check it.
This bill sets up a framework to charge fees for some work done under Australia's main environment protection law. The minister said the actual activities and amounts would be set in regulations, limited to recovering costs, and consulted on first. The transcript shows only the minister's short introduction and the procedural votes, with no other speeches.
Arguments made in support
The minister said the charges would only cover the cost of running the environment law.
The minister said any charging arrangements would be consulted on before they started.
3 speeches by 2 members in the House over 2 sitting days.
What was debated: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025
Summarised using AI from the official Hansard transcript of the debate only. It is not a record of the debate and may leave things out. Read the Hansard below to check it.
This bill would set up a framework for charging fees, as excise, for certain activities linked to running the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The actual activities and amounts would be set later in regulations. The recorded debate is short and mostly procedural, with the bill passing the House after the question was put without further debate.
Arguments made in support
The minister said charges would be limited to what is needed to recover costs.
The minister said any charging arrangements would be consulted on before they started.
The minister argued the wider package responds to a review that had waited about five years, and that both the environment and business needed it.
3 speeches by 2 members in the House over 2 sitting days.
What was debated: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025
Summarised using AI from the official Hansard transcript of the debate only. It is not a record of the debate and may leave things out. Read the Hansard below to check it.
This bill would set up a framework for general charges for certain activities linked to running the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The actual activities and amounts would be set later in regulations. The recorded debate is short and mostly procedural, with the bill passing the House after the question was put without further debate.
Arguments made in support
The minister said charges would be limited to what is needed to recover costs.
The minister said any charging arrangements would be consulted on before they were imposed.
3 speeches by 2 members in the House over 2 sitting days.
What was debated: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025
Summarised using AI from the official Hansard transcript of the debate only. It is not a record of the debate and may leave things out. Read the Hansard below to check it.
This bill sets the restoration charge, a payment a developer can make into a national restoration fund instead of finding its own environmental offset. It was debated together with six other bills that rewrite national environment laws (the EPBC Act), including a new national Environment Protection Agency, national standards, a 'net gain' rule for offsets and faster approvals. The debate covered the whole package, how the offsets fund would work, and a late Senate deal between Labor and the Greens that changed rules on forestry, land clearing and fast-tracking for coal and gas.
Arguments made in support
Government members said current laws fail both nature and business, as the Samuel review found, and that the package follows that review's recommendations.
The government said pooling payments in a fund run by an independent holder allows larger restoration work, such as wildlife corridors, than many small separate offsets.
Labor speakers said one streamlined assessment pathway and less overlap with the states would give quicker answers for housing, renewable energy and mining projects.
Government members said offsets must now deliver a net gain, and amendments let the minister list species too threatened to be paid for through the fund.
The Greens said their amendments ended the forestry exemption, tightened land-clearing exemptions, kept the water trigger federal and stopped coal and gas being fast-tracked.
Arguments made against, or for changes
Independent members said the fund could let developers 'pay to destroy', noting similar state funds underdelivered, and moved amendments to limit it, price it properly and publish its reports.
Coalition members said offset costs already block housing and infrastructure, and an undefined 'net gain' rule and unclear 'unacceptable impact' tests would make approvals slower and costlier.
Coalition and One Nation senators argued the Labor-Greens deal threatens jobs in native forestry, farming and gas; the government said it does not shut down native forestry.
Crossbench members raised concerns about broad ministerial discretion, the national interest pathway and the EPA's independence, while Coalition members said the EPA's leader should answer to the minister.
Coalition, crossbench and Greens members criticised the short time for scrutiny, and the Greens and several independents said the laws still lack a climate trigger.
316 speeches by 91 members in the House and Senate over 6 sitting days.