Bill
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025
passed, as at 2025-03-27. Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2025-03-25
- second reading — 2025-03-25
- second reading — 2025-03-25
- second reading — 2025-03-25
- third reading — 2025-03-25
- introduced — 2025-03-26
- second reading — 2025-03-26
- second reading — 2025-03-26
- second reading — 2025-03-26
- committee — 2025-03-26
- third reading — 2025-03-26
- passed — 2025-03-26
- royal assent — 2025-03-27
Divisions
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2025-03-25.107.1) to an [original amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2025-03-25.106.1). The original amendment would have amended the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. The amendment was introduced by Brisbane MP [Stephen Bates](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/brisbane/stephen_bates) (Greens). The original amendment was introduced by Fairfax MP [Ted O'Brien](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/fairfax/ted_o'brien) (Liberal). ### Amendment text > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *"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".* ### Original amendment text > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:* > > *(1) on the eve of a federal election, the Albanese Government has been forced to work around their own Environment Minister in an attempt to fix a political mess of their own making;* > > *(2) the Government remains bitterly divided on the future of salmon farming at Macquarie Harbour and has unleashed 15 months of anxiety and uncertainty on thousands of workers, families and communities who rely on the salmon industry, including voting against a Coalition bill to improve the reconsideration process in the most recent sitting week of Parliament;* > > *(3) this legislation is not needed to provide lasting certainty to the Tasmanian salmon industry, and instead the Government should simply have ended the Minister for t — 2025-03-25, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 12, noes 76
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2025-03-25.106.1) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. The amendment was introduced by Fairfax MP [Ted O'Brien](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/fairfax/ted_o'brien) (Liberal). ### Amendment text > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:* > > *(1) on the eve of a federal election, the Albanese Government has been forced to work around their own Environment Minister in an attempt to fix a political mess of their own making;* > > *(2) the Government remains bitterly divided on the future of salmon farming at Macquarie Harbour and has unleashed 15 months of anxiety and uncertainty on thousands of workers, families and communities who rely on the salmon industry, including voting against a Coalition bill to improve the reconsideration process in the most recent sitting week of Parliament;* > > *(3) this legislation is not needed to provide lasting certainty to the Tasmanian salmon industry, and instead the Government should simply have ended the Minister for the Environment's disastrous 2023 review of salmon farming's future at Macquarie Harbour;* > > *(4) the Government, and particularly the Environment Minister, must guarantee to not instigate other forms of legislation or regulations that will impose new controls or reviews on the salmon industry, including through the return of their Nature Positive legislation, Federal EPA or use of other forms of the EPBC Act, such as directed environmental audits; and* > > *(5) the changes to the reconsiderations regime in the Bill should be substantially strengthened to ensure that all assessments of all projects, across all industries, do not remain subject to the open-ended re — 2025-03-25, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 51, noes 84
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2025-03-25.115.1) to agree with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time, which means it can now be considered in more detail. ### What does this bill do? This bill limits the circumstances in which the Minister has to the power to reconsider past decisions in order to create greater stability for certain projects. According for the [explanatory memorandum](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr7323_ems_129d226c-7198-4ca1-9f62-b01fdae1fa59%22;rec=0), which is a political document prepared by the Government, who introduced the bill: > *The 2021 State of the Environment Report made clear that all aspects of the Australian environment are under stress, and many are declining. Multiple pressures from factors like climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, and pollution create cumulative impacts that amplify threats to our environment. Better information, along with the increasingly dynamic nature of the environment increases the likelihood that actions originally determined to be unlikely to have a significant impact on a protected matter under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) could in future meet the threshold for reconsideration.* > > *Under the EPBC Act, an action can be lawfully taken if the Minister decides that it is not a controlled action. In contrast, if the Minister decides that the action is a controlled action, the action is subject to further assessment under the EPBC Act and cannot be taken unless and until the Minister approves the taking of the action. The EPBC Act requires the Minister to decide that an action is a controlled action if the Minister is satisfied that the action has, will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on a protected matter.* > > — 2025-03-25, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 112, noes 14
- The majority voted in favour of a motion to pass the bill in the House of Representatives. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a third time. The bill will now be sent to the Senate for their consideration. This bill limits the circumstances in which the Minister has to the power to reconsider past decisions in order to create greater stability for certain projects. ### What does this bill do? According for the [explanatory memorandum](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr7323_ems_129d226c-7198-4ca1-9f62-b01fdae1fa59%22;rec=0), which is a political document prepared by the Government, who introduced the bill: > *The 2021 State of the Environment Report made clear that all aspects of the Australian environment are under stress, and many are declining. Multiple pressures from factors like climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, and pollution create cumulative impacts that amplify threats to our environment. Better information, along with the increasingly dynamic nature of the environment increases the likelihood that actions originally determined to be unlikely to have a significant impact on a protected matter under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) could in future meet the threshold for reconsideration.* > > *Under the EPBC Act, an action can be lawfully taken if the Minister decides that it is not a controlled action. In contrast, if the Minister decides that the action is a controlled action, the action is subject to further assessment under the EPBC Act and cannot be taken unless and until the Minister approves the taking of the action. The EPBC Act requires the Minister to decide that an action is a controlled action if the Minister is satisfied that the action has, will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on a protected matter.* > > *The EPBC Act currently allows reconsiderati — 2025-03-25, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 112, noes 14
- Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025 - Reference to Committee - Put the question — 2025-03-25, Senate: affirmative, ayes 28, noes 15
- Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025 - Reference to Committee - Suspend standing orders — 2025-03-25, Senate: negative, ayes 15, noes 28
- The majority voted in favour of [paragraph (aa)(ii)(A)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2025-03-26.10.2) of a motion introduced by South Australian Senator [Penny Wong](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/penny_wong) (Labor), which means it succeeded. ### Motion text > *(ii) consideration of the following bills:* > >> *A. [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7323),* — 2025-03-26, Senate: affirmative, ayes 26, noes 15
Plain-language summary
No machine-written summary in this export.
Sources
em
billhome
frl act