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

Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for the Environment and Water) (17:09): I apologise; I didn't hear your question the first time you asked it. Your question goes to the point around standing to sue, essentially, and there are no changes and no expansions of standing to sue in this legislation. In fact, I think I'm right in saying that Professor Samuel's review did not recommend an expansion of standing to sue.

That is the key reason why we haven't done so. There's no extension of standing to sue. This is not a point around standing, but, on the general topic around the ability to appeal decisions under the EPBC, one change that we have made—I doubt that this is relevant to regional forest agreements—as you may be aware, is that under the act there's the ability for certain parties and certain individuals to seek a reconsideration of a decision as to whether a project is a controlled action or not.

Currently, under the existing law, those sorts of applications for a reconsideration decision can be made in perpetuity. It's not uncommon for us to see applications seeking reconsiderations of much earlier decisions—that a project was not a controlled action. In fact, you will remember the Macquarie Harbour situation, where that's exactly what occurred.

Senator Colbeck: You might remember my private member's bill to get over it. Senator WATT: I do. What we have done in these amendments is to limit the timeframe for someone to seek a reconsideration of an earlier, non-controlled-action decision.

It will be limited to 28 days from the point at which the non-controlled-action decision is made. That simply brings the time period for those kinds of applications in line with the usual judicial review timeframes that exist across government legislation.