Fixed it for you, fly inverted:
Instead of introducing a new regulation, and not having to care a whit what it costs businesses or owners, they MUST, SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (1), consider these as part of developing its proposals.
In legislation lingo, the word MUST is quite powerful, BUT IS COMPLETELY UNDERMINED WHEN IT’S SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (1).
CASA claims to take those matters into consideration NOW. But CASA also claims, and will continue to be able to claim if the Bill becomes law, THAT THOSE MATTERS ARE OVERRIDDEN BY THE OVERARCHING OBLIGATION TO TREAT THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION AS THE MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.
(Leaddie is in my view correct in predicting that the Bill will go nowhere. The genius of the tactics being used is that in the unlikely event that the Bill progresses, it will change nothing if it becomes law.)