This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Climate, energy & environment
Large coal mines would stay under the water triggerThe rule that makes a project go to the federal environment minister if it is likely to significantly affect water resources., and the bill would add transition rules and regulation-making powers to manage the switch to the new gas category.
The Northern TerritoryThe place where fracking approvals helped prompt the bill, because supporters said federal water checks were missing there.’s 2023 decision to allow fracking, with more unconventional gas projects close to production, exposed a gap that left shale and tight gas outside federal water-impact checks. This bill expands the water triggerThe rule that makes a project go to the federal environment minister if it is likely to significantly affect water resources. so all unconventional gas projects with significant water risks must be referred for federal assessment and scientific advice.
Federal environment law already required national scrutiny of water impacts from coal seam gas and large coalmining projects, and Labor’s December 2022 Nature Positive PlanLabor's December 2022 environment reform package, which promised to extend water checks to more unconventional gas projects. said that gap should be closed for other unconventional gas projects such as shale and tight gas. As debate over fracking and near-production gas projects exposed that loophole more sharply in 2023, this bill was introduced to force federal referral and scientific advice for those projects, while the broader reform effort later slowed and the bill itself dropped from the Notice PaperThe parliamentary list that keeps bills alive for debate; the page says this bill was later removed from it. in 2024.
The main case against the bill was that it would duplicate state and territory approvals, expand Canberra's role unnecessarily and create extra delay and uncertainty for gas projects without delivering a practical benefit. That criticism was raised mainly by Coalition speakers, while most other speakers backed the bill and did not argue against its core water-protection aim.
Sophie Scamps MP introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from Greens, Labor, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
253 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Large coal mines would stay under the water triggerThe rule that makes a project go to the federal environment minister if it is likely to significantly affect water resources., and the bill would add transition rules and regulation-making powers to manage the switch to the new gas category.
The bill would make shale gas, tight gas and other unconventional gas projects face the same federal water-impact approval rules that already apply to coal seam gas.
Gas companies proposing unconventional gas projects that could significantly affect water resources would have to refer them to the federal environment minister for a decision on whether a full federal assessment is needed.
Unconventional gas projects that need federal approval would also have to be checked against advice from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining DevelopmentThe expert body the minister must consult on the water impacts of covered gas and coal projects..
In this way, the water trigger is expanded to apply not only to coal seam gas developments, but also to all forms of unconventional gas development. The phrase “large coal mining development” is not proposed to be amended by the Bill, such that large coal mining developments remain subject to the water trigger.Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) explanatory memorandum
The Bill repeals the reference to ‘coal seam gas development’ in the EPBC Act and replaces it with ‘unconventional gas development’, in order to capture mining developments for all forms of unconventional gas, including coal seam gas, shale and tight gas. The effect of this change is that these unconventional gas developments will be required to be referred to the Federal Environment Minister for assessment and approval under the EPBC Act. In other words, the Bill expands the water trigger to include all forms of unconventional gas developments, not just coal seam gas developments, which are currently not subject to the EPBC Act.Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) explanatory memorandum
The Bill seeks to ensure that all unconventional gas developments are subject to the requirements of the water trigger. That is, proponents of all unconventional gas projects (not just coal seam gas) likely to have a significant impact on water resources will be required to refer a proposed action for a decision on whether or not the proposed action is a controlled action. The Minister can also request referral of proposed actions. The Minister for the Environment (or their delegate) would then be required to make a decision as to whether or not the proposed action is a controlled action and how the proposed action should be assessed.Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) explanatory memorandum
If an action involving unconventional gas developments (and large coal mining developments) are determined to be a controlled action, the Minister would be required to seek and consider the scientific advice of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development (IESC).Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) explanatory memorandum
Context
Federal environment law already required national scrutiny of water impacts from coal seam gas and large coalmining projects, and Labor’s December 2022 Nature Positive PlanLabor's December 2022 environment reform package, which promised to extend water checks to more unconventional gas projects. said that gap should be closed for other unconventional gas projects such as shale and tight gas. As debate over fracking and near-production gas projects exposed that loophole more sharply in 2023, this bill was introduced to force federal referral and scientific advice for those projects, while the broader reform effort later slowed and the bill itself dropped from the Notice PaperThe parliamentary list that keeps bills alive for debate; the page says this bill was later removed from it. in 2024.
Labor commits to expand the water triggerThe rule that makes a project go to the federal environment minister if it is likely to significantly affect water resources. in its Nature Positive PlanLabor's December 2022 environment reform package, which promised to extend water checks to more unconventional gas projects.
Speakers introducing the bill said the government's December 2022 Nature Positive PlanLabor's December 2022 environment reform package, which promised to extend water checks to more unconventional gas projects. promised to extend federal water checks beyond coal seam gas to other unconventional gas projects.
Hansard ↗Private bill introduced to close the unconventional gas loophole
Dr Sophie Scamps introduced the bill to make shale gas, tight gas and other unconventional gas projects face the same federal water-impact trigger that already applied to coal seam gas and large coalmining developments.
Hansard ↗Senate debate centres on fracking projects still being exempt
Supporters argued the existing law left hydraulic fracturing and other unconventional gas proposals outside mandatory federal water assessment despite the risks they could pose to rivers, aquifers and communities.
Hansard ↗Labor and the Greens strike a deal to extend water scrutiny to fracking
The Australian Financial Review reported that Labor agreed with Greens demands to expand the water triggerThe rule that makes a project go to the federal environment minister if it is likely to significantly affect water resources. from coal seam gas to fracking projects, showing the policy had moved beyond the private bill alone.
Australian Financial Review ↗Broader environment law overhaul is delayed
Graeme Samuel said the wider EPBCThe main federal environment law on this page; the bill would change it to widen the water checks for gas projects. reform package that was meant to carry changes such as the expanded water triggerThe rule that makes a project go to the federal environment minister if it is likely to significantly affect water resources. had slipped past the May 2024 timetable as the government kept working on the legislation.
Australian Financial Review ↗The private bill is removed from the Notice PaperThe parliamentary list that keeps bills alive for debate; the page says this bill was later removed from it.
The parliamentary record shows the bill was removed from the Notice PaperThe parliamentary list that keeps bills alive for debate; the page says this bill was later removed from it., leaving the proposed expansion to be pursued through the government's broader reform agenda instead.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main case against the bill was that it would duplicate state and territory approvals, expand Canberra's role unnecessarily and create extra delay and uncertainty for gas projects without delivering a practical benefit. That criticism was raised mainly by Coalition speakers, while most other speakers backed the bill and did not argue against its core water-protection aim.
Opposition was real but mostly focused on overlap, red tape and federal-state roles.
Duplicated approvals and delay
Critics said the bill would force unconventional gas projects through another layer of federal assessment on top of existing state and territory processes, adding delay, compliance costs and uncertainty without improving outcomes.
Unnecessary expansion of Commonwealth power
Opponents argued water impacts from gas developments were already being handled by the states, so broadening the federal water triggerThe rule that makes a project go to the federal environment minister if it is likely to significantly affect water resources. would centralise decisions in Canberra in a way they saw as unnecessary and unworkable.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Scamps supports the bill and says it simply delivers the government's own promise to expand the water triggerThe rule that makes a project go to the federal environment minister if it is likely to significantly affect water resources. before broader EPBCThe main federal environment law on this page; the bill would change it to widen the water checks for gas projects. reforms.
Read in Hansard ↗Rennick says the coalition will oppose the bill because he sees it as more Canberra red tape that duplicates state approval processes and makes it harder for resource projects to proceed.
Read in Hansard ↗Waters supports the bill and says it is a necessary, simple fix to extend water protections to shale and tight gas in Western Australia and the Northern TerritoryThe place where fracking approvals helped prompt the bill, because supporters said federal water checks were missing there..
Read in Hansard ↗Steggall supports the bill and urges the government to back it now, saying expanding the water triggerThe rule that makes a project go to the federal environment minister if it is likely to significantly affect water resources. is urgent to protect water resources and avoid giving fossil fuel projects priority over communities and Indigenous concerns.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 support
“Thank you again, Senator Hanson-Young, for putting forward this bill. We have the same provisions being introduced into the EPBC reforms that we'll be bringing forward. We look forward to those finding a happy pathway through this chamber.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“We need to get to the crux of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023—that is, that this bill wants to expand on the water trigger powers of the federal bureaucracy. Having been working down here in Canberra for the last four years, I can tell you that there is only one word that ever comes out of the lips of the federal bureaucracy when it comes to actually trying to get resource projects up in this country, and that is 'no'. We have got state governments who are responsible for approving these regulations. I want to qualify that we should protect our water reservoirs and aquifers, by all means. I'm very passionate about that. But I don't see why we should give more powers to the Commonwealth when these companies already have to jump through hoops at the state level. All this will do is effectively create another hoop that the mining companies have to go through to get their projects approved. I have to mention that I haven't heard anything said this morning about the impacts of renewables—in particular, wind turbines and the bisphenol A that is in the epoxy resin on those wind turbines, as well as what's going to happen to all the cadmium and everything as solar panels erode—because there is no recycling scheme for renewables in this country. It seems to me that it's targeted at one particular industry and not at another industry, and that is why I'm pleased to say that the coalition is opposing this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Given all that history and context, and in keeping with the coalition's consistent and longstanding approach on this issue of the possible expansion of the water trigger, we won't be supporting this bill. The very conception of the bill suggests that the Greens, the teals and probably the ALP will continue to try to imagine a way to land a solution that's actually illusory, impossible and unworkable, and this will continue to cause many people no end of problems in the process. By contrast, the coalition will continue to advocate for measured and commonsense solutions that actually work and that sensibly balance environmental and economic priorities for Australia.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
4 speakers · 5 contributions · 4 support
“This bill simply says that the water trigger should not be blind to the needs of WA or the Northern Territory. I commend this bill to the chamber.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I implore the government to do the right thing today and support this bill to ensure that there is a water trigger in the EPBC Act in order to protect those communities, to make sure that we can hold people accountable for the impact that that will have on their waters, because they will be the first people moving into towns, moving away from country, becoming sicker and dying a lot faster, and that in fact is about closing the gap.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Sarah Hanson-Young on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Hanson-Young supports the bill and says it should be passed urgently to expand the water triggerThe rule that makes a project go to the federal environment minister if it is likely to significantly affect water resources. and protect rivers, aquifers and wetlands from fracking impacts. She argues it simply implements commitments already made by the government and should be in place before commercial fracking goes ahead.
“With broad support across the Parliament, we must urgently act to pass this Bill and implement an expanded water trigger before commercial fracking gets the green light and irreversible damage is done.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Sarah Hanson-Young supports the bill and urges the Senate to pass it so the water triggerThe rule that makes a project go to the federal environment minister if it is likely to significantly affect water resources. is expanded to protect rivers, aquifers and wetlands from fracking impacts. She says the reform is urgent because the government has already promised it, but the loophole is still leaving critical water resources exposed.
“With the government already committed to this reform, now laid out in this bill before the Senate, there is nothing to stand in the way of the implementation of an expanded water trigger by the end of this year. The ball is now in the government 's court. We hope to be able to work cooperatively across this chamber to get this reform done before mistakes are made and before damage is done that cannot and will not be reversible. I urge the Senate to pass this bill.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This bill before us today is an urgent reform. You can't eat coal and you can't drink gas. Expanding the water trigger would protect our farms and rural communities from the damage that coal seam gas wreaks on life-giving groundwater. Senator Cox has so eloquently put the impact this has on our first Nations communities around the country, and Senator Hanson-Young has talked about why we need this to protect our environment. Well, as Greens agricultural spokesperson today I'm here to talk about why we should be protecting our rural communities.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 support
“The bill I'm introducing today does no more and no less than what the government has already said it should do. It is a discreet part of the EPBC Act that can be amended and passed prior to the more comprehensive reform of the act. It has broad support from the crossbench in both this place and the other place. It is my sincere hope that the government will keep its promise to expand the water trigger by supporting this bill and passing it urgently in this House by the end of the year.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I urge the government to support this bill and simply get on with the job that they've already committed to do.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Removed from the Notice Paper in accordance with (SO 42)
Removed from the Notice PaperThe parliamentary list that keeps bills alive for debate; the page says this bill was later removed from it. in accordance with (SO 42)
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
