This bill became law on Oct 24th, 2024.
Defence & foreign affairs
The Government can make extra transition regulations to manage the handover of naval nuclear regulation from the old radiation law to the new naval nuclear safety law.
Australia’s new naval nuclear safety law for AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that underpins the submarine program discussed on this page. submarines created a handover problem for any existing ARPANSAThe agency, usually called ARPANSA, that issued the old licences affected by this bill. licences covering those activities. This bill lets those licences move into the new regime, split mixed licences where needed, and allows extra transition rules and conditions.
Australia’s existing radiation and environment laws included a civil nuclear power moratoriumThe older policy bar on civil nuclear power that the government says did not stop ARPANSA from regulating submarine-related work., so in May 2023 the government first amended those laws to make clear ARPANSAThe agency, usually called ARPANSA, that issued the old licences affected by this bill. could regulate work needed for conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines and their supporting facilities under AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that underpins the submarine program discussed on this page.. That opened the way for a new naval nuclear safety regime, but it also exposed a practical handover problem for any licences already issued under the old framework, so this bill was introduced to transfer or split those licences and was passed in October 2024 before receiving Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. later that month.
The main criticism was that the bill moves ahead with a naval nuclear regulatory transition before Parliament has resolved key questions about radioactive waste, safety guarantees, transparency and who would have a real say over the project. That case was raised most strongly by the Greens and partly by crossbenchers seeking tighter review and reporting, while broad party support for the bill remained in place.
Richard Marles MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Liberal Party, some crossbench members; opposed by Greens, Australia's Voice, One Nation, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 24 Oct 2024
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
343 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
The Government can make extra transition regulations to manage the handover of naval nuclear regulation from the old radiation law to the new naval nuclear safety law.
Existing ARPANSAThe agency, usually called ARPANSA, that issued the old licences affected by this bill. facility licences for activities covered by the new naval nuclear safety law automatically become licences under that new law when it starts.
If one licence covers both naval nuclear work and other work, the naval nuclear part moves to the new safety law while the other part stays under the old radiation law.
Licences that move into the new naval nuclear regime can be given extra conditions by the RegulatorThe new regulator that will oversee licensing, compliance and enforcement for the naval nuclear safety regime. after the new law begins.
This transition law only takes effect if the main Australian naval nuclear power safety law starts, so none of these licence changes happen on their own.
(b) transitioning the regulation of matters relating to regulated activities from the ARPANS Act to the ANNPS Act.Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Act 2024 final Act text
Note: Paragraph (a) means that on and after commencement the licence is taken to be an Australian naval nuclear power safety licence and can be dealt with as such. On and after commencement, it is no longer a licence under the ARPANS Act and section 35 of that Act (about licence conditions) no longer applies to the licence.Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Act 2024 final Act text
(2) On and after commencement the licence continues in force (and may be dealt with) under the ARPANS Act but only to the extent that the licence relates to an activity that is not a regulated activity.Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Act 2024 final Act text
(ii) any conditions specified in relation to the licence by the Regulator on or after commencement under subsection 34(2) of the ANNPS Act;Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Act 2024 final Act text
However, the provisions do not commence at all if that Act does not commence.Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Act 2024 final Act text
Context
Australia’s existing radiation and environment laws included a civil nuclear power moratoriumThe older policy bar on civil nuclear power that the government says did not stop ARPANSA from regulating submarine-related work., so in May 2023 the government first amended those laws to make clear ARPANSAThe agency, usually called ARPANSA, that issued the old licences affected by this bill. could regulate work needed for conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines and their supporting facilities under AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that underpins the submarine program discussed on this page.. That opened the way for a new naval nuclear safety regime, but it also exposed a practical handover problem for any licences already issued under the old framework, so this bill was introduced to transfer or split those licences and was passed in October 2024 before receiving Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. later that month.
Parliament clears the way for ARPANSAThe agency, usually called ARPANSA, that issued the old licences affected by this bill. to regulate AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that underpins the submarine program discussed on this page. submarine activities
The government said it introduced the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 to clarify that the civil nuclear power moratoriumThe older policy bar on civil nuclear power that the government says did not stop ARPANSA from regulating submarine-related work. did not prevent ARPANSAThe agency, usually called ARPANSA, that issued the old licences affected by this bill. from performing regulatory functions for conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines and related facilities.
Hansard ↗Government introduces the transitional bill for the new naval nuclear regime
The minister said the new safety framework for AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that underpins the submarine program discussed on this page. submarines created a need to move any relevant ARPANSAThe agency, usually called ARPANSA, that issued the old licences affected by this bill. licences from the old radiation law into the new naval nuclear safety law.
Hansard ↗House passes the bill
After debate in the House and Federation Chamber, the bill passed its third reading and moved on as part of the legislative package supporting the AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that underpins the submarine program discussed on this page. submarine program.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
The Senate passed the bill and completed its passage through both houses, clearing the way for the licence-transfer and transition machinery to become law.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. makes the transition scheme law
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. turned the bill into an Act so its transfer, splitting and condition-setting provisions could operate when the main naval nuclear safety law commenced.
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
Referred to Committee (16/11/2023): Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Committee report (13/05/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
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
Recorded vote: 27 to 16.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 26 to 15.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill moves ahead with a naval nuclear regulatory transition before Parliament has resolved key questions about radioactive waste, safety guarantees, transparency and who would have a real say over the project. That case was raised most strongly by the Greens and partly by crossbenchers seeking tighter review and reporting, while broad party support for the bill remained in place.
Criticism was real but limited, and mostly focused on safeguards, waste and accountability rather than the transition mechanism alone.
Waste and consultation risks
Critics argued the bill helps clear the way for Australia’s submarine nuclear program without clear limits on radioactive waste handling or proper public and First Nations consultation, raising fears that communities could end up carrying the risks without meaningful consent.
Too little scrutiny and assurance
A narrower criticism was that the framework was premature because Parliament still lacked clear answers on safety, waste disposal, costs and oversight, and that stronger independent review and public reporting should have been locked in first.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 26 to 15. Support came from Labor and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Defeated 16 to 26. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Senate
Passed 27 to 15. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This kept the bill's committee stage moving without adopting the Greens' changes to the bill's scope and application.
Defeated 13 to 28. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and minor parties and independents.
This meant Thorpe's proposed changes to the bill, including extra reporting, advisory committee, and radioactive-material provisions, were not added.
Defeated 14 to 26. Support came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This kept those extra safeguards and reporting requirements out of the bill.
Defeated 16 to 27. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This meant the bill proceeded without those added transparency and review requirements.
Passed 26 to 15. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, and UAP. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This preserved clause 135 in the bill without the proposed opposition amendment.
Defeated 14 to 24. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and minor parties and independents.
This meant those extra register and enterprise provisions were not added to the main naval nuclear safety bill.
Defeated 16 to 26. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This kept the bill's second-reading and committee debate from adding the Greens' proposed changes, including the clause 136 objection referenced in the journal entry.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Marles supports the bill and says it is needed to make sure any ARPANSAThe agency, usually called ARPANSA, that issued the old licences affected by this bill. licences issued before the new naval nuclear safety regime starts can carry over cleanly.
Read in Hansard ↗Chandler-Mather opposes the bill because he says it would let Australia become a nuclear waste dumping ground with no public consultation, First Nations input or independent regulation.
Read in Hansard ↗James Stevens supports the bill and says it is needed to put the AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that underpins the submarine program discussed on this page. naval nuclear program on a proper legal footing.
Read in Hansard ↗Zoe Daniel supports the bill, saying she is pleased the government has listened to concerns about nuclear waste and strengthened accountability and oversight.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
7 speakers · 8 contributions · 7 support
“This Bill will support a transition between the existing regulatory regime and the new regulatory framework that would be established through the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act, on commencement.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As part of this we will need a sophisticated security and safety architecture around the nuclear powered submarine program, and that's what this legislation is all about. I want to acknowledge the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence for bringing forward these important measures to ensure the safety of the submarine program. This is a responsible and a necessary step to ensure delivery of the submarines and the safety and security of Australians. It build on the legal architecture to support this endeavour to ensure further tranches of legislation and this work will extend beyond the life of this parliament. We will continue to adopt a methodical, phased approach to building our capacity as a nation to safely and securely build, maintain and operate conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines. Doing this will make all Australians safer. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring the bills establish a robust, effective regulatory framework to maintain the highest standards for safety. Those listening may know that the bills were delayed slightly due to their referral to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. The committee has now published its report. It made eight recommendations and ultimately recommended that the bills be passed. The government has accepted, either in full or in principle, all the recommendations from the committee and will make amendments to the bills to address them. We're keen to make sure that we work collaboratively on such technical issues when it comes to building the framework that will underpin national security. The government is happy to address the issues raised by the committee, clarifying that the bills do not authorise the establishment of facilities for the purposes of civil nuclear power, the enrichment of uranium or the reprocessing of nuclear material.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We know that together these amendments will strengthen the bill and ensure the highest standards of nuclear safety within Australia's conventionally armed nuclear powered submarine enterprise, which is the aim of this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“AUKUS submarines are undoubtedly trilateral in origin. They're initially made in the UK—this is the SSN-AUKUS—with British and US technology, a collaboration with our great partners and allies. Let us be clear: we could not be doing this and having this awesome capability without our partners, but, as I said, it will be a sovereign capability, built and directed by Australians. This bill advances that great project.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The focus here is on creating a new regulatory framework to ensure nuclear safety across Australia's nuclear powered submarines. So this framework will establish a dedicated fit-for-purpose nuclear safety framework; set out clear safety obligations for personnel involved in nuclear propelled submarines' maintenance and operation through a licensing regime for persons conducting regulated activities, with serious civil and criminal consequences if there's a breach of the law; establish a new independent statutory regulator, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator, within the Defence portfolio, independent of the Defence chain of command; and empower the regulator to operate within a system of regulation alongside domestic agencies and, where appropriate, to collaborate with our US and UK partners.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Richard Marles, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Moved amendment
Marles supports the bill and says it is needed to make sure any ARPANSAThe agency, usually called ARPANSA, that issued the old licences affected by this bill. licences issued before the new naval nuclear safety regime starts can carry over cleanly. He presents it as a practical transitional measure linked to the broader submarine safety legislation.
“In the event that licences are issued by the CEO of ARPANSA under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 in relation to regulated activities, this bill would enable those licences to be treated as licences for corresponding activities on commencement of the regulatory regime established by the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill, I have just introduced.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Marles supports the bill as part of the transition to the new nuclear safety regime for Australia's submarine program. He says the package is critical to acquiring conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines and commends it to the House.
“These bills are critical to Australia's acquisition of conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines. I commend these bills to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
5 speakers · 5 support
“I rise to speak in support of the second reading of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023. I comment my colleague, the shadow defence minister, the member for Canning, on the way in which he has, of course, engaged very proactively with the government on all things AUKUS. We are very proud of AUKUS in the coalition, and having served in the previous parliament, one of the great achievements of the Morrison government was undoubtedly achieving this spectacular breakthrough of giving the Royal Australian Navy access to nuclear propulsion technology through the AUKUS agreement.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We support this bill. The coalition agrees with this bill. Obviously, this will be followed by Senate scrutiny, and it's vital to our long-term defence capability and the security of Australians.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In short, we support these bills. We want to move faster, and I think there is definitely room for improvement with the government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak in support of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 and the associated Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. This legislation represents the latest of the many legislative reforms required to implement the AUKUS security arrangements between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, it is important that we support this bill but that we, on all sides of the chamber, are ever vigilant in making sure that AUKUS is delivered on time and in the national interest.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023, which is supported by both Labor and the coalition, is legislation that, if passed, can make anywhere in Australia a nuclear waste dumping ground with no requirement for public consultation, no First Nations input and no warning. The bill allows the defence minister the power to designate anywhere in Australia a high-level nuclear dumping ground, with no public consultation needed. Under this bill, the supposed independent regulator of Defence can be staffed by Defence personnel and report to the Minister for Defence, unlike in other countries where nuclear waste has a truly independent regulator. Under this bill, the same minister would be responsible for the nuclear submarines and for the regulation of nuclear waste, which is a clear conflict of interest.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 1 support · 1 mixed
“I'm pleased, too, that the government is proposing additional amendments designed to ensure accountability, transparency and independence of oversight of the safety provisions relating to nuclear waste. On the face of it, they mirror arrangements for the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA, to protect the community in relation to civilian nuclear waste.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It feels very premature to commit to this program when we have no immediate prospect of being able to deliver effective and safe disposal of long-term nuclear waste.”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 · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · 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.
Senate · 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.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 27 to 16.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 26 to 15.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Committee report (13/05/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (16 Nov 2023): Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Committee report (13 May 2024)
APH bill page notes
