← Back to home Browse all bills

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger)

Current status

This bill is currently before Parliament.

Policy area

Climate, energy & environment

What does this bill do?

The bill would add greenhouse gas emissions to the national environmental approval system under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Australia's main federal environment law for matters of national environmental significance..

Why was it introduced?

The bill was introduced to fill what its sponsor and explanatory memorandum described as a gap in federal environment law: major greenhouse gas emissions are not a matter of national environmental significanceA protected national environmental matter that can trigger federal assessment, such as world heritage, threatened species or certain water resources. The bill would add emissions-related triggers. under the EPBC ActThe Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Australia's main federal environment law for matters of national environmental significance.. Senator Hanson-Young argued that environment ministers can assess damage to places such as water resources, threatened species and heritage areas while still approving high-emissions coal, oil and gas projects without a direct climate triggerA legal test that would make greenhouse gas emissions a reason for federal environmental assessment or refusal under the EPBC Act.. The bill therefore tries to make emissions-heavy projects go through federal environmental assessment, and to block the highest-emitting projects outright.

Broader context

The bill sits inside a recurring fight over whether Australia's national environment law should directly assess climate pollution. Supporters point to a long-identified gap in the EPBC ActThe Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Australia's main federal environment law for matters of national environmental significance.: emissions-heavy projects can be assessed for impacts on protected places or species without climate pollution itself being a trigger. Opponents, including Labor speakers, say emissions are already handled through climate policy such as the safeguard mechanismA separate Commonwealth climate policy that sets emissions baselines for large facilities. Labor speakers argued it was the better framework for emissions reduction. and that EPBC reform should be broader, less duplicative and easier to administer.

Key criticism

Criticism came from two directions. Labor speakers said the bill was the wrong mechanism because emissions were already being addressed through the safeguard mechanismA separate Commonwealth climate policy that sets emissions baselines for large facilities. Labor speakers argued it was the better framework for emissions reduction. and broader EPBC reform. Coalition speakers argued the bill would damage jobs, investment, energy supply and regional industries while adding more green tape. Supporters, including the Greens and Senator David Pocock, said those objections left the core gap untouched: federal environment approvals still did not directly assess the climate pollution caused by major projects.

Who supported it?

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Greens, some crossbench members.

Introduced in Senate 05 Sept 2022
Debate underway in Senate 23 July 2025
Not yet reached House —
Not yet law —

Did it become law?

Not yet

Final passage

No final vote yet

The bill has not yet completed passage through Parliament.

Days since introduction

1374 days

Updated 10 June 2026.

Official record

View on APH

Parliament of Australia bill page

Meaning

What does this bill do?

  1. The bill would add greenhouse gas emissions to the national environmental approval system under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Australia's main federal environment law for matters of national environmental significance..

  2. Projects that would emit at least 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalentA common unit for comparing different greenhouse gases by expressing their warming effect as an amount of carbon dioxide. scope 1 emissionsGreenhouse gas emissions released directly by a project or facility, rather than emissions from bought electricity or later use of the product. in any 12-month period would need federal environmental assessment, including emissions in a pre-construction stage.

  3. Projects above 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalentA common unit for comparing different greenhouse gases by expressing their warming effect as an amount of carbon dioxide. scope 1 emissionsGreenhouse gas emissions released directly by a project or facility, rather than emissions from bought electricity or later use of the product. in any 12-month period could not be approved by the environment minister.

  4. The Climate Change AuthorityAn independent federal advisory body on climate policy. The bill would require it to create and annually assess the national carbon budget. would have to set a national carbon budgetThe total amount of greenhouse gases Australia could emit to 2050 under the bill, with the remaining budget assessed each year by the Climate Change Authority. to 2050, update the remaining budget each year, publish the assessment and have it tabled in Parliament.

  5. The bill would also stop some alternative approval pathways being used to avoid climate assessment, while letting carbon-budget considerations inform conservation agreements and bioregional plans.

Show source excerpts
  1. The Bill will establish a new class of a controlled action under the EPBC Act relating to emissions of greenhouse gases.
    Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) explanatory memorandum
  2. For actions that would emit between 25,000 to 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent scope 1 emissions in any one year, including in pre-construction stage, the Minister must consider the project through Part 9 of the Act.
    Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) explanatory memorandum
  3. For projects that would emit above 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent scope 1 emissions, these projects would be treated similarly to nuclear projects under the Act, where the Minister is forced to reject the project's approval.
    Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) explanatory memorandum
  4. The Climate Change Authority must perform an annual assessment of the remaining national carbon budget and give this assessment to the Minister. The assessment must be published on the Climate Change Authority's website and be tabled by the Minister in each House of the Parliament.
    Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) explanatory memorandum
  5. Finally, the Minister will be expressly prohibited from using alternative approval processes (bilateral agreements, bioregional plans, conservation agreements) for actions involving a significant impact on emissions.
    Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) explanatory memorandum

Context

Broader context for this bill

The bill sits inside a recurring fight over whether Australia's national environment law should directly assess climate pollution. Supporters point to a long-identified gap in the EPBC ActThe Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Australia's main federal environment law for matters of national environmental significance.: emissions-heavy projects can be assessed for impacts on protected places or species without climate pollution itself being a trigger. Opponents, including Labor speakers, say emissions are already handled through climate policy such as the safeguard mechanismA separate Commonwealth climate policy that sets emissions baselines for large facilities. Labor speakers argued it was the better framework for emissions reduction. and that EPBC reform should be broader, less duplicative and easier to administer.

  1. 2005

    Earlier climate-trigger bill cited in debate

    Senator Hanson-Young and other supporters said Anthony Albanese had introduced a similar climate-trigger proposal in 2005, using that history to argue the gap in federal environment law was long known.

    Second reading speech ↗
  2. 05 Sept 2022

    Hanson-Young introduces the climate-trigger bill

    The bill proposed two emissions thresholds: assessment from 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalentA common unit for comparing different greenhouse gases by expressing their warming effect as an amount of carbon dioxide. in any 12-month period, and mandatory refusal above 100,000 tonnes.

    Parliament of Australia ↗
  3. 08 Sept 2022

    Senate sends bill to environment committee

    The Senate referred the bill to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, with the APH record later listing a report date of 07 February 2024.

    Parliament of Australia ↗
  4. 31 Oct 2023

    Climate triggerA legal test that would make greenhouse gas emissions a reason for federal environmental assessment or refusal under the EPBC Act. becomes a pressure point in EPBC reform

    Public reporting said Labor was facing Greens demands to include all emissions from new projects in environmental assessment as part of the wider overhaul of federal environment laws.

    Australian Financial Review ↗
  5. 28 Feb 2024

    Labor argues safeguard laws already cover emissions

    During Senate debate, Labor said it would not support the bill because new climate laws and broader EPBC reforms were already the government's path for cutting emissions and improving approvals.

    Senate Hansard ↗
  6. 17 Sept 2024

    Government rules out a climate-trigger deal

    The Australian Financial Review reported that Anthony Albanese had ruled out deals with the Greens on the federal environment protection agency while the government's environmental laws were stalled in the Senate.

    Australian Financial Review ↗
  7. 16 July 2025

    Ken Henry says a trigger should be considered

    The Australian Financial Review reported former Treasury secretary Ken Henry saying a climate triggerA legal test that would make greenhouse gas emissions a reason for federal environmental assessment or refusal under the EPBC Act. should be considered in environmental-law reform because Australia did not have an economy-wide carbon price.

    Australian Financial Review ↗

Legislative route

How did it move through Parliament?

House Senate
Introduced in the Senate 05 Sept 2022

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young introduced the private senator's bill and it was read a first time.

Introduced and read a first time

Hanson-Young opens the case for a climate triggerA legal test that would make greenhouse gas emissions a reason for federal environmental assessment or refusal under the EPBC Act. 05 Sept 2022

The second reading speech argued that federal environment law should assess emissions from major projects, especially new coal and gas projects.

Second reading moved

Environment and Communications review 08 Sept 2022

The Senate referred the bill to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee soon after introduction. The collected APH notes also record consideration by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee on 06 October 2022, but the scaffold contains only this committee referral as a structured scrutiny entry.

Referred to committee

APH bill page notes
Senate debate resumes in the 47th Parliament 02 Aug 2023

Senators debated whether the bill would close a climate gap in the EPBC ActThe Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Australia's main federal environment law for matters of national environmental significance. or duplicate broader climate and environment-law reforms.

Second reading debate

Labor confirms it will not support the bill 28 Feb 2024

The government argued that its safeguard mechanismA separate Commonwealth climate policy that sets emissions baselines for large facilities. Labor speakers argued it was the better framework for emissions reduction. and broader environmental reforms were the better way to deal with emissions and project approvals.

Second reading debate

Bill lapses at the end of Parliament 21 July 2025

The bill lapsed when the previous Parliament ended before the Senate had passed it.

Lapsed at end of Parliament

Bill restored in the 48th Parliament 23 July 2025

The Senate restored the bill to the Notice PaperThe official list of business before a house of Parliament. Restoring the bill to the Notice Paper put it back before the Senate after it had lapsed., putting it back before the chamber.

Restored to Notice PaperThe official list of business before a house of Parliament. Restoring the bill to the Notice Paper put it back before the Senate after it had lapsed.

Second reading restarted 23 July 2025

Senator Hanson-Young again moved the second reading after the bill was restored.

Second reading moved

New Parliament debates the same climate test 23 July 2025

Senators returned to the same policy divide: Greens and some crossbench support for a climate triggerA legal test that would make greenhouse gas emissions a reason for federal environmental assessment or refusal under the EPBC Act., and Labor and coalition objections to this mechanism.

Second reading debate

Key criticism

The main case against this bill

Criticism came from two directions. Labor speakers said the bill was the wrong mechanism because emissions were already being addressed through the safeguard mechanismA separate Commonwealth climate policy that sets emissions baselines for large facilities. Labor speakers argued it was the better framework for emissions reduction. and broader EPBC reform. Coalition speakers argued the bill would damage jobs, investment, energy supply and regional industries while adding more green tape. Supporters, including the Greens and Senator David Pocock, said those objections left the core gap untouched: federal environment approvals still did not directly assess the climate pollution caused by major projects.

The debate record contains clear support and clear opposition. No counted division was collected, so this page does not report a chamber-wide vote on those positions.

Duplicates climate laws

Labor critics said emissions should be dealt with through the safeguard mechanismA separate Commonwealth climate policy that sets emissions baselines for large facilities. Labor speakers argued it was the better framework for emissions reduction. and broader climate policy, not by adding another trigger to the EPBC ActThe Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Australia's main federal environment law for matters of national environmental significance..

Raised by Katy Gallagher and Varun Ghosh Source ↗

Adds complexity to approvals

Critics said the bill would make an already complex environmental approvals system harder for regulators and proponents to use, including for renewable-energy projects.

Raised by Varun Ghosh Source ↗

Threatens jobs and investment

Coalition critics said the thresholds would restrict industrial, mining and energy projects, push investment offshore and hurt regional jobs and household costs.

Raised by Jonathon Duniam, Susan McDonald, Hollie Hughes and Matthew Canavan Source ↗

Further sources

parlinfo.aph.gov.au ↗ parlinfo.aph.gov.au ↗ parlinfo.aph.gov.au ↗

Votes

Recorded votes

No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.

Parliamentary debate

Who spoke, and what they said

Start here — lead voices

Sponsor speech Supports

Sarah Hanson-Young

Australian Greens • Senator 05 Sept 2022

Sarah Hanson-Young introduces the bill, arguing that the EPBC ActThe Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Australia's main federal environment law for matters of national environmental significance. has a climate loophole because emissions-intensive projects are not treated as a national environmental trigger.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead opposing voice Opposes

Matthew Canavan

Liberal National Party • Senator 23 July 2025

Matthew Canavan again opposes the bill, saying it is unnecessary, misdirected and aimed at the wrong law.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead supporting voice Supports

David Pocock

Independent • Senator 28 Feb 2024

David Pocock supports the bill, saying climate change is damaging the environment and current federal environmental law does not properly consider fossil fuel projects' climate impacts.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead voice Supports

Larissa Waters

Australian Greens • Senator 28 Feb 2024

Larissa Waters supports the bill, arguing that federal environmental approvals should consider climate impacts from large projects.

Read in Hansard ↗

All speeches by bloc

Labor

4 speakers · 4 oppose

  1. Varun Ghosh Varun Ghosh opposes the bill, saying it would duplicate emissions regulation, add criminal penalties and make the EPBC ActThe Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Australia's main federal environment law for matters of national environmental significance. more complex.
    “This bill would duplicate the Commonwealth's framework for regulating emissions.”

    Australian Labor Party • Senator • 23 July 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Karen Grogan Karen Grogan says the Albanese government will not support the bill because climate and environmental reform require a broader, balanced pathway.
    “So, no, we will not be supporting the bill.”

    Australian Labor Party • Senator • 23 July 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Fatima Payman Fatima Payman opposes the bill, presenting it as a Greens political stunt and saying Labor is already reducing emissions through legislated targets, the safeguard mechanismA separate Commonwealth climate policy that sets emissions baselines for large facilities. Labor speakers argued it was the better framework for emissions reduction. and planned environmental-law reforms.
    “There are clear risks that rushing through a climate trigger, as the Greens would have us do, would be counterproductive.”

    Australian Labor Party • Senator • 02 Aug 2023

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  4. Katy Gallagher Katy Gallagher says Labor will not support the bill because the government has already legislated climate targets and reformed the safeguard mechanismA separate Commonwealth climate policy that sets emissions baselines for large facilities. Labor speakers argued it was the better framework for emissions reduction..
    “The Labor Party will not be supporting the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2].”

    Australian Labor Party • Senator • 28 Feb 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Coalition

4 speakers · 5 contributions · 4 oppose

  1. Matthew Canavan ★ 2 contributions Matthew Canavan again opposes the bill, saying it is unnecessary, misdirected and aimed at the wrong law.

    Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Matthew Canavan on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.

    Second reading speech Liberal National Party • Senator • 28 Feb 2024

    Matthew Canavan opposes the bill, saying it would make little difference to global emissions while costing Australian jobs, investment and living standards. He argues the bill focuses on Australian projects while other countries keep expanding fossil fuel production.

    “We should reject this bill because it will do nothing for the environment but will cost Australian jobs and lower Australian living standards even more.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗

    Second reading speech Liberal National Party • Senator • 23 July 2025

    Matthew Canavan again opposes the bill, saying it is unnecessary, misdirected and aimed at the wrong law. He argues project-by-project climate assessment would not materially affect global temperatures and would undermine energy competitiveness.

    “This bill is not needed. It is misdirected, and it is trying to change the wrong piece of legislation to tackle this goal.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
  2. Jonathon Duniam Jonathon Duniam opposes the bill, saying it would raise costs, damage competitiveness, shift jobs and emissions offshore, and make it harder for Australian industry to operate.
    “When we make it more expensive to do business here by applying punitive regimes to businesses that are emissions intensive, rather than working with them to reduce their emissions, it drives up the cost of doing business here.”

    Liberal Party • Senator • 02 Aug 2023

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Susan McDonald Susan McDonald opposes the bill, saying it would encourage legal challenges, impose tougher conditions on industry and threaten resources jobs, investment and energy security.
    “The Greens have failed to specify the financial and regulatory impacts of this legislation. However, it is patently clear that, if this bill was to be passed, these impacts would be substantial.”

    National Party • Senator • 02 Aug 2023

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  4. Hollie Hughes Hollie Hughes opposes the bill, arguing it is driven by hostility to coal and gas and would increase approvals burdens, disrupt industrial activity, threaten jobs and raise energy risks.
    “Passage of this bill would require the environment minister to intervene, to halt activities or limit or curtail many, many forms of industrial activity in Australia.”

    Liberal Party • Senator • 28 Feb 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Greens

7 speakers · 9 contributions · 7 support

  1. Larissa Waters ★ Larissa Waters supports the bill, arguing that federal environmental approvals should consider climate impacts from large projects.
    “The minister simply must refuse it. Folk might know that's how we treat nuclear facilities under the EPBC Act.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 28 Feb 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Steph Hodgins-May Steph Hodgins-May supports the bill, arguing that climate change is already harming communities and ecosystems while coal and gas projects continue to be assessed without their climate impacts being central to approval decisions.
    “This bill would change that. It would force the minister to consider the climate impacts of every single new project.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 23 July 2025

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Dorinda Cox Dorinda Cox supports the bill, saying emissions-intensive activities are not currently a national environmental matter and that this gap lets fossil fuel projects proceed despite climate and cultural impacts.
    “There is no current legislative requirement for the climate impacts of these projects to actually be taken into consideration. That is the legislative gap.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 02 Aug 2023

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  4. Sarah Hanson-Young ★ 3 contributions Sarah Hanson-Young reopens debate in the 48th Parliament, saying environmental law still ignores climate pollution when assessing major projects.

    Hansard records 3 separate contributions by Sarah Hanson-Young on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.

    Second reading speech Australian Greens • Senator • 05 Sept 2022

    Sarah Hanson-Young introduces the bill, arguing that the EPBC ActThe Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Australia's main federal environment law for matters of national environmental significance. has a climate loophole because emissions-intensive projects are not treated as a national environmental trigger. She says projects above 25,000 tonnes should be assessed and projects above 100,000 tonnes should be refused.

    “This glaring gap, as the Prime Minister called it, can be fixed right now with this bill. The Bill sets a trigger for new emissions intensive projects with two thresholds.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗

    Second reading speech Australian Greens • Senator • 02 Aug 2023

    Sarah Hanson-Young urges the Senate to support the bill, saying current federal environment law lets ministers approve coal and gas projects without directly considering their climate damage. She argues the bill would give ministers the tools to stop projects that worsen climate change.

    “We need a climate trigger in our environment laws.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗

    Second reading speech Australian Greens • Senator • 23 July 2025

    Sarah Hanson-Young reopens debate in the 48th Parliament, saying environmental law still ignores climate pollution when assessing major projects. She argues recent climate impacts and major gas approvals show why a climate triggerA legal test that would make greenhouse gas emissions a reason for federal environmental assessment or refusal under the EPBC Act. is needed.

    “For far too long our environment laws have ignored the biggest threat to nature and to humanity, and that is the climate crisis.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
  5. Adam Bandt Adam Bandt supports the bill, arguing that federal environment law has long failed to treat climate change as a matter of national environmental significanceA protected national environmental matter that can trigger federal assessment, such as world heritage, threatened species or certain water resources. The bill would add emissions-related triggers..
    “This bill sets a trigger for new emissions-intensive projects with two thresholds.”

    Australian Greens • MP • 05 Sept 2022

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  6. Penny Allman-Payne Penny Allman-Payne supports the bill and criticises Labor for refusing to back it.
    “Labor say that they won't support this bill, and that's disappointing, because it means that the government is out of step with community sentiment.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 28 Feb 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  7. Elizabeth Watson-Brown Elizabeth Watson-Brown seconds the bill, saying climate inaction has let coal and gas profits come before future generations.
    “This bill does something. With the two threshold triggers and the alternative approval prohibitions, it will finally put a safe future for all of us ahead of coal and gas profits.”

    Australian Greens • MP • 05 Sept 2022

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Minor parties and independents

1 speaker · 1 support

  1. David Pocock ★ David Pocock supports the bill, saying climate change is damaging the environment and current federal environmental law does not properly consider fossil fuel projects' climate impacts.
    “We've heard from the major parties that they don't support this, but my challenge to the government is: if not this mechanism, then what?”

    Independent • Senator • 28 Feb 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Record

Full record

Full chat