This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Climate, energy & environment
Offshore oil and gas developers would have to treat Traditional OwnersThe Indigenous people whose country or sea country is affected by an offshore project, and who the bill says must be consulted. and First NationsA broad term for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples used here to describe the communities and knowledge holders the bill protects. knowledge holders as people who must be consulted about environment plans.
The Barossa/Tipakalippa case exposed that offshore gas projects could proceed without properly consulting Traditional OwnersThe Indigenous people whose country or sea country is affected by an offshore project, and who the bill says must be consulted. because they were not clearly treated as relevant people and sea countryThe sea, seabed, and coastal waters that are culturally and spiritually important to First Nations people. risks were missed. The bill makes consultation standards mandatory, includes Traditional OwnersThe Indigenous people whose country or sea country is affected by an offshore project, and who the bill says must be consulted. and knowledge holders, and requires cultural heritage risks to be assessed or projects refused.
Australia’s offshore approvals system let oil and gas proponents prepare project proposals and environment plans without clearly treating Traditional OwnersThe Indigenous people whose country or sea country is affected by an offshore project, and who the bill says must be consulted. and First NationsA broad term for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples used here to describe the communities and knowledge holders the bill protects. knowledge holders as people who had to be consulted, a gap starkly exposed when Santos argued Tiwi Traditional OwnersThe Indigenous people whose country or sea country is affected by an offshore project, and who the bill says must be consulted. were not legally required consultees for the Barossa project. After the Federal CourtThe court that first ruled in the Tipakalippa case that Santos had not properly consulted Tiwi Traditional Owners. and then the Full Court rejected that approach in the Tipakalippa litigation in 2022, the bill was introduced in August 2023 to hardwire consultation, cultural heritage risk assessment and protection of underwater sea countryThe sea, seabed, and coastal waters that are culturally and spiritually important to First Nations people. into the law, but it later lapsed at the end of Parliament.
The clearest public criticism was that the bill should not run alongside existing offshore regulatory reviews. Woodside argued that parallel reform processes could create confusion and division in communities, and that the bill should instead be considered through the existing review frameworks being managed by the relevant departments.
Senator Dorinda Cox introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from Greens.
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
713 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Offshore oil and gas developers would have to treat Traditional OwnersThe Indigenous people whose country or sea country is affected by an offshore project, and who the bill says must be consulted. and First NationsA broad term for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples used here to describe the communities and knowledge holders the bill protects. knowledge holders as people who must be consulted about environment plans.
The bill would require consultation rules for environment plans, including free, prior and informed consentA consultation standard meaning people should be told early, given full information, and able to agree or withhold agreement before a project goes ahead. from Traditional OwnersThe Indigenous people whose country or sea country is affected by an offshore project, and who the bill says must be consulted., with the minister required to consult First NationsA broad term for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples used here to describe the communities and knowledge holders the bill protects. communities on those rules.
Offshore project proposals would have to spell out cultural heritage and living cultural practices that could be harmed, assess the risks, and consider safer alternatives to avoid damage.
Environment plans for offshore projects would also have to describe cultural heritage that may be affected, assess the risks, and consider other options to protect it.
Projects in areas with underwater cultural heritageCultural sites, objects, places, and other heritage under the sea that the bill says should block offshore work in affected areas. could not be approved, because the offshore regulator would have to reject proposals that include work in those areas.
6. This item inserts a subregulation to provide that, to avoid any doubt, traditional owners and knowledge holders from First Nations communities are included in the meaning of ‘relevant person’ in subregulation 11A(1).Protecting the Spirit of Sea Country explanatory memorandum
This item repeals subsection 782(2) and replaces it with new subsections 782(2) to (6) to provide for the requirement for what constitutes consultation with relevant persons in preparing an environment plan to be prescribed in regulation. This must include free, prior and informed consent from traditional owners and the Minister must consult with traditional owners and knowledge holders from First Nations communities about these regulations.Protecting the Spirit of Sea Country explanatory memorandum
12. This item adds two additional subregulations that require the offshore project proposals to include details of cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage that may be impacted by the project, an evaluation of the impacts and risks to the heritage and alternative options to ensure preservation and avoid destruction of the cultural heritage.Protecting the Spirit of Sea Country explanatory memorandum
18. Similar to item 9, this item inserts two additional subregulations that require the environment plan to include details of cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage that may be impacted by the project, an evaluation of the impacts and risks to the heritage and alternative options to ensure preservation and avoid destruction of the cultural heritage.Protecting the Spirit of Sea Country explanatory memorandum
14. This item adds a new paragraph 5D(6)(f) which requires NOPSEMA to refuse to accept a proposal unless NOPSEMA are reasonably satisfied that the project does not involve an activity or part of an activity being undertaken in an area containing underwater cultural heritage.Protecting the Spirit of Sea Country explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia’s offshore approvals system let oil and gas proponents prepare project proposals and environment plans without clearly treating Traditional OwnersThe Indigenous people whose country or sea country is affected by an offshore project, and who the bill says must be consulted. and First NationsA broad term for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples used here to describe the communities and knowledge holders the bill protects. knowledge holders as people who had to be consulted, a gap starkly exposed when Santos argued Tiwi Traditional OwnersThe Indigenous people whose country or sea country is affected by an offshore project, and who the bill says must be consulted. were not legally required consultees for the Barossa project. After the Federal CourtThe court that first ruled in the Tipakalippa case that Santos had not properly consulted Tiwi Traditional Owners. and then the Full Court rejected that approach in the Tipakalippa litigation in 2022, the bill was introduced in August 2023 to hardwire consultation, cultural heritage risk assessment and protection of underwater sea countryThe sea, seabed, and coastal waters that are culturally and spiritually important to First Nations people. into the law, but it later lapsed at the end of Parliament.
Federal CourtThe court that first ruled in the Tipakalippa case that Santos had not properly consulted Tiwi Traditional Owners. finds Santos had not properly consulted Tiwi Traditional OwnersThe Indigenous people whose country or sea country is affected by an offshore project, and who the bill says must be consulted.
The Tipakalippa case exposed that offshore approvals could proceed while proponents argued Traditional OwnersThe Indigenous people whose country or sea country is affected by an offshore project, and who the bill says must be consulted. were not 'relevant persons' who had to be consulted about sea countryThe sea, seabed, and coastal waters that are culturally and spiritually important to First Nations people. impacts.
Protecting the Spirit of Sea Country explanatory memorandum ↗Full Court upholds the Tipakalippa ruling on the Barossa project
The Full Court dismissed Santos' appeal, reinforcing the earlier finding and turning the Barossa dispute into the central example behind the bill.
Hansard ↗Protecting the Spirit of Sea CountryThe sea, seabed, and coastal waters that are culturally and spiritually important to First Nations people. Bill is introduced
Senator Cox introduced the bill to write the Tipakalippa principles into law by requiring consultation standards, cultural heritage risk assessment and refusal of projects in areas with underwater cultural heritageCultural sites, objects, places, and other heritage under the sea that the bill says should block offshore work in affected areas..
Parliamentary timeline ↗The bill lapses at the end of Parliament
The proposal did not pass before the Parliament ended, so the suggested sea countryThe sea, seabed, and coastal waters that are culturally and spiritually important to First Nations people. protections were not enacted through this bill.
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 (19/10/2023): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (28/04/2025)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The clearest public criticism was that the bill should not run alongside existing offshore regulatory reviews. Woodside argued that parallel reform processes could create confusion and division in communities, and that the bill should instead be considered through the existing review frameworks being managed by the relevant departments.
Criticism was specific and process-focused: it did not dispute the importance of consultation with First NationsA broad term for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples used here to describe the communities and knowledge holders the bill protects. communities, but argued this bill was the wrong route for reform.
Could duplicate existing review processes
Woodside warned that running this bill alongside other offshore regulatory reform work could confuse communities and deepen division, and said the bill should be considered within existing departmental review frameworks.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Cox supports the bill and says it is needed to fix offshore consultation rules so First NationsA broad term for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples used here to describe the communities and knowledge holders the bill protects. people must be consulted meaningfully about projects on Sea CountryThe sea, seabed, and coastal waters that are culturally and spiritually important to First Nations people..
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 support
“This bill seeks to change that.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
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 · Lapsed at end of Parliament
Lapsed at end of Parliament
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (28/04/2025)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (19 Oct 2023): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (28 Apr 2025)
APH bill page notes