This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Climate, energy & environment
The expanded rules would start when the schedule begins, with room for regulations to adjust how the change applies during the transition.
Shale gas and other unconventional gas projectsThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule. were left outside the federal water triggerThe rule that lets the federal government step in when a project could significantly affect water resources., even though they can affect surface and groundwater resources. This bill expands that trigger so all unconventional gasThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule. developments need federal assessment and approval if they could significantly affect water resources.
Federal law already required national approval for coal seam gasThe gas projects already covered by the water trigger, which the bill uses as the starting point for expanding the rule. and large coal mines that could significantly affect water resources, but shale, tight gas and other unconventional gas projectsThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule. remained outside that water triggerThe rule that lets the federal government step in when a project could significantly affect water resources.. After the Northern TerritoryThe jurisdiction where the fracking debate and the Beetaloo Basin developments are taking place.'s 2016 frackingShort for hydraulic fracturing, a method used to extract gas that is central to the policy debate on this page. moratorium led to the 2018 Pepper inquiryThe Northern Territory scientific inquiry that recommended broader controls on fracking and other gas projects because of water risks. recommending a broader trigger, and with the Albanese government's December 2022 Nature Positive PlanThe Albanese government policy that had already promised to broaden environmental law reforms, including the water trigger change., the April 2023 Beetaloo inquiryThe Senate inquiry that looked at oil and gas in the Beetaloo Basin and pushed for the wider water trigger. deadline and the NTThe jurisdiction where the fracking debate and the Beetaloo Basin developments are taking place.'s May 2023 move towards frackingShort for hydraulic fracturing, a method used to extract gas that is central to the policy debate on this page. approvals, this bill was introduced to close the loophole but later lapsed in July 2025.
The main case against the bill was that it would expand CommonwealthThe federal government level in Australia, which this bill would give more say over some gas projects and water impacts. control in a way that duplicates state and territory approvals, adds red tape and could slow or complicate gas and mining projects without a workable regulatory benefit. That criticism was raised mainly by Coalition speakers and echoed in business commentary, while most other recorded speakers backed the bill and did not oppose its policy goal.
Senator Sarah Hanson-Young 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
642 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
The expanded rules would start when the schedule begins, with room for regulations to adjust how the change applies during the transition.
Unconventional gas projectsThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule. across Australia, including forms beyond coal seam gasThe gas projects already covered by the water trigger, which the bill uses as the starting point for expanding the rule., would need federal assessment if they could significantly affect water resources.
Shale gas and other unconventional gas projectsThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule. would no longer be exempt from the federal approval rule that already applies to coal seam gasThe gas projects already covered by the water trigger, which the bill uses as the starting point for expanding the rule. and large coal mines.
The bill would rewrite the law so it regulates “unconventional gas developmentThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule.” broadly, and it would add new definitions for petroleum, unconventional gas developmentThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule. and unconventional gasThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule. extraction.
20. This item outlines that the amendments will apply when this Schedule commences, subject to any changes prescribed by regulations.Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) explanatory memorandum
This Bill will simply expand the water trigger to require the Minister to assess the significant impacts on water resources of all unconventional gas developments, as has been recommended by both the Northern Territory’s (NT) Independent Scientific Inquiry into Hydraulic Fracturing of Onshore Unconventional Reservoirs in the Northern Territory conducted by Justice Pepper and the Senate Inquiry into Oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo Basin. It has also been committed to by the Albanese Government in their Nature Positive Plan.Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) explanatory memorandum
At present, an action that involves coal seam gas development or a large coal mine requires approval from the Minister for Environment (the Minister) if the action will have a significant impact on a water resource. However, unconventional gas development such as shale gas development does not require the same approval, despite their impact on surface and groundwater resources.Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) explanatory memorandum
18. This item inserts definitions of petroleum, unconventional gas development and unconventional gas extraction.Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) explanatory memorandum
Context
Federal law already required national approval for coal seam gasThe gas projects already covered by the water trigger, which the bill uses as the starting point for expanding the rule. and large coal mines that could significantly affect water resources, but shale, tight gas and other unconventional gas projectsThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule. remained outside that water triggerThe rule that lets the federal government step in when a project could significantly affect water resources.. After the Northern TerritoryThe jurisdiction where the fracking debate and the Beetaloo Basin developments are taking place.'s 2016 frackingShort for hydraulic fracturing, a method used to extract gas that is central to the policy debate on this page. moratorium led to the 2018 Pepper inquiryThe Northern Territory scientific inquiry that recommended broader controls on fracking and other gas projects because of water risks. recommending a broader trigger, and with the Albanese government's December 2022 Nature Positive PlanThe Albanese government policy that had already promised to broaden environmental law reforms, including the water trigger change., the April 2023 Beetaloo inquiryThe Senate inquiry that looked at oil and gas in the Beetaloo Basin and pushed for the wider water trigger. deadline and the NTThe jurisdiction where the fracking debate and the Beetaloo Basin developments are taking place.'s May 2023 move towards frackingShort for hydraulic fracturing, a method used to extract gas that is central to the policy debate on this page. approvals, this bill was introduced to close the loophole but later lapsed in July 2025.
Northern TerritoryThe jurisdiction where the fracking debate and the Beetaloo Basin developments are taking place. places a moratorium on hydraulic fracturingShort for hydraulic fracturing, a method used to extract gas that is central to the policy debate on this page.
The moratorium paused frackingShort for hydraulic fracturing, a method used to extract gas that is central to the policy debate on this page. in the TerritoryThe jurisdiction where the fracking debate and the Beetaloo Basin developments are taking place. and led to a formal scientific inquiry into its environmental and water risks.
Hansard second reading speech, 16 Oct 2023 ↗Pepper inquiryThe Northern Territory scientific inquiry that recommended broader controls on fracking and other gas projects because of water risks. recommends expanding the federal water triggerThe rule that lets the federal government step in when a project could significantly affect water resources.
The inquiry said the EPBC ActThe main federal environment law being amended here, which already lets the Commonwealth assess some projects that may seriously affect water. water triggerThe rule that lets the federal government step in when a project could significantly affect water resources. should cover all onshore gas activities requiring federal approval where water resources could be significantly affected.
Hansard second reading speech, 16 Oct 2023 ↗Albanese government commits to expand the water triggerThe rule that lets the federal government step in when a project could significantly affect water resources. in the Nature Positive PlanThe Albanese government policy that had already promised to broaden environmental law reforms, including the water trigger change.
The plan put the CommonwealthThe federal government level in Australia, which this bill would give more say over some gas projects and water impacts. on record backing an expansion from coal seam gasThe gas projects already covered by the water trigger, which the bill uses as the starting point for expanding the rule. to all unconventional gasThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule., including shale and tight gas.
Hansard second reading speech, 16 Oct 2023 ↗Beetaloo Basin Senate inquiryThe Senate inquiry that looked at oil and gas in the Beetaloo Basin and pushed for the wider water trigger. calls for the expanded trigger by 31 December 2023
The report added a concrete deadline as shale gas projects in the Northern TerritoryThe jurisdiction where the fracking debate and the Beetaloo Basin developments are taking place. moved closer to production approvals.
Hansard second reading speech, 16 Oct 2023 ↗Northern TerritoryThe jurisdiction where the fracking debate and the Beetaloo Basin developments are taking place. government announces frackingShort for hydraulic fracturing, a method used to extract gas that is central to the policy debate on this page. can commence
The announcement made imminent gas production licences in the Beetaloo Basin a live trigger for federal action on the loophole.
Hansard second reading speech, 16 Oct 2023 ↗Bill introduced to extend the water triggerThe rule that lets the federal government step in when a project could significantly affect water resources. to all unconventional gasThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule.
The bill proposed bringing shale gas and other unconventional gas projectsThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule. into the same federal water approval system already applying to coal seam gasThe gas projects already covered by the water trigger, which the bill uses as the starting point for expanding the rule. and large coal mines.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill lapses at the end of Parliament
Because it did not pass before Parliament ended, the proposed expansion of the water triggerThe rule that lets the federal government step in when a project could significantly affect water resources. in this bill did not become law.
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.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main case against the bill was that it would expand CommonwealthThe federal government level in Australia, which this bill would give more say over some gas projects and water impacts. control in a way that duplicates state and territory approvals, adds red tape and could slow or complicate gas and mining projects without a workable regulatory benefit. That criticism was raised mainly by Coalition speakers and echoed in business commentary, while most other recorded speakers backed the bill and did not oppose its policy goal.
Opposition was real but concentrated, not broad across the debate.
Duplicated approvals and more red tape
Critics argued the bill would make unconventional gasThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule. and related resource projects face another layer of federal assessment on top of existing state and territory processes, creating unnecessary duplication and extra regulatory burden.
Slower projects and broader Canberra intervention
Opponents said the change would hand the CommonwealthThe federal government level in Australia, which this bill would give more say over some gas projects and water impacts. broader powers over water approvals and could slow investment, domestic gas supply and project delivery without striking the right balance between environmental protection and economic activity.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Sarah Hanson-Young supports the bill and says it is needed to close a loophole so all unconventional gas projectsThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule., including frackingShort for hydraulic fracturing, a method used to extract gas that is central to the policy debate on this page., are assessed for their water impacts.
Read in Hansard ↗Rennick says the coalition will oppose the bill because it would expand CommonwealthThe federal government level in Australia, which this bill would give more say over some gas projects and water impacts. water-trigger powers, add red tape for mining and resource projects, and duplicate state approval processes.
Read in Hansard ↗Grogan says the government supports the bill's aim and has already committed to the same water triggerThe rule that lets the federal government step in when a project could significantly affect water resources. changes through its broader environmental law reforms.
Read in Hansard ↗Scamps supports the bill and says it simply delivers the government's own promised expansion of the water triggerThe rule that lets the federal government step in when a project could significantly affect water resources. to all unconventional gas projectsThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule..
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
“I'm glad to say we won't be supporting this bill today, not because we don't care about the environment and not because we don't want to preserve our water reservoirs and basins but because we don't need any more red tape. You're better off taking that money spent on the Canberra bureaucracy and actually building a dam on the Clarence River, like Ben Chifley did after World War II, pushing some of that water out into our Murray-Darling system.”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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
4 speakers · 5 contributions · 4 support
“This bill is one part of the puzzle. The Labor Party say they want to do it, but time is ticking, folks. Here's a bill. It's a very simple bill. It doesn't fix all of the problems with unconventional gas extraction, and it still leaves a gaping hole in our environmental laws where there is no climate trigger, which we'd like to fix. It still leaves the environment minister with the ability to approve new coal and gas, which we'd like to fix. It doesn't help communities to say no to coal or gas, which, again, we'd like to fix. We've got other private members' bills that fix all of that. 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'm so proud of those nations for standing tall in relation to this. 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
Sarah Hanson-Young supports the bill and says it is needed to close a loophole so all unconventional gas projectsThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule., including frackingShort for hydraulic fracturing, a method used to extract gas that is central to the policy debate on this page., are assessed for their water impacts. She argues the reform is urgent because of the risks to rivers, aquifers, wetlands, communities and climate, and says the government has already committed to it.
“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
Hanson-Young supports the bill and wants the Senate to pass it so unconventional gas projectsThe group of gas projects this bill would cover, including shale gas, tight gas and similar projects that were previously outside the federal water rule. are assessed for their impacts on water. She says the reform is urgent because frackingShort for hydraulic fracturing, a method used to extract gas that is central to the policy debate on this page. is already threatening rivers, aquifers and First Nations country, and the government should stop delaying it.
“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
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 debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Lapsed at end of Parliament
Lapsed at end of Parliament
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
