This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Climate, energy & environment
The bill would make industrial emissions that damage National HeritageA place the Australian Government has recognised as nationally important for heritage reasons, which this bill says should get extra protection from industrial damage. monuments, including significant First Nations rock art, a new trigger for federal environment controls under the EPBC ActThe main federal environment law this bill would amend, so the new heritage damage rules would sit inside it..
Industrial emissions from the Burrup HubThe gas and industrial complex the draft says is causing airborne emissions that may be damaging Murujuga rock art. gas complex are damaging MurujugaThe Aboriginal cultural landscape on the Burrup Peninsula that the bill is trying to protect, especially its rock art. rock art, and current heritage laws do not protect monuments from airborne pollution. The bill makes this damage a federal EPBCThe main federal environment law this bill would amend, so the new heritage damage rules would sit inside it. trigger, requires proponents to investigate harm, and lets the minister ban harmful industrial activity in declared areas.
MurujugaThe Aboriginal cultural landscape on the Burrup Peninsula that the bill is trying to protect, especially its rock art.’s rock art had already been partly recognised through National HeritageA place the Australian Government has recognised as nationally important for heritage reasons, which this bill says should get extra protection from industrial damage. listing and a World Heritage nomination push, but existing federal and state heritage laws did not treat airborne industrial pollution as a trigger for protection even as development on the Burrup had destroyed sites and evidence mounted that emissions from the Burrup HubThe gas and industrial complex the draft says is causing airborne emissions that may be damaging Murujuga rock art. were damaging surviving petroglyphs. The bill responded by proposing a new EPBCThe main federal environment law this bill would amend, so the new heritage damage rules would sit inside it. trigger for industrial emissions that harm National HeritageA place the Australian Government has recognised as nationally important for heritage reasons, which this bill says should get extra protection from industrial damage. monuments, mandatory investigations by proponents and ministerial exclusion zones, but it lapsed when Parliament ended in July 2025.
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far, and publicly available sources does not show a developed public argument that its heritage-protection approach would cause harm. Debate recorded so far appears limited, with the only recorded speech supporting the bill and no party represented in that material arguing against it.
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
117 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
The bill would make industrial emissions that damage National HeritageA place the Australian Government has recognised as nationally important for heritage reasons, which this bill says should get extra protection from industrial damage. monuments, including significant First Nations rock art, a new trigger for federal environment controls under the EPBC ActThe main federal environment law this bill would amend, so the new heritage damage rules would sit inside it..
Companies, the Australian Government and Commonwealth agencies could be penalised if they carry out industrial activity in a declared area around a protected monument and that activity damages it.
Anyone proposing an action that may harm a National HeritageA place the Australian Government has recognised as nationally important for heritage reasons, which this bill says should get extra protection from industrial damage. monument would have to fund an investigation into whether industrial emissions are causing damage and whether stopping them would reduce future harm.
If that investigation finds that limiting industrial activity in a defined area would prevent or reduce damage, the Environment Minister would have to declare that area off limits for harmful activity around the monument.
The Bill will establish a new class of controlled action under the EPBC Act relating to emissions which damage the surfaces of important monuments.We All Come Together For Country explanatory memorandum
Item 1 inserts Section 15D at the end of Subdivision AA of Division 1 of Part 3 of the EPBC Act. Subsection 15D(1) states that a person that is a constitutional corporation, the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency contravenes that provision if the person takes a damaging industrial action within the prohibited area for a vulnerable monument. Subsection 15D(1) also sets the penalties for non-compliance in line with the rest of the Act.We All Come Together For Country explanatory memorandum
Subection 390JC(1) provides that the proponent must cause an investigation (a vulnerability investigation) to be conducted into whether a National Heritage monument has been, is being, or is likely to be, damaged and whether the damage is attributable to damaging industrial action. The investigation should also determine whether preventing damaging industrial action in a particular area would prevent or minimise future damage to the National Heritage monument.We All Come Together For Country explanatory memorandum
If the vulnerability report also finds that preventing damaging industrial action in a specified area would prevent or minimise future damage to the National Heritage monument, then the Minister must, by legislative instrument, declare the specified area to be the prohibited area for the vulnerable monument.We All Come Together For Country explanatory memorandum
Context
MurujugaThe Aboriginal cultural landscape on the Burrup Peninsula that the bill is trying to protect, especially its rock art.’s rock art had already been partly recognised through National HeritageA place the Australian Government has recognised as nationally important for heritage reasons, which this bill says should get extra protection from industrial damage. listing and a World Heritage nomination push, but existing federal and state heritage laws did not treat airborne industrial pollution as a trigger for protection even as development on the Burrup had destroyed sites and evidence mounted that emissions from the Burrup HubThe gas and industrial complex the draft says is causing airborne emissions that may be damaging Murujuga rock art. were damaging surviving petroglyphs. The bill responded by proposing a new EPBCThe main federal environment law this bill would amend, so the new heritage damage rules would sit inside it. trigger for industrial emissions that harm National HeritageA place the Australian Government has recognised as nationally important for heritage reasons, which this bill says should get extra protection from industrial damage. monuments, mandatory investigations by proponents and ministerial exclusion zones, but it lapsed when Parliament ended in July 2025.
Industrial development destroys about 900 MurujugaThe Aboriginal cultural landscape on the Burrup Peninsula that the bill is trying to protect, especially its rock art. rock art sites
Second reading material said about 24 per cent of the original MurujugaThe Aboriginal cultural landscape on the Burrup Peninsula that the bill is trying to protect, especially its rock art. rock art was destroyed during industrial development over this period.
Second reading speech ↗Most remaining Dampier Archipelago rock art is placed on the National HeritageA place the Australian Government has recognised as nationally important for heritage reasons, which this bill says should get extra protection from industrial damage. List
The Australian Government listed 90 per cent of the remaining rock art areas, giving MurujugaThe Aboriginal cultural landscape on the Burrup Peninsula that the bill is trying to protect, especially its rock art. national recognition but not protection from airborne industrial emissions.
Second reading speech ↗WA launches a MurujugaThe Aboriginal cultural landscape on the Burrup Peninsula that the bill is trying to protect, especially its rock art. rock art monitoring program
The second reading speech said the WA Government began a monitoring program jointly funded by Woodside, Yara and Rio Tinto as disputes continued over whether emissions were damaging the rock art.
Second reading speech ↗Australia lodges MurujugaThe Aboriginal cultural landscape on the Burrup Peninsula that the bill is trying to protect, especially its rock art. for the World Heritage Tentative List
The federal government put the MurujugaThe Aboriginal cultural landscape on the Burrup Peninsula that the bill is trying to protect, especially its rock art. cultural landscape forward for possible World Heritage listing even though the explanatory memorandum said that status would not necessarily stop pollution damage.
Second reading speech ↗Bill introduced to make damaging industrial emissions a federal environment trigger
Senator Cox introduced the bill to fill what the explanatory memorandum described as a gap in the EPBC ActThe main federal environment law this bill would amend, so the new heritage damage rules would sit inside it. by covering emissions that damage National HeritageA place the Australian Government has recognised as nationally important for heritage reasons, which this bill says should get extra protection from industrial damage. monuments such as MurujugaThe Aboriginal cultural landscape on the Burrup Peninsula that the bill is trying to protect, especially its rock art. rock art.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill lapses at the end of Parliament
The proposal did not pass before Parliament ended, so the new emissions trigger and related investigation and exclusion-zone powers were not enacted.
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
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far, and publicly available sources does not show a developed public argument that its heritage-protection approach would cause harm. Debate recorded so far appears limited, with the only recorded speech supporting the bill and no party represented in that material arguing against it.
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far.
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Cox supports the bill and says it should protect First Nations rock art from industrial emissions by making heritage damage a controlled actionA proposed action that must be assessed under the EPBC Act before it can proceed, because it may affect a protected matter. under the environment law.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 support
“Today I commend this Bill to the Senate, a Bill to legislate against, and apply penalties to, the release of emissions that cause damage to First Nations rock art that has been recognised as culturally, historically, scientifically and archaeologically significant.”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.
