Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

On 17 January 2026, the high seas treaty—formally known as the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, or the BBNJ—entered into force, providing a framework for the common global governance of roughly half of our planet's surface and 95 per cent of the ocean's volume. The High Seas Biodiversity Bill of 2026 is Australia's legislative response—the mechanism by which we will enshrine our obligations under that treaty into domestic law.

For most of modern history, the open ocean has been treated as a place apart—governed by custom, fragmented rules and the assumption that what lay far offshore was too vast to manage and too resilient to exhaust. But, with the high seas and seabeds beyond national jurisdictions making up 40 per cent of the surface of our planet, they're much too important to remain unprotected and unregulated. Currently, only 1.45 per cent of areas beyond national jurisdiction of the seabed and the high seas are included in marine protected areas. As a result, much of our oceans remain exposed to overfishing, pollution, deep-sea mining and the escalating effects of climate change. They're also potentially exposed to overextraction, bioprospecting and deep-sea exploitation in the absence of robust regulation.

This bill addresses obligations under three parts of the BBNJ agreement. It establishes a notification based regime for Australian entities collecting and using marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction; it establishes a framework to recognise area based management tools, such as marine protected areas; and it establishes an environmental impact assessment regime for some undertakings within Australian jurisdiction, or by Australian entities in areas beyond national jurisdiction, that may result in impacts on the marine environment. These three pillars are complementary.

The marine genetic resources regime ensures that, when Australian scientists or companies harvest biological material from the deep ocean—material that could one day underpin new medicines, materials or agricultural technologies—there is transparency about these activities and benefit sharing built in. Marine genetic resources are biological material from marine plants, animals and other organisms with actual or potential value. The ocean contains the highest functional biodiversity on earth, much of which remains unstudied and as yet misunderstood.

Marine genetic resources have huge economic, commercial, academic and research potential. Deep-sea organisms often survive under extreme pressure and low light, producing unique enzymes and bioactive compounds that are increasingly being harnessed for medical breakthroughs, such as new antibiotics and new anti-cancer compounds. Marine genetic resources are also supporting innovations in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, industrial processes, new diagnostic techniques and research innovations.

Given Australia has one of the largest maritime jurisdictions in the world, we have both an interest in and a responsibility to steward sustainable management. Australia currently has no legal framework governing marine genetic resources taken from areas beyond our national jurisdiction. Without this legislation, Australian researchers and institutions face uncertainty about compliance and face significant risk when participating in international marine science. This bill will provide clarity, certainty and alignment with our treaty obligations.

The area-based management tools framework creates a pathway to establishing proper marine protected areas in international waters. The environmental impact assessment regime should mean that, before activities begin, harm must be considered and, where possible, minimised. The high seas treaty will play a pivotal role in advancing the global commitment to conserve at least 30 per cent of the world's oceans by 2030.

Australia is an island nation—a maritime nation. The First Nations peoples of this continent have maintained deep and enduring relationships with sea country for tens of thousands of years. Our fisheries, our tourism and our shipping all depend on a healthy and functioning ocean. This bill is, at its heart, an act of national self-interest as much as it is an act of international responsibility.

The bill has attracted broad bipartisan support, but there are some concerns with it. The Senate's scrutiny of bills committee raised concerns with the bill relating to its reversal of the evidential burden of proof, significant matters being placed in the delegated legislation, the bill's broad delegation of administrative powers, the section 96 grants to the states, and fees being in delegated legislation. The committee has sought advice from the minister on these matters, but much of the advice remains outstanding at this point. Significant matters relating to part 2 of this bill are left to delegated legislation, and that includes rules around ministerial exemptions. These are not trivial concerns, and they do remain unresolved.

Firstly, the reversal of the evidential burden of proof—in plain terms, requiring individuals or companies to prove their innocence rather than having the government need to prove their guilt—is a fundamental departure from principles that underpin our legal system. When penalties exist, as they do under this bill, this matters enormously. The government owes the parliament a clear and satisfying answer on why this has been put in place.

Secondly, this bill has not yet been referred to a Senate committee for inquiry. Complex legislation—especially legislation that creates new criminal offences or new administrative regimes and which interacts with multiple existing frameworks, including the EPBC Act and the UNCLOS—benefits enormously from the scrutiny that committee inquiry provides. I suggest to the House that this bill deserves that scrutiny.

Thirdly, the environmental impact assessment regime has structural vulnerability. It largely relies on self-assessment. The first step in the process is essentially a self-assessment of whether a referral is required—whether a person proposing to carry out an activity must refer that activity to the minister if they think or believe that the impacts of the activity have resulted or may result in substantial pollution. It's pretty clear that corporate actors faced with costly assessments that may delay or prevent profitable activities have an obvious and pretty significant incentive to believe that those impacts will be minor. We've seen this dynamic play out across environmental regulation globally. Self-referral without independent screening mechanisms is a known weakness in environmental governance, and it's really disappointing to see the government, in this bill, committing a mistake that we've seen far too many times before.

Fourthly, the ultimate test of this legislation will be what happens next internationally, not domestically. This agreement will not by itself reverse decades of damage. Whether or not governments are prepared to accept real constraints on their activities in international waters will determine whether this agreement marks a turning point or merely another broken promise. Proposals for area based management tools—the most powerful tool in this framework, namely marine protected areas—are unlikely to be considered until the second COP at the earliest. In the meantime, what the BBNJ does not do is replace existing bodies. Regional fisheries management organisations and the International Seabed Authority will continue to regulate their respective sectors. How the new treaty's conservation ambitions will mesh with those institutions remains unclear, and it seems pretty likely that we're going to have at least some disputes over authority.

Finally, the bill explicitly excludes Antarctica and the convention area from key provisions. Parts 2, 3 and 4 all contain this carve-out. While there is a legal basis for this in Australia's obligations under the Antarctic Treaty System, its practical effect is that some of the most biologically important and ecologically fragile waters on Earth could well receive less protection under this framework.

The High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 establishes a long-overdue framework for protecting marine genetic resources, strengthening Australia's compliance with our international obligations and providing certainty for our scientific, commercial and research communities. It will contribute to advances in understanding and sustainable use of one of the largest and least understood parts of our beautiful planet. If properly enforced, it should ensure that Australia plays its part in safeguarding biodiversity and share in the benefits of those resources. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context