Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In making a contribution on behalf of the coalition on the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026, I note the coalition's longstanding desire to work with the government in a bipartisan way—over these last 20 years, in fact—to ensure that the high seas do not become a burying ground, for want of a better expression, for the world's biodiversity that lives in the oceans. It has taken almost 20 years to agree a treaty, and a lot of this good work was spearheaded by former minister for the environment Robert Hill, who was a great Liberal environment minister but also Australia's Ambassador to the United Nations, where he led a good deal of the initial negotiations. I think probably the best way to put this is that he outlined the concept that was concerning the Australian government at the time, which was that commercial fishers were effectively trawling the seabeds of the deep seas and, in doing so, destroying their biodiversity, that being a catastrophic outcome for the overall environment.

The deep seas—or the far seas, perhaps—are not regulated in the most orderly fashion. I often question myself, when we pass laws through this parliament: 'Who exactly is going to enforce this law, and how effective will they be in enforcing it?' In relation to the deep seas it is probably a good question to ask, but the intention is that, in relation to the seas beyond Australia's territory, we, at least, should take responsibility for our own participants and put in place strong penalties should those participants choose to degrade the oceans.

There are, I think, proposals before the Senate to make some amendments to this bill. We're considering those, as part of an orderly process.

The main point I wanted to make was that we recognise the constraints and limits of international laws and agreements and treaties. I think they are all inherently flawed. But this is one which, certainly, on a best-endeavours basis, tries to put in place a framework in which countries can enact a treaty, requiring those nations to impose sanctions on its domestic participants that undermine the biodiversity which we all rely on, as humans and animals cohabitating on this Earth. So we are pleased that the government have ratified the treaty on behalf of Australia.

We acknowledge, in particular, Robert Hill, as a spearthrower in this great endeavour some 20 years ago, and note his ongoing interest in it—if he is tuning in, with the other millions of people that are listening to the Senate today. So we acknowledge him.

We acknowledge the work of the government in bringing this bill forward. We will be looking to support this on a bipartisan basis. We look forward to questioning the government on its enforcement record, when it puts in place its new environmental bureaucracy. We hope that it is a bureaucracy which does more harm—does less harm than good. I'm trying to work on that one. 'Does more good than bad'—maybe that's a good one; what do you think? Good? You can't answer the question. So that's what we hope. We hope this will be a good proposal.

We will be, of course, undertaking our role, as an opposition, of being sceptical about all laws and making sure that we get law enforcement right. We will be, I think, considering some proposals from others that want to make some last-minute changes, and I think we're open to those, subject to some further consultation. It has taken 20 years to get to this point. As it stands, this is a good step forward, and we look forward to doing our part as responsible citizens that rely on the oceans for our own lives and wellbeing.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak on the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026. Protecting our oceans matters deeply to me, as a Western Australian senator representing a state that's shaped by the Indian Ocean.

I want to begin with a story about maambakoort, what we call our sea country in Noongar language. Our ancestors tell of a time when those coastlines were very different, when the sea sat further out and when the ocean floor was dry ground. They speak of families travelling across that coastal plain, moving with the seasons, crossing country all the way to Wadjemup, what we now call Rottnest Island. Then the water began to rise. Over generations, maambakoort covered the low lying plains. It separated Wadjemup from the mainland. It reshaped the edge of the world that people knew. These stories held and passed down the changing climate of a transforming coastline, and today geological science confirms that around 9,000 to 10,000 years ago sea levels rose dramatically, flooding that coastal plain of the south-west coast.

There is the story of the mamang, the whale. The mamang carries spirits back to country, and ceremony welcomes them home. Then there is the Wagyl, our rainbow serpent, our creator. He is the great serpent of the Nyitting, the Dreaming. The Wagyl carved the rivers and the wetlands inland as it travelled across country before moving back towards the ocean.

Sea country is alive with meaning. It connects past and present. It reminds people that land and ocean are part of one system. They are connected by movement, by story and by responsibility. For countless generations, Noongar families moved with that responsibility. People move when certain fish run, they harvest when particular winds shift and they read the ocean as a calendar. This understanding—that the ocean is dynamic, cyclical and interconnected—is something modern policy is still catching up to.

On Noongar country, the rising sea reshaped the land. The whale carries that spirit between worlds. The Wagyl links our rivers to the ocean, and the seasons guide when to move, when to fish and when to wait. It is a reminder that the ocean has always required stewardship, and that is not new.

Protecting the ocean is not just an environmental policy; it is a cultural responsibility, an economic responsibility and an intergenerational responsibility. Australia has a long history of looking after our ocean, and we are recognised around the world for our ocean management. Protecting Australia's marine biodiversity and ensuring fishing remains sustainable is a priority for the Albanese Labor government. We are committed to managing 100 per cent of our oceans sustainably. More than half of our oceans are already protected under strong environmental laws. Twenty-four per cent of our waters are in highly protected no-take areas, and we are working towards having 30 per cent of our ocean in highly protected areas by 2030.

We are, in fact, not standing still. This government is commencing consultation on reviews of five Australian marine park network management plans, covering 44 Australian marine parks. These reviews are the best opportunity for us to achieve our protection targets. These will be informed by genuine First Nations engagement, stakeholder consultation and the best available science, ensuring that protection and sustainability go hand in hand. We are supporting action on critical marine ecosystems like the Great Barrier Reef. We are protecting threatened marine species, we are removing ghost nets from northern Australia and we are developing Australia's first ever sustainable ocean plan. And that is just our domestic work. Our oceans don't stop at our maritime borders. Around 60 per cent of the global ocean lies beyond national jurisdiction in what we call the high seas, yet only around one per cent of those areas are currently protected.

Our marine ecosystems are interconnected; our fish stocks migrate; currents connect habitats across entire ocean basins. The health of the Indian Ocean off Western Australia is influenced by what happens far beyond a line on a map. If we want our domestic efforts to succeed, we must work with other nations to protect the open ocean, and that is what this legislation is about. The High Seas Biodiversity Bill gives effect to Australia's obligations under the United Nations High Seas Biodiversity Treaty.

Australia signed the treaty on the first day it opened for signature back in 2023. It has now entered into force internationally. Australia requires enabling legislation before we can ratify, and this bill provides the framework. It is important that we act swiftly. The first conference of the parties is expected in August this year, and Australia is currently co-chairing that preparatory commission. If we want to shape how international marine protected areas are established and managed, we must ratify in time to participate as a full party.

This bill creates the domestic framework for Australia to recognise and comply with those protections. It also establishes rules for marine genetic resources and introduces an environmental impact assessment process for Australia's activities on the high seas. This is responsible governance. This is accountability. This is ensuring that our international commitments are backed by domestic law.

For a maritime nation like Australia, and particularly for my home state of Western Australia, strong global ocean governance matters. The Indian Ocean connects us to Africa, to Asia and to our Pacific neighbours. We are highly regarded internationally for our ocean management. Ratifying this treaty will allow us to continue that leadership, not just protecting our own coastline but working cooperatively across the global commons.

When we talk about protecting seas, we are talking about protecting the same ocean that shapes our weather, feeds our communities, supports our industries and defines our way of life. We are talking about ensuring that future generations can stand on those same beaches and feel the Fremantle Doctor, see the dolphins at Monkey Mia and know that we acted when it mattered. This bill is about stewardship, it is about sustainability, it is about cooperation and it is about honouring our responsibility to the ocean that sustains us.

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Eighty-five per cent of Australians live within 60 kilometres of a coast. The vast majority of us have had to travel over oceans to call this place home. The ocean is our identity. It shapes our coastlines, our climate and our cultures. It has fed families for tens of thousands of years. Right now, our oceans are under immense strain, and this is why the Greens welcome and support the High Seas Biodiversity Bill.

This bill implements Australia's obligations of 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—the high seas treaty. It is the first global framework in 44 years to protect biodiversity in international waters. Two-thirds of the world's ocean lies beyond any single country's control, but until now only about one per cent of those waters have been protected. This treaty creates, for the very first time, a legal pathway to establish marine protected areas in the high seas. It allows nations, including Australia and our Pacific neighbours, to work together to protect migratory routes for whales and sharks, safeguard spawning grounds and build resilience against climate change. And, of course, it is long overdue.

On 17 January this year, the treaty entered into force internationally, without Australia having ratified it. This delay is shameful. Protecting the high seas is in our national interest. The Greens will have two amendments to this bill, one which strengthens language to include reference to marine protected areas throughout the bill and another that significantly increases penalties on Australian corporations found in contravention of the objects of the bill.

Aside from this bill, we must also be clear about the next looming threat to the high seas, and that is deep-sea mining. As demand for critical minerals grows, there is an increasing global pressure to open up the ocean floor in international waters as the next extractive frontier. Vast tracts of seabed, ecosystems we have barely had the chance to study, are being eyed up for industrial scale extraction. We know more about the surface of the moon than we do about the deep ocean, and yet we are poised to gamble with that biodiversity for short-term profit—an all-too-familiar tale of short-term profit.

The high seas treaty was designed to stop international waters becoming a lawless free-for-all. Allowing deep-sea mining to proceed would undermine that very purpose. The damage could be irreversible, and Australia should be taking a clear, principled position in support of a global moratorium on deep-sea mining. Protection of our oceans must come before profit. Here is the hard truth: signing up to protect oceans outside of our jurisdiction means little if we continue to undermine them. Labor claims that 52 per cent of Australia's marine waters are protected. That sounds impressive at the outset until you look closer. More than half of those marine parks allow commercial fishing and mining. Around only 22 to 24 per cent of our waters are highly protected areas. This is not leadership by any standard.

If Labor were serious will ocean protection, it would strengthen our existing marine protected areas so that they are genuinely free from extractive industries, it would save Scott Reef from fossil fuel project expansion, it would nominate the Great Australian Bight for World Heritage listing and it would end all new gas drilling in our oceans. Yet we are seeing the opposite. We see new offshore acreage releases for gas drilling, including in the Otway Basin off the coast of my home state of Victoria, literally while smoke is still in the air. We are seeing seismic blasting that harms whales and sea turtles. We see decommissioned oil and gas left to rust in our waters and wash up on our beaches. We see investment in disproven carbon capture technology, injecting CO2 into our seabeds with no guarantee of its safe storage. We see iconic ecosystems, from the Great Barrier Reef to Ningaloo, battered by climate fuelled bleaching while this government continues approving new coal and gas projects.

You cannot claim to be a friend of the ocean while expanding the industries that are heating and acidifying it. Rising heat is bleaching corals, destroying kelp forests and driving species towards extinction. Our marine wildlife is disappearing, even as the lines on the map marking protected areas expand. Protection on a map alone is not enough. It must be enforced. Healthy oceans are about protecting Australia's lifeblood. They underpin industries and communities across this country. Sustainable fisheries depend on ocean health. Tourism from Hobart to Port Douglas, from Ningaloo to the Whitsundays, relies on thriving marine ecosystems and resilient reefs. From Port Fairy to Lakes Entrance, from the Great Ocean Road to Bass Strait, livelihoods are tied to the health of the sea.

For tens of thousands of years, First Nations peoples have understood the ocean not as a resource to exploit but as a country that is living and interconnected. The Bunurong people of the Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Bay have strong sea country conditions. Bunurong stories speak of a time when Port Philip Bay was dry land, before the sea returned and reshaped the shoreline. They are records of change tracked across generations by people who know the rhythms of the sea and its connection to land and culture.

When we protect marine ecosystems we protect incomes, we protect food security, we protect culture and we protect the next generation's right to experience a living and thriving ocean, not a degraded one. We welcome this bill, but we strive for more ambition. Ambition must be met by courage at home. The fate of our oceans hinges on climate action. Every new oil and gas approval locks in more warming, more bleaching, more ecological collapse. If this government truly wants to be remembered as one that stood up for the sea, it must stop expanding fossil fuels. It must strengthen marine sanctuaries and hold the corporations that pillage our oceans to account. The ocean has given us everything—stability, sustenance and wonder. Will we finally give it the protection that it deserves? The Greens are ready to make sure that we do.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026, which implements Australia's obligations under the high seas treaty. The Liberal Party is supporting the bill, as am I. The treaty entered into force on 17 January 2026, and this bill seeks to enact certain provisions which will enable us to ratify the agreement. The bill addresses our obligations under three parts of the agreement: it establishes a notification based regime for Australian entities collecting and utilising marine genetic resources; it establishes a framework to recognise area based management tools, such as marine-protected areas; and it establishes an environment impact assessment regime for certain undertakings within the Australian jurisdiction. So it is an exciting moment, that we are legislating a very important global treaty. As has been said by other contributions in the second reading debate, 60 per cent of our oceans are beyond national jurisdictions, and only about one per cent, I think, is currently protected. We need to work as a nation with the rest of the world to contribute to the global target of 30 per cent of coastal marine areas being protected by 2030 to ensure that our global biodiversity does not continue to decline at the rate it is. We need to engage with and assist our Pacific nations in protecting their biodiversity, which they, like ourselves, rely on to sustain life.

From a state that suffered from the algal bloom, I'm very mindful of the importance of the health of our seas, especially our coastal seas, and distinguishing that coastal seas, the sea and the ecosystems of the world are all interconnected. Thus, this is an important first step. I quote from Jennifer Morris, the CEO of the Nature Conservancy, who said, when the treaty was agreed to and came into force, that it would be a 'historic step toward safeguarding the ocean that connects and sustains us all'. She said:

This achievement reflects years of dedication from global leaders and the unwavering advocacy of partners—

organisations—

like the High Seas Alliance. While we—

the High Seas Alliance—

celebrate this moment, we also recognize the immense work still ahead to translate this agreement into real protections for marine biodiversity.

That is what we are doing here today, and even more work needs to come from our nation once we have ratified the agreement and this bill has been passed and proclaimed. Can I say this: what the algal bloom made very clear to all South Australians is that nature needs to be at the heart of all decision-making. You cannot look at the sea or all of our natural environment as a place to pillage and extract. We must live in harmony with nature; otherwise, more and more of our natural world will have to be sequestered to protect our biodiversity. I'd rather see a world where we are living at one with nature and living in a sustainable way.

When I recently met the CEO of Greenpeace, Mr Ritter, he gifted me a very old book titled Australia's National Parks. I noticed that, on 14 July 1969, a Liberal prime minister John Gorton wrote this for the foreword:

This book outlines the great natural wealth of the Australian continent in landscape and in flora and in fauna.

It didn't involve the sea, but I think the principles that he articulates in the next paragraph equally apply:

This wealth is part of our heritage. It belongs to the Australian people and it is a source of wonder and interest to all who visit us. We must protect it for future generations, for it is a legacy man cannot replace and must not destroy.

He goes on to say:

"Australia's National Parks" makes a valuable contribution to conservation, to the efforts of our conservationists and to the sum of our knowledge of the unique features of our environment. It will help towards a greater understanding and enjoyment of the land in which we are privileged to live.

Those sentiments equally apply, and it's good to see a Liberal leader of the past being so articulate and clear on our moral imperative to protect our environment. I suggest maybe in more recent times we may have lost our way, but that's a personal view.

I would just like to alert the minister that the two amendments from the Greens have just been tabled and have come to my attention. From my reading of them, they seem to seek to enact the recommendations of Greenpeace—my friends in the Greens may push back on where they came from—but there are two concepts which they are putting forward. If it's possible, in the summing up of the second reading debate or in the opening of the committee, to articulate the government's position on those—I know they've just been tabled—I would be grateful, to guide how I might vote or consider those amendments.

In my time remaining, I would reinforce to the chamber this is an important bill, one that should pass the Senate as quickly as possible so that the great work of all the conservationists and all of those in the department can continue to protect our natural world.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026. This legislation gives effect to Australia's obligation under the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation of Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, often referred to as the high seas biodiversity agreement. This legislation allows Australia to implement and ratify the global agreement that will help protect biodiversity on the high seas.

The high seas are the parts of the ocean that lie beyond the national waters of any country. They sit outside exclusive economic zones and are not under the direct control of any single nation. These areas make up the majority of the world's oceans. They cover roughly two-thirds of the ocean and around half of the planet's surface. Because they sit beyond national borders, they have historically been difficult to manage. No single country is responsible for protecting them, yet the health of these waters affects everyone. The ocean is one connected system. What happens in the high seas does not stay there. Ocean currents move nutrients, fish and pollution across the globe. The health of marine ecosystems far from our coastline can influence fisheries, weather patterns and biodiversity much closer to home. For that reason, protecting the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction is not simply a theoretical international issue; it is central to the long-term health of the global ocean and it is in Australia's national interest.

But the high seas are under increasing pressure. Overfishing has placed growing strain on fish stocks in many parts of the world's oceans. Climate change is warming ocean waters and increasing the effects on coral reefs and marine ecosystems. Pollution, including plastics and other waste, is spreading across the ocean and accumulating in remote areas. Shipping activity continues to increase as global trade grows. And new activities, including potential deep-sea mining and expanding fishing technologies, are raising fresh questions about how we manage these areas sustainably. All of these pressures contribute to biodiversity loss.

Species that live in the open ocean or in the deep sea often grow slowly and reproduce over long periods of time. That means they can be particularly vulnerable to environmental change or overexploitation. Yet, historically, the high seas have lacked strong conservation rules. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, established under the basic legal framework for the oceans, did not include a comprehensive system for protecting biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. For decades, the international community recognised that gap, but negotiating a new agreement to address it was never going to be easy. The high seas are shared by every country in the world. Reaching agreement on how they should be governed requires cooperation across regions, industries and legal systems. That is why the agreement represents such an important achievement.

After many years of negotiation, the treaty was adopted at the United Nations in June 2023. It establishes a global framework for conserving and sustainably using marine biodiversity on the high seas. Australia signed the treaty shortly after it opened for signature and has supported the international work to bring it into effect. The agreement came into force earlier this year once the required number of countries had ratified it. This legislation ensures that Australia can now formally ratify the treaty and participate fully in its implementation.

The agreement is built around four key pillars. The first concerns marine genetic resources. Marine organisms often contain unique genetic materials that can be valuable for research, medicine and biotechnology. The treaty establishes rules around how these resources are collected and used and how benefits from them are shared fairly. The second pillar relates to area based management tools. This includes the ability to establish marine protected areas on the high seas. Just as national marine parks protect ecosystems within a country's waters, these international tools will allow countries to work together to protect important ecosystems beyond national jurisdictions. The third pillar focuses on environmental impact assessments. Before activities that could harm the marine environment take place in these areas, their impacts must be properly assessed. This helps ensure that development or research activities are carried out responsibly. The fourth pillar deals with capacity building and technology transfer. Many countries, particularly developing nations, do not yet have the scientific or technological capacity to monitor and protect marine biodiversity. The treaty creates mechanisms for sharing knowledge, technology and expertise so that protection efforts can be more effective across the globe. Together, these elements form the first comprehensive international system for protecting biodiversity on the high seas.

The legislation before the Senate today is the mechanism that allows Australia to implement those commitments in domestic law. The High Seas Biodiversity Bill establishes the legal framework necessary for Australia to meet its obligations under the treaty. It regulates the collection and use of marine genetic resources by Australian entities operating in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It establishes a system for recognising and implementing international marine protected areas created under the treaty. It introduces an environmental impact assessment process for certain activities carried out by Australian entities that may affect the marine environment beyond our national jurisdiction, and it creates mechanisms to ensure transparency, monitoring and compliance with these requirements.

Legislation like this is necessary because Australia, like a small number of other countries, requires enabling legislation before ratifying certain international treaties. Passing this bill means that Australia can formally ratify the BBNJ agreement and participate fully in the decision-making process that will follow, and that includes the first conference of the parties under the treaty, which is expected to take place later this year. Participation, as we all know, in that forum will matter. I commend the bill before the Senate.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here comes yet another UN power grab for control over Australian sovereignty. The High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 implements Australia's obligations under the agreement made 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. Nobody at the UN, it seems, thought maybe a shorter name would suffice. It's called BBNJ for short—BB, biodiversity bill, and NJ, areas beyond national jurisdiction. The bill addresses three core parts of the BBNJ agreement: marine genetic resources, MGR; area based management tools, ABMDs—the UN's full of acronyms, isn't it—and environmental impact assessments, EIAs. Exemptions apply to activities in Antarctica, which maintains Australia's rights in that region.

Of the main provisions of the bill, the first relates to marine genetic resources and digital sequence information. This establishes a notification based regime for Australian entities collecting or utilising marine genetic resources. Entities must submit pre-collection, post-collection and utilisation notices to the minister. The minister may issue collection or utilisation certificates. Then again, the minister may not. This could actually lock up nature's own undersea pharmacy and protect the pharmaceutical industry. Remember, natural products can't be patented. They're a threat to the pharmaceutical industry. The provision in this bill which requires genetic material, including DNA sequences, to be made publicly available in a regulated repository and database may act to stop companies spending the money to conduct this research, either in entirety or via avoidance behaviour. The regulations do allow some scope for protection of intellectual property, although, given the cost of deep-sea exploration, there is a real risk of this bill reducing the deployment of nature's remedies hidden in the ocean depths.

Noncompliance triggers civil and criminal penalties. While previous UN agreements have made the same requirement—criminal penalties on Australians—these have been in areas where such penalties are appropriate—terrorism, genocide, slavery, and suchlike. This is the first agreement that extends the UN's powers to cover criminal penalties for an action which one would not immediately consider illegal, like taking DNA from a marine creature, looking for a compound that could cure human disease.

The second aspect relates to area based management tools, ABMTs, and specially managed areas. This creates a framework to recognise international area based management tools—for example, marine protected areas—decided by a UN conference of the parties. The minister must declare the area a specially managed area and determine a special management plan within 120 days, consistent with the area based management tools. Plans may include permitting regimes or prohibitions. Offences apply for contravening the plans.

The explanatory memorandum and the hype around this agreement show great lengths have been taken to carve out commercial fishing from the agreement. Regional fisheries management organisations, like the ones that manage tuna across the world's oceans, remain fully in charge of quotas, gear rules, seasons, and enforcement. The agreement contains a strong non-undermining clause, article 5.2, that says the whole treaty 'shall be interpreted and applied in a manner that does not undermine' existing fisheries bodies and rules. This was a key demand from fishing nations during negotiations, and it is repeated throughout the text when it comes to area based management tools, although there is a provision which takes precedence, which is marine protected areas on the high seas. The UN conference of the parties can propose and adopt area based management tools to protect vulnerable ecosystems, such as undersea mountains, hydrothermal vents, migration corridors and so on. How much of the ocean can be carved out in this manner depends on the exclusion zone around each of these and on the definition of things like migration corridors. Expect a significant percentage of the world's ocean to be caught in environmental exemptions—probably 30 per cent, a figure I'll explain in a minute.

I appreciate there are checks and balances in this process, yet we have seen the zeal with which anything United Nations is embraced by the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Greens and the teals. Does anyone really think the uniparty is going to say no to the United Nations once these powers have been granted? The UN has already decimated Australia's fishing industry under these same environmental rules. Now they'll do the same thing to ocean fishing, which, according to the UN's own Food and Agriculture Organization, yields 11 billion tonnes of fish—of food, and protein—annually. Eleven billion tonnes of food to feed the world's hungry may be at risk, and One Nation would argue it is at risk. Australia's aquaculture industry, fish grown in farms, is only 100,000 tonnes per annum, according to ABARES, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. This doesn't include wild-caught fish.

What country has the ability to produce billions of tonnes of protein to replace the billions of tonnes of fish at risk from this agreement? Australia is an entire continent, and we can only manage thousands, not billions, of tonnes of aquaculture. Even the measly 40,000 tonnes coming out of Tasmania's fish farming in Macquarie Harbour is under attack right now for being too much, too intensive, too damaging, according to the Greens, who support this bill, so go figure. What will people eat in Greens land? It's not the first time I've asked them that question, and I still haven't heard their answer. As Australia cannot change an international agreement, all One Nation can do is oppose this bill, and we will.

The third aspect is the environmental impact assessment regime. This introduces a mandatory environmental impact assessment process for activities within Australian jurisdiction that may cause substantial pollution or harmful changes in the environment. Note the use of the word 'may', which is bureaucrat speak for anything they want it to mean—include anything. Every stage of the project is subject to individual licensing, scrutiny, reporting and review. The United Nations' recipe for everything is more bureaucracy, more licences, more power and more control taken to New York to make things worse—and, if not New York, Geneva.

How will this legislation solve the major problem actually threatening large areas of our oceans—the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, covering 1.6 million square kilometres; the south Pacific garbage patch; the north Atlantic garbage patch; the south Atlantic garbage patch; and the Indian Ocean garbage patch? How? It won't. Can anyone show me where in this legislation these abominations, these embarrassments to civilisation will be fixed through this legislation? You can't, Minister, because the source of this pollution is third-world countries chucking their rubbish into rivers, which travels out to sea and gathers in the gyres between permanent ocean currents. Those will not be covered by the international agreement this legislation introduces, because nobody wants to take on the countries doing it. You won't take them on.

Australia did it, though. We banned the export of our waste to third-world countries, who were taking out anything of value from the rubbish and then using their rivers as waste disposal facilities—putting their rubbish, our rubbish, into their rivers and then into the ocean. We did that without a United Nations agreement. We took out the dumping of rubbish and the exporting of our rubbish. We banned the exporting of our rubbish. We did that because it was the right thing to do. And, for the record, One Nation supported that legislation. Here's the catch, though. Under this agreement, if the United Nations wanted to solve the rubbish handling across nations whose populations exceed three billion, Australia would have to pay for it. That's the point of this bill. We undertake to pay whatever our share of whatever they spend becomes.

The fourth area is compliance, enforcement and administration. Australia appoints inspectors for monitoring, investigation, civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. This includes information notices, audits and protections against self-incrimination. Australia authorises grants, payments and financial arrangements to meet the BBNJ obligations, including capacity building and technology transfer. When I said 'more bureaucracy', I wasn't joking. This is an insane level of new bureaucracy that we will be paying for.

And here's our next objection: the bill creates the heads of power for the government to make appropriations for the purposes of paying our share of this whole new bureaucracy yet doesn't say how much. You do not say how much. It can't, because the UN hasn't set their cost yet. Whatever that outcome becomes, we pay our share of that. This legislation is a blank cheque to the bloody United Nations. One Nation will not sign blank cheques. This is taxpayer money. Taxpayers are under extreme cost-of-living pressure and housing prices. This is taxpayers' money, and we have an obligation to make sure it's being spent properly. When you can't fulfil that obligation, we don't want to spend it. There's no reason why the spending can't be put in a separate bill when the cost is known. Then again, financial responsibility goes out the door when it's the United Nations asking or the World Health Organization, which is part of the UN, or the Asian Development Bank or the World Bank or any other globalist entity so beloved by the uniparty.

Finally, let me share with the Senate One Nation's overarching objection to this and similar legislation. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted in December 2022 at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Conference of the Parties 15. This framework, which Australia has signed, includes 23 targets for 2030—that's just four years away. Target 3, called the 30-30 target, requires members to conserve and manage at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, coastal marine areas and oceans by 2030 through creating protected areas, taking area based conservation measures and recognising Indigenous territories.

That's exactly what this bill does. For all the nice words—the fraudulent wording—around protecting fishing, this bill will give the United Nations, in their own words, the right to lock up 30 per cent of the world's oceans from fishing. In so doing, the world's hungry will lose billions of tonnes of food, of protein and of good nutrition. That's what you're all voting for. One Nation opposes this bill.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens welcome this legislation, will be supporting it and regard it as a significant step forward. I want to acknowledge Australia's environment movement and many of the groups that make up Australia's environment movement, who have worked so hard to keep the pressure on the government to make this happen and to promote amendments to this legislation, which, I understand, will pass. I also want to take a brief moment to acknowledge the work of my friend and colleague Senator Whish-Wilson. I acknowledge him not only for his massive and longstanding advocacy for, and love of, oceans and the species and ecosystems that make up the world's oceans, but also for the work he's done to improve this legislation.

I want to reflect on the impact of overfishing in international waters, which is something the Greens hope this legislation will do something about. Our international waters have been rampantly plundered in the name of profit and in the name of international geopolitics, and it is marine ecosystems and marine species that are paying the price. In particular, in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, it is the krill fishery that is paying the price.

Krill are the foundation of the Antarctic marine ecosystem. They are the feedstock for the great whales—the fin whale, the humpback whale, the minke whale and others—who rely on krill for their very survival. Those whales, and the other whales, which were hunted in the name of profit—in many cases to the brink of extinction—need krill to rebuild their populations to what they were before people hunted them and so cruelled the numbers and populations of those species. Krill are the foundation for those species, as they are for penguins and for a whole range of other species—indeed, the entire Antarctic marine ecosystem.

There is nothing sustainable about krill fishing. The amount of krill being caught is on the rise. It's on the rise because companies like Swisse, a well-known and, dare I suggest, much-loved vitamin and health supplement company—much-loved in Australia, at least—are using krill oil as one of the key components of a number of their products. Now, the supplier to Swisse, Aker BioMarine, has, since 2021, not just killed six humpback whales as a by-product of its operations; it is actually responsible for 70 per cent of all the krill caught in Antarctica—70 per cent. So, I say to Swisse and to all of Aker BioMarine's other downstream customers: it is time to end your association with this destructive practice that is causing so much fundamental harm to this complex, magnificent, marine Antarctic ecosystem. It is time to end krill fishing in Antarctica. Do it for the whales. Do it for the penguins. Do it for the krill. Do it for the whole myriad, complex web of creatures and beings that rely on krill for their very survival.

That's one reason krill is being caught. The other reason krill is being caught is the same reason that the Tasmanian government wants to exploit a massive new population of sardines that has recently been discovered near Tasmania, and that is for the destructive, poisonous, toxic, salmon industry in my home state of Tasmania. This toxic industry has resulted in the Maugean skate—which had survived quite nicely, thank you very much, in Macquarie Harbour for countless millennia—being on the very brink of extinction. That's because of this toxic industry. And now the Tasmanian government wants to, no doubt, overfish a massive new sardine population, to use as feed for the salmon-farming corporations that operate in Tasmania. Of course, another component of the feed that is used by the salmon-farming corporations that operate in Tasmania is Antarctic krill. So, again, we see the problem here: corporate profits driving species to extinction; corporate profits destroying marine ecosystems; corporate profits driving the overfishing of numerous species, including krill, in Antarctica.

The Antarctic animals that we know and we love—the whales, the seals, the penguins, the seabirds—all rely on krill to survive. It is the absolute foundation of the Antarctic marine ecosystem. Yet it is being exploited for profit; it is being exploited as a health supplement—needlessly, because there are other opportunities and sources available that would deliver the same benefits as krill oil—and it is being exploited as a feedstock for foreign salmon-farming corporations in places like Tasmania.

I want to point out to Swisse that one of the biggest wellness retailers in the world, Holland & Barrett, has just committed to ending the sale of all krill-oil products in its stores. At the UN Ocean Conference, over 75 world-renowned scientists, celebrities and conservation groups joined the call to end krill fishing. Swisse is a registered B Corp, and it markets itself as sustainable. But I say to Swisse: there is nothing sustainable about the use of krill oil in your products. Stop using krill oil, or stop calling yourself 'sustainable'. That is the choice that Swisse has, because it can't have it both ways. It can't continue to brand itself as sustainable while propping up a fishery in Antarctic waters, fishing the crucial foundation of that entire, beautiful, incredible, complex, marine ecosystem. The whales, the seals, the seabirds, the penguins and the myriad of other species rely on krill for their survival.

Swisse has an obligation as a registered B Corp to stop using krill oil and become an Antarctic protector rather than what it is currently doing, which is to act as an Antarctic destroyer and undermine the very foundation of the marine ecosystems in our southern oceans and in Antarctic waters. We need to end krill fishing in Antarctica entirely. The Australian government needs to take a leadership role. Corporations like Swisse need to take a leadership role and the salmon-farming corporations in Tasmania—those toxic corporations that poison our waterways, that pollute our coastlines and that drive species like the Maugean skate into extinction—need to stop using krill oil in their feed.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens welcome this legislation, the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026, today to ratify the UN high seas treaty. It's been 44 years since the last international agreement on ocean protection was signed, and this is a historic moment. It's a symbolic moment, it's a ray of light, and it's some hope for people who love the oceans and have campaigned for the oceans all around the world. I want to reflect on how important it is to focus on the high seas and a little bit on what the high seas are.

My wife and I went to Vietnam for a short holiday last year after the federal election. I remember when we flew out of Ho Chi Minh City in the evening. The weather wasn't so great, but, as the plane got higher in the air, I remember looking out the window and seeing the sky dark and full of stars. It was a beautiful, starry sky. As I looked down towards the ocean, it was like the ocean was a mirror of the sky. It was full of lights like stars. But of course they weren't stars, and it wasn't a mirror. Those lights, as far as I could see, were fishing boats. The ocean was full of fishing vessels. Interestingly, I made a note to look at where the territorial waters of Vietnam finished, and I could see that clearly on the screen in front of me.

Once we reached territorial waters, the high seas, the area became dark again. There were some lights and there were some boats, but it was literally like night and day in comparison as we reached the high seas. I have also witnessed this on surf trips in Indonesia while standing on the beach at night and looking out onto the horizon. It almost appears like a continent is surrounding you, but it's not land and cities or towns. It's the same thing; it's fishing boats as far as the eye can see. The high seas are essentially lawless. They are a source of significant uncertainty in managing biodiversity, and they're a source of significant concern.

I want to give my brother, David Whish-Wilson, a quick shout-out in the Senate today. He is an author who writes crime fiction. He was so concerned about the issue of slavery and lack of sustainability in fishing practices on the high seas that he recently wrote a fictional book called Cutler. I won't spoil the story for you in case you want to get a copy of the book and read it, but it's about an undercover private detective going on board a boat. On board that boat a young Australian man, who was an ideological, young scientist that had finished university, was an observer. He disappeared, and foul play was suspected. So an undercover private detective went on board the boat as a new observer to try and uncover what had happened to the young Australian. It's a very hard-hitting book. It's an excellent read. It talks about the horrendous human rights abuses that occur on a number of these fishing boats on the high seas.

I want to give a shout-out to Minderoo Foundation for the work they've done on uncovering this over many years. When it comes to what goes on on the high seas, it is not just about protection of biodiversity; it is very much a human rights issue. In fact some of you may have had a visit by Greenpeace Indonesia recently with some fishermen who have been trapped in this cycle of slavery on the high seas. We've also, over the years, had other Burmese and Thai fishermen come and visit us and tell us their horrendous stories. Life is very cheap if you're a slave trapped on the high seas as a fisher. Because they're essentially lawless, very little is done about this, so any attempt to regulate what goes on on the high seas is to be welcomed and embraced.

I'd like to give a shout-out to all of the conservationists all around the world who have worked on this. The minister is in the chamber now, and I know he has met a number of them over the years. He would have met them last year in Nice at the international oceans conference. In particular, I'd like to give a shout-out to Alistair Graham, a Tasmanian, and Kate Noble from WWF; David Ritter from Greenpeace; and, from the other key marine conservation groups, Adele Pedder from AMCS and Christabel Mitchell from Pew. Of course, there are a lot more. All of them have played a really important role in getting Australia on board with this but also working with international partners. Just as it was with Alistair and CCAMLR over many years, it is always incredible people that care and are passionate and have experience and confidence who can drive these agreements forward. I just wanted to give them all a big shout-out and to thank them today for what they've been able to achieve.

I've been here long enough to remember the conflicts we've had in this chamber on marine protected areas in Australia. I remember, when I started as a new senator in 2012, Mr Tony Burke in the other place had brought in a package of marine protected areas that unfortunately we hadn't been able to legislate before the federal election in 2013. The disallowance hadn't passed the Senate. At that time, the environment movement—once again, a shout-out to those who spent decades trying to get the marine park set up in this country—were so tired and run down that they said, 'Okay, let's do this.' They weren't happy with what the Labor government at the time had brought in, but they were prepared to settle for it and then build on that over time.

Of course, history showed us that the Liberal Party won the 2013 election. Tony Abbott came in like the wrecking ball that he was and cut the green zones in Australia's marine parks by 50 per cent pretty much across the board. We lost a significant amount of marine protection. It was a really difficult debate we had to have in this Senate as to whether we supported a significantly reduced level of marine protection in this country or continued to campaign and continued to fight. In the end, although the Greens pushed for those to be disallowed and the campaign to continue, the disallowance passed and we had the marine protected area set up in this country.

The reason I provide this little bit of history is that I don't want anybody to think that what we've got in this country is adequate for marine protection, because it's not. The Labor Party weren't in government for 10 years. The Liberals did nothing to improve marine protections. We've seen oil and gas drilling in very important, critical areas of marine parks. We've seen commercial fishing in important marine parks. We can throw numbers around all we like, but the area of proper marine protection is nowhere near adequate in this country.

I do want to acknowledge that these marine parks are reviewed—they're decadal reviews—and the Labor government made some improvements in the last parliament in its first review of the south-east marine park area, which, I note, had an entire area of the south-east trawl closed permanently because of a collapse in fisheries stocks in that area. It was partly attributed to climate change and partly attributed to poor fishing practices, especially around the lack of data around marine bycatch. Nevertheless it was a big deal for AFMA to stand up and say, 'We are permanently closing a large part of this fishery.' It wasn't called a marine park; they wanted to avoid any language around marine protected areas and marine parks. This was a fisheries closure and a very significant one, because of what's happening in our oceans.

This is what we've got to remember. This debate might have been going on in Australia for 30 years, but our oceans are changing, and they are changing rapidly and not for the better. The changes we are seeing in our oceans are frightening. We can barely keep up with monitoring them. We've got to understand we're in a very dynamic environment right now.

One thing we do know about marine protected areas, be they in the high seas or in Australian territorial waters, is that they do help insulate against some of these most rapid changes and some of the worst impacts of things like climate change and overfishing. They help build resilience in the oceans, but they are not a silver bullet solution for what we need to do to properly protect biodiversity in our oceans. I would urge Labor to continue with the 10-year reviews of other marine protected areas, to lock in more improvements in these marine parks and to expand the areas of green zones.

I want to finish, in the last five minutes, by reiterating what the same amazing campaigners who have delivered this today in Australia are saying. We can't say we're protecting our oceans if we're not acting on climate change, reducing our emissions and showing global leadership on the impacts that burning fossil fuels are having on our oceans.

I can tell you I have borne witness to this in recent years. I have dived on the Great Barrier Reef multiple times with scientists. Last year, I had the Australian Institute of Marine Science take me out on Ningaloo Reef. I took three separate dives, and it was devastating to see what the worst recorded marine heat waves in history have done to biodiversity on these reefs. You need to go and see it for yourself if you don't believe me. I've seen the loss of giant kelp forests; the most productive habitat not just in the oceans but on our planet have disappeared in Tasmania. I've seen the impact it has had on fisheries industries, and they have disappeared because of marine heat waves and marine invasive species that are on the march because of warming oceans.

Not only does this effect fishing industries and our economy; it effects the communities that live on our coastlines. We've heard today from Senator McLachlan about the impact of the algal bloom, also caused partly or primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and marine heat waves. When are we going to wake up and understand that, unless we act on climate change, the oceans will continue to change? And it will undermine life on earth as we have known it and have been lucky enough in our lifetimes to have known it.

I'm not talking about being able to go snorkelling with your kids on the Great Barrier Reef; I'm talking about the womb of the earth: the ocean. All life has come from the ocean. If we saw a terrestrial forest ecosystem disappear along the coastline of Australia, if Tasmania's east coast had the most productive biodiverse forest on the planet that went a kilometre inland from its coastline, that produced billions of dollars in export revenue and that fed our country and if that disappeared before our eyes, do you think there would be a riot? Yes, there would be. Politicians of every colour would be talking about what we need to do about this, but, because it is happening in our oceans and is out of mind and out of sight for a lot of people, we don't talk anywhere near enough about it. The oceans literally are the canary in the coalmine for this planet right now. We need to watch and we need to listen and we need to act.

I would urge the government especially to look at the capstone project that I, as someone who has campaigned on oceans for decades, am thinking about right now, at a time when we need to show meaningful change and action: the plan for the Browse Basin on the North West Shelf of WA, the plan to drill Scott Reef and open up the biggest carbon bomb, the biggest fossil fuel project and the dirtiest fossil fuel project in our nation's history. This is at a time when we are literally seeing the climate break down.

Western Australia recorded ocean temperatures of between 36 and 38 degrees, off your beautiful state of Western Australia, Deputy President, which I love dearly, including in some of the most precious marine ecosystems in this country. It isn't just the fringing reefs of Ningaloo but further north of there, all the way up to Scott Reef, the Rowley Shoals. It is absolutely off the charts and only predicted to get worse if we don't act.

Today's legislation is dearly welcomed by anyone who's holding out hope that we can work together unilaterally. Let's forget about America and Russia, who haven't signed this agreement and therefore are not bound by it. Hopefully that will happen over time with pressure as more countries sign onto this. I'm all for focusing on the positives of this agreement and the fact that humans can work together to make our ocean a more beautiful, safer place, not just for the creatures that live there that we love but also for the humans that have to go and work on fishing boats on the ocean.

But let's not forget that there's so much more we need to do. And, if we're going to do that, it has to start in the parliaments of the world, in the places where we are today. That's my final message: only we can fix this problem, parliamentarians elected by the people. (Time expired)

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all the members who have contributed to this debate on the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026, and I recognise in particular the contribution of Senator Whish-Wilson. We are all aware that Senator Whish-Wilson will be finishing up in this place over the next few months, and I recognise his long-term commitment to ocean conservation as one of the things he has fought for. I hope he feels a degree of satisfaction that this bill will be passed prior to his departure from this chamber.

As we've heard here today this bill seeks to facilitate Australia's ratification of 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, also known as the high seas biodiversity treaty or the BBNJ agreement. The treaty was adopted at the United Nations on 19 June 2023 after nearly 20 years of international negotiations, and Australia was one of the first countries to sign it, on 20 September 2023. Australia is one of the few countries internationally that requires legislation to be passed in order to ratify a treaty, and that day has now arrived with the debate of this legislation.

The treaty creates stronger protections for our ocean by establishing a regime to conserve and sustainably use marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, being the high seas and seabed outside our maritime borders. As a maritime nation, a healthy and resilient ocean is at the heart of our economy, wellbeing, national identity and regional security. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have cared for sea country for more than 65,000 years.

Ratifying this treaty will bring real benefits to Australians. It will allow us to fully participate in international decision-making, lead the treaty's implementation in our region and work together with other states to build a healthier and more resilient ocean. It will support Australian businesses and our world-class research sector by creating a clear and level regulatory framework that puts everyone on an equal footing. It will compliment our extensive domestic network of marine parks, which already protects 52 per cent of our maritime jurisdiction, and it will contribute to the global target to protect 30 per cent of coastal and marine areas by 2030.

Around 60 per cent of the global ocean is beyond national jurisdiction, but only around one per cent is currently protected. This bill and the treaty that underpins it offer a pathway to increase those percentages. We share the ocean with other nations. Many threats to Australia's marine estate originate outside our national waters, such as plastic pollution; climate change; and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. We cannot safeguard the health of the ocean or the prosperity of marine industries without cooperating with other nations. That's why we need this treaty and this legislation.

The treaty will also play an important role in ensuring peace and stability in our region by supporting the rules based multilateral system, enhancing international ocean cooperation and strengthening our regional and bilateral relationships. The High Seas Biodiversity Bill creates a regulatory regime to ensure Australian activities are undertaken consistent with this new treaty. This includes regulating the collection and use of marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction, a framework for Australia to recognise area based management tools established by the treaty, such as marine protected areas, and a process for environmental impact assessments for certain activities that are carried out in, or that would have an impact on, areas beyond national jurisdiction. So you can see just from that quick summary that there are a number of measures contained in this bill that will dramatically expand the conservation of the ocean estate outside national boundaries.

Australia has engaged in the more than 20 years of discussion and negotiations for this treaty, and we are co-chairing the process to prepare for the first meeting of the conference of the parties. This bill is necessary for Australia to ratify the treaty and to safeguard the health of our shared ocean, support our thriving ocean economy for future generations and maintain our hard earned reputation as a global ocean leader. I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. I also thank the many environmental non-government organisations that have campaigned for a long time to have this legislation passed. I also recognise the constructive engagement of a number of industry groups as we've developed this legislation. On that basis, I commend the bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.