High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026; Second Reading

Coffey argued that local waterway health is interconnected with global ocean systems, making international protection essential. Coffey outlined how the bill regulates marine genetic resources, recognises area-based management tools, and establishes environmental impact assessments for Australian entities operating beyond national jurisdiction. Coffey highlighted Australia's strong domestic record, with more than half of its ocean protected, and emphasised the treaty's importance for Pacific Island nations whose livelihoods depend on healthy marine ecosystems.

Chaney welcomed the bill as a mechanism to protect biodiversity hotspots and support First Nations philosophies of sea stewardship. Chaney criticised the government for delaying ratification despite being a founding signatory, noting this missed an opportunity to shape early treaty norms. Chaney called for dedicated budget funding for implementation, including resources for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Chaney advocated for identifying priority protection areas such as the South Tasman Sea and Lord Howe Rise, and stressed that climate action must accompany biodiversity protection.

Briskey described the high seas as a previously lawless frontier and praised the Labor government's shift towards environmental leadership. Briskey noted that the treaty, adopted in 2023, establishes rules for marine genetic resources, creates pathways for marine protected areas, and mandates environmental impact assessments. Briskey argued that protecting the high seas is vital for Australia's regional leadership and economic resilience, particularly for fisheries and tourism. Briskey framed the bill as a commitment to a nature-positive future for subsequent generations.

Ryan supported the bill's intent but raised concerns about legislative scrutiny and structural vulnerabilities. Ryan noted that the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee had flagged issues regarding the reversal of the evidential burden of proof and the delegation of significant matters to regulations. Ryan criticised the environmental impact assessment regime for relying on self-assessment, which she argued creates incentives for corporate actors to understate impacts. Ryan also highlighted that the bill omits Antarctica and the convention area from main clauses, potentially leaving fragile waters less protected.

Claydon argued that the bill demonstrates urgent leadership in protecting fragile ecosystems and regulating damaging activities like seabed mining. Claydon highlighted the Labor government's record of protecting over 100 million hectares of land and sea since 2022. Claydon stated that a wide group of scientists and environmental organisations supported the legislation, viewing the science as settled. Claydon emphasised that inaction would accelerate ecosystem degradation and harm Australia's climate goals and regional standing.

French linked the health of the high seas directly to the wellbeing of coastal communities in his electorate. French explained that the bill establishes a notification regime for marine genetic resources, enabling transparency for Australian researchers and industries. French noted that the legislation allows Australia to participate in creating protected areas on the high seas, contributing to the global 30 per cent protection target. French argued that the environmental impact assessment regime provides a practical safeguard against harm that could eventually affect Australian shorelines.

Cook described the bill as a historic step for an island nation, implementing the BBNJ Agreement to secure marine biodiversity. Cook outlined the bill's structure, including a precautionary approach, a notification regime for marine genetic resources, and provisions for international marine protected areas. Cook highlighted the establishment of a public register for transparency and compliance powers including civil penalties. Cook argued that protecting the high seas safeguards fish stocks and supports marine industries, ensuring a legacy for future generations.

Coker emphasised the local importance of ocean health for coastal economies and identity in her electorate. Coker explained that the treaty addresses four pillars: marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, environmental impact assessments, and capacity building. Coker argued that because ocean currents connect global ecosystems, protecting the high seas is in Australia's national interest. Coker stated that the bill meets community expectations for responsible environmental stewardship and strengthens Australia's global leadership.

Berry acknowledged the role of First Nations peoples in marine stewardship and highlighted the Labor government's expansion of marine parks, including Macquarie Island and Heard Island. Berry noted that Australia now protects more than half of its ocean waters, covering 4.6 million square kilometres. Berry explained that the treaty focuses on marine genetic resources, protected areas, impact assessments, and technology transfer. Berry expressed pride in Australia's leadership role in international negotiations alongside Belize.

Laxale cited the environmental damage caused by bottom trawling and bycatch, arguing that the bill offers a solution through global cooperation. Laxale noted that Australia's marine industries contribute over $200 billion to the economy and support 700,000 jobs, making ocean health economically vital. Laxale stated that the treaty allows Australia to join 81 other nations in committing to the 30 by 30 protection target. Laxale thanked advocates and parliamentary groups for their work in prioritising environmental protection.