Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022; Second Reading

Senate · Wednesday 23 July 2025

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate centred on whether to introduce a climate trigger into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to require assessment of climate impacts for project approvals. The Australian Greens supported the bill, arguing it was essential to address the climate crisis and protect communities from environmental damage. The Labor government opposed the bill, stating it duplicated existing emissions frameworks and added complexity to ongoing comprehensive environmental law reforms. The Liberal National Party also opposed the bill, arguing it was ineffective and that global emissions were rising despite international agreements.

Outcome

The bill was debated but not passed at this stage.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA) (Australian Greens) Greens

Senator Hanson-Young moved the second reading, arguing that current environment laws ignore the climate crisis by preventing ministers from assessing the climate pollution of approved projects. Hanson-Young cited toxic algal blooms in South Australia and economic impacts on fishing and tourism as evidence of the urgent need for reform. Hanson-Young contended that the bill would force the government to consider climate damage before approving fossil fuel expansions, such as the North West Shelf Project. Hanson-Young noted that the Prime Minister had previously supported similar measures and urged the government to act on scientific advice.

Government response

Karen Grogan (SA) (Australian Labor Party) ALP

Senator Grogan stated the government would not support the bill, arguing that significant action on climate change and environmental protection was already underway. Grogan highlighted the government's emissions reduction targets, renewable energy investments, and the Capacity Investment Scheme as evidence of progress. Grogan argued that the bill was unnecessary because comprehensive reform of the EPBC Act was planned within the first 18 months of the parliament. Grogan emphasised the need for a balanced approach that considered both economic sustainability and environmental protection, rather than the binary choices presented by the Greens.

Opposition response

Matthew Canavan (QLD) (Liberal National Party) LNP

Senator Canavan opposed the bill, arguing it was misdirected and would not achieve its stated goals of reducing global temperatures or stopping algal blooms. Canavan cited data showing that global emissions had increased since the net zero agreement and that Australia's emissions had risen under the current government. Canavan argued that stopping individual projects like the North West Shelf would have a negligible impact on global climate outcomes. Canavan also criticised the government's energy policies for increasing electricity prices and harming industry competitiveness while other nations expanded coal mining.