Great Australian Bight (World Heritage Protection) Bill 2025 explained

The short answer

Great Australian Bight (World Heritage Protection) Bill 2025 explained

The Great Australian Bight (World Heritage Protection) Bill 2025 is a private senator's bill introduced by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens, South Australia) on 11 February 2025. It would prohibit all mining operations in the Great Australian Bight area and require the Minister for the Environment to submit the Bight for UNESCO World Heritage listing. The bill lapsed at the end of the 48th Parliament's first session and was before the Senate at the time of writing.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

The Great Australian Bight: what's at stake

The Great Australian Bight is a vast, ecologically significant marine area off the southern coast of Australia, stretching from Cape Pasley in Western Australia to Cape Catastrophe in South Australia. It is one of the most important marine ecosystems in the Southern Hemisphere, hosting southern right whale calving grounds, Australian sea lion colonies, and critical spawning habitats for commercially important fish species such as southern bluefin tuna.

The Bight has been the subject of repeated controversy over oil and gas exploration. In 2016, BP abandoned plans to drill in the Bight. In 2020, Norwegian company Equinor also withdrew its exploration plans following sustained community and environmental opposition. Despite these withdrawals, the regulatory framework — primarily under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 — does not permanently exclude the Bight from future exploration or extraction.

The bill's response is a permanent legislative ban on mining in the Bight, combined with a mechanism to seek the highest available form of international recognition — UNESCO World Heritage listing. This would convert what is currently a political and regulatory question (whether to grant exploration permits) into a legislative prohibition.

Evidence review

The bill's mechanism: prohibition and World Heritage listing

The bill has two components. The first prohibits all mining operations — including oil and gas exploration and extraction — in the Great Australian Bight area. The definition of the area and of 'mining operations' is in the bill text and is critical: a narrowly defined area would leave adjacent waters open to drilling, while an overly broad definition could raise constitutional questions about the Commonwealth's legislative power over state waters.

The second component requires the Minister for the Environment to take steps to submit the Bight for inclusion on the UNESCO World Heritage List. World Heritage listing is a multilateral process — Australia nominates, and the UNESCO World Heritage Committee decides. The bill cannot compel UNESCO to list the Bight; it can only require the Australian government to seek listing.

World Heritage listing has been used in Australia to protect natural areas including the Great Barrier Reef, the Tasmanian Wilderness, Kakadu National Park and the Ningaloo Coast. However, listing does not automatically prohibit all mining — it creates obligations to protect the listed values and subjects Australia to international scrutiny of its management decisions.

Evidence review

The sponsor and the political context

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young is a Greens senator for South Australia, the state most directly affected by decisions about the Bight. Her sponsorship of the bill reflects the Greens' long-standing opposition to fossil fuel extraction and their use of private senators' bills to put environmental protection proposals before the Parliament.

The bill was introduced against the backdrop of the failed exploration attempts by BP and Equinor. The fact that both companies withdrew — Equinor in 2020, after spending years on regulatory approvals — demonstrates the political and community pressure that can be mobilised against drilling in the Bight. The bill seeks to remove the need for community campaigns against each individual proposal by establishing a permanent prohibition.

The bill's interaction with the government's offshore petroleum regulatory framework is significant. The government issues exploration permits under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. A legislative ban would override that framework, removing the minister's discretion to grant permits in the Bight.

Evidence review

Constitutional and legal considerations

The bill's constitutional basis likely relies on the external affairs power (section 51(xxix)) — for the World Heritage component — and the corporations power (section 51(xx)) and possibly the territories power (section 122) for the mining prohibition. The external affairs power has been interpreted broadly by the High Court to support legislation implementing international environmental obligations.

The bill's interaction with state jurisdiction is important. Australia's offshore jurisdiction is divided between the Commonwealth (beyond three nautical miles) and the states (within three nautical miles). A Commonwealth bill that prohibits mining in state coastal waters would need to have a clear constitutional basis.

The bill lapsed at the end of the 48th Parliament's first session, as is normal for bills that have not been passed. It would need to be restored or reintroduced to continue. Private senators' bills that lapse can be restored by motion in the Senate, which is a simpler process than reintroduction.

Evidence review

What the bill does not address

The bill prohibits mining but does not address other activities that affect the Bight's ecology — commercial fishing, shipping, aquaculture, tourism, or climate change impacts such as ocean warming and acidification. A focus on mining alone addresses one threat among many.

The bill does not provide compensation for existing exploration permit holders if their permits are extinguished by the prohibition. This could raise questions about acquisition of property on unjust terms — the Constitution requires that acquisition of property by the Commonwealth be on just terms (section 51(xxxi)). Whether the cancellation of an exploration permit constitutes an acquisition of property is a legal question that the bill would need to address.

The bill does not specify a timeline for the World Heritage nomination, what resources would be provided to prepare it, or what happens if UNESCO declines to list the Bight (which is a possible outcome — the World Heritage Committee has rejected nominations on multiple occasions).

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer