Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Hansard source

Let me make a series of points in relation to the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Bill 2008 and amendments (1) to (93) as moved by the Minister for Resources and Energy. Firstly, the opposition endorse and strongly support the intention of the bill and the supporting cognate bills. It flows in fact from material which we commenced whilst we were in government. Secondly, we do appreciate, as the minister outlined, the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources and their inquiry into the exposure draft of the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Bill 2008. It was an excellent example of House committees working to improve a bill, working on a bipartisan and constructive basis across this chamber on an issue of genuine resource security and national environmental importance. Thirdly, we also appreciate the minister’s willingness to provide the exposure draft and to engage in genuine discussion with our representative in the Senate.

That brings me to the fourth point. We have foreshadowed that we will be moving amendments in the Senate. They will be subject to debate, and I am hopeful that we will receive the support and agreement of the government on those amendments. The fifth point is a respectful point of disagreement in relation to these 93 amendments, not in relation to the content; we will scrutinise that carefully. I have been advised, and therefore my understanding is, there was an agreement that such amendments would be held back until after the Senate Standing Committee on Economics, which is also conducting an inquiry, had reported. I remain to be corrected on that, but it would certainly have been our preference in any event that the Senate committee, which is conducting a parallel inquiry and is due to report to the Senate on 16 October 2008, would have been allowed to present its findings before these amendments were moved.

Nevertheless, the opposition will not be opposing these amendments at this point. We will consider them carefully as part of the process. We have a respectful view—to the minister and to the government—that perhaps these amendments were called forward to deal with a gap in the government’s legislative agenda, which is not so much to say it is the minister’s fault as to make a broader criticism about the government’s absence of legislative material more generally.

With all of those elements, we acknowledge the intention of the bill. We appreciate the work of the House of Representatives committee. We acknowledge the minister’s general consultation on this. We foreshadow our right—and our intention, in fact—to present amendments in the Senate. Whilst not opposing the bill, we note our concern about the failure to wait until after the Senate committee had reported. I believe it would have been sensible, prudent and reasonable to have waited until after 16 October 2008 and after the Senate committee’s material and advice was on the table. Nevertheless, for those reasons we support the intention of the bill and we choose not to oppose these amendments at this point as they pass through the House.

See this speech in context