Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of these amendments. I do so because I think at the heart of them lie what are some of the largest concerns for myself and others on the crossbench—and that is: the actual purpose of this bill. I take it on good faith that the minister gives us her personal assurances that this is about enacting positive climate reform.

But as the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 is currently presented in the House, the one thing it clearly does is enable new fossil fuel projects to take advantage of the opportunity to sequester carbon emissions under the seabed. There is no protection in this bill, currently, to make it so that it is about a nature-positive outcome.

I want to double-down on that point. I and the people of North Sydney do not stand against the engagement of new tech, but any new tech being undertaken in our communities and our societies should be about delivering a net negative climate positive outcome. Drawing down pre-existing carbon dioxide makes sense, in this case, but leaving it open to enable people like Santos to walk straight through that door, open up a new gas project and say that that gas project meets everything we've now brought into place under the safety net—because they can pump their carbon dioxide offshore into a carbon capture and storage facility—is completely contrary to what I believe we are trying to work towards as a parliament.

See this speech in context