Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A Subsection 4(1)

Insert:

new fossil fuel facility has the meaning given by section 4AA.

1B After section 4

Insert:

4AA Meaning of new fossil fuel facility

(1) A facility is a new fossil fuel facility for a financial year (the current financial year) if:

(a) during the current financial year, the facility conducts an activity, or a series of activities, for the purpose of extracting, processing, supplying or exporting coal, oil or natural gas; and

(b) either:

(i) as at 1 July 2023, a determination referred to in subsection 22XQ(1) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 has never been made in relation to the facility under the safeguard rules (within the meaning of that Act); or

(ii) on 1 July 2023 the facility is an existing facility and during all, or part, of the current financial year the facility undertakes new operations of a kind specified in subsection (2).

(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), the following kinds of new operations are specified:

(a) new operations that increase the annual production of the facility;

(b) new operations that extend the number of years of production of the facility;

(c) new operations that involve the development of new reserves that were not already under production by the facility on 1 July 2023.

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 1 to 16), omit subsection 19(7B), substitute:

(7B) In a financial year, the Minister may only grant a permit for the export of controlled material for dumping, where the controlled material is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation, if:

(a) the carbon dioxide streams are not captured from facilities that are new fossil fuel facilities for the financial year; and

(b) the Minister is satisfied of the matters referred to in paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of Annex 1 to the Protocol; and

(c) the Minister is satisfied that there is an agreement or arrangement in force:

(i) between Australia and the other country to which the export relates; and

(ii) that includes the matters covered by paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 (as appropriate) in the Annex to Resolution LP.3(4) adopted on 30 October 2009 by the Contracting Parties to the Protocol; and

(d) the Minister is satisfied that the grant of the permit would be in accordance with Annex 2 to the Protocol; and

(e) the Minister is satisfied of any other matters the Minister considers relevant.

This amendment would prevent carbon dioxide export permits being granted to future fossil fuel facilities. It would ensure that exporting carbon dioxide for carbon capture and storage, or CCS, cannot be used as justification for new fossil fuel projects. I acknowledge the minister's responses today to this consideration in detail debate. I note the member for Mackellar's amendment, which would prevent the import or export of carbon dioxide captured from any fossil fuel projects. I acknowledge the member for Warringah's amendment which would only allow a permit to be granted if the CCS process would result in negative emissions. These are all science based, good-faith amendments and I support them. But, if the government does not support those sensible amendments, those sensible restrictions, those sensible guardrails on this bill, I offer this simple amendment as an alternative to give comfort to our collective concerns, the concerns of our constituents and, particularly, the concerns in relation to the new technology aspect of this bill.

I have deep concerns about CCS as a technology to effectively fight climate change. According to research that I commissioned from the Parliamentary Library, since 2008 the Australia government has committed over $790 million to support the research and development of CCS, but despite this significant time and money spent on CCS, it has so far been found an to be an ineffective method to reduce carbon dioxide. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that CCS is expensive and there are still risks of leaks from undersea storage of carbon. Chevron's Gorgon CCS project on Barrow Island in Western Australia has failed to come even close to meeting sequestration targets for carbon dioxide generated by their project.

I've met with the minister's office, and I thank them for their time in explaining the rationale of this bill and the details of the London protocol as pointed to by the minister and for responding to questions. I understand that there is a role for CCS to reach net zero emissions and stay below two degrees of warming, but CCS should only happen in the rarest of circumstances, and it must not be used as justification to allow new fossil fuel projects. It simply cannot.

I absolutely urge the government to consider the amendments to improve this bill. I accept that the minister says these will be considered in the Senate, but I say to you we have to consider bills in the House, and I cannot in good faith vote for a bill that has not considered these amendments and given carriage to them. I really do urge the government to look at these issues and put these guardrails in to give comfort to these very serious and science backed concerns. The government cannot pass legislation that clearly does not reflect the real urgency of acting on climate change, and I urge the government to support these particular amendments.

See this speech in context