Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a supplementary memorandum to the bill and—by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (6) as circulated together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table, substitute:

Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally enacted. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this Act.

(2) Schedule 4, page 49 (after line 1), after the heading, insert:

Part 1 — Amendments commencing day after Royal Assent

(3) Schedule 4, page 49 (after line 3), before item 1, insert:

1A Section 5

Insert:

carbon estimation area, in relation to an area-based offsets project, has the meaning given by the applicable methodology determination for the project.

(4) Schedule 4, page 49 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:

6 After subsection 106(4)

Insert:

(4AA) The Minister must not make a methodology determination unless the Minister is satisfied that the determination complies with the offsets integrity standards.

7 After subsection 114(2)

Insert:

(2AA) The Minister must not vary a methodology determination unless the Minister is satisfied that the varied determination complies with the offsets integrity standards.

(5) Schedule 4, page 49, at the end of the Schedule (after proposed item 7), add:

8 After Divis ion 4 of Part 12

Insert:

Division 4A — Information about Australia's international obligations

166A Information about Australia's international obligations

(1) The Regulator must publish on the Regulator's website any information that is:

(a) held by the Regulator; and

(b) specified in the legislative rules for the purposes of subsection (2).

(2) The legislative rules may specify information that is relevant to Australia meeting its obligations under any or all of the following:

(a) the Climate Change Convention;

(b) the Kyoto Protocol;

(c) the Paris Agreement;

(d) any other international agreement.

9 Paragraph 168(1)(b)

Omit "the project area or project areas; and", substitute:

the following:

(i) the project area or project areas;

(ii) the carbon estimation area, or carbon estimation areas, for the project; and

10 Subsection 168(2)

Repeal the subsection.

11 Subsection 168(2A)

Omit "of this section".

12 Section 169

Repeal the section.

13 Section 240 (table item 21)

Repeal the item.

14 Application and transitional provisions

Definitions

(1) In this item:

Act means the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011.

commencement means the commencement of this item.

existing project means an area-based offsets project that, at commencement, is an eligible offsets project because of a declaration made before commencement.

grace period means the 30-day period beginning at commencement.

grace period request, in relation to a carbon estimation area, means a request made within the grace period in relation to the carbon estimation area under subsection 169(1) of the Act as continued in force and modified by subitem (6) of this item.

Register not to set out certain project areas

(2) Despite the repeal of section 169 of the Act made by this Schedule, the Emissions Reduction Fund Register must not set out the project area or project areas for an area-based offsets project if:

(a) immediately before commencement, the Emissions Reduction Fund Register did not set out the project area or project areas because the Regulator had granted a request under that section in relation to the project area or project areas; or

(b) the Regulator grants a request of a kind referred to in subitem (3) or (4) of this item in relation to the project area or project areas.

Pending requests relating to project areas

(3) Despite the repeal of section 169 of the Act made by this Schedule, that section (as in force immediately before commencement) continues to apply, after commencement, in relation to a request under that section that has not been finally determined at commencement.

Requests relating to project areas made within grace period

(4) Despite the repeal of section 169 of the Act made by this Schedule, the project proponent for an existing project may, within the grace period, make a request under subsection 169(1) (as in force immediately before commencement) in relation to the project area or project areas for the project.

Register not to set out certain carbon estimation areas

(5) Despite the amendment of section 168 of the Act made by this Schedule, the Emissions Reduction Fund Register must not set out the carbon estimation area or carbon estimation areas for an existing project if:

(a) the grace period has not ended; or

(b) the project proponent for the project makes a grace period request in relation to the carbon estimation area or carbon estimation areas and the request has not been finally determined; or

(c) the project proponent for the project makes a grace period request in relation to the carbon estimation area or carbon estimation areas and the Regulator grants the request.

Grace period requests in relation to carbon estimation areas

(6) Despite the repeal of section 169 of the Act made by this Schedule, that section (as in force immediately before commencement) continues to apply, during the grace period, in relation to an existing project as if a reference in that section to the project area or project areas for the project were also a reference to the carbon estimation area or carbon estimation areas for the project.

(7) A decision of the Regulator to refuse a grace period request in relation to the carbon estimation area or carbon estimation areas for a project is taken to be a reviewable decision for the purposes of the Act.

Extension of time f or considering requests made within grace period

(8) If the project proponent for an existing project makes a request that is:

(a) a request of a kind referred to in subitem (4) in relation to the project area or project areas for the project; or

(b) a grace period request in relation the carbon estimation area or carbon estimation areas for the project;

subsection 169(3) of the Act (as continued in force by subitems (4) and (6) of this item) has effect, in relation to the request, as if the reference in that subsection to 30 days were instead a reference to 60 days.

(6) Schedule 4, page 49, at the end of the Schedule (after proposed item 14), add:

Part 2 — Amendments commencing later

Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011

15 Section 5

Insert:

paid work means work for financial gain or reward (whether as an employee, a self-employed person or otherwise).

16 Subsections 257(3) and (4)

Repeal the subsections.

17 After subsection 257(6)

Insert:

(6A) The Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee holds office on a full-time basis.

18 Subsection 257(7)

After "member", insert "(other than the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee)".

19 Section 263 (after the heading)

Insert:

(1) The Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee must not engage in paid work outside the duties of the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee without the Minister's approval.

20 Section 263

Before "An", insert "(2)".

21 Section 263

After "member", insert "(other than the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee)".

22 Subsection 265(1)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(1) The Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee has the recreation leave entitlements that are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.

(1A) The Minister may grant the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on the terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise that the Minister determines.

23 Paragraph 267( 2)(c)

Repeal the paragraph.

24 Subsection 267(3)

Repeal the subsection.

25 At the end of section 267

Add:

(5) The Minister may terminate the appointment of the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee if the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee engages, except with the Minister's approval, in paid work outside the duties of the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee's office (see subsection 263(1)).

(6) The Minister may terminate the appointment of an Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee member (other than the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee) if the member engages in paid employment that conflicts or may conflict with the proper performance of the member's duties (see subsection 263(2)).

The ACCU scheme has an important role to play in Australia's pathway to net zero emissions by 2050. It incentivises emissions reductions and sequestration that otherwise wouldn't occur. The government commissioned the independent review of ACCUs to ensure ACCUs are and are seen to be of the highest integrity. The independent panel concluded that ACCU scheme arrangements are sound and that there are appropriate checks and balances at the scheme, method and project level to protect the integrity of the scheme and the credits created under it. The panel recommended some sensible changes to align with evolving best practice and increase public confidence in the scheme, supporting more participation and increased abatement.

Key recommendations include separating the key functions of integrity assurance, regulation and administration; maximising transparency of scheme information to increase trust; fostering innovation in methods and project implementation; and supporting greater participation, including by First Nations communities. The government has accepted in principle all 16 recommendations and is working to implement immediately key recommendations which don't require further consultation with stakeholders. I've already revoked the avoided deforestation method so that no new projects can be registered under that method, implementing recommendation 9 of the review.

Today I'm introducing government amendments to the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 which will enact some of the recommendations of the ACCU review. These are legislative changes to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 that will increase transparency and robustness of the scheme while we continue to consult on the implementation of other recommendations. These recommendations will: require publication of carbon estimation area information and other information prescribed by the rules, recommendation 4.1; require the minister to be satisfied that a methodology determination or a varied methodology determination complies with the offsets integrity standards before the minister can make or vary the determination, recommendation 5.22; and change the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, ERAC, chair's position from part time to full time, recommendation 2.1—consistent with the recommendations of the review. I will appoint a full-time chair and a First Nations member of ERAC through an open and transparent process. The government will also establish an independent secretariat, reporting directly to the chair once they're appointed.

These amendments will strengthen the integrity of the ACCU scheme, increasing transparency by requiring additional information to be published. It will assure integrity by clarifying my considerations, or those of the minister of the day, when approving methods and it will improve the capacity of the integrity committee to scrutinise methods while we consult on broader changes to the governance arrangements. The government will work with stakeholders on implementation of other recommendations that have implications for a wide range of the scheme, market participants, government agencies and other stakeholders. An implementation plan which sets out the time frames and approach to implementation will soon be released.

This is just the first part of the legislative changes required to implement the ACCU review. We plan to introduce a more substantial package of amendments later in 2023 following consultation with stakeholders, who call for further consultation and opportunities to analyse the key positions and outcomes of the review. I commend the amendments to the House.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the election campaign, we were very appreciative of the Prime Minister saying that there would be no power stations closing and there would be no coalmines closing. It's alright for everybody here, who have nice warm jobs and their $250,000 a year, but not for those people that have climbed off horses or left cane fields to work in the mines because they've got no money.

There are some 200,000 jobs in coalmining in Australia, and I sure would like some of our so-called trade union leaders to stand up here, because it seems to me that I'm one of the very few that's standing up. You want to go and destroy, cold-bloodedly, the jobs of 200,000 people. I have a case before me at the present moment—a terrible shooting up in my electorate. The tensions that arise in a family who has no income are brought out graphically by this case. People have got to have a decent living.

China is buying the coal, and India is buying the coal. If you think a tiny little European country that's not as big as most of their cities is going to tell them that they can't have cheap electricity, you believe in the tooth fairy. In India they have no ability to put in solar—and I'm not going to give the reasons why; I think everyone should know that. They get very little hydro, and what they have they've already developed. In China they're laughing at us. They're producing the solar panels and sending them to Australia whilst they're building 200 coal-fired power stations.

People will look back on this era and say the same as me. When I went to university, everyone was running around with Mao Zedong's 'Little Red Book'. I suppose I've got to be fair and say that if they asked me about him, I would say, 'He's a nationalist. I thought he was alright. Well, he murdered 48 million people. We get carried away on some idealistic journey. In the bush there's a saying: 'When your neighbour starts preaching religion, reach for your branding iron. When your neighbour starts preaching morality, reach for your shooting iron.' This is a case where I'd be reaching for my shooting iron! If anything is ideologically driven, is not coming from reality and is not coming from the pain of the people and the needs of the people, there is something badly wrong—and 'badly wrong' means that people hate politicians. I have never in my life seen this level of hatred towards politicians. When I was young, the attitude towards politicians was 'Geez, this is really important.' Now, mostly, they don't even want to meet you. So keep going the way you're going, but 200,000 Australians depend on this industry. Just remember that you're sacking them and there's nowhere else to go because we've got no industry left in this country and there's not one single thing being done by this government or the last government to create industry in this country—nothing. There's nothing on the scoreboard.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy be agreed to.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 14), at the end of subsection 3(2), add:

; and (c) aggregate covered emissions from the operation of designated large facilities decline.

(2) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (before line 5), before subsection 10(4), insert:

(3A) A determination under subsection (3) must require:

(a) the measurement of methane emissions from oil and gas facilities to comply with the latest standards developed by the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership, as existing from time to time; and

(b) direct methane emissions measurement and modelling at both the source and site levels for all fossil fuel facilities on and after the following date:

(i) if the facility commences operation on or after 1 July 2023 and Part 3H applies to it—1 July 2024;

(ii) if the facility commences operation before 1 July 2023 and Part 3H applies to it—1 July 2026.

(3B) A determination that includes the requirements mentioned in subsection (3A) must take effect no later than 1 November 2023.

(3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 18), after item 29, insert:

29A Subsections 22XL(1) and (2)

Omit "The", substitute "Subject to subsection (4), the".

29B At the end of section 22XL

Add:

Methane emissions targets

(4) The baseline emissions number for a facility mentioned in column 1 of an item of the following table for a financial year mentioned in column 2 of the item must be calculated so as to ensure that the facility does not exceed the emissions target mentioned in column 3 of the item.

(4) Schedule 1, item 31, page 8 (after line 29), after paragraph 22XN(1)(a), insert:

(aa) the surrender does not reduce the net emissions number for the facility for the period by:

(i) in the first year of operation of Division 4A of Part 3H—more than 90%; and

(ii) in each subsequent year of operation of that Division—more than 90% minus 10% per year of operation; and

(5) Schedule 1, item 31, page 8 (after line 33), after subsection 22XN(1), insert:

(1AA) An Australian carbon credit unit may only be surrendered by a person under subsection (1) for the purpose of reducing the net emissions number for a facility for a period if the person has no, or has no more, safeguard mechanism credit units that could be surrendered for that purpose.

As a guiding principle, the safeguard mechanism must ensure that emissions from the biggest emitters in the country have peaked. My amendments insert that into the objects of the act, identifying that aggregate covered emissions from the operations of designated large facilities decline. It's really important, when we know where we are at in terms of global emissions and Australian emissions, that we make clear that it is time for emissions to reduce. We have had warning after warning, including the latest report from the UN IPCC relating to global temperature estimates and where we are tracking, and we need to make sure that those large facilities understand that from here on in their emissions must reduce. There is understanding and there is flexibility in this system, but there is a line in the sand as well to say that it is time to reduce. For too long they have been left with this wide, broad discretion to continue with business as usual despite all the warnings. So it is incredibly important that, as this amendment makes very clear, now in practice gross emissions must decline to 2030 for large facilities.

Any increases in production must be done more efficiently, so this is not a cap on productivity, but this is a cap on wasteful productivity or productivity ignoring all of the issues and the warnings around emissions and global warming. This is saying that productivity must be done at best practice. It must be done more efficiently. Any new entrants must display lower-emitting facilities or come in at net-zero.

Amendment (1) inserts a new object that aggregate covered emissions—that is, gross emissions—must decline. Complementing that is amendment (5), which prioritises the use of safeguard mechanism credits before the use of Australian carbon credit units. The safeguard mechanism credits are generated within the safeguard mechanism. These will be real abatement. These are important. If there is a hierarchy and priority around abatement, it must be first on-site, real abatement and then turn towards credits.

We know safeguard mechanism credits are generated within the safeguard mechanism. They represent facilities reducing emissions by more than the mandated emissions reductions set by the government. This is good. We want to incentivise this. They represent genuine abatement of emissions from within the safeguard facilities and they should be used first before other offsets through the Australian carbon credit market. Australian carbon credit units are generated outside the safeguard facilities, and these represent a greater diversity of reductions or sequestration techniques that are less directly attributable to these facilities covered under the mechanism and that make it harder for all facilities to demonstrate a reduction in gross emissions.

We also need to have the discussion about caps on offsets. I believe that, for existing facilities, there should be a cap on the use of Australian carbon credit units to offset emissions. Amendment (4) limits the use of offsets to a maximum of 90 per cent in the first year of the scheme, decreasing by 10 per cent per year thereafter. Again, this is consistent with the goal of reducing gross emissions for facilities covered, forcing investment in improving the carbon efficiency of production and genuine abatement. We need to think about carbon from a circular economy standpoint, manage the impact of carbon currently in the system and keep the carbon stored deep underground and fossil fuels in place.

My second tranche of amendments are with respect to methane. We must deal with methane. It is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas, being some 26 to 28 times more effective at trapping heat over the life of the methane, and up to 80 times more dangerous in the first 20 years. To that end, the safeguard mechanism must enact global best practice in understanding our methane emissions, be more transparent in reporting them and set limits on the amount of methane that can be emitted by facilities. The amendments seek to implement current global best practice on monitoring, reporting and verifying methane emissions. They also establish best practice standards for methane emissions from gas and coalmines, specifically requiring new oil and gas facilities entering the safeguard scheme to meet a methane intensity target of at least 0.2 per cent within two years and requiring new coal facilities entering the scheme to keep emissions very low. I urge the minister to consider these amendments.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated when I closed the debate, the government won't be accepting or supporting any crossbench amendments at this time. I thank all honourable members on the crossbench for their engagement and their many meetings with me over recent weeks. Several of the things that the honourable member for Warringah has put forward will be covered by very similar amendments in the Senate. Not all of them will be covered, but several will be. In the interest of clarity, we'll process those through the other house and not this House. Accordingly, we won't be supporting any amendments moved by the crossbench today. I do respect the integrity and the intent behind many of them. Not all of them we would agree with, but many are reflected in amendments that will be moved in the Senate. I understand my office has already offered honourable members on the crossbench a briefing this afternoon, which I look forward to facilitating for honourable members. The government will be proceeding on that basis.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 30), after item 21, insert:

21A Before section 22XE

Insert:

22XDA Emissions target

(1) During the period beginning on 1 July 2020 and ending on 30 June 2030, the total net emissions from the operation of all facilities to which this Part applies must be no more than 1,233 million tonnes CO2-e.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the net emissions from the operation of a facility during a period is the amount of covered emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of the facility during the period reduced by the amount by which those emissions have been offset (by the surrender of prescribed carbon units) under this Part.

(2) Schedule 4, page 49 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:

6 Aft er section 150A

Insert:

150B Price of Australian carbon credit units not to be capped

Despite anything in this Act, or in any other law of the Commonwealth, there is no cap on the price at which Australian carbon credit units may be purchased by a person who is the operator of a facility to which Part 3H of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 applies.

Thank you to the minister for the very constructive conversation that we have had over a number of weeks and months around the safeguard mechanism, and for the reports that we have had in terms of the stronger amendments that are likely to be passed in the other place. However, if we want strong action on climate change, getting the safeguard mechanism reforms right is imperative. My job is to ensure that those changes necessary to the legislation are put forward.

This scheme covers only 215 facilities in a country of nearly 26 million people. But, combined, these polluters account for nearly a third of our carbon emissions, and around 40 per cent of this comes from just 12 fossil fuel companies. These facilities have been told they must do a proportional share of the national emissions reduction task. That is only fair. Our biggest polluters must pull their weight in helping us achieve a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. But the path to even this modest target is a narrow one. Modelling released by RepuTex earlier this month showed that even relatively small changes in the production of fossil fuels could blow out the proposed emissions budget for the safeguard. If the government's estimates of emissions from just 16 well-advanced new coal and gas projects are even slightly out, we could see the budget blown by 35 million tonnes. That's equivalent to the annual emissions of 1.6 million Australians. We cannot take this risk, and so we need a legislative guardrail. That's why I am moving my amendment No.1 to legislate the emissions budget at a maximum of 1,233 million tonnes over the next decade of net emissions. This will lock in at least 205 million tonnes of abatement in line with the government's target. My amendment will provide legislative certainty of our decarbonisation path, in the very same way that this House provided legislative certainty for our 2030 and 2050 targets when we passed the Climate Change Bill 2022. It is consistent with the intention of the scheme, it is consistent with the government's policy, and it is consistent with stronger action on climate. I urge the government to accept this amendment.

My second amendment also covers the government's current decision to allow safeguard facilities to have unlimited access to offsets and to cap the price of these offsets at $75 in the first year. Nobody is saying that offsets do not have a role to play in climate policy, but the science is clear: they are no substitute for genuine emissions reduction. So they must be used as a last resort at least to accommodate the small number of sectors where it's particularly hard to reduce emissions in the short term, as the price of offsets must reflect the true cost of carbon and not some discounted rate that has been agreed with the mining lobby. The government's $75 price cap is well below the carbon price in Europe, which is currently around $150. And it's well below estimates of the carbon price needed for a 1.5 degree world, which exceed $150. It's even below the carbon price that the New South Wales Treasury recommends be used for evaluating the costs and benefits of different projects in my home state. By capping the price at $75, the government may have significantly weakened incentives for decarbonisation when instead we need to encourage businesses to invest in the technologies of the future. They may have also created a future liability for the taxpayer, who will need to subsidise safeguard facilities, purchasers of offsets, if the market price in future exceeds the government cap.

I understand that both major parties have been resistant to putting a price on carbon, and that this has been the key reason for a decade of climate policy failure. The government has raised with me several justifications for a price cap, including the need to provide certainty to business and to ensure that ACCU markets are not subject to speculation. But on closer inspection, these explanations don't stack up. Over the past few months, I have spoken to people from across the business and investor communities, many of whom have internal carbon prices in place and all of whom have access to projections of its future trajectory. I have also spoken with many participants in the carbon market, none of whom have raised major concerns about speculation. The real risk is not speculation; it's that this price cap slows the pace of carbon emission reduction. And so we need to see change; my amendments remove the price caps on offsets so that the true cost of carbon is reflected in investment decision-making and so that our biggest emitters can't just continue to pollute on the cheap. We can't offset our way out of this climate crisis, and so I urge the government to adopt these amendments.

Finally, I would like to wrap up by thanking the government for its very constructive engagement on this. I hope very much that the reports of what will be passed in the other place about where the safeguard mechanism is going to go are accurate, because this is absolutely critical legislation and we have to get it right—both to reduce emissions and also to ensure that those facilities which are not coal or gas and which can't reduce their emissions in the same way are protected and able to build their businesses for the future.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 15), after item 26, insert:

26A At the end of paragraph 22XJ(1)(b)

Add:

but does not exceed:

(i) for the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023—100,000 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalence; or

(ii) for a later financial year—such lower number specified in the safeguard rules for the year, which must decrease over time to no more than 25,000 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalence by 2035.

(2) Schedule 1, page 7 (before line 16), before item 27, insert:

26B At the end of section 22XJ

Add:

(3) Despite subsection (1), if a facility is a designated large facility for the financial year beginning on 1 July 2022, the facility is a designated large facility for all later financial years, regardless of the total amount of covered emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of the facility during the later financial years.

(3) Schedule 1, page 7 (before line 16), before item 27, insert:

26C At the end of section 22XJ

Add:

(4) For the purposes of this Act, a facility is also a designated large facility if the Regulator declares the facility to be a designated large facility under section 55B.

(4) Schedule 1, page 24 (after line 16), after item 46, insert:

46A At the end of Division 2 of Part 6

Add:

55B Regulator may declare facility to be designated lar ge facility

(1) The Regulator may declare that a facility is a designated large facility on application by the registered corporation that has operational control of the facility.

(2) An application must:

(a) identify the facility for which a declaration is sought; and

(b) include any other information required by the regulations; and

(c) be given in a manner and form approved by the Regulator.

(3) The Regulator must notify, in writing, an applicant under subsection (1) of a decision under subsection (1) to declare that a facility is a designated large facility or to refuse the application.

(5) Schedule 1, page 24 (after line 27), after item 48, insert:

48A After paragraph 56(ib)

Insert:

(ic) refuse an application under section 55B;

(6) Schedule 4, item 1, page 49 (before line 6), before subsection 20C(3), insert:

(2A) The Regulator must not enter into a carbon abatement contract under section 20B if the carbon abatement contractor for the contract is a project proponent for an eligible offsets project that involves carbon abatement of emissions from a fossil fuel facility (including, but not limited to, a coal, oil or gas facility) that:

(a) commences operations on or after 1 July 2023; or

(b) is expanded or extended on or after 1 July 2023.

The amendments I'm moving today to the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 do two things to address some of the shortfalls in the bill. Whilst I'm grateful for the engagement with the minister and his staff to improve this bill, I need to be really clear that, in its current form, the safeguard mechanism bill continues to leave my community unconvinced that this government is truly prepared to do what we must to transition our economy rapidly. This bill is not bold enough and, as it leaves this House, it is not ambitious enough. And, while this House has been given assurances that positive changes will be made in the Senate, that leaves us here with no clear line of sight on the final shape of this legislation when it returns to the House from the other place.

Never has a government had such a clear mandate to take faster action on climate. The truth is that this government and this parliament can reshape our country's future but the government must be prepared to do that in both houses of parliament. To do that, we must be prepared to lead ambitiously and bravely, and to break a cycle that has seen many climate and energy decisions over the past three decades made just on the basis of legislating for the term rather than fundamentally investing in and shifting our economy. The amendments I'm moving today would do two things to drive climate ambition. Firstly, they would prevent new or expanding fossil fuel projects from accessing government funding to pursue abatement, and, secondly, they would bring more polluters into the mechanism over time.

On my proposal for an amendment to the Powering the Regions Fund: the government has announced it will support the decarbonisation of existing industries and create a new clean energy industry through the $1.9 billion Powering the Regions Fund. While there are many examples of industries that will undoubtedly need this support and are much wanted in our economy, including green cement and green steel, there are also emissions-intensive trade exposed facilities, including many fossil fuel extraction projects, that arguably will be less desirable in our future economy. The safeguard transformation stream within the Powering the Regions Fund should explicitly state that it is not available to new fossil fuel projects or the expansion of existing licences, with this legislation instead doing everything it can to ensure these projects all find their way to net zero as soon as possible.

Secondly, to my amendments on expanding the coverage of the scheme: I note that, whilst there has been a lot of discussion around overall emissions reduction targets, the pathway to achieving the net zero goal remains unarticulated. To address this, and in line with previous recommendations by the Climate Change Authority, I propose the government legislate to progressively lower the coverage threshold for the safeguard mechanism from the current 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions to 25,000 tonnes. The ratcheting down over time would send a strong investment signal and set a clear trajectory to net zero for industry.

Working alongside the reduction in the threshold, the bill should also incentivise a broader section of the industry to reduce their direct emissions, by allowing them to opt in to the scheme and, thus, opt in to generating safeguard mechanism credits. This opt-in stream would have the dual benefits of increasing the number of polluters who will reduce their pollution whilst also increasing the supply of SMCs so those in the harder to abate sectors will have access to a larger number of higher quality SMCs from within the safeguard mechanism.

Then, to enhance the anti-avoidance measures outlined by the minister, the bill should be amended to stipulate that facilities which are covered by the mechanism at the commencement of the act will remain covered even if they reduce their emissions below 10,000 tonnes. Together, these measures would ensure genuine emissions abatement and reduction by the broader section of large emitters.

Mr Speaker, the fact remains that, as legislation moves through this House, we need to be assured that when it returns it will come in a form such that we can stand and say we proudly represented our communities' voices in its creation. I am very mindful that as this legislation leaves the House of Representatives my community's ambitions are not being met. That puts me in a very difficult situation. I am grateful for the engagement with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and his team, but the reality is that this legislation could be stronger. I urge the government to ensure that any piece of legislation that leaves this House is as strong as it can possibly be before it even gets to the Senate, rather than asking us in this House to continue to rely on amendments which we have no line of sight on or control over being moved in the Senate.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 10), after the definition of issue, insert:

new fossil fuel facility has the meaning given by section 22XJA.

(2) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 30), after item 21, insert:

21A After subsection 22XE(2)

Insert:

(2A) An exemption declaration must not be made in relation to a new fossil fuel facility.

(3) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 15), after item 26, insert:

26A At the end of Division 2 of Part 3H

Add:

22X FA Limit on net emissions for new fossil fuel facilities

If:

(a) a person is or was the responsible emitter for a facility; and

(b) the facility is a new fossil fuel facility for all, or part, of a financial year;

the person must ensure that the net amount of covered emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of the facility during the financial year does not exceed zero.

Civil penalty: The number of penalty units that is equal to the amount (in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence) by which the net amount of covered emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of the facility during the financial year exceeds zero.

26B Af ter section 22XJ

Insert:

22XJA New fossil fuel facility

(1) For the purposes of this Act, 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 calculated-emissions baseline determination has never been made in relation to the facility under the safeguard rules; 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.

(4) Schedule 1, item 67, page 30 (after line 16), after subitem (3), insert:

(3A) Section 22XFA of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, as added by Part 1 of this Schedule, applies in relation to the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023 and later financial years.

(3B) Section 22XJA of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, as inserted by Part 1 of this Schedule, applies in relation to the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023 and later financial years.

(5) Schedule 4, page 49 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:

6 After section 259

Insert:

259A Appointment process

(1) This section applies to the following appointments:

(a) the appointment of a person to be an Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee member under section 257;

(b) the appointment of a person to act as the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, or as an Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee member, under section 259 if:

(i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or

(ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more.

(2) An appointment must not be made unless:

(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:

(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and

(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and

(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and

(b) the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates.

(3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed to be:

(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or

(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.

(4) In this section:

former judge means:

(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or

(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or

(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.

Clean Energy Regulator Act 2011

7 At the end of Division 2 of Part 2

Add:

20A Appointment process

(1) This section applies to the following appointments:

(a) the appointment of a person to be a member of the Regulator under section 18;

(b) the appointment of a person to act as the Chair of the Regulator, or as a member of the Regulator, under section 20 if:

(i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or

(ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more.

(2) An appointment must not be made unless:

(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:

(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and

(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and

(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and

(b) the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates.

(3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed to be:

(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or

(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.

(4) In this section:

former judge means:

(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or

(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or

(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.

Climate Change Authority Act 2011

8 Before section 57

Insert:

56 Appointment process

(1) This section applies to the following appointments:

(a) the appointment of a person to be an Authority member under section 18;

(b) the appointment of a person to act as the Chair of the Authority, or as an Authority member, under section 20 if:

(i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or

(ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more;

(c) the appointment of a person to be an associate Authority member under section 22;

(d) the appointment of a person to act as an associate Authority member under section 24 if:

(i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or

(ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more;

(e) the appointment of a person to be the CEO under section 43;

(f) the appointment of a person to act as the CEO under section 44 if:

(i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or

(ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more.

(2) An appointment must not be made unless:

(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:

(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and

(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and

(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and

(b) the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates.

(3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Climate Change Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed to be:

(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or

(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.

(4) In this section:

former judge means:

(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or

(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or

(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.

9 Application provision

The amendments made by items 6, 7 and 8 of this Schedule apply in relation to an appointment that is made on or after the commencement of this item.

I would also like to thank the Minister for Climate Change and Energy for his very constructive engagement and communication about this bill.

My first amendment aims to introduce integrity into the selection process for major appointments to climate related Commonwealth bodies. Earlier this month I introduced a private member's bill called the Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2023—my 'ending jobs for mates' bill. That bill is currently before the House and is about restoring integrity and trust in politics. Australians deserve to be able to trust the institutions which underpin our democracy, so it is crucial that the appointment process for important public positions be not only based on expertise but also transparent and free from undue political interference. My bill sets out a process to achieve just that.

The climate sector has not been immune from questionable appointments to major positions, not by a long shot. The current chair of the Climate Change Authority—the authority tasked with providing expert advice to the Australian government on our response to climate change—is a former fossil fuel executive. How can such an appointment not inherently bias the advice of that authority? So in line with my campaign to end the jobs for mates culture in Canberra I am moving amendments to this safeguarding mechanism legislation to introduce a straightforward and independent selection process for appointments to the Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Regulator and the currently called emissions reduction assurance committee.

We must be able to trust decisions and the advice flowing from these critical bodies on this most critical of issues at this most critical of times. Currently, the ties between the government and the fossil fuel industry and their donors and lobbyists and carbon credit training bodies is all a little bit too close. The process I am proposing is simple and will be familiar to all Australians who have ever applied for a job. First is the public advertising of the selection criteria for the position. This is to be followed by an assessment of the applications by an independent selection panel and then the shortlisting of at least three people for the appointment, following which the minister is required to choose a person from that list and only that list. We need experts on these bodies who will provide frank and fearless advice. The appointment process such as this, which is at arm's length from the minister but which also maintains their final discretion, is the only way we can have confidence that the right people with the right expertise are being appointed, not more party-friendly appointments who are more likely to do the bidding of the party or feel obliged to return their favours.

But it is my second amendment which is more important and more urgent. It is urgent and necessary because this safeguard mechanism in its current form does almost nothing to address this country's addiction to fossil fuels, an addiction which the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, has described as a mutually assured destruction, an addiction which the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has repeatedly told us over the last few years must end. This warning was reiterated loud and clear as recently as last week in its latest report, and the message is simple: there must be no new oil, gas or coal projects or expansions if we are to leave a planet that is liveable for future generations. The UN, the International Energy Agency agrees and even the Pope agree. It is clear what needs to be done.

However, there are more than 100 new coal and gas projects in the approvals pipeline. The government has already approved an extension to one of the world's worst polluting project on the planet, the Scarborough gas fields in WA. If all these projects proceed, the government will be doing a major disservice to people of Australia, who voted overwhelmingly at the last election for strong action and leadership on climate change.

My second amendment is this: that all new expanded or extended fossil fuel projects or facilities must be net zero carbon from day one and throughout the life of the facility. Australia's future and the planet's future depend upon us ending our addiction to fossil fuels, so I urge everyone in this House to support these constructive and common-sense amendments.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 21), after item 30, insert:

30A After subsection 22XM(1)

Insert:

(1A) Despite paragraph (1)(a), an Australia carbon credit unit is not a prescribed carbon unit if the Australian carbon credit unit is issued (whether before, on or after the commencement of this subsection) in relation to the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in living biomass, dead organic matter or soils on land that:

(a) was included in an eligible offsets project that was covered by the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) (Human-Induced Regeneration of a Permanent Even-Aged Native Forest1.1) Methodology Determination 2013 on 1 March 2023; and

(b) does not meet the following requirements:

(i) the land sustained forest in the past, which has since been lost as a result of clearing or another event;

(ii) regeneration of forest on the land was prevented by clearing or grazing pressure for at least 10 years before an application under section 22 of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 was made in relation to the project;

(iii) the cessation of clearing or reduction of grazing pressure is necessary for forest to regenerate on the land;

(iv) the land did not have any mature trees or shrubs on it at the time the project commenced.

(1B) For the purposes of paragraph (1A)(b), a reference to forest is a reference to an area of land covering at least 0.2 of a hectare that contains trees that are 2 metres or more in height and provide crown cover of at least 20% of the land, when defined at 0.2 of a hectare scale.

(2) Schedule 1, page 8 (before line 22), before item 31, insert:

30B Before subsection 22XM(2)

Insert:

(1C) Despite paragraph (1)(a), an Australia carbon credit unit is not a prescribed carbon unit if the Australian carbon credit unit is issued (whether before, on or after the commencement of this subsection) in relation to an eligible offsets project involving the destruction of methane using an electricity generator:

(a) that was covered by the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming InitiativeElectricity Generation from Landfill Gas) Methodology Determination 2021, or the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming InitiativeLandfill Gas) Methodology Determination 2015, on 1 March 2023; and

(b) whose baseline abatement proportion is:

(i) for projects that were transitioned from the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme or Greenhouse Friendly schemesless than 50%; and

(ii) for all other projectsless than 40%.

(1D) For the purposes of paragraph (1C)(b), a reference to the baseline abatement proportion is a reference to the proportion of the methane combusted that would have been combusted without the project and that is deducted when calculating the net abatement amount for the project in accordance with the applicable method.

(3) Schedule 1, page 27 (after line 29), after item 61, insert:

61A After section 76B

Insert:

76C Review of operation of safeguard mechanism

(1) The Climate Change Authority must conduct a review of the operation of:

(a) the safeguard provisions; and

(b) legislative instruments under those provisions.

Note: Safeguard provisions is defined in section 7.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider the following:

(a) whether the safeguard mechanism is on target to achieve the 28% emissions reduction sought by 2030;

(b) the initial impacts of resetting and declining baselines, including the costs and availability of domestic offsets;

(c) the appropriate treatment of international units;

(d) the suitability of arrangements for emissions intensive, trade-exposed activities;

(e) whether the cost containment measure is sufficient;

(f) the treatment of flexibility mechanisms (such as banking and borrowing and multi-year monitoring) beyond 2030.

Public consultation

(3) A review under subsection (1) must make provision for public consultation.

Report

(4) The Climate Change Authority must:

(a) give the Minister a report of the review; and

(b) as soon as practicable after giving the report to the Minister, publish the report on the Climate Change Authority's website.

(5) The Minister must cause copies of a report under subsection (4) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the review is completed.

Timing

(6) The review must be completed during the 2025 calendar year.

(7) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6), the review is completed when the report of the review is given to the Minister under subsection (4).

Recommendations

(8) The report of the review may set out recommendations to the Commonwealth Government.

(9) In formulating a recommendation that the Commonwealth Government should take particular action, the Climate Change Authority must analyse the costs and benefits of that action.

(10) Subsection (9) does not prevent the Climate Change Authority from taking other matters into account in formulating a recommendation.

(11) If the report of the review sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government, the report must set out the Climate Change Authority's reasons for those recommendations.

Government response to recommendations

(12) If the report of the review sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government:

(a) as soon as practicable after receiving the report, the Minister must cause to be prepared a statement setting out the Commonwealth Government's response to each of the recommendations; and

(b) within 6 months after receiving the report, the Minister must cause copies of the statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.

(13) The Commonwealth Government's response to the recommendations may have regard to the views of the following:

(a) the Climate Change Authority;

(b) the Regulator;

(c) such other persons as the Minister considers relevant.

All three amendments are about trust, integrity and transparency. The minister used these words in his press conference today, but, I have to be blunt, this iteration of the legislation is not good enough. I accept there will be amendments in the other place, but, once again, this House is being asked to take that on trust. This is neither respectful nor effective. A pat on the head and a 'don't worry about it' is not good enough for either this crossbench or our communities.

The first two of my three amendments have to do with ensuring carbon credits that do not represent additional emissions abatement are not available for use by safeguard facilities. As the minister knows, there is deep-seated concern in the community, including in my electorate of Goldstein, that this legislation will not do the job the government says it's set up to achieve, that these 200-plus big polluters which emit 28 per cent of our total carbon emissions will actually reduce their emissions rather than try to account their way to zero, and that it will be too easy for them to access carbon credits rather than change their ways.

The minister himself commissioned the Chubb review, which made recommendations in relation to human induced regeneration and landfill gas. On landfill gas, Chubb acknowledged that the current baselines afforded to industry are too generous. But the minister believes there is sufficient goodwill in the sector to ensure that the alternative approach proposed by the government will act as sufficient incentive to encourage businesses to get their act together. I presume, and would like a public assurance from the minister in this place, that, if the changes aren't working, new measures will be introduced to make sure they do.

The same goes for human induced regeneration. As the IPCC's recently released Synthesis report clearly shows, we need deep, rapid and sustained reductions in emissions. The human induced regeneration method already has criteria to ensure that the emissions reductions for which ACCUs are issued truly are additional. However, these criteria are not currently being enforced by the Clean Energy Regulator, so projects are being issued with ACCUs in circumstances that are contrary to the law.

The second of my amendments deals with landfill gas. Seventy per cent of ACCUs for landfill gas projects are issued to just 20 sites. These projects are old, large sites using the landfill gas captured to generate electricity, also known as generation based projects. At present, regulation around baselines for the landfill gas method is inadequate. The state of the electricity market means baselines should be highest for the largest projects that still run profitable operations, even without the incentive of ACCUs. They're receiving free money for doing what they would do anyway. I propose that carbon credits issued to large generation based projects be excluded from the legislation except where the baselines are no less than 50 per cent. For smaller projects the baseline minimum would be 40 per cent. We cannot afford for low-integrity offsets to be purchased by Australia's largest polluters. The stakes here are simply too high.

The third of my amendments is intended to ensure the safeguard mechanism is fit for purpose and that changes necessary to do so are made sooner rather than later. The government has said a review will take place in 2026-27. I am proposing to bring forward the time line for review to calendar year 2025. This will bring us closer to making sure we reach our 2030 emissions reduction target. The government will say the Climate Change Authority will be able to provide progress reports on the state of the safeguard mechanism in its annual health checks. I hope that the minister is right and that he will commit to taking remedial action should the authority find that the safeguard mechanism is not working.

As I said at the start, this is about trust, integrity and transparency. I look forward to any assurances the minister is prepared to offer right here, right now. Community trust in leadership is thin, time is short and we have no wriggle room. I commend the amendments to the House.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

(1) Schedule 4, page 49 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:

6 Subsection 125(3)

Before "the Regulator", insert "the Minister determines, under section 127A, or".

7 Subsection 126(3)

Before "the Regulator", insert "the Minister determines, under section 127A, or".

8 Subsection 127(3)

Before "the Regulator", insert "the Minister determines, under section 127A, or".

9 After section 127

Insert:

127A Minister may determine application of methodology determination to a project

(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that a specified methodology determination, or a specified methodology determination as varied under section 114, (the new methodology determination) applies to an eligible offsets project with effect from a specified time.

(2) The Minister must not make a determination under subsection (1) unless:

(a) the Minister has requested, and received, advice from the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee about whether the Minister should make the determination; and

(b) the Minister is satisfied that:

(i) the methodology determination that currently applies to the project is ineffective or inadequate; and

(ii) the project is covered by the new methodology determination.

(3) The time specified in a determination under subsection (1) must be no later than 2 years after the time the determination is made.

(4) As soon as practicable after making a determination under subsection (1) in relation to a project, the Minister must notify the following, in writing, of the making of the determination:

(a) the Regulator;

(b) the project proponent for the project.

(5) As soon as practicable after being notified of the making of a determination under subsection (1) in relation to a project, the Regulator must:

(a) annotate the relevant section 27 declaration to include a reference to the application of the new methodology determination to the project from the specified time; and

(b) give a copy of the annotated declaration to the project proponent for the project.

(2) Schedule 4, page 49 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:

10 After Part 23

Insert:

Part 23A — Injunctions and judicial review

238A Injunctions to restrain contra ventions

(1) If a person has engaged, engages, or proposes to engage in conduct consisting of an act or omission that constitutes an offence or other contravention of:

(a) this Act; or

(b) a legislative instrument under this Act;

any person may apply to the Federal Court for an injunction restraining the first-mentioned person from engaging in the conduct.

(2) If a person has engaged, is engaging, or is proposing to engage in conduct constituting an offence or other contravention of:

(a) this Act; or

(b) a legislative instrument under this Act;

the Court may grant an injunction restraining the person from engaging in the conduct.

238B Extended standing for judicial review

(1) This section extends (and does not limit) the meaning of the term person aggrieved in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for the purposes of the application of that Act in relation to:

(a) a decision made under this Act or a legislative instrument under this Act; or

(b) a failure to make a decision under this Act or a legislative instrument under this Act; or

(c) conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision under this Act or a legislative instrument under this Act.

(2) An individual is taken to be a person aggrieved by the decision, failure or conduct if the individual is an Australian citizen or ordinarily resident in Australia or an external Territory.

(3) An organisation or association (whether incorporated or not) is taken to be a person aggrieved by the decision, failure or conduct if the organisation or association is incorporated, or was otherwise established, in Australia or an external Territory.

(4) A term (except person aggrieved) used in this section and in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 has the same meaning in this section as it has in that Act.

I move these two amendments in the hope of improving this critical piece of legislation. I thank the minister for his constructive discussions in recent months but I believe this bill could be further improved in order to improve its methodology and its integrity. As we saw this week in the IPCC synthesis report, to avoid a climate catastrophe every country has to fast-track its climate efforts in every sector and on every time frame. In Australia, we must make our safeguard mechanism as good as it can possibly be as soon as possible.

My first amendment deals with changes in methodology determinations for offset projects. At present, under the carbon farming initiative act, a given method is applied to an offset project for the life of the crediting period. It's generally seven years under the Emissions Reduction Fund but that period can be extended. The original reason for setting the method for the life of the project was to give certainty to scheme participants, but the inflexibility of this arrangement has now been recognised as a risk to the integrity of the market by both the Climate Change Authority and the King review. Offsetting methods need to be able to change and to evolve over time. They need to reflect changes in estimation techniques, changes in technology and practices and developments in the science underpinning abatement. A solution that strikes a balance between certainty for scheme participants and flexibility for the government is needed.

To that end, I have based this amendment on a recommendation in the King review. My amendment confirms the minister's power to make a methodology determination in relation to a particular project if the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, upon the minister's request, has advised the minister to do so, and if the minister is satisfied that a new methodology should be used. It then requires participants to transition onto a new method within two years of a method being varied. I urge the minister to assume this important responsibility, to assume the ability to intervene if it is sufficiently justified, to improve the integrity of this system.

My second amendment gives power to a third party to apply for an injunction if a party engages in a contravention of the act. In the past, these actions have been brought by individuals seeking to enforce, say, the due diligence of financial disclosure of requirements, but they have often failed, in part because of the lack of standing of the applicant. Open standing is an important concept. It should be made explicit in this act, such that, rather than an applicant having to establish a particular or a special interest in a matter, applicants are given standing to pursue an action. My amendment seeks to assure that standing. My amendment also extends the definition of a person aggrieved by any decisions or failures under the act, so as to include Australian citizens or those ordinarily resident in Australia or an external territory, such that those persons can seek to have judicial review of administrative decisions made under the act.

We know that this litigation alone doesn't provide an adequate basis for bringing about broad policy change. It is a suboptimal tool, but it is a tool which can be useful in bringing about changes in decision-making processes for industry and individuals. It could help in the push for major emitters to reduce their emissions. It could push this government to exercise its oversight functions. How we set-up the safeguard mechanism will determine the success or failure of our efforts to reach our 2030 and 2035 targets. Getting the safeguard mechanism right and robust is crucial for this country. We need to effect the changes that we need to see.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be disagreed.

Question agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.