Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank all of the members who have spoken on this bill during this debate. There's been very strong interest in the bill, particularly from the crossbench. I do want to make specific mention of their genuine concern for our environment.

There have been a lot of comments made during the debate on this bill, including on specific projects. I can't comment on specific projects, as a potential decision-maker, but I will say that this bill is not about those projects; this bill is about strictly only implementing agreements that Australia has already signed up to under the London protocol.

I want to really focus the House on the whole title that we're talking about here. This is about environmental protection and using new technologies to fight climate change. It's in response to the London protocol, which is the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. This bill is about setting a regulatory framework to prevent marine pollution. It's about setting the regulatory framework that would prevent marine pollution. Should this bill not be passed, there would be no serious regulatory framework, meaning that operators, researchers and others could look for loopholes and create their own initiatives without any government oversight. This is particularly relevant for marine geoengineering activities which are already occurring and for which greater oversight is needed as they increase in scale. It's the status quo that actually prevents the environmental risk, not the passing of this bill. It's the status quo that risks allowing our oceans to be like a wild west. Without this legislation there would be no processes in place for environmental assessment and approval or, after that, for monitoring and enforcement.

The London protocol is, globally, a very respected piece of international law. It's considered the gold standard—best practice—with rigorous environmental impact assessments that have much broader scope than our current environmental legislation does. So, this bill strengthens legislated protections for our oceans. Despite that, I do acknowledge that the member for Wentworth and others have raised very specific concerns about the timing of these projects in relation to our strengthened environmental laws. I want to reassure the member that our government is working tirelessly to see our new environmental protection and biodiversity conservation laws passed next year and that we look forward to continued engagement on that.

Just to be very clear about the issues the member for Wentworth raised, the reason we're taking our time with the changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is that this is a huge piece of legislative drafting that requires extensive engagement and consultation. I have spent dozens of hours, one on one and in groups, and my department has spent thousands of hours, working through all the recommendations made by Professor Graeme Samuel to improve our environment laws, and we've gone beyond his recommendations in a number of instances. Those draft laws will be available for people as an exposure draft towards the end of the year. You'll have plenty of time—months—to have a look at those draft laws and to give feedback. So, I want to reassure the member for Wentworth on the issues she raised.

I also want to say that following the passage of this legislation to prevent unregulated sea dumping there'll be many years of regulatory drafting and assessment processes before any project could ever be considered. This bill isn't about specific projects. In fact, any carbon capture and storage project of the type that this bill would regulate would not arrive for many years. Our government knows that we need to tackle climate change. We've shown that. We are absolutely committed to our obligations under the Paris Agreement. We know that our resources sector and heavy industry need to decarbonise as quickly as possible. That's why we've legislated our path to net zero and committed to 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 and 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. That's why I have doubled the rate of renewable energy approvals. It's why we've established the safeguard mechanism and, through that mechanism, established a policy framework to deal with emissions, which ensures that every large project fits within our trajectory to net zero.

The amendments in this bill are necessary to ensure that we have a comprehensive regulatory framework that protects our oceans, including things like environmental impact assessments, risk assessments and management frameworks to ensure that best practice is adopted. It is vital that we get this regulation right. But we're not anticipating that any international projects would take effect for many years. It's good public policy to put in place a regulatory system before industries emerge so that we're not playing catch-up after industries have begun to do their work.

What we won't do is what those opposite did. Last October the Minister for Climate and Energy, Minister Bowen, cut a $250 million wasteful public subsidy that had been proposed for commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage. These projects have to stack up on their own accord if they are to proceed.

Just yesterday—sorry; it was Monday at midnight or Tuesday—UNESCO acknowledged the immense progress that our government has made on climate change and the environment. The difference between the previous government and this government was described as 'a bit like night and day'.

I'll finalise my comments by mentioning our Nature Positive Plan. This is something that we remain absolutely committed to. Our response to the Samuel review provides the framework that the new laws I mentioned earlier will be drafted in accordance with. Nothing is higher on my list of priorities for the environment portfolio than getting our legislative framework right, because that will set the direction of our country for years to come and I want that direction to be nature positive.

Before we move to consideration of the bill in detail, I do want to make the general point that we've only just received proposed amendments. We received them yesterday. I haven't had the opportunity to give those amendments proper consideration, so I won't be supporting them. I have asked my department to look at them in detail. I have asked for advice ahead of the bill moving to the other place. Because I've had a day to consider them, I won't be supporting them, but I do want to thank members for their contribution to the debate on this bill. Thank you.

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

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.