Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Whilst I am sympathetic to the amendment moved by Senator Milne, as I see it the nub of the points of difference on this bill is the issue of liability. My concern is that if there is unlimited liability we will not get the investment in or commitment to geosequestration in the first place. What we now see is what has been agreed in relation to the government’s original position of simply relying on common-law liability, which was clearly not satisfactory. Common-law principles are valuable, they are all well and good, but I do not believe common law is the appropriate approach when you are looking at a greenhouse gas storage regime that is the first of its type anywhere in the world and which has at its core the issue of liability, which must be dealt with. I think the alternative approach of effectively having a 20-year period of liability and then the reversion of risk to the state, with ministerial discretion to ensure that there are bonds or a contribution from industry to a fund so that if there are problems in the future there are moneys to deal with them, is the preferable one—although I think there will be other amendments that will be dealt with in relation to this.

The issues are to what extent, in the advice from expert committees the minister receives, there is transparency about the sequestration and capping of the material that has been stored, to what extent the minister has the power to require bonds from those who store greenhouse gases for the longer term, beyond the 20-year period that has been proposed, and in what manner the minister will exercise that power. I think they are the key issues that need to be dealt with.

That is my position in relation to this. I think Senator Johnston is absolutely right—this is an issue that we will need to revisit as technology and circumstances change. I see this as only a template which could well be subject to change in years to come.