Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I note with interest that these amendments refer to significant adverse impact in relation to other users but not in relation to the environment or the community. Why is it confined to sorting out the differences in terms of significant adverse impact on the petroleum and gas industry or on those proponents seeking to inject liquefied CO2? Why is there no requirement to address the significant adverse impacts in relation to what happens to the community—either at the local level, if the gas leaks out, or at the global level, in terms of a state party’s responsibility to meet an agreed treaty target—and who will bear the responsibility to make good? Why is that not there? I concur that it is a good idea to address what the significant adverse impacts are, and that a lot of work has been done on that, but why is it restricted to that and why does it not include the broader common interest position?