Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As a senator for Western Australia and a joint mover of this amendment, I too would like to place on the record my concerns in relation to the nature of the treatment of LNG as an EITE. In discussions that I have had over the last few days with people within the industry, it has been indicated that the proposed package is going to impose a cost upon these industries. I have to say that it is a rather perverse outcome that is actually achieved by the cost that these industries are going to pay. One of the outcomes of this legislation is allegedly to reduce carbon emissions, but what we find in relation to the treatment of LNG is that the scheme as proposed will actually prevent up to 180 million tonnes of CO2 being avoided each year from gas projects that will not go ahead—perverse, to say the very least.

I echo the comments of Senator Cormann, Senator Adams and Senator Eggleston and again ask the minister why it is that the treatment of LNG as an EITE has not been placed in the top tier—the 94.5 per cent category? In addition to that, one of the questions asked by people within the industry is in relation to the proposed definition of ‘activity’ and the fact that it be confined to particular processing stages only. One of the flaws raised in relation to this approach is that it excludes the initial stages of the LNG production activity. In addition to the question that has been asked, can the minister please explain why the ‘activity’ definition is confined merely to the processing stages only?