Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

The coalition welcomes the introduction of this bill for reasons I'll outline to the chamber now. The legislation we're debating is aimed at giving expression to two sets of amendments that were made a number of years ago now to the London protocol. In our view, these are each necessary and well-intentioned changes. If the bill passes then it's likely to provide Australia with improved flexibility and an opportunity in relation to the import and export of carbon dioxide streams and the rapidly emerging field of marine geoengineering. In turn, these changes would be likely to enhance Australia's capacity—and, indeed, the capacity of other nations—to manage carbon emissions, which is something that is quite essential these days, as we all know and accept.

For background, along with the London convention, the London protocol is an international treaty that's aimed at protecting the world's marine environments from the dumping of wastes and other hazardous matter. Australia was an early adopter, being a relatively early signatory to both instruments. As a nation, we signed up to the London convention with effect from 1985—10 years after it first came into force internationally. We became a party to the London protocol in the same year as it came into force globally—in the year 2006. Generally speaking, both instruments have worked effectively for Australia and for dozens of other countries around the globe that are also signatories.

Recognising that we live in a reality where we need to be able to both balance the economic imperatives of this nation and protect the environment was key in our thinking in our position on this bill, and it seems reflected in the government's thinking as well. It became apparent that there was a need to modernise the protocol in order to reflect a range of environmental issues and considerations in relation to the use of various emerging technology, such as carbon capture and storage—CCS—carbon capture utilisation and storage—CCUS—and marine geoengineering. This led to agreement on the development of two separate sets of amendments to the protocol in 2009 and in 2013. The 2009 amendments and permits allow the international transfer of carbon dioxide streams between countries for the purposes of placing CCS or CCUS materials into the sub-seabed geological formations. The 2013 amendments, meanwhile, allows for certain wastes and matter to be deposited into a marine area in order to facilitate scientific research through marine geoengineering activities such as ocean fertilisation.

Around the globe, parties to the convention and/or the protocol have taken a considerable amount of time to assess their responses to these amendments. It should be stressed this has not been a reflection of widespread or deeply entrenched resistance to such changes—again, we recognise the fact we live in a reality where we do need to balance the imperatives of the economy and the environment. Instead, it's because countries have wanted to consider all of the many potential implications and effects that they may have. Australia has proudly adopted this painstaking approach too. It's been the sensible and correct path that both coalition and Labor governments have taken over a considerable period of time, along with a great deal of care, to endorse and prepare for such changes. There are many important issues at play here, including, as many environmental groups have pointed out, the need for the vigilant management and regulation of activities related to CCS, CCUS and in particular marine geo-engineering. In turn, work continues to be needed on assessing how Australia can practically extract the best value from each of these forms of endeavour.

In all of these respects the coalition is very appreciative of the work that has been undertaken domestically, in particular by members of each of three sets of committees here in Australia over recent years. These committees are the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, and the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. Inquiries undertaken by each of these committees have elicited valuable information and evidence about the worth and potential environmental impacts and risks of CCS, CCUS and marine geo-engineering. Importantly, they've each concluded on balance, and taking into account the overwhelming majority of evidence presented to them, that the 2009 and 2013 London protocol amendments have the potential to deliver a myriad of benefits to Australia and to other nations, both, again, economically and environmentally. Significantly, those benefits include the very real possibility of substantially lowering carbon emissions, and that point has been expressed by expert witnesses on frequent and repetitive bases.

Given, in particular, all of that context in the background, the coalition will certainly be supporting this bill. We also endorse the general points included in the various recent committee inquiry reports about the need for careful monitoring, management and regulation of the kinds of activities that are the subject of this bill, especially if and when they increase in frequency in relation to Australia. We hope the government will discharge the responsibilities they have in this area sensibly and vigilantly. At a time when certainty for international investors has been stripped away by actions of this government, such as under the safeguard mechanism, anything that improves our standing in this respect is welcome. Therefore, we thank the government for bringing this bill to parliament and we commend the bill to the Senate.