Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

The conclusions that you arrived at in your very long preamble to the question really don't seem to be responsive to the information that's been provided to you in this stage of the debate. Earlier in the day, you made a series of propositions about the ruinous nature of this legislation. I explained to you at that time that the government considers that the transition to net zero is a challenging one that will require all of the tools available to us in order to minimise emissions of carbon dioxide and equivalent into the atmosphere. That is confirmed by all of the authoritative international information we have about credible pathways to net zero, including the International Energy Agency's assessments and other similar assessments.

I also said to you that the government considers that carbon capture and storage technology will need to stand on its own two feet in its commercial viability. Last year the government took a series of budget decisions to divert subsidies that had been directed towards commercial-scale carbon capture and storage by the previous government towards other government priorities. These are projects that will need to make commercial sense for the proponents.

In the event that a proponent decides that the permanent sequestration of carbon dioxide and the costs associated with that make sense in the context of their project, it is important that there be a regulatory framework in place to manage that.

You asked whether or not Timor-Leste is a party to the London protocol, and I indicated to you that it is not. I can add to my answer—I was actually expecting a follow-up question, so I kept it brief—by explaining to you that, as a contracting party to the London protocol, Australia is required to ensure the same level of requirement for domestic sequestration of carbon dioxide—