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

Thanks, Senator Pocock. I think there is an underlying false choice in the proposition that you have put in your speech. Senator Pocock, since people were being nice about me earlier, I will say also that I recognise that this is an area of sincere interest for you and many other senators in this chamber. It should be, because we are in the critical decade and, if we don't get it right between now and 2030, we'll face some very significant challenges in the decades ahead. It's for that reason that we have come to government with an absolute determination to decarbonise our economy.

The false dichotomy I referred to just now is this one. It is just not right to say that a rapid transition to renewables and the use of CCS are mutually exclusive. I would accept your argument if the policy position of the government was to rely exclusively on CCS, but that's not the policy position of the government. In fact, over the period we have been in office, we have taken a range of steps to reduce our emissions in a range of sectors, using a range of different technologies and tools. It starts with enhancing our near-term ambition and legislating both our 2030 and our 2050 targets. It includes the public investments that we are making in the infrastructure to enable significantly greater renewables in our own electricity system. It includes the steps that we are taking to facilitate electric vehicles and their use in this country and to make Australia an attractive destination for the countries that are producing electric vehicles, including, incidentally, some of the countries with whom we do the greatest trade in energy. It includes the development of a robust framework for the land sector so that the sequestration possibilities that are present in nature based solutions and in biodiversity can be realised.

That is actually not the whole of the government's climate agenda, because it would probably take too long to go through that and it would not really be reasonable to labour the Senate with that. But the point I am making to you is that this is a very challenging period for humanity and it's a challenging period for governments, but we have to tackle it. To do so, we will need every tool at our disposal.

We have placed limits on the largest polluters in our national borders and we have asked them to develop the technological solutions that will help them keep to those limits. It may be that some proponents choose to use CCS as a response to those constraints. If they do so, they should, I think you would agree, do so in a well-regulated environment. That's what this bill seeks to contribute to, along with the other steps that we are taking to strengthen the regulatory arrangements around the CCS projects that may take place in Australian waters. But it has this constraint on it. It needs to stack up commercially for the proponents. They need to make decisions about which technologies are going to work for them as they make their transition towards net zero.

I understand why senators would like to have the widest possible debate about our path to net zero and the widest possible debate about climate change.

But I do draw senators' attention to the actual content of the bill before them. It is a bill that seeks to ratify an international convention that exists to create a standardised approach between countries about how we'll manage a shared ocean resource. As part of that protocol, it seeks to establish the arrangements that will be put in place where there is a transborder movement of carbon dioxide. I personally would prefer the transborder movements of carbon dioxide to be regulated if they are going to occur, and it's on that basis that I do sincerely support the legislation that's before us.

I thank senators for their contributions to date. I don't labour under any delusion that we are about to finish any time soon, but I say this: these things aren't mutually exclusive. Of course we have to pay attention to renewables. Of course we have to work on increasing the uptake and the availability of electric vehicles. Of course we have to work on the land sector. Of course we have to work on the technologies that will support our heaviest industries. While we do it, incidentally, we should pay attention to all of the communities around the country that are absolutely dependent on us getting this transition right so that we can create sustainable, secure jobs that keep people healthy and happy as we head towards 2050. There are heaps of opportunities there, and we're determined to grasp them. The idea that passing this bill will stop any of those other things from happening is simply wrong.