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

I have indicated to the Senate already that the purpose of this bill is to establish a regulatory framework that would operate in the event that a proponent sought to establish arrangements for the trans-border movement of carbon dioxide.

I've also indicated that, from the Australian government's perspective, projects of this kind will need to stand on their own two feet commercially. If a proponent in Australia seeks to establish a project in the territories of another country, we would, of course, seek to establish a regulatory regime that was effective and appropriate and consistent with our international obligations, and this bill does that. Similarly, if a proponent sought to establish a storage project in Australian territories, and it was intended that the storage would require the transport or movement of carbon dioxide, of course we'd want a regulatory arrangement that supported that appropriately and was consistent with our international obligations. This bill sets up the framework to do that.

As I sought to explain to the Senate in earlier parts of the debate, this bill is not the end of the story in taking decisions of this kind. In fact, it is far from it. It simply establishes the baseline framework that describes the regulatory steps that would then need to be taken for any project to proceed. I'm inclined at this point in the debate to step through how that actually works, because I do feel that some of the questions that have been posed to date, perhaps understandably, don't really respond to this aspect of the legislation that is in front of us.

Before the importation or exportation of CO2 for sequestration could occur, there are a range of things that would need to happen. The first is that this legislation would need to be passed to implement the amendments that were made in 2009 to the London protocol. Once these amendments were passed to our sea-dumping act, to finalise the ratification process we would need to submit official documents to the International Maritime Organization. That would include an instrument of ratification and a declaration of provisional application for the 2009 amendment. Australia would then be in a position to establish a regulatory permitting and approval process under the sea-dumping act to allow projects to proceed. As part of our obligations under the London protocol, we would require CCS projects to demonstrate how they would mitigate any environmental impacts or risks by addressing, at a minimum, key areas: the criteria for carbon capture and storage site selection; an assessment of the environmental impact at selected sites; an assessment of the risk of leakage and appropriate response and mitigation strategies; and requirements for long-term site monitoring, reporting and accountability.

After that, should there be an application from a particular project, before any permit could be issued to any particular project, a bilateral instrument and agreement or arrangement would need to be in place between the two countries, even if that country is not a member of the London protocol. The receiving country must be supportive of accepting any carbon dioxide for sub-seabed sequestration, and they would need to have the necessary regulatory and legal frameworks to manage the monitoring, compliance and verification of CO2 being stored deep under the seabed. It is only after all of those things have taken place that a proponent could apply to the regulator for a permit. I lay that out now because I think an assumption was being made in some of the contributions that this first step represents the entirety of the regulatory arrangements that would be required before any of these projects could proceed.