Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I might just recap the risks that we have determined on this legislation that we're essentially going be asking the Australian people to support by default here in the federal parliament. For a start, as I went through yesterday with the new UN report released yesterday, more than 80 per cent of carbon capture and storage projects around the world have failed. We risk greenlighting—gaslighting, perhaps—a new so-called solution to reducing emissions that we know just hasn't worked or hasn't been proven effective anywhere around the world. This, of course, is going to make a difference when companies are applying for new fossil fuel development. We know this legislation we are debating here today has already been nicknamed the 'Santos amendment'. I have heard it called the 'Barossa amendment' as well, but let's be honest: it's all about facilitating the Santos project.

So the first risk is that this is a massive greenwashing opportunity for the fossil fuel industry. The second risk is the risk that we put on our oceans: the risk from reservoirs that leak, the risk from seismic activity causing earthquakes and consequent damage to marine ecosystems, and, of course, the risk from seismic testing. Based on what I've determined—and any senator can find this out for themselves—carbon capture and storage in the ocean is going to lead to a storm of seismic blasting in the decades to come. That is a highly dangerous and destructive activity that will risk our precious marine life and our commercial fisheries.

As we discussed this morning, these relate directly to the Greens amendments, to the risk of this just being a giant scam for the fossil fuel industry in this country, who want to avoid their billions of dollars in liability to decommission their oil and gas fields. On that basis the government are looking to get support for a bill, and they expect the Greens to support this bill for an industry that is going to risk our planet by developing new massive fossil fuel carbon bombs which will continue to heat the planet. Senator McAllister has throughout her contributions talked in detail about the government's commitments to net zero by 2050. I highlight what I highlighted yesterday and the day before in the Code Blue report released by the Climate Council about our oceans and the impacts of climate change. I urge all senators to read this report and the detail in it. The last point in the report says:

Urgent action is needed to protect our oceans and limit warming, starting with rapidly phasing out coal, oil and gas.

Here is the crunch:

Australia must aim to reduce emissions by 75 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and reach net zero by 2035.

So let's acknowledge that the climate targets this government has legislated are not going to do the job. Forty-three per cent emissions reduction is not good enough. It needs to be nearly double that amount, and net zero by 2050 is not even close to what is required. This is what the science is telling us. I note that the government have said in response to UNESCO's World Heritage committee on the Great Barrier Reef's monitoring report that they are going to do more. They accept that a 43 per cent target equates to two degrees of warming but they will do better than that. Well, how are we doing better than that when we are introducing legislation deliberately designed to facilitate a massive fossil fuel project? For those who may be listening to the debate, how do I know that that is the case? I have read several times this week the direct quotes of Mr Chris Bowen, our climate change minister, to the media specifically saying this is special legislation designed to facilitate the Barossa gas project. So we know that. It is beyond doubt. The Greens are standing in here to make sure that we do everything we can to support the millions of people who voted for climate action and to make sure the government understand they are not going to get away with sweeping this under the carpet.

In her contribution earlier Senator Smith said Senator McAllister should get a T-shirt that says, 'I have answered that 15 times already.' I might suggest a slightly different T-shirt. That says, 'I did not answer the question 15 times.' I do accept that it is an art in this place. I can do better and my colleagues can do better at trying to ask the same question in 15 different ways to get an answer. We have had a bit of experience, Senator Hanson-Young and I, but we still sometimes struggle with getting an answer, and we have not got an answer on the specific point as to whether the comments made by Mr Bowen relate to this bill. We know they do, but it would be good to get the government to acknowledge that. While Mr Bowen negotiated in good faith with the Greens and we secured important amendments for the safeguard mechanism, this is clearly another negotiation he has undertaken to help companies get around their commitments and around paying that money upfront.

I just want to finish where I started in this contribution—by saying that this is a risky bill. Why would we support it? I want to highlight who will benefit from this bill. Of course it's going to be oil and gas companies. Who else benefits from this except oil and gas companies? Let me give you a list of a couple of companies that will benefit from it and how they benefit the Australian people in the tax they pay. This has been compiled by the Australia Institute, and it's the fossil fuel companies that paid no tax in financial year 2021-22. ExxonMobil Australia, on a total income of $15.5 billion, paid zero tax. This is corporate tax I'm referring to, by the way, not petroleum resource rent tax. AGL Energy, on income of $15.461 billion, paid zero tax. Australia Pacific LNG Pty Ltd, on $9.3 billion in income, paid zero tax. Shell Energy Holdings Australia, on $8.9 billion of income, paid zero tax. Ichthys LNG Pty Ltd, on $7.2 billion of income, paid zero tax. Yancoal Australia Pty Ltd, on income of $5.7 billion, paid zero tax. EnergyAustralia Holdings Ltd, on $5.5 billion of income, paid zero tax. Santos—and remember that this is the 'Santos amendment' we are about to pass through the Senate—on $4.746 billion of income paid zero tax to the Australian people. INPEX Holdings Australia Pty Ltd, on income of $4.4 billion, paid zero tax. They are one of the partners in the Darwin LNG complex and one of the companies that's been complaining to our government about this regulatory framework that they want to see changed so they can facilitate the Barossa project.

I ask senators to consider. We don't have time for a debate here today about multinational tax cooperation. I know we've all worked on that over many years. But I ask you consider: why would we pass a bill that is risking climate action, our oceans and the communities and cultural values of our First Nations people—that is risking letting big oil and gas companies get out of even more liabilities that they need to pay to decommission their wells—for companies that pay no tax to the Australian people? I think it's a very fair question, and I really wonder what Australian people would think. Would they say, 'Why are you prioritising this bill when there are so many other things you should be doing?' I think it's a fair question.