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

Senator Whish-Wilson, thanks for this question, which you've asked on a number of occasions. I note too that the previous contributions from Senator Rice and Senator Faruqi did not conclude with questions. They just reiterated a range of matters that were canvassed in their second reading speeches. While I'm grateful for colleagues' perspectives on the broad suite of climate policies that the Australian government has in place, I am not certain that the contributions that are being made are any longer directly relevant to the bill before us. Senator Whish-Wilson, you've asked why this legislation requires the attention of the Senate at this time. I can only reiterate the position I put to you previously. I don't wish to comment negatively on this, but I will stop referring to the senator, because he's left the chamber.

For the benefit of the chamber, I can indicate again the reasons that the government is bringing forward this bill. This is a bill that arises from amendments that were made to an international protocol to which we are a signatory. That protocol, in its general terms, seeks to protect the marine environment by establishing shared norms for how we treat that shared ocean resource. In 2009, an amendment was made to that protocol to make it clear how parties would handle the circumstances where a proponent sought to move carbon dioxide from one jurisdiction to another. In 2020, under the previous government, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommended that those amendments be ratified by Australia. The legislation to respond to that recommendation was initiated under the previous government and is being progressed now.

A number of contributions have falsely asserted that the government's position is that this is unconnected to our climate change policies overall or that we seek to obscure the connection. Actually, the opposite is true. We have put in place a safeguard mechanism that puts in place binding obligations in relation to the emissions from large projects—those projects which exceed an annual threshold for emissions. We recognise that, amongst the many pathways that those businesses and projects may have to reduce their emissions, carbon capture and storage is potentially one. If that's the case, it makes sense that there ought to be the most robust set of arrangements possible to ensure that any such project meets stringent environmental standards. Those standards are in place for projects that take place in Australian waters, but, because of Australia's failure to date to ratify these amendments to the London protocol, they're not in place for any project that involves the transport and movement of carbon dioxide. It's for that reason that the bill is being brought forward. It is part of a broader suite of measures to ensure that we have appropriate regulatory arrangements in place for carbon capture and storage.

Senator Whish-Wilson, at different times throughout the debate, has pointed to uncertainties about the success, or the potential success, of these projects in sequestering carbon dioxide in geological formations. I think the point to make is that proponents are responsible for ensuring they are successful and, if these projects don't work, the liabilities associated with the carbon remain with those projects. The government is asserting not that this is the best way forward for proponents to reduce their emissions but simply that, if this is a choice made by proponents, there should be a regulatory arrangement in place that facilitates it.

This debate, as I've pointed out previously, has been going for some time. There are amendments before the chair. The contributions over the last hour, for the most part, have not gone to those amendments, and I think it's appropriate now the Senate have the opportunity to make its view known about the amendments. I move:

That the question be now put.