Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Climate Change Act that was passed by this Parliament on 8 September lays a crucial foundation for climate action.

We noted at the time that the Climate Change Act was just the beginning.

Since then, continued extreme weather—such as the devastating flood events across such large areas of South East Queensland, NSW and Victoria—has provided a constant reminder of the need for action.

And the global community has restated its commitment to action at Sharm El Sheikh.

The time for action is now.

The Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 is another step to ensure Australia plays its part in global efforts and achieves our legislated targets.

An enhanced Safeguard Mechanism is a crucial building block for Australia's transition to net zero.

It will require Australia's largest industrial facilities to reduce their emissions, gradually and predictably, in line with our national targets.

This puts Australia's industry on a path to net zero, and helps ensure Australian businesses remain competitive as the world decarbonises.

Most Safeguard facilities—around 80%—are owned by companies that have made net zero commitments. These voluntary commitments cover around 86% of emissions reported under the Safeguard Mechanism.

Our reforms will ensure a level-playing field between the majority who are on a path towards net zero, and the minority who have not yet begun this journey.

As the Australian electricity system becomes cleaner and cheaper through the deployment of renewable energy, it is vital that large industrial and resources sectors also reduce their direct emissions covered by the Safeguard Mechanism.

Australian businesses and their investors know the world is changing, and that they need the right signals in place to not just stay competitive, but to innovate and thrive.

This Bill aims to support and encourage large emitters to unlock emissions reductions where they are most efficient.

Some businesses have low-cost abatement opportunities ready to go and could reduce their emissions faster than required by the Safeguard Mechanism.

This Bill incentivises efficient emissions reductions by enabling businesses who are overachieving to be issued tradeable Safeguard Mechanism Credits.

Other businesses with more limited abatement options could buy these credits to help meet their required emissions reductions.

The net emissions of Safeguard facilities, when added together, will reduce each year.

By lowering the cost of reducing emissions, crediting and trading will help Safeguard facilities to contribute to Australia's climate targets in a cost-effective way, and enable increased ambition over time.

This Bill provides that facilities could use Safeguard Mechanism Credits for Safeguard compliance alongside Australian Carbon Credit units.

The Bill establishes the framework for creating Safeguard Mechanism Credits, covering how credits are issued, purchased, and included in Australia's National Registry of Emissions Units.

The idea of crediting safeguard facilities below their baseline is not new, it was a policy proposed and funded by the previous government.

Another policy announced, but not delivered.

Following the passage of this Bill, the Australian Government will make subordinate legislation setting out the detail of how crediting will work in practice. On 10 January 2023 we released drafts of these instruments for consultation.

This Bill updates the objects of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 to reflect these important reforms, and ensures that changes to the subordinate legislation can only be made where they are consistent with these objectives.

This subordinate legislation will implement the detail of reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism to predictably and gradually reduce baselines so that Australian industry contribute its share to meeting the 2030 target on a trajectory to net zero by 2050.

The Government will continue consultation to settle this subordinate legislation.

The Bill will also update and strengthen the compliance arrangements if emissions are more than permitted.

It includes provisions to prevent companies from structuring their facilities to avoid their emission reduction obligations.

The Bill provides a framework which addresses incentive overlaps from declining Safeguard Mechanism baselines, Safeguard crediting and opportunities to create Australian Carbon Credit Units.

To provide scheme settings which respond to stakeholder feedback, the Bill provides for the ability to sell Australian carbon credit units previously purchased by the Government.

The Bill takes important steps to increase transparency of information on offsets projects, a key initial step to implement the recommendations of the Chubb Review.

The Powering Australia plan sends a message that we are determined to harness the opportunities of the net zero revolution.

Australia can and should achieve its climate ambition in a way that minimises costs and shares the effort across the economy.

Reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism will provide strong investment signals, and provide a balanced scheme that is effective, equitable, efficient, and simple.

The Government knows the time for action is now, and action this decade is critical to addressing climate change. 2030 is now only 82 months away.

We must continue to act decisively to meet our climate targets.

The Government is committed to the Safeguard Mechanism reform starting on 1 July 2023. Any delay will just make the future task harder.

This is a tight timeframe, but businesses are well prepared for the change.

They have over a decade's experience measuring their emissions, and most are already charting their own path to net zero. This Bill, and the Safeguard Mechanism reforms it progresses, helps secure and ease that path, expanding options, reducing costs, and enhancing certainty.

The time for action is now; we don't have a second to waste.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a night—from one bill that will have a negative impact on the Australian economy to another! And what a way it has arrived in this place. This legislation, the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, is the subject of a Senate inquiry and, of course, a secret backroom deal where dodgy agreements have been reached in secret with no transparency, and here we are now, at the eleventh hour, dealing with this bill. We'll be sitting late into the night, I expect, to hear contributions from across the chamber.

It's a dodgy deal we should have seen coming. It's one that we should have expected because there is form developing here. This is what the world looks like now. Post the last federal election the Australian Labor Party are relying on the Australian Greens to do business in this country. It's this new power-sharing arrangement, a new coalition, and the end result we are seeing, every step of the way—and I should know; I'm from Tasmania. I've seen what happens when these deals are struck up. It's never good. Just a tip: punters always miss out. Power prices always go up. The cost of living always goes up. It's harder for people to achieve their dreams.

This dodgy deal, as I say, is one we should have seen coming. This dodgy deal between Labor and the Greens is one that's going to drive up power prices and drive industry, and those jobs attached to those businesses, offshore. This dodgy deal won't improve environmental outcomes at all, contrary to some of the assertions. It's actually going to make them worse globally. We are part of the world. We're not just some bubble out off to the side. We actually do contribute to global emissions. When they're offshored, as this bill will drive emissions offshore, this problem simply becomes something elsewhere for someone else to deal with, not for us.

It was most interesting, on the road to where we are today to finally be debating this bill in the Senate, to observe the faux interest in accountability we observed from the Greens. On the way through in the Senate inquiry we heard evidence from various stakeholders who were concerned about the impacts, some who were, of course, supportive of what was before them. This was before any of the secret deals had been hatched between Labor and the Greens. There was this faux interest in accountability. It was about the modelling that underpins this legislation, modelling that the government wasn't going to release to us.

They hid behind this ridiculous claim of public interest immunity—complete contempt for the Senate. It's our right, as senators, to see this information, to understand what it is we're voting on, to make sure we're apprised of all the facts. I went along with this. My colleagues Senator Hanson-Young and Senator David Pocock on the Senate inquiry into this legislation all made it clear that it was not acceptable. It was not okay that this modelling was hidden from us—modelling that would give us some assurance that what this bill was proposing to do could actually be achieved. That is, that businesses that couldn't meet their emissions reduction targets could rely on carbon credits or safeguard mechanism credits to offset their emissions to continue to trade here. The alternative is they have to pay a penalty. This tax is a $275-a-tonne tax for businesses. That is not going to make the cost of doing business lower. That is not going to drive down the cost of manufacturing. It is not going to create jobs. It is, in fact, going to make it all worse.

So here we were, all of us—everyone except the government—asking for this information. All the while, the same people I was sitting in the committee with, asking for this information, were cooking up a sneaky backroom deal to get this bill through. As I said before, we should have seen it coming. But we genuinely asked the question, 'How could we actually vote on this legislation without this information?' It's a concern I still have. We don't have this modelling. We don't know. We have no further comfort that this bill will do what the government tells us it will. All we have is: 'Trust us. We've got modelling. We've seen it. We know what we're talking about.' I guarantee you that through the duration of this debate, and through the committee stage, we won't be given anything by way of supporting information.

But the one thing that did change was that those I was teaming up with to move motions to demand that this information be released suddenly don't think it's important anymore. They are now happy to bring this bill on for debate, to rush it through this week without the modelling that was so important, that we had all this concerns about. As I say, we should have seen it coming. It's just another Labor-Greens stitch-up, and one that is becoming all too commonplace in this parliament. This is the brave new world of Labor-Greens politics in Australia, where these deals are hatched. The people that pay for these deals, of course, are going to be the people of Australia. They're going to pay for these deals—this one in particular, much like the one we've just voted on—with higher power prices. This new tax on heavy emitting industries, carbon intensive industries, is going to drive up the cost of electricity.

You don't really have to take my word for it. You can actually go and listen to the concerns and the complaints of industry. In good faith, industry peak bodies and entities right across this country have worked with government to try and minimise the harm that legislation like this will do to their sectors. I would dearly love them to speak up a bit louder about the concerns they have, because we'll be in their corner, fighting with them, but instead they've gone along with it. Let's have a look at some of the concerns that have been raised about the impact that this legislation will have on the economy, all elements of it—everything from the cost of living and the cost of doing business like power prices, like the cost of fuel and like inputs to housing and construction. Let's look at what it does to certainty around gas supply.

We'll start with Saul Kavonic from Credit Suisse. He's their energy analyst. He said that while the safeguard reform deal with the Greens is a far cry from a ban on new oil and gas, 'it certainly doesn't indicate new oil and gas supply is welcome'. He also said:

It lays the groundwork for more obstacles to new investment in gas supply, contrary to Labor's recent message that Australia needs more gas supply.

This is what happens when a government does a deal with their natural bedfellows, the Australian Greens. It starts to make it harder to bring on the essentials we need to have a functioning economy.

Samantha McCulloch, the chief executive officer of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, said that the deal would ultimately make Australia's climate change targets harder and more costly to meet, given the importance of gas in providing a backup for renewables, and:

New gas supply investment needs policy and regulatory certainty but instead, the Labor-Greens deal creates additional barriers to investment, further diminishing the investment environment and adding to the growing list of regulatory challenges facing the sector.

The changes announced today strengthen the need for strong government direction on critical step change technologies such as carbon, capture and storage (CCS).

But I tell you what, I don't reckon we're going to see much of that, if that Greens tail continues to wag this Labor dog.

Andrew McKellar, the CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said that the assurance that energy affordability and supply have not been compromised in this deal with the Greens has not been given. He says:

While we welcome the certainty that an agreement will bring, business remains concerned about access to affordable and reliable energy—

and I could go on. But the point, which is a very clear and straightforward one, is that this legislation, designed to bring down emissions, has a further far-reaching impact than just doing that. This is no longer carrot; it's all stick. It's a blunt instrument, and it's gotten worse in the last 24 to 36 hours because the government found some dark room somewhere in this building—probably smoke-filled, who knows—and did dodgy deals with a group who are actually not pro industry, who are not pro job. The end result, as I say, is that Australians are going to be paying a lot more for their electricity and all of the other inputs into their daily lives. Australians are going to be paying more for every single one of the essentials they rely on every day.

Businesses are going to suffer too, and it's not just going to be the 215 big emitters that were originally caught under the safeguard mechanism. They, of course, are directly impacted by these decreasing baselines, the 4.9 per cent per annum to the year 2030. And, of course, if they can't meet those targets and if they can't offset those targets then they have to pay the penalty. That's bad. They are going to be making investment decisions based on this new tax that Labor and the Greens are putting on these businesses, sending a chilling message out to the rest of the world that we really aren't open for business. For the small- to medium business enterprises in their hundreds, if not thousands, that work with these big businesses—that rely on contracts with these big businesses for maintenance, for upgrades, for other services they provide—that work will dry up. The small to medium businesses are going to be paying more for energy and other inputs that these large emitters put in. They're going to become uncompetitive. Business and productivity will slow. Productivity is going to be driven down by this legislation.

It's just so ironic. The last bill that we dealt with in this place was something that the government vaunted as this manufacturing boon-creating piece of legislation. It's going to open up the economy and drive all sorts of new innovation and high-paying jobs. And here we are with the next bill bringing in taxes and arrangements that are going to drive jobs and productivity offshore. In addition to that, it's going to drive emissions offshore. This is not good: jobs will be lost; the economy will slow; everyone will be worse off. And here we are dealing with legislation that should be stopped. This legislation is going to do all of this.

Basic economics has gone out the window here. I touched on this before, with regard to the CEO of Appia talking about the need to bring on gas as one of the step-change technologies for supporting a transition to renewables. The fact is all of the levers that are being pulled by this government, in partnership with the Greens, are going to drive down the incentive and drive away the interests in investing in gas exploration. We need it. We can't just switch it off tomorrow, because if we don't have it there, coming on, we will be having blackouts this winter. If we go down this pathway of banning fossil fuels, which is what the Greens have told us their deal on this legislation will do, we will not be able to cater for the economic and energy needs that this country has. And so economics is gone, the laws of demand and supply have been ignored and we've been warned about the impact that these changes in laws will have. But it has fallen on deaf ears when it comes to this government, and of course to the Australian Greens.

As I said before, we are part of the globe, we are part of a global economy, we are a part of a world that has a global environmental responsibility. It's not something we can just look at in isolation and pretend everything that happens offshore from this country is not our responsibility. These laws will not improve environmental outcomes. They won't improve economic outcomes. They are, indeed, inflationary. As I said before, it is a new tax.

I have many concerns about the nature of some of the amendments that have been talked about in the media—circulated, I guess, at the eleventh hour—these 20 pieces of silver that they've been given in return for supporting this legislation—legislation, incidentally, that doesn't seem to have been met with universal acclaim from one of the supporting parties. Indeed, I was looking at reports today about a tweet from one of our colleagues here, Senator McKim, who said:

We have been in negotiations with the corrupt, ecocidal government of a petro-state that was prepared to hold a gun to the head of future generations by threatening to blow up climate action unless they could continue to approve massive new coal and gas projects.

He said this on Twitter on Monday night. This is coming off the back of foundation life member and former senator Bob Brown, who is a man of conviction. Whether you agree with him or not, you know where you stand with him. You know he's never, ever, ever going to change his view on stuff when he says, 'This is what I believe, and this is what I'm going to do.' He resigned from the Australian Conservation Foundation because of their support for this disastrous piece of legislation. He has different views about this. He doesn't like it for different reasons than I don't like it, but I tell you what: he's going to stick to his guns, hold his nerve and stick to his values and what he believes to be right.

I can't say the same for the Australian Greens. They have done a deal which does not meet with the demands. I will be interested to see what former senator Bob Brown says over coming months about the Greens and their new deal with their friends here, their coalition partners, the Australian Labor Party. But, at the end of the day, do you know what? I can say all of these things, but they will ignore what I say. Power prices will go up. The cost of doing business will go. There is, as there was with the gas price cap legislation at the end of last year, one test for this, and it's going to come in the middle of this year.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do prices go down?

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right: when Australian households and Australian businesses receive their next power bills, are they going to gone up as a result of this or are they going to have gone down? My tip is, as it was at the end of last year, they will have gone up. They will have not gone down, and that is going to be a terrible reality for Australian families to deal with. These families are already dealing with increased mortgage repayments, 10 interest rate increases, coming off fixed rates onto variable rates, and now, because of the Labor-Greens government in this country they're going to be dealing with higher power prices. They may well lose their jobs because they're going to drive the businesses they work for offshore, along with the emissions that will come out of countries that don't give a damn about the environment. It's a sad day, and I hope people wake up and see what's happening.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023, and I am pleased that the Greens have been able to secure so many changes to strengthen this mechanism. Thanks to the strong negotiations of Greens leader Adam Bandt and his team and thanks to the Greens being in the balance of power in the Senate, coal and gas have taken a huge hit. We've stopped almost half of the 116 coal and gas projects in the pipeline from going ahead, pollution will actually go down and we've derailed the Beetaloo and Barossa gas fields. Prior to these amendments, Labor's reheating of Tony Abbott safeguard mechanism was a company-by-company net emissions target that reduces by 4.9 per cent a year. Under Labor's original draft, the mechanism covered the top 215 big polluters in the country, but, if a company exceeded its net target, it could purchase carbon credits generated by other companies' pollution cuts or carbon offsets that have no integrity, such as fencing land. A company's real pollution could still have risen. Labor's original safeguard mechanism was a plan full of accounting tricks with no real cuts to pollution, and it allowed more coal and gas and did nothing to stop the 116 new projects for coal and gas in the investment pipeline.

The Greens have secured changes that will make a big difference. I'm going to run the chamber through those but first some important scientific context. Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, released its latest report, its sixth synthesis report, collating and analysing the wealth of scientific, economic, health and social impact research done in recent years. Nothing in the report is surprising—the world's scientists have been warning us for years—but the evidence is still shocking. Humans have changed the climate, and we are paying the price. Australia is just one of the countries that's contributing to this problem, and Australia is, in fact, one of the countries that is most exposed to climate damage. This is not just about future generations anymore. The impacts of the climate crisis are being felt already—devastating bushfires, floods, heatwaves, declining biodiversity, coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, sea level rises putting Torres Strait Islander communities at risk. We've heard these warnings before and the nation's parliament has ignored them. We've squandered the last critical decade under a climate-denying government. It's time to act as if we are going to keep global heating below catastrophic levels, and the time to do that is now.

The IPCC report also confirms that we can still act. Every fraction of a degree of avoided warming reduces the risks and makes us safer. We have the solutions we need. We know what needs to be done. So far, we have just failed to do it. The pace of change must be accelerated to bridge the massive gap between where we are and where we need to be.

The UN Secretary-General has called for developed countries like Australia to get out of coal, oil and gas; to stop licensing new projects and to stop allowing existing projects to expand. We cannot put the fire out while we are pouring fuel on it. That's why the Greens will continue to call on the government to commit to no new coal and gas projects. Not one of those 116 projects currently waiting for approval can go ahead if we are serious about tackling the climate crisis. We need to go all in on making the transition to a sustainable energy system. We need investments in new technologies, in manufacturing and in supporting the industries of the future. We need to support affected communities as we phase out fossil fuels. All of this is possible. It's also essential, and it's urgent. The IPCC could not have been clearer about this. The cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of action, and we owe it to the planet, to our children and to their children to act now and get out of coal and gas.

It's in this scientific context that the Greens sought to negotiate with Labor to try to stop new coal and gas. We pushed and we pushed and we pushed. But in a climate crisis the Labor Party still wants to open more coal and gas, and when we're negotiating with Labor it's like we're negotiating with the political wing of the multibillion-dollar fossil fuel industry. Despite Labor's unwillingness to act urgently to prevent all new coal and gas, we have secured significant changes. The Greens have stopped about half of those 116 new coal and gas projects from going ahead. We've secured a hard cap on pollution which means pollution will actually now go down and not up, and the coal and gas corporations can't just buy their way out of it with offsets—dodgy or otherwise.

We've secured a pollution trigger which, for the first time in history, means that the remaining coal and gas projects will be assessed against the hard cap for their impact on the climate and can be stopped. We've derailed both the Beetaloo and Barossa climate bombs. The Beetaloo and many other new offshore gas fields will now be required to be CO2 net zero, casting serious doubts over their viability. That is excellent news for those First Nations communities atop the Beetaloo Basin that have never provided consent to that project and do not want it to go ahead, risking their land and water and our shared climate. We've also secured a range of other amendments, including wiping out many of those dodgy offset projects and methodologies, which will bring us much closer to a future without coal and gas. This is why people put the Greens in the balance of power—to push Labor further and faster on climate and to get action on coal and gas.

Without significant amendments, the Greens will be voting to pass this bill and will back the regulation, but the fight against new coal and gas will not stop. We will fight every single one of those remaining projects. Before we started our negotiations, under Labor's plan actual pollution from coal and gas was going to go up and there was nothing in the safeguard mechanism to stop new coal and gas. Real pollution under the safeguard mechanism must now come down, and a failure by Labor to ensure that happens will mean that Labor is breaking the law. With the safeguard pollution trigger, Labor now has the power to stop coal and gas projects that would breach the pollution cap. Every new project that gets approved from here on in is Labor's direct responsibility.

This fight is not over. If we can grow our movement and get more Greens in this place we'll be able to achieve more. The only obstacle to stopping all new coal and gas in this parliament is Labor, the Liberals and their fossil fuel donors. We need to build community power to overcome them. We'll continue to push to strengthen the environmental laws that will come before parliament later this year. We'll continue to fight fossil fuel subsidies in the budget—the $11 billion of freebies in cheap diesel and accelerated depreciation that the fossil fuel companies get but that ordinary Australians don't get. We'll continue to back the fights of communities right around the country who are fighting those coal and gas projects that are in the pipeline, including in Scarborough and Narrabri. We know that the people are with us. We are in solidarity with First Nations people, with climate scientists, with our Pacific island neighbours and with the majority of people who believe that we shouldn't be making the climate crisis worse by opening new coal and gas.

I'm going to take the opportunity to run the chamber through the effect of the amendments that the Greens have been able to secure. Firstly, we've stopped about half of those 116 new coal and gas projects from going ahead. And, as I mentioned before, it's because we've secured a hard cap on pollution, which means that pollution has to actually go down—it can't go up—and the coal and gas corporations can't buy their way out of it, which will mean that many of those 116 new projects that are in the investment pipeline simply cannot go ahead.

Secondly, we have secured a legislated hard cap on pollution. Before we started negotiation, real pollution under the safeguard could rise, and coal and gas emissions were forecast to go up. For the first time, we can be assured that pollution will go down and not up. Pollution must fall, and offsets won't count to stay under the cap. The polluters can't buy their way out of this hard cap.

Thirdly, we've secured a pollution trigger to stop coal and gas projects. For the first time in history, the government must assess the impact that new coal and gas projects will have on the climate. If a new project is going to lift overall pollution, the government must act to stop it going up, including by restricting or stopping the project. If they don't act, they'll be breaking the law. This is a huge barrier to new coal, oil and gas projects proceeding.

Fourthly, we've derailed the proposed Beetaloo basin gasfield, which I just referred to. We've derailed that mass fracking of that carbon bomb. The reason for that is that the project will now face an extra cost of an estimated $1 billion a year as they're forced to offset all their emissions—all. This is a huge financial barrier in the way of a project proceeding, by forcing them to be net zero from day one, and it brings its viability into serious question, which we celebrate.

Fifth, we've derailed the proposed Barossa gasfield. Tiwi Islanders who've been fighting this project will have received a huge boost, as Santos will now be required to offset all its CO2 emissions—again, placing a huge financial hurdle in the way of this dirty and unwanted project that does not have First Nations consent.

The sixth thing we were able to achieve through our negotiations was to require new offshore gas fields to be net zero. New gas fields feeding existing LNG plants will require their CO2 emissions to be net zero—again, putting further hurdles in the way of new gas. We've stopped dodgy offset projects. We've helped stop the greenwashing of the safeguard mechanism. Low-integrity offset projects generating human-induced regeneration ACCUs—Australian carbon credit units—will be stopped until they go through an independent audit. This could take up to a quarter of future offsets out of circulation. This will force more onsite pollution cuts from companies. Companies will also have to report on and justify their use of offsets to make it easier to fight corporate greenwashing.

We've stopped coal and gas funding. The Industry Research and Development Act, which is the law that the Liberal and National parties used in order to hand out millions in fossil fuel subsidies and grants to projects such as Beetaloo, will be changed to ban coal and gas funding. The new Powering the Regions Fund also cannot be used to fund coal and gas. In fact, about an hour ago we successfully stopped the National Reconstruction Fund from being used to fund new coal and gas as well.

We've limited toxic methane. Methane, as I hope people know, is a more damaging global warming gas than even carbon dioxide, and it's the main pollution from coalmines. Methane monitoring of coal and gas projects will now be toughened, leading to deeper cuts again in pollution. We've secured sector-by-sector pathways to net zero. The Climate Change Authority will have to provide advice on the development of net sectoral transition and emission pathways for the purposes of guiding future policy and investment decisions. And detailing sectoral pathways to net zero will make it much harder for new coal and gas projects to be financed.

So, coal and gas have taken a big hit, thanks to the amendments secured by the Greens, but the fight is far from over. We were demanding no new coal, oil or gas. The UN Secretary-General, the IPCC and the International Energy Agency were demanding no new coal or gas. That is what the science requires. We just got a lecture on the laws of the economy. I see you, and I raise you the laws of physics. You can't argue with the climate crisis. It's not going to be fooled by the dodgy accounting tricks that we saw in the original version. I am so pleased that we have been able to strengthen this mechanism, and I am so pleased that with this hard cap we will now have prohibited about half of those 116 coal and gas projects from proceeding. That is a great first step, but we are coming for the rest.

We have now given the government the ability to assess the climate pollution of all of these projects, and we will be urging them to reject every single project, as I am sure will the community—well, anyone who cares about a livable future. Side-by-side with First Nations communities, we will fight every single one of those remaining coal and gas projects, and we will fight side-by-side with coal workers and gas workers in existing communities who want an economic future, who want a diverse future for their region and who want a say in what comes next as the world continues to turn away from dirty fuels and embraces clean energy. My colleague Senator Allman-Payne has done some wonderful work in that regional transition space, and we hope to have some good announcements to make on that in the months to come.

We're all in this together. I am sick of the fossil fuel companies buying the outcomes that suit their private profits, buying off the people in this place. It is not a democracy; it has been a plutocracy until now. I'm so pleased that the fossil fuel companies are hopping mad about these changes. It was so heartening to see their stocks fall yesterday, particularly those of Tamboran, the company that is mostly behind the Beetaloo basin. I look forward to genuinely making the transition to a 100 per cent clean, renewable economy, with all of the jobs, all of the hope and all of the prosperity that that can provide to Australia and the world. We've taken a step along the way. It is certainly not enough, but it's a step in the right direction.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to rise to speak on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 and, as the first government speaker on this bill, to note it is an important piece of legislation for us to pass. I think I can characterise the debate that we will be having over the next couple of hours and maybe over the next couple of days. We are probably going to hear quite a lot of scaremongering from those opposite, even though they had 10 years of opportunity to do something when it came to delivering energy policy. They failed to do that, and they haven't negotiated with us on this legislation. So they are going to sit there and scaremonger and talk about all the things that they could have, would have, should have done but didn't do. Respectfully to my colleagues at the end of the chamber, there will be some overselling of some of the things that they claim they negotiated through. I hope that they are genuine and reflect the actual impact of those amendments and how they will be used by the regulators and ministers to achieve this outcome. I hope that we don't see mischaracterisation of those amendments, but we know there is a political objective here to claim that more was one through this process than was actually achieved. What I do know, from the government point of view, is that this is government legislation. We're proud to be bringing it to the parliament. Without a Labor government, we wouldn't be seeing any action at all on climate change.

This is a critical element of the Albanese Labor government's comprehensive effort to address climate change. This legislation provides long-awaited certainty and vision for Australia's response to climate change. It is an opportunity to reduce emissions from our biggest emitters for the very first time in a decade. Our policy is reasonable, sensible and consistent with the commitments that we made at the election. Ten long years have been wasted until this point. It's precious time that we can't get back, which is why the passage of this bill is so urgent. We know that industry has been calling for far too long for this policy to be settled. Manufacturers, and heavy industry in particular, have been crying out for stability and certainty in the energy space, and today we're delivering it, because we know that jobs and our environment rely on this certainty.

The passage of this legislation will also give certainty to regional Australians, who have been left in a holding pattern for far too long. Farmers, who see the impact physically manifest in their own backyards, their workplaces, deserve certainty and ambition. Regional workers, who have powered our nation for decades, deserve clarity on what our changing industry environment will mean for the jobs they have now and the jobs they will have in the future—because let's be clear about this. This is a world of opportunity for regional industry, in renewables and modern manufacturing.

First Nations communities also deserve our urgent and comprehensive action. Too often they are the communities on the front lines of climate change. I have spoken many times before in this chamber about the Torres Strait, and it's worth repeating in this debate today. On my last visit to the Torres Strait, I spent time with Councillor Hilda Mosby in Masig. Masig is one of the islands that make up the Torres Strait. It is a beautiful, abundant home for a strong community of leaders, fishers and teachers. But Councillor Mosby took me on a drive around the perimeter of the island and showed me some of the areas of concern at risk of climate damage. Right now, the Masig community is quite literally contending with the loss of some areas of the island which have profound cultural significance. This is the case for the Torres Strait. There is no time to waste. Yet in this parliament, under the former government, we wasted 10 years. In fact, for the Torres Strait Islanders, our climate response should have been settled many yesterdays ago.

This is the case for many communities across the country and many types of people who just want to see an end to the climate wars. They await our action with understandable anxious impatience. This is not to say that we want to deliver hasty or sloppy policy. This is a reform that has been widely consulted on, and it has broad support from across the economy and the community. It is never easy to make significant changes and keep everyone in the tent, but it has always been our government's approach to listen, to take expert advice, to find points of agreement and to deliver on our commitments. This policy is about sharing the load of this effort across our economy. It was carefully designed to cut pollution in our biggest industrial emitters while being mindful of the need to minimise costs and allow flexibility for the least-cost abatement opportunities to be deployed. It will provide strong investment signals and provide a balanced scheme that is effective, equitable and simple.

On the other hand, we know that the former government left this policy in a state of chaos. A decade of inconsistent policymaking demonstrated to Australia that the world the former government lived in was plagued by inconsistency and disunity. For almost a decade in government—and still now—they couldn't agree on a target or a mechanism to deliver it. They hid power price rises from the Australian people before the election. They vetoed job-creating renewable energy jobs just because they didn't like renewable energy. They had 22 energy policies during their time in government—22—and really they couldn't land a single one. And why? We know why they are opposing this bill again and why they are scaremongering and making baseless claims. It's because fundamentally they are opposed to action on climate change and they want to continue the climate wars.

On this side of the chamber, we're happy to talk about the facts of this policy, the things that it will do, the jobs that it will protect and the jobs that it will create. We're not interested in dealing with scaremongering or talking about the concept of climate denialism. You'll see that from other members in this chamber. You'll see that from members of the Liberal and National parties. But this is our government's response to climate action. We are reducing emissions, we are working with industry, we are delivering funding to the regions, we are ensuring that our government delivers on the commitments that it took to the election, and we are doing this by taking the community, industry, businesses and workers with us. This is what Labor governments do, and only Labor governments can do this important work. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on this Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023. Despite its name, what is going to become very apparent, throughout the course of this debate, is there is nothing safe about this bill.

In the first instance, what do we know? What we know is the Greens tail is, yet again, wagging the Labor dog. Why do we say that? Because we've seen a big announcement that a dirty deal has, yet again, been done with the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens. The government has—yet again, because it is the Greens tail wagging the Labor dog—capitulated to the demands of the Greens. In capitulating to the demands of the Greens, what has the government actually done? It is literally ensuring an energy crisis for our country.

I know that Senator Duniam, in leading the debate from the opposition side, would love to have spoken about the dirty deal that's been done with the Australian Greens. But, as he reminds me, despite Senator Waters standing up and talking about the deal, talking about the amendments that are going to be moved, what is so disappointing in coming to this debate—of what is an incredibly complex piece of legislation—is not one amendment has been tabled by either the government or the Australian Greens. And you have the audacity to say that we are not participating, in this debate, in good faith.

Let me be very, very clear. Those of us on this side of the chamber support action on climate change. In fact, not only do we support action on climate change but also we have a track record in government of delivering action on climate change. But guess what we will never ever do? We will never support doing it like those on the other side are about to do tonight and tomorrow: by putting in place economy-wrecking measures like this terrible bill does.

When I reflect on the nine years that we had in government, our record is a very clear. Our record stands. We have been able to reduce emissions to reach a cleaner future, but, at the same time—and this is the balance that those on the other side don't have any regard to—ensuring Australia remains strong, prosperous and independent. Let's look at what we did manage to achieve.

The economy, whilst achieving emissions reductions, was still able to grow by 23 per cent over nine years in office. We met and exceeded Australia's Kyoto target, we signed Australia on to achieving net zero by 2050 and we reduced emissions by over 20 per cent on our 2005 base level. In fact, what that did was put Australia well on track to meet and beat our Paris treaty commitments. So guess what? You can take action on climate change but, at the same time, do it responsibly so that you don't destroy the economy. You see, when you destroy the economy you destroy jobs.

What we are seeing now, as the bill is now being debated in the Australian Senate, is quite literally—major coal companies have come out tonight, it's being reported, and they are warning this, and these are the people who would know what the impact of this legislation is going to have—the experts are saying this: they are warning that Anthony Albanese's deal with the Greens to pass Labor's signature climate policy is 'a carbon tax by stealth' and this is the problem 'that will drive up energy prices, destroy jobs and kill foreign investment'. That is a recipe for disaster. That is what the experts are saying. It will drive up energy prices, destroy jobs and kill foreign investment.

Whitehaven, New Hope, Bowen Coking Coal and Peabody Australia have condemned Labor's 11th hour safeguard mechanism shake-up amid concerns—this is them talking, those who would know, the experts—as Senator Duniam said, that the changes would damage prosperity and make it harder and more expensive to reduce emissions, which is a little ironic given the purpose of the bill is to reduce emissions.

This is what's so interesting about these companies. They collectively represent $15 billion worth of a fossil fuel projects and count billions of dollars of investment in their pipeline. Now, 'investment in their pipeline' actually means more jobs, but let's not worry about that. They actually say this as well: 'The government's proposed amendments will make Australia uncompetitive.' This goes back to driving up energy prices, destroying jobs and killing foreign investment, with the assessment being that this bill, if and when it passes—and we know it will, because a dirty deal has been done—will actually make Australia uncompetitive. Who in their right mind would not listen to the experts, who are saying that Australia is going to become uncompetitive—you're going to drive up energy prices, destroy jobs and kill foreign investment—unless you're an ideological zealot and you do not care about the impact of this bill on Australia and Australians?

When we were in government, we did take action on climate change, but I tell you: we'd never take action on climate change that compromised Australians' jobs and compromised their cost of living in terms of being unable to turn the lights on. How many reports do you need to hear as a government—10 months in—of people having to choose between turning their lights on and eating, turning their lights on and paying their mortgage, and turning the lights on an paying the school fees?

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They don't care. They'll be worse off.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, you are right. It is not even winter yet. What is the government going to say to those people? It made certain promises to them prior to the election, promises that they took in good faith and actually voted for. One promise, which they're never going to get, was that it would reduce energy bills by $275; instead, this is what we are now seeing, and that's before this bill goes through. Electricity prices are continuing to spiral out of control under Labor, with new increases of up to 23.7 per cent for households. That money doesn't just fall into people's pockets by accident; they've got to go and find that additional money. There's a 25.7 per cent increase for small businesses—again, small businesses are battling as it is. Where do they find an additional 25.7 per cent on their energy bill?

What's worse, though, is the proposed increase to the default market offer. That's going to directly affect around half a million households across Australia, and guess what—they are not going to be better off; they are going to be worse off. You would think it was the opposition putting this forward, but it's not us at all! This is the analysis that has been undertaken. The proposed increases to the default market offer will ensure that more than half a million households across Australia will be worse off. If you're in New South Wales, that's up to $564 per year. So much for electing the Albanese government, who told you they would lower your energy bills! Well, that's not happening. You're not getting the $275 taken off. The increase in the default market offer means you're going to be worse off—by up to $564 a year in New South Wales, $485 a year in South Australia and $383 a year in South-East Queensland. I mean, seriously!

This isn't the only thing that's breaking people's bank. More than 100,000 small businesses will also be impacted by increase in bills of up to $1,151 a year. Again, I don't know where these small businesses will find this additional money. It gets worse, though. It gets worse! This comes on top of increases announced in Victoria of, on average, 31.1 per cent for households and an enormous 33.2 per cent for small businesses. That is on top of 400,000 families and 55,000 businesses that will be hit by unprecedented price rises.

What does the government think is going to happen? What does it honestly think is going to happen when the major coal companies are saying, 'We are the experts, and guess what—the bill that you are going to pass'—in fact, it's not the bill they're going to pass; it's actually going to be way worse. We haven't seen the amendments, but we heard Senator Waters give us an outline that this is only step 1; steps 2, 3, 4 and 5 are well and truly on their way. In addition to all of the price rises that are currently being felt because of decisions that you are making and because of your failure to understand one word when it comes to gas—that is, supply; getting more supply into the market is how you put downward pressure on prices, but you don't know that—you are actually going to pass a bill that companies are saying will drive up energy prices, destroy jobs and kill foreign investment. As reported in the Australian:

With coal Australia's largest export industry … Global coal demand is at the highest level in history and it's fanciful to think that reducing our high-quality—

note: high quality—

exports in the face of record demand will do anything other than drive up energy and steel prices, create a net increase global emissions—

that's a great result for everybody here when they cross to the other side of the chamber and support the bill. You could drive up energy and steel prices, create a net increase in global emissions and, on top of that—

… destroy Australian jobs, both in regions and in cities.

Again, I'm not quite sure what you are seeking to achieve with this bill.

It is possible to take action on climate change. It is possible to take action to reduce emissions but at the same time balance the economy, balance increasing productivity and balance ensuring that Australians are not being subjected to record-high energy prices and that Australians are not losing their jobs. But you are ideological zealots who don't care about the economy, who don't care about the average Australian and who don't care about the increase in costs that they are seeing on a daily basis.

I look at my home state of Western Australia. The president of Peabody's Australian operations said:

… the company was concerned the legislation would "make the mining industry less competitive at a time when it's integral to providing the minerals and energy required for the energy transition".

Mining and resources are an integral part of our economy, and you have the president of Peabody's Australian operations saying that you're going to make the mining industry less competitive. What else can you make less competitive in this country? Seriously! It's the Midas touch in reverse. Everything you touch, you are making less competitive. Everything you touch, you are increasing the price on. Every promise you made prior to the election, you are not standing by. And you don't seem to care.

People took you at your word when you made promises to them. People took you at your word that you would tackle inflation, tackle interest rates, tackle the rising cost of living and tackle energy price increases. Yet piece after piece of legislation that is going through this place is doing nothing to tackle those increasing costs for Australians. As I said, you see what the experts are now saying: this piece of legislation is going to have a detrimental impact on the Australian economy. It is going to have a detrimental impact on jobs. It is going to have a detrimental impact on energy prices. As the experts say, it is going to make Australia a less competitive place to do business.

That's the lot we now live with in Australia. You are walking in lock step with the Australian Greens. Yet again, history is about to repeat itself. The sad thing is, we'll see in the future what suffering this bill brings to the Australian people. We'll see in the future how this bill wrecks our economy and how it makes life more difficult for all Australians. To those on the other side, in concert with the Australian Greens: shame on you. You should hang your heads in shame.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week the IPCC sounded a final warning alarm on the climate crisis. This crisis began over 250 years ago in this country, with colonisation. Climate change and its root causes cannot be separated from colonisation. First Nations people are hit first and worst by the impacts of climate change, yet they have benefited the least from the dirty, polluting industries that the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 targets. These are industries that have generated trillions of dollars of stolen wealth, all at the cost of polluting and killing our lands, our waters and our skies. We are in a climate crisis, though I would like to remind you all that the majority of First Nations people have been in crisis every day since colonisation, as we have been pushed off our land and forced to stand back and watch the colonial project destroy our lands and waters in the pursuit of extracting fossil fuels. For this reason there can be no climate justice without First Nations justice.

The UN Secretary-General has called last week's report a final warning, a code red for humanity, a clarion call to do everything, everywhere, all at once. How many times have we heard such urgent and desperate calls to action fall on deaf ears? In every new report he is forced to come up with new words to try to convey the urgency and seriousness of this message, and yet every time this happens the Australian government ignores this message and continues to bleed this land dry and pollute its waters and skies. This land is our mother, and we are killing her. Every time a new coal pit is dug, she is wounded. With every new fracking well that is driven into her veins, she bleeds.

I appreciate the government's efforts to cut emissions and bring forward the decarbonisation of heavy polluting industries. I commend the work of the Greens in securing an agreement which makes this bill and its rules something to not be completely ashamed of, which is what most climate bills in the last three decades have been. With the agreed changes, we will finally see genuine cuts to emissions in the biggest industries that are responsible for 30 per cent of our domestic emissions, not to mention all the emissions that occur overseas from exported products. I support the agreed changes that the Greens have secured and have been in conversation with the government around some additional changes to go one step further in their climate action and to ensure First Nations people do not get left behind.

This is particularly in relation to fracking in the Beetaloo. I have heard from First Nations people across the continent about the harms posed by fracking and their unanimous opposition to these dirty projects. First Nations people have resisted the extraction of fossil fuels, especially fracking, for decades. First Nations people across the Beetaloo right now are desperately calling for fracking to stop and for the protection of their cultural heritage, and yet, rather than listen to the voices of grassroots First Nations people, this government has not yet ruled out supporting fracking in the Beetaloo.

A recent freedom of information request exposed a secret report to the National Indigenous Australians Agency that concluded that traditional owners in the Beetaloo basin won't benefit economically, socially or culturally from the fracking of their country. This report obtained under FOI also stated that traditional owners are at a clear disadvantage when negotiating with gas giants. Anyone who has actually spoken to any First Nations people in the Beetaloo region will tell you about the manufactured consent that has been obtained by land councils and how hard it is for them to have their basic rights upheld.

When it comes to the Beetaloo, the government has stated publicly that it is committed to implementing recommendation 9.8 of the Pepper scientific inquiry into fracking in the Northern Territory, which ensures the gas industry is required to offset all scope 1 and 2 emissions and domestic scope 3 emissions. I support the government and the Greens ensuring that all scope 1 emissions will need to be offset, and I support the referral of scope 2 and 3 emissions in the Beetaloo to the ministerial climate change and energy council. However, this does not go far enough. I foreshadow that I will move a second reading amendment seeking assurance from the government that, following the review by the council, they will ensure scope 2 emissions in the Beetaloo will need to be offset. Fracking the Beetaloo makes no sense from a climate point of view. Most importantly, there is still no consent from the First Nations people. Given the clear disadvantage of traditional owners when negotiating with gas giants and their almost unanimous opposition to fracking, which came out of the report recently released under FOI, this government must prevent any further activity in the Beetaloo unless and until genuine free, prior, and informed consent has been obtained. I want to acknowledge the traditional owners and custodians of the lands—

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many times has that happened today?

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that racism? Can I just call out racism in this chamber right now, please? Acting Deputy President, I call it out.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order?

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've just had an accusation made in this chamber, and I would like Senator Thorpe to withdraw.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, you have a point of order?

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I'd just like to point out that Senator Thorpe has just made a comment about me that I think she should withdraw in its inference—in fact, its direct calling.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe?

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President, what are you asking me to do?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, I've just had a point of order that you actually made—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you want me to finish reading it?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did hear what Senator Hughes said, and—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you don't see that as racist?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not my call to make. However—are you making a point of order?

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm making a point of order that I am in my workplace, and I don't need racists being racist to me while I'm reading my speech. Can you make sure that I am not targeted with racism while I'm trying to do my job, please?

T he ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes?

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think it's appropriate for Senator Thorpe to be referring to anyone in this place as racist, and I would ask her to withdraw. That is absolutely inappropriate, and I will not be referred to by you as anything, let alone that. You need to—

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, take your seat.

Senator Hughes, you are not helping.

Senator Hughes and Senator Thorpe! Thank you. Senator Thorpe, I heard what Senator Hughes said, and I didn't hear anything that was—

The Acting De Puty President:

No. Senator Thorpe, if you would like a review of the Hansard, I can certainly ask for a review of the Hansard.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like that please, because I will not stand for racism in my workplace.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Senator Thorpe, you are not helping the situation by repeating that claim about Senator Hughes. I would ask that you withdraw that imputation.

I will not withdraw until you understand that I have just been racially vilified while I'm reading my speech.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it might assist the chamber, there is obviously a disagreement that has gone on here. I think your suggestion that the Hansard be reviewed and that the President or yourself come back to the chamber at a later date might be the best way to facilitate this evening.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just like to make the point that the constant reference to Australians who were born here from a different heritage being referred to as colonisers is not helpful in any way. Perhaps we need to refer to the Hansard in more ways than one.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes and Senator Thorpe: I will confer with the President, and also the Clerk. We will review the Hansard, and we will come back and report back to the Senate.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President, I appreciate that. Can I continue to read my speech?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have the call.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was acknowledging the traditional owners and custodians of the land and waters, air and sky of what we now call the Beetaloo and connected basins. The traditional owners are still protecting country from desecration. They come from many nations and clans, but they have come together to fight for country—what do you know? I salute them and I support them 100 per cent. Everyone in this place must listen to their voices. They are standing united against the desecration of their lands, against the poisoning of their waters. They fight for country like their ancestors, their law men and women, how our old people have always looked after this country before the colonisers came, before they rocked up on their boats. Through my amendments to the second reading motion and in the Committee of the Whole, I am bringing their fight into this chamber—not outside; into this chamber. I hope to get support from all of you on this—well, some.

My second reading amendment also seeks to ensure that First Nations people are given opportunities in carbon offset projects. While I am of the view that we should be cutting emissions as much as possible and as quickly as possible before using offsets, I recognise that there are genuine land-based solutions to drawing down carbon. This includes First Nations management of country, including sea country. This includes but is not limited to savanna burning. It involves cultural burns; managing feral animals, like wild boars; and land regeneration. Projects on sea country include but are not limited to the cultivation and harvesting of seaweed and kelp. Our people have been farming seaweed since time immemorial for food, fibre and medicine. Seaweed farming also offers opportunities for reducing methane emissions in agriculture by using seaweed as a supplement in cattle feed.

I will seek to ensure that First Nations people are at the forefront of leading these projects in their own waters. This amendment also calls on the government to ensure their support for First-Nations-led verification assessments in carbon sequestration projects. This means that First Nations people can assess the environmental, social and cultural values of carbon farming and sequestration projects. This must also be paired with investment in training for these purposes in First Nations communities—in all First Nations communities, including mob in regional and remote areas and on missions and reserves. I will continue working with the government and hope to get their support for this amendment. I look forward to continue working with the government and others in this parliament to ensure that First Nations justice remains at the core of climate action in this country. I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to:

(a) in line with its commitment to implementing Recommendation 9.8 of the final report of the Pepper Scientific Inquiry into Hydraulic Fracturing in the Northern Territory, ensure the gas industry in the Northern Territory's Beetaloo Basin is required to offset all Scope 2 emissions, in addition to referring this matter to the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council and working with the Northern Territory Government to achieve this, and

(b) support First Nations communities in carbon sequestration projects on Country, including but not limited to savanna burning, and on Sea Country, including but not limited to kelp farming; and

(c) support First Nations-led verification assessment of environmental, social and cultural values of carbon farming and sequestration projects and invest in training for these purposes in First Nations communities, including but not limited to communities in regional and remote areas and on missions and reserves".

The Senat e transcript was published up to 22:00 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.