Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. This bill proposes to establish a regulatory system enabling carbon dioxide to be pumped into Australia's seabed through a technology known as carbon capture and storage. The bill also allows the government to create a regulatory system to place waste into the sea for scientific research purposes—for example, research into ocean fertilisation, which aims to remove carbon dioxide from the ocean.

Reading the explanatory memorandum to this bill, you might think that carbon capture is a proven technology. But carbon capture has a long history of failure. Australia's only working carbon capture and storage project, off the coast of Western Australia, is a failure. Unable to capture carbon in the geological structures below Barrow Island, Chevron is forced to buy carbon credits to meet its environmental approvals. The fact is that most carbon capture projects which are not associated with enhancing oil recovery will fail. Even if the carbon dioxide can be injected underground, there is no guarantee that it will stay there and not leak into the atmosphere. The most common use of carbon capture projects is to justify new oil and gas projects, and to support carbon trading. The accounting rules in this space disadvantage countries which are rich in oil or gas, like Australia. At this point it is worth recalling the New Zealand government's part in the climate fraud by using carbon credits. The report Climate cheats details how New Zealand became the largest purchaser of fraudulent carbon credits from Ukraine and then used them to meet emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto protocol.

This bill is yet another step down the road to climate change lunacy. The drivel coming out of these senators is mind-blowing. Labor, the Greens, the Nationals and the Liberals are hellbent on sacrificing Australia on the altar of net zero, when Senator Wong couldn't even explain what net zero means. They lie to us, telling us that reducing Australia's carbon dioxide emissions will save the planet. It won't. It's a load of claptrap to push UN agreements and to grab votes by peddling fear. Even if you could reduce Australia's emissions to absolute zero overnight, China will replace them inside 12 months, yet we continue to allow carbon-intensive Chinese imports. They lie to us, saying that renewables are cheaper, when in fact they are directly responsible for Australian households being forced to pay some of the highest electricity bills in the world. These electricity bills are the biggest component in the rising cost of living that is reducing Australia's living standards and forcing many families into poverty and homelessness.

The cult of climate change focuses only on human CO2 emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, was formed to look only at human emissions. There is no focus and almost no reporting on the fact that 97 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide comes from natural sources, like volcanoes. There are a reported one million volcanoes under our oceans around the world. There is no focus on the natural forces which primarily drive climate change on earth, such as solar cycles, interglacial warming periods and fluctuations in the planet's axial tilt. People are being punished for emissions which are not theirs.

Despite the clear evidence that climate policies are driving the cost-of-living crisis while doing literally nothing to save the planet, Labor is pushing them further with this legislation. Labor is desperate to enable its 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030 policy and achieve a 43 per cent cut to Australia's CO2 in the same time frame. The Treasurer has already warned that this will require more drastic interventions by government. I say that government intervention is what has mainly led to the 300 per cent increase in our energy costs since renewables began to pollute our energy landscape. More government invention is only going to make things worse and make energy cost even more than it already does.

Here's the challenge for the Greens, Nationals, Liberals and Labor: if renewables are cheaper and better, as you claim, why subsidise them with billions of taxpayer dollars every year? Why are we subsidising them? It's like anyone who starts up a business. You go out there and do the best they can. You survive with the article that you've got to sell. Why are we subsidising them to the tune of billions of dollars? If it's so good, then the public will buy it. But we've got to prop it up, and that's the problem that we have, and that's the reason for the increasing tax dollars. You're going to put this country and future generations into so much debt. What for? If renewables are so good, why isn't there a level playing field?

The fact is that they're terrible, which is why they need so much taxpayer money to be competitive. They're material-intensive technologies requiring massive land footprints that have led to native species and vegetation in Australia being bulldozed for wind and solar farms. Once they reach the end of their short lifespans, they all end up in landfill because none of it can be recycled. No-one has come up with a plan to get rid of the solar panels. No-one has come up with a plan to get rid of the wind turbines. You can't use the materials. No-one has come up with that plan. You're doing more damage to our environment by just putting them into the ground, but no-one has answered that question. It's alright to import them all from China, with all their carbon emissions that we're taking responsibility for. We're buying their products, yet you have no answers.

I have not heard one member in this place say what needs to be done to get rid of the solar panels or the wind turbines. And you talk about the environment! My God, you're clearing thousands and thousands of hectares of land to put them up. You're destroying the environment for the flora and fauna, but no-one talks about that, either. You don't want to call out the elephant in the room, do you? So you blame it all on climate change. As I said, once they reach the end of their short lifespans, they all end up in landfill because none of it can be recycled. The Greens have talked about money in the coffers of the Labor Party. What about their own coffers, filled from their fearmongering about 'global boiling' now? It was 'global warming' and then 'climate change'; now we're going to 'global boiling'. We need to keep changing it all the time to keep it turning over for the younger generations. We've heard it for years, so we've got to move on from there. We've got to give it a new name so that we keep the interest of the youth that are being brainwashed. Some of the coldest temperatures around the world in over 100 years have been recorded this week, so where's your global boiling? We've had some of the coldest temperatures since the early 1900s, and you're talking about global boiling. Again, this is fearmongering.

Greens Senator Pocock says that the science is clear. There is no science! Where's the science? It's all built on computer models and the lies of climate soothsayers told for their own financial gain and ego inflation. Remember when Tim Flannery told us that our dams would never be full again? Does anyone raise that one? For centuries, prophets of doom have been declaring the world would come to an end, and the climate change nuts have brought this nonsense into the 21st century.

They say fires, floods and cyclones driven by climate change will limit food availability. What an absolute joke! You're limiting food availability by putting transmission lines over farms. You are actually limiting it because you haven't built any dams for water security. Fires? Fires have been happening on this planet and in this country for thousands upon thousands of years. So don't tell me climate change is all due to fires. You have the arsonists out there that set the fires. And you talk about floods. When you build cities on rivers and creeks that used to take the water away, when you've got concrete and bitumen that is in the expanse of thousands of square kilometres of land, where is the water supposed to go? When you don't put in the drainage that's required, it's poor planning. That's what it has been all about. It's also poor planning to build houses right beside rivers that we know in the past have actually flooded. Flooding has happened for centuries and always will, but it's due to poor planning by people, whether it's state, federal or local governments, and you blame it on climate change. And then there are cyclones. We've had fewer cyclones happen, but, no, let's go out and fearmonger and say that this is all happening.

You talk about flora and fauna. Flora and fauna have been destroyed by the wild animals that we have. No-one talks about the destruction that the millions of wildcats, the donkeys, the camels and the brumbies are making; let's blame it on climate change. What a scam! You're an absolute joke in this place; you really are. Members of this parliament, you are easily led yes-people that follow the party line purely to keep your seats in this place. You're pathetic. You're not talking common sense here. You're all like sheep led to the slaughter, and you're taking the Australian people with you. There's no true science here. You're feeding a lot of rubbish to the Australian people. The Australian people are not stupid. They know. People of the older generation have seen the changes in the climate. If you read up on history, it's happened for millions and millions of years, and yet you are pinning it on climate change. That's a real shame.

We are at the heart of this nation to make decisions for the wellbeing of people, and they're struggling out there. They're struggling because they can't pay their bills. The electricity costs are soaring. Because of the rising electricity costs, food is more expensive. We're destroying our farming sector. We're destroying everything in this nation, and yet you keep doing bloody deals with China. You keep doing deals with them. You buy all their goods and bring them into the country. Their emissions are over 30 per cent. Ours are at one per cent, if not less, and you're ridiculing and destroying the Australian people and their businesses—for what? To peddle it because you've brainwashed the kids through the educational system for however long to have them come through and believe that the world's plants have been destroyed.

You know what you need to concentrate on? Getting the rubbish out of the oceans. That is true pollution. Go and talk to China about all the rubbish they're allowing into the oceans from the north and flowing down here. That's where you need to focus. That's the real damage that's being done to our environment and also to marine life. But, no, we don't hear about that. It's absolutely disgraceful. You're led by the UN and all these other organisations that are pushing their own agenda, and you've used it as a political ploy to get your votes from the Australian people. That's what it's about. The Australian people follow you because you told the kids in school, 'This is the way it is.' There's no critical thinking. There's no debate. You haven't got to science. Senator Roberts would welcome a debate with Senator Waters. Guess what: she hasn't done it, because she wouldn't be able to answer his questions. She's not up to it. It's alright to stand here and say, 'You're fearmongering,' and all the rest of it, but you're not prepared to stand there and have a debate with someone who knows what they're talking about. It's all fearmongering.

It's the politicians around the world, as I said. What's destroying food production is politicians around the world destroying our farming sector in the insane quest to get rid of carbon dioxide. Wind turbines, transmission lines and solar panels are doing more damage to our planet than carbon dioxide ever will. We are allowing our children to be brainwashed into this lunatic cult in our schools and universities due to a lack of critical thinking and debate being discouraged. I hear from so many students that, if you don't go along with the ideology of the university, you get marked down and you won't get passed in your studies. Is that really what you want from the future generations of this nation—that they can't really debate or think for themselves but have to be guided and told how to answer the questions? I feel sorry for the future generations, and it is the people in this place and in parliaments around the nation who have allowed this to happen because of gutless wonders who won't be individuals and stand up not only for the people of this nation but for their own families and for future generations. You are so worried about your own jobs in this place that you haven't got the intestinal fortitude to actually speak the truth and speak out on behalf of the Australian people. Well, I will keep speaking out on behalf of these people who actually have proven this and the science that goes with it. I am not against renewables by any means, but don't do the fearmongering that says the planet is coming to an end, because that is a lie.

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

Firstly, may I thank all of the senators who have contributed to the debate on the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 and acknowledge the many perspectives presented by senators in this place. I note also that amendments have been circulated on the floor today.

Secondly, while I note that the contributions this morning and this afternoon have been broad-ranging, as is so often the case in a Senate debate, this is in fact quite a narrow bill. I wish to emphasise that this is a bill that gives effect to Australia's international obligations that arise out of amendments that were made in 2009 and then in 2013 to the London protocol. So my initial contribution will address the bill at hand before turning to some of the broader questions around climate policy that have been raised during the course of our discussions.

It's worth noting that the full title of the international instrument that this bill deals with is the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. So in line with our obligations under this international instrument, this convention, this bill sets up a regulatory framework to prevent marine pollution. Should this bill not proceed, there would be no serious regulatory framework to deal with the issues arising in the bill, so operators and researchers could look for loopholes and create their own initiatives without government oversight. This is particularly relevant for marine geoengineering activities, which are already occurring and for which greater oversight is needed as these activities increase in scale. I say this because it is in fact the status quo that poses the environmental risk. Without this legislation, there would be no processes in place for environmental assessment and approval or, after that, for monitoring and enforcement.

I make this observation too: the London protocol is a respected piece of international law. It's a gold-standard, best-practice agreement with rigorous environmental impact assessments that have a much broader scope than our current environmental legislation in relation to these matters. So following the passage of this legislation to prevent unregulated sea dumping, there will be many years of preparing for and undertaking assessment processes before any project could be begin to be considered. This will be in parallel with the work that needs to occur in the bilateral agreement or arrangement that would need to be negotiated with relevant countries. These agreements will need to ensure that they have appropriately captured the requirements and our obligations as set out in the London protocol.

During the debate, senators have made a variety of comments about individual projects. It is important to note that this bill is not about specific projects. As I have already noted, any carbon capture project of the type that this bill would regulate would not arrive for many years. Other senators have asserted that financial costs to the public flow from this bill. We have been clear that any project would need to stack up of its own accord if it were to proceed. I note that last October Minister Bowen redirected allocations previously provided by the previous government to subsidies for commercial development of carbon capture and storage.

As I said, today the debate has been wide-ranging well beyond this bill, which deals with a narrow set of circumstances. Many senators in their contributions have emphasised the importance of climate action, and for good reason. After the years we have experienced characterised by extreme weather, fires, floods, droughts and Commonwealth inaction under the former coalition government, more needs to be done. Our government knows that we need to tackle climate change here at home and in concert with the global community. We have shown that we are absolutely committed to our obligations under the Paris agreement and, importantly, to our communities, who want us and need us to act.

We know that our resource sector and heavy industry need to decarbonise. It is why we have legislated a path to net zero, committed to 43 per cent emission reduction by 2030, committed to 82 per cent renewables by 2030. It is why we have doubled the rate of renewable energy approvals. Through the Safeguard Mechanism, we have established a policy framework to deal with emissions from large projects which ensures that every large project is aligned on a trajectory to net zero.

Meeting Australia's net zero targets will take a wide range of tools and technologies. We have legislated our target, we have implemented policies like the safeguard mechanism, and we have provided funding and financing for policies like Rewiring the Nation and the Capacity Investment Scheme to help deliver on these targets. In June last year the government formally submitted Australia's updated nationally determined contribution to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change including our new target to reduce emissions 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. We are developing six sectoral plans—electricity and energy, industry, the built environment, agriculture and land, transport and resources—that will map out in consultation with stakeholders and industry and community decarbonisation pathways by 2050 for each of these sectors and seek to maximise the benefits of climate action.

To return to the issues in the bill that we have before us, these amendments in this bill are necessary to ensure we have a comprehensive regulatory framework that protects our oceans, including environmental impact assessments, risk assessments and management frameworks to ensure best practice is adopted. It is important to get this right. It is not anticipated that international projects will come about for many years, but it is good public policy to put in place a regulatory system before industries emerge so that we are not playing catch-up. It ensures that the right governance is in place to administer permits for a comprehensive and robust application, assessment and approval permitting process for two things: the export of carbon dioxide streams from carbon capture processes for sequestration into sub-seabed geological formations, in accordance with the 2009 amendment to the London protocol; and, secondly, the placement of wastes or other matter for legitimate marine geoengineering scientific research activities, in accordance with the 2013 amendment to the London protocol.

Amending the sea dumping act to regulate the export of carbon dioxide streams from carbon capture and storage processes, the sequestration into sub-seabed geological formations and to regulate marine geoengineering research delivers greater public confidence in our ability to protect the marine environment from these emerging international activities. It would be irresponsible not to have a comprehensive regulatory system in place to ensure these activities are legal and to protect the marine environment, and it is for these reasons that this bill has been brought forward. I thank senators again for their contributions today. I understand that we are to have a committee stage, and I look forward to the discussions that will take place at that time.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 be now read a second time. It being after 6:30 pm, there will be no divisions taken tonight, which means we cannot move forward with the debate on this bill.