Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we know, this legislation has been stitched up by Santos and the collusion of the Labor and Liberal parties. I just want to make sure, before we move to more detailed questioning by Senator Whish-Wilson, that the Senate is aware of that fact.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'd like to look at some of the details of how this might play out. I'm interested in the government's view on carbon dioxide emissions that are shipped to another country for undersea storage. I'm guessing the view of the government is that they are then off Australia's books, but what happens if some of those CO2 emissions then escape or are let out and the whole amount isn't delivered? On whose books is that reflected, or is it, because it's in the ocean, 'play on'?

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

Senator Pocock, thank you for bearing with me and allowing me to find the right page. I think, Senator Pocock, the answer to your question is that it depends. We are passing a piece of legislation here that sets up, really, the framework by which an agreement might be made with another country to allow transborder movement of carbon dioxide.

The legislation requires us to observe the London protocol, and the London protocol requires us to have a bilateral agreement in place between those two countries before any permit could be granted. So the details and the status of those agreements or arrangements would be decided between the exporting and receiving countries on a case-by-case basis. It would address matters that would include, but not be limited to, responsibility for maintaining the sequestered carbon dioxide and any emissions, the ability of countries to accurately monitor emissions and any leakage from transport or storage.

In relation to the specific question I think you're asking about how carbon accounting would occur, any release of carbon dioxide throughout the capture, transport, injection and storage phase would need to be accounted for under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change international emissions reporting frameworks, and they would be included in the national emissions inventory of the country in which they occur.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has the government undertaken a risk assessment of potential liabilities for Australian taxpayers in the case where the export of CO2 from Australia to a third-party country results in environmental or climate harm? We saw what happened with the 2009 Montara oil and gas spill. We saw the harm caused to not only our coastline and marine environment but also those of our neighbours in Indonesia, and we saw the subsequent class action—an international claim against Australia for transboundary harm. Surely this legislation opens up the door for those sorts of risks? Has that assessment been undertaken by either of the departments that are working on this bill?

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

Senator Pocock, the short answer to that question is, 'At this stage, no,' because, as I was indicating to you, this is merely the first legislative step in establishing a framework within which any decision could be taken. There are at least two important decisions that would need to be taken before any export was permitted. The first is that a bilateral agreement of some kind would need to be established between Australia and a country to which an export might take place. The second thing would be to then assess an application for a permit under the protocol for such an export. In assessing a permit, the department would utilise the London protocol assessment framework.

The environmental impact assessment must include but is not limited to a long-term management plan, a geological assessment and marine characterisation of the disposal site, an impact and risk assessment, a mitigation and remediation plan, a description of potential impacts on any matters of national environmental significance, a waste prevention audit, waste management options, chemical and physical properties of the carbon dioxide, an assessment of potential effects, and monitoring and risk management. So, Senator Pocock, you are right to point to the possibility of risks arising. That's why this framework matters, because it puts in place the legislative basis that would allow Australia to assess a project of this kind in a way that is consistent with the international agreement.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You talk about this opening, setting the ground work for, bilateral agreements. Has Timor-Leste signed up to the London protocol?

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

No.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is extraordinary that we are here with this legislation. The government is telling us we need this to better regulate so we can enter into bilateral agreements and uphold the highest standards of all sorts of details to be worked out down the track, with a 'she will be right, trust us' attitude. We have the opposition who have basically checked out on this. They're not acting like an opposition when it comes to this bill. They are usually concerned about seeing details, knowing about consultation. We heard earlier the minister can't tell us who she met with in the last three months on this bill. It seems like there's been no meaningful engagement on it.

What is happening in the Senate on this bill is, frankly, an insult to Australians. The major parties are on a unity ticket when it comes to facilitating the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. We will hear the government argue against it, that it is not what is happening with these emerging technologies we need to regulate well. Yet there are amendments from the crossbench that say, 'If that is the case, we will take you on your word.' Rule out facilitating the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. We will hear the government argue against it and say, 'No, that is not what is happening. We have all these emerging technologies that we really need to regulate well.' We have amendments from the cross bench that say, 'Okay, if that is the case, we will take you on your word. Rule out facilitating the expansion of the fossil fuel industry.' But no, we can't do that. We couldn't possibly compromise Santos or Woodside. You have to ask the question: what is happening in Australia in 2023 when we have the major parties acting like this? Minister, given the Labor Party doesn't take donations from big tobacco because of the harm on communities, on society, why do you still take donations from fossil fuel companies?

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

The conclusions that you arrived at in your very long preamble to the question really don't seem to be responsive to the information that's been provided to you in this stage of the debate. Earlier in the day, you made a series of propositions about the ruinous nature of this legislation. I explained to you at that time that the government considers that the transition to net zero is a challenging one that will require all of the tools available to us in order to minimise emissions of carbon dioxide and equivalent into the atmosphere. That is confirmed by all of the authoritative international information we have about credible pathways to net zero, including the International Energy Agency's assessments and other similar assessments.

I also said to you that the government considers that carbon capture and storage technology will need to stand on its own two feet in its commercial viability. Last year the government took a series of budget decisions to divert subsidies that had been directed towards commercial-scale carbon capture and storage by the previous government towards other government priorities. These are projects that will need to make commercial sense for the proponents.

In the event that a proponent decides that the permanent sequestration of carbon dioxide and the costs associated with that make sense in the context of their project, it is important that there be a regulatory framework in place to manage that.

You asked whether or not Timor-Leste is a party to the London protocol, and I indicated to you that it is not. I can add to my answer—I was actually expecting a follow-up question, so I kept it brief—by explaining to you that, as a contracting party to the London protocol, Australia is required to ensure the same level of requirement for domestic sequestration of carbon dioxide—

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, please resume your seat. The time for this debate has expired.

Progress reported.