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

There are a number of amendments before the chamber, which we'll go into in a little bit of detail. But I want to start with some questions in response to an assertion that Senator McAllister made in her second reading contribution yesterday—that this sea dumping bill that we have before us today hasn't been brought forward to help facilitate an individual project. I don't have the exact words from Hansard, Senator McAllister, so you'd be welcome to correct anything I said there. But I think you were very clear that any potential projects were a long way away and that this has nothing to do with an individual project. So, I just wanted to start by asking some simple questions around that.

Is the minister aware of any existing oil and gas projects or proposed oil and gas projects in Australian waters that are seeking transboundary waste or CO2 movements into carbon capture and storage? That is, are there any projects in Australia, existing or proposed, that have formally, informally or even publicly raised the prospect of wanting to pump their CO2—their carbon—into reservoirs across our national boundaries into foreign waters?

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

There are four projects that I'm aware of that are currently exploring the possibilities to import CO2. They include Sea Store 1 in Western Australia, CarbonNet in Victoria, SEA CCS hub in Victoria and the Darwin LNG hub in the Northern Territory. I'm aware also that the Timor-Leste government had indicated their interest in exploring possibilities in their waters. But, as I indicated—or tried to indicate—in my second reading remarks, the nature of the framework that would be legislated if the bill before us passed would require, in accordance with the terms of the London protocol, bilateral agreement to be established between the two nations where a transboundary movement was proposed. It was on that basis that I made I think the self-evident point that that would take some time.

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

Thank you, Minister. I noticed in your response there that you didn't mention the proposed Barossa project or, for example, the Sunrise project, which borders Australian territory and East Timorese territory. So, could I ask you to clarify whether it's your understanding that the Barossa project, with its various investors, have raised this transboundary prospect?

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

In referring to Timor-Leste's interest in establishing arrangements within their own territories, I implicitly sought to refer to Barossa. I apologise if that seemed incomplete to you. As I've indicated, though, the terms of the London protocol would require this bilateral agreement to be established with Timor-Leste, or any other country where a transborder movement was proposed.

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

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you are putting Timor-Leste and their government at the centre of this. So they're the ones proposing to take Barossa's dirty CO2 and Woodside's dirty CO2 from the Sunrise project? Is that correct? Timor-Leste are the ones driving this process of exporting Australian pollution to their boundaries?

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

I am not in a position to provide comment on interactions between proponents and the East Timorese government, but perhaps I can provide you with this information. We're aware of Timor-Leste's interest in converting the depleted Bayu-Undan field to a CCS project. Minister Wong has visited Timor-Leste and indicated that we would support their ambition. We're waiting to confirm their proposed next steps on that project. We would be guided by their priorities. That is of course entirely appropriate. We respect their right to make sovereign decisions about inward investment.

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

Fair enough, but I can't imagine they, for example, requested that the Australian parliament pass this sea-dumping protocol, the London protocol, to help facilitate a project in their national interest. Presumably we're going through this process now so Australian companies, with Australian investments, can import—you mentioned a few examples there—or export our pollution across national boundaries. Is the minister aware that the Japanese investors in the Barossa project have raised this with the Australian government several times? Is that the minister's understanding?

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

The first half of your contribution went to motivation and why the government might be taking the steps that we're taking in introducing this bill. I will reiterate the proposition that I put in the second reading speeches. This bill seeks to implement amendments that have been made to the London protocol, to which Australia is a signatory. The London Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter was amended in 2009 and then again in 2013, to make provision for transborder movement of carbon dioxide and to create a framework to manage the placement of wastes or other matter for legitimate marine geoengineering scientific research activities. As parties to the protocol, we are seeking to implement the legislative arrangements that would allow us to respond to these amendments that have been made to the protocol. This is a longstanding process. It has been under consideration within the formal processes of the government and the parliament for some time. I understand it was considered by JSCOT in 2020. It is a longstanding piece of work that is consistent with our international contributions to a shared approach to managing marine environments. As I said in my second reading speech, if the bill were not introduced, there would be no regulatory framework to deal with these kinds of issues at all.

The consequence of that is that operators, researchers and proponents could start looking for loopholes and create their own initiatives and their own frameworks without government oversight, and that is the motivation for the government bringing the bill forward.

You asked about representations from the Japanese government—no, my apologies. I apologise, Senator Whish-Wilson; could you repeat the second half of your question?

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

Is the minister aware of concerns that have been raised by Japanese investors in the Barossa project? Also, are companies such as INPEX who invest in LNG receiving terminal development in the Northern Territory? While I'm at it, I might add that CEO Meg O'Neill of Woodside has raised over many years the need for carbon capture and storage around the Sunrise project in the Timor Sea. Are you aware of those issues that have been raised by these companies and their investors?

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

Perhaps, Senator Whish-Wilson, I can answer it this way: yes, I am aware of the public discussion that has taken place. I don't have at hand details of every interaction that may have taken place between ministers in this government or previous governments with individual countries. But, yes, as you indicate, there has been public discussion by companies about their interests.

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

Thank you, Minister. Perhaps I'll step through this with you then, because I think a lot of that information is publicly available and has been reported on by the media. I'll get back to the Sunrise project and Woodside's comments, which have been made over a number of years, because as I'm sure you're aware the Sunrise project is a very complicated one. The energy economics of it aren't that straightforward.

Let's just deal with the Barossa project for a moment. Once the safeguard legislation was passed by this chamber, there was what was described by the media as a 'broadside' by a number of Japanese investors into the changes to the safeguard mechanism and how they might impact investment in their Barossa project. I think they described it in the strongest possible terms as 'a betrayal' of the relationship between Australia and Japan, which obviously put significant pressure on your government, including various ministers. For example, Michael Smith, the North Asia correspondent for the Fin Review, wrote that Australia is no longer Japan's most trusted LNG supplier. He quoted Japan's Institute of Energy Economics chief executive as well as comments from various companies. Part of that article was clearly referring to a request to the federal government from Japan—and I presume that's the Japanese government—that the Australian government exempt Santos's $5.8 billion Barossa gas project in the Timor Sea from the safeguard mechanism. He then asked that the Albanese government help Japanese operators pay for carbon credits or develop carbon storage that they would need to meet the new emissions targets. I reiterate that this was on 5 July. In that same article, a spokeswoman for energy and climate change minister Chris responded:

… the government was investing in the regulation and administration of carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS), which would help operators earn carbon credits under the safeguard mechanism.

…   …   …

"While the safeguard mechanism provides an incentive for new CCUS projects to meet abatement goals, it also opens the possibility for the earning of Safeguard Mechanism Credits if CCUS projects are successful in lowering emissions below baselines," …

This article also references concerns raised directly with the Albanese government in March—that's three months prior to that—by INPEX Corporation about changes around Australia's energy and carbon policy. So that was on 5 July.

Not long after that, it was reported in a number of news articles that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Mr Chris Bowen had—following this broadside, this accusation of betrayal by the Australian government—headed to Japan in an attempt to repair bilateral relations after officials in Tokyo voiced concerns around Australia's future as a reliable LNG gas exporter. The article I am referring to here—and I can provide the minister with a copy of it—was by Amanda Battersby out of Singapore. She got a quote from APPEA that said:

"Proximity lowers emissions from transportation, while the upcoming large-scale implementation of [carbon capture, utilisation and storage] will lower well-to-ship emissions," …

and they talked up the need for more investment in CCUS.

A day after these articles, on 25 July, Michael Smith, North Asia correspondent, clearly got access to Minister Bowen directly, following his coverage of this broadside by the Japanese government and Japanese investors. This article said Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen had told Japan and South Korea there would be no exemptions from Labor's emissions policy, and that he doesn't believe it threatens their energy security or trading relationships. But:

Mr Bowen also said Labor supported special legislation that would allow Santos to send carbon dioxide from its $5.8 billion Barossa project across an international border to the Timor Sea. He acknowledged the project, which Japan wants to be exempted from the new rules, was reliant on carbon capture utilisation and storage.

Minister: is this legislation and the timing of this legislation designed to facilitate the Barossa gas project as was stated by Mr Chris Bowen?

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

I've already answered the question by explaining to you that the government's motivation in bringing forward the legislation is to meet our obligations as a party to the London protocol, to participate in global efforts to establish regulatory frameworks that are predictable and certain, and to meet environmental standards that have been agreed with our global partners. I think your question and its very long preamble seek to draw a link between the safeguard mechanism—which imposes stringent obligations on large projects, including gas projects—and carbon capture and storage. In many ways, that's quite straightforward, isn't it? The IEA makes it very clear that CCS will be a part of the broad mix of technologies necessary to make it to net zero. Those broad conclusions are echoed by the IPCC and most other international energy analyses of our potential pathways to net zero, and Australia doesn't dispute this.

I guess the question, which will be a product of the changing role and cost profiles of different technologies, is which of the various technologies available to us will prevail in what the relative weight of different technologies on our path to net zero looks and feels like. We are focused, in our role as government, on making sure that projects that are investable and that are deemed to be commercial by proponents have regulatory certainty now that they face these emissions constraints that you referred to in your preamble. Ratifying the London protocol's amendments is part of our broader approach to CCS and CCUS regulation. It's pragmatic and sensible. We made $12 million available in the last budget to review the environmental management regime for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities.

This review seeks to ensure that the regulatory regime for offshore CCS projects appropriately manages risks to the marine environment and to workforce health and safety. The review will identify opportunities to more effectively plan for and regulate the decommissioning of offshore CCS projects. It will look at regulatory requirements relating to long-term liability and monitoring of sequestered carbon dioxide and will examine opportunities to provide greater regulatory and administrative certainty and efficiency for carbon capture and storage projects in Commonwealth waters. So if your question is, 'Does the government consider that CCS may play a role in supporting covered entities to meet their obligations under the safeguard agreement?' the answer is yes.

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

Thank you. That was in no way my question, Minister. So I'll ask it to you again very simply. It's not question time, where a preamble can be used as a reason for not answering the question. I was trying to give you the context of my question, respectfully. I'll quote again from the article by Michael Smith, North Asia correspondent, on 26 July. He said:

Mr Bowen also said Labor supported special legislation that would allow Santos to send carbon dioxide from its $5.8 billion Barossa project across an international border to the Timor Sea.

Minister, is this legislation, the sea dumping bill before us, the 'special legislation' that Mr Bowen was referring to in these comments?

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

I have answered now three times, I think, your question about what the government's motivation is for bringing forward this legislation. I don't think I have anything more to add. I'm certainly not in a position to comment on a report in a news article that I haven't got in front of me about something Mr Bowen may or may not have said. I'm not in a position to provide additional information to you about that.

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

Thanks, Minister. Nice try. It's a pretty simple question. It's obvious to everyone that this is the legislation Mr Bowen was talking about on 26 July. It was obvious to all the groups who made submissions to the Senate inquiry process, including the Australian Marine Conservation Society, the Australian institute, Surfrider Foundation and the Northern Territory Environment Centre. There were a number of people I know you respect and have worked with over many years who clearly have tied this to the Barossa project. I'm disappointed you couldn't answer that simple question. Perhaps your advisers or I could just give you a copy of this article so you can at least look at it.

That isn't where Mr Bowen finished in this article, by the way. On the second page, when dealing with accusations around the Japanese government's concerns, especially in relation to one investor, JERA, the article said of Mr Bowen:

However, he said Labor supported passing special legislation that would allow Santos to send carbon dioxide from Australia to the Bayu-Undan oil and gas field in the Timor Sea.

Mr Bowen is then quoted as saying:

"We have introduced the legislation to enable that to occur …

We think that is fair. If we are requiring companies to meet ambitious emissions reduction targets, and they have a way to do it, we can help them achieve it. That legislation is making its way through parliament."

I'll ask you again: is that legislation what we're dealing with today, Minister?

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

For perhaps the fifth time now, I reiterate the motivation for the government in bringing this forward and I reiterate my earlier answer, too, which is that the government does believe that CCS has a role to play in allowing companies to meet the obligations that are placed on them under the safeguard legislation.

This chamber had an extensive debate about imposing obligations on projects that emitted large volumes of emissions. Your party voted for those requirements to be placed on large projects. This government accepts that, in some examples, it may be that a CCS project is the means by which those projects meet their obligations.

If they seek to do so through that technology, if that's cost-effective and commercial and stacks up for them in the context of their project, then, yes, we want it to be properly regulated.

I'll go back to the effect of the legislation before us. It puts in place the framework set out in the London protocol, and that framework requires a number of important environmental protections and other kinds of assessments to take place before any permit may be issued in relation to the transborder movement of carbon dioxide. It also requires an agreement to be put in place between the two countries that would be impacted by any such movement. These are important baseline regulatory arrangements that are necessary to respond to the possibility of projects of this kind. In the absence of these kinds of regulatory arrangements, we have an unregulated space, and I challenge you to explain why that would be a better outcome than having a clear regulatory environment that implements the environmental protections that the countries of the world have agreed to when they signed onto the London protocol.

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

We'll certainly get to that, Minister. I'll take up that challenge, because my understanding is if we're going to be dumping it in someone else's national territory we have no regulatory oversight over that at all, and I'm very keen to hear how you're going to actually regulate another country's carbon capture and storage project even if Australian pollution is going to it. But we'll get to that in a minute.

I note again, Minister, this the sixth time I've asked you this question that you've refused to answer: is this legislation before us today the special legislation Mr Bowen has alluded to on more than one occasion? This is just one article—I've got others here—where he's made it very clear that the government is going to be passing enabling legislation to facilitate the Barossa Gas Project. Clearly, he said, 'We have introduced the legislation to enable that to occur specifically related to the Barossa project'—the $5.8 billion Barossa project. You've refused to answer that. I don't know why. I think it's pretty obvious: it doesn't look good for your government that you're refusing to answer the most simple question. I think a bit of honesty and transparency goes a long way. It's not a gotcha moment; I think this is pretty black and white.

Let me try a different tack. If you genuinely don't know, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know that this is the legislation Mr Bowen is referring to to facilitate the transport of CO2 across international boundaries into Timor-Leste, into the Bayu-Undan field, a depleted field in the Timor Sea. This was in July, and it's been going through the House and of course it's here now. I can't see any other legislation before us that might be doing that, so an intelligent person would say, 'Yes, this must be it.' Perhaps you could offer what other legislation is the minister referring to there if it's not this?

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

I'll provide an answer for the seventh time, Senator Whish-Wilson, which comprehensively answers the question you're putting to me. The motivation for bringing forward the legislation is to implement the London protocol. It's a policy reform that's been going on for some time. Australia supported both of the amendments that I referred to earlier at the time that they were agreed by the London protocol contracting parties back in 2009 and 2013. Then, in 2020, JSCOT recommended that these were minor treaty actions and that binding treaty action may be taken.

I've also made it clear that the government is in the process of improving and strengthening and clarifying the regulatory arrangements that exist for carbon capture and storage and that the legislation before you is part of a broader suite of actions being undertaken by this government to do that.

It's quite clear that the arrangements we are putting in place support projects of the kind that you describe. It is logically true. What I'm not going to do is comment on comments made by other ministers when I am not in a position to know what was in their minds at the time that they made them, but you may proceed on the basis that the motivation for this is to implement our international obligations and to create a predictable, certain and robust regulatory framework for any projects of this kind that are proposed.

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

Minister, do you have one of Mr Bowen's advisers with you today? Could you answer that question, please? Could you get me an answer rather than avoiding it for the seventh time? I am allowed a second question. I'll try a different tact to get an answer to a very simple question, even though I suspect you know the answer. Has the environment minister's office been in discussions with Mr Bowen's office about the timing of this legislation and the drafting of this legislation to facilitate the Barossa gas project—or not even to facilitate the Barossa gas project but just discussions in Mr Bowen's office about this?

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

Minister Plibersek consults with her colleagues, as does Minister Bowen, on a very regular basis, including through the processes facilitated by cabinet.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, which community organisations has the minister for the environment consulted with about this legislation in the past three months?

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

I don't think we have that information at hand, Senator Hanson-Young.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have advisers sitting there. I suggest that you ask them for the answers because my next set of questions are going to be related to those conversations that the minister or her office has had. I want to know what undertaking the minister's office gave to the environmental organisations and stakeholders that she's met with or that her office has met with in relation to this bill over the last three months?

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

Senator Hanson-Young, I wonder if you could be more specific? I imagine that in any conversation that a minister would have with stakeholders, they may provide a range of information to those stakeholders about the content of the legislation that's proposed. If there was something more specific you were seeking, I may be more successful in providing a response.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was allowing the minister time to get the list of organisations by which the minister and her office has had conversations and consultation with over this bill in the last three months. If you could answer that question, that would be helpful, and then we could go forward.

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

Senator Hanson-Young, the minister meets regulatory with a range of environmental organisations and the minister's office also—it's not practical to summarise the last three months of the minister's work for the Senate committee stage. I wonder if there is something more specific that would help me focus my inquiries?

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that Senator McAllister is trying to be helpful. In the spirit of all of us helping each other understand what's going on here, I'll ask some further questions. Could the minister inform the Senate as to whether the environment minister's office has been in discussions with stakeholders about amendments needed to this bill.

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

I understand that the minister's office has had discussions with stakeholders about their views in relation to this bill. I don't have any further detail about particulars, although I am aware, of course, that the matter was considered by a Senate committee and that a range of stakeholders presented their views at that time.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could the minister inform the Senate what consideration the minister's office has given to an amendment that explicitly references the International Maritime Organization's risk assessment and management framework for CO2 sequestration and the specific guidelines for the assessment of carbon disposal?

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

I understand that the matter you're raising now is also reflected in amendments that you've circulated in the chamber that pursue the same issues. The advice we received from the department is that those amendments are not required, because the effect of those is already reflected in the legislation. I can step through that in a moment. It would require me to find the relevant piece of paper. Essentially, as I understand it, your proposed amendment seeks to replicate matters which are laid out in the protocol itself. The advice from the department is that that is redundant and that repeating it in our legislation risks having our legislation become outdated should the protocol itself be updated. The legislation as proposed before the chamber at the moment references back to the London protocol and the documents that are attached to it, and it's for that reason that we don't consider it is legally required in the legislation we're now considering.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could the minister inform the Senate as to whether the minister had undertaken to have these amendments drafted by her office or the department themselves?

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

I'm advised that the answer is no.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's very interesting. I appreciate the honesty. This minister may not be aware that the environment minister's office had given undertakings to third parties that they would. Here we have just one example of how badly this government has managed this piece of legislation; how appallingly the environment minister has treated the environment sector and those concerns about this issue. For months and months the environment minister's office has been telling environmental groups, community interested organisations and stakeholders that she was busy convincing her colleagues that this bill required amendment. How is anyone meant to believe what comes out of that minister's office from here on in?

I've got a raft of other issues which I think it would be helpful to have some clarity on as to whether there was any work done by the minister's office or the department in relation to fixing up and improving this piece of legislation. Could the minister please inform the Senate what, if any, amendments were being considered by the department or the minister's office to deal with the concerns raised by civil society and interested stakeholders?

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

I understand that the minister's office has—you're right—been engaged with a range of civil society groups and also that those civil society groups engaged with the Senate inquiry, and we're grateful for both of those efforts. We always appreciate hearing from the environment groups. The minister's office did seek advice from the department about many of the amendments that were proposed, either directly or through the Senate inquiry processes, and has come to the conclusion, on a range of matters, including the one that you raised in your earlier question, that amendments to the bill are not required, because the way the bill is drafted references so directly to the London protocol that replicating the features of the London protocol in the legislation itself is not necessary and has no additional benefits but does in fact introduce legal risks.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Could the minister inform the Senate of which minister's office, or minister, requested the drafting of this original bill?

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

As I indicated earlier, this process has been running for a long time. The amendments were made to the London protocol in 2009 and then 2013. JSCOT considered it in 2020, and the drafting to implement that JSCOT recommendation was initiated under the previous government.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Just for clarity's sake: the bill was already drafted before the Albanese government took office?

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

Drafting had commenced.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which department—under the previous government, transferred to the new government—was in charge of the drafting of the bill?

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

I thank the Senate for patience. We're obviously asking to step back into the work of the previous government, so it requires finding the relevant corporate knowledge. I understand that the bill was commenced in the Department of Water and the Environment and then, with the administrative arrangements that were published after the formation of the new government, transferred across to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At which stage was the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, in charge of the bill, or when did she have carriage of the bill? I'd like to know the date that the minister for the environment took passage of the bill.

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

It was on her appointment as minister.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could the minister inform the Senate whether the Minister for Resources has been consulted in relation to this piece of legislation?

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

Ministers consult their colleagues on a regular basis.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I ask whether the Minister for Resources was consulted over possible amendments to this bill?

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

As I indicated to you before, the minister, of course, considered the advice in relation to the bill that was provided through the various committee processes and by stakeholders. She consults regularly with her colleagues. I don't have any further detail I can provide you about any specific or formal consultations on amendments.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's unfortunate—or convenient, depending on your position, I guess. Could I ask if the minister for environment sought advice from her department about certain amendments, as referenced. We've heard just now that a number of amendments were considered, which the department looked at, advised on, went back to the minister with and gave the minister advice about. I want to know whether any other ministers within the Albanese government were also given advice about these possible amendments.

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

Senator Hanson-Young, there are limits to my personal knowledge of all of the conversations that take place between all of the ministers, but of course ministers discuss policy matters that are before them. This is a bill that interacts with other portfolios. I am advised that Minister Plibersek and her staff have engaged with their colleagues, as you would expect, in relation to this bill. But the government doesn't propose to bring forward amendments to this bill. We've contemplated the many options that have been proposed by participants in the public debate around this bill and have concluded that we are satisfied with the bill as it is presented and as it is before you now in the Senate.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did Minister Plibersek or her office request that this bill be dealt with by the Senate as a matter of urgency this month?

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

Not that I'm aware.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So why are we debating it today? Why is it on the list for this week?

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

It's understood that the government organises the program for the Senate, and this is one of a very large number of things that we seek to advance through the parliament. It is the policy of the government to ratify the amendments that have been made to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. These matters have been on foot since 2009. As I've indicated, they were initiated under the previous government. We are getting on with the ordinary business of government.

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

I have a follow-up question in relation to Senator Hanson-Young's question. I was wondering if this might have something to do with the timing of this bill, Minister, and I'd like to get your view on this. On 8 October, it was reported that Australia and Japan had met to pledge deeper cooperation on energy security and climate change during high-level government talks, where Labor sought to reassure Tokyo that future LNG supplies will not be threatened by its green energy policies.

That included these talks and Japan's Minister for the Economy, Trade and Industry, who, at the time, talked to the Australian media and stressed the need for Australia to have a stable investment environment. He discussed Labor's emissions reduction rules on future LNG projects, including the safeguard mechanism, and he discussed a number of issues, including CCUS, in talks with our trade minister, Senator Don Farrell, our energy minister, Mr Chris Bowen, and our resources minister, Ms Madeleine King. Interestingly, although he had previously raised concerns, which I mentioned in my earlier questions about Australia's relationship with Japan, these concerns weren't raised again following this meeting. In fact, he made a comment that, following the meeting with Senator Farrell, Mr Bowen and Ms King, he was now confident of a win-win scenario between Japan and Australia in relation to LNG investment.

Minister, I could read you more about these meetings, but, firstly, were you aware of these high-level talks between senior ministers in our government, which I note didn't include the environment minister but did include the resources minister, the trade minister and the climate change minister? Were you aware of those talks, and was the timing of those talks anything to do with the introduction of this bill through the Senate this week?

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

Thanks very much, Senator Whish-Wilson. Yes, I was aware that an extremely important meeting was taking place between the Japanese minister and three Australian ministers. And that is entirely appropriate; we have a deep and longstanding partnership, as energy exporters to them, with the nation of Japan. It's a really valuable partnership for Australia. Incidentally, it's by that well-practised pathway over many years in that business and diplomatic relationship which, potentially, lays the foundation for some of the emerging industries that may prove very important for Australia and for the globe—particularly in relation to the production of hydrogen and its derivatives. So, yes, of course we pay attention to and invest in the relationship with Japan. I'm not aware of all the details that were discussed in that meeting between those ministers, but I am pleased that the outcome of those discussions was positive. Of course it's an important relationship and of course this government will invest time in it.

You're going back again now for, I think, the eighth—or possibly the ninth—time to the question of motivation for the bill. I have laid it out so very clearly that I'm not sure whether it really assists the Senate for me to go over it again.

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

Minister, the bill proposes to establish a regulatory system enabling carbon dioxide to be pumped into the Australian seabed—a technology known as 'carbon capture and storage'. Would you like to explain that to me—and not only to myself but also to the public?

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

Thanks, Senator Hanson. I wonder if it's the idea of a regulatory arrangement that you're seeking an explanation for or the idea of carbon capture and storage?

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

Sorry, the bill proposes to establish a regulatory system, okay? It's about enabling carbon dioxide to be pumped into the Australian seabed, and it's known as carbon capture and storage. A lot of Australians wouldn't even know, and I didn't even know, about that. I would like an explanation of what this bill is actually going to do. How do you pump carbon dioxide into the Australian seabed? What is the regulatory system that enables this? You've got the bill there and you stated that it's a regulatory system—please just explain.

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

Thanks, Senator Hanson. To start with the technology: for many years now, for reasons that are actually unrelated to climate action, oil and gas projects have, for various reasons, been operationally required to eject carbon dioxide into geological formations. The advice I have is that the experience through the oil and gas sector is that the placement of carbon dioxide into geological formations is relatively stable. There's been discussion now for some decades about whether a process of this kind could be used to take carbon dioxide that's produced as a by-product of energy generation activities or industrial activities and similarly store it underground so as to prevent it being released into the atmosphere. The reason for doing so would be to minimise the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and the reason we seek to do that is the relationship between the release of carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere and global warming.

The regulatory environment is important because there are a range of impacts that you might need to consider when you're undertaking projects of that kind. They would be, potentially, impacts on the marine environment, impacts on worker health and safety and other kinds of questions that might be necessary to manage if you were undertaking a project of any kind. It's important to have clear how those issues would be managed for projects of this kind. Australia has its own regulatory arrangements for projects of this kind that are conducted within Australian waters. The bill before us seeks to create a framework to establish the regulatory environment where there is a transboundary movement of carbon dioxide from one territory to another.

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

Minister, did the government sign an agreement or make an agreement or give an undertaking to any gas companies or intermediaries about this sea dumping legislation in the lead-up to the safeguard mechanism passing?

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

Thanks, Senator Pocock. I'm advised: no.

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

Minister, you said this is about environmental purposes. Basically the bill 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. Of our carbon dioxide, only three per cent is created by humans; 97 per cent of carbon dioxide comes from the oceans, from the soils and from natural resources. I just don't understand why you're going to take carbon dioxide—it's a natural gas which is 0.004 per cent of all the natural gases in the world, and you're actually terrified and taking it out, and you're going to have to pump it into the seabed. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what your regulatory system is here. You're saying that it's going to help our environment. Usually, when the oceans will release carbon dioxide and take it in depends on the heating and cooling of our oceans. So how is this going to actually help?

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

Senator Hanson, I wonder if it would help to explain that the bill seeks to deal with two different distinct activities. One is projects associated with carbon capture and storage in undersea formations. This was the subject of a 2009 amendment to the London protocol, and the legislation seeks to create a regulatory arrangement for that when it requires the transborder movement of carbon dioxide.

The bill also seeks to deal with a different proposition. This was the subject of a 2013 amendment to the London protocol. It relates to marine geoengineering activities. This allows for the placing of waste or other matter for a marine geoengineering activity such as ocean fertilisation, for legitimate scientific research. It's a really important point, because it's for research purposes only. It's not imagined that it would be permitted at anything like commercial scale at this point in time.

One of the technologies that people are interested in investigating is ocean fertilisation. There are good reasons to regulate that, because we're not yet certain what kinds of impacts that ocean fertilisation might have in addition to its climate benefits. We should always be cautious about these technologies. It's at research scale, and the amendment before us seeks to create a regulatory framework to manage research projects of that kind.

I will indicate that the London protocol is also looking at potential other future listings, including microbubbles—injecting tiny bubbles into the ocean surface to increase sunlight reflectivity—and marine cloud brightening, or seeding, which is injecting sea salt into cloud updrafts to reflect sunlight back into space. These are all research propositions. They're not commercial. But it is important that there is a regulatory framework to manage them so that we don't have unintended consequences on ocean environments. Because the ocean is a shared resource, it makes sense that that's done through an international protocol.

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

You talked about amendments to the protocol in 2009 and 2011. Where has this carbon capture and storage worked anywhere else in the world? Just tell me one example if you can. I'd like more.

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

As I explained in answer to an earlier question, the technology that underlies carbon capture and storage is quite mature. It has been around for 50 years. There hasn't been a particular need to do large-scale carbon capture and storage until recent times, when we have started to think about carbon abatement. Globally, I understand, there are around 35 commercial CCS or CCUS projects, which capture nearly 45 megatonnes of CO2 each year. Since 2022 there has been an increase of 44 per cent in the total capacity of CCS projects in development around the world—

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

In the oceans? No.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, you know interruptions are disorderly. The minister has the call.

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

I think the point I might make, Senator Hanson, is that the commercial application of this technology is something that will be a matter for proponents. Whether or not businesses choose to develop projects of this kind will be a commercial decision for them.

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

You say it's regulatory. You're saying that businesses can choose whether they want to use it or not. But, if they don't use it, then there are repercussions to them. Basically you're introducing this if they want to carry on a business here in Australia. Is that the case? Do they have a choice to do carbon capture if they want to do oil or gas in Australia? Do they have to do to this carbon capture, otherwise they won't be given a licence to get oil and gas in Australia?

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

Senator Hanson, your question really goes to another piece of legislation that's not before us at the moment. Some months ago we had a debate in this chamber about the safeguard mechanism. I'm not sure if you were here for that debate. At that time we made arrangements to establish binding emissions constraints on large Australian projects, and those projects are responsible for coming to their own commercial decisions about how best to reduce the emissions from their projects.

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

It's quite extraordinary that—what is it now? November 2023?—we're seeing this from the Labor government. If Australians wonder why we are not seeing climate action, here it is. Here it is for people to look at: state capture by the fossil fuel industry. We have a senator, an assistant minister, who genuinely cares. Senator McAllister has a track record on the climate and the environment, and yet here she's having to push this absolute dud bill for the fossil fuel industry. We can't even be told who the environment minister has consulted with in NGOs, in civil society. The only people who want this bill are the fossil fuel industry, and here we're having it put through.

The coalition and Labor are supposedly here to take climate change seriously. We hear about how the grown-ups are in charge. We hear so much talk about being 'pragmatic and sensible'. The pragmatic thing to do in the face of the climate impacts we're seeing right now around the world is to not facilitate the expansion of the fossil fuel industry.

Labor love to point at crossbenchers, point at the minor parties, point at the Greens and say: 'Well, you're just out of touch. You've got to be a party of government. You've got to be responsible.' Well, don't listen to me. Let's listen to Dr Joelle Gergis, one of Australia's most respected climate scientists, one of the lead authors on the IPCC's Sixth assessment reportthe last warning before this window that we have to act closes. These are her words:

There are corporate interests that are willing to sacrifice our planetary life-support system to keep the fossil fuel industry alive for as long as humanly possible, using unproven technology. Carbon capture and storage, known as CCS, is based on the idea that you can extract carbon dioxide from the smokestacks of coal plants or steel factories, compress it, transport it and then inject it back underground, where, in theory, it will remain forever. And that's assuming you can find the right geologic conditions that are stable enough over millennia so that carbon doesn't leak out and back into the atmosphere.

The problem is not only that the technology is enormously expensive, but that despite over twenty years of research, it is still unproven to work at the scale required to substantially reduce emissions.

According to the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute there are 27 operational CCS facilities globally, predominantly in the United States, jointly able to capture 36.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. For context, the world emitted 39.4 billion, with a 'b', tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2021. That is roughly 1,000 times greater than what's possible to capture with current CCS technology. Put another way, CCS plants can only offset around 0.1 per cent of global carbon emissions each year.

To reach net zero emissions by 2050, scientists calculate that carbon dioxide needs to climb by approximately 1.4 billion tonnes each year. Industry groups estimate that between 655 billion and 1.28 trillion is required to make this a reality. Aside from the trillion-dollar price tag, it's critical to realise that CCS projects take around 10 years to progress through concept, feasibility, design and construction phases before becoming operational—time that we simply don't have.

Dr Gergis goes on to say:

Relying on technology that is not ready to be deployed on the scale needed to immediately and drastically address the emergency we face is at best reckless, and at worst an intergenerational crime. It also delays facing the reality that we must stop burning fossil fuels—we need to take serious action and not rely on unproven technology to save the day. As people in climate justice circles like to say, "delay is the new denial." We need to turn the tap off new carbon emissions and start mopping up the damage.

Minister, don't take it from me. Is the government, by trying to get this legislation through, being at best reckless and at worst committing an intergenerational crime?

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

Thanks, Senator Pocock. I think there is an underlying false choice in the proposition that you have put in your speech. Senator Pocock, since people were being nice about me earlier, I will say also that I recognise that this is an area of sincere interest for you and many other senators in this chamber. It should be, because we are in the critical decade and, if we don't get it right between now and 2030, we'll face some very significant challenges in the decades ahead. It's for that reason that we have come to government with an absolute determination to decarbonise our economy.

The false dichotomy I referred to just now is this one. It is just not right to say that a rapid transition to renewables and the use of CCS are mutually exclusive. I would accept your argument if the policy position of the government was to rely exclusively on CCS, but that's not the policy position of the government. In fact, over the period we have been in office, we have taken a range of steps to reduce our emissions in a range of sectors, using a range of different technologies and tools. It starts with enhancing our near-term ambition and legislating both our 2030 and our 2050 targets. It includes the public investments that we are making in the infrastructure to enable significantly greater renewables in our own electricity system. It includes the steps that we are taking to facilitate electric vehicles and their use in this country and to make Australia an attractive destination for the countries that are producing electric vehicles, including, incidentally, some of the countries with whom we do the greatest trade in energy. It includes the development of a robust framework for the land sector so that the sequestration possibilities that are present in nature based solutions and in biodiversity can be realised.

That is actually not the whole of the government's climate agenda, because it would probably take too long to go through that and it would not really be reasonable to labour the Senate with that. But the point I am making to you is that this is a very challenging period for humanity and it's a challenging period for governments, but we have to tackle it. To do so, we will need every tool at our disposal.

We have placed limits on the largest polluters in our national borders and we have asked them to develop the technological solutions that will help them keep to those limits. It may be that some proponents choose to use CCS as a response to those constraints. If they do so, they should, I think you would agree, do so in a well-regulated environment. That's what this bill seeks to contribute to, along with the other steps that we are taking to strengthen the regulatory arrangements around the CCS projects that may take place in Australian waters. But it has this constraint on it. It needs to stack up commercially for the proponents. They need to make decisions about which technologies are going to work for them as they make their transition towards net zero.

I understand why senators would like to have the widest possible debate about our path to net zero and the widest possible debate about climate change.

But I do draw senators' attention to the actual content of the bill before them. It is a bill that seeks to ratify an international convention that exists to create a standardised approach between countries about how we'll manage a shared ocean resource. As part of that protocol, it seeks to establish the arrangements that will be put in place where there is a transborder movement of carbon dioxide. I personally would prefer the transborder movements of carbon dioxide to be regulated if they are going to occur, and it's on that basis that I do sincerely support the legislation that's before us.

I thank senators for their contributions to date. I don't labour under any delusion that we are about to finish any time soon, but I say this: these things aren't mutually exclusive. Of course we have to pay attention to renewables. Of course we have to work on increasing the uptake and the availability of electric vehicles. Of course we have to work on the land sector. Of course we have to work on the technologies that will support our heaviest industries. While we do it, incidentally, we should pay attention to all of the communities around the country that are absolutely dependent on us getting this transition right so that we can create sustainable, secure jobs that keep people healthy and happy as we head towards 2050. There are heaps of opportunities there, and we're determined to grasp them. The idea that passing this bill will stop any of those other things from happening is simply wrong.

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

Thank you for that, Minister. Given your talk about the Albanese government taking climate change seriously and about things that are not mutually exclusive, we know that something that is mutually exclusive is keeping warming below two degrees and expanding the fossil fuel industry. If we're going to listen to the IPCC and the International Energy Agency, those two things cannot both happen. We can expand the fossil fuel industry and we can kiss the Great Barrier Reef—at least 95 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef—goodbye. Faced with those things absolutely being mutually exclusive, I'd also like to say the IPCC says that adaptation beyond two degrees is going to be incredibly difficult, if not bordering on impossible, for many parts of the world. If that is the case, will the government explicitly rule out the use of this sea-dumping legislation being used by new projects to offset their scope 1 and scope 2 emissions and essentially new projects happening under the safeguard mechanism? Will be government rule that out?

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

No, Senator Pocock, we won't. I'm aware that you have an amendment before the chamber that effectively does that, and I can indicate now that, should you move that amendment, the government won't be supporting it.

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

Minister, how can Australians believe that the Albanese government is serious about climate change when you're saying that you won't rule out this legislation facilitating the expansion of the fossil fuel industry when climate scientists are saying that, if we do that, that's 1.5 to two degrees gone, that's the Great Barrier Reef gone? What do you say to them? At least the coalition are more honest about it. We have Labor telling us you're taking it seriously and then putting this sort of junk legislation through the Senate with the support of the coalition. How can we take the Labor government seriously, if you want to spruik what you're doing on the transition, but you won't listen to climate scientists when it comes to the need to not expand the fossil fuel industry?

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

Senator Pocock, we've had this discussion here, and I've had it with other senators in estimates as well.

We've established the safeguard mechanism, which puts in place a cap on the largest of Australia's emitters. That cap sits over the top of a range of the projects that you're concerned about and will require those projects to reduce their emissions over time using—

Progress reported.