David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill stand as printed.

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

In Minister Plibersek's second reading speech she stated one of the objectives of this amendment is to 'support countries without storage capacity to reduce their atmospheric admissions by allowing the export of carbon dioxide streams to countries with available sub-seabed geological storage formations'. My concern is that Australia appears to have a great deal of storage capacity. Conservative estimates put the total at 740 billion tonnes. In 2021, five areas for offshore greenhouse gas storage in Commonwealth waters were identified off the coast of WA and the NT. If this bill is about storage capacity, why is the government proceeding with it, given that we have so much storage capacity right here in Australia?

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

I have indicated to the Senate already that the purpose of this bill is to establish a regulatory framework that would operate in the event that a proponent sought to establish arrangements for the trans-border movement of carbon dioxide.

I've also indicated that, from the Australian government's perspective, projects of this kind will need to stand on their own two feet commercially. If a proponent in Australia seeks to establish a project in the territories of another country, we would, of course, seek to establish a regulatory regime that was effective and appropriate and consistent with our international obligations, and this bill does that. Similarly, if a proponent sought to establish a storage project in Australian territories, and it was intended that the storage would require the transport or movement of carbon dioxide, of course we'd want a regulatory arrangement that supported that appropriately and was consistent with our international obligations. This bill sets up the framework to do that.

As I sought to explain to the Senate in earlier parts of the debate, this bill is not the end of the story in taking decisions of this kind. In fact, it is far from it. It simply establishes the baseline framework that describes the regulatory steps that would then need to be taken for any project to proceed. I'm inclined at this point in the debate to step through how that actually works, because I do feel that some of the questions that have been posed to date, perhaps understandably, don't really respond to this aspect of the legislation that is in front of us.

Before the importation or exportation of CO2 for sequestration could occur, there are a range of things that would need to happen. The first is that this legislation would need to be passed to implement the amendments that were made in 2009 to the London protocol. Once these amendments were passed to our sea-dumping act, to finalise the ratification process we would need to submit official documents to the International Maritime Organization. That would include an instrument of ratification and a declaration of provisional application for the 2009 amendment. Australia would then be in a position to establish a regulatory permitting and approval process under the sea-dumping act to allow projects to proceed. As part of our obligations under the London protocol, we would require CCS projects to demonstrate how they would mitigate any environmental impacts or risks by addressing, at a minimum, key areas: the criteria for carbon capture and storage site selection; an assessment of the environmental impact at selected sites; an assessment of the risk of leakage and appropriate response and mitigation strategies; and requirements for long-term site monitoring, reporting and accountability.

After that, should there be an application from a particular project, before any permit could be issued to any particular project, a bilateral instrument and agreement or arrangement would need to be in place between the two countries, even if that country is not a member of the London protocol. The receiving country must be supportive of accepting any carbon dioxide for sub-seabed sequestration, and they would need to have the necessary regulatory and legal frameworks to manage the monitoring, compliance and verification of CO2 being stored deep under the seabed. It is only after all of those things have taken place that a proponent could apply to the regulator for a permit. I lay that out now because I think an assumption was being made in some of the contributions that this first step represents the entirety of the regulatory arrangements that would be required before any of these projects could proceed.

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

To follow up on that contribution, Senator McAllister, you mentioned, 'Should a project be seeking to export carbon dioxide across international boundaries', and in the final part of your contribution you said, 'If a company were to apply to do this'. Could I get clarification based on my questions yesterday around Mr Chris Bowen's comments to the media on 25 and 26 July. I will read them to you again.

As reported in the Financial Review, Mr Bowen said that the Barossa project, which is partly owned by Japanese LNG buyer JERA and is intended to ship gas to Japan, needed to be dealt with because it would produce more carbon emissions from one field than the entire Pacific islands. 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. And then he said, 'We've introduced the legislation to enable that to occur.' I wanted to ask you, because you weren't able to answer the question yesterday—you said you hadn't spoken to Mr Bowen or his office or had those conversations, but it's been 16 or so hours since you said that—have you now spoken to Mr Bowen's office? Can you confirm that this 'special legislation' he was referring to in those comments is this legislation we're dealing with today?

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

Senator Whish-Wilson, I answered this question yesterday. I made it very clear that the legislation before us is part of the government's broader arrangements to ensure that we have an appropriate set of legislative and regulatory arrangements to properly manage CCS projects. This is one part of that.

I'll make this additional point: this chamber had an extensive debate about the safeguard mechanism. As part of that mechanism, this chamber agreed to the imposition of very stringent requirements for new projects, including the Barossa project. We expect all covered entities under the safeguard mechanism to take the necessary steps to reduce their emissions. There's no secret about that. It was the subject of a very extensive debate here on legislation that you voted for. Indeed, as I recall it, Greens political party members were particularly supportive of those aspects of the arrangements that were put in place as part of that debate.

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

Minister, you talk about assumptions, but of course there are going to be assumptions if you can't answer basic questions like who did the minister consult with over the last three months? I'm interested if, in the last 24 hours, the minister's office has been able to provide you with a list of groups and companies that were consulted by her or her office over the last few months regarding this legislation.

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

Thanks, Senator. I think as I indicated in the discussions yesterday, the minister consults widely with a range of environmental organisations. I don't have with me a complete list of the minister's diary over the last three months, and I don't think you'd expect me to.

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

Minister, what we would expect, as a Senate, is that if questions are asked and you have 24 hours to look into it—it can't be that hard. Someone must know who was consulted with about this legislation. The very curious thing about this is you mentioned the safeguard mechanism going through here. I don't remember this being part of the safeguard mechanism debate, and I think you'll find that the opposition voted against the safeguard mechanism. Now we're in a situation where Labor and the coalition are looking to put through a bill with loopholes to potentially expand the fossil fuel industry. And you wonder why we're concerned. Somehow the Labor government think that they are exempt from atmospheric physics. Who did the minister meet with over the last few months, consulting on this very important piece of legislation?

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

Senator Pocock, I'm not sure if we were here for the same debate in relation to the safeguard mechanism, but my recollection, and I think the Hansard will confirm this, is that there was a quite explicit discussion about the emissions obligations that would be placed on new gas projects, and those limitations were aligned with international best practice and would require those covered entities to reduce their emissions.

There are a range of pathways, as was well canvassed in the Senate debate about how that might happen. One option, of course, is the purchase of offsets. Senator Pocock, I recall you taking a keen interest in ensuring that the offsets that would be available for purchase under that scheme would be sufficiently robust. The other option, of course, is technologies to reduce the emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere from projects of this kind. I have been very clear in the debate so far—and, indeed, so has the government more generally—that this legislation represents one part of our broader efforts, which have been widely telegraphed, to ensure that the regulatory arrangements for carbon capture and storage projects are up to scratch.

This is one part of it, and I will reiterate the point that we have an international obligation to do it. We've signed on to an international protocol that says that, where these projects proceed, we absolutely should regulate them, we should require an environmental assessment, we should require parties to come to a mutual agreement about the movement of carbon dioxide across national borders and we should require the highest standards of assessment, by both exporting parties and importing parties, should projects of this kind proceed.

I'll conclude with this final point, which is that this is a really difficult transition that we're making to 2050. When I look at it, I think about our national economy, I think about our energy security, I think about our region, I think about our international energy partners—their transition and the way that we support them in the transition that they are also seeking to make and the commitments they have made under international treaties to reduce their own carbon emissions—and I think about the development requirements of neighbours in the Pacific and in the Southeast Asian region more broadly and their interests in pursuing development opportunities.

My conclusion is that the legislation before us is one part of a very large policy agenda that is required to support not just Australia's transition towards net zero by 2050 but the transitions that are underway in our region as well. I understand that there are senators in this place who seek to characterise this in a way that is inconsistent with the material before them, because it supports a particular political position, but I actually think this is a really serious set of economic questions that we're grappling with and that our economic partners are grappling with. It's a transition of consequence for current and future generations the world over. So I'll put it to you that what's before us is consistent with a responsible, deliberate and determined attempt to support not only the transition of our economy towards net zero but also the transition of the economies of our partners.

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

I would maybe be tempted to believe you if the government were actually willing to rule out this legislation being used to expand the fossil fuel industry. I am so sick and tired of the major parties pointing at Independents and minor parties and saying, 'There are some in this chamber that may disagree with this, but in the real world ...' It's not us; it's climate scientists, it's experts and it's most people in the community. You wonder why the major parties' votes are tanking. It's because you've got a unity ticket on not taking climate action. You talk about futures, the Pacific and development. It's so disingenuous. You cannot talk about transition at the same time as having legislation that could potentially expand the fossil fuel industry—and you won't even rule that out.

You want to talk about all the other stuff—the experimental stuff, the London protocol, harmonisation, ratifying this or that protocol and all this stuff—but you won't rule out this being used to expand the fossil fuel industry. And you want to talk about the future.

There's our future up there: the young people up there in the gallery. And what are we doing in this place? We are debating legislation that will allow projects like Barossa to go ahead, the dirtiest offshore gas project in Australia's history. We've never considered exploiting gas with that much CO2 before, but ha! Here's a solution! Just allow Santos to pump this CO2 down, and hopefully they can collect enough of it, and she'll be right!

Look what happened with Gorgon. That project was approved on the basis that they would capture 80 per cent of their CO2, and they've just vented most of it. I'll find the figures, but maybe they sequestered 1.6 million tonnes and have vented 3.4 million tonnes. And this is what we're doing to young people's futures. We've got major parties in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. They'll forever deny it, but what other explanation are we meant go with when you're making decisions that aren't based on common sense, aren't based on what scientists are telling us, aren't based on what most Australians want, which is a liveable future, security for their family, being able to enjoy this incredible continent. We have ecosystems on the brink here in Australia. The Great Barrier Reef is struggling, yet you continue to dance around this legislation, talking about how this isn't really about expanding the fossil fuel industry, but you won't rule that out. It's extraordinary, and more Australians need to know what's going on here.

You've got the coalition who won't vote for anything—show me anything that they'll vote for—but legislation that potentially expands the fossil fuel industry is something that they'll get behind. They sit there quietly. I think Senator Duniam is maybe the only person to have spoken on this bill, as the shadow environment spokesperson. The coalition is quiet. Meanwhile, we have the Labor government trying to explain away this in nice terms, make it sound good. This bill stinks. You won't find too many people who know about where we are in terms of the climate crisis and what a transition actually looks like. A transition looks like moving away from fossil fuels, not expanding the fossil fuel industry.

For the young people up there, the government has this bill which does a whole bunch of things, and one of the things it could do is allow new gas projects to go ahead, because someone like Santos can pipe their CO2 under the ocean to a neighbouring country maybe, hopefully. That's off our books then. Santos can deal with their scope 1 and 2 emissions and send their gas overseas. One of the other things—and I know this is something that the entire crossbench is united on. Yesterday we heard the minister talk about the benefits of the gas industry to Australia. I would like to know—this is my question, and it's taken five minutes to get here: how much petroleum resource rent tax have Australians received from offshore LNG production to date?

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

Senator Pocock, this is not a debate about tax, and I haven't come prepared to answer questions about the PRRT, but I feel quite certain that this is something that could have been asked in estimates last week had you wished to—and you may well have done so; I wasn't there for that part of the hearings.

I will just get to the heart of your proposition, Senator. As I was saying to you in my earlier answer, under the safeguard mechanism, new gas fields must reduce and offset reservoir emissions to net zero from day one. That is world's best practice. And world's best practice does require CCS, and that's why we are taking the steps across a range of different pieces of legislation to ensure that the way we address CCS is sufficiently robust.

It appears from your contributions that you do not consider CCS part of a net zero future. I think that's the position that you're putting here, although I did hear you earlier in the debate acknowledge that there were some sectors for which you do think it's appropriate.

It's worth reiterating that the IPCC, the International Energy Agency, the International Renewable Energy Agency, the Climate Change Authority and CSIRO all recognise that a significant amount of CCUS will be required to meet the net zero challenges globally. If you accept that that's the case, that it is a feature of our pathway to net zero, then of course we should have a regulatory arrangement in place that enables that.

What is more surprising to me is the proposition that appears to be being put from the crossbench that you're going to vote against a bill that puts in place an environmental regulatory arrangement to ensure that the CCS projects that do proceed proceed inconsistent with the international arrangements to manage our shared ocean resource. I actually find that extraordinary.

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

This has been a very respectful debate, yesterday and today. There were some comments across the chamber. I'll add my comments, too, Senator McAllister, that I respect your professionalism and you as a human being, so please don't take this personally. There are two things that I do want to take umbrage. Firstly, you just said that you answered my questions. The fact that I've had to ask them 10 times would suggest that you haven't answered my questions. In my opinion, you've just misled the Senate chamber. I asked you very clear questions: yes or no, were those comments by Minister Bowen relating to this legislation? And you have repeatedly refused to say yes or no. We all know it's yes, but I can't get you to say that. Fine, that's politics, but for you, then, to say that some senators in this chamber are trying to characterise this debate as though this legislation is enabling a single gas project, being Barossa, well, that's not my characterisation, Senator McAllister, through you, Chair; that is the characterisation of Mr Bowen on public record. I can read it to you again. He was quoted as saying:

We have introduced the legislation to enable that—

being the Barossa project to occur—

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.

That is not my characterisation. I'm asking you a question about your colleague's characterisation as reported in the media. I want to put it on record. You have, 10 times, refused to acknowledge that this legislation is what Mr Bowen is referring to in his public comments. You have had time to check with his office, and you've refused to. I just want to make that very clear.

There are a couple of things I want to raise and ask questions on, although I'm sure Senator Pocock would like to ask some questions in response to your last contribution. You mentioned that the East Timorese government hasn't signed on to the London protocol but that you would require them to do so before there would be any vote.

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

No.

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

No. Okay, I'll take that back. They wouldn't be required to do so, but there would be a memorandum of understanding in relation to Santos and their partners piping their pollution 100 kilometres through Commonwealth waters to the Timor-Leste boundary. My first question is: are we talking about regulating emissions? Are we talking about scope 1 emissions here? If we have a memorandum of understanding, are we dealing with scope 1 emissions? What about scope 2 and 3 emissions from what will be the largest and dirtiest fossil fuel project in our nation's history if it is to proceed?

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

Senator Whish-Wilson, I will try and answer your question in this way. I stepped through the things that would be necessary for any project to apply for a permit under the regime that's proposed. Amongst those would be a bilateral agreement between the two nations. My understanding is that any such agreement would be broad in nature and would relate to the broad approach that the two parties would undertake in relation to projects that were brought before them. So I think you are conflating two distinct things: the approach that might be taken to permitting and the approach that might be taken to a bilateral agreement. I did step through earlier in the debate the things that the London protocol would require a bilateral agreement to cover. I don't propose to go through those again now, unless you specifically require me to.

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

When will we get this information? When will we get an idea of what will be required in these bilateral agreements? Essentially what the government is doing today is asking us to take the first step towards helping facilitate the Barossa gas project by signing the London protocol. I don't understand how a geological formation which is a depleted oil and gas field, Bayu-Undan, is going to be used for CCS if it's in someone else's territorial waters. How will the Australian government have any jurisdiction over that project if it's in someone else's waters, particularly if that country hasn't signed onto the London protocol? You may have a memorandum of understanding, but under that memorandum of understanding will the Australian government, for example, have any kind of ability to audit whether that CCS project is actually working?

Senator Pocock has raised the fact that the Gorgon project, a $3 billion dud which was talked up all around the world, has been plagued with problems since it started. It is in Australian territory, underneath Barrow Island. It has failed to sequester more than a third of the carbon offset that was committed to. A very big multinational company has spent a lot of money on that and it hasn't worked anywhere near what was required or what was expected. We have to know this if we are going to be taking the first step before we get this legislation further down the track. This is the first time this has happened—that we are dealing with allowing Australian companies to pipe their pollution to another country's territorial boundaries. Why would we accept this first step if we don't actually know any of the details about what's to come? How does the Australian government, under the safeguard mechanism, audit whether a carbon capture and storage area in the depleted Bayu-Undan gas field in the Timor Sea in East Timor's territorial waters is successful? That's the first question. Can you deal with that one first, please, Minister.

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 speculate about how we would deal with a specific project application that's not before the government. What I can lay out for you is the approach that would be taken in developing an agreement with any nation in relation to the bilateral agreements that we're referring to. The Australian government, under our obligation under the London protocol, would require arrangements or agreements to be in place with the receiving country regardless of their London protocol status before a permit to export carbon dioxide for offshore sequestration could be granted. The details and status of these agreements or arrangements will be decided between the exporting and receiving country on a case-by-case basis and would address matters, including but not limited to, responsibilities for maintaining sequestered carbon dioxide in any emissions, the ability of countries to accurately monitor emissions and any leakage from transport and storage. For a capture and transport element of a project that was located in Australia, if an application for a permit was received, the proponents would be required to then describe all of the consultations with advisory bodies and government authorities.

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

I want to clarify something. Senator David Pocock made a comment, saying the Great Barrier Reef is in disaster. We have schoolchildren here as well, and I really want to say that UNESCO's World Heritage Committee have not listed it as an endangered zone. It's not endangered. Actually, it is in pristine condition and it's in good health. There's nothing wrong with the Great Barrier Reef at all. I'm sick of it being used as a sign of climate change when there's nothing wrong with it.

I'll go back to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 the government has put up. The sea dumping bill is not what it seems. The government wants us to believe it is about regulating carbon capture and storage in geological formations under the sea. But the hidden purpose of the bill is to support the carbon trading market, which only adds to the cost of living for Australians. When companies cannot meet carbon emission reduction targets through the failed technology of carbon capture and storage underground, they will be forced to buy carbon reduction credits. These carbon credits are either created by the government out of thin air or created through land use change, where farmers are being encouraged to stop producing food and to turn the land back to bush. The argument put forward by the government is that turning agricultural land back to bushland will suck carbon out of the air and store it. In fact, the bush becomes a fire hazard, and, when it burns, the carbon is released back into the air. But that carbon emission does not count under the carbon credit accounting rules. Carbon trading is a scam in which money is ripped out of the family budget and put into the hands of government and carbon traders.

Let me make it quite clear: I am not against gas exploration or fossil fuels at all. I think that we need mining, and it's what has propped up the budget in this country. The billions of dollars it brings in is important to the economy, the security of this nation and the wellbeing of many Australians, and we do need the taxes.

Senator Pocock asked a question about the PRRT that we get from the North West Shelf. I can tell him. We export about $78 billion in gas each year from the North West Shelf, and over the years we've accumulated about $300 million in taxes. There was no PRRT. The companies Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell accumulated about $400 billion in tax credits through the PRRT. That was actually brought in by the Labor government and supported by the coalition government, which I've been talking about since I came back to this place in 2016. Why were we not getting money out of it? Due to that, they've now reduced the 100 per cent down to 90 per cent. The Labor Party did that. The PRRT was one of the first things I spoke to the current Prime Minister about. They actually have changed it. In the last budget they were expecting about $2.4 billion in tax from a $78 billion export. As I said, I'm not against coal and gas mining, but I am against the carbon credits.

Minister, are these all carbon credits through capture and storage? As we've heard—Senator Pocock has spoken about this and so has Senator Whish-Wilson—Barrow Island is run by Chevron, and that is not working. They've put about $3 billion into it for carbon capture and storage, and it has failed. If you're saying they can do the sea dumping, capture and storage, what is your plan if that fails like it has done with Barrow Island? What's your plan?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill stand as printed. Senator Hanson, you have more questions?

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

I have more questions. Sorry, I was waiting for a response from the government. She refused to respond to it. I've asked her a question: what is the plan of the government if this fails?

You're putting up a bill about carbon capture and storage. If this fails, as it has failed—there's no proof to it; it hasn't worked anywhere around the world, yet you are imposing it. I'll tell you what's going to happen. It costs these companies a lot of money, as we've seen—$3 billion for Barrow Island—to implement this program or whatever it is they're trying to do. That money has to be passed on to someone. Therefore, it will be a cost to the Australian people. If you are going to implement this, what is your plan if this fails? If you're going to force companies to do this or to get carbon credits, what is your back-up plan if it fails?

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

Thanks, Senator Hanson. I apologise for pausing for a moment after your previous contribution; I was trying to reflect carefully on the specific question you were asking me and get the best information I could provide to you. I think the answer to your question is: this bill doesn't impose any obligations on anyone to pursue a project of this kind.

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

You're putting up a regulation about carbon capture and storage. You're forcing these companies to pay carbon credits. If they don't do something about this and put in carbon capture and storage, they're going to have to pay carbon credits. Is that true?

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

Senator Hanson, the bill before us creates a set of regulatory obligations for companies that choose to initiate a carbon capture and storage project. They may do that for a range of reasons, including to meet their obligations under the safeguard legislation. That was a debate that took place earlier in the year; I'm not sure if you were present or not in the chamber for that debate.

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

You've put it in the regulations that these companies can take it up whether they want to or not—that they decide whether they want to do it or not. But there is no proof that this system works. You're lying to the Australian people and you're lying to these companies—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, I just might—

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

Okay, not 'lying'—'misleading'. You're misleading the Australian people into believing something that's never worked anywhere is going to work. Please tell me if I'm wrong; I have no problem with that. You tell me if I'm wrong. Where else has it worked in the world?

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

I think the evidence from Geoscience Australia to the committee that examined this was that there is no recorded or reported evidence of any leakage from a commercial CO2 storage site. Senator Hanson, I said this to you yesterday in response to a question you asked me: I think the more relevant issue is whether these projects will emerge as a commercially sustainable proposition. That's why, in my contributions over the last few days, I've emphasised the commercial decisions taken by the proponents themselves.

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

Following on from Senator Hanson's question: she mentioned the safeguard mechanism, and the minister herself has mentioned a zero baseline for new projects. I'm interested in how this works with the safeguard mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions at Australia's large industrial facilities. Could companies develop new coal and gas projects and still meet their safeguard commitments by shipping the equivalent of their scope 1 and 2 emissions overseas using this legislation?

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

I think speculating about what companies might choose to do in response—

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

It's not speculation.

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

I think asking me to speculate about what companies may or may not decide to do to meet their safeguard obligations is beyond what is reasonable in the scope of a debate which is about an entirely different piece of legislation.

I've been really clear over the course of the last few days as we've debated this that this bill simply seeks to establish a framework that would enable the cross border movement of CO2. I've also stepped through the very extensive processes that would need to be concluded before any such export or import could take place, and I have emphasised that these are, in the end, whether or not projects proceed in relation to carbon capture and storage, contingent on commercial decisions combined with the ability to meet the broad range of regulatory requirements that would be in place.

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

To get more specific in order to seek an answer, given you have DCCEEW and Mr Bowen's department there, could this framework, and the extensive safeguards that would need to be in place to allow something to be developed or proceed under it, allow new coal or gas projects to meet their safeguard commitments by exporting the equivalent of their scope 1 and 2 emissions overseas?

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

I think you're asking the same question in a different way, and what I'm saying to you is the same as my previous answer, which is that I'm not really in a position to speculate about projects that have not been suggested or put before the government.

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

Sorry, Chair. To characterise a question that relates to what this legislation could enable as speculation doesn't seem to cut it. We've got Minister Bowen's department there and Minister Plibersek's department there. This has an answer. That's why the ministers are on the big bucks. They're there to answer these questions and be across the details of this.

We're being asked to vote on this legislation, and I am wanting to know from the government if this new piece of legislation that ratifies the London protocol—and I understand there will be a whole range of things that have to happen for a project to go ahead—enables projects to meet their obligations under the safeguard mechanism? Should this pass, these are two interacting pieces of legislation. Can they meet those obligations by exporting, using this sea-dumping bill, the equivalent of their scope 1 and 2 emissions?

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

Senator Pocock, can I answer this in two ways? The first is that clearly carbon capture and storage is an option for parties that have obligations under the safeguard mechanism, and the second point I would make out is that all emissions of safeguard facilities are measured under detailed requirements under the NGER Act and any emission that is above the baseline that's been set for that facility must be offset. So I think you understand the operation of the safeguard mechanism. But, as I say to you, there is no proposal before the government for a specific project and, as I've tried to indicate in many contributions, all of these things are commercial questions. The safeguard mechanism is designed to incentivise investments in arrangements for emissions reduction. I'm not aware of a project of the kind you've asked me to speculate about. If such a project came before the government, it would be subject to the same assessments and arrangements that I've laid out over the course of the last couple of days of debate.

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

I'd like to get back to Timor-Leste a little bit later. Minister, when you opened your contribution yesterday, you mentioned that there were a number of projects or companies seeking to import CO2 into Australian carbon capture and storage projects or geological formations. Could you say again who they were, please? I failed to write them down yesterday.

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

Yesterday, I indicated that, as I understand it—and of course, one's knowledge can never be entirely complete in this regard, and I don't know all of the commercial activities of all of the businesses in the world—there are four projects in Australia that are currently exploring the possibilities to import CO2. They are: Sea Store 1 in Western Australia, CarbonNet in Victoria, SEA CCS hub in Victoria and the Darwin LNG hub in the Northern Territory.

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

Thank you. In relation to these potential domestic applicants—and this legislation, which allows the trans-border transport or processing of pollution from other countries into Australian offshore geological formations—you mentioned that any potential export permit—or maybe not a permit but any agreement—with, for example, the Timor government would require a bilateral memorandum of understanding. What work has been done on the regulation of domestic importers of pollution? In particular, how does this sea-dumping legislation that we're passing today—in relation to the London protocol—interact with the EPBC Act as it stands now? How does it impact with the OPGGS Act that NOPSEMA and others are covered by? What information can you give us today on how this is going to work for domestic projects importing pollution?

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

This bill is about the London protocol, and I think I have explained previously that the London protocol requires agreements to be made between nations before permits may be issued. Any project that took place in Australian waters would be subject to the existing regulatory arrangements that would apply for any CCS project that was initiated now. Potentially, that engages with quite a wide range of legislative and regulatory arrangements that go to environment protection, occupational health and safety, and a range of other questions.

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

Is this legislation retrospective or is it only for new projects?

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

This legislation is relevant, quite narrowly, to projects that involve the movement of carbon dioxide across national borders. Because the regulatory arrangements that would enable such movement are not in place, there aren't any projects at the moment to which this legislation would apply.

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

Does this impact on the gas off the North West Shelf of Western Australia?

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

I'm really thinking about how to answer your question, Senator Hanson, because this bill is a framework that would enable regulatory arrangements if somebody proposed a project for carbon capture and storage. So, I think that probably answers your question, because the arrangements for new gas projects sit in different parts of legislation.

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

So, we've got so many leases up there for gas projects to go ahead, and at the moment a lot of gas projects are going ahead and can be taken up at any time. Under this legislation, will they be forced or told they must take up carbon capture or storage? How does it work? Just tell me how they counteract their carbon emissions that they are releasing at the moment? How are you dealing with the North West Shelf and what they're doing up there?

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

This bill doesn't require Australian projects to do anything additional to the arrangements that are presently in place for them.

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

Thank you. I just want to clarify the record here. Previously when I asked the minister about the leakages from carbon the minister said that there have been no leakages of carbon from carbon capture projects. Is that true? Is that your answer, Minister?

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

The advice that I provided to you was to quote the advice provided by Geoscience Australia.

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

I want to put on the record, then, comments from the Australian Marine Conservation Society:

The risks of leaks and pollution occurring in the development and any project phase are very real, as shown by the world's biggest CCS plant in operation Chevron's Gorgon project off the coast of north-west WA. Each year it leaks millions of tonnes of high methane greenhouse gas pollution that it promised would be sequestered below the ocean floor.

Minister, do you accept that?

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

I'm trying to provide to you the information that's been provided to us and indeed I think to the House committee by Geoscience Australia, who, as I indicated earlier, stated that there is no recorded or reported evidence of any leakage from a commercial storage site. And I think the evidence is that if a suitable site is selected and the gas is stored and monitored carefully then the risk of carbon dioxide gas leaking is very low.

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

Just to follow up that question from Senator Hanson: my understanding is that the longest established CCS project in the ocean, in Norway—the Sleipner project—has consistently leaked CO2, and that's well documented. In fact, it's one of the most studied geological formations on the planet. It's interesting that Geoscience Australia hasn't been able to read the literature that's available. It's also reflected in the submissions made to the inquiry. I just wanted to put that on record. Is that something that you're aware of, Minister?

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

I think we'd simply make the point that the responsibilities around emissions from carbon dioxide under the NGER arrangements and the safeguard mechanism aren't changed by the bill here.

I've put to you the evidence that was put to the House inquiry. You and Senator Hanson have put different information. In the end, these questions are the responsibility of proponents.

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

Minister, could I turn to permits. The bill says that the minister may grant permits for the dumping of waste and other matter into Australian waters for a marine geoengineering activity if the minister can satisfy themselves on a range of matters. One of these matters is outlined in proposed subsection (7C)(b), which states:

… pollution of the marine environment from the placement of wastes or other matter for that activity would, as far as practicable, be prevented or reduced to a minimum …

What does 'reduced to a minimum' mean in this context? Is there a relevant standard that applies in assisting the minister to determine what threshold of pollution can be accepted in this context?

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

Thanks, Senator Pocock; I appreciate your waiting while I sought advice on that question. It's important to note that the provisions in the London protocol and also in the legislation that's before us go to scientific research activities. They don't seek to enable commercial activities of this kind, for example. In part, the research that is required is required so as to understand what impacts might arise from geoengineering activities in a marine environment. We should be cautious about it and we should understand what the impacts are if activities like this are to take place in our oceans. That's the reason for establishing a regulatory framework. It's so that we can gather information about it.

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

Again, there's no information from the government. If you read 'reduced to a minimum'—you'd expect, when they've got a bill that's coming through the parliament, that they could maybe give you a little bit more detail, that there's a standard when it comes to 'minimum'. This is such a stitch-up. This legislation is a stitch-up. When it comes to climate, Labor are a little bit better than the coalition—

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

Oh!

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

Sorry, Senator Duniam, you had a terrible track record over the last decade. But here we see them teaming up and potentially looking to guillotine debate on something that the government won't rule out the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. It's so negligent, when Queensland is on fire in October. We're sitting in this place, supposedly here to represent our states and territories, to make decisions that are in the best interests of people, of Australians, of this continent, not of fossil fuel companies, not of Santos and Woodside, and yet with this bill the government wants to talk about everything that this bill can do except the thing that we know is the reason they've brought it forward at this time—to facilitate the expansion of the fossil fuel industry against the advice of climate scientists and against what Australians want.

Australians love this place. This is our home. We should be living and making decisions like we're going to be here for a long time. This is short-termism at its worst. This is the time when we have to genuinely undertake a transition and we have a government who wants to talk all about the transition: 'Look over here. We're approving renewable projects. How great is it? We're moving in this direction at the same time we're expanding the fossil fuel industry. But don't listen to the scientists. Don't listen to crossbenchers, who are accountable to their communities, who don't take political donations in 2023 from fossil fuel companies.'

A long time ago, Labor said that tobacco is addictive and it causes lung cancer—as someone whose gran suffers from emphysema, I can see the results. So they said, 'Okay, we're not going to take donations from big tobacco, because it's not in our community's best interests.' But if we look at climate change and the fossil fuel companies that are fuelling this, the UN is telling us that between 2030 and 2050 we're looking at a quarter of a million excess deaths a year. On that basis, you'd think that if the Labor Party were genuine about their commitment to the community then they would say, 'We're not going to take donations from the fossil fuel industry—from fossil fuel companies.' Even if they're not being influenced, the perception is that they are. Otherwise, why on earth would they bring in this most stinky legislation? This stinks! I didn't even have to turn on the TV; I knew when we had started the debate because I could smell it in my office! This is terrible legislation.

This is legislation that will do things that might be good when it comes to experimentation and having a framework, but which won't rule out the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. And they'll still keep on taking donations. They'll keep trying to tell us, 'We take donations, but it doesn't influence us,' and, 'This project is definitely not about Santos,' even though they've been talking about this legislation and even though Minister Bowen has been referencing this legislation. We can't even get the minister to give the Senate a straight answer and say: 'Actually, we'll come clean with you: Minister Bowen has been talking about this legislation and here it is. And, guess what? We've got the numbers to get it through, because we've got our mates in the coalition who will vote against everything except loopholes for the fossil fuel industry.'

It is just so incredibly disappointing! It's just so disappointing to have a Labor government talk the talk on climate and get elected, saying: 'We're going to take this seriously! We'll invest in the transition.' That's great, but they're not willing to make the tough decisions and say to the fossil fuel industry: 'You've had your day, but you're not our future and we're going to listen to climate scientists. We're going to put Australians ahead of the profits of the fossil fuel industry.' They can't even say it's ahead of revenue, because when it comes to things like the petroleum resource rent tax, we've got major parties who don't care. They've allowed the gas industry, basically, to help write these taxes and water them down to the point where, last time I checked at estimates, not a single cent was paid for offshore LNG. Not a single cent! Sure, maybe we got PRRT for some oil off Victoria. But for offshore LNG—and we export 75 per cent of it—there's not a cent for Australians. That's our gas; once it's gone, it is gone.

I know that Labor hate it when political donations are raised; at every opportunity they'll try to say, 'It's not because of political donations or the influence of the fossil fuel industry.' But I say to people here: why else would we have a government facilitating the expansion of the fossil fuel industry when we lived through the bushfires, we're heading into a drought, we've got parts of Queensland on fire in October and we're living through the hottest year on record? On record! But it's: 'Oh, well, we've really just got to keep doing this. Sorry, Australians.' There's no good reason not to rule out the use of this legislation for the expansion of the fossil fuel industry.

I'll take Senator McAllister at her word that there is a range of things that are potentially good about this legislation: it will ratify protocols and have some sort of overarching framework for activities.

If that's the intention, accept the amendment that I will move later—which Dr Helen Haines, the member for Indi, moved in the lower house—that explicitly rules out the use of this to expand the fossil fuel industry. It seems like a very simple proposition. Instead, we just hear weasel words. We hear talking around that issue and putting up all these other things: 'How could you vote against ratifying the London protocol? How could you vote against having things in place?' I say to the government: how can you proceed with this? How can you knowingly facilitate the expansion of the fossil fuel industry and then look Australians in the eyes and say, 'We care about you and your future'?

The major parties can point at Independents, who are ultimately responsible to their communities, all they like and say, 'There may be some in this place that disagree on climate.' It's not me. It's not minor parties and Independents. It's climate scientists. It's people who have spent their entire lives working on this, many of whom are devastated by the lack of action from the Albanese government. Many of them have publicly spoken about the grief, as a climate scientist, of having your work disregarded and of considering: 'Do I even continue being a climate scientist if governments aren't going to listen—if the Labor government isn't going to listen? Do I need to do something else to raise concerns for my future and my children's future?'

I know that's a long ramble. I'm sure at some point there will be a guillotine on this. But these are very legitimate questions to ask, because it doesn't seem to me like we're getting any answers from the government to basic things like: who did the minister consult with in the drafting and preparation of this legislation? What we're hearing from the government is, 'Australians don't need to know.'

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think there was a question in there. Senator Hanson, I'll come to you, but I'm mindful Senator Duniam is seeking the call as well.

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

I don't mind so long as Senator Duniam is not going to guillotine debate.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Hanson. Senator Duniam.

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

On the issue of guillotine, I'm happy to sit here for as long as it takes to get the answers to these questions that are being asked with such good intentions. So, no, no guillotine from the coalition's point of view, as far as I'm aware. We'll see what comes forth from the government down the track. I share Senator Pocock's disappointment that there is a Labor government! He had a few extra points around why he was disappointed, but I'm just generally disappointed in that fact.

There were a couple of references in the last contribution, and I want to go through a couple of them. The first one was 'a stitch-up'. I think looking at the history of how we got to this point is incredibly important. The context around this debate and this legislation is an important thing to bear in mind as we cast our votes and decide whether to support this legislation or not. The minister and others in this debate have referred to the safeguard mechanism. We proudly opposed that piece of legislation, because it was bad legislation, but it passed—in a stitch-up with that far end of the chamber, in cahoots with the government. We outlined our opposition to that. I will make it very clear—based on the gestures from the Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation—that, Senator Hanson, you opposed the legislation as well, because it was bad legislation for a range of reasons.

Let me make sure those listening understand what this legislation did. It set an arbitrary target around emissions reductions for the largest emitters in this country to meet by a certain point in time, and if they couldn't meet those emissions reduction targets they would then have to pay a penalty for doing so—if they, on the way through, couldn't obtain credits to offset those emissions that they were generating. That sledgehammer to deal with this issue—not to work with industry but to force them to a point and tax the life out of them if they didn't comply—meant that we were going to face cost-of-living increases.

This is the backdrop against which we are operating at this point in time. The stitch up that was done at that point in time under that legislation, the backdrop against which we are now debating this legislation—and I accept some of the points that are being made—is about making a terrible situation better. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't sit there and say: 'You know what? We're going to turn the tap off and really tighten the business conditions for these immense economic contributors in our nation, the energy generators and manufacturers, but then we're going to make sure they have no capacity in any way whatsoever to, under the safeguard mechanism, comply with these obligations. We're going to head them off at every pass and make sure they can't do business here.' We are living in a cost-of-living crisis which gets worse day by day. Just yesterday we saw interest rates head through the roof again.

You sit down at the end of the chamber and heckle away as if these things don't matter. Well they do when you go out into the real world and understand how people are struggling to pay their mortgages. Every month it is getting harder and harder. It's the same with their power bills too. The cost of insurance and the cost of groceries gets worse and worse, yet we wave through legislation like the safeguard mechanism and then we don't do a damn thing to assist those businesses that employ thousands of Australians to create immense economic opportunities and keep our country's economy ticking over. We want to head that off at the pass now. There are no solutions and no way forward. This mess is of the government's own making. We wouldn't be here needing to do these things if the safeguard didn't pass and we'd found a better, more meaningful way to deal with carbon emissions, rather than jamming these businesses into the situation they were forced into.

Senator Pocock also mentioned how there's a lack of detail in this legislation. The minister hasn't been able to answer questions. I share Senator Pocock and Senator Whish-Wilson's frustrations, because I remember standing in this very spot when we debated the safeguard mechanism, something those senators I just mentioned happily supported to pass through this place, with all the disastrous consequences that will now flow. There was no detail then. I remember standing here for hours on end asking about particular situations: whether a ticket on a V/Line train in Victoria was going to go up as a result—couldn't tell us that. Whether certain refineries would be able to continue to do work at the same level of cost inputs—couldn't guarantee that. Whether a single job would be lost overseas because of the offshoring of carbon emissions as a result of us pricing ourselves out of the market—couldn't guarantee that, either. That detail was missing, but we were happy to vote for it then. Suddenly we must have the detail we're looking for before we vote for it.

This is about finding solutions to a terrible situation this government has put us in. Dealing with carbon emissions is a priority, sure, but there is no answer from many making contributions to this debate on the cost-of-living crisis that has been inflicted upon us by government mismanagement and bad legislation. There will not be a guillotine, and I'm looking forward to listening to the rest of this debate. I think it's important to remember how we got here and why we got here: the safeguard, bad legislation and the cost-of-living crisis getting worse and worse because of a Labor-Green stitch up.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no question in that. Senator Whish-Wilson.

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

Senator Duniam's contribution deserves a response. The biggest crisis we face is the climate crisis. We know it has been one of the great challenges of our time. I asked senators to read and acknowledge a report put out by the Climate Council this morning, Code blue: our oceans in crisis. It's very topical for today's debate and for the legislation that's before us. Senator McAllister talks about reaching net zero and international obligations under the London protocol. We also know that the International Energy Agency has made it very clear that the only way we're going to achieve our 1.5 degree warming target is to leave all new fossil fuel projects in the ground. But here we are today in the Australian Senate taking the first steps towards facilitating certainly one of the biggest carbon bombs in this nation's history, the Barossa project, but potentially many others.

I want to run through this Climate Council report very briefly. The authors were Wesley Morgan, Simon Bradshaw, Tishiko King, Jane Gardener, Lesley Hughes, Professor David Karoly and Gretta Pecl, who I'm sure Senator Duniam knows is a very well respected Tasmanian scientist on the IPCC panel.

The key findings of the report, of which there are six, are very important. The first finding is:

The health of the planet's oceans, and human survival, are intrinsically linked.

And they go into a bit of detail and background on why we need to pay attention to what's going on in the oceans. For a lot of people, what goes on under the sea is out of mind and out of sight, but I can tell you, from the work that I and many other scientists and other senators have been doing—fisheries and a whole range of things—things are radically changing under our oceans with climate change.

The second point they make is:

The world's oceans are absorbing mind-boggling amounts of excess heat resulting from human-induced global warming.

to put that in context for Australians. The report goes on:

By absorbing so much heat, the ocean has lulled us into a false sense of security, masking the true extent of human interference in the climate system. It is now beginning to buckle, with serious consequences.

I am well aware of these serious consequences, and I know most Australians who live in coastal communities are also well aware. The report goes on:

The oceans are also absorbing more than 30 percent of the extra carbon dioxide emitted from human activities, slowing its build-up in the atmosphere. However, as emissions rise, the ocean will become less effective as a carbon sink.

The third key point they make is:

Abrupt and concerning changes to the ocean are now starting to outpace scientific predictions. Experts are deeply worried—

including the experts who wrote this report. I have been to Senate inquiries and heard leading climate scientists say: 'Senator, we got it wrong. The step changes we are seeing are much worse than we ever predicted.' And we can see that in the physical world around us, if we just open our eyes and look. The report goes on:

In a survey of 30 ocean and climate scientists around the world, more than half said ocean changes are occurring faster than models projected.

There's some honesty there. They don't have all the information. There are uncertainties in any model. But these scientists are saying that they're consistently underpredicting or underestimating the impacts. The report goes on:

Almost two-third … said ocean surface temperature changes are happening faster than expected and more than half … said loss of Antarctic sea ice is happening faster than expected.

Every scientist surveyed expressed extreme or very high levels of concern about the impact climate change is having on the world's oceans.

The fourth point is:

Marine heatwaves are becoming more severe and frequent, with devastating consequences for iconic coral reefs—

like the Great Barrier Reef—

kelp forests—

the loss of 95 per cent of Tasmania's giant kelp forests in the last decade is a classic example, with warming oceans and invasive pests—

and other marine ecosystems.

The incidence of marine heatwaves has doubled since the 1980s.

Marine heatwaves have already caused mass deaths of key species along 45 percent of Australia's coastline. Australia's giant kelp forests have declined—

as I just mentioned, including other forests, such as golden kelp, seagrasses and crayweed—a whole range of critical habitat for our productive fisheries. The report goes on:

Parts of the ocean could reach a near permanent heatwave state by the end of this century, unless urgent action is taken to reduce fossil fuel emissions.

Point 5 of the report is:

Coastal communities across Australia and the Pacific are all threatened by warming oceans and ocean acidification, from robbing us of our big ocean playground, to decimating entire communities.

Global sea levels have risen 20cm since the start of the 20th century, with the rate of rise accelerating.

Australia's … sandy shorelines are projected to retreat by around 100m by the end of the century.

Low-lying Pacific atoll nations face threats to habitability and food security from sea level rise.

and this has been proven—

the size of Sydney rock oysters.

Point six says:

Urgent action is needed to protect our oceans and limit warming, starting with rapidly phasing out coal, oil and gas.

I'll say that again: we need to start with rapidly phasing out coal, oil and gas. Why are we debating legislation today that enables more coal, oil and gas? In the light of this report and everything we can see with our eyes wide open, why is the Australian parliament passing legislation in 2023 to facilitate more oil and gas development?

The report says:

our legislative target, by the way, is 43 per cent—

and reach net zero by 2035.

That's not 2050; it's 2035. It goes on:

That includes putting an end to new fossil fuel developments.

Our oceans may also harbour climate change solutions. There are things that we can work on, such as mangroves and coastal wetlands and expanding marine protected areas. More support is urgently needed for communities to adapt to ocean changes. I will give a very quick plug to the fantastic report of the environment committee recently on exactly how we can adapt to marine invasive species like the black long-spined sea urchin from New South Wales.

What it doesn't say in this report is that we need carbon capture and storage. It doesn't say we need carbon capture and storage in our plan to decarbonise our planet, to meet our climate targets and to take action and make sure that future generations of this country can experience what I've experienced in my lifetime and see what I have seen under the water and in the landscape. It is very sad that we are delivering to future generations a future of climate emergency that is only going to get worse. But, nevertheless, here we are.

I am nearly finished, Senator Hanson. You've sat very patiently through my speech. This legislation today undermines climate action. It has been deliberately put to this Australian Senate to facilitate more fossil fuel development. Apparently, these new projects need carbon capture and storage, a technology that hasn't been proven to have worked commercially anywhere around the planet, a technology that would only, at best, sequester scope 1 or 2 emissions and not scope 3 emissions. (Time expired)

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

There are a few things that I want to refer to here with regard to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. To listen to the coalition opposition, they voted against the safeguard mechanisms because of the impact it would have on businesses and the cost to them and the jobs that would be lost. That was the reason why I didn't vote for it as well. But the coalition are going to support this bill. The opposition are going to support this bill about carbon capturing and what it means. I have to ask the question: why? If they were so opposed to the safeguard mechanism, why are they supporting this bill? The bill will get through with the opposition's support. So it is only the crossbench that is actually here asking questions of this bill. The two major political parties are supporting it.

Going back to the safeguard mechanism bill, Senator McAllister said then:

They are sensible reforms, and they are designed to ensure that Australia's largest emitters remain competitive in a global economy that is decarbonising.

Climate change has been one of the biggest debates we're had for the last 12 years, with changes made to our country through legislation affecting our economy and impacting the Australian people by driving up the cost of living. And I think it's been a vote catcher for some parties too. They use it to put fear into the hearts of people, as we've heard today—for example, Senator Pocock mentioned the Great Barrier Reef is in disaster. The fact is, as I've stated here, UNESCO has given it a clean bill of health; it's not on the endangered list at all. It's actually pristine at the moment, and that's been advocated as well. I actually live in Queensland and I've been on the Great Barrier Reef a number of times; I've dived on the reef. There are no problems there. We have bleaching, as we've always had for centuries. We've always had bleaching. The bleached reef actually recovers very quickly. It's a natural thing that happens with coral.

Where I want to go from here is to say that we have been scammed. This is a scam. The United Nations and other countries around the world have scammed us with everything that's happening here. Climate change BS! A lot of people think it's a load of BS. Our climate is changing, but to actually think that it's changing because of human emissions when 97 per cent of carbon emissions comes from natural resources—and it comes from the oceans actually. Seventy-five to 80 per cent of the earth is covered by oceans. Carbon dioxide is released or taken into the oceans based on the temperature. That's how it works. We have it in our soil. We'll have it in growth. Carbon dioxide is 0.004 of the earth's gases, and it's a gas that we have to have for growth. Actually, at the moment, we are high in carbon dioxide, and guess what? We've had the highest production of agriculture that we've seen in a long time. So how is it hurting our world, if that is the case?

The thing is that climate change is a scam. We have used it, and a lot of people are in fear. Senator Whish-Wilson talks about how the islands are going under. Actually, there has been the growth of land masses across the world as well. So they're not actually going under. And there's another thing also: for how many years have we heard that the oceans are rising and we're going to be flooded and we won't have a coastline? How many times have we heard that? A number of times, yet people keep buying up their land. Members of parliament and former Prime Ministers all live on the coastline. No-one is selling up. They still are maintaining higher costs for those properties.

And we have talk about the heating. As Senator Pocock said, it's been the hottest year that we have had on record. Do you know they stopped taking records in 1910? You can't get records beyond that. If you go back to the late 1800s, we had hotter records than we have now, yet we didn't have all the cars, we didn't have the human emissions and we didn't have the number of people, but we had hotter temperatures then. What about the time when Australia was underwater inland? That wasn't due to humans here; that was all climate change due to other effects and changes and causes. Has anyone really discussed the sun and its impact on us? No. We all go back to human emissions, which is only three per cent. And of that three per cent—just tell the Australian people—Australia has one per cent of the three per cent. Three per cent is the whole, and we have only one per cent of that three per cent. We are actually destroying our economy and the way of life of a lot of Australians, and you're continuing to head down this path.

What I want to tell people is that Tony Abbott signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2016, and guess what? Only 37 countries signed up to it. Russia, China and India didn't. Look at the populations of those countries—over a billion people each in China and India, and hundreds of millions of people in Russia. We signed up to it, and they are the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide—China over 30 per cent to our one per cent.

How hypocritical of this government to actually then want to crucify our businesses, our companies. We are forcing them to shut down. We're increasing prices to the consumer for their goods, yet we keep exporting. How hypocritical. If you think coal and gas is so bad, why do we actually keep exporting it, which I agree with, to China to make steel—their emissions are over 30 per cent—and then buy back their product? Where is this government's sense of what's fair and just? You're a bunch of hypocrites and you're destroying the economy for it.

This is another stupidity of the London protocol, which the minister mentioned yesterday. It says here that a part of this London protocol that we're part of is to research marine cloud brightening or seeding. This is injecting sea salt into cloud updrafts to reflect sunlight back into space. I mean honestly. Truly? And you've signed up to that as well? I can't believe it. You're letting these scientists out there run around with fairies in their heads and all this rubbish and we've got to pay for it. You expect the Australian taxpayer to pay for this technology.

It's the same as when you headed down the path of this hydrogen. You've put $2 billion in the budget for hydrogen. The report I have here says, 'Modelling has not been undertaken to calculate the number of new wind turbines needed to deliver the $2 billion Hydrogen Headstart program.' No modelling has been done on that either. You're just scamming your way through this and you expect the Australian people to pick up the bill for all this. You're buying votes; that's all it is. You're buying votes in this place from the Australian people through you're fearmongering.

And I'll tell you another thing, the government actually—this is what the public should know. The government creates carbon credits and sells them on the market. It's become a trading market. A lot of people are making money out of it. Do you know what they did in Savannah, in Queensland? They reduced last season's grassfires. They burn off their grasses and then, by burning off their grasses, they get 18,000 carbon tax credits. They've done this every year since 2015. Do you know they've accumulated over 57,955 carbon credits worth $32 at the moment? And that's where we're giving it to them. You're actually creating carbon credits and the government allocate carbon credits to the tune of half a billion dollars. You're out there making money out of this trading and you're allowing businesses to go ahead and do it at a cost to the taxpayer. It's a big scam with this climate change BS that you're pushing on the Australian people.

I will keep opposing it. I will oppose this bill. I'm not opposing gas mining or fossil fuels, because we need them. They prop up our economy. You've got nothing else to fall back on. If you think you're going to export our wind and solar, you're playing silly buggers with the public here as well. You've got nothing to export, and we can't even supply our own needs. Go and ask South Australia how they feel about their wind— (Time expired)

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

Minister, I'm interested to learn how a company will go about obtaining a permit. Will it be on application to the department or to another authority so that a technical assessment can be made before advice is provided to the minister?

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

Thanks very much, Senator Pocock. As I've indicated, a prerequisite for the receipt of any application for a permit would be the establishment of a bilateral agreement, and we've canvassed that in earlier discussions. The process would then require the proponent to submit an application to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and the department would seek expert advice on any specific aspect of any application that the delegate or the minister would require to ensure that a robust decision would be made.

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

Who will be making the technical assessments on the suitability of any risk management plans or the suitability or technical merit of any proposed geoengineering activity? Is that determined by the department?

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

I'll offer a two-part answer. The first is that DCCEEW would be responsible for assessing the permit application. Of course, the department has a long history of engaging in environmental impact assessment processes and has specific capabilities in relation to the EIA requirements of the London protocol. But, in addition to that, to the extent that the project engages any other aspect of Australian government regulation, the proponent would also need to meet all of those requirements. You can envisage quite a wide range of both state and Commonwealth regulatory arrangements that might be engaged, depending on the nature of the project. So, as part of the application, the applicant would be required to describe all of the consultations that have taken place with all of the relevant bodies—advisory bodies and government authorities, as well as stakeholder organisations or interest groups.

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

I'm interested: is that expertise currently available within DCCEEW, or will the government seek to recruit new expertise into the department to undertake that? As part of the assessment process, will the department seek to obtain an external assessment of any application?

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

I think the department—sorry, I shouldn't say 'I think'. The department would obtain advice as necessary. If the department judged that external expertise was required in addition to the expertise in house or the expertise held in, for example, CSIRO or Geoscience Australia, they would of course obtain that additional expertise.

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

I appreciate that, but my question was actually about whether or not the department, DCCEEW, currently has that capability, that expertise and, as part of the process, whether there would be the additional need for an independent evaluation of any proposal. Will it just be a one-stop shop—'Come to DCCEEW and you can get your answer'?

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

The department would consider all of the advice that was before it, analogous to the way that it exercises its responsibilities and some of the legislation that it presently administers.

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

I don't understand why you can't answer our questions. The first question was: does DCCEEW currently have the capability to do this?

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

The department has a long history of considering environmental impact assessments. In the context of its present legislative and regulatory responsibilities, it would exercise any requirements under this legislation in a matter analogous to the approach it takes in relation to the other legislation that it administers. When a departmental delegate is required to take a decision, they consider the obligations that are laid out in the legislation and obtain all necessary information to be able to exercise those functions. Necessarily, that looks a little different depending on the nature of the application before the decision-maker. But, yes, part of the department's core expertise is the capacity to consider environmental impact assessments, and that's the requirement that would be in place should this legislation pass.

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

Thank you, Minister. Will there be public consultation on a permanent application as part of the application process?

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 minister is required to publish details of any application that is made through this process.

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

Thank you, Minister; that's good to know. I'm interested in if that includes a formal obligation to undertake public consultation.

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

The public consultation is required to be undertaken by the proponent as part of preparing their application. The department would set requirements that described the nature of the necessary consultation. That's yet to be established and is subject to the passage of this legislation.

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

Thank you, Minister. Just on the issue of consultation: I'm interested in whether we've been able to get some advice from the department on who the minister met with in consultation for this bill, given how important consultation is and how much we've heard from the Albanese government about consultation.

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

I think you're aware that this bill has been the subject of extensive consultation. The development of this has been ongoing for a very long period of time. In January this year, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, at Minister Plibersek's request, conducted an inquiry into the 2009 and 2013 amendments. The broad aims of the inquiry were to seek information on the environmental benefits and impacts of the transboundary movement of carbon dioxide streams for the purpose of sub-seabed sequestration; the environmental benefits and impacts of marine geoengineering activity such as ocean fertilisation for scientific research; the international market for carbon dioxide streams; and the interaction of the proposed amendments with greenhouse gas inventories and regulatory reporting systems. A public hearing was held as part of that process on 26 May at Parliament House and was attended by industry, government agencies and an expert in environmental law, and the committee released its report on 13 June 2023. As I think you will know, the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee also conducted an inquiry. It released a report on 22 July 2023 recommending that the bill be passed, with a dissenting report from the Greens political party.

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

Thank you, Minister, for that. In the absence of detail, I guess we just have to make assumptions that there wasn't much genuine consultation by the minister on this. You've outlined committee processes. It will come as a shock to senators in this place that a Senate legislation committee recommends the passing of a bill!

To go back to this very valid concern about consultation not just on this bill: should this pass, when we have proponents suggesting or putting forward projects, you have told the Senate that the proponent would be required to do public consultation. We've recently seen some huge issues around that, one example being Santos and Tiwi islanders. I'm interested how the department will know that it is receiving all relevant information and views from the consultation.

How will the department know that it is receiving all relevant submissions and views on the public consultation? Why would the department not conduct their own consultation, given that this is a new area for Australia? This has not been done before.

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

Senator Pocock, I've sought to indicate in earlier answers that the process would be analogous to the way that consultation on applications occurs under other environmental legislation—specifically, that the proponent is required to demonstrate that they meet the consultation requirements associated with submitting an application for a permit. Those requirements would be set out by the department as a standardised requirement, and they would form part of a broader set of informational obligations that proponents would be required to meet before submitting an application. You did ask a multipart question. You've been distressed at different times when I haven't answered all of your multipart questions in each answer. If I've missed something, please feel free to raise it again.

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

Apologies, Minister, for the multipart question. The second part of the question was: given that we've seen some very serious concerns about proponent led engagement and given that this is a new area for the government, why isn't the department going to do its own community consultation?

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

The department will establish the requirements for consultation for the proponent and, as part of evaluating their application, will assess whether or not they have met those requirements to the satisfaction of the decision-maker.

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

I might follow with some questions of my own in relation to the legislation. Obviously, as I mentioned earlier, the government is asking the Senate to pass this legislation to take the first step towards developing carbon capture and storage in the ocean, which, in turn, is designed to facilitate new fossil fuel projects—or, potentially, depleted fields that are next to existing operations—to attempt to offset their emissions. I have three areas of questions. The first is in relation to what liability the government and taxpayers will hold for any CCS project undertaken offshore, whether it's in domestic or foreign waters. Maybe we'll start with domestic waters, considering that you have four companies interested in importing other countries' carbon pollution. What liability will the Australian taxpayer have for these projects?

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

As a general proposition, proponents are responsible for their actions. Under current regulatory arrangements for domestic projects, a proponent who is planning to dispose of CO2 in Australia requires multiple approvals, including under the sea dumping act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act. To anticipate your next question, in relation to exports, as I've indicated in previous answers, any country that receives CO2 under arrangements for transboundary movements of CO2 will need to have an equivalent regulatory control in place that meets the requirements of the London protocol.

And any releases of carbon dioxide through the carbon transport, injection and storage phases must be accounted for under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change international reporting framework and included in the national emissions inventories of the country in which they occur.

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

There have been frequent references over many years now in relation to CCS projects in general, and particularly in relation to the Barossa project by Japanese investors in that offshore oil and gas development. They want federal government assistance. They want subsidies to help them develop the technology and help them work within the new regulations. Minister, what are the government's plans for providing subsidies or assistance to help facilitate carbon capture and storage projects?

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

Senator Whish-Wilson, I think you know, because it's been the subject of some discussion in estimates and at times in here, that the government has recently refocused the arrangements that were in place under the previous government to provide subsidies for commercial CCS. Our policy settings focus on providing support only to areas of technology innovation with a particular focus—I think for obvious reason—on technologies that might support the application of CCS in hard-to-abate areas.

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

Before we go to Senator Hanson, could I ask for some clarification there? Could the minister be more specific as to what she means by 'technology'? Let me put it in a more simple way: will you rule out government subsidies for new carbon capture and storage projects for Australian companies operating in Australian waters who are exporting their carbon dioxide into international waters? Obviously, Barossa's the only one on the table that I'm aware of at the moment that's seeking to do that. Will the government rule out subsides to that project and to others?

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

Senator Whish-Wilson, as with many of the questions you've put to me over the last couple of days, the government doesn't have a project proposal before us in relation to Barossa. We're aware, of course—as you are—of public discussion and public commentary by the proponents for that project. I have indicated to you where our focus is in terms of CCS funding support. We do not allocate funding to commercial applications of CCS. The previous government did, and the budget changes we made sought to refocus CCS funding towards areas that require technical innovation. I will confess to you that I may need to consult a little to get the specific parameters of the new program design, but I can broadly say it seeks to move away from commercial activities and towards activities that would ordinarily be considered part of the innovation cycle rather than the commercial part of the technology cycle.

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

I'll be quick because I know Senator Hanson has some more questions, and I certainly have more in relation to other areas. As I mentioned yesterday, it was reported—and, Senator, you confirmed this and you said these talks were important—that we've had high-level government talks between the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Don Farrell, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, and the Minister for Resources, Madeleine King, with Mr Nishimura, Japan's Minister for Economy, Trade and Industry, and others very recently, and they have consistently asked for government assistance for carbon capture and storage in relation to Barossa.

I just ask you again, yes or no: will you rule out future government subsidies or assistance for this project under this legislation?

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

Thanks, Senator. The government has made no commitments to other governments or to proponents about financial support for carbon capture and storage associated with the Barossa project. I also indicated that I would seek a more precise formulation of the new Carbon Capture Technologies Program. I concede that my earlier answer possibly, aside from anything else, was grammatically incorrect, so can I provide this additional piece of information: the Australian government is developing a new Carbon Capture Technologies Program with a focus on prioritising technology development for hard-to-abate industrial sectors, accelerating carbon dioxide removal and negative-emissions technologies, and supporting research opportunities. The program will be an open, competitive grants program aimed at accelerating the integration of novel CO2 capture technologies and CO2 utilisation technologies into Australia's growing CCUS capability. Importantly for you, Senator Whish-Wilson, this new approach shifts government funding away from commercial-scale CCUS activities and focuses on technologies that are key to achieving net zero by 2050. Demonstrating the technical capability and reducing the cost of these novel technologies now will enable their scale-up over time to meet our long-term climate objectives.

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

Minister, will this bill allow companies operating in our waters to buy carbon emissions from other countries and pump them into our seabeds?

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

Senator Hanson, I can't comment on whether commercial arrangements for Australian companies or companies operating in our waters would involve buying carbon dioxide. However, I can indicate that the purpose of this bill is to establish the regulatory arrangements that would be necessary if a company wanted to establish a project to do this, and it sets out a series of things that would need to occur, including a country-to-country agreement between Australia and the other country that was involved in such a project, and then a series of steps that the proponent would need to take to demonstrate that it meets the stringent environmental and other regulatory requirements that are set up in the London protocol. The purpose of the London protocol is to make sure that we have a consistent and robust approach to protecting our marine environment in a range of circumstances but, in this instance, in circumstances where there is a transborder movement of carbon dioxide.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have two minutes before the hard marker.

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

Thank you, Minister. I just want to follow up. Yesterday, you gave an answer to this, and I just wanted to make sure it was clear for the Senate. I just want you to confirm whether or not Minister Bowen or Minister Plibersek had made any undertaking or agreement with any gas companies, or intermediaries acting on their behalf, about the passage of this legislation.

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

Thank you, Senator Pocock. Of course the government has spoken with a range of entities—community groups, environment groups, proponents and diplomatic engagements—about our approach to climate legislation generally, carbon capture and storage specifically, and our approach to the London protocol. I think that's what you'd expect from a government that was engaged with stakeholders in the ordinary way when legislation is progressing.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're free to ask a question, but in 20 seconds, Senator Pocock.

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

Minister, was there an agreement with gas companies before the safeguard legislation passed, 'Don't worry, this legislation's coming and we'll make sure that sea-dumping passes the parliament?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'll have to wait for that response, Senator Pocock. It will remain a mystery until we reconvene.

Progress reported.