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

The question that is currently before the committee is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2142, moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to. I intend to put the question unless any member wants the call. The question before the committee is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2142, standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move my amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2151 together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A Subsection 4(1)

Insert:

new fossil fuel facility has the meaning given by section 4AA.

1B After section 4

Insert:

4AA Meaning of new fossil fuel facility

(1) A facility is a new fossil fuel facility for a financial year (the current financial year) if:

(a) during the current financial year, the facility conducts an activity, or a series of activities, for the purpose of extracting, processing, supplying or exporting coal, oil or natural gas; and

(b) either:

(i) as at 1 July 2023, a determination referred to in subsection 22XQ(1) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 has never been made in relation to the facility under the safeguard rules (within the meaning of that Act); or

(ii) on 1 July 2023 the facility is an existing facility and during all, or part, of the current financial year the facility undertakes new operations of a kind specified in subsection (2).

(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), the following kinds of new operations are specified:

(a) new operations that increase the annual production of the facility;

(b) new operations that extend the number of years of production of the facility;

(c) new operations that involve the development of new reserves that were not already under production by the facility on 1 July 2023.

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 1 to 16), omit subsection 19(7B), substitute:

(7B) In a financial year, the Minister may only grant a permit for the export of controlled material for dumping, where the controlled material is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation, if:

(a) the carbon dioxide streams are not captured from facilities that are new fossil fuel facilities for the financial year; and

(b) the Minister is satisfied of the matters referred to in paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of Annex 1 to the Protocol; and

(c) the Minister is satisfied that there is an agreement or arrangement in force:

(i) between Australia and the other country to which the export relates; and

(ii) that includes the matters covered by paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 (as appropriate) in the Annex to Resolution LP.3(4) adopted on 30 October 2009 by the Contracting Parties to the Protocol; and

(d) the Minister is satisfied that the grant of the permit would be in accordance with Annex 2 to the Protocol; and

(e) the Minister is satisfied of any other matters the Minister considers relevant.

We have heard for five days and I don't know how many hours in here—

Senator Duniam has sat there listening and contributing. We were asking the minister about what this legislation meant for the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. We were assured for five long days that it wasn't in fact related to that. It was about everything else. It was about the London protocol, about ratifying international obligations, about years of drafting, about experimentation that may need to happen and about having a framework for the safety of that. On Friday we learned what the minister could have told us on Monday: that this is in fact for Santos, INPEX, Woodside, Japan and Korea. It's about gas. The sea-dumping bill is about facilitating the expansion of the gas industry, of the fossil fuel industry, at a time when we cannot afford to do so, at a time when we're being warned and urged by climate scientists about this narrow window to act decisively. This is not decisive action. This is delay.

We've heard over the last six months in here from communities across the country about the impact that climate change is already having on them at 1.2 degrees of warming. For many it's disastrous. We've seen towns flooded multiple times in a season. We've seen traditional owners from the Beetaloo come to Canberra to make their case, to argue why they matter, why their connection to the place that they live, love and have looked after for thousands of years should matter to the Labor government. They've urged this parliament to take decisive action on climate, to stop the fossil fuel subsidies, to stop the $1.5 billion to Middle Arm, which will help facilitate the expansion of the gas industry, which is related to Santos's call to expand their operations with Barossa, where we've seen Tiwi Islanders raise their concerns.

Labor is all about listening to Indigenous communities and the concerns of First Nations people, but when it comes to things like Santos in the Pilliga or Santos in the Tiwis, they don't want to hear about it. When it comes to court, the environment minister is very happy to join fossil fuel companies and argue that she shouldn't have to take into account the emissions of individual coal mines. This kind of politics in 2023 is disastrous. We need better. After a week of listening to the minister explain the bill before us, this amendment would deal with the biggest concern for anyone who cares about our future, anyone who cares about the people and places that we love and, it seems to me in this place, anyone who's not taking donations from Santos, INPEX and Woodside. It would rule out this Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 from being able to facilitate new fossil fuel facilities.

I would urge the government to support this. They've indicated that they won't be—even given what we know about climate change, given what we're hearing from our climate scientists, and noting that we have some of the world's leading climate scientists here in Australia. We have scientists like Dr Joelle Gergis, who was one of the lead authors of the recent sixth IPCC report. She's written openly about her struggles in the context of what we're facing—of spending years and years of her life researching, compiling evidence, creating a compelling case for bold action. You'd think that, when she presents that to the world, the parliament would sit up and think: 'This is serious. We've got a window to act.' Yet what do we get? We get this sea dumping bill.

What a response to Joelle Gergis and others: the sea dumping bill—'We hear your concerns, but hey, Santos and Inpex and Woodside really need this, and Korea and Japan want it, so we should really get on with delivering this bill for them,' with the support of the coalition and despite Australians voting for more climate action and despite having a crossbench that's urging you to take this more seriously, urging you to do what is, I would argue, the morally right thing in the face of what we know about climate change. And that is to act, to truly get on with the transition, to not approve new fossil fuel projects when climate scientists and many others are telling us that we can't afford to do that.

After a week of asking questions—and its questionable as to how many answers we received—I think we got our answer on Friday from Minister Wong. It's very clear what this bill is about. I would remind the Senate that what we're dealing with here is our futures. We make decisions in here, and those decisions should be good for our futures.

I read something over the weekend that I thought was maybe relevant to where we are. It is said that the Buddha told this story as a warning. A couple were travelling across the desert with their only child. Their food supply ran low and they grew hungry. But, driven by an insatiable ambition for their destination, they refused to change course. As if in a trance, they decided to kill and eat their child to sustain them. When they arrived at last on the other side, when the destination had lost its allure and the trance had lost its grip, they were utterly hollowed with grief and regret.

We have an opportunity to act, and we're heading down the path that climate scientists are warning us not to go down.

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

The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 is deeply flawed. The whole premise of this bill is deeply flawed. Far from protecting the environment or acting on climate change, it is an attempt at greenwashing the fossil fuel industry and the expansion of, particularly, the gas industry.

Every leading organisation around the globe focused on climate action, the United Nations, the International Energy Agency and many foreign governments acknowledge that we cannot continue to expand fossil fuels if we are to arrest the most dangerous elements of climate change. Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, has belled the cat and said how dangerous it is for governments to pretend, like the Albanese government is trying to do here today, that unproven technology like carbon capture and storage is a silver bullet and a get-out-of-jail-free card for the fossil fuel industry. It's simply not, and Antonio Guterres says it bluntly. It is dubious science. It is all about the fossil fuel industry with their foot on the throat of government, and they are the ones calling the shots.

The only reason a government or a parliament, in our instance, would be facilitating a piece of legislation like this is if either we are blind to the fact that this is what the fossil fuel industry needs to and wants to pretend that it can continue, as business as usual, or we are wilfully willing to facilitate it. It's only one of two options. Either you think the fossil fuel industry has a right to continue to burn and cook the planet, or you've been hoodwinked by the fossil fuel industry. Which one is it? Could the minister please explain to the chamber whether the Albanese government has been hoodwinked by the fossil fuel industry, or are you just doing their bidding for them?

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

I'll offer a response to the contributions from Senator Pocock and Senator Hanson-Young in relation to the amendment that's before us. We don't support the amendments on sheet 2151. Narrowing the application of this legislation would actually prevent Australia from meeting its obligations under the London protocol. The London protocol doesn't distinguish the source of carbon dioxide that might be transported from one jurisdiction to another. It applies to any such transport, and our obligation, if we're to meet the requirements under the treaty, would be to create a framework that would allow environmental impact assessments and a range of other risk assessments in relation to all such movements.

Both Senator Pocock and Senator Hanson-Young have reprised the arguments that they've already made over the last six days of debate. I think the clear thing is that the Greens and Senator Pocock have a view about how we should get to net zero by 2050. These arguments, incidentally, were canvassed in the safeguard debate and have been canvassed regularly at estimates as well. The government has a very clear pathway by which we seek to reduce the emissions in the Australian economy. It is the safeguard mechanism—

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not working very well!

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

I'll take the interjection from Senator Rice. Senator Rice is correct that the safeguard mechanism hasn't worked very well, because under the previous government it was a mechanism that didn't in fact create an obligation for the covered entities to reduce their emissions. That is what has changed under this government, and this chamber went through an extended debate to put in place binding emissions constraints on large facilities right across the economy. We will expect those facilities, those covered entities, to reduce their emissions.

We know that, for some kinds of activities, carbon capture and storage may be a commercially viable solution for them to reduce their emissions. If that's the case, that's an activity that should be properly regulated. It's already subject to regulation, of course, when it takes place in Australian waters, and that's been the case for a very long time. Our government wants to make sure that those regulations are fit for purpose and actually meet the robust requirements that Australians would expect to be in place for activities like this; that's why there is a review going on across the range of legislative arrangements that are in place to manage CCS projects when they're in Australian waters.

This is part of that effort. It represents an attempt to meet our obligations under an international treaty but also to establish arrangements that are sufficiently robust to meet the expectations around carbon capture and storage projects when they take place. The decision about whether or not to initiate them will be one for project proponents. And so, for the reasons I've explained, we don't support the amendment on sheet 2151, but I thank senators for their contributions to the debate.

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

Thank you, Minister. It is very disappointing that the government won't rule out using this for the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. You referred to the safeguard mechanism as binding emissions restraints, and I'd be interested in hearing from you how creating a loophole for the safeguard mechanism fits with binding emissions restraints.

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

I don't accept that characterisation of the bill before us.

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

This bill creates a loophole within the safeguard mechanism for companies to effectively ship their emissions to our neighbours and somehow claim that they are meeting their scope 1 and 2 obligations. We've now heard from the coalition and the Labor government that gas companies are clamouring to see this passed and are lobbying hard. Minister King has written to Senator McDonald, urging her and the coalition to pass this. And yet I'm meant to believe that this isn't a loophole to the safeguard mechanism. The gas companies are just really keen to see this! Why would they be keen for this if it is not a loophole, a way for them to make good on these binding emissions restraints—plus loophole—and continue to expand?

I will move on to an actual question. Potentially this is one for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry as well. What has been the assessed potential economic impact to our fisheries industry in the event of a spill or leak? What consideration has been given of the economic impact to the fisheries industry, and is there a plan being formulated to ensure that this doesn't happen and that the fisheries industry will be compensated in the event of a spill or leak?

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

We've canvassed the approach to assessing risks in answers to previous questions. Essentially, the London protocol requires a risk assessment to take place. I have explained that in answers to previous questions.

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

Does the London protocol include the risk to fisheries?

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

An environmental impact assessment, I am advised, includes assessment of the range of impacts on the marine environment, including impacts on other users of that environment.

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

Minister, under the London protocol what are the requirements for permanency? How long does the formation or the technology have to be seen to be fit? Are we talking about a hundred years, a thousand years, 10,000 years, 50,000 years—how long?

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 decision about timing would be a decision for the Australian permitting authority for projects that took place in Australian waters, as it is now for CCS projects, and that is assessed at the time by the permitting authority.

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

What is the current time frame for permanency under the permitting that you referred to?

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

I'm advised that this is assessed project by project, Senator Pocock.

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

Minister, when you're allowing companies to take their emissions and pipe them into undersea storage—

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

Otherwise known as dumping.

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

sea dumping, in your government's well-named bill, we're just going on a case-by-case basis on how long we think those molecules will remain under there. Should there not be some time frame that the government thinks is a reasonable amount of time to be sure, and we're not just kicking the can down the road for a future government to have to deal with, leaking CO2?

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

Senator Pocock, I have already addressed this, but I'm happy to do it again. The government is undertaking a review of the environmental management regime for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities. Those are the arrangements that are in place in Australian waters, and that review seeks to ensure that the regulatory regime for offshore CCS projects manages risk to the marine environment and workplace health and safety. It, amongst other things, will look at the regulatory requirements relating to the long-term liability and monitoring of sequestered carbon dioxide. In relation to projects that took place in the waters of another country under the London protocol, the way that that jurisdiction managed the carbon dioxide in its own territory could be one of the matters considered in the agreement that would need to be struck under the London protocol between Australia and the receiving country.

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

Thank you, Minister. Sometime last week we were asking about, I think, Timor-Leste not being a signatory to the London protocol. My understanding was that you said it would then essentially be on us to ensure that it was up to standard and that everything was adhered to. I'm interested: once it's under Timor-Leste, how long does Australia have that requirement? Is that indefinitely? If there's a leak in 50 years and Timor-Leste hasn't upheld the London protocol obligations, is that then a liability on the Commonwealth? What happens?

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

I have previously answered this question, Senator Pocock. The emissions accounting for carbon dioxide is the responsibility of the territory in which the project takes place, under the rules established by the UNFCCC.

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

I'm listening to this exchange and I'm very interested. The government just voted against a Greens amendment which would have ensured that the participating country would have to have environmental regulations and rules that were at least up to the same standard as Australia.

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Which isn't saying much, no, but at least then there would be some understanding of the level at which risk was being taken. I'd like to know from the minister: which countries in our region where this toxic pollution will be dumped have better environmental laws than Australia?

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

Senator Hanson-Young, I am not going to speculate or provide comment on the approach taken by sovereign governments to environmental management. I have previously explained the steps that would be required to establish a permitting arrangement should this legislation pass, and the first of those is treaty ratification. We would need to submit an instrument of ratification and a declaration of provisional application. We would then need to establish a bilateral instrument or agreement with another party, even if that country is not a member of the London protocol, and the receiving country must be supportive of accepting any carbon dioxide for sub-seabed sequestration and have the necessary regulatory and legal frameworks in place to manage the monitoring, compliance and verification of CO2 being stored under the seabed. Only once those steps were in place could proponents apply to the regulator for permits to allow CO2 to be transferred between countries.

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

I'll take that as a nonanswer. I understand that it's a difficult question if you haven't actually considered the responsibility that Australia has in our region as a wealthy nation that has access to resources and scientific data and that has a much larger reach in terms of the ability to monitor these types of issues. I would like to know, if it's a matter of these protocols or regulations needing to be put in place before a proponent can apply to dump their toxic climate-change-inducing pollution in the ocean: what does the Australian government understand is the expected time frame in which any such laws in any of these other countries will be in place?

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

The timing of any agreement-making between Australia and another regional partner is really not entirely in Australia's gift, is it? It's a consequence of negotiations and discussions between parties. But, if your question is whether it can happen quickly, of course such consultations and discussions would take time.

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

What I'm wondering and would like some clarity on from Senator McAllister is: if we pass this bill through the Senate today, when is the earliest opportunity to dump toxic waste in the ocean?

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

Senator Hanson-Young, I think I have answered your question. And in responding to the contribution, I will say that we just don't accept the characterisation that you've used in describing what's proposed here. Actually, the arrangements seek to ensure that any kind of carbon capture and storage arrangement that's in place in Australian waters or elsewhere is required to meet the stringent requirements that are set out in the London protocol.

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

Minister, why does your sea dumping bill not refer to or provide clarity on the need for export permit holders to comply with the risk assessment and management framework for CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological structures to ensure compatibility with annex 2 to the London protocol?

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

Section 19 of the sea dumping act requires the minister to have regard to all international agreements, including the London protocol. It was on that basis, as I've previously explained, that we didn't give support to the amendment that was moved earlier.

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

Thank you, Minister, for that. As CCS will result in prolonging our dependence on fossil fuels—it's very hard to argue against that—what analysis has been conducted to estimate the consequential economic impacts on investment in developing alternative energy technologies?

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

Senator Pocock, I don't accept the premise of your question. This bill that's before us simply sets out the regulatory environment for proponents who seek to establish a project that involves the transborder movement of carbon dioxide.

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

Minister, just to clarify, the Labor government does not accept that carbon capture and storage will be used to extend the period in which fossil fuels are used?

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

This debate has been very broad ranging, but the bill before us relates to the regulatory arrangements for project proposals that relate to CCS where there is a movement of carbon dioxide across international borders. I understand the desire of senators to have a much more wide ranging conversation about climate change and pathways to net zero. I have engaged in good faith over a long period of time in that broad discussion, but I draw your attention to the bill we are actually contemplating and the amendment before us.

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

On Friday this government's own minister for resources wrote a letter to the opposition, arguing that this bill pass because of the $30 billion worth of investment that hinges on it. It is very disingenuous to now suggest to Senator Pocock that this bill is doing anything that would further the expansion, and therefore reduce the transition time frames, of other types of technologies, because, if we're not spending $30 billion on CCS and expanding gas, perhaps industry would be spending $30 billion on actually building the technology that is clean and green. It's totally disingenuous to sit here today and tell us that this bill will not further expand fossil fuels. That's the purpose of the bill. The minister for resources said it herself. She has pleaded with the Dutton opposition spokesperson to let it through on that basis.

The ability of this government to speak out both sides of its mouth is extraordinary. We're not stupid. The Australian people are not mugs. You say one thing in here and you say another thing to the gas cartel. You say one thing in here and your colleagues down in the other place say another thing. Minister, could you enlighten the Senate as to why the bill is called the sea-dumping bill?

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

The bill before us is the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. It is a bill for an act to amend the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act, which was passed in 1981.

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

Could the minister enlighten the chamber as to what the words 'sea dumping' refer to?

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

The bill reflects the convention that it originally referred to, which is the convention on the prevention of sea dumping.

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

Look, we have had hours of debate on this and we don't seem to be getting anywhere. I don't feel the government is really answering the questions that we are putting to it on how dangerous this legislation is to our waters in Australia. The question was asked of the minister, and she said:

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.

Minister, you refer to carbon dioxide. A carbon dioxide equivalent, abbreviated as CO2-eq, is a metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases on the basis of their global warming potential, GWP, by converting amounts of other gases to the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide with the same global warming potential. Carbon dioxide equivalents are commonly expressed as million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents abbreviated as MMTCDE. The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is multiplying the tonnes of the gas by the associated GWP. So, for example, the GWP for methane is 25, and, for nitrous oxide, 298. This means emissions of one million metric tonnes of methane and nitrous oxide respectively is equivalent to emissions of 25 and 298 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide. Minister, if you are going to make regulatory guidelines for dumping in our seabeds, how do you know it is only carbon dioxide? How are you going to guarantee the people of Australia that any other dumping may include other gases and methane, and how are you going to regulate that?

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

The assessment arrangements I have described over the course of the debate, amongst other things, require an assessment of the material that is to be sequestered.

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

You haven't really answered the question at all. You are not guaranteeing the Australian people. The sea dumping being exposed here—the Barrow Island leaks—you have not given me one place in the world where it works, not one. Two have been raised in this chamber that do actually leak, so there is no guarantee. As you said, you are not interested in commercial arrangements that these countries may have. So what this government has done is put people in this country in fear about climate change and about what is happening. You have actually brought in transmission lines. Everything is happening in this country because of carbon dioxide. But here you bring a bill to this parliament, where you are going to allow commercial enterprises to actually buy carbon credits for whatever reason to make commercial arrangements with other countries to bring their rubbish to our nation, dump it in our seabed, and you can't even guarantee the Australian people what the make-up of that rubbish may be. I note that Senator Pocock has put up an amendment about a bond. He's raised here only carbon dioxide streams, but I'd like to go beyond that, Senator Pocock. I think other dangerous gases should also be included in this, not just carbon dioxide. I think it should go further than that, with methane, nitrous oxide and other gases that may be brought into Australian waters, and there should be a bond. Also, I'd like to see the Labor government have an investigation into this in a couple of years down the track, with a report that must be done on it. Minister, what guarantees are you going to give to the Australian people that you will not allow methane or any other poisonous gases into this if a commercial arrangement has been done? What regulations are you putting into place?

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

Senator Hanson, from your question I think that you are asking about projects that occur in Australian waters. You're concerned about impacts on Australian waters. I indicated earlier in the debate that the government has initiated a review to ensure that the regulatory regime for offshore CCS projects manages risks to the marine environment and to workforce health and safety. Amongst other things, the review will examine opportunities to provide greater regulatory and administrative certainty and efficiency for carbon capture and storage projects in Commonwealth waters. I raise this because the bill before us deals only with carbon dioxide. That is the scope of the matters considered by the London protocol. But you are raising questions about other environmental impacts associated with offshore activities. I am pointing you to other work that's going on elsewhere in government in relation to ensuring we have a comprehensive and robust regulatory arrangement for offshore sequestration.

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

Honestly, I was completely lost with what you were trying to tell me there—completely lost. The other day, when I said, 'Minister, will this bill allow companies operating in our waters to buy carbon emissions from other countries and pump them into our seabeds?' you said:

… 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.

So you have virtually said that you're going to allow this. You have said that, if they come to a commercial country to country arrangement, you are going to allow it. I'm saying to you: it's not just about carbon dioxide. We talk about the environment and the concern for our seabeds, marine life and everything there. As I said to you, it's been proven that leaks do occur from this pumping into our seabeds. There is absolutely no guarantee that you can give the Australian people that it has not occurred, that it's a safe project. You have failed to actually answer us about the safety of this in our Australian waters. You have given me no guarantee that it's not going to be anything other than carbon dioxide. So I am asking the minister: if you're going to allow this to happen and you are going to allow commercial arrangements to be done between Australia and other countries, what guarantees are you going to give to the Australian people that it's going to be nothing other than just carbon dioxide?

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

Thanks, Senator Hanson, for clarifying your question. Earlier in the debate I stepped through the things the environmental impact assessment needs to include. I don't intend to do that again. I can, however, advise that Australia's approach would put limits on other materials, such as contaminants, that could be present, depending on the source of the carbon dioxide capture. And we are working with CSIRO to ensure that our national action list will ensure that we protect the environment.

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

Would you please show me what part of the bill I go to that ensures that that is the case?

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

As I indicated to Senator Pocock just now, the bill requires the minister to have regard to all our international agreements when making decisions. That includes the London protocol, and it's the London protocol that steps out the requirements on parties to manage risks to the environment when activities like this are proposed.

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

Thank you, Minister, and thank you to Senator Hanson for her questioning. It's really fascinating that minor parties and Independents are pushing the major parties on behalf of the people they represent—from very different perspectives, but clearly many Australians have had a gutful when they look at the major parties, when it comes to climate.

Minister, I've got a few questions. You talked about this just ratifying the London protocol. I'm interested—to Senator Hanson's questions—is that ratifying it in its current form? If there's any update to the London protocol, will you have to bring back legislation? Or does this have provisions for if the London protocol is updated to include anything else? What then happens to this legislation?

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

The way the legislation functions is that it interacts with the protocol and its associated guidelines or documentation. That's why, as I previously explained, the government considers that there may be unintended consequences if you replicated aspects of the protocol guidelines or guidance as it's currently presented. The legislation as it's currently framed makes a general reference to the requirement to observe the provisions of the protocol.

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

You're sort of touching on it. The heart of my question, though, is: if it's having regard to the London protocol, are we here in the Senate today giving a rubberstamp to the London protocol, which could be updated and changed? And then this legislation basically says we've just got regard to this updated London protocol in the future?—if that makes sense.

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

Thanks for your patience, Senator. This is a sort of technical question about the operation of treaties, so I wanted to ensure that I was providing correct advice. The process we're going through now seeks to implement legislation that would allow us to ratify amendments to the protocol. Any subsequent amendments may well be considered as requiring treaty action in the same way that this amendment process has. However, having ratified these amendments to the treaty, the guidance document and policy documentation that sits underneath it within the London protocol is applicable to Australia. We agreed to participate in it, and that would allow updates to that guidance material to then also be incorporated into Australia's obligations.

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

Minister, you said 'may or will'. I'm interested in whether it's may or will. Also, so that I understand this correctly, if the London protocol is updated and the coalition and Labor vote for this, are you essentially saying we are then obligated or able to implement that updated version of the London protocol?

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

Senator Pocock thank you for waiting again because I wish to give accurate advice to the chamber. Updates to the protocol and treaty text itself are considered a treaty action and require consideration within Australia's treaty-making framework. Updates to the guidance material attached to the protocol don't, and, if that guidance material was updated, Australia would be obliged to incorporate that into our own practices. That ensures that the parties to the protocol collectively keep up with advances in the way that the protocol is to be implemented.

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

Minister, would you explain to me what 'carbon dioxide stream' means in relation to this bill?

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

Senator Hanson, I think you understand what carbon dioxide is, and so I will not attempt to provide a chemical explanation of what carbon dioxide is. But a carbon dioxide stream is the circumstance where carbon dioxide is generated and taken to a different geographical point to be sequestered.

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

The wording 'carbon dioxide stream' is actually part of the bill and so is, as I said earlier, the carbon dioxide equivalent. I raise this issues because carbon dioxide is not going to be captured only as carbon dioxide; there are other additives to its equivalents that could be in it. This is really a dog of a bill. You actually said in your comments the other day:

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.

What did you mean by that statement?

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

A transborder movement of carbon dioxide is movement from one national jurisdiction to another.

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

So, really, you are going to allow companies, for carbon credits or for whatever reason, to do deals with other countries to buy their rubbish, whatever it is, and bring it out here and pump it into our seabeds when you are not able to give any guarantee to the Australian people that it will not leak. You can't even give a guarantee that it will not be anything other than carbon dioxide. You can't give this parliament or the people of Australia any guarantees whatsoever. Why are you introducing this bill?

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

I have explained to the chamber on many occasions over the last six days why the government is introducing the bill. Senator Hanson made a number of assertions in her most recent contribution which don't really respond to the information I've already provided to the chamber.

The bill would invoke a set of requirements for any government to make sure that there is a robust assessment of the environmental impact of any project of this kind, and I really have explained at length the kinds of things that would be considered. I can read them into the Hansard again. The environmental impact assessment would require a long-term management plan, a geological assessment and marine characterisation of the disposal site, an impact and risk assessment, a mitigation and remediation plan, a description of any potential impacts on any matters of national environmental significance, a waste prevention audit, waste management options, chemical and physical properties of the carbon dioxide, an assessment of potential effects, and monitoring and risk management.

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

Minister, the transportation phase has been identified as one of the high-risk phases of CO2 storage projects. The risk is greater for sub-seabed storage than it is for terrestrial storage, due to the need to transport it by ship or by pipeline. Noting the vast distance the CO2 will need to be transported in the Santos project, what are the assessed impacts for each area of biodiversity along transport lines, under the London protocol?

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

As I've explained previously to Senator Whish-Wilson, any project would require a risk assessment, and that would be dependent on the particular infrastructure proposed, and the environmental assets which it traversed and for which impacts should be considered. I've just read out to Senator Hanson what the environmental impact assessment would require. This would apply to any proposal, including the one you referred to in your question.

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

Thank you, Minister, for the answer. Are those environmental impact statements or risk assessments proponent led?

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

I have stepped through this in some detail already. Essentially, the proponent would prepare an application providing the information that is specified by the department as being necessary for such an application, and then the application would be assessed by the department.

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

Would such an application be able to be assessed under the current EPBC Act or would proponents need to wait for the updated environmental laws?

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

At present, Australia is not able to provide a permit that would enable the transport or movement of carbon dioxide. This legislation seeks to create the framework that would allow us to do that and to be in compliance with the London protocol.

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

My question was about, for example—not that this is on the cards—Santos wanting to use their 600-kilometre pipeline. Would the potential impacts get assessed under the current EPBC Act?

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

Nothing about this bill would obviate the existing requirements for infrastructure to be assessed under the EPBC Act.

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

What studies has the government relied upon to understand the nature and severity of environmental harm caused by exploration activities for CCS, for identifying these storage areas? How will this harm be mitigated and repaired?

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

():  Under current regulatory arrangements, a proponent who is planning to dispose of CO2 in Australia by offshore CCS requires multiple approvals, including under the EPBC Act and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act. This doesn't change that. Projects or activities that require approval under current legislation would continue to require approval and assessment under legislation. I have on many occasions during the course of debate also made reference to the review that is being undertaken at the moment by DISR.

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

Minister, I'm going to go back to carbon dioxide streams, which I've asked you about. I have here, from the London protocol, 'Specific guidelines for the assessment of carbon dioxide for disposal into sub-seabed geological formations'. You've spoken about the London protocol. This is directly from it. In the introduction, at 1.2, it says:

The risks associated with carbon dioxide sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations include those associated with leakage into the marine environment of the carbon dioxide and any other substances in or mobilized by the carbon dioxide stream. In general, there are different levels of concern regarding potential leakage that range from the local to the global over both the short- and long-terms. These Specific Guidelines deal with risks posed by carbon dioxide sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations over all timescales and primarily at the local and regional scale and thus focus on the potential effects on the marine environment in the proximity of the receiving formations.

Section 1.3 says:

For the purpose of these Guidelines, the following categories of substances are distinguished:

.1 the CO2 stream, consisting of:

.1 CO2;

.2 incidental associated substances derived from the source material and the capture and sequestration processes used:

.1 source- and process-driven substances; and

.2 added substances (i.e. substances added to the CO2 stream to enable or improve the capture and sequestration processes); and

.2 substances mobilized as a result of the disposal of the CO2 stream.

Minister, if you were so in line with the London protocol, why couldn't you answer this question before? Why did I have to bring it to your attention that there is more to this, because of the substances? Even to capture the carbon dioxide, they have to use substances, and we don't even know what they are. As I said, this is a dog of a bill, and you are not giving the people any guarantees at all. This bill is allowing people to send their rubbish to us and dump it in our seabeds. You can't guarantee anything.

Minister, will you clarify the record and do you acknowledge what this document that I have just read out states about what other properties may be included in it? It's not just carbon dioxide; it can contain many other substances.

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

Senator Hanson, a couple of times now I've talked about the environmental impact assessment. It is required, amongst other things, to assess the chemical and physical properties of the CO2. That's because parties agree that they will need to manage any impacts that might arise if the project were allowed to proceed. That's why that information would be sought as part of the environmental impact assessment. I have set out on a number of occasions throughout this debate the requirements that would be in place for proponents that were seeking to undertake projects in Australian waters.

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

You can stand there and tell me everything that you want to tell me, but where is it stated in the bill that there are protections in place for the Australian people? What protections are there for any of the other substances? What protections have you put in place in case there is a leakage? What protections have you put in place? Point to it in the bill for me, please.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, I would remind you to put your comments through the chair, please.

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

I've already provided this answer. Section 19 of the bill requires consideration of Australia's international obligations. That includes the London protocol, and the London protocol itself sets out the ways that parties agree to consider these risks and seek to deal with them in any permitting arrangements.

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

Minister, I note that the Centre for International Environmental Law has conducted research showing that the 28 CCS facilities currently operating globally have a capacity to capture only 0.1 per cent of fossil fuel emissions, or 37 megatonnes of CO2, annually. Is this evidence that CCS is a false solution for reducing emissions, and, therefore, this bill is merely a distraction from the failure to develop and implement effective and meaningful climate policy?

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

Perhaps I could refer Senator Pocock to the many answers I've provided that indicate that the government appreciates that the path to net zero will require many technologies. Many of the international bodies and Australian research institutions, including the CSIRO, identify CCS as one of the technologies that is likely to be necessary to get us to net zero by 2050. This bill represents just one part of a very-broad-ranging policy agenda across the government to allow us to move towards net zero 2050.

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

Thank you, Minister. Those organisations that you refer to may say that CCS has a role to play, but they also say that, as part of the transition, we cannot afford new fossil fuel projects, and all week you avoided answering the question about whether or not this would facilitate the expansion of the fossil fuel industry—not capturing existing emissions but whether or not this could be used to expand the fossil fuel industry. You wouldn't answer that until Senator Wong came clean on what this bill is actually about. It's about Santos, INPEX, Woodside, Korea and Japan. It's not about looking after Australians.

There's this constant cherrypicking when it comes to CCS. Yes, there are legitimate places and roles for it, but the legitimate place for it is not to allow the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. To come back to the amendment, which we have been debating now for a little bit of time, it is simply to rule that out, to say: 'We're totally on board with the London protocol. This is about ensuring that there is international agreement about what can and can't be done when it comes to sea dumping, but as a country we're going to listen to scientists and we're going to say, "You can use this technology and you can experiment on all of these other things, but this cannot be used to expand the fossil fuel industry."' This is because, as you said, we have the safeguard mechanism, which is binding emissions restraints.

It is just so disappointing that the Labor government is now creating loopholes for their safeguard mechanism rather than being serious about ensuring that the biggest 215 facilities are on a downward trajectory, something that this Senate voted for. We've got that in place, and now you're creating a loophole for the fossil fuel industry. It's very curious that it seems like everyone out there understands what this is about. We heard Kirsty Howey, the head of Environment Centre NT, refer to this as the 'Santos amendment', which you took exception to. It can't have been that many hours later that Minister Wong told us Santos want this. This is for Santos, for INPEX and for Woodside.

Minister, I'm not sure if you have any data there, but I am interested in whether you could talk us through the world's largest CCS project, at the Gorgon LNG plant, its successes and failures, and how much of the CO2 that they committed to capturing and storing they have delivered on.

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

Senator Pocock, that project does not involve the transport and movement of carbon dioxide. It's not a project that would be covered by the legislation before us.

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

Minister, can you explain to me where sea dumping will not be allowed in the Australian waters?

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

I can advise the senator that any project requires a permit, so no project may proceed unless a permit is provided.

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

Would anywhere in the vicinity of our coral reefs or Great Barrier Reef or protected marine areas be definitely ruled out?

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

As I have explained on a number of occasions, the environmental impact assessment must include a geological assessment and marine characterisation of the disposal site and an impact and risk assessment. This is so as to assess what the impacts would be on sites, including sensitive sites. If this project was taking place in Australian waters, the provisions that already apply under the EPBC Act in matters of national environmental significance would also require an EPBC assessment of a project that was in a very sensitive place.

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

Minister, if there are leakages from any of the sea dumping, will there be fines applied to those companies?

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

I'm terribly sorry, Senator Hanson, I did not hear that question. Would you mind repeating it?

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

I said if there happens to be a leakage from the dumping, will the companies responsible for it receive fines or be made to clean up the mess?

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

I can advise Senator Hanson that under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act the Minister for the Environment and Water has the power to make orders to remedy harm to the marine environment. In addition NOPSEMA has a range of compliance and enforcement powers under the OPGGS Act, including the ability to issue directions to the registered titleholder of a greenhouse gas injection licence. That includes the direction to close off wells and remove property, to carry out operations for the monitoring of the behaviour of the greenhouse gas substance and to undertake such activities for the purpose of eliminating, mitigating and managing or remediating the risk of a greenhouse gas substance injected into a formation if there is a risk it will have significant impact on the surrounding environment.

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

Minister, that's not the question I asked. I asked: will there be fines applied if there is a leakage that happens?

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

Senator Hanson, I have set out the enforcement powers that are available in the event of a leakage during the injection activity.

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

If anyone applies for a permit for sea dumping is a bond going to be taken to be held?

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

The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 requires that a site plan needs to be approved before any activity can occur under a greenhouse gas injection licence. It also sets out a site closing certificate procedure, which involves a monitoring program that's paid for by a mandatory security. Sections 571A and 391 of this same act provide provisions to maintaining insurance and a security for a precertificate notice, and there are other discretionary securities which can be imposed.

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

I understand that Gorgon is not included in this legislation, but the reason I was asking is, as I understand it, the CCS at the Gorgon LNG plant is the largest in the world and has been a failure.

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

No, it hasn't; it just hasn't sequestered as much as they said it would. It's still the largest in the world. It hasn't leaked.

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

Again, we've got Senator Pratt faithfully standing up for the gas companies, allowing them to promise the world and deliver an atlas, and we're very happy with it! It shouldn't be good enough. When companies make commitments, they should be held to them. They had a commitment to inject at least 80 per cent of CO2 underground. They should have captured 3.4 million to four million tonnes per year but have only captured a total of 6.5 million tonnes since 2016. That sounds like serious underachieving—through you, Chair, to Senator Pratt. If we're happy to allow them to continue to promise things and get approvals and then not follow through with them, then keep voting for Labor and the coalition. That's what's going to happen.

We can't allow fossil fuel companies to continue to get away with this. We hear stories of fossil fuel companies getting approval. Whitehaven's Maules Creek coalmine got their approval based on an offsets plan. A decade later, it's still not implemented. A decade later they still haven't met their offset requirements. We then hear Whitehaven argue that it's too expensive to recycle their tyres, so they get a variation to bury their tyres on the site.

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

Dumping their tyres!

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

Tire dumping. It's another bill; it's a forthcoming bill.

I'm interested in looking at Gorgon because, if the largest CCS project owned by oil and gas giant Chevron, also backed by Shell and ExxonMobil, is still falling so far short of targets and expectations, why does the government have confidence to expand this industry now? You're telling us we are signing to the London protocol, which would enable more CCS. Given the concerns about a project backed by Chevron, Shell and ExxonMobil, what does the government say to Australians who are concerned that you've decided, despite the results from those projects, that it's a good idea to ratify a framework which allows the expansion of CCS?

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

I feel I have essentially answered this question previously. This bill does not require anyone to pursue a CCS project as a feature of their emissions reduction obligations. It simply seeks to create the regulatory framework if an entity sought to use this technology to reduce the emissions from their operations and that their technology solution involved a transborder movement of carbon dioxide. It simply sets out the regulatory tests that would be necessary to permit such a technology solution to be put in place.

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

I understand we have gone through what this bill does. I am struggling to answer people in Canberra who ask me: Where are the projects that are working that the government is pointing to to say this is a good idea to ratify a framework to expand this? What should I be telling people who ask me: Where are the projects that work? Has the government decided this is a technology that we want to be part of, this London protocol, so we can allow Australian CO2 to be piped to neighbouring countries?

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

Developing a business case for a project of this kind is the responsibility of proponents. The government is not here to assert that we have the answers to the questions that would ordinarily be addressed in such a business case. The risks, cost, technology solutions necessary to implement a project of this kind are all a matter for proponents. From an Australian government perspective, we seek to ensure that, if this is a technology solution that people seek to implement, there is a regulatory framework around it. I think a fair assessment of the government's broad climate agenda would recognise that this is one such technology that we are contemplating. The government is providing substantial financial and policy support for other technologies. As a subject of broad discussion often in this chamber and estimates, our budget indicates something in the order of a $40 billion commitment to the transition towards a renewable energy super power. These investments are across a wide range of technology possibilities. I'd suggest that you point constituents who are talking with you about these questions to those broad aspects of government policy.

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

I am wanting to be able to answer people in the ACT. I take your point. You have talked about business cases and proponents. I totally get that. But what we are doing in this place is setting the framework for engagement and that surely should be evidence based. The thing I would really like to be able to tell Canberrans or people in Jervis Bay or even people in Norfolk Island who might have concerns is, 'These are the projects that actually work with carbon capture and storage and that is why the government and the opposition have voted to ratify the London protocol to allow gas companies to potentially—should they have the business case and jump through all the various hoops—to export.' So if you could just talk us through the projects that are currently working.

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

I don't think I can add much to what I've said over the course of the past five or six days. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that removing carbon from the atmosphere through CCUS is a key part of keeping global warming to between 1.5 and two degrees. The Climate Change Authority has said that strong and urgent emission cuts, together with the growth of carbon sequestration, is critical if the world is to achieve its net zero goals by next century. The CSIRO has said that CCUS is part of a suite of technologies that will contribute to lowering atmospheric emissions from Australia's energy system. And ultimately the decision to deploy those technologies will be a matter for proponents.

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

Thank you, Minister. What you've just said comes directly back to the amendments in my name that we're currently debating. Again, the UNFCCC and other bodies are saying that there's a role for CCS—absolutely. But they're also saying that we cannot afford to open up new fossil fuel projects, that simply burning all the current projects is enough to blow 1.5 to two degrees. So I find it troubling and a little bit disingenuous to cherrypick that from these bodies, where they are talking about a legitimate use of CCS, but not also saying that while they say that they also say that we can't allow new fossil fuel projects.

Again, the major parties will point at the Independents and minor parties and say, 'You may have a different view when it comes to climate.' But this is not my view. I'm not a climate scientist, but I do my best to listen to them. We're doing them a great disservice when we have this type of legislation before us and we're not willing to rule out the use of this legislation and the London protocol to allow the expansion of the fossil fuel industry in Australia. What does it mean for us as a country to be in this place in 2023, given what we're seeing, what we're living through, and the concerns that have been raised? The IPCC's Synthesisreport was a sobering read. I do not understand how we can have that knowledge and pass this sort of legislation without an amendment to ensure that this doesn't do what climate scientists are urging us—begging us—not to do, and that is to expand the fossil fuel industry. That's then on us as a parliament. That's on us.

The fact that I'm in here and I'm going to vote against this awful bill means nothing. Being able to say, 'I told you so' in a few decades time—what is the point? We surely have to be better than this as a Senate. We cannot continue down this road, Minister. We have a small window in time to truly transition. And I will continue to call the government out when they talk about the transition and point to $40 billion on transition and other things and at the same time put $1.5 billion towards Middle Arm, at the same time bring forward sea dumping legislation and at the same time taunt the opposition about not voting for legislation that Santos, Inpex and Woodside want. Please, we've got to do better than this. I'd urge the government, the Labor Party, to reconsider your position on political donations from fossil fuel companies. The thing that I hear from people is, despite what may be said about that not having an influence, it's very hard to understand why we're getting this kind of legislation in 2023 if it doesn't have some sort of effect. It's a bad look, and I'd argue that it's not good for our democracy.

As we head into drought, into El Nino, we're seeing fires burning in the NT and in Queensland. We've got to do better for those communities. We've got to do better for young people. We've got to be able to say to young people: 'Things are bad. You're not going to be able to enjoy the stabler climate of your parents or your grandparents. You're going to have to live through some pretty horrific climate fuelled disasters. We're sorry, but we're going to do absolutely everything we can do from here on in.' This legislation is not it. I'm sorry. This deserved a week filibuster. Thank you to the opposition for allowing us to ask questions and raise concerns, because, as someone in here representing people in the ACT who care about climate, who love this place, who've seen suburbs burn down, who've seen half of Namadgi burn down, we want better. We want better from our government. There's too much at stake here. I'd urge the Labor Party to rethink their approach on climate. I commend you for the work you're doing on the transition. There is a huge amount of good work that's being done. There are some very good people in your party. But, when it comes to this kind of legislation, at the behest of the fossil fuel industry, it's not good enough. I really fear that future generations will not look kindly on us when they look back and they say, 'In 2023 the Australian parliament passed legislation to expand the fossil fuel industry.' How are we here debating this bill?

I'll go back just briefly to something we touched on early last week, and that is our role in the Pacific. We had the Prime Minister visiting the Pacific—and again I want to give the government a lot of credit for the work that they've done in the Pacific. Minister Wong has done a huge amount of travel, meeting with Pacific island leaders. But we had the PM go over there, and I think there were many who were expecting a climate announcement—and there was a climate announcement, but that announcement was: 'We are going to resettle people from the Pacific.' It wasn't: 'We are going to stand with you and sign the Port Vila declaration. We are going to commit to reducing fossil fuel subsidies over time. We are going to commit to a just transition and support for the Pacific. We are going to invest more in adaptation.' We've got to be careful in the way we talk about climate change as the thing that is affecting the Pacific, because in doing so we wash our hands a little bit, as Australians, because the thing that's causing climate change is the burning of fossil fuels. As one of the biggest fossil fuel exporters in the world, we need to start talking more about that.

We have an outsized role to play in truly transitioning our economy and moving away from fossil fuels. That will have an outsized effect on the rest of the world. There's a huge opportunity here for us to get on with developing the solutions and then being able to export them, rather than just exporting fossil fuels. I urge the Labor government to do better. Australians want you to do better. They need you to do better.

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

As we get into our perhaps 16th hour of debate on the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, I thought it might be a good opportunity for a bit of a recap on where we're at. But I have to commence by paying tribute to this minister and how well she's done over the course of now six or seven days of debate on a bill—hung out to dry by an incompetent government. The government could have avoided all of this, but instead they've sent their minister out to man the port and make sure that everything is in order. Unfortunately, though, it has been one of the most unfortunate displays of incompetence by any government. They have the numbers in this place yet can't move a bill through, because of incompetence colliding with intransigence. We've had a full week of debate on what I think is one of the most innocuous bills we've ever seen before this place.

Reflecting on the debate on this amendment, which the opposition won't be supporting, it was interesting to note some of the comments made by the Australian Greens. They acknowledged in their questions the fact that perhaps other countries don't have standards that match our own when it comes to management of the environment, management of carbon emissions and management of things like CCS and CCUS. It was quite the startling revelation, because every time I say that in the context of any debate relating to the environment I get pooh-poohed. But it was great to hear them express concern that perhaps other jurisdictions aren't quite up to the same mark that we are when it comes to regulatory arrangements around the environment, so I welcome that development, and I look forward to making sure that claim is repeated down the track when we debate other issues of a similar nature.

It was also great to hear pointed out by the Greens political party the point around there being two narratives that are run here around what the government does. I think that is a fair point to make. I think they do say one thing to one group of people and then say something else to another. This does bring that home. A week-long justification of what they're doing here does rather expose what they're up to.

Why are we here again? It's because the Australian Labor Party, in partnership with the Greens political party, teamed up to pass legislation called the safeguard mechanism, which was disastrous for industry. It was built to force heavy emitters into paying a penalty if they couldn't reduce their emissions or access credits. It would have driven business offshore, along with the jobs and the emissions. We established that fact. It was ignored. The bill passed in this stitch-up we talked about on the first day of debate of this bill. They've come back with this legislation, which is necessary to assist some businesses to be able to continue to operate here at world's best standard, not going offshore, as was acknowledged by the Greens, to do business somewhere else, which is worse for the environment. That's why we support this legislation. But, as I said before, we are here because of incompetence colliding with intransigence. A modest request made by a party that could have facilitated the passage of this bill probably within half a day was ignored, because heaven forbid we have an inquiry in a references committee to look at a matter that is of importance to many people across Australia!

We've had close to 16 hours of debate on this legislation. Just for context, I will list bills that haven't quite made the 16-hour mark. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, a significant, hallmark piece of legislation and an important part of the Labor Party's policy, had 12 hours and 13 minutes of debate. The Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 had 11 hours and 11 minutes of debate. The Climate Change Bill 2022 had 10 hours and 48 minutes of debate. The Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 had 10 hours and 45 minutes of debate. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023—we hear a lot about that one; it's a massive part of their agenda—had eight hours and 59 minutes of debate. The Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill had seven hours and 38 minutes of debate. The debate on the legislation around the National Anti-Corruption Commission was only five hours.

There are only a couple of bills in this parliament that have sustained debate longer than this one. I remind anyone who happens to ever read the Hansard or who is listening to the debate right now that this is a bill that had the support of the overwhelming majority of senators in this place but didn't progress, because of the government's incompetence and intransigence. One of the bills that had a longer debate was the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. It was a pretty significant piece of legislation, warranting a lengthy debate. That had 24 hours and nine minutes of debate. That makes sense to me. The debate on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill went on for 17 hours and 40 minutes. Again, that was an important piece of legislation and a big part of the government's agenda, and very different to the bill we're dealing with here. So, again, it's odd that we are up to roughly 16 hours. We talked earlier about the safeguard mechanism bill, which I believe will be disastrous for the economy. It had 17 hours and 30 minutes of debate. And here we are, on something that the majority of people in this place support and will back in.

Anyway, it is what it is. I think it is further demonstration of the incompetence of this government. Their inability to manage to secure the numbers for fast passage of pretty straightforward legislation speaks volumes for where we're at, particularly when it comes to the environment portfolio. I won't go back through the problems the government is having with reforms to the EPBC Act—the fact that they're 18 months behind. I suspect we won't see any reforms relating to those laws pass this parliament this side of an election. The Nature Repair Market Bill is off on the never-never. The committee won't report back to this place until April of this year. Heaven knows how the government will respond. We probably won't deal with the standalone cultural heritage legislation before the next election. All these things are incredibly important, but now, like this, because of incompetence, we won't get anywhere. As I said, the opposition won't support this amendment, and we just hope the bill will pass sometime soon.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2151 be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2150 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2152:

SHEET 2150

(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 16), after item 3, insert:

3A After section 21

Insert:

22 Conditions imposed by this section in respect of permits for the export of certain carbon dioxide streams

(1) This section applies for each permit for the export of controlled material for dumping, where the controlled material is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation.

(2) A condition imposed in respect of the permit is that the holder of the permit, for an indefinite period after the permit has been granted, must:

(a) monitor whether the export, or any act or omission relating to the sequestration, is likely to cause or result in any condition or damage of the kind set out in paragraph 16(1)(a), (b) or (c); and

(b) ensure the sequestration is maintained (including after the sequestration site is decommissioned) so that such a condition or such damage does not arise; and

(c) repair or remedy any such condition, or mitigate any such damage, as does arise.

(3) A condition imposed in respect of the permit is that the holder of the permit must, at all times after the permit has been granted, maintain financial assurance sufficient to give the holder the capacity to meet costs, expenses and liabilities arising in connection with, or as a result of complying (or failing to comply) with:

(a) the condition imposed by subsection (2); or

(b) any other requirement under this Act or a legislative instrument under this Act, in relation to the export or the sequestration.

(4) Without limiting subsection (3), the forms of financial assurance that may be maintained include one or more of the following:

(a) insurance;

(b) a bond;

(c) the deposit of an amount as security with a financial institution;

(d) an indemnity or other surety;

(e) a letter of credit from a financial institution;

(f) a mortgage.

(5) This section does not limit the conditions that may be imposed on the permit by the Minister under section 21. However, sections 21, 23 and 25 do not apply to a condition imposed by this section.

Note: Failure to comply with a condition imposed by this section, or by the Minister under section 21, is an offence (see section 36).

(6) The conditions imposed under this section in respect of the permit continue to apply in relation to the holder of the permit if the permit ceases to be in force.

3B Subsection 36(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(2) An offence against this section is punishable on conviction as follows:

(a) if the condition is imposed by section 22—imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine up to 319,489 penalty units, or both;

(b) otherwise—imprisonment for up to 1 year or a fine up to 250 penalty units, or both.

(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 28), at the end of the item, add:

(4) Section 22 of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to permits granted on or after the commencement of this item.

_____

SHEET 2152

(1) Clause 2, page 3 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 7), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 3 — Merits review

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981

52 Subsection 24(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a decision by the Minister under subsection 19(7) granting, or refusing to grant, a permit.

53 Application provision

The amendment of subsection 24(2) of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 made by this Part applies in relation to decisions made on or after the commencement of this item.

These amendments would place some conditions on the carbon dioxide streams and would also ensure that there is merits review for decisions. I think the merits review is incredibly important. Again, it is disappointing to not get support for something like that from the government, particularly when they're unable to point to CCS projects that are delivering and working well, and they're then ratifying this London protocol, which will allow more projects to happen. It's so important that Australian citizens and concerned communities do have an avenue to challenge decisions. I would say it's fundamental to living in a democracy. We've covered a little bit of this ground over the last six days. We could continue, but I'll leave it there.

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

Very briefly, the opposition won't be supporting these amendments.

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

In relation to sheet 2152, the government doesn't support the amendments. This is the issue around merits review that Senate Pocock just referred to. The government does agree that merits review is an important mechanism for ensuring robust and fair regulatory processes, and the sea-dumping act provides for merits review for most permit decisions. However, the proposed amendments could potentially allow for related decisions under part A of the EPBC Act to be indirectly subject to review when no such merit review currently exists, and that would be inconsistent with the current operation of and policy position on the way that merits review operates within the EPBC Act. As senators know, we've started consultations on those broader issues surrounding the EPBC Act, and we look forward to engaging with senators in this place on that matter.

The government also does not support the amendments on sheet 2150, and I have previously indicated the reasons for that. It is essentially because we need to ensure that there is alignment across various regulatory regimes governing these activities, and officials are working through the way that that would be organised and would support organising briefings for interested senators on this process.

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

Minister, you said that there were some parts that don't have merits review. Could you maybe outline to the Senate which parts of the sea-dumping act?

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

Existing section 24(2) of the sea-dumping act provides that merits review is not available for a ministerial decision to grant a permit if the same activity was subject to an inquiry under part 8 of the EPBC Act. The proposed amendment removes that subsection and would have the practical effect of making the EPBC decision subject to a merits review. That's why it's inconsistent with the present broad approach to merits review under that act. The government's reason for not supporting this is the way it interacts with the EPBC Act. But, as I indicated, we look forward to engaging with senators more generally about the way that merits review might be treated in the revisions that are presently under discussion.

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

Minister, given the government has essentially admitted that our EPBC Act is not working, and you've undertaken to update it, rewrite it—we don't know when that will happen. And Graeme Samuel was damning of the EPBC Act. It's not protecting nature. Are you comfortable with those actions under 24(2), which have gone to inquiry not having merits review, given the government has essentially admitted that the EPBC Act doesn't work and we don't know when EPBC 2.0 will be in place to better deal with these issues?

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

The government, as you've indicated, does consider that the EPBC Act requires review. We are working through that, as you are well aware. We consider that questions relating to the operation of our nature laws should be considered in an integrated way, and for that reason our view is that these matters should be considered alongside all of the other questions that need to be dealt with in the review of our environmental laws.

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

The question is that Senator Pocock's amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2150, by leave together, and Senator Pocock's other amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2152, by leave together, be agreed to.

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

The question now is that the bill stand as printed.