Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's a pleasure to speak on the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. It's an important bill. It's a bill that the coalition supports, and we welcome the introduction of this bill. The legislation before the House is aimed at giving expression to two sets of amendments that were made several years ago to the London protocol. In our view, these are well-intentioned changes. If the bill is passed it's likely to provide Australia with improved flexibility and opportunity in relation to the import and export of carbon dioxide streams in the rapidly emerging field of marine geoengineering, and it's very important that we are able to provide these new opportunities in emerging fields such as marine geoengineering.

These changes in turn would likely enhance Australia's capacity and indeed the capacity of other nations to reduce carbon emissions. I want to put on record at this point my pleasure at the important decision made by the Morrison government to pursue net zero by 2050. Along with the London convention, the London protocol is an international treaty aimed at protecting the world's marine environments from the dumping of wastes and other hazardous matter. Australia was a relatively early signatory to both instruments. We signed up to the London convention with effect from 1985, 10 years after it first came into force internationally, in 1975. We became a party to the London protocol the same year as it came into force globally, in 2006.

Generally speaking, both instruments have worked effectively for us and the dozens of other countries that have been signatories. However, it's become apparent steadily that there is a need to modernise the protocol in order to reflect the range of environmental issues and considerations in relation to the various emerging technologies, such as: carbon capture and storage; carbon capture, utilisation and storage; and marine geoengineering, which I mentioned earlier. This led to the agreement on the development of two separate sets of amendments to the protocol in 2009 and 2013, respectively. The 2009 amendment permits the international transfer of carbon dioxide streams between countries for the purpose of placing CCUS, or carbon capture, utilisation and storage, materials into sub-seabed geological formation. The 2013 amendment, meanwhile, allows for certain wastes and matter to be deposited into a marine area in order to facilitate scientific research through marine geoengineering activities, such as Ocean fertilisation.

Around the world, parties to the convention and/or protocol have taken a considerable amount of time to assess their response to these amendments. We should stress that this has not been a result of widespread or deeply entrenched resistance to such changes—it has been because countries have wanted to consider all the many potential implications that affect them. Australia, rightly, has also adopted this painstaking approach and it has been sensible and correct that both coalition and Labor governments have taken a considerable amount of time and care to endorse and prepare for such changes. There are many important issues at play here, including, as many environmental groups have pointed out, the need for vigilant management and regulation of activities relating to CCS, CCUS and, in particular, marine geo-engineering. In turn, work continues to be needed on assessing how Australia can practically extract the best value from each of these forms of endeavour.

In all of these respects the coalition is very appreciative of the work that has been undertaken, particularly by members by each of three sets of committees that have looked at these matters over recent years. They are: the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change and Energy, and the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. The inquiries undertaken by each of these committees have elicited valuable information and evidence about the worth of potential environmental impacts and risks of CCS and CCUS on marine geo-engineering. Importantly, they have each concluded—on balance, and taking into account the overwhelming majority presented to them—that the 2009 and 2013 London protocol amendments have the potential to deliver myriad benefits to Australia and other nations. Specifically, those benefits include the very real possibility of substantially lowering carbon emissions, and that point has been expressed by expert witnesses on a frequent and repetitive basis.

Given all that context and background, we on the side of the House support the bill. We also endorse the general points included in the various recent committee reports about the need for careful monitoring, management and regulation of the kinds of activities that are the subject of the bill—especially if and when they increase in frequency in relation to Australia. We call on the government to discharge its many responsibilities in this area sensibly and vigilantly. It is good to be able to speak on this bill. It's good to be able to support this bill. I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context