Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (9), as circulated in my name, together.

(1) Schedule 1, heading to Part 1, page 4 (line 2), omit "Export of carbon", substitute "Carbon".

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

1A Subsection 4(1)

Insert:

applicable risk framework and guidelines means the following:

(a) the Risk assessment and management framework for CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological structures, in Annex 3 to Resolution LC/SG-CO2 1/7 adopted on 3 November 2006 by the Contracting Parties to the Protocol;

(b) the Specific guidelines for the assessment of carbon dioxide for disposal into sub-seabed geological formations, in Annex 8 to Resolution LC 34/15 adopted on 2 November 2012 by the Contracting Parties to the Protocol.

Note: These documents could in 2023 be viewed on the International Maritime Organization's website (https:// www.imo.org/en/).

Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets has the same meaning as in the Climate Change Act 2022.

fossil fuel facility means a facility that conducts one or more activities for the purpose of extracting, processing, supplying or exporting coal or petroleum (within the meaning of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006).

Kumming -Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework means the annex to the decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at Montreal on 19 December 2022.

Note: This Framework could in 2023 be viewed on the Convention on Biological Diversity's website (https://www.cbd.int/gbf/).

Paris agreement has the same meaning as in the Climate Change Act 2022.

1B After section 9

Insert:

10 Public money must not be used on carbon dioxide capture and storage projects

The Commonwealth must ensure that relevant money (within the meaning of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013) is not committed or expended on projects for:

(a) carbon dioxide capture; or

(b) the sequestration or storage of carbon dioxide streams;

where the carbon dioxide is, or is to be, captured from fossil fuel facilities.

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 4 to16), omit the item, substitute:

1 Section 10D

Repeal the section, substitute:

10D Export or import for the purpose of dumping or incineration

(1) A person commits an offence against this section if:

(a) the person:

(i) exports controlled material from Australia to another country; or

(ii) imports controlled material from another country to Australia; and

(b) the person does so:

(i) knowing that the controlled material will be dumped into the sea or incinerated at sea; or

(ii) reckless as to whether the controlled material will be dumped into the sea or incinerated at sea; and

(c) in the case where the controlled material is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation—the export or import of the material is not in accordance with a permit.

Note: A permit can only be granted if the carbon dioxide streams are not captured from fossil fuel facilities (see subsection 19(7B)).

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

(a) if it is proved that any of the offending material is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation—imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine up to 363,637 penalty units, or both;

(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply but it is proved that any of the offending material is seriously harmful material—imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine up to 2,000 penalty units, or both;

(c) if neither paragraph (a) nor (b) applies but it is proved that any of the offending material is not within Annex 1 to the Protocol—imprisonment for up to 2 years or a fine up to 500 penalty units, or both;

(d) in any other case—imprisonment for up to 1 year or a fine up to 250 penalty units, or both.

Note: In 2023, 363,637 penalty units was approximately $100 million.

(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 19 to 27), omit subsection 15(2A), substitute:

(2A) Section 10C does not apply in relation to the loading of controlled material on a vessel, aircraft or platform in Australia or Australian waters if:

(a) the controlled material is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation; and

(b) the loading is for the purpose of:

(i) the export of the carbon dioxide streams from Australia to another country; or

(ii) the import of the carbon dioxide streams from another country to Australia; and

(c) there is a permit in force for that export or import.

Note: A permit can only be granted if the carbon dioxide streams are not captured from fossil fuel facilities (see subsection 19(7B)).

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

(7B) The Minister may only grant a permit for the export or import 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 fossil fuel facilities; and

(b) the other country to which the export or import relates is a Contracting Party to the Protocol; and

(c) there is an agreement or arrangement in force:

(i) between Australia and that other country; 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) there is an agreement or arrangement in force:

(i) between the Commonwealth and each entity that is proposing to export or import the controlled material; and

(ii) under which each of those entities agrees to comply with the applicable risk framework and guidelines; and

(e) the grant of the permit would be in accordance with Annex 2 to the Protocol; and

(f) the Minister is satisfied:

(i) of the matters referred to in paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of Annex 1 to the Protocol; and

(ii) that the other country to which the export or import relates has standards of environmental management, regulation and management at least as good as Australia's; and

(iii) that the grant of the permit would be consistent with Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement, and consistent with the Kumming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework; and

(iv) that the grant of the permit would be consistent with Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets; and

(v) of any other matters the Minister considers relevant.

(6) 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 or import of certain carbon dioxide streams

(1) This section applies for each permit for the export or import 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 must:

(a) monitor whether the export or import, 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 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 while the permit is in force, 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 import 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).

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 363,637 penalty units, or both;

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

Note: In 2023, 363,637 penalty units was approximately $100 million.

(7) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 20), omit "export of controlled material from Australia", substitute "export or import of controlled material from or to Australia".

(8) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (lines 26 and 27), omit "export of controlled material from Australia", substitute "export or import of controlled material from or to Australia".

(9) 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 the export or import of controlled material from or to Australia on or after the commencement of this item

For reasons I have already outlined in this place, I do not support the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill. What is most alarming is that, without extensive amendments, this bill would create a pathway, whether intended or not, for new Australian gas mines to continue to open and old ones to be extended and expanded. This green light is based upon unproven and faulty technology: carbon, capture and storage. Carbon capture and storage has failed to meet expectations time and time again, including in Australia's enormous Gorgon gas field CCS project. The bill in its current form would enable fossil fuel facilities, like the colossal and highly polluting Barossa gas project, to proceed.

In an attempt to improve and strengthen this bill and to ensure it's not misused, as I have described, I'm proposing three categories of amendments. The first category is an attempt to prohibit the import to or export from Australia of any carbon that was captured from a fossil fuel facility. This includes existing new or expanded facilities. This bill must not be used to enable new gas mines to be opened or existing ones to be expanded. The basic reasoning is that CCS only deals with scope 1 emissions and does nothing to deal with the vast majority of emissions produced when gas is burnt—over 85 per cent of the emissions. I'm also proposing a prohibition on the use of public money for any carbon capture and storage project that is in any way connected to fossil fuels. Public money must not be used to prolong the life of fossil fuel projects.

The second category of amendments I am proposing should be easy for the government to agree to. The government says that this bill is necessary to implement its international obligations under the 2009 amendment to the London protocol. However, the bill omits two very important aspects of the protocol: the risk assessment and management framework for carbon sequestration in sub-seabed geological structures and the specific guidelines on the assessment of CO2 streams for disposal into sub-seabed geological formations. These risk assessment and management measures do not form part of the permanent requirements in this bill in its current form. Instead, the environment minister can grant a permit to import and export carbon dioxide by reference to high-level considerations that fail to grapple with the seriousness of the activity. If the government is bringing this bill to comply with its international obligations, why would it only legislate the harmful aspects of those obligations and not the risk mitigation measures that accompany them?

The final set of amendments I have proposed cover what should happen if—or, should I say, when—things go terribly wrong. I believe it must be the companies who want to dump the carbon under the seabed and not the Australian taxpayers who are made liable for monitoring, maintenance and remediation of carbon capture and storage facilities. These companies should also be required to put up a bond to cover those liabilities as a condition of any permit. If they go ahead and import or export CO2 without a permit, they should also suffer serious penalties, as outlined in my amendments. I urge the government to adopt these amendments to ensure that this bill is used in the manner that it is intended.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for McKellar be agreed to.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, heading to Part 1, page 4 (line 2), omit "Export of carbon", substitute "Carbon".

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

(7B) The Minister may only grant a permit for controlled material that is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation if:

(a) the carbon dioxide capture processes removed greenhouse gases from the atmosphere by human activity, resulting in less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than if the activity had not occurred; and

(b) the removed greenhouse gases have not been, and are not to be, used to offset or compensate for new emissions of greenhouse gases by any facility under any legal, regulatory or voluntary agreement or target; and

(c) 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

(d) in the case of a permit for exporting the controlled material to another country—the Minister is satisfied that there is an agreement or arrangement in force between Australia and the other country 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

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

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

Note: The facility mentioned in paragraph (b) need not be the facility that removed the greenhouse gases.

The only justification for this legislation is if it is genuinely to combat climate change and protect our oceans, and it needs more than just a creative title to do that. As currently drafted, this bill opens the door for gas companies to expand fracking and extraction with the increased emissions offset by the false promise of carbon capture and storage. It is incredibly disappointing to see, given that so many members of the Labor Party have vowed to be fighters for climate change. I question how much debate has been had in the party room in relation to this bill and in relation to these amendments. I should say to the minister that, whilst I appreciate the discussions to date, if time is the issue in relation to consideration of the amendments, then this bill should be delayed for voting until next week so that these amendments and a sound bill can be considered by the House.

These amendments put in the guardrails. If the government is genuine about saying that this is legislation about fighting climate change, then they cannot consider the passing of this legislation without these amendments. The amendment I propose adds two conditions to the minister's consideration when granting a permit to dump carbon dioxide in the ocean or under the ocean floor. The first condition added states that any greenhouse gases removed must result in fewer greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than if the activity had not occurred, net negative emissions. The second condition states that they must not offset or compensate for new emissions of greenhouse gases. It cannot be a carbon capture and storage project to compensate for the expansion of fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, we are going to have to draw down carbon from the atmosphere. The truth is that atmospheric carbon dioxide already far exceeds safe levels for human civilisation. The Australian Academy of Science says that the world will need to remove greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere in order to avoid the worse case scenarios of global warming, but current greenhouse gas removal solutions are insufficient to achieve the scale of removal needed to reach net zero emissions and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, so removal efforts need to be scaled up.

We know that rainforests have long been the lungs of the earth, but deforestation and climate change are depleting their ability to absorb the carbon. Australia is listed as one of 24 global deforestation fronts, alongside the Amazon, the Congo Basin and Borneo. In the time it takes to read this sentence, 20 Australian native trees have been cut down or damaged. That's two lost every second. Similarly, oceans have been doing a lot of the heavy lifting on climate. They generate 50 per cent of the oxygen we need, absorb 25 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions and capture 90 per cent of the excess heat generated by emissions. Through natural mechanisms in oceans and trees, the world currently removes around two gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year from the atmosphere. Unfortunately, we continue to destroy the lungs of the earth, so we are going to need to look towards technology for new ways to rapidly decarbonise the atmosphere.

But, at the moment, only 0.002 gigatonnes of CO2 per year of carbon removal results from novel methods. Scientists and entrepreneurs are continuing to work on solutions to directly capture carbon from the atmosphere, including direct air capture, electrochemical approaches and enhanced biological approaches. The storage of carbon drawdown of existing emissions—and I say 'existing'—needs to be considered. I believe that is where the treaty and this legislation, if amended, has a role to play.

We need to look beyond net zero and consider climate-positive outcomes. Minister, you speak much of nature-positive Australia. We also need to look towards climate-positive Australia. Net negative emissions occur when more greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere than emitted. New technologies may be necessary and part of that return to a sustainable planet. To support this bill, we must ensure it contributes to climate-positive outcomes.

The world needs to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to limit global warming. We need to protect our oceans, but this bill should only be leveraged to draw down pre-existing excess carbon from the atmosphere. It should not give fossil fuel companies another carbon dumping ground that enables new or expanded fossil fuel projects to go ahead. There is no place for greenwashing. We must take actions that will actually reduce emissions, not just give the fossil fuel industry a new way to dump their pollution.

I urge the minister to delay the third reading of this bill, to consider these amendments properly and bring the bill back for consideration next week.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of these amendments. I do so because I think at the heart of them lie what are some of the largest concerns for myself and others on the crossbench—and that is: the actual purpose of this bill. I take it on good faith that the minister gives us her personal assurances that this is about enacting positive climate reform.

But as the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 is currently presented in the House, the one thing it clearly does is enable new fossil fuel projects to take advantage of the opportunity to sequester carbon emissions under the seabed. There is no protection in this bill, currently, to make it so that it is about a nature-positive outcome.

I want to double-down on that point. I and the people of North Sydney do not stand against the engagement of new tech, but any new tech being undertaken in our communities and our societies should be about delivering a net negative climate positive outcome. Drawing down pre-existing carbon dioxide makes sense, in this case, but leaving it open to enable people like Santos to walk straight through that door, open up a new gas project and say that that gas project meets everything we've now brought into place under the safety net—because they can pump their carbon dioxide offshore into a carbon capture and storage facility—is completely contrary to what I believe we are trying to work towards as a parliament.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't want to talk about every amendment as it comes up, because I know that we've got a lot of business before us in the House. I know that there's a lot of complexity because this legislation is about enacting the London protocol—so members have to have a good understanding of what's in the London protocol—and it adds to existing protections that we already have.

I want to reiterate my offer to the crossbench that we are very happy to keep working on the detail of this with you, to give you more detailed briefings about the purpose of the bill and what it gives effect to. This bill is simply about giving effect to the commitments, the obligations, that we have under the London protocol that we signed up to in 2009 and under the amendments to the London protocol that we signed up to in 2013.

The member for Warringah was talking about how important action on climate change is and how important it is for us to be nature positive. We agree. That's not what this bill about though. We have our commitment to 30 per cent of our lands and 30 per cent of our waters being protected by 2030. Just last week I announced the 10 new Indigenous protected areas that will make up part of that—tens of millions of additional hectares of land that will be protected and preserved because of that. We've doubled our funding to national parks. You mentioned blue carbon. That's why we're investing in blue carbon. We know that blue carbon is one of the most effective ways that we can suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. We're doing all of these things, but that's not what this bill is about. That's not what this policy is about.

A number of the member for Mackellar's suggestions are not covered in this legislation because they're covered in other legislation and other bills. The current sea dumping act already requires consideration of treaties or conventions that Australia is party to for all permit types. So you don't have to have specific listing of particular agreements, like the Paris Agreement. It's already covered. The granting of the sea dumping permit doesn't relieve the permit holder of any obligation to comply with any other law of the Commonwealth, state or territory that's applicable to that activity. So, the Climate Change Act 2022 and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 are standalone pieces of legislation with individual regulatory requirements that have to be met whether or not this permit is granted. It doesn't relieve you of the obligations under other pieces of legislation.

Regarding no public money being spent on CCS—well, we've just cancelled a $250 million spend that those opposite previously had in the budget on this, for the very reason that we don't think public funding should be spent on it. It would be interesting I think for members to be aware of the fact, if they're not already, that Minister Madeleine King has committed $12 million to review the environmental management regime for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage to make sure it is working as intended to decarbonise the economy, and of course I'll be working very closely with Minister King on that review.

Finally, while I have the opportunity: there are substantial penalties within the existing act that are replicated in this bill to apply to the new permit categories. Specifically, there are criminal penalties, including potential imprisonment, that apply. I know people are very keen to see proper accountability for people who don't do the right thing. We agree: there isn't a conflict here with our existing laws, and certainly those existing responsibilities continue, and we'll continue to make sure that we enforce them.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to say thank you to the minister for that response. It has been a difficult process, because it seems like the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 has been rushed through without adequate consultation, and it's been difficult to find time to speak to the advisers and ministers about our concerns. I would say as well that it's one thing to say you'd prefer not to give public money for remediation, for monitoring, for carbon capture and storage, but it's another thing to have that set in law. I just wanted to make that point.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Warringah be agreed to.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, pages 2 and 3 (table items 2 and 3), omit the table items, substitute:

(2) Clause 2, page 3 (line 1), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".

(3) Clause 2, page 3 (after line 3), at the end of subclause 2(1), add:

Note 2: The Nature Positive Plan (see table items 2 and 3) could in 2023 be viewed on the Department's website (http://www.dcceew.gov.au).

Let me start with where there is agreement, and there is significant agreement, I think, across this House on many issues, and certainly with the minister in charge of this portfolio. I think the minister and I agree strongly that the environmental laws in this country are inadequate for the protection of our climate and for the protection of nature. They need urgent and wholesale reform. I think the minister and I also agree that these reforms are absolutely critical and that to do them well we need to get business, the environmental movement and so many different groups on board to make sure that we come up with the right environmental protection laws, because our nature and our climate are too precious for us to ride roughshod over, and we need that vital protection. I congratulate the minister on the efforts that she has made in bringing people together and trying to bring this together, and I appreciate that from the outside it can look easier than it is from the inside in terms of how those efforts are progressing.

My fundamental concern with the bill that we have now is that without those rigorous protections—without the protections that the minister and I agree are absolutely critical for the protection of environment and nature in this country—putting through this legislation that could enable fossil fuel projects and other projects to go ahead and be approved with inadequate environmental protections, with inadequate consideration for nature and climate, is not appropriate.

My amendment is pretty simple. It is that for this bill to come into place we need to have the reforms that the minister is working so hard on—the EPBC Act reforms—in place before this bill comes into effect. It is absolutely critical that those laws are passed, that we get those appropriate protections for nature and for climate in place before we pass any bills that may enable technologies to go ahead that would otherwise jeopardise our environment. I don't have an objection to CCS in principle. The truth is that it just hasn't worked yet. So I have deep concern about the potential for projects to be approved and to be enabled by technology that has no actual strong proof that it's actually going to work.

I urge the minister to consider the amendment. I appreciate that the minister has said that they won't consider it in this House. I say: at least consider it in the Senate or come back and extend the debate, because I think it is a simple, reasonable request which is very consistent with the minister's own commitment to environmental law reform and simply seeks to bring those two things in harmony.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to clarify for the benefit of the House that there seems to be a developing notion that this legislation has somehow proceeded through the parliament quickly. That is just not the case. The House inquiry that examined this legislation, which the member for Warringah was on, reported in December and recommended that the legislation be supported. In June the legislation was introduced. There were briefings offered at the time and accepted at the time. In July there was a Senate inquiry into the legislation, which also recommended passing the legislation. Another set of briefings was offered at that time. In August—now—we're introducing the legislation and we're getting amendments with 24 hours notice. The legislation was first examined, can I reiterate, in December by the House inquiry.

I really respect member for Wentworth's focus on the updated environment protection and biodiversity conservation laws. That is vital work for this government. We are engaging with it at pace, but that's not what this bill is about. This bill is about one thing: enlivening Australia's domestic obligations under the London protocol and the amendments to the London protocol, which we have signed up to. A number of these amendments to the bill are about environmental laws, taxation, public spending and, indeed, the debate about whether or not we have a carbon capture and storage industry in Australia. That's not what this bill is about. It's about implementing the rules under the London protocol, ensuring that we have best-practice regulation in line with international agreements, when we don't have that at the moment.

Question negatived.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(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 — Accountability and transparency

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981

52 Section 25 (at the end of the heading)

Add "and tabled in Parliament".

53 Section 25

Omit "The Minister shall cause to be published in the Gazette particulars of the following:", substitute "(1) The Minister must cause to be published in the Gazette, and tabled in each House of the Parliament, particulars of each of the following things:".

54 Paragraph 25(a)

After "applications for permits", insert "received by the Minister".

55 At the end of section 25

Add:

(2) The Minister must do so within 15 sitting days of the House of Representatives after the day the Minister receives or does one of those things.

56 Application provision

The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to things received or done by the Minister on or after the commencement of this item.

I rise today to move amendments to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 for the purpose of holding the government to account for the real climate action they have promised by ensuring any legislation in this area is enabled in a way which ensures complete transparency and accountability. This is a piece of legislation that professes to enable environmental protection, yet I fear the truth is that in its current form it will actually provide an opportunity to mask ongoing pollution by hiding it under our seabed.

Just on a year ago, the North Sydney federal electorate sent me to Canberra with a very clear priority: to argue incessantly for faster, tangible and more ambitious action on climate. We're no longer facing a climate emergency; the climate emergency is here. The long-awaited environmental reforms are not. We talk about reaching our 2030 and 2050 climate targets and we talk about a road towards net zero, meeting our international obligations and embarking on major environmental law reform. But talk is cheap. As the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, said, leaders must lead. As leaders, then, and on behalf of the communities that have sent us here, we need to prioritise real action. In this context I rise today to move these consideration in detail amendments to bring transparency and accountability to this bill, to ensure that the purpose it serves and in whose interests it is working on a daily basis are always clear for Australians to see.

The London protocol is one of the first global conventions to protect the marine environment from human activities—as it should—with the objective of promoting the effective control of all sources of marine pollution. If implementing Australia's international obligations under the protocol is the core purpose of this bill, I must highlight the irony of it being used to enable sea dumping of existing carbon emissions. How can a piece of good environmental legislation possibly allow for solutions which bring with them the very real risk of environmental damage and enable continued carbon pollution, all with the absence of minimum checks and balances. The link between this bill and the protocol therefore is tenuous.

If this bill is seriously about using these technologies for climate action, it must at the very least provide a guarantee of greater transparency around permit applications and public consultation. Numerous submissions to the inquiry by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee expressed concern that the bill does not contain a requirement for environmental impact assessments of proposed activities. As it stands, the bill also has no requirement for public consultation in relation to permit applications, no notification to interest holders nor any associated requirement for the minister to have regard to comments received from the public or other interest holders. In addition to this, the original act does not stipulate time frames for the publication of certain information on permits, including application for permits; permits granted or any associated conditions; refusals to grant permits; and any revocation, variation, suspension or cancellation of the suspension of a permit, and I'd like to see these gaps closed in this legislation. I'd also like to extend this requirement for publication to include tabling documents in the parliament here for all to see.

It is deeply concerning that so much power is being given to the minister—not just minister; it's any minister—without these checks and balances in place. The successful adoption of carbon capture and storage in Denmark for genuinely hard to abate sectors has been accompanied by transparent processes. There was a robust stakeholder consultation platform with representation of EU institutions, EU and third countries, NGOs, business leaders and academia. It facilitated the deployment of the technologies.

My amendment ensures the necessary checks and balances are in place to prove that this bill is serving the purpose which it seeks to achieve. Without amendment, it is far from convincing that the bill presents a solution that is in the best interests of our climate and environment at this point in time. In this context, I ask our environment minister to please lead by example and embrace these additional measures for transparency and accountability. I commend the amendments to the House.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for North Sydney be agreed to.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name 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.

This amendment would prevent carbon dioxide export permits being granted to future fossil fuel facilities. It would ensure that exporting carbon dioxide for carbon capture and storage, or CCS, cannot be used as justification for new fossil fuel projects. I acknowledge the minister's responses today to this consideration in detail debate. I note the member for Mackellar's amendment, which would prevent the import or export of carbon dioxide captured from any fossil fuel projects. I acknowledge the member for Warringah's amendment which would only allow a permit to be granted if the CCS process would result in negative emissions. These are all science based, good-faith amendments and I support them. But, if the government does not support those sensible amendments, those sensible restrictions, those sensible guardrails on this bill, I offer this simple amendment as an alternative to give comfort to our collective concerns, the concerns of our constituents and, particularly, the concerns in relation to the new technology aspect of this bill.

I have deep concerns about CCS as a technology to effectively fight climate change. According to research that I commissioned from the Parliamentary Library, since 2008 the Australia government has committed over $790 million to support the research and development of CCS, but despite this significant time and money spent on CCS, it has so far been found an to be an ineffective method to reduce carbon dioxide. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that CCS is expensive and there are still risks of leaks from undersea storage of carbon. Chevron's Gorgon CCS project on Barrow Island in Western Australia has failed to come even close to meeting sequestration targets for carbon dioxide generated by their project.

I've met with the minister's office, and I thank them for their time in explaining the rationale of this bill and the details of the London protocol as pointed to by the minister and for responding to questions. I understand that there is a role for CCS to reach net zero emissions and stay below two degrees of warming, but CCS should only happen in the rarest of circumstances, and it must not be used as justification to allow new fossil fuel projects. It simply cannot.

I absolutely urge the government to consider the amendments to improve this bill. I accept that the minister says these will be considered in the Senate, but I say to you we have to consider bills in the House, and I cannot in good faith vote for a bill that has not considered these amendments and given carriage to them. I really do urge the government to look at these issues and put these guardrails in to give comfort to these very serious and science backed concerns. The government cannot pass legislation that clearly does not reflect the real urgency of acting on climate change, and I urge the government to support these particular amendments.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have to reiterate that this bill is not about everything to do with climate change and everything to do with the environment. It's very specifically about legislating to show that we will abide by the obligations that we have entered into as a nation under the London protocol, and the amendments to the London protocol. I understand that members wish to move amendments, and we will of course consider those amendments as the bill goes to the other place. But we had an inquiry into the bill in December; it's now August, and we're getting amendments 24 hours before the bill is set to be decided. It is very difficult to change the whole legislative program because you want to delay something that has been on our books and under discussion for well over half a year. We all need to respect that there is a lot of business to get through in this place. We will continue to listen to you, to work with you, to brief you and to consider where we can adopt any of these measures, but we certainly can't agree to further delays to concluding the business on this legislation as has been suggested.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to rise and speak in favour of these amendments again, and I want to take the minister up on the observation she just made. The idea of Australia stepping into our obligations under the protocol is something that has been under discussion in this House and in various committees since December last year. I thank the government for that level of consultation. I wasn't privy to any of those committee discussions. I have read the reports since, though, and I've seen that, during that process, there was a large amount of feedback from key stakeholders across our country, voicing really significant concerns about Australia enacting any sort of legislation around carbon capture and storage. Those concerns were based on the 'why' of doing it at this point in time. They were based on the soundness of the research to support carbon capture and storage, particularly on the basis that it is yet to be successful in Australia. The concerns were also based on the international citizenship of Australia and our behaviour in looking to offshore our own carbon dioxide emissions.

I would reflect back to the minister that there was a lot of feedback, during those processes, through those committees, from people raising concerns. I would also feed back to the House that, at the moment, there is the largest crossbench in history in this place, and we are here because our community said they want politics done differently. But, like every other member in this House, we have very limited resources—I have one policy person. I do apologise for not having engaged in this process earlier, but, in trying to keep my electoral office running and get across every piece of legislation that this government brings to this House in any sitting week, sometimes, even with my best efforts, I can only get to it in the week that I know it's coming into the chamber.

What I would ask is that, in consideration of that, we work together—crossbench and government—to ensure that, when those briefing opportunities are put in place, we push each other more adequately at that point in time. My recollection of the briefing on this is that, in the last sitting weeks, we were given a very short briefing by two people from the minister's team, and there was no robust debate around it at that point in time. Again, I would ask that any piece of legislation be open for a consideration in detail at this point, as is appropriate in this place. It's why we have a consideration-in-detail debate. I would encourage everybody in this place, even those who are members of the major parties, to get involved in the debate. If it's only the crossbench standing up and debating legislation in this place, Australians are not seeing democracy in action.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Indi be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be agreed to.