Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose this matter of urgency. The media reports today regarding leaking methane from the Darwin LNG facility are concerning, but they appear to be, on their face, a matter for the Northern Territory's EPA regulator. Despite that fact, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has asked his department to investigate these reports. That will be carried out as part of the work with the expert panel on methane reporting.

It is important that the conclusions that we reach and the actions that we take are based on facts and evidence, not knee-jerk reactions and political pointscoring. This occurs in a broader context where we are managing an energy transition to a clean energy grid, and gas plays a role in that. I know those in the Greens political party don't want to admit that, but the Future Gas Strategy this government has proposed and adopted is an essential part of that transition. Gas is an essential part of the transition as firming fuel. It's important, in these contexts, that governments act responsibly. It's important in these contexts that we have the appropriate confidence in the relevant departments and agencies responsible and that those agencies are allowed to carry out the important work with which they're tasked.

This government does not believe it's fair to characterise the work of agencies such as the CSIRO, the Clean Energy Regulator and NOPSEMA as a failure, as this urgency motion proposes to do. It's another attempt by the Greens to stir up controversy and it brings with it a worrying suggestion of a lack of integrity at these agencies for which this government does not believe there is a proper basis in evidence. Our respected scientists and regulatory agencies have behaved properly. They do so on behalf of Australians, and it is important that that be acknowledged. Motions like this lack foundation in terms of the attacks they make on those agencies. They're not allegations—accusations—that the government supports.

At the outset, it's important to acknowledge or note that the tank in question, the subject of this reporting in relation to methane leaks, is not currently in operation and that the licence to recommence operation of the tank is yet to be approved. The future of the tank will be a matter for the owners of the facility, if they want to continue to use that, and the Northern Territory regulator will need to determine whether it permits it to continue to be used for its purpose. The suggestion that multiple government agencies have failed to take action to protect the public is without foundation, and it is scurrilous in this motion. It also shows a misunderstanding of the responsibilities of those agencies. NOPSEMA, an environmental management authority, does not have jurisdiction to regulate the operation of the Darwin LNG facility. That agency's role was in approving the Barossa facility, and it was required to consider whether there were control measures in place. The agency determined that there was such a legislative framework in place to regulate unplanned emissions, but the responsibility for that falls on the Northern Territory regulators, and it's not appropriate to suggest that the regulator—in this case, NOPSEMA—has failed in its task on the basis of what's before us.

The emissions from the Darwin LNG facility are reported yearly under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act, and there are limits to emissions under the government's reformed safeguard mechanism. The government has already made changes to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme to improve the accuracy and transparency of reported fugitive methane emissions. That's part of the work of the expert panel led by Cath Foley in response to the CCA review, and that work continues to look at ways to further improve methane emissions reporting in coal and oil and gas facilities. But I think the most egregious aspect of the attack of the urgency motion and some of the things that have been said in this chamber has been the attack on the CSIRO, which is one of our most respected public agencies. The suggestion they are actively hiding information on the basis of a conflict of interest is without foundation—or, at least, that foundation has not been provided in what's been said today.

The CSIRO was engaged years ago to review methods used by third parties for monitoring fugitive methane emissions. It was not engaged to be the primary or engage in any direct monitoring on the site. While we're used to seeing attacks on our agencies, it is important to recognise that they do good work, that a process needs to play out here and that this urgency motion is without foundation.