|
representatives vote 2023-08-03#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-12-23 12:26:29
|
Title
Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail- Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Not for new fossil fuel projects
Description
-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-08-03.23.1) introduced by Indi MP [Helen Haines](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/indi/helen_haines) (Independent), which means they failed.
- ### What do these amendments do?
- Dr Haines [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-08-03.23.1):
- > *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.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(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.*- >>> *(e) the Minister is satisfied of any other matters the Minister considers relevant.*
-
-
|
|
representatives vote 2023-08-03#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-12-23 12:25:12
|
Title
Bills — Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023; Consideration in Detail- Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail
Description
<p class="speaker">Helen Haines</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-08-03.23.1) introduced by Indi MP [Helen Haines](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/indi/helen_haines) (Independent), which means they failed.
- ### What do these amendments do?
- Dr Haines [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-08-03.23.1):
- > *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.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(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.*
<p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:</p><p class="italic">1A Subsection 4(1)</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic"><i>new fossil fuel facility</i> has the meaning given by section 4AA.</p><p class="italic">1B After section 4</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">4AA Meaning of <i>new fossil fuel facility</i></p><p class="italic">(1) A facility is a <i>new fossil fuel facility</i> for a financial year (the <i>current financial year</i>) if:</p><p class="italic">(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</p><p class="italic">(b) either:</p><p class="italic">(i) as at 1 July 2023, a determination referred to in subsection 22XQ(1) of the <i>National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007</i> has never been made in relation to the facility under the safeguard rules (within the meaning of that Act); or</p><p class="italic">(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).</p><p class="italic">(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), the following kinds of new operations are specified:</p><p class="italic">(a) new operations that increase the annual production of the facility;</p><p class="italic">(b) new operations that extend the number of years of production of the facility;</p><p class="italic">(c) new operations that involve the development of new reserves that were not already under production by the facility on 1 July 2023.</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 1 to 16), omit subsection 19(7B), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(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:</p><p class="italic">(a) the carbon dioxide streams are not captured from facilities that are new fossil fuel facilities for the financial year; and</p><p class="italic">(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</p><p class="italic">(c) the Minister is satisfied that there is an agreement or arrangement in force:</p><p class="italic">(i) between Australia and the other country to which the export relates; and</p><p class="italic">(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</p><p class="italic">(d) the Minister is satisfied that the grant of the permit would be in accordance with Annex 2 to the Protocol; and</p><p class="italic">(e) the Minister is satisfied of any other matters the Minister considers relevant.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Tanya Plibersek</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Kylea Tink</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Indi be agreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|