|
senate vote 2023-11-13#10
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-03-22 15:54:28
|
Title
Bills — Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023; in Committee- Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 - in Committee - No new fossil fuel facilities
Description
<p class="speaker">David Pocock</p><p>by leave—I move my amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2151 together:</p><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>We have heard for five days and I don't know how many hours in here—</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>We have an opportunity to act, and we're heading down the path that climate scientists are warning us not to go down.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>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.</p><p>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—</p> <p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>It's not working very well!</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">David Pocock</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>I don't accept that characterisation of the bill before us.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-11-13.174.1) introduced by ACT Senator [David Pocock](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/david_pocock) (Independent), which means they failed.
- ### What do these amendments do?
- Senator Pocock [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-11-13.174.1):
- > *... 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.*
- ### 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.*
-
-
|