Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to move a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business today.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion concerning the hours of meeting and routine of business, to be moved and determined immediately, and I move that the question be now put.

Sue Lines

The question is that the question be now put on the motion to suspend standing orders.

Sue Lines

The question now is the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to. Senator Hanson-Young?

Sarah Hanson-Young

I would like clarification from the leader of the government in this matter. We have heard accusations and a call from the Leader of the Opposition that, in order to gag this vote, the government would have to offer them the transmission inquiry.

Rather than just rushing this through right now, we need to know: has a deal been done, called on by the gas industry cuddling up to—

Sue Lines

Senator Hanson-Young, I gave you the call because I thought you were taking a point of order. If you are making—

Sarah Hanson-Young

I am!

Sue Lines

You are not. Senator Hanson-Young, seek leave to make a statement and see if leave is granted.

Sarah Hanson-Young

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to standing orders—

Sue Lines

No. Senator Hanson-Young, we are in the middle of suspension. Please resume your seat. The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to. Senator Hanson-Young, on a point of order?

Sarah Hanson-Young

Yes, Madam President, because I did not seek leave to suspend on the basis that I was being told that the minister was going to clarify whether a deal has been done for Santos—

Sue Lines

Senator Hanson-Young, please resume your seat. I have to complete putting the division. I will state the question again so that everyone understands what we are doing. I am not entertaining anyone else standing. The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to. Ring the bells for one minute.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Nick McKim

I don't have all my senators here.

Sue Lines

Senator McKim, nothing's changed. The bells will be rung for one minute. There's been no debate in between.

Nick McKim

I want to place on the record that we do not agree with a one-minute ringing of the bells.

Sue Lines

Senator McKim, I explained to you there has been no ensuing debate. I am putting the question. The call has been for one-minute bells. Senators, please resume your seats. You are out of order, Senator David Pocock and Senator Rice. Resume your seats. Senator Rice, are you seeking to take a point of order?

Janet Rice

I am seeking to ask a question, President.

Sue Lines

No, Senator Rice, please resume your seat. Senator Pocock, we are in the middle of a count. If you wish to be counted, please resume your seat.

David Pocock

Please can I seek advice from the Clerk?

Sue Lines

No, please resume your seat. You won't be counted if you are not sitting.

Glenn Sterle

I heard that: 'we're all on the take'.

Sue Lines

Senator Sterle!

Penny Wong

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the variation of business.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion concerning the routine of business today, to be moved immediately and determined without debate.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines

The question is that the question be now put on the motion to suspend standing orders.

Andrew McLachlan

(In division) Could I have a little order, please. The tellers need to concentrate.

Tim Ayres

I'm not going to let you bunch of loons carry on.

Andrew McLachlan

Senator Ruston, I am in the middle of a division, if you hadn't noticed. The result of the division is 17 ayes and 36 noes. It's passed in the negative. We will continue with committee. I just have a point of order with Senator Ruston.

Anne Ruston

Mr Chair, I would ask Senator Ayres to withdraw.

Tim Ayres

Senator Ruston has asked me to withdraw and I cheerfully do so in the spirit of [inaudible].

Andrew McLachlan

Thank you.

Jenny McAllister

Once again, the opposition has been provided with an opportunity to allow this debate to progress. I draw the attention of the Senate to the approach that the opposition took on Monday when this bill was in its second reading debate. Senator Duniam, who is here with us now, talked about the importance of the bill. He said that the coalition welcomed the introduction of the bill. The reason the coalition welcomed it was, they said, that there were necessary and well-intentioned changes to the London protocol that needed to be reflected in our legislation. Senator Duniam said at the time:

… we recognise the fact we live in a reality where we do need to balance the imperatives of the economy and the environment.

Anthony Chisholm

'Imperatives'! Lofty words!

Jenny McAllister

They were lofty words on Monday, weren't they? But here we are, it's Friday, and it's back to business as usual for that lot. It is horsetrading instead of principle, because the leadership here is entirely operating at the behest of the tinfoil hat brigade that sits up the back there—the climate deniers, the flat-earthers—who will do everything they can to stand in the way of the energy projects that are so necessary for us to manage the energy transition in this country.

People like Senator Birmingham, who I think probably accepts the science of climate change and may yet accept what I believe is still coalition policy, which is to transition to net zero by 2050, are now in the thrall of this group of renegades up the back in their tinfoil hats, who want nothing more than an opportunity to stop energy projects in this country. The horsetrading that's going on to try and secure an outcome for this group of renegades is standing in the way of the highly principled ideas that were expressed on Monday, and none of this is in the national interest. This is essentially about managing problems in the coalition, managing their internals. It's a shame, isn't it? There are a range of businesses that would agree with the proposition that regulatory certainty in this area would be preferable. They're businesses that I think a number of coalition senators would be, and should be, familiar with.

If people think that it's a good idea to vote with the Greens again and again to impede the progress of this bill, then it's something they need to reflect on, because it's not in the national interest and it's certainly not consistent with any of the commitments that were made on Monday of this week.

Jonathon Duniam

I feel suitably chastised for defending democracy and allowing the Senate to interrogate and scrutinise legislation. It is interesting that the minister on duty, Senator McAllister, who is presiding over this mess at the moment, has reflected on things I said earlier in the week. I'd like to reflect on a few other things I said earlier in the week as well.

Yes, you're right, we do welcome this legislation. It's good legislation that we will support. But, as I said before, we'll protect the right of the senators in this place to interrogate legislation, ask questions and perhaps, sometimes, get answers. We will protect their right to do so. What we will not do is run a protection racket for the government, who cannot get their house in order. What we've seen today is another opportunity for the government to do the right thing, to work with the coalition on a range of matters and perhaps progress this bill. But, no, instead of doing that they point to a range of colleagues they want to reflect negatively on because they have a difference of opinion. This is what you have to expect from the Australian Labor Party. If you have a difference of opinion, they're going to call you a flat-earther or part of the tinfoil hat brigade. We just heard that from a government minister. It's not really befitting of a government minister, but that's what we hear in Australia; that's the tone of the debate when they don't get their way.

All we're asking for is a bit of cooperation on a range of matters, and then perhaps this bill will progress. It is unheard of that a government that has the majority in this place can't get a bill to progress. I've never seen it before. It's unbelievable. There are a small number of people down at the end of the chamber who don't support it, yet this government can't progress it. One week on and the debate is where it was on Monday. That is on the government, not on us.

And, on business: Senator McAllister made the point that we'd be familiar with many of the businesses, and we are. We work very closely with the business community because they are the engine room of our economy.

They're the ones that give us the massive surplus that this government has now got—the thing that they take credit for. They don't thank the resources sector. They don't thank the hardworking men and women of Australia that generated that surplus. We will support those businesses, and we will do everything we can for them here. But those businesses, interestingly, have been placing calls to ask us what's going on in here. And, interestingly—would you believe—some of those people that have called have let the cat out of the bag: there are a couple of government ministers who are asking them to call us.

Opposition Senators

Opposition senators interjecting—

Jonathon Duniam

Yes! 'Please, can you ask the opposition to pass our bill?' Instead of actually asking the government to do their job properly, they want to try and put pressure on us through businesses that want a government to get the job done, to do their job properly. We're not asking much except for a bit of cooperation. The government know exactly what we're talking about. We can be here as long as you want, or you can work with us cooperatively.

David Pocock

We've heard the minister talk about the national interest. I've got a question from yesterday, when we were cut off by the hard marker, that goes to national interest, national security and the potential implications of this legislation. We've heard from Senator Duniam that we have, I assume, gas companies calling Labor ministers and asking them to ask the opposition to pass this legislation. Yet we have the minister telling us that this legislation isn't really about that—this is about everything else; this is about setting up the regulatory framework. 'Look over here; don't look at what everyone else seems to acknowledge fairly openly!' We've heard Senator Whish-Wilson outline numerous references and speeches that Minister Bowen has made about legislation that sound a lot like this. But Senator McAllister can't even bring herself to say: 'Yes, this is the legislation we're dealing with. We'll come clean.' Minister Bowen has talked about legislation that would potentially work for the gas industry. And here it is in front of the Senate. It has bipartisan support. You have Labor and the coalition committed to passing this for the fossil fuel industry.

We know that climate change is a national security risk. The Defence strategic review highlighted that. The Labor government committed to a look at the implications of climate change on national security, and the Office of National Intelligence did a report, which the government now refuses to release to the Australian people. Prime Minister Albanese says even the date that they received the report is classified. It is quite extraordinary for a Labor government that talks about transparency to be hiding behind secrecy like that. A number of people on the crossbench in this place and in the other place have pushed the government, pressed the government, for details, for a declassified version of the ONI report—nothing. They can't bring themselves to come clean and tell the truth when it comes to climate change.

Back to my question from yesterday, the Prime Minister has been in the Cook Islands meeting with Pacific Island nations. We know that one of their chief calls is for Australia to join the Port Vila Call for a Just Transition to a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific. We know that climate change is the No. 1 issue in the Pacific. Yesterday, I read an opinion piece by the Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, Meteorology and Geo-Hazards, Energy, Environment and Disaster Management of Vanuatu, Mr Ralph Regenvanu. He called Australia out for our hypocrisy. He highlighted the double—it's not really doublespeak; he highlighted Australia's actions for not matching up with our talk, our rhetoric, in the Pacific. We hear all this talk from ministers about being part of the Pacific family and yet are having this sort of legislation go through the Senate in the same week that the Prime Minister is in the Pacific, I'm sure assuring Pacific Island nations that we're on their side.

Minister, what is the government's assessment of the national security risks of not taking Pacific island leaders' concerns about climate change seriously? On the same day that the Prime Minister is in the Cook Islands meeting with Pacific island leaders, here in Australia, in our parliament, in the Senate, we are passing legislation which could further undermine their future.

Jenny McAllister

The Prime Minister is currently in the Cook Islands meeting with Pacific island leaders and that is incredibly important for our national interest. That is how I would characterise the approach that we take to the Pacific overall. We have been very clear since coming to government that the Pacific relationships are immensely important to us for a range of reasons. They go beyond security. They also go to the extensive people-to-people relationships and a sense of connection that Australians feel with the Pacific family generally. The truth is that the previous government's approach left us with a lot to do to restore that relationship with the Pacific and, in particular, taking action on climate change. We know that there is nothing more central to the security and the economies of the Pacific than climate change, and that is why we are working so closely on those questions in particular. We have increased our overseas development aid to the Pacific by nearly $1 billion over four years. We have climate resilience at the centre of our new international development policy and we have indicated our intention to rejoin the Green Climate Fund.

You mentioned earlier contributions from some Pacific leaders, including Minister Regenvanu. I have had the pleasure of meeting the minister on a number of occasions and I have enjoyed our interactions. I found him to be a direct, courteous contributor and that is the case with many Pacific ministers I have had the pleasure to interact with in this role. We are always upfront in our interactions with Pacific counterparts that transitioning our economies to renewables is a significant process. I think Pacific leaders understand that we are focused both on the urgent task here transitioning our economy and also being part of the solution more generally in the global community.

At home, as I've indicated in earlier contributions, we have substantially increased our ambition as a country since taking government. We have ambitious plans to transition our energy supply to renewables and that is an essential part of our path to net zero. We have re-engaged actively with the global community, recognising that this is an international challenge that requires coordinated global action. We are back playing a very active role in multinational climate discussions and, through that, working to ensure a strong Pacific voice and supporting the elevation of Pacific concerns in the forums in which we participate.

We are also seeking to support the transition for partners in the region. The global transition to net zero—through you, Chair, to Senator Pocock—is the most significant shift in the world's economy since the industrial revolution. Our energy exports make a significant contribution to the stability of global markets and they are particularly important for energy security and livelihoods across the Indo-Pacific. We are working in our region to not only effect our transition but to support the transition of other energy trading partners, including through collaborative efforts to develop the green hydrogen supply chain and our own efforts to expand renewable energy. Our reputation as a trusted trading partner is essential to all of that, to securing a place in the Indo-Pacific and to supporting the transition in the Indo-Pacific.

So, Senator Pocock, you're right to point to those broad questions of national interest in terms of our international relationships. These are things that are front of mind in our international diplomacy, our trade discussions and our own decision-making here at home. I think, in the conversations that the government has with other Pacific leaders, they appreciate the steps that we are taking here and internationally to support that transition more generally.

Long debate text truncated.

Peter Whish-Wilson

I've got two series of questions in relation to these amendments that I'd like to pursue with the minister. And I see that Minister McAllister is now here—not that I have a problem with Minister Watt, of course! I know he cares deeply about our oceans and their health, being the fisheries minister.

Minister, one of the reasons for the Greens amendments to get assurances around potential liabilities from these projects is the very serious risk that carbon capture and storage are largely commercially unproven technologies in new geological formations that have never been used for carbon capture and storage in the oceans. Let's be clear again: there really is only one long-term carbon capture and storage facility in the ocean that's been going for decades, and that's off Norway. We've talked about that. It's had a lot of problems, and I'd like to ask some questions about that today. But these do relate to our amendments to provide security.

The first area we're seeking assurances through our amendments on is in relation to the potential decommissioning costs of carbon capture and storage projects, because the nature of them appears to be they're using depleted oil and gas fields. The logic of that is depleted oil and gas fields have already been used and studied over many years, so companies have a history of understanding those geological formations. So my first question, Minister, is: you mentioned two days ago—and I have a copy of the Hansard transcript here—that there were a number of domestic projects looking to import CO2. You said the words, 'They're currently exploring the possibilities'. They include CStore1 in Western Australia, CarbonNet in Victoria, SEA CCS hub in Victoria and the Darwin LNG hub in the Northern Territory. In relation to CStore1 in Western Australia and CarbonNet in Victoria and the SEA CCS hub in Victoria, could you tell me: what geological basins are those projects in? This is very important. If you could seek that information for me, I would be very grateful.

Jenny McAllister

Thank you for the question, Senator Whish-Wilson. I don't have that information at hand. I will see if it may be made available.

Peter Whish-Wilson

If you could get that for me this morning if possible—specifically whether those areas are utilising depleted oil and gas fields. Are you aware of that information, Minister? Rather than the specific geological structures or the names of the fields—I know there are, obviously, two in Victoria and one in Western Australia. There are a number of basins; the way these are described under acreage titles, there are a number of basins. Could you tell me whether these companies are going to be using depleted oil and gas fields for potential storage of imported carbon dioxide from overseas?

Jenny McAllister

I note your question, Senator Whish-Wilson. As I've said in response to the previous question, I don't have that information with me. I'll see what could be made available.

Peter Whish-Wilson

We obviously know the Bayu-Undan field is a depleted field, and that's why the Barossa project wants to access it and that's why the Timor government is potentially saying they're open for business, if that gets up and running. And we know that Woodside is interested in that, because the Sunrise project is partly in the Timor Sea and very close to our national boundary with the Timor Sea, so it borders both Australian and the East Timorese territories. I'm particularly interested in whether these depleted fields are going to be used. My guess and my assumption this morning is that they will be depleted oil and gas fields.

The reason for this, and why these amendments are really important, is, right around the country, our offshore oil and gas regulator under the OPGGS Act, NOPSEMA, is currently overseeing a decommissioning strategy for oil and gas fields around this country. Minister, are you aware of NOPSEMA's decommissioning strategy for existing depleted or close-to-depleted oil and gas fields in Australia's oceans?

Helen Polley

Minister?

Jenny McAllister

I'm not seeking the call, thanks. I'm just assessing the information I have.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Is anyone else seeking the call? Senator Whish-Wilson?

Peter Whish-Wilson

I think the minister said she was just looking for some information. I'm happy to wait.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: No, she's not seeking the call.

I didn't hear her say that.

Jenny McAllister

I'm not seeking the call.

Peter Whish-Wilson

That's alright; you don't know the answer. If you could get it for me, I would be grateful. You're in here steering through the Senate and this parliament legislation that's going to facilitate new oil and gas fields by using previously depleted oil and gas fields to potentially store carbon dioxide to pump these emissions back into the ground, even though there's no evidence this works anywhere around the world on a commercial scale.

What's really triggered my interest in this bill is not just that this is very likely to be greenwashing for the oil and gas industry to help them get up new projects; right around this nation, companies that have been operating in the ocean, oil and gas fields have significant liabilities under the NOPSEMA decommissioning strategy and compliance plan. The Wilderness Society estimates up to $60 billion in liabilities. Through questioning from the Greens in Senate estimates over recent years and, may I say, working with amazing stakeholders like The Wilderness Society and others who care about our oceans—Greenpeace have been very prominent in this campaign as well—we have managed to get Woodside Petroleum and some other companies to remove some infrastructure from the ocean that's been sitting there rusting. The teaser turret is a good example; that was only removed in recent months, and NOPSEMA confirmed that. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars of liabilities out there for oil and gas companies sitting on their balance sheet, I would expect. These are not insignificant amounts of money, even for wealthy, highly profitable oil and gas companies that pay very little tax in this country. They are some of the most profitable companies on the planet, especially in times of higher oil prices following the war in Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East. But here we have these liabilities.

Minister, can I ask you to take this on notice because I'm not sure if you'll have the information today. If you go to NOPSEMA's website, where they talk about their decommissioning strategy plan and performance, they have a decommissioning research strategy. Basically, they supply a flowchart that's pretty simple to follow and they have targets for decommissioning. By 2021 they were hoping that all oil and gas companies with depleted fields in Australia, the titleholders of those fields, would have appropriate plans for decommissioning and be completing these in a timely manner. Titleholders are aware of their decommissioning requirements—so NOPSEMA has been working with oil and gas companies to make sure they are aware of these requirements, and that's why they should be on their balance sheets. But by the end of this year—we're nearly there—coincidentally they need to have supplied plans for the abandonment of their wells and these oilfields. Decommissioning plans are supposed to be in place for non-operating structures, equipment and property which are associated with depleted oil and gas fields. Moored or tethered buoyant infrastructure needs to be removed within 12 months of ceasing operations. So, once these plans are given to NOPSEMA this year, they have 12 months to go out there and spend the money to remove this technology and this infrastructure.

Then by 2025 wells that were plugged and closed within three years of permanently ceasing production need all structural equipment and property to be removed.

For the domestic act offshore oil and gas carbon capture and storage, which is not dealt with in this bill, unless those same structures are going to be used to also apply for licences to import carbon dioxide, we have a situation here where companies can avoid their liability by applying for a licence to use these subsidies to use these subsea structures to sequester carbon. Even if they apply for a licence and they don't manage to get some dirty CO2 from Japan, Korea, the Philippines, the Timor Sea or wherever it happens, we have a situation where—and I'm very concerned about this for the domestic legislation as well—this is actually a de facto strategy to avoid their liabilities. How convenient that we are dealing with this legislation just a few months out from when they are supposed to be providing the final details to NOPSEMA. Minister, can you answer this question today, and if you can't please take it on notice: how many of these project that are applying to import carbon dioxide—and if you know domestically how many of the seven areas that have now been awarded to oil and gas companies to pursue carbon capture and storage—are using depleted oilfields that had liabilities under these decommissioning plans?

Jenny McAllister

Senator Whish-Wilson, as I've indicated in response to your last two questions, I don't have that information at hand. It is quite detailed, and I will say, of course, that because there is presently no arrangement for the importation of CO2, subject to the passage of this bill, the four projects that I referred to are not formally before the government because that pre-empts the decision that we are presently contemplating here in the chamber.

More generally, the government is aware that there need to be robust protocols in place for carbon capture, use and storage, and in the last budget provided $12 million to review the environmental management regime for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities. The review has commenced, and it seeks to ensure that the regime for offshore CCS appropriately manages risks both in the marine environment and the inherent risks around workplace health and safety. The review will identify opportunities to more effectively plan for and regulate the decommissioning of offshore CCS projects. I know that is a different question to the one you asked me earlier, but it is relevant more generally to the line of questioning you are pursuing. The review will also look at regulatory requirements relating to long-term liability and monitoring of sequestered carbon dioxide. There will also be an examination of opportunities for greater regulatory and administrative certainty and efficiency for projects of this kind in Commonwealth waters, and that review is presently underway and is being led by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. I let you know this because you are asking, in the general, questions about the interaction between the proposed permitting arrangement here and other arrangements that are in place for existing offshore oil and gas projects and, amongst other things, those are questions that could be considered as part of this broader process of ensuring we've got appropriate regulatory arrangements for offshore activity.

Long debate text truncated.

Jenny McAllister

I simply want to note where we are in the debate. We're now on day 4 of debate, and we've had a number of opportunities to consider detailed questions about the operation of the bill during the Committee of the Whole. I simply want to indicate to the Senate that the government is aware that a number of amendments have been circulated in the chamber. We're keen for the committee to have the opportunity to consider those amendments, and we'd welcome it if those senators who have circulated amendments were ready to formally move them so that the committee may consider them.

Peter Whish-Wilson

by leave—On that note, I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2142 together:

(1) 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/).

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (after line 15), after paragraph 19(7B)(d), insert:

(da) that there is an agreement or arrangement in force:

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

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

(db) that the other country to which the export relates has equal or better standards of environmental management, regulation and enforcement as compared to Australia;

(3) 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 of controlled material

(1) This section applies for each permit for the export of controlled material from Australia to another country for dumping.

(2) A condition imposed in respect of the permit is that the holder of the permit must:

(a) monitor whether the export of controlled material for dumping, or any act or omission relating to the export, 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 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 after the permit has been granted, 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.

(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).

(6) The conditions imposed under this section in respect of the permit continue to apply in relation to the holder of the permit if the permit ceases to be in force.

(4) 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 permits granted on or after the commencement of this item.

It's interesting that over the few days that we have been debating this bill—while, yes, it is our fourth day now—government business time has been fairly restricted. It's not as if we've had a great length of time where we've been able to get into the detail. But, while these four days of debate have occurred, we've had some really important reports, both national and global, drop in relation to the content of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. Yesterday I talked about the Code blue: our oceans in crisis report released by the Climate Council, which warned of the impending risks and catastrophe for our oceans if we don't really act on emissions.

Then last night we had the Production gap report 2023 dropped by the United Nations Environment Programme and other partners, and I do ask senators to read this report. The first page goes into all the significant contributions from around the world as to how we can actually meet our 1.5 per cent climate targets. While they say that the Glasgow get-together was very encouraging in terms of the level of global commitment, what this 2023 gap report has shown is that the exact opposite has happened to the pledges made—especially by the so-called 'petrostates', like Australia. In fact, we've seen a ramping-up of fossil fuel production and plans for new projects. The Guardian, internationally, had an article on this last night. It talked about the insanity we're facing currently, where countries commit to do one thing but are in fact doing the exact opposite and where we have fossil fuel companies running rampant, with no government holding them to account.

Interestingly, if you get into the detail of this report, there are significant sections on carbon capture and storage. That includes carbon capture and storage in our oceans. Perhaps I, like Senator McAllister, could just do a very quick summary of the last four days. The Australian Greens have laboured the point that this bill is clearly designed to help facilitate the Barossa Gas Project and, potentially, other new fossil fuel developments in. In the case of the Barossa project, it's arguably the dirtiest fossil fuel project in our nation's history in terms of its carbon footprint.

I'll bring to senators' attention references, for example, on page 8 of this significant international report. They talk a little about the pledges by countries to explore carbon capture and storage, which is what we're doing in this bill, and to provide a regulatory framework to allow that to happen. But they say:

However, there are large uncertainties in the technical, economic, and institutional feasibility of developing and deploying novel CDR and fossil-CCS technologies at the extensive scale envisioned in these scenarios. Around 80% of pilot CCS projects over the last 30 years have failed, with annual capacity from operational projects resulting in dedicated CO2 storage currently amounting to less than 0.01 GtCO2/yr …

And they provide details of that on the following page. They continue:

There are also widespread concerns around the potential negative impacts arising from extensive land-use for conventional or novel CDR, which could affect biodiversity, food security, and the rights of Indigenous peoples and traditional land users.

Another reference comes from page 13, for those senators who would like to read this very important report:

Finally, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies — which can be coupled to fossil fuel combustion to reduce CO2 emissions, or coupled to bioenergy or direct air capture to remove CO2 from the atmosphere — could play a role in addressing residual emissions for hard-to-transition sectors.

This is a point that Senator Pocock made a couple of days ago—the hard-to-transition sectors. Developing new fossil fuel projects is not a hard-to-transition sector. They continue:

However, they are not a free pass to carry on with business as usual. Even if all CCS facilities planned and under development worldwide become operational, only around 0.25 GtCO2 would be captured in 2030 (IEA, 2023a), less than 1% of 2022 global CO2 emissions (Liu et cetera al., 2023). The track record for CCS deployment has been poor to date, with around 80% of pilot projects ending in failure over the past 30 years (Wang et al., 2021). Counting on these largely unproven and relatively costly technologies being rolled out at scale is thus a potentially risky and dangerous strategy.

But that's what we're doing here today. That's what the Australian Senate and the Australian parliament is doing: we're facilitating a piece of legislation which is facilitating the development of new fossil fuel projects. We have very clear evidence of that from the climate minister, Mr Bowen, in his public statements.

Even more detail is provided on page 28, in section 2.4, which is entirely on carbon capture and storage. It says,

As described in the previous section, under the median 1.5°C-consistent pathway, around 2.1 GtCO2/yr of fossil fuel-combustion emissions are captured and stored by 2050.

That's the best-case scenario.

However, the track record for CCS deployment has been very poor to date, with around 80% of pilot projects over the last 30 years ending in failure (Wang et al., 2021). The annual capacity from operational CCS projects that result in dedicated CO2 storage currently sum up to less than 0.01 GtCO2/yr (IEA, 2023a). There is concern that a range of institutional, technical, and financial barriers will constrain CCS deployment (Grant et al., 2022; Lane et cetera al., 2021), and rates of CCS deployment continue to fall below expectations and remain far below those modelled …

In the existing projects around the world—and in the ocean there are only a couple of them, and they were in Norway. There are no other undersea commercial CCS projects. We have talked about their problems in recent days. They are not problem free. They have failed in many areas. Of course, we've talk about Gorgon. But here it is in the United Nations report today.

I ask senators to read it and understand that we are being asked today to back in legislation to essentially enact the London protocol for Australia. We know that the timing of this legislation and the intent is to develop new fossil fuel projects. The government certainly won't rule that out, and yesterday they wouldn't rule out providing subsidies for the development of these technologies which the UN is warning us about in this report.

It goes on to say:

Many of the scenarios modelling higher gas levels in the long-term … that do not impose sufficient constraints on CO2 storage potential and injection rates (Achakulwisut et al., 2023). If fossil-CCS fails to scale to the levels envisaged by these scenarios, reductions in fossil fuel production and use need to be even faster.

Remember that the report opens by saying that, regardless of the commitments made at Glasgow, including by countries such as Australia, the exact opposite is happening around the world. It's almost like the fossil fuel industry is fighting a rearguard action, knowing that its time is limited, and they are literally going hell for leather to lock in as many projects as possible before this climate emergency that we are seeing unfold around us finally creates penny-drop moments for governments, decision-makers and, of course, citizens around the world.

I have more detail on the Greens' amendments to go into shortly, but I understand Senator Pocock may wish to move his amendments in the spirit, perhaps, of what you have asked us to do, Minister. In particular, I would like to step through a bit more information about those Greens' amendments and why we think they're important.

Catryna Bilyk

Senator Pocock can contribute to this debate, but we've already got an amendment or two out in front of us, so that's the one we'll deal with at the moment.

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the deferred motion relating to the motion moved by Senator Allman-Payne concerning a proposed disallowance:

That the Australian Education Amendment (2023 Capital Funding) Regulations 2023, made under the Australian Education Act 2013, be disallowed [F2023L01064].

Sue Lines

I remind senators that yesterday evening two votes were deferred as listed at item 15 on today's order of business. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold those votes now. I will deal first with the closure motion moved by Senator Watt concerning a proposed reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. For the sake of clarity, if the closure motion is not agreed to, the motion will be called on again for further debate at item 22 of today's order of business. The question will now be put.

The question is that the closure motion be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion for the second reading of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 be agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts

I move:

That further consideration of the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting after the Chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council notifies the President in writing that the Council has, by unanimous resolution, approved the legislation.

Jonathon Duniam

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Andrew McLachlan

Leave is granted for one minute.

Jonathon Duniam

The successful implementation of the Basin Plan is dependent on the cooperation of basin state jurisdictions. The water minister announced this amendment with great fanfare saying that the minister had all states on board except Victoria. We have also been advised that the ministerial council has not met since February 2023, long before this legislation was drafted. We believe the ministerial council should be fully consulted on such a significant reform that has implications for every jurisdiction.

Sarah Hanson-Young

I seek leave to make short statement.

Andrew McLachlan

Leave is granted.

Sarah Hanson-Young

While the Greens have some sympathies for Senator Roberts' motion today, we're not going to support it because we know that the job of getting the Murray-Darling Basin Plan back on track won't be done if we leave it to the states. It is the states that have held this up, dragged the chain and gamed the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is time that the Commonwealth government did this job and got the water that the environment deserves and was promised.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.