Glenn Sterle

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Dean Smith be agreed to.

Matt O'Sullivan

As nobody is seeking the call, I'll put the question. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cadell and Senator Colbeck be agreed to.

Jenny McAllister

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Sarah Hanson-Young

The minister has moved the third question, but she has not put the question. I am seeking an opportunity to speak to the third reading.

Glenn Sterle

Yes, absolutely.

Sarah Hanson-Young

After a week of nonanswers, a week of drivel and a week of excuses, what we now have is the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, which is going to accelerate and expand the fossil fuel industry by $30 billion worth of investment. Don't take that from me; that's what the resources minister has said herself. This bill is going to supercharge fossil fuel expansion—shamefully—at a time when bushfires are already raging around the country and when people are worried about the climate crisis and how it's impacting on them and their lives right now. We have the Labor Party and the Liberal Party voting together to give another hand up to the fossil fuel industry. It is just ludicrous that we are about to see the passage of a piece of legislation in this chamber today that allows the fossil fuel industry to dump their toxic pollution in the sea, to bury it under the seabed and pretend that somehow it's just going to disappear, 'All good; nothing to see here, folks. Carry on, business as usual,' when the exact opposite is what we should be doing.

All of the world's scientists have told us loud and clear. The world's leading institutions, agencies and organisations are telling governments like the Australian government that, if you want to arrest dangerous global warming, you have to stop the expansion. You can't have any more coal, oil or gas. It all has to be left in the ground.

This bill is an attempt at greenwashing the next phase of the fossil fuel industry. Sadly, it was brought forward by the environment minister herself—a pretence that this was somehow about protecting the environment, when in fact the minister who is desperately trying to get this legislation through is not the environment minister; it is the resources minister. We know who still calls the shots in the Labor Party; it is the fossil fuel rump that sit on the front bench—the fossil fuel rump of the Labor Party only fostered by the fossil fuel dinosaurs in the coalition.

It is just unthinkable. At a time when our planet is on the edge of collapse, when the climate crisis is getting worse, when already across the country dozens of homes have been destroyed because of bushfires and we haven't even hit December, when we are heading into a horror summer, a drier summer, and when we're heading into the next drought, the last thing we should be doing is supercharging the expansion of coal, oil and gas, and yet that's exactly what this bill does.

This bill is going to allow for the expansion of Middle Arm, of Beetaloo, of Barossa—the carbon bombs that are going to cook this planet. Antonio Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has already said clearly that any more expansion cannot happen if humanity is to grasp, tackle and avoid the very worst of the climate crisis. He has also said that funding this pseudoscience, allowing the excuse of unproven technologies like carbon capture and storage, is simply an effect of the fossil fuel industry having their foot on the throat of government. That is what we've got here today. This is greenwashing at best. It is deception at worst. It is a pathetic attempt by this government to try and push this through under the guise of it being an environmental compromise—that this will help. The only people this is helping is Santos, is Woodside, is INPEX, and we know that because the foreign minister, Senator Penny Wong, herself said it. This bill has nothing to do with reducing pollution. This bill has nothing to do with protecting our environment. It has nothing to do with the interests of the broader Australian community. It is all about protecting the $30 billion on the line from the fossil fuel industry, the very same companies that continue to donate and support both sides in this chamber.

This is a collusion tonight from the Labor Party and the Liberal coalition, a collusion to deliver for their fossil fuel mates. That's all this is. It's a disgrace. The Greens have fought hard to stop this bill. We've lined up with our crossbench colleagues. Senator David Pocock has done a fantastic job. And I want to pay respect to our Greens colleague Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, who stood here asking the basic questions of the minister last week and getting no answers, only then to have Senator McAllister thrown under the bus by the foreign minister when she came in and belled the cat. This has got nothing to do with reducing pollution. It's all about delivering for Santos, for Woodside, for INPEX and for those fossil fuel interests in the Korean and Japanese governments. This isn't about Australia, folks. This is about the Labor Party looking after the gas cartel and their fossil fuel mates, and it is a disgrace.

I'm sorry we haven't been able to stop it. This is the job we've been sent to do—to stand up and to call this rubbish out. It's called 'sea dumping' for a reason. The sea dumping bill will allow toxic carbon pollution to be dumped under the sea in a pretence that somehow this will make climate change go away. What an absolute sick joke! The bill should be rejected.

David Pocock

I won't be long. From the people that I represent I've heard loud and clear that they want climate action, and this isn't it; this isn't climate action. Here in the ACT we only get two senators. There are only two senators in this place pushing for what the people in Canberra and Jarvis Bay and Norfolk Island want. And I've been hearing loud and clear that it's time to act. The time for denial and delay is over, and we need to act.

We've been offered a gift by the IPCC and other climate scientists. They've told us how bad it is. They've told us what it could be if we continue down this path, but we've also said that we have a narrow window in which to act. And we should act. We must act. This bill is not that. This is more delay. This is delay from the Labor government. On behalf of the people in the ACT, I want that recorded—that this bill is no good. This is not in line with being able to look at our kids and future generations and say, 'We acted in the best interest of you and your generation.' If we continue down this road, we're going to fail them, and we cannot afford to do that.

Louise Pratt

The question is that the bill be read a third time.

Glenn Sterle

The question now is that the bill stand as printed.

David Shoebridge

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely to allow a motion relating to the trial of whistleblower David McBride to be moved immediately.

President, as we gather here today—indeed, as our day commenced in the Senate—the trial of David McBride commenced just a few short kilometres from here in the ACT Supreme Court. The trial is set to commence of David McBride, a brave Australian, a whistleblower whose conscience could not allow him to be silent while he had evidence of war crimes committed by Australian Defence Force personnel in Afghanistan and nobody would listen to him. Nobody in his chain of command would act. Nobody in the oversight committees was willing to act to commence an investigation of the evidence that David McBride had. He had tragically compelling evidence that Australian soldiers—a minority of Australian soldiers, but Australian Special Force soldiers—had committed war crimes in Afghanistan.

When he tried and tried and tried to bring that to the attention of the ADF through the chain of command and every door was shut on him, eventually his sense of duty, his sense of what of right, led him to blow the whistle and tell the public about what had happened. And thank God he did. Thank you, David McBride, for what you did. And I thank other brave whistleblowers for what they have done. Think about the blowing of the whistle on the robodebt scandal and how whistleblowers were silenced and marginalised. Think about Richard Boyle who blew the whistle on appalling practices in the ATO, to be hounded out of the ATO and also prosecuted, despite being vindicated by a Senate inquiry and an internal ATO inquiry. David McBride's allegations have been vindicated by an independent review and report, which detailed dozens and of Defence Force war crimes.

Penny Wong

Point of order: the Senate does have a subjudice convention which is intended to avoid debate or inquiry which might cause criminal procedures currently before the court to miscarry or reach conclusions other than the evidence presented in the case. I would make the point that Senator Shoebridge is speaking directly about the merits of a criminal trial which is commencing today. I understand that he has a political view. He's entitled to that view, but this chamber ought to be very careful about making judgements, particularly in criminal matters such as the ones he is currently expounding. I'd ask Senator Shoebridge, who is very careful to exhort me and others to observe appropriate Senate convention, to consider ensuring that his remarks in this regard are responsible.

Andrew McLachlan

Senator Shoebridge, I'd just ask that you be careful with your comments.

David Shoebridge

To the point of order: there are two points. First of all, these are matters before the Supreme Court, a superior court of record, and you'll be aware that the commentary on procedure and subjudice takes a different approach to Supreme Court matters. But more fundamentally, if I'd been allowed to complete my remarks, you would note that they are directed to the executive function under section 71 of the Judiciary Act, and there is nothing in any prior ruling, practice or procedure which prevents this chamber from critiquing and publicly critiquing actions of the executive, which I intend to do.

Andrew McLachlan

Senator Shoebridge, based on the point of order, I'm asking you to reflect and exercise caution where applicable. Please proceed.

David Shoebridge

So we have this situation. David McBride, the whistleblower, the truth-teller, not only blew the whistle but had his actions vindicated by an independent inquiry detailing dozens and dozens of incidents of war crimes. I know the government doesn't want to hear this. I know they'd rather this debate didn't happen in the Senate. They would like to just quietly see David McBride put in jail for telling the truth, because that's their action. We say this: there is one person who can stop this, one person who can actually listen to the truth and listen to all of that rhetoric that we got from Labor when they were in opposition. That person is the Labor Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, who with a flick of his pen could end the prosecution of David McBride, who faces the very real prospect of years and years in jail simply for telling the public the truth about war crimes.

While David McBride is facing trial today, not a single member of the ADF who committed the war crimes has been brought to trial. There is one pending prosecution, but the first person to face trial, the first person to face jail, is not those who disgraced the uniform of the ADF and committed war crimes but the whistleblower, David McBride. The voices that have been forgotten in this debate, which are written out by the Attorney-General when he refuses to take this action—the most powerful voices, the ones we should listen to first and foremost—are the voices of those Afghan families and communities who saw their brothers and their sons murdered and have not received an apology, have not received respect, have not received a cent of compensation. They look at the Australian government trying to put in jail the whistleblower, and they look with disgust and are right to do that.

What does Australia stand for when we have compelling evidence of troops committing war crimes and the person we prosecute, the person the Albanese government wants to jail, is the lawyer and the whistleblower? I commend this motion to the Senate.

Anthony Chisholm

The Senate clearly set out what its objectives are for today by passing the previous motion, and I move:

That the question be now put.

David Fawcett

The question is that the question be put.

Anthony Chisholm

I move:

That today—

(a) the hours of meeting be 10 am till adjournment;

(b) the routine of business following formal motions be government business only;

(c) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 only; and

(d) the Senate adjourn without debate after consideration of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 has concluded, or at 8 pm, whichever is later, or on the motion of a minister.

Sue Lines

The procedural motion just agreed to requires that the substantive motion be put without amendment or debate, so I will put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the procedural motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

Anthony Chisholm

I move:

That a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate, and that the question be now put.

Sue Lines

The question is that the question be now put on the procedural motion moved by the minister.

Sue Lines

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

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.