2023-11-10 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Friday, 10 November 2023

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Education and Employment Legislation Committee 1 Meeting 1 09:31 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 1 Report 1 09:31 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Senator Grogan, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023, together with accompanying documents. 09:32 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to take note of the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report into the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. From the outset it was bitterly disappointing that this committee, which had a two-month inquiry into the bill, failed to hold any hearings in any basin community outside of Canberra, outside of the ACT. I acknowledge timing is a factor; however, in the two months of this inquiry the coalition backbench committee on agriculture was able to put together a four-day, three-state, five-town tour of basin communities to hear firsthand from the people who will be impacted by this bill. We did that without any support—without any secretarial support, without the support of Hansard—and yet we were able to conduct those hearings just like it was a Senate committee. It is absolutely appalling that this committee would not travel to basin communities to see and hear firsthand what the impact of this bill would be. In saying that, the core recommendation that the committee has put forward—there are 15 recommendations, but the core recommendation is that this bill needs to be amended. I agree wholeheartedly. This bill absolutely needs to be amended because this bill proposes to allow an open tender, open slather, free-for-all buyback of 450 gigalitres of water from communities, irrespective of the social and economic impacts that may be felt. Now, a bit of a history lesson for people. Back in 2012, when the Basin Plan was being negotiated through this place and with communities, Tony Burke, to his credit, travelled to Griffith, travelled to Deniliquin, travelled to Adelaide. He listened to people; he heard the concerns of the communities. This is after five years of open-tender, open-slather buyback conducted by the Labor government at the time without a basin plan in place. So they didn't even know what the water they were purchasing was for. At that time, Tony Burke wrote into the Basin Plan that any pursuit of 450 gigalitres of water had to be done in a way that was either neutral or had positive social and economic impacts, because he acknowledged there is a downside to open-tender buybacks. He also prohibited the Commonwealth resorting to open-tender buybacks for the 450. I have not seen any justification for the change in the Labor Party's position. The coalition—the Liberals and the Nationals—will not support open-tender buybacks as a method for recovery of the 450. We will not support lifting the cap on buybacks, as this bill proposes, and we will not support pursuit of the 450 in the absence of a socioeconomic test. I do want to commend the work of the committee and the chair of the committee for the way she conducted the hearings in Canberra—unfortunately, only two days of hearings in Canberra. Senator Hanson-Young I0U It was a long two days though! Senator DAVEY 281697 It was a long two days—thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. I acknowledge the participation of all members. It was conducted respectfully. But what we absolutely heard through those hearings and what we saw in the evidence and the many submissions that were put forward is that there is very little support for this bill in its unamended form. Sixty-one per cent of all submissions put to the committee did not support the bill, 56 per cent did not support water buybacks and 68 per cent sought social and economic impact assessments to be undertaken and to be tied in. So, yes, the committee is right. This bill needs to be amended. 09:37 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia by leave—Finally, we've got the report into this piece of legislation, and I acknowledge the enormous amount of work that went into it from the secretariat, who worked very hard on this particular issue. It is a complex one. It involves many different facets. Of course, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a plan that has been in place for over a decade now, but the reason this bill has come before us is that, despite the promises, the plan has not been delivered in full or on time. There has been promise after promise from both the Labor Party and the Liberal-National coalition over the last decade, yet here we have today a report into a bill that the government would like to, I assume, bring forward and have passed this year to blow out the time frames, because someone didn't do their homework. Rather than just giving them an extension, we want to make sure that the work is actually done. Sadly—and we can see this from the report being tabled today—this bill does not make sure the work is going to be done. In this current legislation, the report makes it very clear that there are no guarantees that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan will be delivered in full or even within the new time frame. There's no legislative guarantee for the 450 gigalitres that, of course, is so urgently needed to keep our river system alive. There is no guarantee that the outstanding water from the 605 SDLAM programs will be delivered in full and on time. In fact, it's the opposite. What we saw in the inquiry into this piece of legislation and what this report clearly identifies is that no-one believes that any of these time frames are going to be met. Yet here we are being asked to pass a piece of legislation by the government and extend the deadlines. Even their own government-chaired report says the new time frames will not be met. The Productivity Commission says they won't be met. Every expert in the country that submitted to this report says they will not be met. In fact, the state governments who have been asked to sign up and endorse this acknowledge that these new time frames will not be met. This is, of course, after years, a decade, of dragging the chain, slowing things down, putting all the hard stuff in the hardest basket they could find—plod, plod, plod. Meanwhile, the river system has gotten sicker and sicker. I'm standing here today in this place, giving this contribution, on a day when my home state and my home town in Adelaide will be hitting 40 degrees. We are heading back into one hell of a hot summer. Forty degrees, and it's not even mid-November. We are heading into a horror summer. Rainfall is going to be low, run-off into the river system is going to be low, and our Lower Lakes and Coorong are going to really start to feel the heat. Our river system from the bottom to the top cannot handle another drought. Our river system from the bottom right up to the top is already so fragile, because so much water has been taken out for greed and for profit, not for the sustainability of the river system. The whole point of this plan is to return water to the river to keep it alive, because it doesn't matter what business you are in; it doesn't matter whether you're a farmer, or a member of the local community, or a fisherman in the Coorong, or a member of the Murray cod fish school: a dead river is a dead river, and there are no jobs on a dead river. You can't eat cotton. You can't drink mud. A river that is dead is good for no-one. 09:42 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I seek leave to contribute to this statement about the Murray-Darling Basin. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I understand leave will be granted for five minutes. Senator McKENZIE 207825 If you listen to the Labor Party and you listen to the Greens, you'd think that all is lost for the Murray-Darling Basin, when it isn't, because communities and industries right up and down the river have done the heavy lifting over the last decade, particularly in my home state of Victoria, where water licences actually deliver actual water. It is the industries and communities up and down the basin who've seen almost 80 per cent of the water required under the plan delivered. What else has happened over the last decade? We've got better science. So the bald numbers of gigalitres—and some say 'gigababble'—that we've been arguing about over the last decade are meaningless, because what we actually want is a healthy river, healthy communities, and healthy environmental assets that this plan was set up to deliver. The fact is we now have better science, so we can use that existing amount of water that we've been able to get back under sometimes very trying and difficult circumstances and use it in a better way to deliver the environmental outcomes that we all want to see. Instead of using the science, the Greens and the Labor Party—the government in particular—is much more interested in getting votes in capital cities where people don't understand and, worse, don't care about the millions of people that live in the Murray-Darling Basin and grow our food and our fibre. The reality is we have studied this to death. The reason the 450 gigalitres was subject to socioeconomic tests was because we know that water is wealth. We know that that is how not just the river is sustained but our capacity to grow food and fibre is sustained, families are sustained and communities are sustained. Coming after the 450 gigalitres and removing the need for socioeconomic impact to be assessed, evaluated and compensated for just shows the level of disinterest and disregard this Labor government and Minister Plibersek have for rural and regional Australia. We've heard the National Farmers Federation president in recent weeks calling out the Labor government on the cumulative impact of its decisions across a whole range of portfolio areas and for the absolute disregard it has for the nine million of us that don't live in capital cities and export 70 per cent of what we grow so that one in four Australians can have a job. Just because we live outside, the government can't see us, don't feel it and don't know it. They think we are not worthy of actually having a government that cares about what happens. When Anthony Albanese came to government, he promised to be a prime minister for everyone and that no-one would be left behind. It is decisions that this government is bringing in on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan which will mean rural and regional basin communities will be left behind, and the suicides that will come will be on the Labor Party's head. They care about a number, not actually about environmental, social and economic outcomes. Even Minister Burke, a Labor Party minister, when he set this up recognised that there would be a negative, detrimental cost to taking water out of these communities. Somehow that doesn't matter anymore. I just want to say thank you to the Labor Party in Victoria, who are standing up against their mates in Canberra. That is a tough thing to do, but they are doing it because they know that coming after this water will decimate our dairy industry and our horticulture industry in northern Victoria. They're coming back in with buybacks. There are 450 gigalitres that are supposed to not be taken unless they can prove it is not going to hurt people. But they can't and they won't. That's why this committee didn't go out into the basin to hear from real people, hear from our farmers and hear from our communities. This bill will tear up a decade-long agreement to collaboratively manage our river system. It turns its back on how we all agreed to make sure water is there for people, for businesses and for the environment. Shame on Labor. 09:47 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a statement of not more than five minutes. Leave granted. Senator RUSTON 243273 I don't think there is anybody Australia who doesn't want to see a healthy Murray-Darling River system. Our farmers do for the amazing food that they produce that ends up on people's tables and in restaurants and gets exported overseas. Communities rely on it because that's where they live. There's the amazing tourism industry that it supports. In cities, when they turn on the tap, in many cases around Australia the water that comes out of that tap comes from the Murray-Darling Basin system. So achieving a healthy river system should not be anything that should be disputed in this place, no matter where you sit on the political spectrum. That's why I have always been a 100 per cent supporter of the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full. However, the pathway to delivering this plan is being seriously jeopardised by the bill we have before us at the moment, the Water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers) Bill 2023. It throws out a decade or more of a bipartisan approach that saw the states and territories, as well as Commonwealth, working together to try to make sure that we took politics out of this debate and that the outcomes for all Australians, those that live in the communities as well as those that rely on the communities as well as those that benefit from the communities, were at the forefront of our decision-making. But, sadly, those opposite have put politics back into this debate again. They've put headlines ahead of the actual delivery and making sure that we continue to consider the impact on those that are most impacted by this. And so, as somebody who always looked at my policy through a lens of regional and rural Australia, I cannot possibly support uncontrolled buybacks, as this bill purports to put forward. Taking this amount of water out of the system via buybacks would completely and utterly decimate the community I live in in Renmark in South Australia. It would no longer exist. With the pressures at the moment in terms of cost of living for many of our agricultural products, this is not the economic environment to come out and say that you're buying from a willing seller. A willing seller is not somebody who has the bank breathing down their neck; a willing seller is not somebody who's forced to sell their water because they have to keep putting food on the table for their family. You cannot come in here and say that these buybacks are going to be voluntary when the pressures that are on our farmers at the moment for a while heap of reasons will mean that they will be forced to because their banks will be demanding that they draw down on their mortgages. We cannot possibly support this bill coming into the Senate under its current guise. The consideration of the additional water about no socioeconomic impact was there for a reason. We have to have a balance. You cannot take Australia's major food bowl offline and think that it is not going to have a devastating effect on Australia's economy and then continue to push up the price of food in Australia even more. We have a cost-of-living crisis and a government that's doing nothing about it, and here we have a bill that will potentially push the price of food in Australia completely out of reach of the average Australian. We do not want to see Australians eating 2 Minute Noodles; we want to see Australians eating the healthy produce that's produced out of our river communities. The move to disregard socioeconomic neutrality, which this bill seeks to do, is a shift away from the original intent of this plan. It is a demonstration of the lack of sincerity of this government about truly delivering the best thing for our plan. Taking the water away without a plan on how you're going to deliver it is also ridiculous. We know that to date the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder has not used all of the water that it holds in order to deliver economic outcomes, so please don't take any more water out of our river communities until you know not only you're going to use it but also how you're going to move it through the system. It was also absolutely disingenuous that the very communities likely to be affected most significantly by this were completely disregarded when it came to hearings. Holding hearings in Canberra—it's a bit like the Canberra voice; this is the Canberra water bill—you actually have to get out and speak to the people impacted by your legislation if you really want to make sure that you are delivering the best possible legislation and regulations for Australians. The idea that you're not going to go and speak to those communities is an absolute reflection of the disregard and contempt that you hold people who sit outside of metropolitan areas in your decision-making and your policy development. As I said, we cannot possibly support this bill. I want to quote Craig Knowles, a previous Labor member of the New South Wales parliament, when he said: 'A healthy, working river is what we want. At this rate we may end up with a healthy river, but it won't be working anymore.' The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I understand that there was an arrangement that there would be only three speakers, Senator Rennick, but you can seek leave. Senator Rennick 283596 I seek leave to make a short statement, if that's alright, please. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave hasn't been granted. 09:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I seek leave to make a statement of up to five minutes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted. Senator WATT 245759 I'm rising to speak as the minister for agriculture of Australia. I cannot emphasise how important the Murray-Darling Basin is for the future of agriculture in Australia. The Murray-Darling Basin is Australia's major food bowl. It always has been, and, as a Labor government, we want to keep it that way. I also want to mention that I suspect the chair of the committee will seek to make a short statement at some point this morning. She is detained in another committee hearing at the moment. If people could give her that privilege, that would be much appreciated. All Australians know, and certainly Australian farmers know, that the Murray-Darling Basin is in extreme trouble. As I say, it is the nation's most important food bowl, and it is vital that we protect the river system that underpins it, that underpins agriculture in the region and that underpins so many rural communities across that basin. If we don't fix the Murray-Darling Basin, we are not just jeopardising the river system that underpins it, but we are jeopardising the agricultural production and the rural communities that rely on that flow of water well into the future. I can't speak for coalition senators, but I can say that this Labor government, the Albanese Labor government, values the work of our farmers and our rural communities incredibly deeply. The agricultural production that feeds our country and so many other countries is vital from a food security point of view, an export point of view, an economic point of view and a social point of view. But we do need to accept the reality that the Murray-Darling Basin is in severe distress. And why is that? It is because, despite the Murray-Darling Basin Plan being finalised and agreed to by all the relevant partners more than a decade ago, we then went through a 10-year period of coalition government where the National Party held the strings when it came to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and allowed that plan to be sabotaged, for 10 years—10 years of national sabotage of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. That's best demonstrated by the fact that the plan required—and this was agreed to—the environmental recovery of 450 gigalitres of water from the basin system. And guess how much was recovered in 10 years of coalition government? Two—two gigalitres, out of 450 that was supposed to be recovered for the environment. And it's not just about the environment; it's about the health of the river system that is needed to support the agriculture sector and the rural communities that depend upon it. Two gigalitres out of 450: we cannot allow that to go on. If we do, if we follow the National Party approach, the Murray-Darling Basin and the river system that underpins it will die, and so will our agriculture sector and the rural communities that depend upon it. So, this measure that the government is taking is about saving the Murray-Darling Basin. it's about saving the agriculture sector that relies on it and it's about saving the rural communities that rely on it. Throughout this debate the National Party and some of their allies have completely misrepresented what is being put forward here in this legislation. If you believed them, you would think that the government's only solution to deliver the 450 gigalitres is about compulsory water buybacks. But nothing could be further from the truth. For starters, Minister Plibersek, the relevant minister, has made absolutely clear that any water buybacks would be completely voluntary—not compulsory, no forced acquisition. They would be voluntary buybacks, from willing sellers, at market prices. That's the first point. But, more broadly, we're not saying that this has to be achieved only by buybacks. There are going to need to be buybacks to deliver the water that's required. The former government wasn't prepared to do that. We can't get there without some level of voluntary water buybacks. But what Minister Plibersek has made clear is that this plan that is being put forward by our government provides more time to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, more funding than has ever been provided before, and more options—not just voluntary water buybacks but water infrastructure investments and water efficiency investments—and we are working our way through the various opportunities that are being presented to the government to do that. So, it's about time people were honest about what the government is putting forward, rather than continuing to run a political campaign that is based on false information, because this is all about saving the Murray-Darling Basin, the agriculture sector and the communities that depend upon it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Was that the last speaker on the issue? Senator WATT 245759 Acting Deputy President, at the beginning of my contribution—so, you wouldn't have heard it—I clarified that the chair of the committee, Senator Grogan, is tied up in another committee hearing, and she'd like the opportunity to put on record her statement at some point over the course of the day. But I don't think there are any other speakers right now. And I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. Debate adjourned. BILLS 5 BILLS Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 5

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023

In Committee 5 09:59 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania 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. 10:02 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales 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. 10:02 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania 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? 10:03 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales 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. 10:03 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania 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? The TEMPORARY CHAIR e5x Minister? Senator McAllister 121628 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? Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 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. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I didn't hear her say that. Senator McAllister 121628 I'm not seeking the call. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 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? 10:11 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales 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. 10:14 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania You are correct, I am masking about the broader framework, Minister, but we are here to legislate a significant step. I'm not having a go; I'm just pointing out the obvious. We are here to legislate a significant step forward for current domestic operations, companies that have depleted oilfields in the ocean. There are a lot of them around my state of Tasmania, in Bass Strait, off the coast of Victoria and off Western Australian as well as in other parts of the country such as the Northern Territory. We're going to legislate to allow them to potentially import carbon dioxide from overseas or, at least, say they're going to or they want to. I am very concerned that we are going to let these oil and gas companies off the hook. I don't think it's been talked about, and it needs to be. I think this whole CCS thing is a scam and a sham anyway—and I've been on the record about that, and so have my colleagues and a lot of other people—in terms of whether it can help reduce emissions or help facilitate oil and gas companies. But I think this is a double scam and potentially a multibillion-dollar scam, because this is going to let oil and gas companies off the hook for their decommissioning requirements. This does not just apply to this legislation; it also applies to the seven acreage areas that have now been awarded by NOPSEMA to companies. By the way, companies can apply for these. NOPSEMA doesn't go around and say, 'We think these are suitable areas for carbon capture and storage.' The process is that if you're an oil or gas company you can apply for where you want to do this. And, of course, all the companies have these depleted fields, and they're liabilities on their balance sheets, and they're going to NOPSEMA and saying, 'I'm interested in having one of these, thank you very much.' This is a significant concern. I don't want to vote for a piece of legislation that's going to facilitate that. Australians are sick and tired of the big majority of these companies not paying tax, particularly the PRRT, the 'petroleum rort rent tax', which has now got hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits. I heard Senator Scarr arcing up the other day, talking about how we don't understand finance, but what Senator Scarr doesn't understand is that seven years ago I initiated an inquiry into this which found that companies were able to compound their exploration and operating expenditure by 10 per cent per annum against tax, just to get them to invest here. This legislation, which was 30 years old, was to try to attract investment, and it has allowed hundreds of billions of dollars to float out of Australian schools and hospitals, exactly where we need money. Anyway, I digress. Minister, another reason we've moved these amendments is, once again, to cover the liabilities of these projects. It's been mentioned in the second reading debate and in questioning already—even Senator Hanson raised this point—that these are risky projects because of the potential leakage of CO2. We've seen that at Gorgon, and we have seen leakage of CO2 in the established fields in Norway—perhaps not through the anticline but certainly out of the established fields—and it's been a significant source of concern. Minister, are you aware of the significant body of research that talks about the potential for earthquakes being triggered because of large-scale geological storage of carbon dioxide? There are number of reports, and this is something we love about the scientific process: scientists and researchers go out and publish their information and, if other scientists disagree, they can publish a peer review. We need more of that in our day and age of disinformation. Scientists are great in the way they work. It's all impersonal. There is a significant body of work. For example, there is one report, which has been peer reviewed—and you can read all the detail in the report, and I'm happy to provide the names of the authors to you—that says: We argue here that there is a high probability that earthquakes will be triggered by injection of large volumes of CO2 into the brittle rocks commonly found in continental interiors. Because even small- to moderate-size earthquakes threaten the seal integrity of CO2 repositories, in this context, large-scale CCS— carbon capture and storage— is a risky, and likely unsuccessful, strategy for … reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Anyway, there is a lot of technical detail there and there are a lot of concerns that have been raised around the potential for leakage, structural damage and, of course, the impacts on the marine environment—not to mention that it's going to supercharge climate change if these things don't work. Minister, are you aware of the risks posed by, in particular, the seismic testing that is required for these fields and the correlation between seismic testing and potential earthquakes? 10:19 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks for the question, Senator Whish-Wilson. I don't pretend to be an expert in the scientific literature around geotech. However, I can tell you that questions around risk are actively addressed by the framework that's put in place by the London protocol, and that, of course, is the purpose of this bill—to ensure that, should a project of this kind be brought forward, there would be a regulatory standard against which these risks could be assessed. Under the protocol, the assessment framework requires an environmental impact analysis, and that, in turn, must include but is not limited to a long-term management plan, a geological assessment and marine characterisation of the disposal site, an impact and risk assessment, a mitigation and remediation plan, a description of potential impacts on any matters of national environmental significance, a waste prevention audit, waste management options, chemical and physical properties of the CO2, assessment of potential effects, and monitoring and risk management. 10:20 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania It's not just the risk of earthquakes that I'm worried about, Minister. I do think this is a serious risk, and it's been raised through the scientific process for decades now. I mentioned—although it may have been in an interjection, and I apologise if it was and it's not in Hansard—that the Sleipner and Snohvit structures operating in Norway, which are always referred to when this debate about carbon capture and storage in the ocean comes up, are the most studied geological structures on this planet. They have had over 30 years of countless seismic acquisition or seismic blasting operations just to study and monitor those two carbon capture and storage fields. They're already in depleted oilfields—the company already had a pretty good understanding of them—but they have had the absolute shit blasted out of them for 30 years. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e5x Senator, this week, we've had conversations in this chamber about appropriate language. I ask you to withdraw that comment. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I withdraw that, sorry, Chair. You just need to go onto the websites of seismic companies that are trying to sell their services to potential carbon capture and storage developers or oil and gas developers, and they'll tell you this. I'll read you some information from one service provider called SeisWare. They have a convenient summary at the end of their pitch. It says: Overall, seismic data— which comes from seismic surveying, which comes from seismic blasting— is vital for site selection, reservoir characterization, monitoring, leakage detection, risk assessment, and regulatory compliance in CCS projects. It enables informed decision-making and future CCS policy, enhances operational safety, and helps ensure the long-term effectiveness of carbon capture and sequestration efforts. They go into a lot of detail on why constant seismic testing will be required if a carbon capture and storage field is established in the ocean. We know we have four projects from the minister that are looking to import CO2, which falls under this bill, and we know that, all around the country, oil and gas companies with offshore fields are scrambling to get NOPSEMA to give them one for domestic operations as well. You said you're not an expert, Minister, and I totally respect that. I don't think any of us are. But I will say that the Greens did initiate the world's first Senate inquiry into seismic testing in our oceans. It took three attempts to get it through the Senate, because the oil and gas companies were so ferocious in here trying to stop it happening. I know that because commercial fishing interests, who normally have pretty good sway in this place, were also lobbying to get the inquiry, and I got feedback from those interests that there was basically a clash of interests as to whether this inquiry would get up. Pardon the pun, but I did say to them, 'There's a bigger fish in the ocean than you, and that is the oil and gas industry.' In fact, they are the biggest fish in this building, arguably. What we learnt from that inquiry, which took significant evidence right around the country, was that seismic blasting is one of the loudest noises produced by human beings. We're talking about something louder than a jet engine and equivalent to the detonation of nuclear bombs. In terms of its detection rate by the human ear, if you were to be directly underneath a seismic blast from a boat, it would kill you. Now, in water noise travels faster and is much more amplified than in the air. The seismic blasting that's currently going on for new oil and gas fields happens 24 hours a day, every 10 seconds, potentially for months on end. Our ocean is being subjected to a relentless assault by oil and gas companies searching for the exact product that, if we find and burn it, is killing our oceans. It's the definition of insanity. Nevertheless, Minister, why would we support legislation today that is just going to lead, if this is ridgy-didge and legit and companies actually are going to try to establish carbon capture and storage fields under this legislation or under domestic legislation—and I think that's a very big 'if'. If they do, why would we support something that's just going to lead to so much more seismic testing in our ocean? Seismic testing only happens now for new oil and gas fields. Thankfully, that has been slowing down in terms of greenfields exploration, but there are some very concerning new projects around the country, like TGS's project off King Island and the west coast of Western Australia—by the way, the biggest seismic testing program not just in Australia's history but in international history is about to happen off the coastline of my state. The companies are staying they believe there's an oil and gas bonanza there that's bigger than the North West Shelf off WA. There are people right around this country—I want to shout out to Annie Ford, an activist who's riding her bike from Tasmania to Noosa, doing film nights in small town halls, in pubs and in churches to highlight the risks of seismic blasting. With this in mind, why would we support legislation that will facilitate risking our oceans even more than we currently are? One thing that did come out of the Senate report was the FRDC working with the fishing industry because they don't want seismic testing in the ocean either. They hate oil and gas companies exploring anywhere near their commercial fishing grounds, because the research we've done so far suggests serious potential for harm to rock lobsters and scallops. We know from the few studies that have been funded by oil and gas companies that commercial fish stocks will completely leave an area during seismic testing, as you and I would if we were subjected to that relentless assault of noise. We know it's catastrophic and kills plankton, the basis of our ocean's food chain. That's established. And we know it's extremely dangerous for whales. We know it impacts on cultural heritage and songlines for our First Nations people. People are waking up to this. They don't want this stuff anymore, because we don't need it. But here we are, about to pass legislation that's going to take a significant step towards giving companies the green light to establish carbon capture and storage fields in the ocean and go out there and blast them a lot—blast the guts out of them, as Senator Waters has said. Given all the concerns we have about seismic testing, why would we want to see any more of that? Minister, are you aware and is the environment minister aware of the risks from seismic testing? Are you aware of the big groundswell of opposition building round the country to ban this activity, which was one of the recommendations of the Senate report? One recommendation they said did get picked up was FRDC doing research into other techniques to try to protect commercial fishing stocks, but I would be very surprised if that ever comes to anything. Nevertheless, I support the attempts and the science to do so. But are you aware of the risks from seismic testing to whales, to First Nations cultural heritage and to commercial fishing stocks? 10:29 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The risks to our natural environment associated with any activity need to be managed. There is an existing framework that governs activities associated with carbon capture and storage in Australia's domestic waters. As I've explained in an answer to a previous question, the adequacy of those arrangements is presently under review because the government considers a robust regulatory framework to be essential. We consider the same tests to be relevant if we are thinking about projects that may involve transport and movement of carbon dioxide. It is for that reason, as I have explained on many occasions since Monday, when we commenced debating this legislation, that the government seeks to ratify the amendments to the London protocol that deal with exactly that issue. And those amendments seek to put in place a regulatory framework that allows a range of things to occur, including the assessment of environmental risk. We are now straying well beyond the parameters of the legislation. There is an amendment before the chair, and yesterday I explained why the government considers the provisions provided for in the amendment circulated by you, Senator Whish-Wilson, are not necessary. To reiterate, they are not necessary because these matters are already covered in the bill that is before the Senate. I think it is time for the Senate to start actively engaging with the matters that you've raised. It's appropriate that you've raised them; this is exactly the right place to do so. But we are now on day 5 of the legislation, and I move: That the question be put. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that the question be put.    

The committee divided. [10:36]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 17 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 36 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 10:37 The CHAIR 287062 (In division) Could I have a little order, please. The tellers need to concentrate. Senator Ayres 16913 I'm not going to let you bunch of loons carry on. The CHAIR 287062 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. Senator Ruston 243273 Mr Chair, I would ask Senator Ayres to withdraw. Senator Ayres 16913 Senator Ruston has asked me to withdraw and I cheerfully do so in the spirit of [inaudible]. The CHAIR 287062 Thank you. 10:39 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales 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. Senator Chisholm 39801 'Imperatives'! Lofty words! Senator McALLISTER 121628 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. 10:42 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania 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 interjecting— Senator DUNIAM 263418 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. 10:45 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory 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. Senator McAllister 121628 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. 10:55 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, I'm very concerned that what you've just highlighted and gone over essentially reinforces the concerns of someone like Minister Regenvanu. You talked again about being part of the Pacific family, the challenges of the transition and all of those sorts of things, but you don't acknowledge that expanding the fossil fuel industry essentially means not only that the futures of these Pacific island nations are not looking good but that they very likely face an existential threat in the decades and centuries ahead. You've highlighted one of the glaring inconsistencies and, I would argue, ways that the Labor Party has just swallowed the talking points of the gas industry. You've talked about the need for stability as a trading partner. I don't understand how ruling out new gas projects under this legislation somehow undermines trade stability, because surely trading partners aren't banking on unapproved projects. It takes a long time to get a gas project up and running, sure. We export almost three-quarters of our gas. The amount of gas used just to compress and liquefy that gas for export is more than every Australian household uses, and yet Labor and the coalition are very happy to go around saying, 'We need more gas. We might run out! What about Australian households?' despite this situation being a total failure of this parliament to reserve some of our gas for domestic consumption. So not only are we exporting 75 per cent of our gas and being told that we need more gas for export, to make these record profits for gas companies, but we are also being told that we can't possibly transition away from gas. I genuinely think it's this sort of legislation that is not only undermining the future of our Pacific island neighbours, given we're hearing that there are gas companies flooding the phones and saying that this legislation needs to pass the Senate, but undermining our relationship with the Pacific. As we've seen, that has real security implications for us, because if Australia is not a trusted partner, the partner of choice that Pacific island nations know will do what we say we're going do, they'll look elsewhere. What's the benefit for them? I'd like to go back to Minister Regenvanu's words: Our ability to adapt will be made impossible by Australia's hypocritical gas expansion plans. Vanuatu has been at the forefront of climate action—we led a coalition of countries to secure an advisory opinion on climate change from the United Nations International Court of Justice, and we are working towards a fossil fuel free Pacific. At great cost, we are decarbonising our shipping register. We understand that climate action may require short term adjustments and we are willing to do that. I'm not confident that all countries share our resolve. The Pacific Island nations are in desperate need of genuine allies who will stand with us in our fight for survival. Australia, with its financial resources and international influence, should be such an ally. However, for Australia to be seen as a credible leader of climate talks, it must first resolve glaring inconsistencies in its climate policies. The fact is that Australia remains the world's third-largest fossil fuel exporter, with 116 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline, some of which are slated to operate until at least 2070. This persistence in fossil fuel expansion is fundamentally at odds with the spirit of the Paris Agreement and poses a direct threat to the climate goals set by the international community. Australia's bid to lead Cop31 is a momentous opportunity for the nation to prove its dedication to addressing the global climate crisis. The world is watching, and the Pacific Island nations are looking for unwavering support, not empty promises. Minister, I have two questions. Firstly, does this legislation risk undermining our relationships with Pacific island nations, given that we have heard gas companies are calling senators asking for this to pass? Secondly, has the minister received representation from Pacific island nations about this legislation? 11:01 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Pocock, I have given you, I think, a relatively expansive answer about the overall posture that the government has taken in relation to discussions we have with Pacific colleagues about decarbonisation here, in the Pacific and across the Indo-Pacific, and I don't intend to add to that. In terms of your second question, I am not in receipt of any representations from Pacific nations in relation to this legislation. You'd appreciates that there are quite a number of ministers in the government who interact with Pacific colleagues—and a very wide range of Pacific colleagues. I'm not in a position to provide a comprehensive answer about every discussion that may have ever taken place in this regard. Can I also indicates that in your longer contribution prior to getting to the questions, you went to effectively canvassing your amendments on sheet 2151, which you have circulated and I understand intend to move when the chamber decides to deal with the amendment that we are presently considering. Your amendment narrows the scope of the bill so that the London protocol would only apply to some projects, not all project. I want to indicate that the government doesn't support the approach you suggest. Aside from anything else, it would prevent us from meeting our obligations under the London protocol, which is a treaty that is established to protect the environment and ensure that any project that is undertaken is assessed consistent with the robust environmental tests that are established under that internationally agreed protocol. It's also the case, of course, that our government has already legislated for reducing Australia's emissions under the safeguard mechanism. That is a piece of legislation that was supported by Senator Pocock and by the Greens political party. We also have legislation that deals with the assessment and approval of any new project through the EPBC Act. As you will be aware, Senator Pocock, government is working to improve this legislation and protections through our environmental laws for the projects, including any elements of any project that might be outside the scope of a sea dumping permit. The London protocol recognises the benefits in supporting our regional partners in their decarbonisation to transition to net zero. As I've indicated on many occasions in the course of the debate, before us is a sensible bunch of reforms to regulate a set of activities that do require regulation. I'm surprised that senators interested in environmental protection aren't so interested in this important regulatory project. 11:04 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Thank you, Minister. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, the linking of this this bill to the Barossa Gas Project has been made pretty clear by my colleagues Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator Hanson-Young through the questions they've asked over the past few days. But the government is still unwilling to admit the connection of this bill to the Barossa gas field. This bill is going to be facilitated through what happens in Middle Arm and the inquiry that we have. Opposition senators took the opportunity to ask that very valid question, 'What's happening now with the Middle Arm inquiry?' That's a very valid question to the government. But how do we, how does the Australian public, some of whom are here in the gallery today or watching online, believe anything that this government says they're doing when they can't even be transparent about what they're doing with this piece of legislation? We heard my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson, and also Senator David Pocock, talk very articulately about the science, about the reputation of Australia and about the capture of states and corporates by the gas cartels in this country and what they continue to do. Senator Whish-Wilson outlined what this bill could possibly do about facilitating the import and export of carbon waste for carbon capture and storage in waters that fall outside the Commonwealth jurisdiction. It's like we're going to take our rubbish and just throw it over the fence into Timor-Leste's waters—one of the poorest countries in the world. We are a very fortunate country here in Australia, but just think we can dump it over there, where it's out of sight and out of mind—not our problem. We let companies, like the Santos mates of those over there, do the bidding on behalf of the government—because that's what they're doing. And that's what this company's plan is: to justify a carbon bomb. It's a cultural-heritage-destroying project—that's what the Barossa gas project is. The Tiwi people have been in court twice and there is currently a live injunction around the lack of respect and the lack of consultation with the Tiwi people. In this project, as we know, Santos claims that they'll be able to capture their scope 1 emissions and transfer them to the depleted gas field, Bayu-Undan in the Timor Sea, 500 kilometres north-west of Darwin. As a proud Western Australian senator—and Senator Whish-Wilson mentioned this—I know that CCS has not been proven. Wheatstone is operating at a third of its capacity; CCS is a flawed, flawed system. We know that it isn't going to be at the scale that needs to be the option for this project—we know that! It only covers scope 1 emissions, and we know that the vast majority of emissions from the Barossa project are actually going to be scope 2 and scope 3. But we had that argument during the safeguard legislation. This government can try to spin this bill all they like—that it isn't giving a free kick to Santos, but it actually is. It's what we're all sitting here debating. We're very happy that the coalition have allowed us on the crossbench to continue to ask the questions that are so important. Bayu-Undan is not that far from Darwin and it's not that far from my home state of Western Australia, which earlier this year was in fact flooded. People have spent millions of dollars going in there and cleaning up the mess that's linked to the science which is linked to the whole planet cooking because we continue this gaslit fascination and relationship with the coal and gas sector in this country. Not only should we be moving away from fossil fuels—exactly as Senator David Pocock outlined—but our Pacific neighbours are urging us to do this. They're pleading with Australia in every UN forum. I was at COP27 in Egypt only last year and the Australian government didn't turn up on the first day to hear the UN Secretary-General give his address and talk about the planet boiling—didn't even have the decency to show up on day 1. Representatives flew in part way through COP and decided, 'We're here for the negotiations'. To negotiate what? Climate action? Really? You're not even listening to what's happening. We're completely in a bubble and ignorant of the fact that the climate science is very clear. The global community are urging us to listen, and we're just ignoring them. They're telling us, 'No more new coal and gas projects,' but we've got 116 in the pipeline. We're continuing to extend and open up new coal and gas projects in this country, and this bill will continue that legacy. It will continue to create climate bombs. Do we just think we're going to dump it in the seabed floor? It's ridiculous. It's not just going to ensure that we go backwards on our climate action; it's also going to facilitate destroying the ancient burial sites that I spoke about during my speech in the second reading debate. These are the first point of contact in this country for First Nations people in the Tiwi Islands, in that strait, where their songlines run through. We've got evidence that this pipeline will run right over the top of that and destroy the point of contact for this nation. It's shameful that this government would talk about their respect for First Nations people in this country during the referendum and then come in here and ignore the fact that this bill is linked to the Barossa project. The Tiwi people, who are the traditional owners of the Tiwi Islands, are in the Federal Court debating and fighting against big gas companies like Santos to stop the destruction of these culturally significant sites. These sites are part of the history of this nation. But Santos couldn't even be bothered to find that out; they didn't think it was important. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think we're running a pipeline through the Australian War Memorial down the road, or through the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne—or through any graveyard in this country. How do people think that it's okay when somebody tells them they're doing that to an ancient burial site? 'Never mind, we'll just run a pipeline right through there.' They'll destroy that, all in the name of the Barossa gas field, which is directly linked to this bill. Minister, has the government conducted any due diligence about the cultural heritage that could be impacted by CCS at Bayu-Undan in the Timor Sea? 11:13 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks for the question. I have a couple of points that go to your broader contribution, Senator Cox. The amendments that were made to the London protocol that are the subject of this bill were made in 2009 and then in 2013. They were then considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in 2020. The legislation that's before us commenced development under the previous government. What's before us today is a longstanding commitment, across successive governments, to meet our obligations under the London protocol, to which we are a signatory. The effect of these changes potentially provides a pathway for any number of project proponents to make application in relation to the transport or movement of carbon dioxide. You're incorrect to say that we've sought to hide its connection to gas projects, which I think was your assertion. Under the safeguard legislation, if they are covered projects, gas projects are required to reduce their emissions, and of course the government recognises that carbon capture and storage may be one of the mechanisms that they use. Under those arrangements, proponents are responsible for the emissions that remain, and so of course it is in the interests of proponents to develop projects that actually are effective in sequestering emissions. That's, for the most part, not the subject of this bill. This bill is relatively narrow in seeking to establish a framework for the transborder movement of carbon dioxide. As I've explained on many occasions, it is the government's view that it's important to have a framework for assessments of projects of this kind in place before we receive advice that projects of this kind want to proceed. There's quite a lot of work that would need to be done before any permit could be issued, including establishing a bilateral agreement with an importing or a receiving country. There is a significant set of steps that would need to be taken before we got to the point of issuing any kind of permit. In any case, any project that was undertaken in Australian waters would be subject to all of the existing regulatory arrangements that would apply to any project, and nothing about this bill changes that. That includes that nothing about this bill alters any of the existing arrangements that apply in relation to cultural heritage. 11:17 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Minister, based on what you have just said—correct me if I'm wrong—you want to get this protocol in place now to make it more efficient for companies when they're ready to go and develop projects that require the export or import of carbon dioxide, like the Barossa gas project. Is that what you're saying? 11:17 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales That incorrectly summarises my evidence over the course of, I think, four days now. What I have said is that the government recognises that any project of this kind should be appropriately regulated. It's prudent to have a regulatory framework in place before we receive any concrete project application so that the regulatory arrangements are known to all of the stakeholders who might have an interest in the project. That of course includes project proponents, but it would also include community who have an interest in understanding what kinds of obligations might be in place and what kinds of regulatory tests might apply if a project were to be considered by government. 11:18 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Considering the decades the oil and gas industry has been out there drilling our ocean and blasting it with seismic guns, isn't it interesting that now we have this move to have this regulation put in place just in case someone wants to export their carbon dioxide pollution across boundaries or import carbon dioxide and stick it in a geological reservoir under the ocean, potentially where they have a depleted oil and gas well that they have to spend billions of dollars on decommissioning? Isn't it interesting that the minister's implying that it's better to get this done now, before the applications come in or just in case we have application, when we know, based on Minister Bowen's comments in the media, very clearly that Japanese investors and Santos are seeking this legislation to facilitate the Barossa oil and gas project? Minister, you've also said repeatedly in your responses to questions in recent days that it's better to have a regulatory structure than not to have one and we might see activities in our oceans that aren't regulated. Could you explain how it would be possible for the Barossa project to proceed and build 100 kilometres of pipeline across Commonwealth waters to access the Bayu-Undan field in Timor-Leste without this legislation? Are you saying they could just do that and that is why we need this? I am a bit confused. 11:19 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm not going to speculate about particular projects. We do not have a project proposal in front of us, and the purpose of this legislation is to generate an orderly and knowable process by which any project application could be received and assessed. 11:20 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I would argue that a project as big as the Barossa project does come directly to why we have this legislation before the Senate. I would argue that those proponents have raised their concerns around following the safeguard mechanism, which the Greens negotiated in good faith with the government, and we did significantly improve that legislation. We know it is a matter of public record that the commitments for Barossa on their scope 1 emissions is around $1 billion, maybe slightly less, that they need to offset up-front. The Japanese investors in that project and Santos, Woodside—you name it—have all raised significant concerns about this. That is when the genesis of the CCS idea for this legislation was born. Yes, you can talk about London protocol, JSCOT committees and others in previous years, but it is now crystallised into this bill before the Senate following the safeguard mechanism. None of us in here are going to be conned into thinking that this is just a coincidence, that we are doing good governance to get this ready just in case someone should be applying. There have clearly been discussions at the highest levels with our government and the Japanese government. They want investor certainty. They want a framework that will give them confidence to participate and develop this project. That is what we're doing here today. I just wanted to take to task comments you made in previous contributions when Senator Pocock had just spoken. You said we are playing politics with this and, if we really cared about the environment, we would somehow support this legislation, or that you would expect us to support a framework that better protects the environment. Minister, we're not playing politics with this. Everyone understands what the Greens are and what we stand for. We will do everything we can in this place to stop new fossil fuel projects, to do what the International Energy Agency tells us what we need to do, to do what the United Nations yesterday told us in its latest report we need to do. We want to stop new fossil fuel projects. We were not able to do that through the safeguard mechanism. You would know that we made a strong campaign on no new oil and gas, so please respect the fact that we are in here doing what millions of people voted for us to do—that is, to hold the government of the day to account and get climate action. We heard from Senator Green yesterday when she moved that the Senate take note of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage committee report. She spoke about the great work the government is doing on climate. I want Australians to understand, when they hear Mr Albanese and senior Labor ministers go out there and say they are taking action on climate, it gives you away; it shows who you are as a government. The fact you are trying to sneak through this legislation—the timing of it—is to design a regulatory structure to facilitate the Barossa gas project, the dirtiest gas project in our nation's history. On top of that, I have significant concerns that the legislation, if we vote for it today, is taking the first step towards giving a number of companies an out on their decommissioning liabilities, if they decide that they have a depleted field that they can import carbon dioxide on. We are enabling that today. There is no way around it; that is the case. Secondly, we are going to be conducting a massive increase in seismic testing around our nation. It is like a coming thunderstorm for our oceans, at a time when we are just learning about the risks and dangers that this activity poses to marine life, not to mention to geological structures, instability and earthquakes, which could potentially undermine these technologies, if indeed they even work. And who would know? I also did a little bit of reading, since we last chatted, about the Sleipner project in Norway, and even the most recent scholarly articles show it is actually impossible to determine if that carbon capture and storage project is leaking CO2. It was a significant source of concern that CO2 leaked out of the area that was identified as a storage geological structure. It's gone elsewhere in the anticline, but no-one's quite sure whether it's leaking. But they said it just can't be done. When you're talking about geological structures that are 20, 30 or 50 kilometres in size and on an ocean bed that is so complex and full of reefs and all sorts of geological structures—underwater canyons, mountains—how can you detect whether it's actually leaking? It's impossible. So we need to be very realistic, and that is why the amendment before the chair and this chamber is to put assurances in place so that, if there is any damage or any liabilities around decommissioning or other things, that is dealt with today. And I don't think that is an unreasonable ask, Minister. So I would ask you again: why can't we legislate today to have these safeguards and assurances put in place? If you want the Senate to accept that we're going to take a significant step towards enabling carbon capture and storage in our oceans, why can't we have these safeguards put in place? 11:26 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks, Senator Whish-Wilson. Of course the government understands the need to have financial assurance when it comes to the activities covered under this bill. However, under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Storage Act there are already provisions to include conditions for titleholders to maintain insurance and to impose discretionary securities. We've talked a bit already about the regulatory review that is underway to ensure that the regime that governs offshore activities, including CCS, is fit for purpose. It will examine the existing regime to ensure that appropriate policy and regulatory settings are in place through the whole life cycle of CCs activities, from exploration through to decommissioning of CCS project assets, to ensure that risks are appropriately managed. 11:27 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Minister, you've outlined to us, several times over the course of this debate, around the London protocol. If it was signed in 2009, why now? On the back of Senator Whish-Wilson's question, what is the sense of urgency to ram this legislation through today, to try and gag our debate on this and the valid questions that the Greens, alongside Senator Pocock, have in order to get the answers for the Australian public to know, as Senator Whish-Wilson has already said, that this is a safe venture to increase carbon capture and storage? Why now? Why does this government seek to do this, when we've got Woodside's CEO, Meg O'Neill, out, after the annual investors gathering, talking about the uncertainty in the gas market and how we need to make sure that we get to the final investment decision to shore up our gas for 2025? Is this the reason that this government, who is beholden to their donors and their fossil fuel mates, is ramming this legislation through, Minister? 11:28 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Cox. Senator Cox, I simply can't accept that a debate that has commenced on Monday and is continuing on Friday could in any way be characterised as ramming something through. I can't explain the actions of previous governments in relation to the London protocol. But I can say, as I have previously, that this legislation has been coming towards the parliament in a reasonably steady way since at least 2020, when it was first considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and these amendments were considered minor treaty actions and recommended for ratification. I've been quite clear from the outset, too, that the government is interested in regularising all of the arrangements around carbon capture and storage. We were upfront. We've been very upfront about this, and we provided money in the budget to ensure that all of the settings around carbon capture and storage were appropriate and adequate. This is one part of that. We want to make sure that, if there is a transport or a movement of carbon dioxide, there is a regulatory regime that can capture those circumstances and manage it. We think that is the right thing to do for our own policy settings, but we also think it's the right thing to do in terms of our obligations to the international community. 11:30 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Minister, I would like to read from a submission regarding the Darwin Pipeline Duplication Project from our friends across the Timor Sea: Greetings from your neighbours across the Timor Sea. As an independent civil society organization, La'o Hamutuk, the Timor-Leste Institute for Development Monitoring and Analysis, closely follows issues in Australia and Timor-Leste, including many aspects of the oil and gas industry which straddle our two nations. Although this is our first submission to NTEPA, La'o Hamutuk has made nearly a dozen submissions to government agencies in Australia. We hope that our information and analysis will help you make wise decisions which protect the environment and the people of both the Northern Territory and Timor-Leste. Since 2000, La'o Hamutuk has analysed and monitored the activities of the Timorese Government, its development partners, and multilateral agencies, advocating for policies which promote sustainable and equitable economic and social development. Through this work, we try to ensure that our country's sovereignty is recognized and that all of Timor-Leste's people – both women and men, as well as current and future generations – can participate in sustainable, just, inclusive and transparent development which respects human rights and people's cultures. In this submission, Minister, our friends in the Timor Sea talk a lot about their relationship with the sea and with sea country, but they also talk specifically about what the impact will be. As Senator Whish-Wilson said—and your government claim that they have no conversations currently live with people who are applying for this—we know that the Barossa project and the wells that are owned at Bayu-Undan will be the place. We won't be surprised when this happens. But, in this submission, these friends of ours from Timor-Leste want us to understand how this will impact them, so they write to us and say: Our submission is written from a Timor-Leste perspective, and we don't presume to speak for the people of the Northern Territory. We encourage you to carefully consider issues raised by people there, including by Aboriginal and environmental organizations. The NTEPA should not look at the part of this project that falls within the Northern Territory in isolation, as it affects your neighbours and the global climate. Environmental risks don't stop at the three-mile limit; they are not constrained by the 200-mile EEZ. Gas extraction from Barossa and carbon storage at Bayu-Undan may be outside your territorial jurisdiction, but they are intrinsic elements of the proposed DPD project … A piecemeal approach to a project which straddles multiple jurisdictions may not adequately protect our common welfare. Overarching issues might fall outside of each authority's localized mandate and be overlooked – there is more to this project than the pipelines currently before you. We know that the Bayu-Undan pipeline has been in place since 2004, but, as Senator Whish-Wilson said, there has not been much work done to look at whether it's leaking or whether it's intact or what those things look like, yet we're going to pass legislation in this place to look at those things.   The conclusion of the submission, which is dated February 2022, said: People on both sides of the Timor Sea are currently commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Japanese-Australian conflict in Timor-Leste during World War II, which killed tens of thousands of our people in order to avert an expected invasion of the Northern Territory by Japanese soldiers. Although the people of Timor-Leste continue to be respectful neighbours to our Australian friends, we do not appreciate being told once again that we must endure disproportionate suffering to enable you to continue your comfortable lives. I don't know how much more frank the people of Timor-Leste need to be with the Australian government or the Australian public than they are in that statement. That alone says a lot about how they feel when we are on this side of the Timor Sea continue to make laws which will impact others and continue to be involved in social and economic ventures that have an impact on others. We have heard from Senator David Pocock about the Pacific. It continues by saying: We trust that the good people of the Northern Territory will put a stop to this effort at "carbon colonialism" before it gets too far. 'Carbon colonialism' is the language that they use. This concludes their submission, and they have made this submission with the intention of bringing this to the attention of the Australian government. Minister, I would really like to hear what consultation your government, in the lead-up to this bill, has engaged in, particularly with the first peoples of Timor-Leste, about the impact of carbon capture and storage. You say that you don't have any project details available, but I think all of us sitting here know that CCS at Bayu-Undan needs to be facilitated through a bill like this and in order for the Barossa gas field to go ahead and so that Darwin's LNG plant at Middle Arm can continue. Minister, this government is responsible to its international neighbours, including to its Pacific neighbours, and your government has facilitated lots of country visit. But we are not good global leaders. We are not even good leaders within our region because we are doing things that we know will have an impact on low-lying island nations not just in the Pacific. Have a look at the Torres Strait and have a look at the Tiwi Islands because they are impacted, but we continue to do things that we know will have an impact and we don't consult with people. I'm really keen to hear from this government about what consultation is undertaken. Senator Hanson-Young has asked this question of environment groups, but I want to know who else you have spoken to, Minister. What other groups have you spoken to? What other nations and what other people will be impacted by this piece of legislation? This legislation concerns sea dumping in parts of areas near low-lying island nations, and coastal communities will be affected not just here in Australia but also overseas. 11:38 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Cox, can I take the opportunity to perhaps provide a point of clarification about a matter that you raised in your contribution. You made a suggestion about my contributions over the course of the last few days, and I think you said the government is not in conversation about projects. That's not correct and that's not the information that I have provided to the Senate. Of course, the government is in conversation about projects. What I have made clear is that there is no application before the government because the legislation that would facilitate any such application is not in place. Secondly, you ask about the interaction with Timor-Leste. I think the basic point to make here is that Australia respects Timor-Leste's right to make sovereign decisions about inward investment; these are questions for a sovereign government. I understand that in that country, as in ours, it's likely there'll be a range of views about the best path forward for development. But these are matters for sovereign governments to manage. In terms of the way that we would interact with any government that was seeking an arrangement with us for transport and movement of carbon dioxide, it's necessary—as I've explained on a number of occasions—under the London protocol for a country-to country agreement to be established before any such movement or key meeting could be allowed. 11:40 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Seriously, what a pathetic stunt this is! Here we have the opposition siding with the Greens to vote against a bill that they agreed with. For the benefit of those sitting in the gallery, or listening online or on the radio, this is a bill that they've said publicly they support—the Liberal-Nationals. That mob. The opposition has said that this bill is important to underwriting investment certainty for carbon capture and storage projects. And it is, particularly in my home state of WA. And yet, despite their public support for this piece of important legislation, they have chosen to play kiddie politics. I have to ask: what does the opposition believe? Do they support regulatory certainty or don't they? Do they support a bill that has been endorsed by both the House and a Senate committee? What is clear—and bizarre, quite frankly—is that they now don't support a bill which they had themselves acknowledged as important in underwriting investment certainty for carbon capture and storage projects. There is a range of emerging carbon capture and storage projects around the country that cannot proceed without this legislation. Carbon capture and storage is, potentially, an important stepping stone in maintaining energy security while also reducing the carbon footprint of our energy sources. It's estimated that if the current, or currently planned, WA projects go ahead they will have the capacity to store more than eight million tonnes of CO2 annually. That would represent over 11 per cent of WA's annual current emissions. If those opposite are serious about achieving both of these important goals then they need to stop with the kiddie political games and stunts and provide the regulatory—and, therefore, investment—certainty that the energy sector needs. If they care about jobs in the WA resources sector—and I know that those in the corner there don't—then they will get out of the way. The opposition is holding these up from progressing. We, the grown-ups in the Labor Party, on this side, believe in providing regulatory certainty for industry and community. Those opposite, with that mob in the corner, choose to oppose it. The actions of those opposite are putting Australian projects at risk, and this means they're putting Australian jobs at risk. The minister has outlined a range of projects that will be formally regulated under this legislation, and I'll tell you about some of the projects in your state, Senator Cox, of Western Australia. I just wanted to mention that so that every Western Australia knows that you're the one holding this up! And there are projects in Victoria and the Northern Territory. The WA projects are being driven by industry, with support from government. There has been extensive industry and community consultation. It seems that the main obstacle in providing the certainty industry needs to progress this is coming from the Liberals and the Nationals. I wish them luck in explaining their latest political stunt to the people of Western Australia! These are projects which are backed by some of our closest trading partners, who want to invest in Australian carbon capture and storage projects. The coalition—the Liberals and the Nationals—talk about supporting investment and jobs. But, presented with an opportunity to do just that, they fail the test. The bill gives effect to Australia's international obligations arising out of the 2009 and 2013 amendments to the London protocol. Specifically, the bill gives effect to our international commitments in relation to the safe and effective regulation of the export of carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for the purposes of sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation. The bill is important to provide regulatory certainty for carbon capture and storage projects that rely on transboundary movement of carbon. There are at least five projects the government is aware of that cannot progress without this legislation, as I've said. I've said that these projects are in Western Australia, where I proudly come from, Victoria and the Northern Territory. As I said earlier, the bill would enable these projects to be safely and properly regulated, which is important to protect the marine environment. CCS technology is a mature technology. There hasn't been a particular need or drive to do large CO2 storage until recent times, when we've had to think about carbon abatement. The UN IPCC, the Climate Change Authority, the CSIRO and the International Energy Agency all recognise the need for CCS as a key tool to drive decarbonisation outcomes across the resources sector. Unlike those opposite—forget about them in the corner!—I commend the bill to the Senate, and I encourage the opposition to stop playing politics and get behind it too. 11:46 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I just wonder whether Senator Sterle missed the memo from his leadership. We're still here—to the people in the gallery—not for any reason other than that the Australian government, who have the numbers to pass this bill, are not doing what they need to do to pass the bill. I've already explained to the chamber a couple of times now that the Australian government have the majority of votes in this place to progress this bill but refuse to do so because they refuse to cooperate on a range of matters. This is typical of the Australian Labor government. Here we are, five days on from when this bill came in for its second reading debate. We're now in the committee stage, and nothing has happened. Nothing has progressed. If you listened to Senator Sterle's contribution, you'd know he's passionate about the resources sector. He's passionate about what it does for the hardworking men and women of his home state. If that is absolutely the case then I would say to Senator Sterle that he should go and have a word with his Senate leadership about what they need to do to get this bill moving, because right now all they're doing is sticking their fingers in their ears and saying: 'No, it's our way or the highway. We want everything our way, and we're not going to work with anyone else to get anything else happening. Just vote with us. It's what your job is. Rubberstamp our stuff.' As we know, the coalition support this legislation, but equally we support and defend the right of our crossbench colleagues to interrogate this legislation to their heart's content, and we will back that in. We will back that in until, of course, we have some cooperation from this intransigent government that doesn't care about things like the cost of living, for example. Here we are in a Senate-only sitting week, and we all thought at the beginning of this week: 'It's a bit weird that we're allowing this debate to just go on. Oh, well, we'll go along with it for a bit.' I think we all knew why. Deep down, in the pit of our stomachs, we understood that the government, because they had nothing to do this week but they'd recalled us all to Canberra and wanted to save face, they just had to pad it out. So this is convenient for them. They make a big song and dance about it, but they are quite happy and relieved that we're at the end of this week and are still sitting here debating the first piece of legislation that was on their agenda for the week. None of it has anything to do with the cost-of-living crisis created by the Labor government, the Labor cost-of-living crisis. Let's not forget that promise to bring down power prices. We're talking about energy in relation to this piece of legislation. Well, what about honouring the promise that was made to Australian households to bring power bills down by $275, or any of the other cost-of-living horrors being faced by Australian households and businesses at the moment? There's not a peep out of the Australian government. They just want to slag us off, call us names, demand things be their way and then send in poor old Senator Sterle to read out some speech notes written, I dare say, by the minister's office, when he seems to have missed the memo that they're the ones in charge. The ball is in their court. We could move on right now if they happened to be in a cooperative mood. Instead, in true Labor fashion, it is their way or the highway. Australia: this is why the bill's bogged down—because the Australian Labor Party are so arrogant that they won't do anything to assist with other issues that face this chamber. 11:50 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Senator Sterle, in his remarks just previously, said that the government is acting like the grown-up. I don't think that's the badge of honour that Senator Sterle thinks it is. According to scientists quoted in a report by CNN, humanity has just lived through the hottest 12 months in at least 125,000 years. The article says: Month after month since June, the world has been abnormally hot. Scientists have compared this year's climate-change fallout to "a disaster movie"—soaring temperatures, fierce wildfires, powerful storms and devastating floods—and new data is now revealing just how exceptional the global heat has been. In the last couple of weeks, Gladstone in Central Queensland, where I live, has been surrounded by fires and its air has been thick with smoke. In southern Queensland we've had fires that have already—before the end of October—taken people's lives. We are in a climate emergency. It is the era of global boiling. Far from the 'grown-ups' in the government taking serious action to end coal, oil and gas and stopping the opening of new coal, oil and gas projects, they are still actively facilitating their expansion and ongoing production. It's not the adults in the government who are taking action; it's young people out on the streets. It's School Strike 4 Climate and young people taking governments to court for not protecting their future. I don't actually mind, to be honest, not being called the adult, because, as a teacher who has taught young people for 30 years, I actually think young people are pretty great. Right now, they know where the climate's at. Senator Sterle also said this bill is about regulatory certainty. Well, what is certain is that, as the Environment Centre NT have observed, this bill represents the Albanese government's collusion with and active pursuit of this gas industry strategy, including the 'greenwashing of significant fossil fuel expansion plans in Australia.' In their submission to the inquiry by the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee into the provisions of the bill, they said it 'prolongs dependence on fossil fuels and delays their replacement with renewable alternatives'. They said it 'creates environmental, health and safety risks for communities with CCS infrastructure'. The Wilderness Society, in their submission, urged the government to deliver overdue reforms to the EPBC Act ahead of fossil fuel industry demands. They said: It is disappointing that the Albanese government has created space within its environmental legislative agenda for this before effective, future focused environment laws that would actually help the environment are brought forward. Urgent environmental matters lay dormant while the needs of the fossil fuel industry leap ahead of the queue. The Environmental Defenders Office said it is of the view: … policies such as CCS and geoengineering carry the risk of justifying ongoing use and extraction of fossil fuels, and strongly recommends they should not be promoted or encouraged in order to sustain the life of the fossil fuel industry. CCS in particular also carries significant risk of additional and unintentional emissions pollution in its operation, while the environmental and social risks of large scale geoengineering remain unknown. Given all of that—given that we know CCS as a technology is not proven at scale and that this bill will actively facilitate those companies like Santos who are donating massive amounts of money to the big political parties and haven't paid any tax—I draw your attention, Minister, to the Production gap report 2023, which said in relation to Australia: There is no national policy framework aiming to restrict fossil fuel exploration, production, or infrastructure development. Considering this bill seems to be expanding fossil fuel exploration, production and infrastructure development, how is this current bill consistent with the government's stated net-zero commitments? 11:55 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks, Senator Allman-Payne. I have on very many occasions in the course of this debate set out the approach the government is taking on our trajectory to net zero and, in particular, the obligations that are placed on safeguard facilities to reduce their emissions consistent with our obligations under the Paris Agreement and the approach taken under the UNFCCC accounting framework for greenhouse gas emissions. I don't have anything to add to the information I've already provided to the chamber in this regard. 11:56 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland The Production gap report 2023, released this week, models nine variable global pathways under subsets of or individual 1.5-degree-consistent scenarios. Of these nine pathways, the cessation of coal, oil and gas production indicates a clear pathway towards this goal. Of interest, for the benefit of the current bill before us, is the plateauing or negligible role of carbon capture and storage. Considering this bill and the government's agenda at large seem to involve the continuing expansion of coal, oil and gas production and the usage of failed CCS technologies, how is the current bill before us consistent with modelling that shows it to be a failed pathway? 11:57 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Allman-Payne, I have in my previous answer indicated that the government's approach to getting to net zero has been well established. There is a safeguard mechanism that puts in place obligations for covered facilities. The government is also in the process of developing six sector plans which will set out our pathway to 2050 for a range of sectors, including industry. It is one of the six. Those sector pathways will be developed in consultation with stakeholders, including industry stakeholder. Also, as I think you know, the parliament has sought advice from the Climate Change Authority to provide input into those documents. The pathway, of course, requires a decline in emissions, and Australia is in the process of rapidly transitioning our energy sector, in the first instance, away from fossil fuels and towards an increasing reliance on renewables. We are conscious also of the opportunities that exist in the transport sector, and they are in turn dependent on the decarbonisation of our electricity grid. These are some of the many technology and transition questions that will be contemplated in the sector plans and more generally by the government on our path to net zero. 11:59 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Thank you, Minister, for the long time that you've been in here this week answering questions in this committee stage. I acknowledge that I haven't been in here for a lot of the time, so there is a lot of ground that's probably been covered that I'm also going to be covering now. But I just want to start by setting the scene. From some of the debate that I've heard, there have been assertions by the government, I understand, that this bit of legislation actually isn't connected with facilitating new gas projects. Obviously, the huge concern of the Greens and why we are willing to stay here for as long as possible is that it seems pretty clear to us that the point of this legislation is to facilitate new gas projects—and a massive new gas project in particular: the Barossa gas field, which is a carbon bomb which, if it went ahead, would result in the emission of about 13 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, about three per cent of Australia's current emissions. Minister, can you clarify for me this assertion that, from what I understand from having been in here on and off during the last four days, this particular bit of legislation is disconnected from the expansion of gas projects? 12:00 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you for your acknowledgement that your question may traverse old ground. I will provide a brief answer. The purpose of this bill is to implement our obligations under the London protocol, to which we are a signatory. There was amendment made to that protocol in 2009 and then another one made in 2013. The first of those, from 2009, seeks to deal with circumstances where there is a transborder movement of carbon dioxide. The reason sit eeks to do that is that, under those circumstances, the international community and the signatories to the protocol judged that it would be important that there be a shared commitment to proper regulation of any such movement. I should indicate that that is movement for the purposes of subsea storage. It applies narrowly to that category of purposes. The approach taken under the protocol and reflected in this legislation is that, prior to any such movement being contemplated, there would need to be a bilateral agreement between the parties. That would be required irrespective of whether or not the parties were both signatories to the London protocol or only one of them was. The obligation on the signatories is to ensure that this agreement is in place and that it canvasses a range of matters relevant to safely and clearly identifying the arrangement that would be put in place for environmental protection and environmental assessment. Subsequent to that, the bill envisages that, should such an arrangement be put in place between Australia and any other country, there would then be a permitting regime established. It is not proposed to narrow the application of these arrangements to some projects and not others. Essentially, the regime that's proposed would be available to any project proponent that sought to move carbon dioxide across national borders. The purpose of the regulatory arrangements is to ensure that, if that happens, there is an appropriate environmental impact assessment and a range of other protections in place. 12:03 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Thank you for that, Minister. Can you then tell me what would happen to potential new, massive carbon bomb gas developments if this legislation didn't go ahead? 12:03 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm trying to make sense of your question in the context of the information I've provided to you. Perhaps the best way is to say that I don't accept your characterisation of any of the projects before us. I'm simply reflecting on the regulations and legislation that are discussed here. I think the important thing to understand is that Australia is committed to meeting our obligations under the Paris Agreement. As you know, we've recently updated the targets that we have committed to the UNFCCC. The chief mechanism that we utilise in relation to large projects, in order to manage our emissions reduction obligations, is the safeguard mechanism. That's not the subject of the bill that's here before us, but I point you to that because I think you're asking me, in essence, 'How does Australia intend to manage its emission reduction obligations?' 12:05 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Thanks for that, Minister, but that didn't answer my question. I'll put it in a, perhaps, less colourful way: what would the implications be for potential new gas projects if this legislation didn't go ahead? In particular—and I understand there are potentially five projects—would the government be able to be forthcoming about the five projects which wouldn't proceed without this legislation? 12:05 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Essentially, whether or not a project proceeds is a matter for proponents, and that is an assessment that proponents make. In doing so they base their assessment on a range of factors including regulatory certainty but also, of course, finance and their assessment of the business case for the project at hand. In the course of the debate, I have previously made reference to four projects that the government is aware of where there is a proposal to import carbon dioxide utilising the framework and the mechanisms, if they were available, that would be put in place under this bill. I've listed them previously. They are carbon capture and storage projects. 12:06 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Could you name them for me, and could you please be explicit about what the future prospects of the Barossa project would be if this legislation does not go ahead? 12:06 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I have named these projects on a number of occasions through the course of the debate. They are CStore1 in Western Australia, CarbonNet in Victoria, SEA CCS hub in Victoria and Darwin LNG hub in the Northern Territory. I'm not in a position to speculate about what proponents may or may not do in relation to these projects or any other projects, including the Barossa, with regard to the passage of this legislation. 12:07 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria With regard to those four projects, it's pretty explicit where the Darwin one is. Can you tell me where the other three projects are? 12:07 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I've just indicated, the CStore1 project is in Western Australia, the CarbonNet project is in Victoria and the SEA CCS hub is also in Victoria. 12:07 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria For more clarification—when you say Victoria, that's a pretty big space—whereabouts exactly in Victoria? 12:08 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I don't have that information with me. 12:08 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, Dr Kirsty Howey, the executive director of the Environment Centre NT, has called your sea-dumping bill the 'Santos amendment bill'. I'm interested to learn how much the Labor government has taken in political donations from Santos over the last three years. 12:08 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I don't have that information with me. That's not the subject of this bill. Political donations are clearly handled by another minister in another portfolio and are subject to an entirely different set of legislation. 12:08 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory In the absence of a clear explanation from the government as to why we need this—you're pointing to all these other things—everyone else seems to understand that this is for the gas industry to expand. I think it's fair that people make assumptions. When you've got the executive director of the Environment Centre NT calling your bill the 'Santos amendment bill' and we know that you receive tens of thousands of dollars in— Senator Pratt I0T They're Western Australian jobs. They're not— The TEMPORARY CHAIR HZB Senator Pratt! Continue, Senator Pocock. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 I'll take that interjection from Senator Pratt. It's quite absurd to be pointing to jobs as Western Australian jobs when they haven't been created yet. The thing I've been hearing from employers is they can't find workers. We've got a crisis when it comes to workers, and yet we have a Labor government that came to government saying, 'Climate change is going to be taken seriously. The adults are in charge,' punching down on the coalition's efforts, and a Labor senator from WA saying that this is about jobs, about creating future jobs. It's an absurd argument, given what the job market is like in Australia. What we're seeing today is just extraordinary. I really thank the coalition for allowing democracy manifest, for allowing this in here for people to be able to ask questions, because the crossbench have serious concerns about this bill. I go back to Minister Regenvanu. Standing here as a crossbencher, I agree with him; your rhetoric is different to your actions. You're talking the talk about climate action, and yet you're putting through this bill. And Australians will continue to ask the question: Why? Why do we have a government that isn't governing for the people? Because Australians are doing it tough. We rightly hear concerns about the cost of living, and we know that one of the drivers of the cost of living is insurance premiums going through the roof. We've got the Assistant Treasurer telling us that he's gone off to meetings and spoken to insurers, and they've essentially warned Australia that climate is going to make insurance premiums go up and up and potentially become unaffordable, or that parts of Australia will be uninsurable. In the face of that, the government's facilitating a bill that will potentially expand the fossil fuel industry using unproven technology to the scale that's being promised. In the last—it's been a week now, hasn't it?—week in this chamber we've been discussing this stinkiest of bills, and one of the things we've talked about is the gorgon, one of the biggest carbon capture and storage projects in the world. It hasn't delivered anywhere near what they promised. It hasn't delivered on what they said: 'Approve this project because we'll do this.' Approved the project, haven't delivered—oh well, keep trying to put that carbon underground. And so Australians are looking at their government, the people who are tasked with looking after them and looking ahead at the problems that are coming, and saying, 'How can we deal with these and turn them into opportunities?' We're going to get more and more Australians questioning the government, saying: 'How can you continue to take donations from fossil fuel companies and then tell us that it doesn't influence what you're doing, when what we're seeing go through parliament would suggest otherwise?' These are companies that, at every turn, have sought to minimise how much they contribute, whether it's the petroleum resource rent tax with offshore LNG, where Australians have basically received nothing because of the overly generous compounding offsets and deductions that those companies receive. Yet the government keeps telling us that we take these donations but, really, that's just part of being a political party in 2023: you take political donations from an industry that is contributing to life becoming increasingly harder and, in some parts of the country, to making living there impossible. It's not me saying that; it's the IPCC. The IPCC is saying that, if Australian governments continue with the expansion of the fossil fuel industry here in Australia and don't step up and push globally for countries to come good on their Paris Agreement commitments, then large swathes of the Northern Territory will become uninhabitable. Again, we'll probably see the major parties point at the Independents and the minor parties and say, 'You may have that view.' But it's not us; it's the IPCC that is saying these things. So, Minister, to return to my point: what do you say to Australians who are just scratching their heads and saying, 'How are these decisions continuing to be made in 2023, the hottest year on record'? We know that the Labor Party doesn't take donations from big tobacco, because we know the impact that tobacco has on people. Why does the Labor Party continue to take donations from the fossil fuel industry? 12:16 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales We have canvassed this already. I have indicated to the chamber repeatedly the public interest reasons for the government bringing forward this legislation. The government is engaged in a series of measures to reform our climate change policy and make sure that we are transforming our economy, obtaining all of the benefits that arise from a decarbonising global economy and contributing to the global decision-making about the transition to net zero, which is entirely necessary, given the information that the scientists are providing. As part of that, the government is working across all industry sectors to define the pathways to net zero by 2050. Notwithstanding the assertions that are sometimes made in this place that this is simple and ought to be able to occur immediately, it's called a 'transition' for a reason. There's no world in which we reduce our emissions immediately from where we are now to net zero, but we do know that that's our destination. We know that that's where we need to land, and significant effort and work has gone into taking steps to get on that pathway, since we came to government, and also to assist us in defining that pathway for the decades to come. It's clear that fossil fuels will be part of the energy system for some time. There's no world where we can get to that net zero position in a short period of time. I think you know, Senator Pocock, that the government has ambitious plans to move to a much higher penetration of renewables in our electricity grid by 2030. That's actually a very challenging target. The minister describes it as 'ambitious but achievable'. We're really putting our shoulder to the wheel on that question, despite the objections and the campaigning against such a strategy from some of the political parties represented in the Senate. You assert that we're not acting in the public interest and that we're in some way acting in some narrow private interests. I reject that entirely. I reject it absolutely, and I say to you that, for decades now, the Labor Party's public commitment to climate action has been a feature of our policies. From government or opposition, we have been very clear that we accept the science and the requirements for transition, and we are determined to create a pathway that lets us obtain the economic benefits that will come about from that transition to make sure that those benefits are shared with the regional communities that need to share in them and that deserve a strong future as well. It's why we've established the Net Zero Authority, led, at the moment, by Mr Combet. It's also why there are significant investments in the government budget papers that go to these questions of obtaining economic advantage through the transition, as well as meeting our environmental obligations. I am not sure there is much I can add to this. Senator Pocock, you have made it clear that you do not agree with aspects of our policy-making, but I can stand here in the Senate and say very clearly that the government is serious about the transition. We are determined to do it in a way that is fair and that ensures prosperity for the full range of Australian communities that have a stake in this. I respect your right to disagree but I'm not sure I can add very much— Senator David Pocock 256136 It's not just me. It's the climate scientists. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Pocock, you were heard in silence. Senator McALLISTER 121628 I'm not sure I can add much to the evidence I have provided over the course of five days now. We have been debating this for some time. 12:20 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Minister, you are trying to claim that this bill is somehow disconnected from expansion of fossil fuel production. You are trying to claim that this bill is consistent with serious action to address the climate crisis. No-one is buying it, absolutely no-one, other than your own cohorts, who are stuck in their own little world where, basically, this is economic development. You are being captured by the fossil fuel industry—the mates, the donations, the need for jobs—and saying, even if they were jobs doing the equivalent of destroying the pyramids, 'Oh well, they are jobs, so that's okay.' Everyone is so clear that this bill is about facilitating the expansion of fossil fuel developments. It is about facilitating the expansion of coal and gas, gas in particular. It is about allowing carbon bombs like the Barossa development to go ahead, developments that are completely inconsistent with serious action to tackle the climate crisis. And this, on the week where it has just been announced that not only was October the hottest October on record, following the hottest June, July, August, September on record, and not only were the last 12 months the hottest 12 months, the hottest year, on record that has ever been recorded, but this last year was the hottest year in the last 125,000 years that the planet has experienced. We know what needs to happen. We do not need legislation that is facilitating new fossil fuel development. We need to be rapidly getting out of coal and gas and oil and, yes, Minister, we need to be transitioning to renewables both in our domestic use and in our exports. We have the potential to export renewable energy in a variety of ways. That is what any reasonable, sensible government that was really concerned about Australia's future and the future of the world would be doing, not standing here and trying to pretend that this legislation is consistent with serious action on climate. It is not just us Greens, not just the climate activists, who are saying it; it is the climate scientists around the world who have been calling the alarm on climate change for the last 40 years. They are desperate for governments to take action that is consistent with the reality of climate change. I know, Minister, you know a lot of those climate scientists. I know you respect their work, so all I can ask is that you listen to them. One of our leading climate scientists in Australia is Dr Joelle Gergis, who is an IPCC lead author in the last IPCC report. I do not know if you have read her book. I suggest if you haven't that you should. It is a wonderful summary of both the science and the political action that are needed, and the fact that we need to have hope that our governments will listen to us. As I've said in my previous contributions, I do not have any hope anymore in the Labor Party and the Liberal Party because of their connections with the fossil fuel industry, because of their willingness to just go ahead with massive carbon-bomb developments. I actually don't have any hope that you're listening, and I believe that we're just going to have to elect more Greens and more Independents who are committed to climate change work in order to get governments that listen. But other people still have hope that, maybe, this government might listen. I want to read some of Joelle's book, Humanity's Moment: a climate scientist's case for hope. I was ready to have a lot of considered contributions to this debate, but I actually think that reading and putting on record some of the things that Dr Joelle Gergis, an Australian leading climate scientist is saying, is more valuable: Young people have every right to feel white-hot fury about the mess we are in. Their future is being sabotaged by the very people who should be protecting them. As the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, told the World Leaders Summit at COP26 in November 2021: Our addiction to fossil fuels is pushing humanity to the brink. We face a stark choice: either we stop it or it stops us. It's time to say: enough. Enough of brutalizing biodiversity. Enough of killing ourselves with carbon. Enough of treating nature like a toilet. Enough of burning and drilling and mining our way deeper. We are digging our own graves … Young people know it. Every country sees it. Small Island Developing States - and other vulnerable ones - live it. For them, failure is not an option. Failure is a death sentence … On behalf of this and future generations, I urge you: choose ambition. Choose solidarity. Choose to safeguard our future and save humanity. She is quoting Antonio Guterres, but she then goes on to say: We know exactly what we need to do, but we still aren't prepared to do it. Instead, we watch extreme weather increasingly ravage every corner of the world with every passing season. Right now, even following the United Nations' 26th Conference of Parties (COP26) in Glasgow, emission pledges are still not on track to achieve the Paris Agreement target of limiting global warming to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels. Considered by many as humanity's "last chance" to stabilize the climate, instead current net-zero emissions pledges have us hurtling towards global warming of 1.4-2.8⁰C. And that's a best-case scenario, only if all commitments - which are not legally binding, or in the case of developing nations, not yet adequately financed - are honoured completely. She goes on: While I desperately hoped that COP26 would be the political tipping point that changed everything, my rational mind knew that some governments – like my own here in Australia – are still in the strangle-hold of the fossil fuel industry. There are corporate interests that are willing to sacrifice our planetary life-support system to keep the fossil fuel industry alive for as long as humanly possible, using unproven technology. Carbon capture and storage, known as CCS, is based on the idea that you can extract carbon dioxide from the smokestacks of coal plants or steel factories, compress it, transport it and then inject it back underground, where, in theory, it will remain forever. And that's assuming you can find the right geologic conditions that are stable enough over millennia so that carbon doesn't leak out and back into the atmosphere. She then goes on to talk about the unproven and expensive nature of carbon capture and storage: Aside from the trillion-dollar price tag, it's critical to realise that CCS projects take around ten years to progress through concept, feasibility, design and construction phases before becoming operational – time we simply don't have. Relying on technology that is not ready to be deployed on the scale needed to immediately and drastically address the emergency we face is at best reckless, and at worst an inter-generational crime. It also delays facing the reality that we must stop burning fossil fuels – we need to take serious action and not rely on unproven technology to save the day. As people in climate justice circles like to say, "delay is the new denial". We need to turn the tap off new carbon emissions and start mopping up the damage. Minister, this legislation, that we Greens are doing our best to stop being passed through this place this week, is facilitating new gas development that the world cannot afford to allow to go ahead. It is so clear—the science is so clear—what we need to do to address the climate crisis that the world finds itself in, and that is to stop any new coal, gas or oil developments. Yes, fossil fuels are going to be around for a while. We need to work out how to rapidly transition away from them. But we do not need new projects. We do not need to be pouring petrol on the fire, because that is what this legislation would be facilitating. It is imperative and essential that Australia plays its part, along with the rest of the world, to get out of coal, gas and oil and to make that rapid transition so that people can be hopeful that the world will actually pay attention and take the action that's needed. At the moment, in this place, people are looking on and despairing. We have a government that they hoped, 18 months ago, would be doing something about the climate crisis, and yet we have legislation like this being put forward that is making people feel totally despairing. We need to give people hope. We need to get out of coal and gas and oil, and this legislation should not be allowed to pass. 12:30 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia We're now at the 'reading a book into the Hansard' stage of this debate. Hour follows hour, question follows question—how many hours can we sit here as the same question gets paraphrased into another question? I've got to buy a T-shirt for Senator McAllister at this point which says: 'I've covered this already. We've already canvassed this in the debate.' Sorry, Senator McAllister, you've probably said it more nicely than that. Honestly, this is paraphrase hour now. I'm sure there are plenty of other chapters in Senator Rice's book that we can sit here and listen to as they, too, are recorded in the Hansard for their second go at publication outside of the bound volume they already exist in. I understand what the Greens are doing. They're not keen on this bill, and they're trying to obstruct its passage. But what are the Liberals and the Nationals doing? They said they supported this bill. Publicly, they've come out and said they support this bill. Specifically, they've said that they think it's important for not undermining investment certainty and they think it's important for jobs and for regulatory certainty. If they support this bill, what are they trying to learn in paraphrase hour? Are there other chapters in Senator Rice's book that they're hoping she might get to this afternoon? I actually think there might be some senators on the other side of the chamber who might like to debate, I don't know, the counterterrorism legislation which is coming up on the Notice Paper, or maybe judicial immunity? That might be something that senators on the other side of the chamber are interested in debating. Or would they like hour No. 10 of Senator Rice's book—hour No. 10 of the same questions paraphrased and the same answers from the minister. Honestly, what are they trying to learn? This has gone through a House committee and it's gone through a Senate committee. They said they support it. Is it chapter 8 in Senator Rice's book? Or are they just trying to see how the same question can be paraphrased for perhaps the 10th or the 11th time—trying to learn some new tricks and titbits on how to phrase their language and how to do this themselves one day? Honestly, this is ridiculous. We have important business in this chamber to deal with—important pieces of legislation, which have been sitting on that Notice Paper. I would understand that if Senator Duniam were genuinely really interested in the debate here—if he were genuinely hoping to learn something—as question after question gets paraphrased and put to a minister who has answered them over and over for hours and hours in that chair. That's absolutely appropriate when debating legislation and there are genuine things to learn. But can he really sit there with a straight face when he knows he wants to support this bill? They think this bill is important for regulatory certainty and they think this bill is important for jobs. What are we trying to learn here? This chamber has got really important pieces of legislation to deal with and we have spent an entire week on this piece of legislation. I accept that the Greens have a position here and I understand that they want to obstruct the passage of this bill. That's quite clear. There might be some more books under the desk about to come out—some more chapters of verse or prose, or maybe some poems, about why this bill is not lining up with the Greens. Senator Scarr 282997 I've got one I can lend you! Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 Senator Scarr has a poem—great; fantastic! Let's read some more stuff into the Hansard and, in the meantime, leave the counterterrorism legislation and legislation related to judicial immunity on the Notice Paper. Oh, we've got the time—we've got all the time in the world. Honestly, if you support the passage of the bill and stop obstructing the bill's passage through this chamber, we can get down to the business of dealing with the bill so that we can get on to the other business of government, the other things on the Notice Paper, which we all need to discuss and I would welcome having an opportunity to debate. 12:35 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania For those watching, if you ever wanted to know what it looks like when a government can't manage its affairs, can't control the Senate, can't do what the people elected it to do, this is it in all its glory. We have the second of the Labor backbenchers coming in today to tell us how important this legislation is. Again, this second senator, senator Marielle Smith, a very learned colleague, comes in here, but seems not to have been given the same memo that others have been given, just like Senator Sterle in his earlier contributions seemed to have missed the memo, which is that the ball is in the government's court. This bill could pass unamended today if the government did what we have been asking them to do. If they were seeking to cooperate with the opposition, perhaps Senator McAllister in her next contribution might like to put on record how intransigent this government is being on the requests to the government that have been made by the opposition. That is entirely up to her. They know what we have been asking so that we can progress what is an important piece of legislation. I want to put a couple of other things on record. Before I do, I'd like to speak about the tone of debate that comes about when we have senators in here that denigrate colleagues and how they conduct themselves in a debate. Senator Rice is entitled to quote from scientists, whether we agree with them or not. I don't think it is a bad move to quote someone that they believe is correct. I don't know who this climate scientist is, but it is a true tactic of the Labor Party in this country to besmirch, belittle and shame colleagues in this place, whatever their views are, if they happen to disagree with them. Rather than take them on at face value or challenge the facts and perhaps debate the point, we have a senator come in here and criticise another senator for having read into Hansard things that Senator Rice thought were important. It is also shows a disregard for a fundamental element of this place, and that is the need for us to be able to debate things. It is frustrating for the government that they can't do their jobs properly—indeed, it is frustrating for all of us. But there is one small thing they need to do and we would be on our way, these bills would be passed, those jobs would be secure and we would be able move on to these other important pieces of legislation. As Senator Marielle Smith said, those bills have been sitting on the Notice Paper. Just on the issue of sitting on the Notice Paper and this high degree of urgency now attached to this legislation, as I understand this bill was introduced in the other place on 22 June, nearly half year ago now. It was debated there and was passed on 3 August, and we haven't seen it until this week. Three months have passed since it reached the Senate—three months—and here we are today: 'We've got to get it done. We've got to pass this, and we've got to do it our way, no ifs, no buts. We will sit here until we get our way.' Three months, four sitting weeks, and nothing was done by the government, but now they are all frustrated that the Australian Greens, Senator Pocock and others have questions about the bill, questions we are happy for them to ask. Indeed, we would be equally happy for the government to work with us on facilitating passage of this bill, but to date they have refused. The ball is in their court. Everything is on hold until the government decides to do something practical to facilitate passage of this bill. I might remind those listening that we wouldn't be here dealing with this legislation if it weren't for that disastrous piece of legislation, the safeguard mechanism, the bill that makes it impossible for business to occur here. And now we are trying to find ways to offset the punitive effect of that legislation, the way in which we are offshoring emissions, offshoring jobs, sending economic benefits from our country and to other jurisdictions where they don't care about the environment, they don't care about emissions, they don't care at all. That was the net effect of the safeguards mechanism legislation, and that is proven by the fact that the government now sees merit in supporting this legislation. Anyway, just to clarify for those listening in the wake of Senator Marielle Smith's contribution, which she was clearly asked by others to make, we are willing to move this bill on—be a bit more cooperative, and we might be dealing with counterterror laws. 12:39 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Well, Senator Marielle Smith is right on one count: the Greens definitely are not keen on the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. In fact, we think this is a terrible bill, and there is good reason that we think this is a terrible bill: this bill is a blatant attempt to facilitate more oil and gas development in our oceans. The major parties are bending over backwards to pass this legislation to facilitate the Barossa project and other fossil fuel projects off Australia's northern coastlines. We know that the Barossa project alone is expected to release 13 million tonnes of CO2 every year. That's around three per cent of Australia's annual carbon emissions. This is at a time when the globe is no longer heating; it is cooking. It is boiling, and this is what the Labor government is doing. This release of carbon dioxide will take place even with this greenwashing of the proposed carbon capture and storage. On 2 November, the Federal Court granted an emergency injunction on the Barossa Gas Project after a legal challenge by Tiwi Islands traditional owners, and I say: hats off to those traditional owners, who have been fighting this fight for a better climate and to stop their islands from getting annihilated by the climate crisis. This action means that Santos must immediately pause installation of its proposed 263-kilometre pipeline until at least 5 pm on 13 November, when that matter will return to court. This is not the first legal challenge Santos has faced in relation to the Barossa and the traditional owners. Last year, Santos lost an appeal against a landmark decision that overturned approval for its $4.7 billion Barossa offshore gas projects. And still the Labor government is not learning from that. We should not be supporting a gas project that is emitting such huge amounts of carbon and threatening the lives, the livelihoods and the homes of people in Pacific nations. The Prime Minister is there at the moment, and no amount of dancing by the Prime Minister is going to stop the climate crisis unless Australia stops opening up new coal and gas. Labor might want to make light of what the Greens on this side are saying or what Senator Rice just put on record, but for us this is a very grave matter. The climate crisis is an existential crisis, and no other bill will matter on a dead planet, to be really frank. We have said this before, and we will keep saying it until you listen. We are in a climate crisis and we are approaching a climate catastrophe. As I've said before, the climate isn't just warming anymore; the planet is cooking. We are in the era of global boiling, and people all around us are fearful. Young people in particular are so stressed about the future that they are looking into. We have extreme heat, fires, droughts, and floods. Today the temperature in Adelaide is predicted to be 40 degrees centigrade. We've missing chunks of sea ice bigger than Western Australia, and oceans continue to heat up. People are fearful and people are angry, and they have a right to be angry. They are angry at this government's arrogance and refusal to take urgent action in this climate urgency and emergency. We should be fighting the climate crisis with everything we've got, yet here we are with the Labor government fuelling the climate crisis. Not only that—their proposed solution of carbon capture and storage, which doesn't work and hasn't worked, is just trying to dupe people into believing that they are doing something. We know pumping carbon under the sea from gas rigs or storing it underground just doesn't stack up. Importing and exporting carbon dioxide for sub-seabed sequestration risks turning Australia's oceans and those of our near neighbours into the dumping grounds for the world's pollution. That's what this bill will do. We know that the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis examined 13 of the world's major carbon capture and storage—and carbon capture, utilisation and storage—projects, and what did they find? They found that more than half of them underperformed, including two that had completely failed. Supporters of carbon capture and storage often cite Chevron's Gorgon as an exemplar of a functioning facility, yet, in the 12 months to June 2022, the project injected only 1.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the underground reservoir and vented 3.4 million tonnes to the atmosphere. How is this working? It is absolute greenwashing, and it is ridiculous that the government is pushing for more carbon capture and storage even though everyone knows that it doesn't work. We know that the Barossa and other projects will make the climate crisis worse, yet we keep pushing for them. We know why the major parties keep pushing for that. It is because they are completely beholden to the donations of the fossil fuel companies. At the end of the day, when people ask me what is this about, why the Labor government isn't looking at the signs and taking urgent and real action to deal with the climate crisis, that's the only response they can come up with: the government's pockets are being filled by money from these fossil fuel companies. We know that all of this is going to make the climate crisis worse. Coal and gas are fuelling the extreme climate crisis, and Australia is one of the biggest exporters of fossil fuels and a major contributor to this crisis. While the climate boils, what do we do? We bring in these greenwashing bills that do absolutely nothing but make the climate crisis worse. So both Labor and the coalition are wilfully ignoring all the signs. All of what Senator Rice read from that book chapter is actually true, so, rather than making fun of it, rather than making light of it, maybe it's worth your while actually listening to the science for once and acting on what the science is telling you. The government should be taking tangible, meaningful steps to fight climate change by ending the expansion of new fossil fuel projects. You should withdraw this bill and actually take the real action that the community is demanding, that the scientists are demanding and that will actually make a difference to make this world safer. 12:47 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I might just recap the risks that we have determined on this legislation that we're essentially going be asking the Australian people to support by default here in the federal parliament. For a start, as I went through yesterday with the new UN report released yesterday, more than 80 per cent of carbon capture and storage projects around the world have failed. We risk greenlighting—gaslighting, perhaps—a new so-called solution to reducing emissions that we know just hasn't worked or hasn't been proven effective anywhere around the world. This, of course, is going to make a difference when companies are applying for new fossil fuel development. We know this legislation we are debating here today has already been nicknamed the 'Santos amendment'. I have heard it called the 'Barossa amendment' as well, but let's be honest: it's all about facilitating the Santos project. So the first risk is that this is a massive greenwashing opportunity for the fossil fuel industry. The second risk is the risk that we put on our oceans: the risk from reservoirs that leak, the risk from seismic activity causing earthquakes and consequent damage to marine ecosystems, and, of course, the risk from seismic testing. Based on what I've determined—and any senator can find this out for themselves—carbon capture and storage in the ocean is going to lead to a storm of seismic blasting in the decades to come. That is a highly dangerous and destructive activity that will risk our precious marine life and our commercial fisheries. As we discussed this morning, these relate directly to the Greens amendments, to the risk of this just being a giant scam for the fossil fuel industry in this country, who want to avoid their billions of dollars in liability to decommission their oil and gas fields. On that basis the government are looking to get support for a bill, and they expect the Greens to support this bill for an industry that is going to risk our planet by developing new massive fossil fuel carbon bombs which will continue to heat the planet. Senator McAllister has throughout her contributions talked in detail about the government's commitments to net zero by 2050. I highlight what I highlighted yesterday and the day before in the Code Blue report released by the Climate Council about our oceans and the impacts of climate change. I urge all senators to read this report and the detail in it. The last point in the report says: Urgent action is needed to protect our oceans and limit warming, starting with rapidly phasing out coal, oil and gas. Rapidly phasing out fossil fuels is critical to limit further ocean warming and acidification. To play our part in limiting warming as close to 1.5°C as possible, and avoiding catastrophic tipping points for our ocean— Here is the crunch: Australia must aim to reduce emissions by 75 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and reach net zero by 2035. So let's acknowledge that the climate targets this government has legislated are not going to do the job. Forty-three per cent emissions reduction is not good enough. It needs to be nearly double that amount, and net zero by 2050 is not even close to what is required. This is what the science is telling us. I note that the government have said in response to UNESCO's World Heritage committee on the Great Barrier Reef's monitoring report that they are going to do more. They accept that a 43 per cent target equates to two degrees of warming but they will do better than that. Well, how are we doing better than that when we are introducing legislation deliberately designed to facilitate a massive fossil fuel project? For those who may be listening to the debate, how do I know that that is the case? I have read several times this week the direct quotes of Mr Chris Bowen, our climate change minister, to the media specifically saying this is special legislation designed to facilitate the Barossa gas project. So we know that. It is beyond doubt. The Greens are standing in here to make sure that we do everything we can to support the millions of people who voted for climate action and to make sure the government understand they are not going to get away with sweeping this under the carpet. In her contribution earlier Senator Smith said Senator McAllister should get a T-shirt that says, 'I have answered that 15 times already.' I might suggest a slightly different T-shirt. That says, 'I did not answer the question 15 times.' I do accept that it is an art in this place. I can do better and my colleagues can do better at trying to ask the same question in 15 different ways to get an answer. We have had a bit of experience, Senator Hanson-Young and I, but we still sometimes struggle with getting an answer, and we have not got an answer on the specific point as to whether the comments made by Mr Bowen relate to this bill. We know they do, but it would be good to get the government to acknowledge that. While Mr Bowen negotiated in good faith with the Greens and we secured important amendments for the safeguard mechanism, this is clearly another negotiation he has undertaken to help companies get around their commitments and around paying that money upfront. I just want to finish where I started in this contribution—by saying that this is a risky bill. Why would we support it? I want to highlight who will benefit from this bill. Of course it's going to be oil and gas companies. Who else benefits from this except oil and gas companies? Let me give you a list of a couple of companies that will benefit from it and how they benefit the Australian people in the tax they pay. This has been compiled by the Australia Institute, and it's the fossil fuel companies that paid no tax in financial year 2021-22. ExxonMobil Australia, on a total income of $15.5 billion, paid zero tax. This is corporate tax I'm referring to, by the way, not petroleum resource rent tax. AGL Energy, on income of $15.461 billion, paid zero tax. Australia Pacific LNG Pty Ltd, on $9.3 billion in income, paid zero tax. Shell Energy Holdings Australia, on $8.9 billion of income, paid zero tax. Ichthys LNG Pty Ltd, on $7.2 billion of income, paid zero tax. Yancoal Australia Pty Ltd, on income of $5.7 billion, paid zero tax. EnergyAustralia Holdings Ltd, on $5.5 billion of income, paid zero tax. Santos—and remember that this is the 'Santos amendment' we are about to pass through the Senate—on $4.746 billion of income paid zero tax to the Australian people. INPEX Holdings Australia Pty Ltd, on income of $4.4 billion, paid zero tax. They are one of the partners in the Darwin LNG complex and one of the companies that's been complaining to our government about this regulatory framework that they want to see changed so they can facilitate the Barossa project. I ask senators to consider. We don't have time for a debate here today about multinational tax cooperation. I know we've all worked on that over many years. But I ask you consider: why would we pass a bill that is risking climate action, our oceans and the communities and cultural values of our First Nations people—that is risking letting big oil and gas companies get out of even more liabilities that they need to pay to decommission their wells—for companies that pay no tax to the Australian people? I think it's a very fair question, and I really wonder what Australian people would think. Would they say, 'Why are you prioritising this bill when there are so many other things you should be doing?' I think it's a fair question. 12:57 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Whish-Wilson, thanks for this question, which you've asked on a number of occasions. I note too that the previous contributions from Senator Rice and Senator Faruqi did not conclude with questions. They just reiterated a range of matters that were canvassed in their second reading speeches. While I'm grateful for colleagues' perspectives on the broad suite of climate policies that the Australian government has in place, I am not certain that the contributions that are being made are any longer directly relevant to the bill before us. Senator Whish-Wilson, you've asked why this legislation requires the attention of the Senate at this time. I can only reiterate the position I put to you previously. I don't wish to comment negatively on this, but I will stop referring to the senator, because he's left the chamber. For the benefit of the chamber, I can indicate again the reasons that the government is bringing forward this bill. This is a bill that arises from amendments that were made to an international protocol to which we are a signatory. That protocol, in its general terms, seeks to protect the marine environment by establishing shared norms for how we treat that shared ocean resource. In 2009, an amendment was made to that protocol to make it clear how parties would handle the circumstances where a proponent sought to move carbon dioxide from one jurisdiction to another. In 2020, under the previous government, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommended that those amendments be ratified by Australia. The legislation to respond to that recommendation was initiated under the previous government and is being progressed now. A number of contributions have falsely asserted that the government's position is that this is unconnected to our climate change policies overall or that we seek to obscure the connection. Actually, the opposite is true. We have put in place a safeguard mechanism that puts in place binding obligations in relation to the emissions from large projects—those projects which exceed an annual threshold for emissions. We recognise that, amongst the many pathways that those businesses and projects may have to reduce their emissions, carbon capture and storage is potentially one. If that's the case, it makes sense that there ought to be the most robust set of arrangements possible to ensure that any such project meets stringent environmental standards. Those standards are in place for projects that take place in Australian waters, but, because of Australia's failure to date to ratify these amendments to the London protocol, they're not in place for any project that involves the transport and movement of carbon dioxide. It's for that reason that the bill is being brought forward. It is part of a broader suite of measures to ensure that we have appropriate regulatory arrangements in place for carbon capture and storage. Senator Whish-Wilson, at different times throughout the debate, has pointed to uncertainties about the success, or the potential success, of these projects in sequestering carbon dioxide in geological formations. I think the point to make is that proponents are responsible for ensuring they are successful and, if these projects don't work, the liabilities associated with the carbon remain with those projects. The government is asserting not that this is the best way forward for proponents to reduce their emissions but simply that, if this is a choice made by proponents, there should be a regulatory arrangement in place that facilitates it. This debate, as I've pointed out previously, has been going for some time. There are amendments before the chair. The contributions over the last hour, for the most part, have not gone to those amendments, and I think it's appropriate now the Senate have the opportunity to make its view known about the amendments. I move: That the question be now put. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that the question be put.      

The committee divided. [13:06]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

16 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 36 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Van, D. A. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:10 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I struggle to think of a bill that has been mismanaged to the extent that this one has. In 16½ years in the Senate, I struggle to think of another occasion when the government has mismanaged its legislative program and, in particular, mismanaged a bill to the extent that this government has mismanaged this bill and its legislative program this week. It has been a disastrous week for the government. To date, there have been two government bills passed in non-controversial legislation yesterday. Negotiated in advance, all parties agreed, no issue—they passed yesterday. Otherwise, not a single government bill has passed. Four bills from the crossbench have passed. Twice as many bills have passed the Senate thanks to the work of Senators Lambie and Pocock, crossbench senators working cooperatively—and let me underscore the word 'cooperatively'—with the coalition and other senators to get something done. The crossbench has shown it can get something done. The crossbench has shown it can work cooperatively. But the government has not, and that is the mess the government has put itself in. The coalition has been very clear. We support this bill. We've been clear on that for a long time. Senator Duniam, in particular, has articulated the good policy reasons why we support this bill, and I want to make that transparent to all. But this place operates on reasonableness and on give and take for the ability to get things done. It is for the government to manage the time in the Senate chamber appropriately. It is for the government, in managing that time, to engage cooperatively with other parties to get its agenda through, and the government has failed manifestly in engaging cooperatively with other parties because, right now, it's not engaging at all. I want to be very clear. There has been no approach from the government to have constructive discussions with the opposition about time management for this bill—not today nor yesterday. It is simply a 'take it or leave it' approach from the government: 'We want to guillotine the bill, and, because you agree with the bill, you should agree with our guillotine.' That's not how this place works, and it's not how this place has ever worked. I listened to Senator McAllister earlier say, 'Well, we shouldn't be engaged in horse trading.' Frankly, Senator McAllister, I'm surprised that you could manage to say that with a straight face or that any of your colleagues could. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 140651 Order, Senator Birmingham! I ask that you make your remarks through the chair. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I am surprised any government senator could say that with a straight face. I wouldn't say that because I know horse trading has long been an integral part of how things get done in this place. I know that, when you wanted to get the Greens to vote against Senator McKenzie 's Qatar inquiry, you agreed to vote for their Middle Arm inquiry, which you had voted against multiple times. That's horse trading. That's what you did to try to cooperate with the Greens. I know that, when you wanted to get Senator Pocock— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Birmingham, order! I draw your attention to the use of the word 'you'. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I'm using 'you' to refer to the government generally, Chair. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: You might refer to them as 'the government', to make that clear, thank you, Senator Birmingham. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I know that when the government wanted to get Senator Pocock's vote to defeat the extension of Senator McKenzie's Qatar inquiry, the government agreed to the reinstatement of the ACCC monitoring of domestic airlines in Australia. Guess what that is? That's horse trading. I know that, back when I sat in that chair and Senator Wong sat in this chair and I wanted the then opposition's support for passage of legislation that the Labor Party agreed with, Senator Wong would put proposals to me—for example, proposals such as the Senate select committee into wage theft, which Senator Sheldon chaired as an opposition senator. We agreed at the time because we were willing to work cooperatively. You might call it horse trading, but we agreed to work cooperatively to get things done in this place, because that is the type of give-and-take required to get things done in this chamber. The coalition is clear: we support this bill. Our requests in terms of working cooperatively with the government are modest—very modest. We've asked for support in relation to a solitary committee inquiry—only a references committee, not establishing a new committee. We are not actually seeking to do anything other than have a references committee inquiry supported by the government, not opposed by the government. The committee process in this place is set up such that non-government parties chair references committees so that they can look into matters that perhaps are sometimes uncomfortable for the government. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be explored or examined. It also doesn't mean that the government shouldn't go into those inquiries fully confident in its convictions and its capacity to be able to defend its position through such inquiries. The government should be willing and able to do that as well in relation to any inquiry into any government policies. So I wanted, this time, to make very clear that the coalition continues to stand ready to work cooperatively with the government. There is time for this bill to pass today, and we will engage cooperatively with the government if they show just an iota of give-and-take to the coalition and the opposition. This is not the only bill that could be passed today. The stalled Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, which has been the subject of consideration and debate already in this chamber, could equally be passed today. In fact, with a little bit of cooperation from the government, who knows what could possibly be done? But you've got to talk to us. You've got to cooperate with us. You've got to show a little give-and-take. Otherwise, it's going to be a long three sitting weeks ahead. 13:17 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks, Senator Birmingham, for setting out your test, which actually doesn't sound particularly flexible to me. Senator Birmingham H6X Tell us what you've got then, Jenny! Opposition senators interjecting— Senator McALLISTER 121628 Senator Birmingham, you've come into the chamber and risen to your feet and suggested that what's required is engagement and flexibility. I'm not sure that coming to a negotiation with a single option—'take it or leave it'—does in fact represent flexibility. But I do know that the government, of course, is always available to work with senators on arrangements. But it remains the case—and I made the point earlier this morning—that this is a bill for which, on Monday, Senator Duniam laid out the support from the opposition and the reasons why the bill deserves support. The question that you need to answer for the people who are watching this debate is: why would you side with the Greens political party repeatedly to vote against the progression of the bill? You've said that you support the bill. You've said that it is important to underwriting investment certainty for carbon capture and storage projects. It's probably time to really act on those beliefs, isn't it? It's difficult to say that you support regulatory certainty when you come into the chamber again and again and again and prevent the passage of the legislation. You actively vote against it. You know, because your stakeholders do talk to you, that there are a range of carbon capture and storage projects around the country that can't proceed without this legislation. Honourable senators interjecting— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 140651 Order, Senators! Constant interjections are highly disorderly. Senator McALLISTER 121628 We on this side believe in providing regulatory certainty for industry but also for the community. That's because we do think that, when projects of this kind are brought forward, they should be tested for their environmental impact, and it's important that industry knows what those tests will be but it's also important that those in the community who have an interest in this—for whom some of the Greens senators have sought to advocate in the course of the debate—have certainty too. That's what this framework provides, and it's the basis on which the government is bringing it forward. The actions of the people opposite, who have voted again and again this morning against opportunities to progress this legislation, are putting projects at risk and therefore putting Australian jobs at risk. There are a range of projects that may be formally regulated under this legislation—projects in Western Australia, Victoria and the Northern Territory. Some of these projects are backed by some of our closest trading partners, who want to invest in Australian CCS projects. Your actions over the course of this week have been to prevent the passage of legislation that would enable them. So, for all the talk about support for investment and support for jobs, there's not much actually happening in that regard, is there? You are failing that test—a test that you set for yourselves. Senators, it is my view that this bill should progress today, and, Chair, I'm going to give the opposition another opportunity to have this bill progress. I move: That the question be now put. Senator Birmingham H6X Chair, a point of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes, Senator Birmingham. Senator H6X I think this is the third occasion today— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Birmingham, what is your point of order? What is the standing order to which you refer? Senator Birmingham H6X My point of order is that I believe the Senate has made its will on this matter clear already through multiple divisions— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you. Can you resume your seat and I'll take advice, thank you, Senator Birmingham. Following advice from the clerk, it is clear that it is within the standing orders that the question can once again be put. I will follow that advice in accordance with standing orders. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that the question be put.    

The committee divided. [13:26]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 16 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 36 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Pocock, B. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 34 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS King Island Dairy 34 13:30 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Today I want to talk about a matter that's occurred on King Island in the last week, where King Island Dairy has been put under review or its existence as a holding within Saputo has been put under review by that multinational organisation. The King Island brand is probably one of the most recognised brands in the country. The concern that I want to express is the impact on that brand that's occurred through ownership of businesses like King Island Dairy by multinational owners who have not appropriately or properly managed that brand. It's my view that the previous owner of King Island Dairy, National Foods, neglected the brand and saw the brand diminish in value and prominence, although we all understand and know of the fabulous King Island cheeses that come off King Island. It's a magnificent place for agriculture. It's a magnificent place to grow beef and dairy. The trophy cabinet at King Island Dairy is probably one of the best filled trophy cabinets in Australia in relation to the production of cheeses. It would be a great tragedy for us to lose King Island Dairy and that brand, so I would urge Saputo to seriously consider investing into the brand, which I know will deliver value back to the organisation but also continue to provide important employment and value to King Island and to Tasmania. This is an important brand. It deserves continued investment. It deserves to be supported. Mon Repos Turtle Centre, Stutchbury, Mrs Judith, Reef Guardian Schools 34 13:32 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland When a baby turtle hatches from its egg on a beach in Queensland, as amazing and beautiful as it is, its future is pretty bleak. Only one in about 1,000 hatchlings will make it to maturity. The odds are not stacked in their favour, which is why the work the great team at Mon Repos Turtle Centre, on the Bundaberg coast of Queensland, is so critical. I was fortunate to visit recently to announce, in partnership with the Queensland government, a joint investment of $2.8 million for the continuation of the successful Nest to Ocean Turtle Protection Program. There's no greater champion for these little baby turtles than Mrs Judith Stutchbury, a teacher at Kalkie State School, just a few kilometres down the road from Mon Repos. I had the honour of meeting Mrs Stutchbury when she was awarded the Prime Minister's Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching in Primary Schools recently. Mrs Stutchbury is a Reef Guardian Schools teacher who educates her students about the importance of marine conservation and how their actions will make a difference. Her many initiatives include a Science Together convention for National Science Week, which brings 400 teachers and community members together. She's also the author of Hatch Saves the Reef, a book which encourages students to learn about marine turtles and the impact of climate change. The year 2023 is significant for Reef Guardian Schools as it celebrates 20 years of providing teaching and learning opportunities that raise awareness, understanding and appreciation for the reef and its connected ecosystems. To the 235 Reef Guardian Schools across the country and to their wonderful teachers, including Mrs Stutchbury: congratulations and thank you for inspiring the next generation of reef champions and turtle protectors. Maugean Skate 35 13:34 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Macquarie Harbour on the west coast of Tasmania is the last place on earth you will find the ancient Maugean skate. It is believed that only a thousand skate still exist. Science has clearly shown that Atlantic salmon farming is contributing to poor dissolved oxygen levels in the harbour, which is pushing the skate to extinction. But the toxic industrial salmon farming industry is on the warpath, and it's determined to let nothing, not even the extinction of a wild and endangered marine species, get in the way of its corporate profiteering. This week we discovered that the Tasmanian government shamefully backs it in. It's no surprise to those Tasmanians that have always seen the Liberal Party and Tasmanian governments back in big business and big industry at the expense of the environment. I say this to the Senate: together the Tasmanian government and the salmon industry will be on the wrong side of history. Atlantic salmon farming regulation in Macquarie Harbour has been a mess for decades—a mess entirely of the making of the regulator in Tasmania and the salmon industry. Successive federal environment ministers have watched on as salmon industry regulators and the Tasmanian government have failed spectacularly to protect and prioritise the environment and this endangered skate. The science is abundantly clear: to fix the problem, industrial Atlantic salmon farms must be removed from Macquarie Harbour, not the native species from its wild home. These fish are introduced, invasive species. Faced with the grim prospect of failing to uphold its own zero-extinctions pledge, the federal government appears to be acting on this. I urge the federal environment minister to continue to take this issue seriously and to listen to the science and not be bullied by the Tasmanian salmon industry. COVID-19: Response 35 13:36 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia This week the Albanese Labor government made a pathetic attempt to try and continue the cover-up decision in relation to the limited scope of their COVID-19 inquiry, but, despite the desperate weasel words that we heard from the Prime Minister, the terms of reference still explicitly exclude decisions of state and territory governments from being investigated or considered. Panel members remain unable to look at the decisions made by the states and territories about things such as lockdowns and border closures. It's clear that the Prime Minister's approach to this issue has been so disingenuous and chaotic that it's even caused confusion amongst his own party members. This week, the health minister, Mark Butler, in what seemed like a rather contemptuous attempt to rewrite history, made the statement incorrectly that the terms of reference explicitly include the examination of health response measures, including lockdowns, social distancing requirements, school closures, border closures and the like. This is blatantly incorrect. These decisions are explicitly excluded. The minister even went on to state, 'It would be extraordinary for an inquiry not to examine the operation of these measures.' Well, it would be extraordinary for the inquiry not to consider these measures, but that is exactly what this inquiry continues to do. His government has made a decision to specifically exclude measures such as lockdowns and border closures. It is completely and utterly outrageous. If the Prime Minister wants to prove that he's serious about having an appropriate and thorough investigation into COVID-19, then he must immediately remove the exemption from his terms of reference. He must immediately acknowledge that the actions of the states and territories had a significant impact on our response to COVID. If the Prime Minister doesn't do this, Australians can only conclude that he is running a protection racket for his mates, the state and territory premiers. Remembrance Day 35 13:38 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Tomorrow, across the country and in Commonwealth member states across the world, Remembrance Day services will be held to acknowledge the memory of those brave service men and women who have died in the line of duty to their country and in service of the freedoms enabled by the democratic practices and beliefs that we share. I will be attending the service at the Australian War Memorial here in Canberra. Across regional New South Wales, in each of my six duty electorates, respected members of the community will be laying wreaths on my behalf, in towns from Albury to Coonabarabran and Broken Hill. I'm mindful that, particularly in current times, when war and the threat of conflict are uppermost in our minds and newsfeeds, Australians are experiencing direct loss of family and friends in war. This day is of particular significance for all of us this year. In this moment of collective remembrance of lives lost and the cost of war, we must reflect on the lessons of history. We, of course, cherish the values of courage, sacrifice and resilience, which have been demonstrated by so many, often in the midst of history's worst conflicts. But better these qualities shine for decades in peace than reveal themselves on battlefields with so many millions of lives cut short. It's a day when we transcend borders and ideologies, acknowledging the shared responsibility to preserve the hard-earned peace that our predecessors fought for and gave their lives for. As we bow our heads and observe our moment of silence, let us remember the legacy of those who gave their lives in the pursuit of peace and for a brighter, safer world for those who would come after them. Tomorrow we will gather not only to honour the memory of the fallen but as a collective representation of the enduring and shared hope for a future where conflicts are replaced by understanding, where hatred is replaced by compassion, and where darkness is replaced by the inherent and unwavering light of humanity. Labor Government 36 13:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Data from the OECD shows that Australia has suffered the largest reduction of real household income amongst all developed nations. The Albanese Labor government has presided over a 5.1 per cent reduction in per capita household income. Not only did this Labor government reduce household incomes by 5.1 per cent; two-thirds of developed nations actually grew their per capita income in the same period. Spain wins the gold medal for economic management, with a six per cent increase in income. Meanwhile, in Labor's 'socialist republic of Australia', the real wages of everyday Australians have gone backwards to the same level as they were in 2009. Labor governments somehow sell themselves to the electorate as being the party of the worker. Not anymore. Labor is selling out Australian workers with your net zero climate change scam, driving power bills up and driving employment opportunities down. Labor is selling out workers by allowing 2.3 million visa holders into the country, many of whom will cost Australia more than they will ever contribute, while driving down real wages. Labor is selling out the workers with your digital-prison legislation which is currently before the Senate. This will ensure that workers who want to keep a bank account—how novel—won't be able to complain about having no job, no home and no future. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is jetting around the world, enjoying the largesse of nations to which we've surrendered economic advantage. It's the Anthony Albanese world tour of shame, complete with an appropriate and highly patronising canine reference from China that I will not repeat. Everyday Australians are going backwards while corporate profits are at a record high. This is not the government of the workers. The Prime Minister's billionaire mates are running a government of wealth and advantage for parasitic billionaires who feed off taxpayer subsidies. The workers party is now One Nation. We have one flag; we are one country; we are One Nation. Tasmania: Tourism Industry, Working Holiday Maker Program 36 13:42 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Tasmania has many picturesque landmarks, but there's one that has become the envy of the world: Cradle Mountain. Many in this place would have been among the 280,000 visitors who travel to the mountain each year. If you've not, I'm sure you've at least seen photographs or postcards of Cradle. You might have seen Dove Lake, with its iconic historic boatshed in the foreground, or the brilliant red-orange leaves of the Tasmanian deciduous tree, fagus, which draws hundreds of pilgrims every year to witness the leaves change with the seasons. Or maybe you've seen the mountain itself, with its distinctive cradle-shaped peak. Cradle Mountain is also a favourite destination of the much-loved Australian celebrity family the Irwins. Robert Irwin recently shared his love of Cradle Mountain with his millions of social media followers. To get into Cradle Mountain there's only one road in and one road out. To access many of the world-class bushwalks or the newly constructed viewing shelter at Dove Lake, you must get there via a shuttle bus. Due to the access and location of Cradle Mountain, you would assume that it would be considered remote when considering any services. I can tell you, that's not always the case. Under the provisions of the 417 working holiday visa, Cradle Mountain is not listed as one of the Tasmanian locations approved for hospitality and tourism work. For the Department of Home Affairs, Cradle Mountain is not remote enough. This has disadvantaged many of the tourism and hospitality businesses that operate in the area to provide services and experiences to the hundreds of thousands of people who flock from Australia and around the globe. Unable to find workers, particularly during peak seasons, these businesses rely on migrants and working visa holders to fill positions, due to the remoteness. To not allow businesses in the area access to these visa holders denies them a workforce who are ready, willing and able to work. I believe this situation is overdue for revision and urge the minister to consider adding Cradle Mountain's postcode to the approved postcodes for the 417 visa. Victoria: First Nations Australians 37 13:44 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Victoria is home to a number of phenomenal Aboriginal leaders, and I had a pleasure with meeting a few of them recently. The discussion involved representatives from Aboriginal Housing Victoria, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service and the Aboriginal Advancement League. The impressive group of women across various sectors highlighted a number of issues, but because of time I'll highlight just a few. First is the disparity in award rates between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal organisations. Wage levels in most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services are notoriously low compared to other providers. This pattern appears across legal, health and aged-care services and leads to high staff turnover and loss of experience and expertise, and we all know how important corporate knowledge is in organisations. These services should not be seen as a training ground for graduates who quickly leave after becoming attractive as experienced professionals to employers who can provide better wages. Second is the importance of properly valuing and funding cultural training in addition to service delivery. Government's funding practices need to prioritise IP being dispersed by Aboriginal organisations in training their staff to adequately service First Nations clients and fund it accordingly. Finally, they noted the complex and intersectional nature of issues faced by some of the mob who need Aboriginal services. An example that was raised in the discussion was a single mum with a child that's experiencing a disability who cannot prioritise her own social and emotional wellbeing. The government's approach to addressing such needs has evolved considerably, but we need to continue thinking of innovative ways to address such issues going into the future. I want to thank each of these organisations for spending some invaluable time with me, Minister Gallagher and the assistant minister Kearney. Thank you very much. Juvenile Detention 37 13:46 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Last week the ACT, with a Greens Attorney-General, committed to raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14, by 2025. Greens in state parliaments right around the country have been pushing for this change, as have many organisations. I want to honour the legacy of the work of human rights lawyer Sophie Trevitt, who made it her life's work, before it was cut short, to try to keep First Nations kids out of prison. Right now, in my home state of Queensland, politicians are sending primary school age children to be locked away in prison. Queensland Greens MP Michael Berkman introduced a bill to state parliament to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years old. Despite over 300 supportive submissions, LNP and Labor committee members recommended that the bill not be passed. To add insult to injury, and despite the efforts of our Greens MPs to stop this, a few months ago we then saw the Queensland government suspend the Human Rights Act so that children could be held in adult police watch houses—children as young as 10 in adult police watch houses. One purpose of the Queensland Human Rights Act is to protect children from harm, and, leaving aside the blatant disregard for democracy and human rights, even children's prisons have repeatedly been shown to be unsafe for young people, to increase their likelihood of reoffending and to impose torture-like conditions. First Nations children are especially targeted and grossly overrepresented in children's prisons. Closing child prisons is a key measure towards closing the gap. The federal government should use its power to incentivise all jurisdictions to follow the lead of the ACT Labor-Greens government and raise the age of criminal responsibility, because kids don't belong in prison. Australian Society: Women 37 13:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I want to use my time today to talk about a subject rarely mentioned in this place and yet more important to the future of this great nation than almost any other topic that you might care to name. There is no role as vital as motherhood, and yet I would argue that it is not just a role; it is a calling, the highest calling in our land. How do I know that? Because I saw what my mum did for me, how much she sacrificed. Like with most children, it's only as I've grown older that I've understood the fullness of what she did. Unfortunately, our culture has decided to rank raising children low on the scale of importance, below travelling the world, below going out with friends and certainly below pursuing a career. Now, my mum is a highly intelligent, highly capable women who could have put her time and effort into any number of things, but she chose to put her time and effort into me and my brother. My life was vastly improved not by the state but by my mum. Government can't love you, a policy cannot comfort you, but a good mum can make the world of difference. To all mums in our country, not least of all a very special mum who is hopefully watching at home, thank you. We honour you, we see you and, most importantly, we need more of you. We need to lift up motherhood. It is the most important, most crucial and, unfortunately, one of the least appreciated roles that we have in our society. Without a strong family unit, we will lose Australia—make no mistake—so here's to the mums out there, the forgotten heroes of our nation. To the dads, don't worry, I have something planned for you next week. Israel 38 13:50 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I rise to speak with a heavy heart and soul and as a representative who sits in our great democratic parliament of Australia and mother whose heart is torn to read the accounts of the barbaric attacks by Hamas on innocent families, homes and a music festival on 7 October. I quote the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, giving testimony on Hamas's atrocities: A young boy and girl, 6 and 8 years old, and their parents around the breakfast table. The father's eye gouged out in front of his kids. The mother's breast cut off, the girl's foot amputated, the boy's fingers cut off before they were executed. And then their executioners sat down and had a meal. That is what this society is dealing with. The Australian reported just today on a soldier who in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attack found two babies alive in a cupboard where their parents hid them before being killed. The same soldier found a dead baby in a bin and two 13-year-old girls who had been raped and shot. Thoughts now lie with the fate of the 200 people taken as hostages—the elderly, new mothers and children as young as three. I struggled with the decision to repeat these horrors, but if we do not publicly confront the truth about 7 October, we do the dead no justice and we do not distinguish ourselves from those who excuse and even celebrate murder. These were not the actions of war. These were the actions of Hamas terrorists whose stated aim is to wipe out the Jewish population. Israel is fighting back and going to great lengths to prevent harming Gazan non-combatants. Of the one million people who lived in North Gaza, 800,000 have evacuated after warnings of impending ground attack. I asked to speak today in the belief that we all have an obligation to condemn atrocities because history has shown us with the Holocaust, the ongoing persecution of Afghan refugees in Pakistan and the inhumane treatment of Uighurs in China that, when people are silent, the innocent suffer. The actions of Hamas are evil. Tasmania: Infrastructure 38 13:52 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania With another rate rise this week the federal government is under fire to find ways to reduce inflation. Their big solution is to take money out of the economy by pulling back on infrastructure projects. The government say they are going to have to make tough decisions about which projects face the chopping block, that nothing is off the table. When it comes to infrastructure spending in Tassie, I have an easy solution for the government: get rid of the $250 million earmarked for Macquarie Point Stadium. Let's put this in perspective: if the federal government pulled their $240 million, the state government wouldn't have enough money to complete the project and the stadium wouldn't happen because the $375 million the state government was going to spend would have to be pulled too. Add to that the $15 million from the AFL and inevitable blowout costs, and this would mean that infrastructure spending in Tasmania would be reduced by close to $1 billion. In a $2 trillion economy, $1 billion might not be that much, but it's not nothing either. Believe me, you would notice an extra billion in your bank account. We are in no position to ask the rest of the country to tighten its belt if we are refusing to do so ourselves. Tasmania has to do its part. If we need to reduce spending, which we do, we certainly can't afford to spend money on projects that we don't need. The federal government and Tasmanian Liberals insist on stubbornly pursuing a stadium that will probably never see the light of day. All that's doing is putting further pressure on the economy and punishing Tasmanians. When people are struggling to put groceries on the table and can't afford petrol to get to work, it is obvious we should be doing everything we can to get inflation down. So if we are cutting infrastructure projects to bring down inflation, I've got an idea that Tasmanians would be happy with: the Macquarie Point Stadium funding has to go. Occupied Palestinian Territories: Casualties 38 13:54 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Yesterday, the Labor government and the opposition opposed the Greens' call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Both said, 'This is a very grave and serious situation,' yet your actions completely belie your words. Labor wants a pause. What is a four-hour pause in bombing going to achieve? Hopefully it can feed some starving children or it can give water to some dehydrated pregnant women—and then what? Then you start bombing and massacring those women and children again? You have lost all humanity, but I will not let you forget the humans that are being massacred in Gaza right now:   The list of names was unavailable at the time of publishing.   (Time expired) Immigration Detention 39 13:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I wish to add to my answer in question time yesterday relating to the High Court's decision relating to the Migration Act. This is a significant decision overturning a 20-year-old precedent. Our first priority as a government will always be the protection of Australians. I can confirm that the government complied with the High Court's order and released the individual who brought the case in the High Court, but that release was subject to strict conditions. Complying with orders of the High Court is not optional. Governments are required to act in accordance with the law, and that is what we will do. We are working through the implications of the High Court's order more broadly. As I informed the Senate yesterday, the full scope of the impact will not be apparent until we receive the High Court's written reasons and until we receive further legal advice on the basis of those reasons. I am advised that there are 92 individuals in addition to the plaintiff who are likely to be impacted by the decision. There may be additional individuals affected by the High Court's decision. We are now working through each case to determine the impact of the order. However, as I noted yesterday, this process will be informed by advice, and we will need to wait for the written decision from the High Court to determine the full impact of the decision. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Minister Giles, today issued a statement advising that other individuals impacted by this decision will be released and that any visas granted to those individuals will be subject to appropriate conditions. The government will be working closely with states and territories to ensure that community safety remains paramount following the release of any individuals whose cases are affected by this decision. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, are you seeking the call? Senator Dean Smith 241710 President, I am hoping you might take on notice for your consideration the appropriateness of ministers making what could be construed as ministerial statements during the period of two-minute statements. I notice that Senator Watt made some comments in regard to yesterday's High Court decision, which are serious and have important implications, and I understand that yesterday he also made some comments in regard to the Optus outage. Perhaps, President, you could take it on notice for your consideration. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Smith. I'll hear from Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU We're very happy to have a discussion with the opposition and the chamber about ministers adding to their answers. I do recall a minister coming in at nine o'clock at night during an adjournment debate to correct the record. I would have thought that the transparency of making a statement immediately prior to question time was a good thing. I also make the point that there were some complaints made by Senator Paterson about Senator Watt in relation to the dates on which the High Court decision reasons were to come down. I have to say, he might be somewhat exaggerating, if you look at what Senator Paterson said. But Senator Watt has added to his answer to make clear the position of the government in relation to the High Court decision—something that any government is bound by. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Dean Smith, are you rising on the same matter? Senator Dean Smith 241710 I am. The PRESIDENT 112096 It is a bit of an indulgence, but please continue. Senator Dean Smith 241710 Thank you, President. I'm sure you'll understand the precision with which I asked you to look at the matter. It was about the suitability of two-minute statements, between 1.30 and 2 pm every day, for ministers making contributions about ministerial matters. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, I'm not sure if you recall, but the Procedure Committee made a decision to insert two-minute statements—the speakers lists for which, from all accounts, are always full every day—into the routine of business. So that's been eagerly received by all senators in this chamber. The Procedure Committee didn't put any rules around what could or couldn't be said, in the same way that we wouldn't seek to curtail debate in this place unless it was a breach of the standing orders. Senator Dean Smith 241710 You would appreciate, of course, though, that, when statements are made at the time for ministerial statements, there is an opportunity for other senators to take note of those statements, which is denied to other senators during the two-minute statement period. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Smith. We're getting into argument now. Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU I have a lot of respect for Senator Smith. I didn't demur when he made the intervention, but he's now coming back for a third go. Can we go to question time, please? The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes. I've given my views, and I've ruled on that. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 40 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Immigration Detention 40 14:01 Senator 144138 Victoria PATERSON () (): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. Senator Watt, I listened very carefully to your two-minute statement just before question time, and it is not clear to me, from what you said and what the minister for immigration has said today, whether or not the government will be releasing any of the other 92 people affected by this decision before or after the High Court has handed down the reasons for its decision. Which is it? Is it what you told the Senate yesterday, which is that no-one else will be released until the High Court has handed down its decision, or is it what the minister for immigration said today, which is that the government will now begin the process of releasing those other 92 people? 14:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Paterson, for giving me the opportunity to correct the misrepresentation of my remarks yesterday in question time that you've engaged in. I was very clear, and I invite anyone to have a look at the Hansard of yesterday's question time to see what I actually said on this matter rather than at how Senator Paterson has chosen to twist my words in the media today. I refer Senator Paterson to the statement that I made just prior to question time so that everyone was in a position to understand the latest developments on this significant decision. It is obviously a significant decision, and, as I said in my two-minute statement, all Australian governments are bound by decisions of the High Court. The decision was only handed down a couple of days ago, and we have been acting quickly to interpret that decision, bearing in mind that reasons for the decision have not yet been provided by the High Court. But I refer in broader answer to Senator Paterson's question. He seems to be aware that Minister Giles issued a statement early this morning providing a further update on this matter, and I'll read it to the chamber: The Government notes the High Court ruling on November 8 in NZYQ v. Minister for Immigration … We are considering the implications of the judgment carefully and will continue to work with authorities to ensure community safety is upheld. The plaintiff has been released—as ordered by the High Court. Other impacted individuals will be released and any visas granted to those individuals will be subject to appropriate conditions. And that is what is occurring. Any further statements or any further announcements about releases will obviously be made in due course. But the fundamental point here is that we are already complying with the High Court's decision in relation to the plaintiff. The minister has made clear his intentions regarding other individuals who may be affected by the decision, and, as I say, other announcements will be made in due course. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, a first supplementary? 14:04 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Yesterday in the Senate, you said, in response to a question from Senator McKim: We're not a government that acts on decisions that haven't had reasons released. So which is it? Will any of these people be released prior to the High Court handing down its decision, or, consistent with what you said yesterday, will they be released only after the High Court has handed down the reasons for its decision? 14:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Paterson can choose to twist my words in whatever way he wants to make a political statement. That's entirely his right. It is politics, and, if Senator Paterson wishes to play politics with this important matter, that's a matter for him. I repeat the statement from the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs this morning that the plaintiff has now been released, and, as I said in my two-minute statement, he has released subject to very strict conditions. He has been put on a bridging visa with strict conditions. Those conditions include the requirement— Senator Paterson 144138 I raise a point of order on direct relevance: I did not ask about the plaintiff. I asked about the other 92 people and when they will be released. Will it be now or after the High Court hands down its reasons? The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant, Senator Paterson. I'll continue to listen carefully. Senator WATT 245759 I refer to my previous answer, which referred to the minister's statement this morning, which said: The plaintiff has been released—as ordered by the High Court. Other impacted individuals will be released and any visas granted to those individuals will be subject to appropriate conditions. The conditions that have been applied to the plaintiff, following his release, include the requirement to report to the Department of Home Affairs, the requirement to notify the minister of changes to his address or personal details, restrictions on industries of employment and a range of other strict conditions. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, a second supplementary? 14:06 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Minister, some of the people who will now be released have been convicted of serious violent and sexual offences. How many of them have been assessed by a court to be of a moderate or high risk of reoffending? 14:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, all of these matters are being worked through by the minister as we speak and have been ever since the High Court handed down its decision. We have made it very clear from the moment this decision was handed down that this government regards community safety as paramount in all cases and especially in relation to the cases that we're talking about here. We are considering the implications of the High Court judgement carefully, and we will continue to work with authorities to ensure that community safety is upheld. The government will use all available powers to keep the community safe and will consider all legislative options. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson? Senator Paterson 144138 I have a point of order on direct relevance. The minister did not even come near my question, which was: how many have been assessed by the courts to be of a moderate or high risk of reoffending? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU I think he's finished answering. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Paterson. The minister has finished his contribution. Medicare 41 14:07 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Albanese Labor government made a commitment to the Australian people at the last election that it would strengthen Medicare and address the problems left behind by the nine years of reckless mismanagement and neglect under the Liberals and Nationals. Can the minister please provide an update on how the Albanese Labor government is strengthen Medicare and helping Australians get access to medical care when they need it? 14:08 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Stewart, who is committed—like all on this side—to a strong Medicare system and to bulk-billing. That's quite different, of course, to those who we face opposite. It is this side of the chamber that is delivering historic investments in Medicare and health: the largest investment in bulk-billing in the history of Medicare, which came into effect last week; the rollout of urgent care clinics, which are a bulk-billed walk-in service seven days a week for extended hours; making medicines cheaper by cutting the cost of PBS medicines for all Australians; and supporting medical staff. We know from history, from form and from values that it is only Labor which can be trusted to protect Medicare. What we know about those opposite is this: a shameful legacy of cuts and a shameful legacy of mismanagement in Australia's health system. They deliberately ran down Medicare and general practice. Mr Dutton, in his first budget as health minister, tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether and make every single Australian pay the GP tax every time they visited a doctor. When we blocked that infamous GP tax in this chamber, Mr Dutton started a six-year freeze to Medicare rebates. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU It's unsurprising they want to interject. There was a six-year freeze to Medicare rebates. Remember, any time they come in here and complain about health care, their shameful record of ripping billions out of general practice and making it harder and more expensive to see a doctor. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 14:10 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I thank the minister for that response and for outlining the appalling work of those opposite and the exceptional work that the Albanese Labor government has done to strengthen Medicare. I have seen a number of urgent care clinics open in recent weeks. Can the senator please provide an update on urgent care clinics? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Stewart. We know that when we came to government it had never been harder or more expensive to see a GP. We know that bulk-billing was in sharp decline after a six-year freeze to Medicare rebates and nine years of cuts and neglect. So, in addition to the $6.1 billion to strengthen Medicare and make it easier to see a doctor, we of course are also ensuring more broadly that the system is improved. We have seen the Albanese government's Medicare urgent care clinics opening around the country, making it easier for Australians to see a doctor. Just recently we had a second urgent care clinic open in Marion in my home state of South Australia, in Adelaide. Senator Birmingham and Senator Ruston, you should go down and have a look. It'll help patients get help faster and ease pressure on the nearby Flinders Medical Centre, where about 30 per cent of presentations are for non-urgent or semi-urgent care. As Stephen Duckett said, 'The legacy left by Liberal health ministers'—I'll have to come back to this quote. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart? 14:11 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I note the minister mentioned changes to bulk-billing which came into effect last week and will improve the lives of five million children and their families and of seven million pensioners and other concession card holders. Can the minister please outline what impact these changes will have and why this boost to bulk-billing was so desperately needed? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The reason it was so needed is that, as Dr Duckett told us: The legacy left by Liberal health ministers Dutton, Ley, and Hunt is a Medicare scheme sorely in need of repair, because of the slow erosion of the value of rebates, and the failure to respond in any meaningful way to changed circumstances … Our record investment means it's easier for 11 million Australians, including kids, pensioners and other concession card holders, to see a doctor—the largest investment in bulk-billing in the 40 years of Medicare history. Senator Ruston 243273 Not true. Senator WONG 00AOU No amount of you saying it's not true makes it so, Senator Ruston. You see, we invest in Medicare and you don't, because we believe in Medicare and you don't. It's as simple as that. Senator WONG 00AOU The College of General Practitioners says this is 'a game changer'. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston, I am going to ask you to withdraw those marks. I'm not going to repeat them. Senator Ruston 243273 I withdraw my remarks. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Ruston. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU This is 'a game changer', to use the words of the College of General Practitioners. It stands in stark contrast to Mr Dutton and his failed record and GP tax. (Time expired) Renewable Energy 42 14:13 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt. I refer to the National Farmers Federation's unprecedented Keep Farmers Farming campaign against the Labor government's antifarming policies, including the impact of Labor's renewable energy policy on productive farmland and farmers' rights. How many hectares of productive agricultural land will be impacted through the construction of 28,000 kilometres of additional poles and wires under Labor's policy? 14:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Cadell. I am familiar with the National Farmers Federation campaign Keep Farmers Farming, and I had quite a bit to say about campaign a couple of weeks ago. I'd be very happy to share my speech with you, and I suspect you would probably agree with a fair bit of what I had to say in that speech, because you're a sensible man, unlike your colleagues. Credit where credit's due, Senator Cadell. You shine a light that the rest of the National Party could follow. I promise to address your question, but what I will say also is that in the speech I gave at the National Farmers Federation conference I made the point that of course every peak lobby group will always find points of disagreement with the government of the day. We certainly remember that Mr Littleproud, the now Nationals leader, used to call the National Farmers Federation 'ignorant'. And what was the other one—'sideline critics'. So there's a history of governments not getting along with the NFF at all times. But this government has delivered on so much of what the NFF has asked for. There's sustainable biosecurity funding. Senator Farrell, you might know a little bit about the restoration of trade with China, which has delivered $6 billion in agriculture exports to China—just as the NFF called for and every farm in Australia was calling for. And that's not to mention the other markets we have opened as well. But, Senator Cadell, you raised a serious issue: the competition for land and, indeed, sea, that we see between different users—agriculture, fisheries industries and renewable energy. Our government, unlike the former government, is taking these issues seriously and is trying to build a framework that allows for the coexistence of these industries going forward. We know—and, Senator Cadell, you've highlighted—examples where particular energy companies haven't done the right thing when it comes to consultation with landholders. That's exactly why we have a review of consultation process underway at the moment. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cadell, a first supplementary. 14:16 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales The Minister for Climate Change and Energy stated in September last year that Australia will need to install 22,000 solar panels every day and 40 wind turbines every month by 2030 to reach the 22 per cent renewable target. How many hectares of productive agricultural land will be impacted by constructing those solar panels and wind turbines? 14:16 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Cadell. I don't think you would expect me to have that level of detail to hand, but we know— Senator Canavan 245212 There's no modelling! Senator WATT 245759 Are you okay there? You're going to blow a foo-foo valve, Senator Canavan! We could get you a new foo foo valve with renewable energy! A renewable foo foo valve, maybe— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Watt, direct your comments to the chair. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Canavan! Minister, please continue and direct your answer to the chair. Senator WATT 245759 Thank you, President. We certainly acknowledge that renewable energy infrastructure will impact on a significant amount of land within Australia, and that is to generate the kind of clean, cheaper energy that our country needs—including our farmers. What I would say also is that I can introduce those opposite to plenty of farmers around Australia who have actually developed new income streams as a result of hosting renewable energy on their farmland. That's helping them to diversify their income streams so that they're protected in times of drought and at other times when markets fall. So this isn't an all-one-way equation. We know that we have to have good consultation practices, but we want farmers to be able to make money. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cadell, a second supplementary. 14:17 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Minister, do you support the National Farmers Federation's call for a mandatory code of conduct for transmission projects? 14:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Cadell. Of course, all of these matters are exactly what Mr Andrew Dyer, the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, is currently consulting about. I have encouraged Senator Colbeck, and I think I might have mentioned it to you as well, Senator Cadell, to take up the opportunity to meet with Mr Dyer. We know that we're having an argument about having a Senate inquiry— Senator Cadell 300134 We have. Senator WATT 245759 That's fantastic that you've taken up that opportunity which we suggested you do. That's the way to resolve exactly these issues going forward. I will point out that there are members of the opposition who have supported the building of new infrastructure as well. Back in March 2022, when he was then a minister, Mr Angus Taylor said that the development of interconnectors and transmission was critical to bringing new generation capacity into the energy system. I wonder where he thought that was going to be built? Was it going to be built in the sky or somewhere like that? And of course Mr Taylor said that it had to shore up reliability and affordability across state borders. These are important issues to get right. We want to do them in consultation with the sector and I'd be pleased to work with you on that. Climate Change 44 14:18 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to Minister Wong. Minister, the Pacific nations are on the front line of the climate crisis, and they will be overwhelmed by the resulting storms, floods and rapid collapse of access to food and water. Hundreds of thousands of Pacific people will be displaced by climate disasters, or they will die. And the Labor government has refused to stop the extraction and expansion of fossil fuels. Leaders, former leaders and people across the Pacific have made it clear that Labor needs to stop pushing for more coal and gas, and yet the Prime Minister has fronted up to the Pacific Islands Forum with more coal and gas. No amount of money to the Pacific will repair the damage of the Australian Labor government's climate bombs like Beetaloo, Pilliga-Narrabri and the Burrup hub. Will the government commit to no more coal and gas projects? Senator Ayres 16913 If you're worried about it then you should stop voting with them! Senator Canavan 245212 I'll do anything for you, mate! The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I'm going to ask Senator Ayres and Senator Canavan to stop their interjections across this chamber. It is Senator Faruqi's question, and she has the right— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres! Senator Canavan 245212 You're a clown. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan! I've called both of you to order. That is what I expect. 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Faruqi, what I would say to you is that in the time since we've come to government we have done an enormous amount to engage with and listen to the Pacific family and our Pacific neighbours. I have visited every member of the Pacific Islands Forum, a number more than once. The Prime Minister has made it a priority to ensure he attends the Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting—I have to say, despite criticism from those opposite—because we understand our responsibility as a member of the Pacific family and our obligation to work with them on climate and on many other issues. It is the case that climate change is the No. 1 national security priority. But what I would say to you is that it's an unfortunate domestic political angle to suggest that somehow we go to the Pacific Islands Forum with anything less than an understanding of what is being sought; an understanding of how important climate change is to us but also, particularly, to the Pacific island nations, who are vulnerable; and an understanding of what we as a government have to do to transition the Australian economy. That's what we have to do. You can shake your head, but unfortunately there is no switch that transforms a largely fossil fuel dependent— Senator WONG 00AOU I understand you want to make a political point from the end of the chamber, but there is no switch that makes a transition to renewable energy. We have to do the hard yards, and we'd like you to join us, in actually transitioning. But you're not interested in joining us; you're interested in differentiating. We all in here understand what you are doing. What we will do is transition our economy. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, first supplementary? 14:22 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Australia wants to host the UN climate conference in 2026 in partnership with the Pacific. This requires Australia to be a genuine partner to the Pacific, which should mean an immediate stop to the expansion of coal and gas, which are the things putting the lives, livelihoods and homes of our Pacific neighbours are risk. Anything less is greenwashing and hypocrisy. How can the Labor government bid to host COP unless it commits to abandoning its plans to expand fossil fuels? 14:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I do find it interesting that Senator Faruqi's position appears to be that unless we agree with her we're hypocrites. That appears to be it: unless we agree with you, we're hypocrites. Senator WONG 00AOU You know, you're not the ultimate arbiter of the truth, Senator Faruqi. That is the reality. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters? Senator Waters 192970 A point of order: that is a clear reflection on Senator Faruqi and should be withdrawn. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator WONG 00AOU I'm happy to withdraw it if you think it causes offence, but I make the point that the Greens political party seem to believe that if people don't agree with them somehow that makes the people who don't agree with them hypocrites or insincere. We are not. We are sincere, but, unlike you, we recognise that it's not just a motion in the Senate or a speech; it's the hard yards of transforming an economy which has been fossil fuel dependent—and it has. We have benefited from that, but we now have to change, and that is not easy. As I have explained to the many colleagues I have met with over the Pacific, we know the change that we have to require, and we are committed to it. We are committed to it and we are genuine in it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, second supplementary? 14:24 Senator 250362 New South Wales FARUQI () (): The Global North's unfettered consumption of resources and its addiction to fossil fuels have caused immense damage to the Global South. It's been a year since the Loss and Damage Fund was agreed to by countries, including Australia, yet Labor has not committed any contribution to the Loss and Damage Fund. The climate infrastructure partnership announced today has nothing to do with it. When will the government make a commitment in terms of what it will contribute to the Loss and Damage Fund? 14:24 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Because there was quite a preamble there—a very interesting preamble in terms of some of the language used—I would make the point that I have made for years on this issue, which is: as long as people are pointing their finger at other countries rather than taking action themselves, and as long as the climate negotiations bifurcate around that or shatter around that, then we will not get what humanity needs. It is the case that there are many countries who have benefited greatly from their reliance on fossil fuel. Australia is one of them, and we have contributed to what we have now. We also know, going forward, that there are a great many developing countries who are, if not the largest, then amongst the largest emitters. In other words, we all need to do something, rather than blame each other, and that is the constructive approach we will take to the climate negotiations and to the work we're doing with Pacific partners. Climate Change 45 14:26 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Senator Farrell. What actions is the Albanese government taking to ensure a strong Australian resources sector, and how is the government ensuring Australia's energy security and reliability by supporting essential decarbonisation efforts? 14:26 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thanks, Senator Sterle. You come from a great resources state, and I know you've got a great interest in this sector. Today the West Australian has reported that—the West Australian, of course, is a Western Australian newspaper and a fine newspaper—'billions of dollars of investment in WA's gas industry are at risk as the Senate holds up legislation'. These actions by the Liberals and the Nationals are nothing short of astonishing. Faced with the choice of supporting investment certainty in carbon capture and storage, the Liberals and the Nationals chose to side with the Greens. The International Energy Agency, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Climate Change Authority have all said that carbon capture and storage will play an important role in helping achieve net zero. We believe in climate action, but the Liberals and the Nationals continue to bury their heads in the sand. Like every aspect of energy policy, those opposite comprehensively fail on the issue of emissions reduction. So what do those opposite believe? Do they support regulatory certainty, or do they not? Do they want affordable and reliable energy, or don't they? No. The answer is no. The actions of those opposite are putting Australian projects at risk. This means they are putting Australian jobs at risk. The Liberals and the Nationals talk about investment, but they don't believe in it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, first supplementary? 14:28 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Minister, why is it important for the government to enable a strong investment climate for decarbonised LNG supply chains? 14:28 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sterle for his first supplementary question. This government has been working diligently with industry and our key trading partners to rapidly decarbonise LNG supply chains. There are deep pools of capital available in Korea, Japan and elsewhere with a strong appetite to invest in carbon capture and storage projects right across Australia, even in your home state. This is why it beggars belief that those opposite, when faced with the choice, refuse to act. The Liberals and the Nationals have said that our efforts to promote regulatory certainty for carbon capture and storage are vitally important, but they fail to act. So what do you actually believe? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, second supplementary? 14:29 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia What action could be taken to ensure more investment flows into projects, technologies and initiatives that support decarbonisation across resource supply chains, Minister, because I am interested? 14:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I can see that their heads are down, except for Senator Cadell. The rest of them have heads down because they are ashamed of the position that they are adopting. We have a suite of regulatory and legislative reforms— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Canavan 245212 They don't trust you! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, I have just called the chamber to order, and that does include you. Senator FARRELL I0N We have a suite of regulatory and legislative reforms that are helping to drive investment and regulatory certainty across the sector. We want to ensure our regulations and our legislation are fit for purpose and best practice for decarbonising our economy. The Liberals and the Nationals have a clear choice to make: do they want serious investment to flow into this country to support carbon capture and storage or do they not? I would have thought our trading relationships with Korea and Japan were simply too important to be playing— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Perhaps Senator Ayres and Senator Canavan might want to go outside and chat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, order! Order across the chamber. Migration 46 14:31 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Watt. Does the government control the level of immigration into Australia? 14:32 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Roberts, I note your interest all week in these matters of migration, and the short answer is that under governments of all persuasions, including those who are having a chuckle over there at the moment, the immigration program in Australia is demand driven. That has been the case under this government and the former government as well. Senator Roberts 266524 Point of order: it was a very simple, short question. It needs a yes or no answer. That's it. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant, Senator Roberts. I presume you've finished your answer, Minister Watt? Senator WATT 245759 As I say— Senator Canavan 245212 It's just a yes or no answer, Murray! Senator WATT 245759 Yes, it's quite normal for ministers who represent others to look at their notes. Senator Canavan, we can't all be the genius that you are. You are a genius—I pay respect to that—especially when you get into your dark web and your bunker and you dig out all those statistics. You're an absolute genius! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, resume your seat. Order across the chamber, but particularly on my left. Senator Ayres 16913 Yes, old Telegram Matt! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, you have a lot to say this afternoon. This is question time. Minister Watt, I'm asking you to refer your comments to me and not to particular senators. Senator WATT 245759 I know Senator Rennick was a bit offended by the fact I singled out Senator Canavan as the only genius in the opposition and the only person who could get into the bunker and find statistics. We know Senator Rennick is pretty good at that as well. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes. I haven't called you, and I haven't called you because the chamber was still disorderly. Senator Hughes. Senator Hughes 273828 President, you've made very clear this week, and we have heard from those opposite— The PRESIDENT 112096 What's your point of order, Senator Hughes? Senator Hughes 273828 I would like Minister Watt to withdraw a whole raft of his commentary and reflections on a number of senators over here and his continual snarky personal smears and vilifications. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, if you want to raise a point of order about unparliamentary or personal language related to a senator, I need their name at least. Senator Hughes 273828 I said Minister Watt! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, don't backchat once you're sitting down. You indicated that the minister had had a spray against a range of senators. I have no idea who that was. I am not going to make it up or guess it, so unless you have— Senator Hughes 273828 I literally said it multiple times! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, you've raised the point of order. You haven't named a particular senator. You've indicated to me who in your view made the offence but you haven't said about which senator. Senator Hughes 273828 I said it multiple times. Would you like to check the Hansard? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, resume your seat. Minister Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU I think the difficulty—through you, President—is it was a generalised proposition that the senator was making. If there is a request to withdraw particular language that has just been said— Senator Hughes 273828 We got multiple lectures this week. Senator Wong 00AOU If that is the request, I'm sure the— Senator Wong 00AOU Okay. I'm just saying that a generalised proposition is a difficult one to respond to. Senator Wong 00AOU I'm trying to assist here. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham. Senator Wong 00AOU I haven't finished. The 10000 I'm sorry, I thought you had finished, Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU Thank you. I was just waiting. The proposition— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Do you wish to continue? Senator Wong 00AOU There is a generalised complaint about Senator Watt saying things about a number of people. I don't know what those are, but if the request is that Senator Watt withdraw particular language that's just been used— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, no interjections. Senator Wong 00AOU All I'm saying if there is a request to— Senator Hughes 273828 And he continues! Senator Wong 00AOU Wow. I'm really trying. If there is a request to withdraw particular language now, I would ask the President to call the minister. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X Thank you, President. I did want to pick up on one part of your ruling there, which was to suggest it was necessary for the senator to name a particular senator who had been impugned. I will make it clear that it is possible for groups of senators to be impugned or to have improper motives attributed to them by a senator and that is also against standing orders. The PRESIDENT 112096 That's correct. Senator Birmingham H6X President, as you're well aware, it's not necessary always for a senator to make a point of order and, in the spirit of this week, it would be helpful for strong proactive intervention if senators can't restrain themselves to actually ask them immediately to withdraw. Preferably they would restrain themselves, Senator Watt. The PRESIDENT 112096 I haven't called you, Senator Watt. I am going to respond to those points of order. I am not in the chamber all the time. That's the point that I made in the statement to the chamber yesterday. It is very difficult for me to ask a senator to withdraw when I don't know where that language has landed. I take your point, Senator Birmingham, that a slur can be made against a group of senators. That's not what Senator Hughes was implying. My understanding of what was indicated was that the minister had made, in Senator Hughes's view, a number of comments to senators throughout the week, not to a group of senators. However, I know that Senator Watt is always willing to own his behaviour and I will, as Senator Watt— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 For the benefit of those interjections, a number of you are always willing, on both sides of the chamber, to withdraw. Some of you are not but most of you are. So I am going to invite Senator Watt, if he thinks he has offended senators this week, to make a general withdrawal without making any comment to comments that you may or may not have uttered. Senator WATT 245759 I make a general withdrawal. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Roberts, the government does have a range of controls in place around the number of migrants coming into Australia, the categories of those migrants, whether they be international students or tourists, humanitarian, skilled workers. The government does have a range of controls around the numbers and types of migrants who come into Australia. I think I know where you're going with this, because you have followed these issues all week. I point out that we haven't really seen a lot of consistency from the opposition on matters of migration either, because what we do know is that, for instance, when the now immigration spokesperson, the member for Wannon, was in government he was saying things like, 'We need to get our international students back. We need to get our working holiday-maker visa holders back.' The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts? Senator Roberts 266524 On a point of order, that's not relevant to what I asked. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll bring you back to the question, Minister Watt. You've finished. Senator Roberts, your first supplementary? 14:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland On 15 May, Treasurer Jim Chalmers told Australia that the level of net overseas migration is 'not something the government determines'. Minister, is that a lie, given your government issues the visas and decides who comes to this country? Why are you letting immigration spiral out of control while hundreds of thousands of Australians are homeless? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, I am going to ask you to rephrase that question. Senator ROBERTS 266524 Is that misinformation, given your government issues the visas and decides who comes to this country? Why are you letting immigration spiral out of control while hundreds of thousands of Australians are homeless? 14:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I reject the suggestion that the Treasurer has misrepresented the facts on this issue. It is a really important issue that Australia is dealing with at the moment. But, Senator Roberts, in answer to similar questions from you over the course of the week, I've pointed out a number of steps the government have taken to fix the fundamentally broken migration system that we inherited from the opposition and, in particular, from the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, who oversaw the migration system as the Minister for Home Affairs for a number of years. We've already scaled back the pandemic event visa. We're taking action about the working hours for international students, which has been a real drawcard for international students coming to Australia. We've made all sorts of improvements to Home Affairs, in terms of its processing of visa applications. And, of course, when it comes to housing, as I've pointed out to you already, you and your colleagues have an opportunity to vote for more housing and you chose to vote against it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, your second supplementary? 14:42 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland How many overseas immigrants, net, will arrive in Australia this financial year? 14:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, I know that we've addressed this issue in previous answers, both in chis chamber and in estimates, and the issues around the number of net overseas migrants is a matter that is handled by the Treasury. I've already acknowledged in previous answers on these questions that post COVID, when we had a couple of years of pretty much zero migration to Australia, it was always inevitable that there was going to be an increase in that migration as we had tourists, working holiday-maker visa holders and skilled migrants coming back into the country. That is exactly one of the reasons why our government is trying to fix the broken migration system that we inherited and trying to build more homes, despite your opposition and that of the coalition. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts? Senator Roberts 266524 On a point of order, I asked the question: how much net immigration this year? The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister explained it is a question that should be directed to Treasury, and the minister was answering it in his capacity. The minister has finished. Economy 49 14:43 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Farrell. I refer to the minister's answer yesterday to Senator Birmingham, where he claimed not to have seen analysis of OECD data in the Australian Financial Review showing that Australians have experienced the biggest fall in living standards among advanced economies under Labor. Has the minister since read the analysis and can the minister name a single advanced economy where real household incomes have fallen as much as Australia? 14:43 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Perhaps I should have mentioned yesterday in my answer, Senator Rennick, that one thing we know about the OECD is that it's now led by a former leader in this place, former senator Mathias Cormann. My recollection of Senator Cormann, who is a very nice fellow— Senator Watt 245759 Now a climate change covert. Senator FARRELL I0N Yes, now a— Senator Rennick 283596 I raise a point of order, President, on relevance. I'm not asking about who's running the OECD, in terms of the bureaucratic organisation. I'm talking about the countries amongst it, in a relative sense of the word. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Rennick. I'll draw the minister back to the question. Senator FARRELL I0N It is worth noting that when he was in, I think, the finance portfolio— The 10000 Minister Farrell, I draw you back to the question. Senator FARRELL I0N I've made my point, I suppose. After a decade of deliberate stagnation under the Liberals and Nationals, wages are growing at their fastest rate in about a decade. While inflation does remain higher than we'd like—we know that's because of the incompetent management of the economy by the former government—it has moderated from its annual peak in the December quarter 2022. Its quarterly peak under the coalition in the March quarter of 2020— Senator Rennick 283596 President, I raise a point of order on relevance. I asked if the minister had read the analysis and if there was a country where the real household income had fallen as much as in Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe the minister is being relevant, but I will continue to listen carefully to his answer. Senator FARRELL I0N Higher interest rates and higher inflation are putting pressure on people, and that's why our No. 1 priority as a government is addressing inflation and the cost of living. We are rolling out $23 billion worth of cost-of-living relief, which is easing pressure on Australians at the same time as it's helping to ease inflation in the economy. The ABS has confirmed— Senator Birmingham H6X President, I rise to make a point of order on direct relevance. There were two parts to Senator Rennick's question: one was whether he has read the analysis, and the other was whether he can name a single advanced economy where real household incomes have fallen as much as they have in Australia. I don't believe the minister has confirmed whether he has seen the analysis, because he hasn't actually referenced it at all. Nor has he identified whether he can name any country where people have been left as worse off over the last year as in Australia. Can he? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. The question also referred to the OECD, to which the minister has responded, but I will remind him of your question. Senator FARRELL I0N With due respect, President, they didn't like my comments on the leadership of the OECD. But I can say this: we face these— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, a first supplementary? 14:47 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland The analysis of OECD data in the Australian Financial Review shows that, under Labor, Australians have experienced the biggest fall in living standards among advanced economies. Does the minister think it is acceptable for Australian real household incomes to have fallen faster than any other advanced economy? 14:47 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia No. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, a second supplementary? 14:48 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Australia's inflation rate is growing faster than that of 15 members of the G20, and ABS data shows that domestic inflation is growing faster than trade exposed inflation. Will the minister admit that falling real incomes is a Labor problem, not a global problem? 14:48 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I don't think Senator Rennick listened to my first answer, where I actually addressed what's happening with wages. I know you don't like me going back to who's now running the OECD, but, of course, when he was running finance in this country, Senator Cormann let the cat out of the bag. He made it very clear that a design feature of your economic policies— Senator Rennick 283596 I rise to make a point of order on relevance yet again. I asked the question: was inflation a Labor problem and not a global problem? The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll remind the minister of your question, Senator Rennick. Senator FARRELL I0N We all know why inflation is going up. In addition to the incompetent management under your government, Senator Rennick, which started the upward climb—remember, the first increase in interest rates was under your government—there's a war going on in Ukraine. There's a war going— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N Yes, and I will tell these people. We are looking after you. (Time expired) Workplace Relations Legislation 50 14:49 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. This week in the Senate the vast majority of legislation passed were bills brought forward by Senators Lambie and Pocock. These four bills were passed without any voices against and therefore without a division being called. The Labor Party did not oppose these four bills. Given Labor's support for these bills, will the government give their commitment to treat the Senate, and Senators Lambie and Pocock in particular, with appropriate respect by allowing these bills to be debated and voted on in the House of Representatives next week? 14:50 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, I note: is this not Senator Babet's question? No, this is yours. Have you handed it to the Libs? Senator WONG 00AOU Oh, now we know. We already knew. Are you going to join? Maybe you should. I would just make the point that I'm interested to get a question on legislation from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, whose leadership is so fragile that he holds up a bill that he supports and that is important for Santos in his home town because Senator Canavan wants an inquiry, and he lines up his people to vote with the Greens to prevent legislation he supports. I mean, that is the Senate legislation program. It's all about the internals of the Liberal Party and the National Party. That is all it's about. So, if you want to come in here and talk about the legislation program, can you explain to Santos, to South Australians, to the people—oh, yes, I'm unsurprised— Senator Birmingham H6X President, a point of order: the question was very clearly about the industrial relations bills that related and were moved by Senators Lambie and Pocock, not any other legislation before the Senate. And of course they were bills the government itself was too weak to even call a division over. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, the minister is being relevant. Senator WONG 00AOU What was striking about the discussion before was that I didn't actually see the other side disagree. Did you? Senator Watt 245759 No! Senator WONG 00AOU I didn't really see the other side disagree, because they know what is happening. You are voting with the Greens against legislation you support. Maybe those who care about national security should think about the fact that the governments of Korea and Japan have been asking us to pass the legislation. You're lining up with the Greens. And this is a party of government! Look at what they have become. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senators! There should be silence across the chamber. Senator Cash, I called you a number of times, and your interjections are disorderly. I called you to attention, and you ignored that. I would ask you to respect my calling. Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 14:53 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia This week in the Senate the government has failed miserably to manage its own legislative program. In five days not a single government bill that wasn't non-contro has passed, yet the government has not once asked for extra hours nor extra sitting time, nor did it put to the coalition any cooperative proposal—just a guillotine, take it or leave it. Will the government come to the Senate next week with less arrogance and more willingness to show the give and take that has always been required and shown to get things done in this Senate? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. Minister Wong. 14:54 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, I'll make it to you now. You give us extra hours and an agreement to pass the legislation, and we'll keep sitting. I'll make it to you now, but, do you know what you've been doing? You said no to Santos. You then said no to Woodside. You've said no to INPEX. You've said no to Korea. You said no to Japan— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators! Senator McKim! Order! Senator Paterson! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, I have one of your senators on his feet. Senator Whish-Wilson, I am waiting for the chamber. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators! Senator Green! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, you have been very disorderly today. I've called you a number of times. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! Thank you for waiting, Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Thank you, President. On a point of order: I think Senator Wong is misleading the chamber by pointing out that there's a difference between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party while supporting fossil fuel companies. It's misleading the— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, please resume your seat. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan—when you've finished. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm serious. And those opposite know why this— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Canavan— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, that is really unhelpful as well. Honourable senators interjecting— The 10000 I'm waiting for order. I am appealing to senators to stop being disrespectful. If you have something to say, make a contribution at some other time, not question time. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU The reality is that this question is a pathetic attempt to cover up the fact that the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Senator Cash as deputy leader have teamed up with the Greens against legislation they support in order to try and get Senator Canavan an inquiry—enough said. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Birmingham, I will wait for order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong! Senator Birmingham. 14:57 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia It has taken five full days for the government to come up with a proposal on how to get this bill through, demonstrating clearly it has been lacking leadership all week. Given that it's 82 years since a government tried to function with only four Senate ministers, half of whom have been absent for most of the week, will the minister commit to asking the Prime Minister to promote some of the Labor senators languishing on the backbench? Perhaps Senator McAllister, who has done most of the work for the government this week, could replace the hapless Stephen Jones. There's one suggestion. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, before I call the minister, I'm going to ask you to withdraw that reflection against Minister Jones. Senator Birmingham H6X I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. Minister Wong. 14:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I respect the position of the Australian Greens. They've had a consistent position on this legislation. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you for your assistance. Political debate has many aspects. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Are you right? Are you right? The 10000 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, you are out of order, as are you, Senator McKim. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I respect, but disagree with, the position of the Greens. They have been consistent, but I do not respect a party of government that votes against something for five days in the Senate, then complains about it—votes against it because they want an inquiry to shore up their internals. That's not how parties of government behave. Pacific Region 52 14:59 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. This week, the Prime Minister is attending the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Summit. Can the minister explain how the government is building a stronger and more united Pacific family, and a peaceful, stable and prosperous region? 14:59 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Green, and thank you for your interest in and engagement with our Pacific neighbours. I know how important that is to you and to the people you represent. As you know, our government is investing in all arms of statecraft to build a peaceful, stable and prosperous region. That requires a Pacific Islands Forum equipped to face our shared challenges together. As I said, obviously, we have travelled to every member of the PIF and listened to their priorities, and we're working to deliver for our shared interests. Over two budgets, we have boosted our investments in regional security cooperation; policing; labour mobility; climate and humanitarian responses; sport; media; and regional capability. We have delivered on our commitment to expand and improve the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, with more workers in Australia than ever before. We have increased our investments in climate finance in the Pacific, for the Pacific, and we will rejoin the Green Climate Fund. We're determined to ensure that it delivers directly for our Pacific partners. We have increased our development assistance, and we have doubled the Australia Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific's grants component. Our investments will help our regional partners to become more economically resilient, to develop critical infrastructure and to provide their own security so that they have less need to call on others. We have also enhanced our support for the Pacific Islands Forum, the pre-eminent regional institution, to build a stronger and more united Pacific family and to deliver the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent. We have also delivered a Pacific engagement visa, which will make a uniquely Australian contribution to building a stronger Pacific family. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, your first supplementary. 15:01 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Can the minister explain what challenges we face in the region and why a peaceful, stable and prosperous Pacific is in Australia's interests? 15:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Green. We know that Australia lost a decade in the Pacific because of those opposite—because of disrespect for the Pacific family. Who can forget Mr Dutton making jokes about water lapping at the door of the Pacific family? And we all remember how they dropped the ball. Unfortunately, they just haven't learned. Last month, those opposite tried to block the Pacific engagement visa, and now they're looking to block legislation that supports Pacific workers. I know that senators Birmingham and Paterson actually understand the challenges Australia faces in a more contested region. I know they understand that Australia must work harder than ever to stay competitive in the region. But, unfortunately, we see senators Birmingham and Paterson being completely passive—not standing up to the reckless Mr Dutton. They're completely passive in standing up for the national interest and in working to keep— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X President, if it's inappropriate to describe a member of the House of Representatives as 'hapless', is it also inappropriate to describe them as 'reckless'? The PRESIDENT 112096 I will ask the minister to withdraw. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm happy to withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Wong. Senator Green, your second supplementary. 15:03 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Can the minister explain why the Pacific Islands Forum is central to advancing Australia's national interests? 15:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Pacific Islands Forum is where leaders come together to make decisions, including decisions on security in the Pacific family. It is a core national interest for Australia to show up. Australia has not always been welcomed there with open arms. We all remember how Mr Morrison was received. What is disappointing is that Mr Dutton, recklessly, wants to drag us back to those days. Today he's out there questioning whether the Prime Minister of Australia should be at the Pacific Islands Forum. Really? When Mr Dutton had the chance to make Australia more secure he left us more exposed. He went around beating the drums of war but, do you know what? He just surrendered in the Pacific—he just surrendered! And, while he was beating his chest, he let our country get beaten to the punch. We are determined not to ever make that mistake. Cost of Living 53 15:04 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday, when Senator Farrell was asked for a second time what the Labor government defined as 'mortgage stress', you interjected, 'Why didn't you ask me?' So, in that spirit, I ask again: what is the Albanese government's precise definition of 'mortgage stress'? 15:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As you might recall, Senator Hughes, I actually made sure I had the opportunity afterwards to say what I wanted to say, which is that, unlike those opposite, we don't need definitions to understand how hard it is that Australians are doing, which is why we are focused on the $23 billion worth of cost-of-living measures that we have put in place, so many of which you opposed and which are about assisting Australian families. I would just make this point because there's been a lot of discussion about inflation: the statement of monetary policy that the RBA has released has confirmed what the ABS has previously said. Our cost-of-living measures have shaved half a percentage point off inflation. Senator Wong 00AOU You should listen to this. Remember what inflation was like under you? The ABS has said that our cost-of-living measures shaved half— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes? Senator Hughes 273828 Point of order: if you could remind Senator Wong to direct her comments through the chair rather than screaming abuse at Senator Hume, it would be appreciated. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, the minister is directing her comments appropriately. Senator WONG 00AOU I did respond directly to Senator Hume, who was, to be fair, being feisty towards me, and that's fine. I don't mind. I don't think it was abuse, and I certainly wouldn't want it to be perceived in that way. But I would make this point: the ABS has said that our cost-of-living measures shaved half a percentage point off inflation in the September quarter. That was confirmed by the RBA again today. So I would make the point to those opposite: if you're serious about worrying about mortgage stress, if you're serious about cost of living and if you're serious about inflation, you should have supported the measures that the government brought in. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, before I come to your first supplementary, I remind you that a minister is entitled to respond to interjections. Your first supplementary? 15:07 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Minister, I'm not sure there was a definition in there since maybe you don't know either, but, given the Minister representing the Treasurer was unable to answer, despite being asked twice, can you confirm how many Australian households are currently experiencing mortgage stress and how many more will as a result of this latest interest rate rise under Labor? 15:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We know that Australians are struggling and we know that households are struggling, which is why we're so focused on doing what we are able to do in terms of cost-of-living measures and delivering the first budget surplus in 15 years, to put downward pressure on inflation. What I would say is this: given we know from the ABS and the RBA that the government's approach shaved half a percentage point off the inflation rate in the September quarter, Senator Hughes, if you care about inflation and interest rates, maybe you should make sure that those opposite support the things the government is doing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, second supplementary? 15:08 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Despite the Minister representing the Treasurer being asked this basic question yesterday and the day before, you still can't or won't confirm for the Senate the number of Australian families experiencing mortgage stress under your government. Will the Albanese Labor government take responsibility for its role in skyrocketing mortgage stress and apologise to those Australians? 15:08 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We will take responsibility, as the government, for doing everything we can to put downward pressure on inflation, which is why we brought into this chamber the measures to cap energy price rises, why we brought into this chamber bulk-billing changes, why we brought into this chamber cheaper medicines—why we brought into this chamber a whole range of measures that you opposed. What I'd say to all Australians is that we understand you are doing it tough and we will continue to do all we can to try and ensure there is downward pressure on inflation and to assist on cost of living. But what we do know is that the Dutton opposition is the party of more expensive medicines and higher energy prices. Workplace Relations 54 15:09 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. This week has marked one year since someone declared that the government's secure jobs, better pay workplace relations legislation would close down Australia. Who would say such a thing, Minister Watt, and can you confirm whether Australia has actually closed down? 15:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Grogan. It is my pleasant duty to advise Australians that Australia has not closed down, and I wish all Australians a happy first anniversary—a paper anniversary—since someone—I don't know who, but someone—said that Australia would close down due to the government's secure jobs, better pay workplace relations laws. Senator WATT 245759 You have to wonder who would have such a doom-and-gloom attitude to Australian businesses' workers. Well, of course, it's the person who has a lot to say over there right now, Senator Cash, the human hyperbole. We know we used to have Senator Hinch, the human headline, and now we have Senator Cash, the human hyperbole. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young? Senator Hanson-Young I0U Thank you, President. I know it is unbelievable to be able to think that I can't hear Senator Watt, but I can't hear Senator Watt. Can you please try and bring the temperature down a little? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, I have been trying for the last hour. I would think that today I have not been particularly successful, but I would remind the chamber once again that shouting out across the chamber is disorderly. Trying to shout louder than the minister answering the question is also disorderly, and it's disrespectful. I'd remind all senators, for the last couple of questions, to listen in silence. Senator Watt 245759 Thank you, President. But it's no surprise that Senator Cash would say such a thing, because she's a member of the same coalition that said Labor would end the weekend. I don't know about you, but I'm quite looking forward to the weekend, and it's actually going to happen tomorrow. They said that Labor would kill off the backyard barbecue. I had a barbecue at my place last weekend; I don't know about you. And, of course, Labor was going to deliver lamb roasts that cost $100. That hasn't happened either. Senator Cash is not alone in her blatant scaremongering from that side of the chamber, but it is sad that she has such a dim view of Australian businesses and workers. As I say, 12 months on from that prophecy of doom from Senator Cash, it turns out that Australia is in fact still quite open. The sky hasn't fallen in, and in fact it's quite a nice spring day out there. I'd encourage you to go and experience it. But, when you don't have actual policies, all you've got is hyperbole and overegging. Senator Cash is fond of saying the devil's always in the detail, so here's the detail. Unemployment under a Labor government is at historic lows, over 560,000 jobs having been created since the Albanese government was elected. Wages are moving again, up by an average of 3.6 per cent compared to 2.1 per cent under— (Time expired) Senator Birmingham H6X President, I seek leave to move a motion to vary the hours of the Senate. The PRESIDENT 112096 We're halfway through question time. The Clerk's saying no. Honourable senators: He's seeking leave. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, I'm sure you heard that, but I'm advised that you can't do it until Senator Grogan's series of questions has expired. Senator Grogan, first supplementary? 15:13 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Minister Watt, the Liberals and the Nationals have tirelessly worked to frighten business owners and workers regarding the government's workplace relation policies like secure jobs, better pay and closing loopholes, and only one year ago Senator Cash claimed that the government's laws would take us back to the Dark Ages. Minister, is Australia back in the Dark Ages? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, I would advise you to direct your answers to the chair. 15:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Grogan. President, I'm surprised that Senator Birmingham wanted to protect Senator Cash from more examination of her statements, because we know that Senator Cash doesn't spend a lot of time protecting Senator Birmingham over on that side of the chamber. But, of course, as for Senator Cash, I really hope that she had better luck in the Melbourne Cup, because all of her other predictions have been well and truly off the mark. Last year she predicted the secure jobs, better pay bill would send Australia back to both the Dark Ages and the 1970s. I don't really know how it can be both. As I've said before, I don't know about Senator Cash, but I haven't seen people running around in the chain mail from the Dark Ages or the flares from the 1970s. But, according to Senator Cash, it was going to get us to both those places. And, a year on, they're now dusting off the same old doomsday tales when it comes to our closing loopholes bill. Senator Lambie made some interesting comments on the radio this morning that there are only four parts of this bill that those opposite are willing to support, and what that means is that the coalition opposes the rest. They say no to protecting gig workers, no to— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Watt. Senator Grogan, a second supplementary? 15:14 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Minister Watt, why does the coalition keep making wild claims to cover for them failing to protect workers, and why is it so important for all the measures in the closing loopholes bill to pass as soon as possible? 15:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Grogan. It's beyond me why Senator Cash and the coalition keep making wild claims about the Dark Ages, empty supermarket shelves, Australia closing down, ending backyard barbecues, ending weekends, ending Christmas, ending April Fool's Day. It doesn't really matter what they say; they'll always make up a new claim. But, as I say, the important point here is that Senator Lambie was on the radio this morning saying that there were only four parts of the government's closing loopholes bill that the opposition was prepared to support. And what that means is that the opposition continues to oppose protecting gig workers. They say no to introducing an industrial manslaughter offence and increasing penalties. They say no to a criminal offence for an employer who deliberately steals their workers' wages. The coalition won't even criminalise employers who deliberately steal wages from their workers. They say no to casuals having a chance at becoming permanent workers, and they say no to closing the loophole that means the agreed pay rates in an enterprise agreement can be undercut using labour hire. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. BUSINESS 56 BUSINESS Rearrangement 56 15:16 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the variation of business. Leave not granted. Senator WONG 00AOU 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. 15:22 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be now put on the motion to suspend standing orders.    

The Senate divided. [15:22]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 38 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:23 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to. Senator Hanson-Young? Senator Hanson-Young I0U 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— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, I gave you the call because I thought you were taking a point of order. If you are making— Senator Hanson-Young I0U I am! The PRESIDENT 112096 You are not. Senator Hanson-Young, seek leave to make a statement and see if leave is granted. Senator Hanson-Young I0U I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Pursuant to standing orders— The PRESIDENT 112096 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? Senator Hanson-Young I0U 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— The PRESIDENT 112096 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— Senator McKim JKM I don't have all my senators here. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, nothing's changed. The bells will be rung for one minute. There's been no debate in between. Senator McKim JKM I want to place on the record that we do not agree with a one-minute ringing of the bells. The PRESIDENT 112096 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? Senator Rice 155410 I am seeking to ask a question, President. The PRESIDENT 112096 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. Senator David Pocock 256136 Please can I seek advice from the Clerk? The PRESIDENT 112096 No, please resume your seat. You won't be counted if you are not sitting. Senator Sterle e68 I heard that: 'we're all on the take'. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle!    

The Senate divided. [15:27]
(The President—Senator Lines)

38 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:31 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move: That a motion relating to the routine of business today may be moved immediately and determined without amendment and debate. And I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be now put on the procedural motion moved by the minister. I advise senators that we have not changed the rule as to the calling of a division. So we can't hold further divisions, because it's after 3.30. NOTICES 58 NOTICES Presentation 58 15:33 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice that, 15 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the National Portrait Gallery of Australia Regulations 2023, made under the National Portrait Gallery of Australia Act 2012, be disallowed [F2023L01184]. Also, on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw: Business of the Senate notices of motion standing in the name of the chair of the committee (Senator White) for six sitting days after today for the disallowance of the following instruments: Australian Education Regulations 2023 [F2023L01020]. Higher Education Support (Other Grants) Amendment (National Priorities Pool Program and Regional Partnerships Project Pool Program) Guidelines 2023 [F2023L00983]. Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2023 [F2023L00998]. Presentation 58 COMMITTEES 59 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 59 15:35 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. As no senator wishes to do so, I will move on. BILLS 59 BILLS Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023, Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023, National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 59

Family Law Amendment Bill 2023

Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023

Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023

National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Assent 59 DOCUMENTS 59 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme, Department of Education 59 Order for the Production of Documents 59 15:35 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning reviews of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the HELP ATO payment system. ADJOURNMENT 59 ADJOURNMENT Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 59 15:36 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to put on the record my concerns with regard to the government 's proposed Communication Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023. Every parliamentarian carries responsibilities that come with their position of privilege as an elected official. At the pinnacle of these possibilities is the need to ensure that we work to protect and strengthen our democratic way of life and the liberties of all Australians. In fact, we have perhaps even more of a responsibility to do so than our colleagues in comparable nations. For instance, in the United States of America there exists the Bill of Rights, which clearly prescribes the lines of civil liberties and entitlements, including freedoms of speech, press and religion. In contrast, most of the rights of Australian citizens are correctly found in legal precedent and statutes, not in the Constitution. That means this parliament is the foremost arbiter and we must ensure that we are constantly working to protect the freedoms of all Australians and avoid anything that will undermine our democracy, deliberately or otherwise. The misinformation bill proposed by the government risks such an undermining, a threat to the freedom of speech of every Australian. While I understand the intention of the draft bill, which is to prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation online, we need to recognise that that does not come before the need to ensure that Australians are able to speak freely. Regarding defined terms in the bill, the Australian Human Rights Commission has noted: The broad definitions used here risk enabling unpopular or controversial opinions or beliefs to be subjectively labelled as misinformation or disinformation, and censored as a result. There are many potential examples of this being problematic. I am concerned, as I know many others in the electorate are, especially about the risk of abusing the ability to censor speech that is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm. What does 'harm' constitute? Could it be 'harmful' to post online against one of the government's policies? Could it be 'harmful' to take a controversial view that oneself might disagree with but nonetheless is part of Australians' right to express their own opinions on issues that are important to them? Giving ACMA power to impose regulations based on definitions of misinformation and disinformation, including enforcing these new standards to technology companies, is ultimately going to compel those technology companies to regulate their platforms severely and lead to wider censorship and proactive removal of some content. Maybe most egregious of all is the fact that government content would be exempt from this provision in the bill. I'm reminded of how important it is for legislators of all stripes to remember those classical liberal values that are the bedrock of our way of life. I like to think about and constantly remind myself of the very important remark made by no less than John Stuart Mill, whom I would hope is familiar to us all but fear is familiar to only some of us. John Stuart Mill's justifications of free speech can be found in his classical work On Liberty. To quote from that work: If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. We all agree deliberate misinformation online is a harmful and destructive practice. We all agree that accidental misinformation is a regrettable reality. But in Australia, we do not silence what we might deem to be wrong opinions. In fact, this achieves the opposite effect. The more a view is censored, the more it becomes emboldened. In a free society when someone says something controversial, it is our response to meet it with debate and strong arguments. We face error with truth. We face fiction with facts. We trust the Australian people to make up their own minds with their own abilities to explore every viewpoint of information that is available to them. The bill the government proposes threatens to undermine the dynamism of our democracy and must not be allowed to become law in its current form. Senate adjourned at 15:4 1