Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (10:38): May I refer senators to the statement made by Minister Farrell on 17 October 2023.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:39): I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

I take note of the answer given by Senator McAllister on behalf of Senator Farrell. Here we are again—the third time, I believe, the minister has been required to appear before the chamber and make the explanation required of him by the Senate. That is a very clear requirement. The Senate is not asking for a complicated piece of information. It is simply asking for the grounds upon which the government has claimed public interest immunity over the financial sustainability framework which it has adopted, along with the states and territories, in relation to the NDIS. This is a document of critical public importance. It has been cited in the government's budget as being the primary driver for the reduction over the forward estimates of some $50-plus billion in NDIS expenditure. There could not be a more textbook definition of a document that was in the public interest for release than this framework. Yet, for a third time in a row, this government, which was elected on a platform of greater transparency, greater collaboration and co-design of NDIS policy with disabled people, refuses to release such a basic document with such profound implications for disabled people.

This is in a context where, once again, we now see the government refusing to release additional pieces of information in relation to the NDIS. I am a strong believer that you judge a government on the pattern of its behaviour, and what do we see in the pattern of behaviour from the Labor Party in relation to the NDIS? We see that they have consistently taken decisions, and are still taking decisions, in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme in violation of their commitment to co-design those changes with disabled people. Not only are they refusing to release the financial sustainability framework; they've also ceased publishing the full financials of the scheme in such a way that, had the former government done it, I am absolutely sure that the crossbench would have led the charge, and Labor would have joined in, to release those documents. Yet the government has continually failed to release them.

Last week, we saw the government refuse to make public the full report of the Independent Review of the NDIS, even though that was handed to state and territory disability ministers on 30 October. This review has been the subject of so much time expended by the disability community and so much hope that the government would finally listen to disabled people and implement the changes that we need to see in relation to the NDIS. This is a significant milestone moment, and the government refuses to release it. The Senate asked for that document last week, and Ministers Farrell and Shorten responded to that request by saying—what do we want to guess they said, folks, given that we are currently debating a question of whether the government should release something over which they have claimed public interest immunity? They said: 'We will not release the report, because to do so would jeopardise the relationship between the states and territories. We will not release the report until after National Cabinet.' Isn't that funny? It's the very same National Cabinet to which the financial sustainability framework was sent and the very same National Cabinet, once that framework was there, in relation to which the government now implements a public interest immunity claim.

On what possible grounds should the Senate trust that this government will not make a public interest immunity claim over the report, or some part of the report, of the independent review once it has gone to National Cabinet? We have absolutely no reason to trust the government in this, because they have refused repeatedly to release this basic document for months now. I will continue to press this with them. Disabled people deserve transparency. Disabled people have the receipts, ministers, of your commitment to co-design—a commitment you are flagrantly violating. (Time expired)

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (10:44): I too rise to speak on this motion, and the first observation I would make is that everybody in Labor should hang their head in shame. Six hundred and ten thousand Australians with serious and permanent disability and their families rely on this scheme, and increasingly they are getting very nervous and upset at the lack of transparency and the uncertainty that that is causing them. We've seen the utter contempt. Last week Senator McAllister stood up on behalf of the minister and spoke for about 10 seconds, and today it was less than five seconds. That is utterly unacceptable and is nothing more than a two-fingered salute to every Australian who relies on the NDIS.

But let's go into a bit more detail about what they're hiding and why they are hiding this data. As Senator Steele-John said, the Labor Party came into government. Minister Shorten, as opposition spokesman on the NDIS, said: 'There will be no cuts to any plans. There's nothing wrong with the scheme. There's no sustainability issue.' He raised the expectations, knowing that what he said was not true. It was a cruel hoax, because in the last budget the Labor Party cut $74 billion over the next 10 years from the scheme, and they have progressively shut down all transparency on the scheme.

So what have they done? In February, they cut the monthly financial statement reports that I implemented as a response to requests by the Labor Party and by many others in the sector to have more frequent information. The monthly reports are gone. As to the quarterly reports, the last one that came out was in June, so they haven't even got the next quarterly report out. The quarterly reports have a lot of data which would enable us to identify where they are making the cuts to the scheme. The most important document at all for budget transparency is the annual financial sustainability report, which they are now refusing to release. We have a very short report. In fact, we have four pages only in the annual report, with big text and lots of white space, to replace a 270-odd page report that provided the detailed actuarial data. So they have completely denied the Senate, the sector and the Australian public any transparency at all on where they are making the $74 billion worth of savings.

Not only that—they're showing complete contempt to everybody in this chamber with this public interest immunity claim. What they're actually supposed to do for a public interest immunity claim—as they well know, because they reminded us all the time when we were in government—is two things. One is to provide a statement on the grounds for that conclusion. The ground that they provided is that it would cause problems with state and territory governments, which it simply couldn't do. But what they haven't even bothered to do is the second test: to specify the harm to the public interest that could result if the information is provided. They haven't done that either. Again, Senator McAllister has shamefully come into this place and spent five seconds speaking to the 610,000 Australians with serious and permanent disability. Shame on you all.

Here is what they're trying to hide, and I say to them: you will not get away with this. You will not get away with this breathtaking lack of accountability and transparency. There are only two ways you can cut $74 billion from the NDIS. There are two drivers of cost: participant numbers and average cost per participant. One or both of those have to be cut. There was a very short statement from the Australian Government Actuary. It must have galled Minister Shorten that he couldn't avoid putting the government actuarial report in here, and the Australian Government Actuary has let the cat out of the bag, because he said:

Amounts included in the Baseline projection are then reduced to allow for initiatives in the May 2023 Budget …

So somehow the $700-plus million is over time going to make $74 billion worth of savings to this scheme. It is completely and utterly ludicrous, and those opposite should hang their heads in shame. (Time expired)

Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (10:49): I too rise to take note of the minister's response. I should say at the outset that, when I listened to that response, I looked through Senator McAllister to Mr Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong. Senator McAllister has been sent into the chamber to give the statement on behalf of the member for Maribyrnong. Minister Shorten is denying the information that should be provided. Senator Reynolds made the observation: should Senator McAllister have come in and given that statement? I think that's a question only Senator Allister can answer. For the people sitting in the gallery so they know what is going on in this regard, the Senate asked for key information relating to the NDIS scheme, one of the most significant social welfare schemes that this parliament provides for the people of Australia. What was that information? Documents going to the heart of the financial sustainability of the NDIS scheme.

This was in a context where, as my good friend Senator Reynolds said, up to $74 billion, on the government's own records, is going to be cut from that scheme over the next 10 years. If the government, through budget documents, has said $74 billion is going to be cut from the scheme over the next 10 years, the question is: how is that $74 billion going to be cut? As Senator Reynolds said, there are only two ways in which you can cut the $74 billion: you decrease the number of participants, or you decrease the amount that is provided for each participant in the scheme. There's no other way to cut the cost, and what this Senate is seeking is key information with respect to how that saving is going to be crystallised. The Labor government promised transparency. We on this side of the chamber remember all of the promises they made around transparency before the election. Judge them by their deeds, not their words because the Labor government are saying they're not going to provide this information because it may harm Commonwealth-state relations.

Senator Reynolds: It'll harm their electoral interests.

Senator SCARR: I'll take that interjection from Senator Reynolds: it may well harm their electoral interests. I'm sure it will, and it should because of its furphy about Commonwealth-state relations. How is it going to harm Commonwealth-state relations for the Commonwealth government to provide documents in relation to the financial sustainability of the NDIS? I represent the state of Queensland in this chamber. Those opposite can't provide us any explanation as to how providing us this information is going to harm state-Commonwealth relations. Why? Because there is no cogent response to that question. We here in this Senate are left with the situation where the Albanese Labor government say that they're going to cut $74 billion from the NDIS over the next 10 years. The Senate legitimately asks questions. The Senate is the house of review, the check and balance, in the system of Australian government. We asked for the documents which explain how that cut is going to occur, who is going to be impacted amongst participants, which future participants are potentially going to be denied access to scheme because of these cuts and how the Australian taxpayers are going to be impacted. These are legitimate questions being asked by the Senate, and the Labor government refuses to provide the key documents in response to those legitimate questions.

What are they hiding? Why won't they provide the documents? For those on the government benches to talk about transparency, Senator Reynolds was quite right to remind them that under her ministerial leadership there was oodles of information provided in relation to the NDIS, including monthly financial statements. We in government provided monthly financial statements, not just quarterly statements, and the Labor government are behind with the quarterly financial statements and abolished the monthly reporting. Judge them by their deeds, not their words, and in this context in relation to this legitimate call for the production of documents, the Labor Albanese government is falling short of the standard that should be expected.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:54): I rise to take note of the attendance and the statement given by the minister in relation to this matter. I draw attention to the fact that this is week 3. We've been asking for this information to be provided to the Senate, to the public, for well over a month now. The minister responsible, Minister Shorten, knows exactly what information it is that we are seeking. It's not as if this is a broad, sweeping fishing expedition. This is a specific request in relation to documents that the minister is able to give us if he is to comply. The Senate asked for this documentation. The minister denied. The Senate said, 'Well, come in and explain to us why you won't give us this information,' and the minister refused. We now have a standing order that requires the representing minister, Minister Farrell, to cough up at the beginning of every sitting week to provide this explanation. Something's got to give here.

I know why Minister Farrell isn't doing it today and is being represented by Senator McAllister. We know why: it's because Senator Farrell is a busy person and probably off in another meeting. That's how much respect the government is giving the Senate in relation to this order for the minister to appear.

Now, the Senate has extraordinary powers. Most of the time, the Senate is able to come to a resolution with the government of the day to provide at least some of the information that's requested, and there's often a negotiation as to which parts need to be given in what time frame, but all we've had from the government on this particular matter is, frankly, pure arrogance. When you put in your own budget statement that you're going to 'save $50 billion', it is only appropriate that you explain how you are going to save $50 billion from a program and a service that is so heavily relied on by everyday people across this country.

Whether you are an existing member of the community who accesses the NDIS program, the loved one or the family member of somebody who does, or, indeed, a member of the community who is trying to get access to the NDIS program because, perhaps, you have a child with a disability or a loved one in need of assistance, Australians have the right to know what is being cut from this program and know whether they are, indeed, impacted. You'd think that the government of the day would want to provide this information to give certainty and assurance to their constituents, to the community.

I am all up for having a conversation about how to ensure that the delivery of the NDIS is done better—heaven knows we need that—more efficiently, more effectively, more compassionately and more respectfully, but you can't have that conversation if the government won't even tell us where $50 billion is being cut from. Who will lose out? There are always winners and losers when it comes to making budget choices, but here the government wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say they're saving $50 billion—otherwise known as a cut—but they don't want to tell anybody who is the loser and who will win. It is not good enough. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Dean Smith ) (11:00): The committee is considering the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. The question is that the Greens amendments on sheet 2142 moved by Senator Whish-Wilson be agreed to.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:00): It's like Groundhog Day, isn't it? It's Monday morning, and we're back in the Senate debating the very same bill that was before us at this time last week. We are still hoping for some reasonable answers from the government as to exactly why they are so desperate to get this piece of legislation rammed through the Senate chamber today. An hours motion has been passed, which means this legislation is being facilitated by both sides of the chamber—both the coalition and the Labor government—because we all know they are under extreme pressure from their mates in the fossil fuel industry.

Let us step back a minute and think about what happened last week. Last week, this bill was brought before the Senate chamber. The Greens spoke to the bill. Some members on the Liberal side spoke to the bill. I think we had a speaker, maybe, from the government trying to justify the passage of this bill. Then we saw a lengthy discussion in the committee stage, where my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson was trying to get some information out of the government. We got to Friday afternoon and still this government was refusing to give answers. But of course, all the while, phones in MPs and senators offices in this building were running hot. Who was calling them? None other than representatives from the gas industry—from Santos, from Woodside, from the gas industries lobby body—from lobbyists furious that the Senate wasn't doing what had been promised them by the government. How dare the Senate do its job of scrutinising legislation and asking key questions about the impact that burying billions of tonnes of toxic carbon pollution in the seabed might have on our environment. Imagine that! Imagine the Senate actually scrutinising pieces of legislation: 'We can't have that.'

We know who thinks it runs this place. It's the gas industry and the fossil fuel industry. Then—lo and behold!—so upset and frustrated were they with not being able to get their legislation and rules past the Senate in a fast ram-through fashion, the leader of the Senate, Senator Penny Wong, came into this place during question time and belled the cat. What did Senator Wong say? She said this piece of legislation was for Santos, for Woodside, for Inpex and for the Korean and Japanese governments because they were worried about their fossil fuel investors. That is why this bill is being rammed through the Senate. We heard it straight from Senator Wong herself.

If you wonder why it is that the Australian people are so sick and tired of how politics is done in this country, it was summed up in that one spray during question time. How dare the Senate hold out and ask questions and not ram through a piece of legislation that the fossil fuel industry wanted?

Then we had the bizarre chaos and facade around a suspension of standing orders to extend hours. It seemed as though we were debating not the Senate standing orders but the Santos standing orders, because it was Santos and Woodside and the others that thought they should call the shots in this place. You've got to wonder, really, how much sway the fossil fuel industry has on the benches on the government side, don't you? I know there are good members in the Labor Party and the government who know we have to transition quickly and swiftly to renewables. I know there's frustration amongst members of the Labor Party that the fossil fuel industry still has its foot on the throat of government, but there is a fossil fuel rump inside the Labor government that still calls the shots. That's what we've seen this week, and that was facilitated by the fossil fuel industry calling up members of the coalition frontbench, begging them to do their bidding for them.

Minister, how many calls did the minister's office receive from representatives from Santos and Woodside last week while this debate was ongoing?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (11:06): I thank Senator Hanson-Young for the question. I will respond to a number of the assertions in her contribution just now. At the risk of repeating myself, the government has been very clear and very up-front about our motivation for introducing the legislation that's before us now. The first is that since 2009 there's been a need for a response to the amendments that were made to the London protocol. The previous government commenced a process to respond to those amendments that were made in 2009. It was considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in 2020. Earlier this year, the Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister Plibersek, referred questions more generally around transport or movement of carbon dioxide to the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water. Subsequent to that, the bill was introduced, and a Senate inquiry took place. This is a longstanding piece of policy work, which goes to my second point.

The government is involved in a substantial, complex, important project to put in place the policy settings to allow our economy to transition towards net zero in 2050. That is a large, complex piece of policy that cuts across many different sectors of the economy and requires a sensible approach to the full range of technologies that might be available to businesses as part of that transition. The government has made it clear that one of the many things that are required as part of this is to strengthen the arrangements for carbon capture and storage. There is a broader process underway to review the regulatory arrangements that are in place for carbon capture and storage generally. The bill before us is part of that. As has been explained on many occasions to the chamber, it seeks to implement a set of regulatory arrangements that are predictable and certain for the community and for proponents. It puts in place a set of tests about the environmental assurances that would need to be in place to allow a transport or movement of carbon dioxide to take place.

So I don't accept the characterisation in relation to the government's motivation in bringing this forward. I find it hard to understand how anyone could seriously put the proposition that a bill which contains a set of propositions that have been considered by committees in this parliament since 2020 and which has in the last week been subject to five days of debate could possibly be described as being 'rammed through'. There has been extensive public discussion about the matters canvassed in the bill.

In relation to your specific question, I don't have information with me about the specific interactions between ministers and stakeholders in the last week. I can say this, though. Of course members of this government engage with stakeholders. They engage with stakeholders from the business community, the environment community, the trade union movement and many other groups—all of the entities that have an interest in a transition that supports prosperity and supports the economic interests of the community overall.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (11:10): I rise to make a contribution on this absolute farce that's been going on for a whole week now. Let's just call it what it is. The two big parties have ganged up to write laws to facilitate Santos burying their carbon pollution under the sea, rather than reducing it. We now have the minister representing trying to spin that as somehow progress towards net zero and as a complex policy issue—so complex that the fossil fuel industry and big gas have actually written these laws, as is plain to see, because, as folk might know, the safeguard mechanism which the Greens strengthened and passed several months ago would have made it a lot more expensive for Santos's Barossa project to proceed. They were not happy about that, so what did they do? They found a back door, and they had willing accomplices in the Labor Party and the LNP, who are now legislating a backdoor loophole so that this carbon-bomb project could proceed.

We hear rumours that I have no doubt are true that Santos and APPEA, the gas industry rep body, were phoning the offices of people in this chamber, urging them to hurry along and pass these laws that will shore up the massive profits of Santos—profits that it's making as it cooks the planet and gets in the way of carbon action. So my colleague Senator Hanson-Young asked the apposite question: who are they calling and how many times do they call? It's disappointing that the minister representing doesn't have that information to hand. I doubt it will come to hand in the course of this debate, because it would be rather embarrassing for the government to put that on the record. No doubt Santos has both of the large parties on speed dial.

We had a whole week of debate here where the Greens managed to ask this chamber to really think about what it's doing before it races these laws through. I'm really pleased that we've used the fulsome Senate procedure available to us to make sure that these awful laws were not passed last week. We're happy to keep talking about this issue. We're here to try to take climate action as well as to stand up for people and the community. This is our bread and butter, folks. We are not going to sit down and let Santos, INPEX and Woodside continue to run this parliament. We will call it out and we will stand against it.

It was very interesting. Senator McAllister has been doing the job all week of speaking to this legislation. My colleague Senator Whish-Wilson asked over and over what the motivation was for this legislation, and Senator McAllister stuck to the lines, as she has again this morning. And yet Senator Wong in question time came in and actually described what was really going on when she lambasted the opposition for saying 'no to Santos' and saying 'no to Woodside'. She did so in an incredulous manner and really spelled out that this law was written for Santos, for Woodside, for INPEX, for Japan and for Korea—all of those large carbon interests who were very cross that the safeguard mechanism would get in the way of their massive profits.

What an absolute joke, when you have the Leader of the Government in the Senate actually saying that this place is here to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry. How dare you? How dare you, in the face of science and humanity, decide to prioritise the private profits of companies that are cooking the planet, just because they're donating to your re-election campaigns or possibly offering you a fancy, overpaid job when you leave parliament? It's abominable that that kind of decision is being made in this day and age—in any day and age—when we should know better.

Haven't they already had enough favours done for them? There is $11 billion every year of public money used to subsidise the fossil fuel industry. Isn't that enough, folks? Do they really need this extra back door to facilitate their bloated private profits? Much of which they don't pay proper tax on, I might add. Do they really need extra favours? You've already done them so many favours—$11 billion of favours every year from the public purse. We're in a cost-of-living crisis as well as a climate crisis. That money could be far better used making early childhood education free, freezing rents, building affordable homes, further subsidising renewable energy. There are so many real uses for that $11 billion rather than handing fossil fuel subsidies to your big polluter mates, who you're now doing a further favour for.

It was very interesting that the Leader of the Government in the Senate finally said the quiet bit out loud, admitting that these laws have been written for Santos, for Woodside, for INPEX, for Japan and for Korea. I'll be asking the minister about that utterance in question time when she's in the chamber and able to be held to account. I'll be very interested to see what her response is, because they were very clear words said by Minister Wong. She seemed so incredulous that the LNP might not be jumping to the tune of Santos that very second, that they might dare to ask Santos to wait a few days. Of course, the reason why they're doing that is to make the government look bad and to make it clear that the government doesn't run this chamber. So they're winners either way. They know they'll deliver for their fossil fuel polluting mates eventually, but they'll put the screws on the government in the meantime and make them look silly. Well, they're laughing all the way to the bank! Santos knows that it will get its way.

Meanwhile, the community is out there desperate for a parliament that takes science seriously, that acts to protect its future and that stops wasting taxpayer money on fossil fuel subsidies and building in back doors for polluting companies to have even more influence over this place. It's just ridiculous—the revolving door of lobbyists and industry groups. They go in and out of this building, in and out of ministers' offices, in and out of the ministry itself. It's no wonder that these laws were being written by big gas to deliver for big gas. How fascinating that the government's able to prioritise that drafting when it's not able to prioritise a whole lot of other useful drafting that might actually make people's lives better.

I'm afraid the time for truth is here, and we're finally seeing with naked honesty how much influence the fossil fuel sector has over this parliament. I'd thought we'd had a change of government, and I'd hoped that things might change. Well, more fool me, because, unfortunately, they're both taking the big donations from the big fossil fuel companies, and it's perfectly clear from last week's verbalisation by Minister Wong that they will both do the bidding of the fossil fuel giants. It's absolute heartbreak for anyone out there that voted for this government in the hope of climate action.

The safeguard mechanism was strengthened thanks to the Greens' negotiations, and now the government is back to building a back door for the likes of Santos and Woodside and INPEX to continue business-as-usual while the planet cooks, while there are bushfires in our regional areas in Queensland. They started in October this season, and they started in September last season. What more evidence do you need that fossil fuels are cooking the place, destroying bushland, destroying homes, destroying lives? And for what? So that some rich fat cat can make more money. How base is that? When did it become the government and the opposition's job to boost the private profits of the fossil fuel sector rather than represent the public interest and represent the people that voted to put you here? I don't understand the motivations. Why do you think it's your job to make Santos more money? Why? That is not your job. It is your job to act on the science, to adhere to the laws that we passed that would restrict emissions—not as strongly as they need to be, but better than we had before. It is not your job to now build in a backdoor loophole to allow business as usual for big gas. I mean, it absolutely boggles the mind.

So I come back to the question Senator Hanson-Young asked, and I'd like to know the answer, too. How many phone calls—from Santos, from APPEA, perhaps from the Japanese foreign minister or perhaps from the South Korean foreign minister—did it take last week and over the weekend, to both sides of this chamber, to get you to collude on an hours motion to ram through these laws to boost the fossil fuel sector profits?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (11:20): I refer senators to the answer I provided just now to Senator Hanson-Young.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:20): What we do know is that it is being touted by the fossil fuel industry and by government ministers themselves that this bill will facilitate and impact $30 billion of investment into the fossil fuel industry—the expansion of gas, in particular; $30 billion worth of investment: that's what the government and the coalition are hearing from their fossil fuel mates. You are risking $30 billion worth of expansion of the very toxic pollution that is driving the climate crisis.

What we saw last week and what we've seen again this morning is something we don't often see in this place. We're witnessing how the sausage is made. The pressure comes from the fossil fuel industry. They're not getting the bill through the Senate as quickly as they want. They call the minister. The minister writes a letter to her federal counterpart—Minister King, writing to her counterpart, Senator Susan McDonald—putting pressure on. Then we have the Leader of the Opposition standing up and saying, 'Well, if you want us to pass this piece of legislation, you need to give us an inquiry that is going to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry to destroy the renewables sector.' That's how the sausage is made, folks. And it's been nakedly described and exposed here in this chamber on this piece of legislation.

Then, just to chase it up, there were the news articles over the weekend describing the pressure that the fossil fuel companies are placing on members of the coalition, with the support of members of the government, to get this legislation through, because $30 billion of their profits and their will to expand the industry and keep cooking the planet is at risk. Well, I'm glad it's at risk, because we have to start taking the climate crisis seriously. Rather than coming into this place and debating how we're going to reduce pollution, what we're going to do to stop expanding coal and gas and what we're going to do to stop the climate fires from taking rage over summer, we've got the political games of who's best mates with who in the fossil fuel industry going on in here. That's what we saw from Senator Wong during question time on Friday: 'I'm better friends with them, not you!' That is effectively what Minister Wong said across the table to Senator Birmingham: 'They like us better. You can't sit with us at lunchtime unless you give us your sandwich!' It's pathetic, absolutely pathetic.

But let's be clear: this is how the sausage is made. And when political donations are at play, when the cash goes out from Santos or Woodside or the gas company, the gas cartel, they expect something. They were pretty annoyed last week they didn't get what they were told they would get. I come back to it: Is this the Senate chamber or the Santos chamber? Are we here to implement laws for the Australian people or laws for the gas and coal cartel? What about the influence and the pressure that are being put on our democracy, our chamber of democracy here in the Senate, by the Korean and the Japanese governments? Hang on a minute—why are we skipping and jumping and being expected to ram through pieces of legislation because a foreign government wants us to? We had the foreign minister stand in this place and say, 'Well, we should be getting this done now because Japan wants it. Korea wants it.' Well, I'm sorry, this is the Australian parliament and we are Australian senators, and this is about our environment and about the responsibilities we have to our own people and to the planet. Of course, this all happened with the backdrop of the Prime Minister at the Pacific islands forum last week, where Pacific island nations were asking the Australian government to do the exact opposite, to not expand fossil fuels, to not make the climate crisis worse, which is driving sea-level rise and putting their very lives, livelihoods and homes at risk. Well, we didn't see legislation being rammed through this place to help the Pacific island nations. No. It just happened to be that what Japan and Korea want is what Santos wants, what Woodside wants and what APIA—the gas cartel lobby group—wants.

This is the Australian Senate. Our job is to scrutinise legislation and to do what is in the best interests of Australians. I don't think anyone can mount an argument that facilitating the expansion of the gas industry to allow the dumping of toxic carbon pollution in the sea bed under the ocean is going to be good for the Australian people. It's not good for the environment and it's not good for our climate. You just have to read between the lines. It's not the environment minister writing to her counterpart, begging for this bill to be passed. It's the Minister for Resources who has been writing to the opposition asking for this bill to be passed.

However, this is a piece of legislation brought in under the name of the environment minister. It is a hoax to suggest that this has anything to do with protecting the environment. The environment minister herself knows it. The resources minister knows it. The foreign affairs minister knows it. Every member of the government front bench knows that this has nothing to do with taking action on climate change, nothing to do with protecting the environment and all to do with protecting the profits the Santos, Woodside and the gas cartel.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (11:28): I want to congratulate Senator McAllister on the excellent job she did all of last week and continuing on today of pretending that something is not what it is. She has done an excellent job of acting and saying, 'No, this isn't about expanding fossil fuels; it's got something to do with obscure international obligations that we have to sign up to.' If we were going to do that, we could, but we could do it without expanding the gas industry.

After we last debated this on Friday, we had question time, when the foreign minister belled the cat and said the quiet bit out loud, said everything that Senator McAllister had been trying all week to avoid saying. While goading the opposition, the foreign minister said what the bill is about. The media over the weekend have emphasised that—the fact that, if this legislation doesn't go through, it will put at risk, in their terms, $30 billion of investment in gas expansion. That's a lot of investment in gas expansion. That's a lot of carbon dioxide. That's a lot of heating of a planet that is already overheated. It is the exact opposite of what legislation in this place needs to be.

Senator Wong said on Friday in question time that this bill was needed for Santos, Woodside and INPEX and that the Koreans and the Japanese want this bill to go ahead so that they can burn Australia's dirty gas. It's very clear. We have kept debating this bill all week because of that clarity. We know what bad legislation this is. This is legislation that is pouring petrol on the fire of the climate crisis. This is legislation that is going to make the climate crisis worse. For the people who voted for the Labor Party at the last election who are concerned about the climate—and a lot of them are, and they had hope that this government was going to be different—it is not legislation that they want to see passed. Anybody who is concerned about climate, anybody who has got any understanding of the climate crisis, knows that we need to be getting out of burning coal and gas and oil and that we need to stop new coal and gas. In Australia and across the world, from the ordinary person in the street who is concerned about the heat and the fires and the floods, to the United Nations, they are calling on us to stop new gas, oil and coal developments. And yet this legislation is designed to facilitate $30 billion of investment in gas projects, with the theory that it's going to be okay because a lot of that carbon is going to be buried under the ground, with unproven technology. The UN, again, has said, 'Do not proceed with carbon sequestration and storage technologies until they work,' essentially. 'You've got to make sure that they work first. Do not use the prospect of CCS to approve massive new gas and coal mines.' And yet we're going ahead with this legislation, which is to facilitate the development—by Santos, by Woodside—of new gas projects. It is so, so clear.

I want to finish up by going back to why this is so important. This year is the hottest year that the planet has experienced for 125,000 years. The last 12 months is the hottest 12 months on record. October was the hottest October on record, following the hottest June, July, August and September on record. We need to be stopping burning coal, gas and oil. We should be exporting renewable technology, turbocharging our exports of renewable technologies and renewable energy, not subsidising and facilitating expansion of coal and gas. And it matters to anyone that's concerned about fires, about floods, about sea level rise, about our ability to grow food, about First Nations justice and the loss of sovereignty of your land when you can no longer live in it. Under global heating, that is currently what we're on track for. Vast areas of inland Australia will become unlivable. First Nations peoples for whom those are their traditional lands will not be able to live on that country. There will be a massive impact across the board on our planet, on country, on the very things that make Australia the country that we love—on our wildlife, on our natural environments, on our forests, on our ability to grow food when our food-growing areas, our wheat-growing areas, start to have the climate of the central deserts, where you cannot grow food.

This is what is at stake, and Australia has a massive role to play, because if we told the world, 'Yes, we need to transition but, no, we are not approving new coal and gas projects,' that would send a massive signal to the world. We are one of the biggest exporters of coal and gas. If Australia signalled to the world that we are taking climate change seriously and that we not only are going to transition to renewable energy here in Australia but are phasing out exports of coal and gas and are not going ahead with any new coal and gas projects, that would be a huge contribution to tackling the climate catastrophe, the climate crisis that we are currently in. That is what anyone who's concerned about our future wants to see happen. This Friday we have the School Strike 4 Climate. We have young people who are striking because they know that their future is at stake. We had Senator Sterle in this place on Friday saying the grown-ups were in charge. Well, what the grown-ups are doing is putting the lives of those young people at risk. We need to be active, we need to be getting out of coal and gas, and we should not be passing legislation like this legislation through this parliament.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (11:35): Here we find ourselves while the bushfires are burning on the eastern seaboard of Australia and have been burning for many weeks now. Here we find ourselves while we are facing an El Nino summer where we can confidently predict we will see record temperatures and, tragically, once again the eastern seaboard of Australia burning. And here are the Labor Party doing what they have done for decades now: coming into this place and legislating for the benefit of the gas cartel and the fossil fuel corporations.

How do we know this? Because Senator Wong, in an extraordinary revelation in question time on Friday, said the quiet bit out loud. She made it very clear that this was legislation that was designed to be beneficial to Woodside, to Santos and, interestingly, to Japan and South Korea. She specifically made the assertion to the Liberal Party that they were saying no to Woodside, to Santos and to INPEX, but they were also, according to Senator Wong, saying no to Japan and South Korea. It's no surprise whatsoever to close watchers of this parliament that the gas cartel is running the show in this joint. It is no surprise whatsoever to hear from Senator Wong that Woodside and Santos are beneficiaries of the sea dumping bill. But what was a surprise was that Senator Wong accused the Liberals of saying no to Japan and South Korea. This is the foreign minister of Australia admitting in the Senate that she is being pressured by Japan and South Korea to pass this carbon capture and storage legislation. By the way, if you think carbon capture and storage is a viable technology, I have a harbour bridge up for sale and I'd be happy to have a discussion with you about that.

This revelation from Senator Wong that Japan and Korea are pressuring her and the Australian government to have this legislation passed raises some very interesting questions: exactly what has been the nature of the communications from the Japanese and South Korean governments to the foreign minister here in Australia and to the Australian government; how much of a role did the pressure from the Japanese and South Korean governments play in the Australian government bringing this legislation forward; and, critically, what other fossil fuel projects is Senator Wong being pressured on by the Japanese government, the South Korean government or any other foreign government? The Australian people have a right to know what is going on here. The Australian foreign minister has made it clear that she is under pressure from the Japanese and South Korean governments to pass this legislation. What is the nature of that pressure? What role has that pressure played? On what other fossil fuel corporations or projects is she under pressure from foreign governments? Those are legitimate questions for Australians to understand.

We sat here last week and watched Senator McAllister dodge and weave around these very questions, and then we sat here in question time and watched Senator Wong throw Senator McAllister under a bus. You could not make this stuff up. Day after day, Senator McAllister fronted in this chamber and stood up to do the bidding of the gas cartel and did everything she could, tied herself in knots, to avoid answering questions about the benefit of this legislation to the gas cabal and about whether or not there had been pressure applied by the Japanese and Korean governments. Then in came Senator Wong, and in 10 seconds she undid all those many hours of contortions and tying herself in knots that we witnessed from Senator McAllister last week. You could not make this stuff up. I would have actually paid good money to watch this happen. If it weren't so serious, it would be utterly hilarious what a shambles of a government this is. They can't even get their story straight.

What we now know is that this is not just for Woodside and Santos and Inpex; this is for the governments of Japan and South Korea. Of course, that's because they want our gas. That's because our gas is not actually for making sure Australians have got enough gas; it's for making sure that people who live in other countries have got enough gas. We're selling it off for a pittance. We're exporting most of it overseas. And we are cooking the planet. What a bunch of geniuses we have got running the show in here! For the benefit of Hansard, that last statement was dripping in sarcasm.

You could not make this stuff up. We are supposed to be in this place legislating for the benefit of the Australian people. We are supposed to be in here legislating for future generations. Right now, future generations not just here in Australia but right around the world are facing a future wracked with fire, wracked with flood, wracked with heat, wracked with disaster, wracked with displacement, wracked with disease and wracked with death. That's because the major parties in this place and their likenesses around the world cannot divorce themselves from big fossil fuel corporations. They just cannot do it. Whether it's the Labor Party or the Liberal Party, they cannot do it.

When the history of this time is written, those who are unable to divorce themselves from the interests and the greed of big fossil fuel corporations will be understood as culpable—culpable for the collapse of our ecosystems, culpable for the death of countless humans, culpable for the dislocation of many more, culpable for wars, disease and famine. And you cannot say you didn't know. You cannot say you didn't know, because you do know, yet day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, decade after decade you come into this place, as you are doing today with the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, and you legislate for the interests of big fossil fuel. It is an utter disgrace and an abrogation of your responsibility not only to Australians today but to Australians and people right around the world of the future—our kids, our grandkids, their kids, their grandkids. It is an absolute disgrace, which is what this sea-dumping bill is. It is an utter disgrace, a capitulation to the psychopaths running big fossil fuel corporations and a step down the dark road to ecocide. That's what is happening day after day, week after week in this place, and it is both major parties who are culpable—the government and the opposition.

These are dark days, colleagues, and they are getting darker simply because those who are captured by big fossil fuel are refusing to do what the science and what the United Nations are telling us we need to do: develop no more coal and gas and stop native forest logging. We have to radically reduce our emissions.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Dean Smith ): Thank you, Senator McKim. Senator David Pocock.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (11:46): We continue with this awful Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, and, yet again, we have young people here watching this debate in the Senate on a bill that will affect their future. For a full week of Senate sittings we had Senator McAllister ducking and weaving like Muhammad Ali in his prime—avoiding answering questions and avoiding going to the substantive part of this bill and revealing what, on Friday, it took our Minister for Foreign Affairs to come clean about: what this bill is actually about. I mentioned Muhammad Ali. It's probably unfair on Muhammad Ali because the thing that Labor are missing are the moral spine, the moral fortitude and the conviction of someone like that. This bill lays that bare. For the young people up there, this is a bill that the government is putting forward at the behest of the gas industry—in Senator Wong's words, Santos, Woodside and INPEX—to create loopholes to allow the fossil fuel industry to continue to expand and approve new gas projects. The Labor government knows that that will come at the expense of our future. They know that they don't somehow have some sort of exemption from atmospheric physics and the earth's systems. You're watching our government ram through a bill, with the support of the coalition, that will lead to a worsening climate. It is so outrageous, deeply troubling, shameful and negligent for a government in 2023 to come forward with a bill that will facilitate the expansion of the gas industry.

Over the weekend I was looking at a report by the Australian Academy of Science from March 2021 that explored the risks to Australia of a three-degrees-Celsius warmer world, which, despite what you hear from Labor, who have a great sales pitch on climate, we're on track for. Labor's commitments aren't in line with our Paris commitments.

They talk up a huge game on the transition—and I commend them for their work on transitioning our electricity generation to renewables. It is a critical part of the puzzle. We have to go fast. But, at the same time, we have to stop expanding the fossil fuel industry. We know that. We've been told it time and time again, not just by climate scientists but also by organisations like the International Energy Agency. Civil society has been urging government. We saw people vote in record numbers at the last election for minor parties and Independents, who are in here to represent them, to stand up for our future against this recklessness of the major parties.

How embarrassing is it that we have legislation whereby the government is willing to stand up in here and say, 'This is for Inpex and Santos and Woodside' and at the same time take donations from those companies—take donations from companies that have no credible transition plan. Santos and Woodside are banking on us not taking climate action. They're banking on your children having a harrowing future on this incredible continent if we're heading for three degrees Celsius. And I fear that what we're hearing from Labor is just some sort of surrender to the wishes of the gas companies.

It doesn't have to be this way. We're being told that things are dire. Turn on the TV: things are dire. But our decisions now matter. Our decisions now are critical. We have a small window to act. Australia is one of the biggest fossil fuel exporters in the world, and as a middle power we can and must play a critical role in this. We need leadership. I urge the Albanese government to show leadership. Leadership on climate looks like listening to climate scientists, listening to young people who are begging you to look after their future. It doesn't look like the sea dumping bill.

Minister, given the number of questions last week that went to consultation, representations that had been made by various companies and groups, and the answers you gave, would you like to correct the record for the Senate after the contribution of Minister Wong in question time?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (11:53): I've been clear from the beginning of the debate that the government has engaged with a wide range of stakeholders through a range of formal processes. The government consults regularly with business, with community organisations and with representations of organised Labor. This is the ordinary business of government.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (11:53): I thought I might take this opportunity to provide a small intervention from the opposition at—where are we now, day six, or day five?—of debate on this bill. I think we've had in excess of nine hours of debate on this legislation, and I find it incredible that we're not moving forward at any pace. This morning a motion was even moved to allow us to continue to sit until whenever—it's not actually specified in the motion—to complete debate on this motion. It's a welcome development, I suppose, because it appears there are still a lot of questions there. But I thought I might take this opportunity to inject a bit of reality into this debate, because we've heard a lot about the nasty, evil fossil fuel industry and how they're destroying everything and how that's their sole aim in life. But, last time I checked, the majority of energy generation in this country actually depends on those horrible fossil fuels.

Now, it may not be optimum, but it is the reality. It is the way the world is at the moment. A transition should occur, but we can't just turn the tap off because the lights would go out and trucks would stop delivering goods from one end of the country to the other. It would destroy our economy, jobs would evaporate, and communities would become non-existent, particularly in our regions, a part of the country that many in this chamber seem to forget about when we debate these things. Not once this morning has anyone from the government or the crossbench talked about the cost of living. Most of the Australian public who march through this place are struggling to pay their bills. They're having trouble with increasing mortgage repayments. The cost of energy in this country has gone through the roof. Even in my home state of Tasmania, where the majority if not all of energy generated for consumption is renewable, it is expensive. In Tasmania it's gone up by roughly 25 per cent in a 12-month period. That's a huge impost on any household—any business, for that matter—trying to make ends meet. Yet here we are demonstrating to the people of Australia how out of touch we are by not talking about that at all. And what's worse in all of this is so that the government can keep pointing to things like safeguards as a means of having met our international obligations to reduce emissions.

As we predicted and pointed out at the time of the passage of that legislation, that bill will drive up the cost of doing business, will drive up the cost of living, and it appears that's exactly what is happening. What's more, it potentially will drive those industries that exist here offshore. Yes, they happen to be heavy emitters and they'll go offshore to places, as I've said previously in this debate, where they don't give a stuff about the environment. These countries don't care about carbon emissions, and many companies do or would prefer to do business in jurisdiction where there are no regulatory regimes around environmental protection, where they don't sign up to international agreements to reduce emissions. These jurisdictions simply invite businesses to operate, and there are no labour laws to protect their workers. People get paid next to nothing to do what we in this country have proper laws to protect workers from doing. And that's why we're here, of course, because of Labor's terrible legislation, which is damaging the economy, and now we're trying to make a bad situation better.

This government has found itself in this mess as a result of being intransigent and not even willing to work with the opposition on a fairly modest request to have an open inquiry into transmission lines across our country. Heaven forbid—a democratic, transparent process, a function of this chamber, the Australian Senate! It's not even a new committee that we're asking to have set up. It's an inquiry by an existing references committee. But such is the intransigence of this government that we now find ourselves in the sixth day of debate on a bill that the government has the numbers to pass. We're still here, and we're going to be here for a while, as evidenced by this motion to sit until whenever. I don't know why the government doesn't just get on with business and agree to have an inquiry. What's there to hide? What's there to worry about? I do not understand for the life of me why we are still here when the government could simply move things on. We could be debating counterterror laws. We could be, as I said before, dealing with the cost of living. But no, no, no, no, this debate is so the government can save face. The crossbench have characterised it in a different way, but it is purely a face-saving exercise. They refuse to move, and they think, by attrition they'll be able to wear everyone else in this chamber down.

I will be interested to see how strong the resolve of the crossbench is as we move on, whether they'll continue to debate until this bill is concluded.

Senator Faruqi: Whenever.

Senator DUNIAM: The motion says 'has concluded or at 8.00 pm, whichever is later, or on the motion of a minister'. From the interjection from Senator Faruqi, it sounded like 'forever' is on the cards. That's an f-word I'm sure the minister doesn't want to hear, but we'll soon know what happens. I've heard the suggestion that the bill is being rammed through, but I've seen snails ram through a piece of lettuce quicker than the progress of this piece of legislation. I have to give credit to a person advising Senator Birmingham's office for that analogy. But what a joke, day 6, hours and hours of debate, and there is no sign of movement. There was one small request, a bit of transparency: we've asked for an inquiry into transmission lines and the impact on prime agricultural land. The government has said no. They continue to say no. We could move now and we could get on to all the other matters of business, but the Australian Labor Party says no. It's a shame, and I'm sure you'll hear more of this a bit later on.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (12:00): It's interesting to hear from the Labor government that they consulted a wide range of stakeholders during this bill. From what I can see, the only stakeholders that they have listened to are their fossil fuel donors. The only stakeholders that they have listened to are Woodside, Santos and INPEX. I think Senator Pocock is right and Senator McKim is right. This is embarrassing and it is outrageous. As the world burns, as young people every single day are looking at a future that is becoming bleaker and bleaker for them, here we are greenwashing and basically greenlighting more fossil fuel and exacerbation of the climate crisis.

On Friday I asked Senator Penny Wong why the Labour government would not end new coal and gas, and I must say there were assertions made during that response about my strong push for climate action being disingenuous. I forcefully reject those assertions. For me it is not about being right but about doing what is necessary, and the truth of what is necessary is staring us in the face. The truth of the impacts of climate change are staring us in the face. Even the Labour government admits that while they're offering refuge to those people from Tuvalu who will be displaced by the climate crisis. Even they admit that, but they're not actually willing to act to stem that climate crisis.

It's necessary to take strong action on climate change and not exacerbate it. Hundreds of scientists and experts are telling us that it is necessary. We have irrefutable evidence in front of us that the world has experienced the hottest 12 months ever on record, and it really does blow my mind that the Labor government and Senator Wong won't even admit the role the Global North has played in the climate crisis through unfettered extraction and the use of resources and fossil fuels, which has brought us to this point undeniably. This is not about pointing fingers but about accepting the responsibility for what countries like Australia have done. That's what it is about. It's about accepting responsibility for our actions and acting then to repair the damage that has been done.

The reality is that climate related disasters are increasing in frequency and severity, with the Global South paying the price. The reality is that Australia, disgracefully, remains one of the biggest exporters of fossil fuels and continues to have one of the world's largest per capita footprints. We know that our neighbours, who this government talks about so lovingly—our Pacific neighbours, the Pacific nations—are on the front line of the climate crisis. Well, do something about it. Don't push through this bill, which actually makes things worse. The Pacific nations are facing unprecedented climate disasters, and we do require the taking of strong and urgent action. And yet they have a neighbour in Australia that is refusing to end new coal and gas, which is fuelling the climate crisis—a neighbour that has contributed to so much of the climate crisis and still is refusing to take any real responsibility. The Pacific nations are staring in the face immense loss of life and a rapid collapse of access to basic survival necessities such as food and water. Hundreds of thousands of people across the Pacific will be displaced by climate disasters, and too many will die. Where is Australia here trying to do something to prevent that loss and damage? In the midst of all of this, it is pretty galling to see Prime Minister Anthony Albanese rock up to the Pacific Islands Forum with nothing more than coal in his pockets. What a shame that the Labor Party's pockets are lined with the dirty donations from the fossil fuel lobby which actually have brought us to this particular bill that we are debating now.

The CHAIR: Senator Faruqi, there is a point of order. Senator Scarr?

Senator Scarr: It is on personal reflections, Deputy President. I know we talk about this issue from time to time. The fact of the matter is there are a number of Labor senators sitting here today—there are two Labor senators sitting here today—and, when the assertion is made that they are essentially being bribed by the fossil fuel industry in order to introduce legislation, that is a clear reflection on a particular subgroup of this Senate. I think it is being done again and again and again by the Greens. I am happy for you to take it under advisement, but I think the point has to come when it's called out as a personal reflection.

The CHAIR: I take your point. I would say, Senator Faruqi, just be careful if there was such an assertion. I didn't understand it to be so. I understood your comments to be about an alternative to climate change and giving aid to the Pacific islands. But I ask you to exercise restraint given all the discussions last week.

Senator FARUQI: That's exactly what it was, as you said, Chair. The bottom line is we cannot afford more coal and gas, the world cannot afford more coal and gas, and especially our Pacific neighbours cannot afford more coal and gas. No amount of money to the Pacific will repair the damage that Australia's government green-lighting projects like Beetaloo, Pilliga-Narrabri or the Burrup Hub will do to the globe's climate. How can Australia really be a genuine partner to the Pacific while we are expanding coal and gas, the very things that are putting the lives, livelihoods and homes of our Pacific neighbours at risk? Surely we've got to do better than that. We can do better than that. We have the resources to do better than that. We have to get out of fossil fuels and we have to stop subsidising the pollution that is making the climate crisis worse.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (12:07): I have thoroughly enjoyed Senator Duniam's contributions on this over the last 10 or 12 hours, and I thank him for another one. I just want to provide a different perspective on something he said. He talked about the demonising or vilification of fossil fuel companies. The reality is that currently fossil fuels do provide a large proportion of our energy mix. That transition is underway. I'm certainly not advocating for an end of that immediately, but what I am saying is that climate scientists and experts are saying we have more than enough coal, oil and gas already being exploited for the transition. If we do want to leave future generations with a livable climate, we have to ensure that the existing reserves are used for that transition and that we're not adding new ones. This is about new coal, oil and gas. It seems very clear that this legislation is specifically designed to facilitate the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. We'll continue to hear lines from Labor and the coalition about the need to secure our energy security by opening up new gas, whether that's in the Pilliga, Barossa, Scarborough, Pluto or Beetaloo.

The inconvenient truth is that we export almost three-quarters of this gas. In fact, the gas used by gas companies to process gas and liquefy it for export is more than the gas used by every single Australian household combined. The real failure here when it comes to the cost of living is that we have policies that allow that. They allow the majority of our gas to be exported, and there is no reservation policy. There's nothing set aside that says: 'Hey, this is Australian gas. We should benefit first.' Australians should pay less for our gas than Korea and Japan do because it's our gas, yet one of the things that are fuelling the cost of living is the price of gas. Australians are paying export prices for our own gas.

Then you'll hear the major parties say: 'Don't worry about that. The thing is that they bring in a lot of revenue. They pay a lot of tax. We've got the petroleum resource rent tax.' Again, we are getting totally dudded when it comes to offshore LNG. Last time I checked at estimates, offshore LNG had not paid a single cent of petroleum resource rent tax. How can that be? If you look at the tax returns of these companies, a lot of them aren't paying their fair share of tax either. We've got teachers and nurses in our communities paying more tax than some of these foreign fossil fuel companies.

Another cost-of-living pressure that is directly related to this bill is insurance. We've seen insurance premiums go up across the country. In some areas, they've skyrocketed. I've heard stories of community sports clubs now being uninsurable. They're being told, 'Sorry, we can't insure you for fire and flood,' due to climate change. Yet here we are debating legislation, which has the support of the coalition and the Labor Party, that will make that worse. What do we say to those Australians when we're here debating legislation that will ultimately increase the costs that we all bear? It will increase our cost of living. This is the price of Labor turning to the coalition for support on climate policy in 2023.

Yet again, communities across the country are so far ahead of the major parties. They are urging them to step up, take this seriously, show some real leadership, show some moral courage and stand up to their fossil fuel donors. Santos, Woodside and INPEX all just happened to donate to both major parties out of the goodness of their heart. They just wanted to really help the major parties do their thing and get re-elected. We've got to do better. Australians will get to decide. Here in the ACT, for many years climate has been one of the biggest concerns for voters, yet they've now got four representatives who are voting for the expansion of the gas industry. We've got to do better. We've got to be more accountable to our communities. We've got to put people, including our children and future generations, ahead of the short-term profits of gas companies and the fossil fuel industry that clearly don't care about our future. If they did, they would be making other plans.

I would much rather be here contributing on climate policy that maybe is in line with Labor's rhetoric. Perhaps we could be debating policy about the electrification of households, where, for the same amount that we continue to spend on fossil fuel subsidies, over five years we could have a program that helped electrify every household in the country. We know that electrification can save households thousands of dollars every year. The sums have been done on this: three to five grand per household every year going forward. Not only is that a cost-of-living measure; it's anti-inflationary because we're not so reliant on foreign oil and we're not so vulnerable to overseas conflict that sends petrol prices skyrocketing. But that's not what the government has brought before us. The government has brought before us a bill to expand the gas industry.

We could be here debating measures that are a response to the Inflation Reduction Act. We're not doing that. We're debating measures to expand the gas industry. I'm so concerned that the government is too slow in responding to the Inflation Reduction Act—the biggest climate and energy policy and spend in history, and we're asleep at the wheel. We've got companies urging the government to bring that sort of legislation forward, to truly have policies that will make us world leaders and that will build this economy of the future—this renewables superpower that we've heard so much about. Just getting to 100 per cent renewables does not make us an energy superpower. We've got to have more ambition. We need more leadership from Labor. I urge them to bring forward climate legislation in this place so they can have the support of the crossbench and so we don't end up with a six-day debate on a stinky bill.

Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:17): I wasn't going to speak on this, but I feel as if I need to. I've been motivated to speak on this Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, following the contributions from Senator Faruqi and Senator Pocock. I greatly admire Senator Pocock's sincerity and his dedication in this place, and I think he knows that. I do want to get some facts on the record in relation to tax paid by oil and gas companies in this country.

If you listened to the contributions from the crossbench, you would think our major oil and gas companies are not paying any tax and aren't paying any petroleum resource rent tax. The facts are to the contrary, and, in the three minutes I've had sitting here preparing for this contribution, it wasn't hard to find the facts. This is how much Woodside paid in taxes and royalties for the year ending 30 June 2022. Just reflect on these figures and how important these figures are as this country struggles to fund the NDIS for disabled Australians; struggles to fund appropriate health care, especially in our remote and regional communities; and struggles to make sure that kids going to public schools are able to benefit from the facilities they should have a right to expect in a First World country. So just reflect on these figures in terms of tax contributions. This is just one company.

Senator SCARR: Sorry, I couldn't hear the interjection.

Senator David Pocock: Can you give us their revenue as well?

Senator SCARR: Senator Pocock, I'll take that interjection. But, typically, companies pay tax on profit. You pay tax on the difference between revenue and costs—on the profit. That is Income Tax 101. And I don't expect someone to pay tax to the Australian government if they're making a loss. I've been a shareholder in some of these oil and gas companies, and I think we need more shareholders in this place, because then you've got some sort of shallow understanding of the commercial realities. So many of these oil and gas companies actually lost a great deal of money when they were building these major projects, and that is one of the reasons why they haven't been paying tax.

But let's see what's happening. The Greens are living in the past, and let's see what's happening now. Woodside, for the year ending 30 June 2022, paid corporate income tax—that's to us, the Australian taxpayers—of $989 million, nearly $1 billion Australian tax. Senator Pocock and the Greens, including Senator Hanson-Young, go on about the petroleum resource rent tax. Woodside, for the year ending 30 June 2022, paid $720 million in petroleum resource rent tax. So let's add that to the $989 million, and we're up to about $1.7 billion in tax just for one year. Would you have thought of that as you were listening to Senator Pocock's contribution and Senator Faruqi's? Would you have been aware of that? No, you wouldn't have been.

In terms of federal oil and gas royalties, Woodside paid $535 million. So we're now nearly up to $2.2 billion for the year in terms of Woodside's tax. That's just one oil and gas producer. In federal excise they paid $392 million. In payroll tax, to actually employ people, they paid the Western Australian government—lucky citizens of Western Australia—$60 million. That's how many people they employ; the amount of payroll tax is calculated on their earnings. They also paid $7 million in FBT.

So what's the total for 2022? It's $2.7 billion in Australian tax; $2.7 billion was paid in tax by Woodside, putting this parliament in the position where it can provide health services, education services, the NDIS and where it can provide for the defence of this country. How are we going to do that if you take away all of the tax revenue from some of our oldest and best tax generating companies? How are you going to pay for those services? And don't give me a speech about wind power et cetera. You are simply not going to be able to provide the revenue this country needs to provide the services that the people of this country rightly expect. That's the first point to make.

The second point to make—and I took a point of order in relation to this, Deputy President. We are getting sick and tired of the Greens getting up in this place and making a general statement that those of us sitting on either the opposition benches or the government benches are driven solely by donations provided by anyone in this country. That is absolutely untrue. I know the senators sitting opposite. They're on the other side, but I've got absolutely no doubt that, when they put forward a piece of legislation, they're doing it because they believe it's in the best interests of the country.

The Greens may well disagree, and it is their right to disagree, but I won't stand back silently anymore and listen to the general abuse coming from the Greens, generally accusing those sitting on the government benches or those sitting on the opposition benches of being motivated by donations from whoever it is, because it's simply not true. It's absolute rubbish. I certainly didn't come into this place to be influenced by anyone, apart from my own conscious and my own common sense. So I will not sit here and cop it anymore from the Greens. I will call it out whenever I hear it. If the application of the standing orders currently isn't providing for it to be disorderly, it should provide for it to be disorderly. You shouldn't be able to cast a general slur upon everybody sitting in this chamber, on the government benches and the opposition benches, and get away with it just because you haven't personalised it to a single senator. It's not good enough, and I won't cop it anymore. It actually brings shame on this house.

And certainly I don't accuse the Greens. I've never accused the Greens of doing anything in this place, and I often get up on points of order, as they well know, and defend their right to say things as they want to say them. I've never accused the Greens of being motivated by donations. I've never done it and never will do it. I won't make that sort of personal reflection on any individual senator or on senators generally—absolutely won't do it. But I won't cop it anymore, either.

The third point I want to make to Senator Pocock is in relation to his comment around the amount of energy that is spent on producing the LNG that is exported. That's fair enough; raise that point. But the question that should also be asked is: how many people are being provided with energy at the points on the globe where that LNG is being imported? How much energy? How many millions of people are benefitting from that energy? And where would they get energy otherwise? Would they be having energy provided through less-efficient means, which would create more carbon and create a greater issue? Look at both sides of the equation. Don't look at just one side of the equation.

It would be an absolute travesty and an indictment upon this Australian parliament if we ever got to the situation where this country had to import LNG. That's what people are talking about: actually setting up terminals to import LNG, when we've got so much gas in this country. The whole notion that this country should be importing LNG is absolutely absurd. If that ever happens, it would demonstrate that the federal parliament and the various state parliaments have failed the people of Australia.

We need to be looking at every weapon in our arsenal with respect to transition, and that includes carbon capture and storage. It also includes nuclear power. We need to be looking at everything in the arsenal to try to address the transition issues and make sure we can keep making things in this country. Unless we deal with this energy situation at the moment, I deeply fear that our smelters and refineries are going to close down eventually. They won't transition. Their transition will be from production to nothing. And all those jobs will be lost. They'll go overseas to countries that simply don't have the same processes we have and don't have the same care regarding environmental outcomes that the people sitting all over this chamber have. That's the test, from my perspective, when it comes to this debate.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (12:27): Thank you, Senator Scarr, for your contribution. The only thing that could have made it better would have been the appearance of an Economics 101 textbook—but maybe later in this discussion!

You raised a number of points. For me, the overarching point you hit on is that our current economic system is not set up to deal with something like climate change, because we've set up this system to basically externalise costs. The costs that carbon in the atmosphere create are not the problem of fossil fuel companies. This is obviously a very vexed issue in Australia. You could price it with a carbon price. But we know that that is not politically possible, given the last decade of climate politics here. But I think it's something we have to think about. We are hearing arguments about just allowing our current system and markets to deal with this, without recognising that the thing that sits above all of that is this moral challenge that we face. And we potentially need to recognise that the current system that informs our decision-making, as we see today—with both major parties supporting this bill—is maybe not up to dealing with this, and that is why we need leadership. That's why we need leaders in the Pacific saying: 'We want you to sign the Port Vila declaration. We know you could continue to earn money from fossil fuels, but that's not going to mean much in 50 years when we're underwater.'

Senator Scarr made a defence of the contribution of the fossil fuel industry, and he is correct in saying that there has been tax paid. There has been petroleum resource rent tax paid for oil, and we've seen that increase by about $1 billion because of the increase in oil prices around the world over the last year. That's a good thing for Australians. But as, I think, the third largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world at the moment, we're getting dudded. We've been exporting fossil fuels for a long time now. We've been ramping up production.

Compare us to Norway, who from the beginning said: 'We've got these resources, and they belong to all of us. They belong to all of our people, so we're going to ensure that we get a return on these resources'—they're now sitting on a $1.8 trillion sovereign wealth fund—'in recognition that we're setting this aside for their future, for young people, for future generations.' Contrast that to the Australian way, where we have the passionate defence of companies that pay some tax. Yet behind the scenes we've got this very generous system of deductions and being able to compound your investment to the point that, when it comes to offshore LNG, we still haven't seen a cent paid by these gas companies.

I take exception to lumping in the petroleum resource rent tax with income tax. They are two very different things. PRRT is in recognition that that is our gas, and, once that's gone, it's gone. We should get a return on that gas. We don't let builders try and tell us a long story about how they're having to pay for bricks. We recognise that that's part of doing business. If you want to take our gas and market it, you can do that, but you pay us for our gas. Yet so far, for offshore LNG, they haven't paid us. They haven't paid us for our gas.

I just wanted to go through some of the stats released by the ATO when it comes to some of these companies that have come up in the course of this debate. Woodside paid $176 million in tax on nearly $2 billion in profit, a tax rate of less than 10 per cent. If we move on to Santos, Santos claims to have earned just $74 million in profit on $4.7 billion in revenue and ended up paying zero tax. Another four Santos holding companies earned around $1.1 billion in revenue but also paid no tax. ExxonMobil say they made only a little over $1 million of profit off $15 billion in revenue. Those are some serious deductions! If we move down the list a little bit, we have: ExxonMobil Australia Pty Ltd, which earned $15 billion of income and paid zero tax; AGL Energy earned $15 billion of income and paid zero tax; Australia Pacific LNG Pty Ltd earned $9.3 billion of income with a taxable income of $689 million but paid no tax; Ichthys LNG Pty Ltd earned $7.2 billion of income and paid zero tax; Yancoal Australia Ltd earned $5.7 billion of income with just over $18 million taxable income but paid no tax; Glencore Holdings earned $5.5 billion of income but paid no tax; and Anglo American earned just under $4 billion of income and paid no tax.

We’ve got to start getting a better return for our remaining fossil fuel reserves, because we're going to need it. We're going to need this money for the transition. We're going to need this money for adaptation. The government patted themselves on the back when they set up a fund that's delivering $200 million a year for adaptation across the country. The experts are saying we need to be spending $3 billion to $5 billion a year on adaptation or we're going to get to a point where things start to compound and spiral for communities—and we've seen that. We've seen towns go underwater four times in 12 months. We've seen towns facing fires and then floods. We've got to take this more seriously.

I welcome the contribution of Senator Scarr, but let's tell the truth about where we're at. We should be getting far more for our resources and setting ourselves up for the future. We shouldn't be here debating a bill which looks to expand the gas industry for these companies, which, according to the ATO, are not paying that much tax.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:37): I have a question for the minister. What did Senator Wong mean when she said that the coalition were saying no to Korea and no to Japan?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (12:37): Thanks for the question, Senator Hanson-Young. I've been really clear in this debate that this bill proceeds as a consequence of a number of things—firstly, amendments to the London protocol and, secondly, the government's desire to strengthen more generally the arrangements around carbon capture and storage. The reason that that matters is that the safeguard mechanism imposes obligations on large projects that have large emissions, and it requires them to meet binding limits on the amount of emissions that may come from their projects. They can do that by technical interventions to reduce the emissions from the projects they're involved in or through purchasing offsets. You understand that; you were here for the safeguard mechanism debate.

Australia has benefited over many years from inward-bound investment from a number of countries. Japan is one of those countries, and so is Korea. I'm not going to put words into the mouth of Senator Wong—she is a senator in this chamber—but I think it is self-evident that it is in our national interest, from an economic perspective, and also in the interests of our relations with other nations that are our energy trading partners that arrangements that are put in place for regulating CCS are certain and knowable. That's been the proposition I've put before this chamber since this debate began.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:39): Could the minister inform the Senate what discussions or, indeed, arrangements were made with the government of Korea about the timing of this bill?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (12:40): I'm not aware of any such arrangements but I note your question and if I have further information that I can update you with, I will do so.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:40): Would the minister please inform the Senate what undertakings the Australian government, through the foreign minister or the trade minister, were given to Japan in relation to the passage of this bill before this parliamentary session ends?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (12:40): As I have indicated, it is quite normal for the Australian government to be in dialogue with our diplomatic partners and our trading partners about the regulatory arrangements that might be put in place to manage projects in which they have an interest. I don't have specific knowledge but I would be unsurprised to learn that regulatory arrangements for carbon capture and storage had been a subject of discussion in the many interactions that occur between our government at ministerial level or officials level and the government of Japan. This would be an entirely normal discussion to take place in a period where we are reforming our arrangements for carbon capture and storage, we are reforming our own arrangements in relation to emissions and we seek to engage and communicate with partners about the approach we are taking as a government.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:42): As we all know, in diplomatic discussions and arrangements, there is always a negotiation. There is a quid pro quo. What is the quid pro quo for Australia to pass this bill, which, as Senator Wong indicated last Friday, was for Korea and Japan?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (12:42): I have stepped on many occasions the motivation for the government bringing forward this bill. It is because we consider it to be in the national interest and is aligned with the steps that are necessary to put Australia on a path to net zero. I simply do not accept the premise embedded in your question.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:43): Could you please explain to the Senate why the countries of Japan and Korea were named by Minister Wong but no others?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (12:43): As I indicated in my earlier answer, I'm not going to put words into the mouth of Senator Wong. More generally, also as indicated in my previous answer, of course there are discussions between ourselves and the governments of Japan and Korea. That is entirely to be expected given the significance of the trading relationships and investment relationships between our countries.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:44): I'm not asking for you to put words into Senator Wong's mouth. Senator Wong said clearly in this chamber that those not passing this bill—namely, the opposition at the time—were saying no to Japan and no to Korea.It's on Hansard. I'm not asking you to put words into Senator's Wong's mouth. I'm trying to understand what saying yes means. What is it that the Australian government has said yes to Japan about? What is it that the Australian government has said yes to Korea about? You can't come into this place, ask us to ram through pieces of legislation, argue that it's about a years-old obligation, and then have the foreign minister stand up and give such an extraordinary spray about the urgency of this bill passing at the whim and request of two foreign countries. It is extraordinary to be suggesting that this chamber must jump simply because Japan and Korea say so. What is it that saying yes to Japan and Korea means? I'm not asking for you to put words in Senator Wong's mouth; I'm asking for an explanation, a whole-of-government understanding of what saying yes to Japan is, what saying yes to Korea is in relation to this piece of legislation.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (12:46): If Senator Hanson-Young had been observing the debate, and I'm sure she has been over the many months that we've been discussing climate policy since we came to government, she'd know that on many occasions the government has been asked by domestic commentators about the approach that we're taking to relationships with Japan and Korea as some of our key energy trading partners. The position put clearly and publicly on many occasions has been that the government intends to communicate openly and transparently with our energy trading partners about our regulatory arrangements across a whole range of policy areas, in fact. It is unsurprising that in relation to carbon capture and storage, which is relevant to a number of projects where there are Japanese and Korean investors involved, that we would seek to make clear to our partners what the relevant regulatory arrangements might be. I don't think that's an unusual feature of policymaking. In fact, it is a positive thing that so many of our senior ministers are actively engaged in discussions and dialogue with key regional trading partners.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (12:47): Minister, in light of Senator Wong's statements in this chamber, I want to ask a question that I asked last week—I'm not sure if it was on Monday or Tuesday or maybe on Wednesday—about whether or not the government had an agreement with a gas company or someone acting on their behalf prior to the safeguard mechanism passing this parliament about the legislation in front of us today. I'm happy for you to consult on whether it was with Minister Bowen or Minister Plibersek and their office.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (12:48): Senator Pocock, I have answered this question before by pointing to the fact that this legislation has had a very long period of development and has been in the works for a very long time. We've stepped through the timetable many times. An amendment was made to the London protocol in 2009. It was considered by the JSCOT in 2020. Legislation to consider the matter commenced under the previous government. Minister Plibersek referred the broad question of the amendments to the London protocol to the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water in 2023. Legislation was then introduced, and it was considered by a Senate committee. Most of that timetable predates the debate on the safeguard mechanism. I don't think it is unusual for reforms to proceed in parallel, and the government has been very upfront that the reform of the arrangements around carbon capture and storage are connected to our broader arrangements in relation to emissions reduction across the economy.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (12:50): You've said a number of times that you've answered our questions, but I really seek clarification. My concern is that there was a deal done by the Albanese government before the safeguard mechanism negotiations and their passage through the parliament that basically said: 'Don't worry about this safeguard. Don't make too much noise as a gas industry, because we're going to give you this get-out-of-jail-free card in the form of the sea-dumping bill.' I've repeatedly asked whether or not there was an agreement to that extent. You've given other explanations about the length of time this has been in the works, the consultation, the London protocol et cetera. I would really just like a yes or no: was there or wasn't there an agreement to that extent? Then I'll stop asking this question.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (12:51): I'm advised that no agreement was entered into by Ministers Plibersek or Bowen prior to the passage of the safeguard legislation. But I make the point again that your question implies that there is something unconventional about the legislation that's coming through. The reason that I keep pointing to the timetable is that this bill has proceeded in an entirely ordinary way through a series of very public discussions about its nature and purpose, and all of these—well, most of these—processes precede the passage of the safeguard legislation. And so, in contemplating the impacts of the safeguard legislation, stakeholders, whether they are in community organisations or are representatives of employees, trade union organisations, employer organisations or enterprises, would have had knowledge of the set of propositions that were moving through the system and had already been recommended for passage by JSCOT back in 2020.

Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:52): I did want to respond to some of the remarks made by Senator Pocock in relation to tax which has been paid. I'm very keen to be reeled in by Senator Pocock in this respect. I do note that Exxon Mobil, one of the companies that has been referred to by Senator Pocock in his comments, has invested $41 billion in Australia. Isn't that a good thing? One hundred per cent of their Gippsland gas is sold locally and taxed in Australia, providing essential energy that Australian homes and businesses rely on. Senator Pocock referred to a local reservation policy. One hundred per cent of that Gippsland gas—Gippsland Basin Join Venture supplies 70 per cent of Victoria's natural gas, relied on for heating, cooking and manufacturing. And we're coming into this place and demonising them? They provide 70 per cent of Victoria's gas. You can't have a manufacturing industry at the moment without gas, and yet they're being demonised by Senator Pocock and those others sitting on the crossbenches. How much petroleum resource rent tax do you think they've paid since 1990? Five billion? Higher. Ten billion? Higher. Exxon Mobil has paid $15 billion just in petroleum resource rent tax. On average they pay $3 billion a year in all of the different categories of tax, royalties and excise, and we're demonising them?

Senator Pocock also referred to Glencore. Glencore does have a very close connection with my home state of Queensland, having, in a previous iteration, when it was known as Xstrata, taken over one of Queensland's best companies, Mount Isa Mines Limited. Each year they produce a Paymentstogovernments report. I would suggest to anyone who is listening to this debate, if you want to know the truth about how much tax is paid by companies, to do your own research and dig in, because you will find the information:

This report addresses our UK regulatory obligations under DTR 4.3A of the Financial Conduct Authority's Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules, which were introduced to implement the payments to governments requirements provided for in the EU Transparency and Accounting Directives.

So, this document has been produced to meet Glencore's accounting obligations—legal obligations.

For the year ending 30 June 2022, this is how much tax the Glencore group paid Australia—listen very carefully—taxes on income, or corporate tax, $2,004,000,000; royalties, including to my home state of Queensland, over $2 billion, so we're up to $4 billion in tax; fees, $34.6 million; tax payments calculated in line with the UK transparency requirements, over $4 billion; customs/import/excise/export tax and duties, $383 million; payroll taxes, and that's that awful tax that companies have to pay to actually employ people, nearly $200 million; and taxes and duties relating to non-extractive activities, $482 million. So, the total they paid to federal and state governments for the year ending 30 June 2022—just reflect on this figure—is $5.135 billion.

In my previous contribution I referred to Woodside having contributed $4 billion, I think it was. If you add those two together, you get $9 billion of tax revenue, just from those two companies. What are those who are sitting at that end of the chamber proposing should be done to replace that tax revenue? That's $9 billion. Glencore, last financial year, to 30 June 2022, from their transparency report, paid $5.135 billion. So, great care needs to be taken, when we look at these reports that are produced in relation to this corporate group as to how much tax is paid. The best source of information is reports like this.

Then you will see that 41.66 per cent of the tax paid by Glencore all over the world was paid to the Australian federal government and Australian state governments—41.66 per cent. Now, if we were to introduce the policies that those at that end of the chamber would like to see introduced, including opposing this bill, do you know what would happen? These companies would take their business somewhere else. Where would they take it? You don't need to look too far, because they list all the other countries where they pay taxes. They could take their business to Argentina, where they paid $2.7 billion in tax, or Bolivia, where they paid $6.7 billion in tax, or Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kazakhstan, New Caledonia, Peru, South Africa or the United States—the rest of the world—where they paid half a billion dollars of tax. They have choices. They don't have to invest their capital in this country. And as we're sitting here having this debate, and their investment boards are making decisions about whether or not they invest $1 billion of capital in Australia or invest it in Argentina, Chile, Equatorial Guinea or wherever else they have assets, they will consider Australia's taxation regime in making those decisions. So, during the course of this debate, great care should be taken with respect to the practical consequences for everyday Australians, in terms of having gas supply and jobs, of the policies that are made in this place.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (12:59): Again, thank you, Senator Scarr, for your contribution. My concern is that, if you zoom out a little bit in this debate about the contribution of the fossil fuel industry in Australia, it's hard to go past the fact that, for all of our fossil fuel exports and for our mining booms over the years, we're not sitting on a $1.8 trillion sovereign wealth fund. We've got a huge debt. We can talk about a couple of billion here, four billion there or 10 billion there, but I think the crossbench—from Pauline Hanson's One Nation party to the Greens—are saying: 'Those are our resources. You only get to exploit them once, and once they're gone, they're gone. So let's get something from them.'

I'm very wary of falling into the tactics that the fossil fuel industry use about simply moving elsewhere. To come back to Norway, which I think is a really great example—and then we'll come to WA—when Norway was setting up their oil industry, they were faced with the question of what the right thing to do is when you have an enormous oil reserve but it's ultimately finite. They stared the oil companies down and said: 'Yes, come and take our oil. You can make a profit—that's fine—but we're going to tax you, because that is our oil.' We heard the exact same thing from Senator Scarr today. They said, 'Well, there's oil elsewhere; we're going to go elsewhere.' At the time I think it was the Norwegian Labour Party government who said: 'Sure. Go elsewhere.' The oil industry then went to the conservative opposition party to try and drive a wedge and use this to divide Norwegians' political parties, and, to their credit, the Conservative Party said: 'Do you know what? We agree. That's our oil. You can come and exploit it, and you can make a profit, but we are going to tax you.' They taxed the companies at such a rate that, decades later, they have almost $2 trillion sitting in a sovereign wealth fund. We saw a similar version of events in Western Australia when they went to implement a reservation policy, and the gas companies said: 'Well, that'll be the end of it. We'll go find gas elsewhere.' And the government stared them down. I think it took 24 hours for the gas companies to come back to the table and say, 'Well, actually, we'll continue to invest here,' and they have.

Fundamentally, when we talk about fossil fuel companies not paying their fair share, let's not get taken by the billions of dollars that they do pay; let's look at the whole system, where we have a resource that belongs to all Australians. We're currently facing a lot of challenges, one of them being climate change, which we know fossil fuels have contributed to and continue to contribute to. We should be looking at ways to get a better return during the transition, so we can put money into things like cost-of-living relief and put money into things like electrification and programs at the demand side of the energy equation that help households. We can design policies in a way that ensures that no households are left behind and that low-income households and Australians who live in social housing benefit from solar panels and benefit from getting off cooking with gas and having induction stovetops so that they can avoid contributing to the asthma of their kids. These options should be available to Australians. We're one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but for many years we've chosen not to have a system that says to fossil fuel companies: 'Yes, you can come and exploit this resource, but we're going to tax you. We're going to get a return for Australians, and we're going to decide how we use that as a country.'

On behalf of the people I represent here in the ACT, I would like to put on the record that this bill goes against the mandate that the Labor government got at the last election when it comes to climate. It goes against the wishes of Australians, who in record numbers voted for Independents and minor parties. After the bushfires and the harrowing images of the loss of human and non-human life, the loss of property, millions of hectares of forest burnt and parts of Namadgi up in flames, Australians want better, and they voted for better. Yet we're doing them a great disservice by having this bill come through the Senate.

We've got to start thinking about the people that we represent. We've got to start thinking about the young people whose lives will be affected by the actions we take today in passing or not passing this bill. It will be no good to say to them: 'Well, kids, Santos, INPEX and Woodside really wanted that legislation so that they could continue to expand the fossil fuel industry against the advice of climate scientists, against the advice of the International Energy Agency and against the advice of most Australians who want bolder climate action. They really wanted it, and so did Korea and Japan. Sorry, kids; you're just going to have to make do.' It doesn't cut it. We need better and we can have better. We can have more courage from the Labor government. We can have them using some of their political capital for things that matter, like the transition to renewables and leaving new fossil fuels in the ground.

In 2023, for elected representatives to be voting for legislation that will expand the fossil fuel industry is deeply troubling—and, I would argue, negligent—because we've been warned time and time again. We've got to do better than this so we can go back to the people that we're here serving and working for, the people that voted for us, and say, 'Yes, things are bad, but we're doing absolutely everything we can to turn this around,' and this legislation doesn't do that. This legislation is creating a loophole to get around the safeguard mechanism and say, 'We're going to exploit the Barossa, the dirtiest gas ever exploited in Australia, and we're just going to pipe that CO2 to another country so it's not our problem.' It doesn't cut it. I would urge Labor to do better when it comes to truly embracing a transition, which means not just building up renewables but stopping the expansion of the fossil fuel industry.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (13:10): I'm going back to some of the questions I was asking Senator McAllister in relation to the government's motivation for bringing forward this bill in these last few sitting weeks. I'm wondering if the minister—through you, Chair—could inform the Senate as to whether any discussions have been had in the past week between the Minister for Resources, the Minister for Resources's office and any representatives of the Santos corporation.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (13:10): I don't have specific information about the Minister for Resources's diary and schedule and certainly not for her staff more generally or the department that she administers. It wouldn't be surprising if the Minister for Resources were engaged in discussions with a company that is active in the resource sector.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (13:11): We are here today debating a piece of legislation that the government has been so desperate to get passed that we saw an extraordinary contribution given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate on Friday, where she let the cat out of the bag and said this was for Santos, for Woodside, for Inpex and for other foreign companies and countries. I think it is well within expectations for Senator McAllister and her advisers sitting in the chamber today to be able to answer some basic questions as to who the Minister for Resources has been discussing this issue with. The reason I'm interested in this is because it was the Minister for Resources, Minister King, who on Friday wrote to her coalition counterpart, Senator Susan McDonald, to hammer home the urgency of the bill. That's as per a report in the West Australian on Friday afternoon. Minister, could you please table the letter from the government to the opposition that this article and this report is referring to—a letter written on Friday from Minister King to Senator Susan McDonald.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (13:12): Again, the contribution just now from Senator Hanson-Young goes to motivation. The reason that the government is bringing forward this bill—and I have canvassed this extensively over the period of the committee stage—is because we think it is in the national interest for there to be an orderly, predictable and certain means of regulating projects that engage issues around the London protocol, particularly the transport and movement of carbon dioxide. I haven't heard anyone, in the contributions so far, suggest that regulating projects of that kind would be a bad idea. I think it should be within the ability of this chamber to agree that, if a project were brought forward that involved the transport or movement of carbon dioxide, we'd want it to be regulated consistent with the arrangements in the London protocol. That is the motivation for bringing forward the legislation.

In assessing our national interests, of course, any good government, any party of government, has regard to the broadest possible range of stakeholders. The suggestion in the contributions in the last while from Senator Hanson-Young that there is something improper about engaging business stakeholders or engaging international partners around the approach we take to decarbonisation is odd and troubling. This is a significant economic transformation of our economy between now and 2050. Of course we should listen to the broadest possible group of people and of course we should communicate our intentions clearly to those stakeholders. I don't have a copy of the letter that you referred to. In fact, Senator Hanson-Young, I haven't actually seen the newspaper article you referred to. I note your questions, and, if I can update the Senate, I will.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (13:15): We're debating what the government is putting to us as a very important piece of legislation, and in relation to the Senate's passage of this legislation the Minister for Resources has written to the opposition demanding that the parliament pass this bill not just to regulate this system for some use that we don't know of further down the track. She quotes in this letter, according to the article in the West Australian on Friday 10 November, published at 6.18 pm—the article was titled 'Gas investment under threat as sea dumping bill stalls in the Senate'. This letter that Minister King wrote, reportedly, to Senator Susan McDonald in this place on Friday is actually about the $30 billion worth of investment. It's not, 'Let's set up this regulation in case somebody wants to use this technology in the future.' This is to underpin and support the further expansion of fossil fuels. That is what it is reported that Minister King's letter says. And if we're going to debate this piece of legislation in here—the government is saying we've really got to get it done; it's pressuring those on the other side to get it done—then the Senate should see this letter. It seems as though there's a very different opinion coming from the resources minister as to why this bill is important and necessary and urgent to pass as opposed to the very clear and methodical reasons that Senator McAllister has made.

I understand that this bill is in the name of the environment minister, but it is absolutely crystal clear that the minister who wants this bill more than any other is Minister King, the Minister for Resources, aka the minister for Santos, the minister for Woodside, the minister for fossil fuels.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator McGrath ): Excuse me, Senator Hanson-Young. Senator Scarr?

Senator Scarr: Point or order: personal reflection. It is an awful personal reflection to say that a minister, who is a minister for the people of Australia and who has obligations as a minister, is a minister for a particular company. I request that the senator withdraw.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, a senator has asked that you withdraw in terms of your reflection upon the minister. If you could withdraw, please.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I will withdraw, Chair.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Minister King is clearly pushing for this piece of legislation to pass this chamber because of the pressure from Woodside and Santos, because of the interests of Woodside and Santos and the interests of the $30 billion worth of investment in the fossil fuel industry. It is about expanding coal and gas; that's what this bill is about—facilitating the expansion of carbon pollution. And we know what is going to happen if we keep making more and more pollution. It's going to drive climate change over the cliff. The planet is already sick. The environment is already suffering. We are already suffering and we can see the reality of what the climate crisis means for our environment, for our communities—heatwaves, bushfires, floods. The government want to talk out of both sides of their mouths. The reason this bill was brought forward by the environment minister was for some pretence that somehow this is about the environment. Meanwhile, the person out doing the spin, out doing the political pressure, out being the mouthpiece for the fossil fuel industry, is indeed the Minister for Resources. Please get the letter and table it so we can see it for ourselves.

Senator Scarr: I rise on a point of order of personal reflection. Accusing a minister of being a mouth piece for a particular company is totally disorderly. Again, I ask you, Temporary Chair McGrath, to ask the senator withdraw.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator McGrath ): Senator Hanson-Young, if you could please withdraw.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (13:20): I'll withdraw. I do find it extraordinary that we're debating who calls the shots in this parliament and who calls the shots in the government. We know this piece of legislation is wanted and is being desperately lobbied for by the fossil fuel industry because they've been on the phone and in the corridors. They have been hassling senators in this place to hurry up and pass the bill. We know that they've hassled not just coalition members but members of the crossbench, so the squeeze is on. It's just fascinating, isn't it? You can't call it out without upsetting someone. They get all a bit tetchy in here. The protection racket for the fossil fuel industry in this chamber is out of control. I'll ask again: Will the minister undertake to get a copy of the letter Minister King sent to Senator Susan McDonald, a member of this chamber, and have it tabled so that we can all see it for ourselves?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (13:22): I refer the senator to the answer I provided earlier.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (13:22): I'd like clarification. I'm not sure I heard whether the minister would undertake to find that letter and to table it? I'm not trying to be obtuse here; I'm genuinely trying to understand whether Senator McAllister has undertaken to find the letter and table it. It's a request. I'm asking whether or not the minister will do that?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (13:22): I have provided an answer. I will update the chamber, if I may, but I don't have a copy of the letter with me.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (13:23): Well, we could be here all night. I'm sure we could find a copy of that letter somehow in order for the minister to perhaps help this debate to move on. I would like to know whether the government over the weekend had any urgent conversations or meetings with anyone outside the department or this parliament in relation to this bill?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (13:24): As I've indicated many times, government ministers are regularly engaged with constituents, stakeholders, in their areas of portfolio responsibility. I'm not in a position to provide detailed information about every government minister, the activities of every government minister's office or indeed the departments they administer to the chamber. However, I would put it to the chamber, as I have on many occasions, that it's quite a normal thing for governments to consult with stakeholders.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (13:24): Minister, I think Senator Hanson-Young has hit on one of the core concerns with the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. We had a discussion on Monday or Tuesday about who took carriage of this bill when. It was under drafting under the previous government, and there was some sort of crossover between Minister Bowen and Minister Plibersek. It ultimately was given to Minister Plibersek to take carriage of. That was my understanding. Maybe it was Minister Plibersek the whole time. I'll correct the record: it was Minister Plibersek the whole time. But there's been some involvement from Minister Bowen's office, I assume, given advisers from his office are here.

But we're hearing again and again stories of the resources minister's involvement in this bill. If this bill was about the things that you told us for five days that it was about—the London protocol and all sorts of regulatory certainty—and was not about expanding the gas industry, why is the resources minister the one being lobbied and lobbying the shadow minister on this bill? It doesn't make sense. It doesn't line up with what we heard from you for a week—that it was about regulatory certainty and it wasn't about Santos. I think Senator Whish-Wilson probably asked a dozen times about the link with legislation that Minister Bowen has been talking about in various forums—legislation that would come forward to help the gas industry—and you wouldn't even say: 'Yep, that's it. This is what we're debating here today. We've talked about it and now we're delivering it.' You wouldn't say that, but it's very clear, after what Minister Wong told us on Friday, that this is it. We're going to have the safeguard mechanism, which on face value will bring down emissions, but we're going to introduce an 'opening the loopholes bill', the sea dumping bill, to create some loopholes under the safeguard mechanism to allow the expansion of the fossil fuel industry.

It's no wonder Australians are concerned. We've had a back-and-forth about political donations. The Labor Party decided that tobacco was creating many issues for people in our communities and it wasn't worth taking big tobacco donations anymore. Climate change is affecting more people and having more of an impact than tobacco ever could have, yet you're still taking political donations from, among many others, the three companies that Minister Wong named here. Santos, Woodside and INPEX. So of course Australians, in the absence of answers to questions or provision of letters that are directly relevant to this bill, are going to ask questions and say: 'Hang on. What is going on here? How can you make donations, and not even that big a donation—60 grand? You'd think the government was worth more than that. But what's happening here?'

Today we learn that the NT Chief Minister, Natasha Fyles, allegedly holds shares in an oil and gas giant backing the proposed Middle Arm development. This is the Labor Chief Minister who's been pushing fracking in the NT and pushing for the development of something that is not in line with the NT being habitable. We know from the latest IPCC report that, if we continue down this road, large swathes of the NT will be uninhabitable. But she's pushing it, and today we learn that, allegedly, she actually has shares in one of these companies.

Australians are right to question this tangled web of fossil fuel companies, major parties and political donations, because the decisions we're seeing aren't in the interests of Australians. They're not in the interests of our family members and the communities that we represent. They're in the interests of Santos, INPEX, Woodside, Japan and Korea. Let's put Australians first. Let's put our communities first in this place.

Progress reported.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (15:41): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 30 November 2023, the 'Selected higher education statistics—2023 staff data'.

Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:41): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator CHISHOLM: The government will not be supporting this motion or the related motion, No. 383. The department recently published the dataset for 2022. The final version of the dataset for 2023 is not available yet due to IT transition issues associated with the new data collection system introduced in 2021. These issues have slowed the provision, collation and quality assurance of the data. The department is working to finalise and publish the 2023 final dataset on the department website as soon as practicable. I am advised that the department is working to make a preliminary version of this data available on the department website before the end of the year.

Question agreed to.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (15:42): I move:

(1) That the following matters relating to the conduct of the 2023 referendum be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report by 24 June 2024:

(a) use of the colour known as Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) purple by any entity or person other than the AEC, including in combination with any other text, font or graphical design style; and

(b) clarification in legislation of the wording that must appear on a referendum ballot paper to inform voters of the proposed amendment.

(2) That paragraph (4) of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be amended as follows:

After "for the purposes of the inquiry into the 2022 election", insert "and the inquiry into certain matters relating to the conduct of the 2023 referendum".

(3) That a message be forwarded to the House of Representatives seeking the concurrence of the House in the variation to the resolution of appointment of the committee set out in paragraph (2).

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:43): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator DUNIAM: The coalition notes that Australia has had its first referendum in over two decades and that the rarity of this type of electoral event should mean that we consider the lessons learnt for the next time we hold a referendum. However, while sympathetic to the motion, the coalition is not able to support it at this time, noting that JSCEM must report on the inquiry to the 2022 federal election in a timely manner in order to provide the parliament with time to consider any subsequent legislation.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts regarding a reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be agreed to.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (15:50): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 9.30 am on Monday, 27 November 2023, the 'Actual casual staff' data component of the 'Selected higher education statistics—2022 staff data'.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIR (15:51): The question that is currently before the committee is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2142, moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to. I intend to put the question unless any member wants the call. The question before the committee is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2142, standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (15:59): by leave—I move my amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2151 together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A Subsection 4(1)

Insert:

new fossil fuel facility has the meaning given by section 4AA.

1B After section 4

Insert:

4AA Meaning of new fossil fuel facility

(1) A facility is a new fossil fuel facility for a financial year (the current financial year) if:

(a) during the current financial year, the facility conducts an activity, or a series of activities, for the purpose of extracting, processing, supplying or exporting coal, oil or natural gas; and

(b) either:

(i) as at 1 July 2023, a determination referred to in subsection 22XQ(1) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 has never been made in relation to the facility under the safeguard rules (within the meaning of that Act); or

(ii) on 1 July 2023 the facility is an existing facility and during all, or part, of the current financial year the facility undertakes new operations of a kind specified in subsection (2).

(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), the following kinds of new operations are specified:

(a) new operations that increase the annual production of the facility;

(b) new operations that extend the number of years of production of the facility;

(c) new operations that involve the development of new reserves that were not already under production by the facility on 1 July 2023.

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 1 to 16), omit subsection 19(7B), substitute:

(7B) In a financial year, the Minister may only grant a permit for the export of controlled material for dumping, where the controlled material is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation, if:

(a) the carbon dioxide streams are not captured from facilities that are new fossil fuel facilities for the financial year; and

(b) the Minister is satisfied of the matters referred to in paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of Annex 1 to the Protocol; and

(c) the Minister is satisfied that there is an agreement or arrangement in force:

(i) between Australia and the other country to which the export relates; and

(ii) that includes the matters covered by paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 (as appropriate) in the Annex to Resolution LP.3(4) adopted on 30 October 2009 by the Contracting Parties to the Protocol; and

(d) the Minister is satisfied that the grant of the permit would be in accordance with Annex 2 to the Protocol; and

(e) the Minister is satisfied of any other matters the Minister considers relevant.

We have heard for five days and I don't know how many hours in here—

Senator DAVID POCOCK: Senator Duniam has sat there listening and contributing. We were asking the minister about what this legislation meant for the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. We were assured for five long days that it wasn't in fact related to that. It was about everything else. It was about the London protocol, about ratifying international obligations, about years of drafting, about experimentation that may need to happen and about having a framework for the safety of that. On Friday we learned what the minister could have told us on Monday: that this is in fact for Santos, INPEX, Woodside, Japan and Korea. It's about gas. The sea-dumping bill is about facilitating the expansion of the gas industry, of the fossil fuel industry, at a time when we cannot afford to do so, at a time when we're being warned and urged by climate scientists about this narrow window to act decisively. This is not decisive action. This is delay.

We've heard over the last six months in here from communities across the country about the impact that climate change is already having on them at 1.2 degrees of warming. For many it's disastrous. We've seen towns flooded multiple times in a season. We've seen traditional owners from the Beetaloo come to Canberra to make their case, to argue why they matter, why their connection to the place that they live, love and have looked after for thousands of years should matter to the Labor government. They've urged this parliament to take decisive action on climate, to stop the fossil fuel subsidies, to stop the $1.5 billion to Middle Arm, which will help facilitate the expansion of the gas industry, which is related to Santos's call to expand their operations with Barossa, where we've seen Tiwi Islanders raise their concerns.

Labor is all about listening to Indigenous communities and the concerns of First Nations people, but when it comes to things like Santos in the Pilliga or Santos in the Tiwis, they don't want to hear about it. When it comes to court, the environment minister is very happy to join fossil fuel companies and argue that she shouldn't have to take into account the emissions of individual coal mines. This kind of politics in 2023 is disastrous. We need better. After a week of listening to the minister explain the bill before us, this amendment would deal with the biggest concern for anyone who cares about our future, anyone who cares about the people and places that we love and, it seems to me in this place, anyone who's not taking donations from Santos, INPEX and Woodside. It would rule out this Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 from being able to facilitate new fossil fuel facilities.

I would urge the government to support this. They've indicated that they won't be—even given what we know about climate change, given what we're hearing from our climate scientists, and noting that we have some of the world's leading climate scientists here in Australia. We have scientists like Dr Joelle Gergis, who was one of the lead authors of the recent sixth IPCC report. She's written openly about her struggles in the context of what we're facing—of spending years and years of her life researching, compiling evidence, creating a compelling case for bold action. You'd think that, when she presents that to the world, the parliament would sit up and think: 'This is serious. We've got a window to act.' Yet what do we get? We get this sea dumping bill.

What a response to Joelle Gergis and others: the sea dumping bill—'We hear your concerns, but hey, Santos and Inpex and Woodside really need this, and Korea and Japan want it, so we should really get on with delivering this bill for them,' with the support of the coalition and despite Australians voting for more climate action and despite having a crossbench that's urging you to take this more seriously, urging you to do what is, I would argue, the morally right thing in the face of what we know about climate change. And that is to act, to truly get on with the transition, to not approve new fossil fuel projects when climate scientists and many others are telling us that we can't afford to do that.

After a week of asking questions—and its questionable as to how many answers we received—I think we got our answer on Friday from Minister Wong. It's very clear what this bill is about. I would remind the Senate that what we're dealing with here is our futures. We make decisions in here, and those decisions should be good for our futures.

I read something over the weekend that I thought was maybe relevant to where we are. It is said that the Buddha told this story as a warning. A couple were travelling across the desert with their only child. Their food supply ran low and they grew hungry. But, driven by an insatiable ambition for their destination, they refused to change course. As if in a trance, they decided to kill and eat their child to sustain them. When they arrived at last on the other side, when the destination had lost its allure and the trance had lost its grip, they were utterly hollowed with grief and regret.

We have an opportunity to act, and we're heading down the path that climate scientists are warning us not to go down.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:08): The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 is deeply flawed. The whole premise of this bill is deeply flawed. Far from protecting the environment or acting on climate change, it is an attempt at greenwashing the fossil fuel industry and the expansion of, particularly, the gas industry.

Every leading organisation around the globe focused on climate action, the United Nations, the International Energy Agency and many foreign governments acknowledge that we cannot continue to expand fossil fuels if we are to arrest the most dangerous elements of climate change. Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, has belled the cat and said how dangerous it is for governments to pretend, like the Albanese government is trying to do here today, that unproven technology like carbon capture and storage is a silver bullet and a get-out-of-jail-free card for the fossil fuel industry. It's simply not, and Antonio Guterres says it bluntly. It is dubious science. It is all about the fossil fuel industry with their foot on the throat of government, and they are the ones calling the shots.

The only reason a government or a parliament, in our instance, would be facilitating a piece of legislation like this is if either we are blind to the fact that this is what the fossil fuel industry needs to and wants to pretend that it can continue, as business as usual, or we are wilfully willing to facilitate it. It's only one of two options. Either you think the fossil fuel industry has a right to continue to burn and cook the planet, or you've been hoodwinked by the fossil fuel industry. Which one is it? Could the minister please explain to the chamber whether the Albanese government has been hoodwinked by the fossil fuel industry, or are you just doing their bidding for them?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:12): I'll offer a response to the contributions from Senator Pocock and Senator Hanson-Young in relation to the amendment that's before us. We don't support the amendments on sheet 2151. Narrowing the application of this legislation would actually prevent Australia from meeting its obligations under the London protocol. The London protocol doesn't distinguish the source of carbon dioxide that might be transported from one jurisdiction to another. It applies to any such transport, and our obligation, if we're to meet the requirements under the treaty, would be to create a framework that would allow environmental impact assessments and a range of other risk assessments in relation to all such movements.

Both Senator Pocock and Senator Hanson-Young have reprised the arguments that they've already made over the last six days of debate. I think the clear thing is that the Greens and Senator Pocock have a view about how we should get to net zero by 2050. These arguments, incidentally, were canvassed in the safeguard debate and have been canvassed regularly at estimates as well. The government has a very clear pathway by which we seek to reduce the emissions in the Australian economy. It is the safeguard mechanism—

Senator Rice: It's not working very well!

Senator McALLISTER: I'll take the interjection from Senator Rice. Senator Rice is correct that the safeguard mechanism hasn't worked very well, because under the previous government it was a mechanism that didn't in fact create an obligation for the covered entities to reduce their emissions. That is what has changed under this government, and this chamber went through an extended debate to put in place binding emissions constraints on large facilities right across the economy. We will expect those facilities, those covered entities, to reduce their emissions.

We know that, for some kinds of activities, carbon capture and storage may be a commercially viable solution for them to reduce their emissions. If that's the case, that's an activity that should be properly regulated. It's already subject to regulation, of course, when it takes place in Australian waters, and that's been the case for a very long time. Our government wants to make sure that those regulations are fit for purpose and actually meet the robust requirements that Australians would expect to be in place for activities like this; that's why there is a review going on across the range of legislative arrangements that are in place to manage CCS projects when they're in Australian waters.

This is part of that effort. It represents an attempt to meet our obligations under an international treaty but also to establish arrangements that are sufficiently robust to meet the expectations around carbon capture and storage projects when they take place. The decision about whether or not to initiate them will be one for project proponents. And so, for the reasons I've explained, we don't support the amendment on sheet 2151, but I thank senators for their contributions to the debate.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (16:16): Thank you, Minister. It is very disappointing that the government won't rule out using this for the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. You referred to the safeguard mechanism as binding emissions restraints, and I'd be interested in hearing from you how creating a loophole for the safeguard mechanism fits with binding emissions restraints.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:16): I don't accept that characterisation of the bill before us.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (16:16): This bill creates a loophole within the safeguard mechanism for companies to effectively ship their emissions to our neighbours and somehow claim that they are meeting their scope 1 and 2 obligations. We've now heard from the coalition and the Labor government that gas companies are clamouring to see this passed and are lobbying hard. Minister King has written to Senator McDonald, urging her and the coalition to pass this. And yet I'm meant to believe that this isn't a loophole to the safeguard mechanism. The gas companies are just really keen to see this! Why would they be keen for this if it is not a loophole, a way for them to make good on these binding emissions restraints—plus loophole—and continue to expand?

I will move on to an actual question. Potentially this is one for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry as well. What has been the assessed potential economic impact to our fisheries industry in the event of a spill or leak? What consideration has been given of the economic impact to the fisheries industry, and is there a plan being formulated to ensure that this doesn't happen and that the fisheries industry will be compensated in the event of a spill or leak?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:19): We've canvassed the approach to assessing risks in answers to previous questions. Essentially, the London protocol requires a risk assessment to take place. I have explained that in answers to previous questions.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (16:19): Does the London protocol include the risk to fisheries?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:19): An environmental impact assessment, I am advised, includes assessment of the range of impacts on the marine environment, including impacts on other users of that environment.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (16:20): Minister, under the London protocol what are the requirements for permanency? How long does the formation or the technology have to be seen to be fit? Are we talking about a hundred years, a thousand years, 10,000 years, 50,000 years—how long?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:21): I'm advised that the decision about timing would be a decision for the Australian permitting authority for projects that took place in Australian waters, as it is now for CCS projects, and that is assessed at the time by the permitting authority.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (16:22): What is the current time frame for permanency under the permitting that you referred to?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:22): I'm advised that this is assessed project by project, Senator Pocock.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (16:22): Minister, when you're allowing companies to take their emissions and pipe them into undersea storage—

Senator Hanson-Young: Otherwise known as dumping.

Senator DAVID POCOCK: sea dumping, in your government's well-named bill, we're just going on a case-by-case basis on how long we think those molecules will remain under there. Should there not be some time frame that the government thinks is a reasonable amount of time to be sure, and we're not just kicking the can down the road for a future government to have to deal with, leaking CO2?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:24): Senator Pocock, I have already addressed this, but I'm happy to do it again. The government is undertaking a review of the environmental management regime for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities. Those are the arrangements that are in place in Australian waters, and that review seeks to ensure that the regulatory regime for offshore CCS projects manages risk to the marine environment and workplace health and safety. It, amongst other things, will look at the regulatory requirements relating to the long-term liability and monitoring of sequestered carbon dioxide. In relation to projects that took place in the waters of another country under the London protocol, the way that that jurisdiction managed the carbon dioxide in its own territory could be one of the matters considered in the agreement that would need to be struck under the London protocol between Australia and the receiving country.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (16:25): Thank you, Minister. Sometime last week we were asking about, I think, Timor-Leste not being a signatory to the London protocol. My understanding was that you said it would then essentially be on us to ensure that it was up to standard and that everything was adhered to. I'm interested: once it's under Timor-Leste, how long does Australia have that requirement? Is that indefinitely? If there's a leak in 50 years and Timor-Leste hasn't upheld the London protocol obligations, is that then a liability on the Commonwealth? What happens?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:26): I have previously answered this question, Senator Pocock. The emissions accounting for carbon dioxide is the responsibility of the territory in which the project takes place, under the rules established by the UNFCCC.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:26): I'm listening to this exchange and I'm very interested. The government just voted against a Greens amendment which would have ensured that the participating country would have to have environmental regulations and rules that were at least up to the same standard as Australia.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Which isn't saying much, no, but at least then there would be some understanding of the level at which risk was being taken. I'd like to know from the minister: which countries in our region where this toxic pollution will be dumped have better environmental laws than Australia?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:28): Senator Hanson-Young, I am not going to speculate or provide comment on the approach taken by sovereign governments to environmental management. I have previously explained the steps that would be required to establish a permitting arrangement should this legislation pass, and the first of those is treaty ratification. We would need to submit an instrument of ratification and a declaration of provisional application. We would then need to establish a bilateral instrument or agreement with another party, even if that country is not a member of the London protocol, and the receiving country must be supportive of accepting any carbon dioxide for sub-seabed sequestration and have the necessary regulatory and legal frameworks in place to manage the monitoring, compliance and verification of CO2 being stored under the seabed. Only once those steps were in place could proponents apply to the regulator for permits to allow CO2 to be transferred between countries.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:29): I'll take that as a nonanswer. I understand that it's a difficult question if you haven't actually considered the responsibility that Australia has in our region as a wealthy nation that has access to resources and scientific data and that has a much larger reach in terms of the ability to monitor these types of issues. I would like to know, if it's a matter of these protocols or regulations needing to be put in place before a proponent can apply to dump their toxic climate-change-inducing pollution in the ocean: what does the Australian government understand is the expected time frame in which any such laws in any of these other countries will be in place?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:31): The timing of any agreement-making between Australia and another regional partner is really not entirely in Australia's gift, is it? It's a consequence of negotiations and discussions between parties. But, if your question is whether it can happen quickly, of course such consultations and discussions would take time.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:32): What I'm wondering and would like some clarity on from Senator McAllister is: if we pass this bill through the Senate today, when is the earliest opportunity to dump toxic waste in the ocean?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:32): Senator Hanson-Young, I think I have answered your question. And in responding to the contribution, I will say that we just don't accept the characterisation that you've used in describing what's proposed here. Actually, the arrangements seek to ensure that any kind of carbon capture and storage arrangement that's in place in Australian waters or elsewhere is required to meet the stringent requirements that are set out in the London protocol.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (16:33): Minister, why does your sea dumping bill not refer to or provide clarity on the need for export permit holders to comply with the risk assessment and management framework for CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological structures to ensure compatibility with annex 2 to the London protocol?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:33): Section 19 of the sea dumping act requires the minister to have regard to all international agreements, including the London protocol. It was on that basis, as I've previously explained, that we didn't give support to the amendment that was moved earlier.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (16:34): Thank you, Minister, for that. As CCS will result in prolonging our dependence on fossil fuels—it's very hard to argue against that—what analysis has been conducted to estimate the consequential economic impacts on investment in developing alternative energy technologies?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:34): Senator Pocock, I don't accept the premise of your question. This bill that's before us simply sets out the regulatory environment for proponents who seek to establish a project that involves the transborder movement of carbon dioxide.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (16:35): Minister, just to clarify, the Labor government does not accept that carbon capture and storage will be used to extend the period in which fossil fuels are used?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:35): This debate has been very broad ranging, but the bill before us relates to the regulatory arrangements for project proposals that relate to CCS where there is a movement of carbon dioxide across international borders. I understand the desire of senators to have a much more wide ranging conversation about climate change and pathways to net zero. I have engaged in good faith over a long period of time in that broad discussion, but I draw your attention to the bill we are actually contemplating and the amendment before us.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:36): On Friday this government's own minister for resources wrote a letter to the opposition, arguing that this bill pass because of the $30 billion worth of investment that hinges on it. It is very disingenuous to now suggest to Senator Pocock that this bill is doing anything that would further the expansion, and therefore reduce the transition time frames, of other types of technologies, because, if we're not spending $30 billion on CCS and expanding gas, perhaps industry would be spending $30 billion on actually building the technology that is clean and green. It's totally disingenuous to sit here today and tell us that this bill will not further expand fossil fuels. That's the purpose of the bill. The minister for resources said it herself. She has pleaded with the Dutton opposition spokesperson to let it through on that basis.

The ability of this government to speak out both sides of its mouth is extraordinary. We're not stupid. The Australian people are not mugs. You say one thing in here and you say another thing to the gas cartel. You say one thing in here and your colleagues down in the other place say another thing. Minister, could you enlighten the Senate as to why the bill is called the sea-dumping bill?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:39): The bill before us is the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. It is a bill for an act to amend the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act, which was passed in 1981.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:39): Could the minister enlighten the chamber as to what the words 'sea dumping' refer to?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:39): The bill reflects the convention that it originally referred to, which is the convention on the prevention of sea dumping.

Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (16:40): Look, we have had hours of debate on this and we don't seem to be getting anywhere. I don't feel the government is really answering the questions that we are putting to it on how dangerous this legislation is to our waters in Australia. The question was asked of the minister, and she said:

I have indicated to the Senate already that the purpose of this bill is to establish a regulatory framework that would operate in the event that a proponent sought to establish arrangements for the trans-border movement of carbon dioxide.

I've also indicated that, from the Australian government's perspective, projects of this kind will need to stand on their own two feet commercially. If a proponent in Australia seeks to establish a project in the territories of another country, we would, of course, seek to establish a regulatory regime that was effective and appropriate and consistent with our international obligations, and this bill does that.

Minister, you refer to carbon dioxide. A carbon dioxide equivalent, abbreviated as CO2-eq, is a metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases on the basis of their global warming potential, GWP, by converting amounts of other gases to the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide with the same global warming potential. Carbon dioxide equivalents are commonly expressed as million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents abbreviated as MMTCDE. The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is multiplying the tonnes of the gas by the associated GWP. So, for example, the GWP for methane is 25, and, for nitrous oxide, 298. This means emissions of one million metric tonnes of methane and nitrous oxide respectively is equivalent to emissions of 25 and 298 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide. Minister, if you are going to make regulatory guidelines for dumping in our seabeds, how do you know it is only carbon dioxide? How are you going to guarantee the people of Australia that any other dumping may include other gases and methane, and how are you going to regulate that?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:43): The assessment arrangements I have described over the course of the debate, amongst other things, require an assessment of the material that is to be sequestered.

Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (16:43): You haven't really answered the question at all. You are not guaranteeing the Australian people. The sea dumping being exposed here—the Barrow Island leaks—you have not given me one place in the world where it works, not one. Two have been raised in this chamber that do actually leak, so there is no guarantee. As you said, you are not interested in commercial arrangements that these countries may have. So what this government has done is put people in this country in fear about climate change and about what is happening. You have actually brought in transmission lines. Everything is happening in this country because of carbon dioxide. But here you bring a bill to this parliament, where you are going to allow commercial enterprises to actually buy carbon credits for whatever reason to make commercial arrangements with other countries to bring their rubbish to our nation, dump it in our seabed, and you can't even guarantee the Australian people what the make-up of that rubbish may be. I note that Senator Pocock has put up an amendment about a bond. He's raised here only carbon dioxide streams, but I'd like to go beyond that, Senator Pocock. I think other dangerous gases should also be included in this, not just carbon dioxide. I think it should go further than that, with methane, nitrous oxide and other gases that may be brought into Australian waters, and there should be a bond. Also, I'd like to see the Labor government have an investigation into this in a couple of years down the track, with a report that must be done on it. Minister, what guarantees are you going to give to the Australian people that you will not allow methane or any other poisonous gases into this if a commercial arrangement has been done? What regulations are you putting into place?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:46): Senator Hanson, from your question I think that you are asking about projects that occur in Australian waters. You're concerned about impacts on Australian waters. I indicated earlier in the debate that the government has initiated a review to ensure that the regulatory regime for offshore CCS projects manages risks to the marine environment and to workforce health and safety. Amongst other things, the review will examine opportunities to provide greater regulatory and administrative certainty and efficiency for carbon capture and storage projects in Commonwealth waters. I raise this because the bill before us deals only with carbon dioxide. That is the scope of the matters considered by the London protocol. But you are raising questions about other environmental impacts associated with offshore activities. I am pointing you to other work that's going on elsewhere in government in relation to ensuring we have a comprehensive and robust regulatory arrangement for offshore sequestration.

Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (16:47): Honestly, I was completely lost with what you were trying to tell me there—completely lost. The other day, when I said, 'Minister, will this bill allow companies operating in our waters to buy carbon emissions from other countries and pump them into our seabeds?' you said:

… I can't comment on whether commercial arrangements for Australian companies or companies operating in our waters would involve buying carbon dioxide. However, I can indicate that the purpose of this bill is to establish the regulatory arrangements that would be necessary if a company wanted to establish a project to do this, and it sets out a series of things that would need to occur, including a country-to-country agreement between Australia and the other country that was involved in such a project, and then a series of steps that the proponent would need to take to demonstrate that it meets the stringent environmental and other regulatory requirements that are set up in the London protocol.

So you have virtually said that you're going to allow this. You have said that, if they come to a commercial country to country arrangement, you are going to allow it. I'm saying to you: it's not just about carbon dioxide. We talk about the environment and the concern for our seabeds, marine life and everything there. As I said to you, it's been proven that leaks do occur from this pumping into our seabeds. There is absolutely no guarantee that you can give the Australian people that it has not occurred, that it's a safe project. You have failed to actually answer us about the safety of this in our Australian waters. You have given me no guarantee that it's not going to be anything other than carbon dioxide. So I am asking the minister: if you're going to allow this to happen and you are going to allow commercial arrangements to be done between Australia and other countries, what guarantees are you going to give to the Australian people that it's going to be nothing other than just carbon dioxide?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:49): Thanks, Senator Hanson, for clarifying your question. Earlier in the debate I stepped through the things the environmental impact assessment needs to include. I don't intend to do that again. I can, however, advise that Australia's approach would put limits on other materials, such as contaminants, that could be present, depending on the source of the carbon dioxide capture. And we are working with CSIRO to ensure that our national action list will ensure that we protect the environment.

Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (16:50): Would you please show me what part of the bill I go to that ensures that that is the case?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:50): As I indicated to Senator Pocock just now, the bill requires the minister to have regard to all our international agreements when making decisions. That includes the London protocol, and it's the London protocol that steps out the requirements on parties to manage risks to the environment when activities like this are proposed.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (16:51): Thank you, Minister, and thank you to Senator Hanson for her questioning. It's really fascinating that minor parties and Independents are pushing the major parties on behalf of the people they represent—from very different perspectives, but clearly many Australians have had a gutful when they look at the major parties, when it comes to climate.

Minister, I've got a few questions. You talked about this just ratifying the London protocol. I'm interested—to Senator Hanson's questions—is that ratifying it in its current form? If there's any update to the London protocol, will you have to bring back legislation? Or does this have provisions for if the London protocol is updated to include anything else? What then happens to this legislation?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (16:52): The way the legislation functions is that it interacts with the protocol and its associated guidelines or documentation. That's why, as I previously explained, the government considers that there may be unintended consequences if you replicated aspects of the protocol guidelines or guidance as it's currently presented. The legislation as it's currently framed makes a general reference to the requirement to observe the provisions of the protocol.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (16:53): You're sort of touching on it. The heart of my question, though, is: if it's having regard to the London protocol, are we here in the Senate today giving a rubberstamp to the London protocol, which could be updated and changed? And then this legislation basically says we've just got regard to this updated London protocol in the future?—if that makes sense.