|
representatives vote 2023-08-03#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-12-23 12:15:14
|
Title
Bills — Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023; Consideration in Detail- Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Increasing transparency
Description
<p class="speaker">Allegra Spender</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-08-03.21.1) introduced by North Sydney MP [Kylea Tink](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/north_sydney/kylea_tink) (Independent), which means they failed.
- ### What do these amendments do?
- Ms Rink [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-08-03.21.1), the purpose of these amendments was "*to bring transparency and accountability to this bill, to ensure that the purpose it serves and in whose interests it is working on a daily basis are always clear for Australians to see.*"
<p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, pages 2 and 3 (table items 2 and 3), omit the table items, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(2) Clause 2, page 3 (line 1), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".</p><p class="italic">(3) Clause 2, page 3 (after line 3), at the end of subclause 2(1), add:</p><p class="italic">Note 2: The <i>Nature Positive Plan</i> (see table items 2 and 3) could in 2023 be viewed on the Department's website (http://www.dcceew.gov.au).</p><p>Let me start with where there is agreement, and there is significant agreement, I think, across this House on many issues, and certainly with the minister in charge of this portfolio. I think the minister and I agree strongly that the environmental laws in this country are inadequate for the protection of our climate and for the protection of nature. They need urgent and wholesale reform. I think the minister and I also agree that these reforms are absolutely critical and that to do them well we need to get business, the environmental movement and so many different groups on board to make sure that we come up with the right environmental protection laws, because our nature and our climate are too precious for us to ride roughshod over, and we need that vital protection. I congratulate the minister on the efforts that she has made in bringing people together and trying to bring this together, and I appreciate that from the outside it can look easier than it is from the inside in terms of how those efforts are progressing.</p><p>My fundamental concern with the bill that we have now is that without those rigorous protections—without the protections that the minister and I agree are absolutely critical for the protection of environment and nature in this country—putting through this legislation that could enable fossil fuel projects and other projects to go ahead and be approved with inadequate environmental protections, with inadequate consideration for nature and climate, is not appropriate.</p><p>My amendment is pretty simple. It is that for this bill to come into place we need to have the reforms that the minister is working so hard on—the EPBC Act reforms—in place before this bill comes into effect. It is absolutely critical that those laws are passed, that we get those appropriate protections for nature and for climate in place before we pass any bills that may enable technologies to go ahead that would otherwise jeopardise our environment. I don't have an objection to CCS in principle. The truth is that it just hasn't worked yet. So I have deep concern about the potential for projects to be approved and to be enabled by technology that has no actual strong proof that it's actually going to work.</p><p>I urge the minister to consider the amendment. I appreciate that the minister has said that they won't consider it in this House. I say: at least consider it in the Senate or come back and extend the debate, because I think it is a simple, reasonable request which is very consistent with the minister's own commitment to environmental law reform and simply seeks to bring those two things in harmony.</p> <p class="speaker">Tanya Plibersek</p><p>I want to clarify for the benefit of the House that there seems to be a developing notion that this legislation has somehow proceeded through the parliament quickly. That is just not the case. The House inquiry that examined this legislation, which the member for Warringah was on, reported in December and recommended that the legislation be supported. In June the legislation was introduced. There were briefings offered at the time and accepted at the time. In July there was a Senate inquiry into the legislation, which also recommended passing the legislation. Another set of briefings was offered at that time. In August—now—we're introducing the legislation and we're getting amendments with 24 hours notice. The legislation was first examined, can I reiterate, in December by the House inquiry.</p><p>I really respect member for Wentworth's focus on the updated environment protection and biodiversity conservation laws. That is vital work for this government. We are engaging with it at pace, but that's not what this bill is about. This bill is about one thing: enlivening Australia's domestic obligations under the London protocol and the amendments to the London protocol, which we have signed up to. A number of these amendments to the bill are about environmental laws, taxation, public spending and, indeed, the debate about whether or not we have a carbon capture and storage industry in Australia. That's not what this bill is about. It's about implementing the rules under the London protocol, ensuring that we have best-practice regulation in line with international agreements, when we don't have that at the moment.</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Kylea Tink</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 3 (at the end of the table), add:</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 7), at the end of the Schedule, add:</p><p class="italic">Part 3 — Accountability and transparency</p><p class="italic"> <i>Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981</i></p><p class="italic">52 Section 25 (at the end of the heading)</p><p class="italic">Add "and tabled in Parliament".</p><p class="italic">53 Section 25</p><p class="italic">Omit "The Minister shall cause to be published in the <i>Gazette </i>particulars of the following:", substitute "(1) The Minister must cause to be published in the <i>Gazette</i>, and tabled in each House of the Parliament, particulars of each of the following things:".</p><p class="italic">54 Paragraph 25(a)</p><p class="italic">After "applications for permits", insert "received by the Minister".</p><p class="italic">55 At the end of section 25</p><p class="italic">Add:</p><p class="italic">(2) The Minister must do so within 15 sitting days of the House of Representatives after the day the Minister receives or does one of those things.</p><p class="italic">56 Application provision</p><p class="italic">The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to things received or done by the Minister on or after the commencement of this item.</p><p>I rise today to move amendments to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 for the purpose of holding the government to account for the real climate action they have promised by ensuring any legislation in this area is enabled in a way which ensures complete transparency and accountability. This is a piece of legislation that professes to enable environmental protection, yet I fear the truth is that in its current form it will actually provide an opportunity to mask ongoing pollution by hiding it under our seabed.</p><p>Just on a year ago, the North Sydney federal electorate sent me to Canberra with a very clear priority: to argue incessantly for faster, tangible and more ambitious action on climate. We're no longer facing a climate emergency; the climate emergency is here. The long-awaited environmental reforms are not. We talk about reaching our 2030 and 2050 climate targets and we talk about a road towards net zero, meeting our international obligations and embarking on major environmental law reform. But talk is cheap. As the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, said, leaders must lead. As leaders, then, and on behalf of the communities that have sent us here, we need to prioritise real action. In this context I rise today to move these consideration in detail amendments to bring transparency and accountability to this bill, to ensure that the purpose it serves and in whose interests it is working on a daily basis are always clear for Australians to see.</p><p>The London protocol is one of the first global conventions to protect the marine environment from human activities—as it should—with the objective of promoting the effective control of all sources of marine pollution. If implementing Australia's international obligations under the protocol is the core purpose of this bill, I must highlight the irony of it being used to enable sea dumping of existing carbon emissions. How can a piece of good environmental legislation possibly allow for solutions which bring with them the very real risk of environmental damage and enable continued carbon pollution, all with the absence of minimum checks and balances. The link between this bill and the protocol therefore is tenuous.</p><p>If this bill is seriously about using these technologies for climate action, it must at the very least provide a guarantee of greater transparency around permit applications and public consultation. Numerous submissions to the inquiry by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee expressed concern that the bill does not contain a requirement for environmental impact assessments of proposed activities. As it stands, the bill also has no requirement for public consultation in relation to permit applications, no notification to interest holders nor any associated requirement for the minister to have regard to comments received from the public or other interest holders. In addition to this, the original act does not stipulate time frames for the publication of certain information on permits, including application for permits; permits granted or any associated conditions; refusals to grant permits; and any revocation, variation, suspension or cancellation of the suspension of a permit, and I'd like to see these gaps closed in this legislation. I'd also like to extend this requirement for publication to include tabling documents in the parliament here for all to see.</p><p>It is deeply concerning that so much power is being given to the minister—not just minister; it's any minister—without these checks and balances in place. The successful adoption of carbon capture and storage in Denmark for genuinely hard to abate sectors has been accompanied by transparent processes. There was a robust stakeholder consultation platform with representation of EU institutions, EU and third countries, NGOs, business leaders and academia. It facilitated the deployment of the technologies.</p><p>My amendment ensures the necessary checks and balances are in place to prove that this bill is serving the purpose which it seeks to achieve. Without amendment, it is far from convincing that the bill presents a solution that is in the best interests of our climate and environment at this point in time. In this context, I ask our environment minister to please lead by example and embrace these additional measures for transparency and accountability. I commend the amendments to the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for North Sydney be agreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|