This bill became law on Apr 11th, 2023.
Climate, energy & environment
Large industrial facilities can now earn tradable safeguard credits when they emit less than their limit, and other covered facilities can use those credits to help meet their own limits.
The safeguard mechanismThe scheme that sets emissions limits for Australia’s biggest industrial facilities and now lets some of them earn and trade credits if they stay under their limit. needed a stronger way to make emissions from large industrial facilities decline and stay within an overall cap. This bill creates tradable safeguard credits, sets a legal emissions cap, tightens compliance rules and penalties, and lets the regulator claw back wrongly issued credits.
Australia already had a safeguard mechanismThe scheme that sets emissions limits for Australia’s biggest industrial facilities and now lets some of them earn and trade credits if they stay under their limit. for large industrial emitters, but the Albanese government argued it needed to do more than hold the line if Australia was to meet its climate targets and end what ministers described as a decade of weak action on industrial emissions. The bill responded by turning the scheme into a declining, capped system with tradable safeguard credits and tougher compliance, and after Parliament passed it in March 2023 the Act gave legal force to those new settings for the facilities covered by the mechanism.
Critics argued the bill either puts a costly new burden on heavy industry and regional jobs or, from the other direction, is too weak because companies can keep polluting by using offsets while coal and gas expansion continues. Those objections came from both the Coalition and the Greens, while some crossbench support remained conditional on tighter limits on offsets, fossil fuel projects and stronger safeguards.
Minister MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, some crossbench members; opposed by Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, UAP.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 11 Apr 2023
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
132 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Large industrial facilities can now earn tradable safeguard credits when they emit less than their limit, and other covered facilities can use those credits to help meet their own limits.
Australia now has a legal cap that total net emissions from all covered large facilities cannot exceed 1,233 million tonnes between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2030.
The Minister can make rules that control which carbon credits count for compliance and can limit how much some credit types reduce a facility’s reported emissions.
Facilities that go over their emissions limit get until 1 April after the year ends to fix it, and the maximum civil penalty now scales with how far they went over.
The Clean Energy RegulatorThe agency that runs the safeguard scheme, issues and tracks credits, and can claw back credits that were wrongly issued. can require a business to give back safeguard credits if they were issued because of false or misleading information.
To support this, the Bill provides for credits, known as Safeguard Mechanism Credits or SMCs, to be issued to facilities whose emissions are below baseline levels. These credits each represent a tonne of emissions and can be traded and used by other Safeguard covered facilities to reduce their net emissions. This means that facilities with emissions below baseline levels will retain an incentive to reduce their emissions if cost-effective emissions reduction opportunities exist.Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment explanatory memorandum
(b) total net safeguard emissions for all of the financial years between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2030 do not exceed a total of 1,233 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence;Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Act 2023 final Act text
(1A) Safeguard rules made for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) may provide that a surrender of prescribed carbon units under subsection (1):Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Act 2023 final Act text
Items 24 to 26 amend section 22XF to set a maximum new civil penalty for an excess emission situation and change the due date for resolving an excess emissions situation. An excess emissions situation exists when a facility’s net emissions are above its baseline.Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment explanatory memorandum
(2) The Regulator may, by written notice given to the person, require the person to relinquish a specified number of relinquishable units.Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Act 2023 final Act text
Context
Australia already had a safeguard mechanismThe scheme that sets emissions limits for Australia’s biggest industrial facilities and now lets some of them earn and trade credits if they stay under their limit. for large industrial emitters, but the Albanese government argued it needed to do more than hold the line if Australia was to meet its climate targets and end what ministers described as a decade of weak action on industrial emissions. The bill responded by turning the scheme into a declining, capped system with tradable safeguard credits and tougher compliance, and after Parliament passed it in March 2023 the Act gave legal force to those new settings for the facilities covered by the mechanism.
Climate Change Act 2022 resets Australia’s emissions policy
Parliament’s passage of the Climate Change Act 2022 was cited in later debate as a signal that Australia was back to setting economy-wide emissions targets, creating the backdrop for stricter rules on big industrial emitters.
Hansard ↗Government introduces bill to tighten the safeguard mechanismThe scheme that sets emissions limits for Australia’s biggest industrial facilities and now lets some of them earn and trade credits if they stay under their limit.
The bill was introduced as part of the government’s climate policy reforms to make emissions from large industrial facilities decline and remain within an overall cap.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament debates how industry should decarbonise
Second reading debate framed the bill as the core fight over how Australia would cut industrial emissions, with speakers linking it to the government’s broader decarbonisation strategy.
Hansard ↗House passes the bill
The House agreed to the bill and government amendments, moving the planned safeguard credits, emissions cap and stronger compliance rules to the Senate.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form after Senate amendments were agreed, completing Parliament’s approval of the new safeguard mechanismThe scheme that sets emissions limits for Australia’s biggest industrial facilities and now lets some of them earn and trade credits if they stay under their limit. settings.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. makes the safeguard changes law
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. turned the bill into an Act, giving legal effect to the capped and crediting-based system for covered large industrial facilities.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (01/12/2022): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (06/03/2023)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 89 to 55.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 31 to 25.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Committee of the Whole debate
Recorded vote: 32 to 26.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
Critics argued the bill either puts a costly new burden on heavy industry and regional jobs or, from the other direction, is too weak because companies can keep polluting by using offsets while coal and gas expansion continues. Those objections came from both the Coalition and the Greens, while some crossbench support remained conditional on tighter limits on offsets, fossil fuel projects and stronger safeguards.
Most criticism split between economic harm claims and claims the scheme still lets emissions keep rising.
Cost and job impacts on industry
Coalition speakers argued the scheme works like a punitive carbon tax on major industrial facilities, forcing businesses to buy credits or offsets, raising costs and risking regional jobs, competitiveness and emissions shifting offshore instead of falling.
Offsets could let polluters avoid real cuts
A major criticism was that the bill lets covered facilities rely too heavily on offsets and safeguard credits, weakening the incentive to cut pollution at the source and turning compliance into carbon accounting rather than real emissions reduction.
New coal and gas projects could still expand
Greens and some qualified supporters warned the reforms were not strong enough to stop new coal and gas projects increasing overall emissions, saying the mechanism could coexist with fossil fuel expansion rather than force a sharper decline in industrial pollution.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 32 to 26. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 89 to 55. Support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Katter's Australian Party.
Passed 31 to 25. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
Passed 79 to 52. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals.
This was a procedural vote to keep the debate going rather than let the member be silenced.
Passed 86 to 51. Support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals.
This was a procedural vote on whether to end the member's speech, not on the bill itself.
Passed 86 to 51. Support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals.
This let the debate continue with extra time for the member to speak.
Passed 78 to 51. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals.
This was a closure-style procedural vote about speech time, not policy content.
Passed 79 to 52. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals.
This allowed the member to continue speaking in the second reading debate.
Passed 89 to 55. Support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Katter's Australian Party.
These were the government's own changes to the safeguard mechanismThe scheme that sets emissions limits for Australia’s biggest industrial facilities and now lets some of them earn and trade credits if they stay under their limit. bill, which the minister said would improve credit integrity and incorporate Chubb review-related reforms.
Passed 87 to 55. Support came from Labor and Greens. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Katter's Australian Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This vote kept the bill's existing approach to methodology determinations and enforcement standing rather than adopting the proposed stronger oversight measures.
Passed 89 to 50. Support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Katter's Australian Party.
This cleared the way for the bill to pass both houses in the same form.
The APH progress record says 6 Government amendments were agreed without a counted division being collected by this run.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The House agreed to the amendments made by the Senate, so the bill could pass both chambers in the same form.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senate
Passed 31 to 25. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP.
This was a second-reading position statement, so it did not change the bill text but recorded Senate support for a tougher integrity approach.
Passed 29 to 26. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation.
This was a routine time-management motion that paused committee scrutiny until the next sitting.
Passed 29 to 26. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation.
This was another procedural vote that advanced the chamber toward concluding the committee stage.
Passed 32 to 26. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP.
These government amendments shaped how the safeguard rules and reporting framework would operate in practice.
Defeated 13 to 39. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and Jacqui Lambie Network.
If carried, the amendment would have brought onshore shale gas projects into the safeguard mechanismThe scheme that sets emissions limits for Australia’s biggest industrial facilities and now lets some of them earn and trade credits if they stay under their limit. much more directly.
Defeated 13 to 38. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and Jacqui Lambie Network.
The chamber kept the bill's existing crediting and review settings instead of adopting tighter limits on offsets and broader legal oversight.
Passed 32 to 26. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP.
This inserted an anti-subsidy constraint into the bill's program-making powers.
Passed 32 to 26. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP.
These government amendments shaped how the safeguard rules and reporting framework would operate in practice.
The Senate added government amendments to set explicit safeguard outcome goals and related reporting and transparency changes.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate added Australian Greens amendments to stop prescribed industry programs subsidising coal or gas extraction.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
The parliamentary record also shows 6 Government amendments, 14 Government amendments, and 2 Australian Greens amendments agreed without a counted division.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
The minister only restates the second reading motion and gives no substantive explanation of the Safeguard MechanismThe scheme that sets emissions limits for Australia’s biggest industrial facilities and now lets some of them earn and trade credits if they stay under their limit. (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 in the supplied text, so the speaker's position on the bill cannot be determined from this excerpt.
Read in Hansard ↗Ted O'Brien says the coalition will oppose the bill because it turns the safeguard mechanismThe scheme that sets emissions limits for Australia’s biggest industrial facilities and now lets some of them earn and trade credits if they stay under their limit. into a punitive tax that will hurt business, raise costs and shift emissions offshore rather than reduce them effectively.
Read in Hansard ↗Chaney supports the bill in a qualified way, saying it gives business certainty and starts creating a market that can drive emissions cuts.
Read in Hansard ↗Helen Haines supports the bill and will vote for it because she wants action on climate change, but she says it needs stronger safeguards to genuinely cut emissions.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
26 speakers · 26 support
“It gives me great pleasure to stand today in support of this very important bill, the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, a bill that is a critical step on our path towards net zero and a critical part of ending a decade of inaction on emissions reductions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I simply won't stand in the way of a policy that will allow us to make progress and take steps towards our climate goals. I won't be one to shoot down a good policy because it isn't perfect. We've been down that route. We've seen it before, and look where we are today.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is an absolutely critical and overdue reform. What we are facing is one of the great regulatory and environmental challenges the world has seen in modern times, certainly in the times of modern human civilisation. It is a diabolical problem, because it's affected by all countries and there are all sorts of regulatory challenges, including coordination challenges and free-rider challenges. That's why it's so critical not only that governments regulate abatement within economies but also that governments of goodwill negotiate with each other internationally and take coordinated action globally.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This mechanism has been designed to make sure that we deliver a future that works for our communities, for our industries and for our businesses. It is a sensible, effective measure. It is one that should get support from across this place.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I absolutely support this bill, and look forward to it having a speedy passage through this place.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I call on the Greens political party to do the right thing and vote for this legislation. I'm proud to be on this side of the chamber. We want to take action on climate change. I say to the Greens political party: back this safeguard mechanism. This is a legislated path to taking action on climate change.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise in support of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill. Ten months ago to the day, the Albanese government was given a mandate by the Australian people. We were given a mandate to end the climate wars, to help end the suffering felt by disaster-stricken communities across Australia and to end the uncertainty felt by businesses and investors who had long ago abandoned their search for responsible climate leadership from the Australian government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As I've said already, we are not relying on one facet to create the jobs of our future. Boosting our national battery manufacturing capability will complement our National Electric Vehicle Strategy. It will support our 10,000 new energy apprentices, establish a Powering Australia industry growth centre to translate research into local jobs and investment. It will help to deliver the community batteries we have promised to communities like Maloneys Beach in my electorate, making communities more resilient and more sustainable and helping with the cost of living. Each of our policies is like one piece in a wider jigsaw puzzle that is working to push Australia forward and end a decade of stagnation. That's why I support this bill today.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is a bill that has the support of business, of industry and of the community. It is the first step on our way forward to 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero. It not only offers us the opportunity to decarbonise it offers us the opportunity to transform our industry. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So I would urge all members of this place, including those who helped design some of the aspects of this scheme themselves, to get on board or forever be consigned to the wrong side of history on climate action. People are going to judge them at the next election: did they do one thing in opposition to help tackle climate change? Did they support one out of the many things that we put forward in this place to help tackle emissions? From the responses that I've received while making these remarks, my hopes are not too high. But we on this side of the House know that we must do our bit. We must reduce our emissions. This policy, the safeguard mechanism policy, both through this legislation and through the regulations that will be outlined by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, is the single largest lever the government has ever tried to pull in Australia's history on emissions reduction. It is one that we must get right. It is one that we must get going in the interests of our nation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is legislation that this parliament must support if as a nation we want to change the trajectory we have been on. I really urge people to look back at history, look at 2009. I remember the turning point on faith for people when a commitment to act on climate change was stymied by the joining together of two opposing parties, the coalition and the Greens. That led to Australia not getting a piece of legislation that would have been in place for nearly 14 years by now, and it would have made given us a totally different opportunity. That opportunity is lost, but the opportunity we have right now is there for the taking. It is profoundly disappointing but not surprising that the opposition will not be supporting this.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This legislation complements the Albanese government's approach to deliver tangible change in emission reductions, to ensure that this country will reach its goal of 43 per cent reductions by 2030 and be a net zero country by 2050. I thank the minister and the Prime Minister again for their hard work along with the hard work of those public servants that have brought this bill to this parliament. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I support the safeguard mechanism bill because it creates a supportive policy framework for industry to meet their legislated climate reductions. It's predictable and known. It gives clear signals to business that they've long asked for and that previous governments have failed to provide.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I urge all in this House to support this bill. Let us not let the perfect get in the way of the good. We must end the climate wars and give Australians hope for a future where we can reach zero emissions and create thousands of new clean energy jobs. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I think that those comments from the minister say it all, and I urge members to support this legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, I do think it is important that I reiterate the importance of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. It is the first chance in over 10 long years to finally get started on climate action that gets us toward net zero. It has broad support from multiple sectors across our population, multiple sectors across the community and multiple sectors across the economy, and that is why it is so important. Like I said before, the industry is calling for bipartisan support. So what I would say to the opposition is: get on board. We have a job to do to fix the climate, and this is the way we get there.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is real action and real reform. Maybe you oppose it because of that—because you did nothing for nine years. You went backwards for nine years. Maybe you want to oppose this bill because of that. Maybe you just want to oppose reducing emissions, which will alleviate pressure on households and energy bills and will actually create renewable energy jobs. That's a really good start to make sure that we're headed on a path, in a direction, that will help us transition into a renewable energy future.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I urge you all to support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The bill sets us on two paths at the same time. One is the path to net zero emissions by 2050; the other is the path to a sustainable, viable, reliable and long-lasting steel industry and manufacturing sector, based in electorates like mine but serving all of Australia. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to support this Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022, and I'd urge all colleagues in this place to support this bill, because this is very important. It is important that we meet our emissions reduction targets, and this safeguard mechanism is central to that policy. Labor made a commitment in opposition, during the campaign, that we would reduce emissions and have targets, and that's what we're doing. We were committed to this. We listened to the electorates. Certainly in the last 10 years, I've heard loud and clear from my electorate that people want a commitment to reduce emissions for the safeguarding of this planet.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“What does this bill aim to do? It aims to get businesses to think about the innovation and technology that they need to work on to bring down emissions. If you're a business and you're doing well and you're making these breakthrough technological gains, then you get a credit, so you are actually incentivised to bring down emissions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I welcome the support for these reforms recently announced by the Greens party, I look forward to the passage of this bill through the House today and I look forward to further engagement on the passage of this most important bill through the Senate this week. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is a critical element of the Albanese Labor government's comprehensive effort to address climate change. This legislation provides long-awaited certainty and vision for Australia's response to climate change. It is an opportunity to reduce emissions from our biggest emitters for the very first time in a decade. Our policy is reasonable, sensible and consistent with the commitments that we made at the election. Ten long years have been wasted until this point. It's precious time that we can't get back, which is why the passage of this bill is so urgent. We know that industry has been calling for far too long for this policy to be settled. Manufacturers, and heavy industry in particular, have been crying out for stability and certainty in the energy space, and today we're delivering it, because we know that jobs and our environment rely on this certainty.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This Bill aims to support and encourage large emitters to unlock emissions reductions where they are most efficient.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 is a critical bill. Let's be clear: if you vote for this bill, then you're in favour of acting on climate change and cutting emissions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
23 speakers · 22 oppose · 1 mixed
“Let me close where I started. There is no question about the need for action to tackle the challenge of climate change in Australia. There is no question about that whatsoever. There's also no question about the need for Australian industry to continue reducing its emissions. There's no debate about that whatsoever. But, on the question of how we should go about it as a nation, there is absolutely a debate. The climate change and energy debate in Australia has moved into a new phase, but that phase is all about how. Labor is answering the question of how in the wrong way, and it's setting Australia up to be weaker, to be poorer and to be more captive to interests of foreign powers and not our own. Carbon trading and ACCUs will continue to play an important role, but they should not be used by the Labor Party to facilitate a punitive taxation regime. That is not what it's all about. Government policy that decapitates the economy instead of decarbonising it should be rejected and so, too, should the outsourcing of emissions that leaves the world worse off, not better. With that, the coalition opposes this policy and therefore opposes this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This legislation is going to do all of this.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That is not what this government is proposing. They want us to use a carbon trading system to force businesses to buy carbon credits. That is effectively a tax. The bill intends to have 215 businesses that are impacted by the safeguard mechanism reduce their emissions over ten years.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I come back to these 215 businesses, which in my view, will be just the start. The 100,000 tonne limit can be easily changed by the minister with a single stroke of a pen. I expect to see that in the future. I oppose the bill. I oppose it strongly and will continue to do that into the future.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In stark opposition, the coalition government, when we were in power, set out a clear plan to achieve net zero by 2050 without any new taxes, supporting a carbon trading system that rewarded businesses which voluntarily reduced their emissions. But this empty-word broken-promise government will be hiding behind dodgy and bad environmental policy to implement a tax that will pack a punch at a time when taxpayers are already hurting. The problem is, though, that the Australian people don't see this one coming. In fact, I'll call this the king hit of taxes. We won't be supporting this bad policy.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“For a time, we may cop some criticism for taking a firm stand against this bill and not embracing the faith of those opposite, but dark days are coming. While the coalition sees the dangers and understands the tough decisions that must be made, only the government has the power to implement these decisions. The government needs to understand that my constituents and most everyday Australians want reasonable and measured action to address climate change. We want action based on evidence, balanced action, action that serves Australia's immediate and long-term interests. This bill is far from a balanced approach, and I will certainly not be supporting it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Instead, the Labor government is punishing businesses and industry by imposing a carbon tax—one of the highest and most punitive in the world—with mandatory reductions that will be both difficult and costly to achieve, particularly in some sectors and with some businesses.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Therefore, to conclude, the coalition is supportive of moving to net zero. The coalition is not supportive of a lazy bill where the work has not been done to advise Australians on the financial impacts. Thank you.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Fundamental to that is us opposing this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But guess what we will never ever do? We will never support doing it like those on the other side are about to do tonight and tomorrow: by putting in place economy-wrecking measures like this terrible bill does.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Labor's changes to the safeguard mechanism will force businesses to buy credits. This is a tax. The safeguard mechanism carbon tax 2.0 is going to drive up living costs at a time Australian workers and families can least afford it. Businesses will be forced to pass the increased cost of production on to consumers through higher electricity prices, higher food bills and higher fuel costs.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Fundamentally, this bill doesn't deal with many of the issues that are raised in the public debate on the safeguard mechanism. These issues will be dealt with by regulation. This bill deals with the implementation of safeguard mechanism credits, but it is a vehicle to discuss the whole package. Again, whilst I will not oppose the bill, I am concerned that the government is looking to pat itself on the back and claim victory for passing the legislation through the House before making significant amendments or agreements to pass it in the Senate. I can't support that on this important matter.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Now we go to the next section of this thing—the safeguard mechanism. They're going to fix the problem by bringing in a new tax on the industries we already have, and there is the solution of the Labor Party.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Let's not be mistaken about this. This is a carbon tax dressed in the garb of a safeguard mechanism. It's just another attempt to dismantle good coalition policy. After a decade of emissions reduction being balanced with economic growth, Labor is now rushing to impose drastic cuts on Australian businesses.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We've all got to be on the same page and realise the consequences of this bill. It will have consequences. Good members on the other side may not think it, but, sure as eggs, so to speak, it will happen, and it will be counterproductive to the wellbeing of this nation. Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think this is a good bill. Go back to the beginning and work out a better way.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I proudly stand here today opposing this particular piece of very bad legislation which seeks to impose a new carbon tax on the Australian people.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“All of these things have consequences. This legislation has consequences. All this side has asked the government of the day is: what are the consequences? 'We have a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, which is in seven years time, and it's going to affect all of these 215 businesses—end of story.' Can you explain what the cost will be for us to get to that by 2030? 'No, but we'll have a 43 per cent reduction.' To the detriment of whom? Who's going to lose their jobs? What businesses won't to be able to operate under this process? Is it a crime in this day and age to ask reasonable questions of the government of the day about the policies they've put in place? There is nothing I've read here, or in the excellent talking points I was given by the coalition, on what the cost is going to be. Nobody knows. It could be anything.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“No-one has been able to answer that question for me because the answer is clear: this approach might make domestic Centre Left members of parliament in Australia feel really good about what they've achieved, but it does nothing for the global environment. All you've done is create a greater footprint. You've displaced it overseas. You've taken people from employment to unemployment. But congratulations; those opposite get to feel particularly good about what they've supposedly done. That's what this is about.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“For the past few minutes I've been telling the House what the Labor government wants you to believe the safeguard mechanism is and then what I believe it actually to be. You know the old saying: if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. So let's call it for what it is. It's a tax on families, a tax on businesses and a big tax on regional Australia. It's carbon tax 2.0 and another major blow for the people of Australia and, more specifically, for the people of rural and regional Australia. It greatly concerns me that the Albanese Labor government is happily executing drastic climate targets with no consideration for the toll it takes on Australian jobs and on household budgets, at a time when the cost of living is skyrocketing, with increased mortgage rates, increased overdrafts for businesses, increased food and fuel costs and increased energy prices.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, I don't believe that this punitive model will produce the results we need as a nation, not in the true reduction of emissions nor in the safeguarding of our existing industries and future-proofing of our economy. It's certainly not good for Australian households. You can't create or build by taxing, you can't incentivise industry through punishment, and you can't put ideology first and disproportionately impact regional Australia. As such, I cannot support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So I cannot support this bill the way it is, and I would like to hear from those opposite as to how they can qualify the net results of where they're going with the implementation of this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That's why I'm opposing this bill and that's why the coalition will strongly oppose this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Labor is now rushing to impose this bill, which would lead to drastic cuts for Australian businesses. Labor is taking a scheme that did exist, but they are changing the scheme from one whose purpose is to stop emissions by encouraging businesses and to encourage them to back technology to a scheme whose purpose is to penalise businesses through taxes.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
6 speakers · 7 contributions · 1 support · 3 oppose · 2 mixed
“Without significant amendments, the Greens will be voting to pass this bill and will back the regulation, but the fight against new coal and gas will not stop. We will fight every single one of those remaining projects.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We have been very clear that we will work with the government and continue to work with the government to see if we can find a way to pass climate laws in this country that will actually start cutting pollution and that will deal with this question of coal and gas. We have put on the table a very, very clear offer that, when you poll pretty much any electorate in this country—on the government side or the crossbench side—people back. We've said very simply to the government: 'Stop making the problem worse. Stop opening new coal and gas mines, and we'll pass this in full.' What could be the objection to that, unless you wanted to open new coal and gas mines? We've said we'll pass it in full. Just stop opening new coal and gas mines, because you can't put the fire out while you're pouring petrol on it. The first step to fixing a problem is to stop making the problem worse.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“After all of that and the many more holes that have been found, it's clear that Labor's tweaks to the safeguard mechanism will make the problem worse. Labor says we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good. The hollowness of this phrase increases in direct proportion to its mechanical repetition, because this is not good legislation, and the Greens are not demanding the perfect. In fact, the Greens are demanding the good in the face of genuinely bad legislation that will actually take us backwards. All we're saying is, for now, let's just not make the problem worse. Let's ensure we don't open any new coal and gas mines.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I appreciate the government's efforts to cut emissions and bring forward the decarbonisation of heavy polluting industries. I commend the work of the Greens in securing an agreement which makes this bill and its rules something to not be completely ashamed of, which is what most climate bills in the last three decades have been. With the agreed changes, we will finally see genuine cuts to emissions in the biggest industries that are responsible for 30 per cent of our domestic emissions, not to mention all the emissions that occur overseas from exported products. I support the agreed changes that the Greens have secured and have been in conversation with the government around some additional changes to go one step further in their climate action and to ensure First Nations people do not get left behind.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As it stands, the safeguard mechanism, which, by the way, is a reheated Tony Abbott and coalition policy, literally locks in a massive expansion of coal and gas. In fact, not only will it make the climate crisis worse but it will also guarantee that we fail to keep warming anywhere below 1.5 degrees.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Stephen Bates on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Bates opposes the bill because he says it lets big polluters offset all of their emissions and gives them no real incentive to cut pollution. He argues the safeguard mechanismThe scheme that sets emissions limits for Australia’s biggest industrial facilities and now lets some of them earn and trade credits if they stay under their limit. should drive genuine emissions reductions, not carbon accounting that lets fossil fuel companies keep polluting.
“This bill allows fossil fuel giants to offset 100 per cent of emissions. If you just heard 100 per cent and think that seems very high, that's because it is. The Climate Council thinks so too. They stated that this is highly problematic because unlimited use of offsets will simply encourage carbon accounting to cover up pollution as usual. The design of the Safeguard Mechanism should prioritise genuine emissions reduction, because tackling harmful climate change means Australia's emissions must shrink rapidly this decade. This bill does not do that. It allows for the facilities regulated by the proposed Safeguard Mechanism to have access to unlimited offsets. So what incentive is there for the facilities to actually reduce their emissions? Analysis by the Parliamentary Library found that the cost of buying offsets to comply with the new Safeguard Mechanism proposals to the fossil fuel industry could be less than 0.1 per cent of these firms' profits. There is no incentive for them to innovate or invest in new technologies to lower emissions. They can simply buy their way out of actually doing anything.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Bates opposes the bill because he says it would let fossil fuel facilities rely on unlimited offsets instead of making real emissions cuts. He argues the safeguard mechanismThe scheme that sets emissions limits for Australia’s biggest industrial facilities and now lets some of them earn and trade credits if they stay under their limit. should force genuine reductions, not allow carbon accounting to cover up ongoing pollution.
“This is highly problematic because unlimited use of offsets will simply encourage carbon accounting to cover up pollution-as-usual. The design of the Safeguard Mechanism should prioritise genuine emissions reduction, because tackling harmful climate change means Australia's emissions must shrink rapidly this decade.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
9 speakers · 10 contributions · 7 support · 1 oppose · 1 mixed
“That is why today I rise to provide my qualified support of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 and of the proposed safeguard mechanism rules, because certainty is really important here.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The minister, in his second reading speech for the bill, said: 'The time is now to address climate change by tackling the emissions of our biggest national emitters, and this bill gets it done.' The minister is mostly right, because we must act now and we cannot wait any longer. I will support the passage of this bill, but I do so with caution.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We need all sides of this House to work together to improve this complex, vital piece of legislation. In its current form, it's very far from perfect. It's hard even to call it 'good'. Kooyong elected me to support urgent and meaningful climate change. This bill falls far short of that, but I support it in the hope that this government will allow amendments to its third reading and that, with time, we can effect the change that we all need to see.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There are people in this place that argue that solar power is cheap and, actually, it is. In fact, I might even say that it's very cheap. But, because there's no-one buying the grid system power—coal-fired power—during the day, in order to keep the power stations open, they've got to increase dramatically the price of their power because otherwise they'd simply have to close the power station. I don't know if anyone in this place actually thinks about the country or about our society, but both sides have said that affordability is the big question. You talk of affordability, and you're going to abolish the coal-fired power industry. All I can say to you is that you will increase by another $1,000 a year the price to consumers. My street in Charters Towers is a very good example. There is only one house out of the 23 houses in the street that has solar panels, and that is the house of the only rich people in the street. All of the rest of the people on the street are on moderate incomes or are retired pensioners. Not one of them has solar panels on the roof. The only rich people in the street are the only people with solar panels. So the poor people are paying three times as much for their electricity to subsidise the rich people. The rich people on our street happen to be me and my wife. My wife is the rich one, not me. We have now taken ourselves into a situation where the poor are subsidising the rich. Infinitely worse is that the government are imposing cost structures upon industry. The Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 imposes those cost structures.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I want this legislation to pass and to work. I really do. The IPCC's AR6 synthesis report released today builds on the already large pile of evidence that current climate policy around the world is inadequate. The report found that current nationally determined contributions, including Australia's, make it likely that warming will exceed 1.5 degrees and make it harder to limit warming to two degrees. The consequences of this are dire. True action matters for the environment, our health and our future prosperity. After extensive discussions, I supported the government's Climate Change Bill, putting into law a 43 per cent emissions reductions target. It's not enough, as I said at the time, but it was a big step forward, and the Goldstein community welcomed my amendment to make it clear that 43 per cent was a floor, not a ceiling.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Zali Steggall on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Steggall says the safeguard mechanism creditsCredits earned by a covered facility when its emissions are below its baseline, which another covered facility can use to help meet its own limit. bill is important and good in principle, but she will only back it if it is strengthened with tougher amendments on ambition, offsets, and transparency. Her support depends on the government improving the legislation so it drives real emissions cuts rather than relying on accounting tricks.
“It's difficult to comment with finality on the bill because we don't know ultimately where we it will end up, and there are still conversations I'm having with the minister and other members of the crossbench and the Greens in this House and the other place. But it is important to point out that the safeguard mechanism bill is an important pillar of the government's climate policy. We know we had to push the government to acknowledge that the 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 is really a floor not a ceiling and that we have to be more ambitious than that, which means the levers we put in place in this bill, the very pillar to deliver the government policy, has to be capable of greater ambition. That's why so many of the amendments are important.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Steggall supports the bill, but says it must be strengthened with sensible amendments to cap gross emissions, improve methane accounting and make on-site abatement the priority. She argues the government should come to the table because the safeguard mechanismThe scheme that sets emissions limits for Australia’s biggest industrial facilities and now lets some of them earn and trade credits if they stay under their limit. is an important chance to drive real emissions cuts.
“In the context of this debate in relation to the safeguard mechanism, there are important amendments before the government, and I urge the government to come to the table and pass those sensible amendments. It is incredibly important at this time, with such a dire warning from the IPCC, that we establish a cap on gross emissions, that the government accept amendments and recognises the principle that gross emissions need to come down from this point, and that we set up a hierarchy of emissions reduction to ensure that the market and facilities prioritise on-site abatement, offset projects and then purchase offsets. We absolutely can do better.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“I urge the government to adopt these constructive amendments.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This legislative amendment should not be looked at as simply a short-term solution to deliver on a political promise made at the last election. Rather, it should be seen for what it really is, which is one of the most important first steps in fundamentally transitioning and transforming our future economy so that both our nation and our planet can thrive. In this context, I am committed to working with the government to ensure petty party politics does not ultimately impede what can be a very important and significant step for our nation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 unclear
“That this bill be now read a second time.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 89 to 55.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 31 to 25.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 32 to 26.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
House · Message from Senate reported
Message from Senate reported
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (06/03/2023)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (1 Dec 2022): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (6 Mar 2023)
APH bill page notes
