This bill became law on Nov 27th, 2023.
Climate, energy & environment
Australia can allow overseas shipment of captured carbon dioxide for storage under the seabed, but only after Australia takes the required treaty step and the minister announces it.
Changes to the London ProtocolThe international treaty Australia is updating its sea dumping law to follow; on this page, it is the rulebook for carbon dioxide export and marine geoengineering research. left Australian law unable to permit carbon dioxide exports for sub-seabed storage or marine geoengineering research. This bill updates the sea dumping law to allow tightly controlled permits for those activities and to enforce environmental safeguards and penalties.
Australia’s sea-dumping law already sat within the London ConventionThe older marine pollution treaty that sits behind Australia’s sea dumping rules and explains why the law is built around protecting the sea from dumped waste. and London ProtocolThe international treaty Australia is updating its sea dumping law to follow; on this page, it is the rulebook for carbon dioxide export and marine geoengineering research. system that protects the marine environment, but amendments agreed internationally in 2009 and 2013 created options for cross-border carbon dioxide export for sub-seabed storage and tightly controlled marine geoengineering research that domestic law did not yet support. The 2023 bill was introduced to close that gap by creating a permit pathway with environmental safeguards and penalties, and it became law after Parliament passed it in November 2023.
The main criticism was that the bill could let new coal and gas projects keep expanding by treating carbon capture and seabed storage as a workaround, even though critics said the technology remains unproven at scale and could shift emissions or risks offshore. This case was raised mainly by crossbench independents and Greens, with some saying they could only support a much tighter version with stronger safeguards, liability rules and limits on use for new fossil fuel projects.
Hon Tanya Plibersek MP introduced this bill. In the House final vote, support came from Labor, Nationals, Liberal Party, some crossbench members; opposition came from Greens, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 27 Nov 2023
Final passage
Recorded final vote
2 counted final-passage votes were recorded.
Passage speed
158 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Australia can allow overseas shipment of captured carbon dioxide for storage under the seabed, but only after Australia takes the required treaty step and the minister announces it.
Exporters can get a permit to send captured carbon dioxide to another country for seabed storage only if Australia has an agreement with that country and the plan meets international environmental rules.
A company with an export permit for captured carbon dioxide does not need a separate loading permit to put that material onto a ship, aircraft or platform for that export.
Marine geoengineering activities like ocean fertilisationA type of marine geoengineering where material is added to the ocean to change how it absorbs carbon; on this page it is an example of a tightly regulated research activity. can be permitted only for scientific research, and the minister must be satisfied the activity will minimise marine pollution.
People who place, load or export material for marine geoengineering without a permit can face criminal penalties, including up to 10 years in prison or large fines for seriously harmful material.
The Minister must announce, by notifiable instrument, the day on which Australia deposits a declaration on provisional application of that amendment.Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Act 2023 final Act text
(c) that there is an agreement or arrangement in force between Australia and the other country 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; andEnvironment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Act 2023 final Act text
The effect of this amendment would be that a person who was granted an export permit under new subsection 19(7B) (as inserted by item 3) would not be committing an offence when loading the relevant controlled material for export if they were not granted a separate loading permit in connection with that export. It is intended that exporters would not be required to apply for a separate loading permit if the applicable export permit is in force at the time of loading.Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) explanatory memorandum
(b) that pollution of the marine environment from the placement of wastes or other matter for that activity would, as far as practicable, be prevented or reduced to a minimum; andEnvironment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Act 2023 final Act text
(a) if it is proved that any of the wastes or other matter is seriously harmful material—imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine up to 2,000 penalty units, or both; orEnvironment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Act 2023 final Act text
Context
Australia’s sea-dumping law already sat within the London ConventionThe older marine pollution treaty that sits behind Australia’s sea dumping rules and explains why the law is built around protecting the sea from dumped waste. and London ProtocolThe international treaty Australia is updating its sea dumping law to follow; on this page, it is the rulebook for carbon dioxide export and marine geoengineering research. system that protects the marine environment, but amendments agreed internationally in 2009 and 2013 created options for cross-border carbon dioxide export for sub-seabed storage and tightly controlled marine geoengineering research that domestic law did not yet support. The 2023 bill was introduced to close that gap by creating a permit pathway with environmental safeguards and penalties, and it became law after Parliament passed it in November 2023.
London ConventionThe older marine pollution treaty that sits behind Australia’s sea dumping rules and explains why the law is built around protecting the sea from dumped waste. takes effect for Australia
Australia’s sea-dumping controls were anchored in the international marine pollution regime when the London ConventionThe older marine pollution treaty that sits behind Australia’s sea dumping rules and explains why the law is built around protecting the sea from dumped waste. entered into force for Australia.
Hansard ↗London ProtocolThe international treaty Australia is updating its sea dumping law to follow; on this page, it is the rulebook for carbon dioxide export and marine geoengineering research. agrees carbon dioxide export amendment
A 2009 amendment to the London ProtocolThe international treaty Australia is updating its sea dumping law to follow; on this page, it is the rulebook for carbon dioxide export and marine geoengineering research. created a pathway for exporting captured carbon dioxide for sub-seabed storage that Australian law had not yet implemented.
Hansard ↗London ProtocolThe international treaty Australia is updating its sea dumping law to follow; on this page, it is the rulebook for carbon dioxide export and marine geoengineering research. agrees marine geoengineering amendment
A 2013 amendment added rules for marine geoengineering activities, leaving Australia to update its domestic law if it wanted to permit scientific research under that framework.
Hansard ↗Government introduces the bill to implement the treaty changes
The minister said the bill would give effect to Australia’s international obligations arising from the 2009 and 2013 London ProtocolThe international treaty Australia is updating its sea dumping law to follow; on this page, it is the rulebook for carbon dioxide export and marine geoengineering research. amendments.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, clearing the way for the new permit and penalty regime to become law.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final step that turns a bill into an Act, meaning the new sea dumping rules became law after Parliament passed them. makes the changes law
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a bill into an Act, meaning the new sea dumping rules became law after Parliament passed them. turned the bill into an Act so Australia could legally support these treaty-based activities through domestic permits and safeguards.
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 (22/06/2023): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (27/07/2023)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 57 to 12.
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 the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
Recorded vote: 68 to 12.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
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: 26 to 15.
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 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 chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading moved
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading debated
Recorded vote: 21 to 14.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
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 bill into an Act, meaning the new sea dumping rules became law after Parliament passed them., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill could let new coal and gas projects keep expanding by treating carbon capture and seabed storage as a workaround, even though critics said the technology remains unproven at scale and could shift emissions or risks offshore. This case was raised mainly by crossbench independents and Greens, with some saying they could only support a much tighter version with stronger safeguards, liability rules and limits on use for new fossil fuel projects.
Opposition was real but concentrated outside Labor and the Coalition.
Could prolong fossil fuel expansion
Critics argued the bill would make it easier for new coal and gas projects to proceed by using carbon capture and storage to justify continued extraction, rather than cutting fossil fuel production directly. They said this risked greenwashing high-emitting projects and exporting climate harm overseas.
Safeguards and long-term liability were seen as too weak
Opponents said the bill lacked enough protection around permit conditions, environmental assessment, long-term responsibility, financial security and review rights for decisions involving carbon dioxide exports and storage. Failed Senate amendment attempts show these concerns were concrete and focused on tightening the scheme rather than abstract politics.
Shipping carbon dioxide overseas was called risky and premature
Some critics said Australia should not move yet to allow export of captured carbon dioxide for seabed storage because the regulatory framework was not precautionary enough and the practical environmental risks remained unresolved. Their concern was less about the bill's goal than about moving ahead before the technology and rules were proven.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Passed 68 to 12. Support came from Labor, Nationals, and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 21 to 14. Support came from Labor, Nationals, and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens, UAP, One Nation, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 57 to 12. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 26 to 15. Support came from Labor, UAP, and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, One Nation, and minor parties and independents.
Passed 21 to 15. Support came from Labor, Nationals, and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens, UAP, One Nation, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents.
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Defeated 12 to 53. Support came from Greens. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was the main crossbench attempt to narrow the bill so carbon capture and storage could not be used to support new or expanded fossil fuel projects, and to make permit holders carry the costs if things go wrong.
Defeated 12 to 55. Support came from Greens. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Katter's Australian Party, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This would have prevented public money being used to underwrite carbon storage projects that could prolong fossil fuel extraction and use.
Defeated 13 to 56. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals.
This was a transparency amendment aimed at giving Parliament and the public timely access to permit applications, approvals and changes under the sea dumping act.
Defeated 12 to 54. Support came from Greens. Opposition came from Labor, Nationals, and Liberal Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This sought to stop the bill taking effect before broader legal and treaty settings were settled, reflecting concern that the government was moving too quickly.
Senate
Defeated 21 to 38. Support came from Labor and Jacqui Lambie Network. Opposition came from Greens, Liberal Party, UAP, Nationals, and minor parties and independents.
This was a procedural vote, not a final vote on whether the bill would become law.
Defeated 17 to 36. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Greens, Liberal Party, UAP, Nationals, and minor parties and independents.
This was a procedural vote, not a final vote on whether the bill would become law.
Defeated 16 to 36. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Greens, Liberal Party, UAP, Nationals, and minor parties and independents.
This was a procedural vote, not a final vote on whether the bill would become law.
Defeated 16 to 36. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Greens, Liberal Party, UAP, and Nationals.
This was a procedural vote, not a final vote on whether the bill would become law.
Defeated 12 to 25. Support came from Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Labor, UAP, and One Nation.
This was an attempt to harden the bill's regulatory framework so any carbon dioxide export regime would carry tighter safeguards and clearer responsibilities.
Defeated 11 to 22. Support came from Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, UAP, Nationals, and Liberal Party.
This would have prevented the bill being used to help new fossil fuel projects secure carbon capture-related permits.
Defeated 14 to 20. Support came from Greens, One Nation, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Nationals, and Liberal Party.
This package would have made the permit system tougher and more accountable by adding ongoing obligations and a way to challenge ministerial decisions.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Plibersek supports the bill, saying it will let Australia meet its London ProtocolThe international treaty Australia is updating its sea dumping law to follow; on this page, it is the rulebook for carbon dioxide export and marine geoengineering research. obligations and create a clear, science-based framework for carbon capture and marine geoengineering while protecting the marine environment.
Read in Hansard ↗Tink opposes the bill, arguing it mainly helps the fossil fuel sector extend carbon pollution rather than deliver real climate action.
Read in Hansard ↗Gillespie supports the bill and says it should give Australia the legal framework to approve carbon capture, storage and limited geoengineering research under the London protocolThe international treaty Australia is updating its sea dumping law to follow; on this page, it is the rulebook for carbon dioxide export and marine geoengineering research..
Read in Hansard ↗Steggall says she cannot back the bill as drafted because it lacks safeguards and could be used to prolong fossil fuel production by letting carbon capture and storage justify new gas and coal projects.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
12 speakers · 13 contributions · 12 support
“That is why this bill needs to pass.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In Japan, Minister Bowen stated his view that the most important thing the government could do in the area of CCS would be to provide regulatory certainty. That's what this bill is directed to. We are no longer mere observers in this monumental shift. We are no longer a country stubbornly refusing to participate on accounts of vacuous, unscientific and outdated ideologies. We are at the table making investments, signing up to international efforts and making the legislative and regulatory amendments that are required to ensure a robust regulatory environment for all possible options to progress within. Not for the first time, I commend the Minister for the Environment and Water and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, and I am proud to support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The bill is a decisive step towards securing a brighter, cleaner future for our planet. By ratifying the 2009 and 2013 amendments to the London convention, we can implement the framework we need that fosters responsible research and carbon capture and storage projects. So let's come together to safeguard our marine environment, combat climate change and leave a lasting legacy for generations to come. We can embrace this historic opportunity to safeguard our oceans, foster innovation and climate mitigation, and uphold our responsibilities as custodians of our planet. By endorsing this bill we honour the past, we acknowledge the challenges of the present and we pave the way for a brighter, cleaner and more sustainable future for generations to come. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“With those comments, I commend the legislation to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In closing, this bill is essential to ensure that, as the globe moves to embrace science in its efforts to reduce carbon emissions, we also protect our environment. Australia is doing its part, and this is why I ask everyone in this House to support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Net zero by 2050 is this government's unequivocal priority in our fight against global warming. This bill is a critical aspect to us reaching that goal, and I urge the Senate to pass the bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Amending the sea dumping act to regulate the export of carbon dioxide streams from carbon capture and storage processes, the sequestration into sub-seabed geological formations and to regulate marine geoengineering research delivers greater public confidence in our ability to protect the marine environment from these emerging international activities. It would be irresponsible not to have a comprehensive regulatory system in place to ensure these activities are legal and to protect the marine environment, and it is for these reasons that this bill has been brought forward. I thank senators again for their contributions today. I understand that we are to have a committee stage, and I look forward to the discussions that will take place at that time.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Labor understands that we have a responsibility, and we need to ensure that we safeguard it, to ensure that oceans remain special places for future generations. Relying on an unregulated approach would risk long-term damage. And so I commend the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, for getting done the job that the Liberals did not do. I commend her for her tireless commitment to her portfolio and leadership on environmental policy. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Tanya Plibersek on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Plibersek supports the bill, saying it will let Australia meet its London ProtocolThe international treaty Australia is updating its sea dumping law to follow; on this page, it is the rulebook for carbon dioxide export and marine geoengineering research. obligations and create a clear, science-based framework for carbon capture and marine geoengineering while protecting the marine environment.
“In summary, these changes to the sea dumping act will meet Australia's international obligations under the London protocol. It will also protect and preserve the marine environment from potential environmental risks, through a robust, comprehensive and science based regulatory framework.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Plibersek supports the bill, saying it sets a proper regulatory framework for sea dumping and marine geoengineering before projects emerge, with environmental impact and risk assessments built in. She says that is better than letting industries proceed without oversight, although she will not support the late amendments.
“The amendments in this bill are necessary to ensure that we have a comprehensive regulatory framework that protects our oceans, including things like environmental impact assessments, risk assessments and management frameworks to ensure that best practice is adopted.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“We need to act now. I commend the minister on bringing this bill to the House and I also commend the widespread consultation that has been undertaken, both within government and with external stakeholders. Indeed, these amendments were the subject of a recent inquiry undertaken by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water. The committee recommended that these changes be enacted into Australian law for both environmental and regional foreign purposes. Further, the enactment of these amendments was also recommended in an independent policy insights paper from the Climate Change Authority in April 2023. Thus support for these measures in this bill is overwhelming. This member for Werriwa commends the bill to the House in the full confidence that her predecessor, the great Mr Whitlam himself, would heartily concur.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In summary, these changes to the Sea Dumping Act will meet Australia's international obligations under the London Protocol. It will also protect and preserve the marine environment from potential environmental risks, through a robust, comprehensive and science based regulatory framework.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise in support of this bill, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. As I have said before in this place, there are few bigger global challenges than addressing climate change.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
5 speakers · 5 support
“I commend this bill to the House and I let everyone know that it's been analysed extensively, it's not experimental, it has huge commercial potential for all the countries that access it and it will be beneficial. If you're concerned about climate change, you should be advocating for carbon capture and storage.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Given, in particular, all of that context in the background, the coalition will certainly be supporting this bill. We also endorse the general points included in the various recent committee inquiry reports about the need for careful monitoring, management and regulation of the kinds of activities that are the subject of this bill, especially if and when they increase in frequency in relation to Australia. We hope the government will discharge the responsibilities they have in this area sensibly and vigilantly. At a time when certainty for international investors has been stripped away by actions of this government, such as under the safeguard mechanism, anything that improves our standing in this respect is welcome. Therefore, we thank the government for bringing this bill to parliament and we commend the bill to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is an ideal bill and it should definitely be passed.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Given all that context and background, we on the side of the House support the bill. We also endorse the general points included in the various recent committee reports about the need for careful monitoring, management and regulation of the kinds of activities that are the subject of the bill—especially if and when they increase in frequency in relation to Australia. We call on the government to discharge its many responsibilities in this area sensibly and vigilantly. It is good to be able to speak on this bill. It's good to be able to support this bill. I commend it to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition welcomes the introduction of this bill, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. This legislation is aimed at giving expression to two sets of amendments that were made several years ago to the London protocol. In our view, these are each well-intentioned changes, and we stand with the government in supporting the passage of them through the parliament. If the bill is passed, it is likely to provide Australia with improved flexibility and opportunity in relation to the import and export of carbon dioxide streams and the rapidly emerging field of marine geoengineering.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
12 speakers · 12 oppose
“This bill is an attempt to facilitate more oil and gas development in our oceans by pretending that carbon capture and storage, or CCS, is commercially viable and somehow an effective climate solution.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There are so many flaws in this bill and in the technology that it seeks to facilitate. The Greens cannot support this bill. It is greenwashing and it is a shameful move, as has already been outlined by my colleagues. The government is claiming to take strong action on climate change—it's a joke.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It is disappointing that the Albanese government has created space within the environmental legislative agenda for this bill in front of effective, future focused environmental laws that would actually help the environment. Urgent environmental matters wait for action while the needs of the fossil fuel industry jump to the front of the queue. We deserve better. Australians deserve better from this government. Our scientists deserve better—for their work to be taken seriously. Most importantly, our kids deserve better. This bill should be rejected. It goes in the wrong direction. The crisis we're in demands different actions that actually address it and create a safe planet, end the loss of biodiversity and give future generations the future, the lives and the communities that they deserve.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is not the legislation that we should be introducing and debating in this place today. It is not legislation that should have the government, the Liberal Party, the National Party and others joining together to be pushing through this parliament. This is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. We know we should be debating how we can quickly transition to getting out of fossil fuels altogether. We know that's what we should be doing and that that's the sort of legislation that would be giving us a future. But it's not.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 is a naked and shameless attempt to facilitate the dirtiest fossil fuel project in our nation's history—the Barossa offshore gas project in the Timor Sea.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is a cynical and blatant attempt by the Albanese Labor government to facilitate more oil and gas drilling in our oceans. To pursue such an outcome, in the service of the oil and gas industry, is ecocidal.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Of course we're going to vote against this, but it'll be a spectacle that any person concerned about the future should look at. Watch how Labor and the coalition join together once again to mortgage our future and screw up our climate simply for the short-term money they and their mates will get. We oppose this bill, and I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for the work he's done on this.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Here's what's going to happen, folks: the major party politicians, the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics, are going to sit with the ayes and pass this bill. There will be a small number of people—and I proudly let you all know that that will include every single Australian Greens senator—on the other side of the chamber voting no to this despicable piece of legislation. In voting no we will be standing up for the future, we will be standing up for a safe planet and we will be standing up for future generations.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is a sham. This bill, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, is actually called 'sea dumping' for a reason, because all this bill does is dump on the planet while paving the way for the expansion of the fossil fuel industry.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As my colleague Senator Pocock has just stated to the chamber, this proposal—the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023—goes in precisely the wrong direction at precisely the wrong time for all of the wrong reasons. Through the course of this debate, what you have heard from each and every Greens contributor is a factually based, impassioned and detailed critique of this legislation from MPs who were sent to this place to defend the planet and the environment from the clutches and maladministration of parties which have been captured by fossil fuel interests in this country.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Here we are in a drastic climate crisis, and, instead of ending new fossil fuel projects—as the UN says we must—putting a climate trigger in our environmental laws, ending native forest logging nationwide or properly protecting the Great Barrier Reef and the Murray-Darling Basin—tragically, this list goes on and on—this government is instead enabling the expansion of fossil fuels by legitimising the extremely questionable carbon capture and storage technology.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We are in the middle of a climate emergency, and all we are getting is some tinkering here and some bandaid solutions there. What we need to do is to stop all new fossil fuel projects. This bill should not pass.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“This bill is yet another step down the road to climate change lunacy. The drivel coming out of these senators is mind-blowing. Labor, the Greens, the Nationals and the Liberals are hellbent on sacrificing Australia on the altar of net zero, when Senator Wong couldn't even explain what net zero means.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“One Nation will be opposing this bill designed to enrich predatory globalist billionaires who donate to the Greens and the teals. Every senator, by the way, should do the same—oppose this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
9 speakers · 8 oppose · 1 mixed
“Without amendment, it is far from convincing that this bill presents a solution that is in the best interests of our climate and environment. It is not the appropriate investment to make in the face of our current climate emergency.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“However, we are going to enter an era when we have to talk about carbon drawdown. The truth is that atmospheric carbon dioxide already far exceeds safe levels for human civilisation. The Australian Academy of Science says that the world will need to remove greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere in order to avoid the worst-case scenarios of global warming. Scientists and entrepreneurs are continuing to work on solutions to directly capture carbon from the atmosphere through a wide range of methods, including direct air capture and electrochemical and biological approaches, to name a few. So the storage of carbon drawdown of existing emissions needs to be considered, and I believe that is where this legislation could have a role to play. We do need to start looking beyond net zero, and we should have on the agenda climate-positive outcomes. So we need to talk about greenhouse gas removal and negative emissions, but for that you need the government. If the government was legitimate in wanting to say this was about climate action, then the amendments proposed would ensure that these can be used only for greenhouse gas removal and negative emissions and not for an offset or to justify any future fossil fuel projects or expansion of fossil fuels. Then we would be able to believe the government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Carbon capture and storage is an unproven, costly technology. Promoting it and supporting it by legislation undermines our efforts to decarbonise by giving false credits to a false science, by diverting funding from proven technologies that could reduce emissions and by delaying out transmission to renewables. This bill will be a key enabler of gas expansion. It will grant social licence for new, highly polluting, greenwashed fossil-fuel projects. We must protect our oceans and our aquatic ecosystems from the threats of concentrated, liquefied carbon dioxide. Passage of this bill will kick a toxic carbonated can down the road to our international neighbours. In passing this bill, we would be signalling to the rest of the world our refusal to take responsibility for our own emissions and our willingness to dump them on our neighbours without due consideration of the physical or moral safety of that transfer. I cannot in any conscience commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I will be supporting a range of amendments that attempt to tighten the regulatory framework and apply a precautionary approach, but, ultimately, I don't think the time has come to ratify these amendments by passing this bill because of the fundamental issue of carbon capture and storage being used as a licence to continue to expand fossil fuels and because of the risks and moral implications of exporting carbon dioxide.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill should not be passed, but if it is these amendments will provide some limits on the amount of damage that this bill is likely to cause.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Despite these risks, not to mention the potential risks to the ocean itself from experimentation with things like ocean floor fertilisation to absorb more CO2, we're now being asked to support this legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There are conditions under which I would or may support this bill: if the legislation were amended such that it only applied to projects that generated negative emissions—that is, the removing of existing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere—if CCS were a successful, proven technology in removing carbon dioxide, if the legislation were amended to stop taxpayers' money being used to subsidise CCS projects, if the legislation were amended to guarantee proper safeguards that ensure the efficacy of the technology both in Australia and in Timor-Leste, if Timor-Leste were a signatory of the London Protocol and if the government first passed stronger environmental laws so that we had a guarantee that future proposals for new fossil fuel projects would be properly assessed for their climate and environmental impact. Many of these are crossbench amendments that are on the table—amendments that the government could accept—and, unless the government backs them, I cannot support this legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This sea-dumping bill is a dangerous enabler. It is a dangerous enabler because it allows for polluting gas projects to proceed based on flawed and unproven carbon capture and storage technology, and it does not deal at all with scope 3 emissions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I will be voting against the bill at this stage. I support the amendments of my crossbench colleagues and I urge the government to support them too. I also urge the government to consider further amendments in the Senate in line with the Greens dissenting report on the Senate inquiry into the bill, because there are clear ways to improve this bill so that CCS happens only in the rarest of circumstances and doesn't just allow fossil fuel projects to continue.”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 agreed to
Recorded vote: 57 to 12.
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 debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 68 to 12.
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: 26 to 15.
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 debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Third reading moved
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Third reading debated
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 21 to 14.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
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 bill into an Act, meaning the new sea dumping rules became law after Parliament passed them., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (27/07/2023)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (22 June 2023): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (27 July 2023)
APH bill page notes
