The majority voted against amendments introduced by Warringah MP Zali Steggall (Independent), which means they failed.

What did these amendments do?

Ms Steggall explained that:

These amendments put in the guardrails. If the government is genuine about saying that this is legislation about fighting climate change, then they cannot consider the passing of this legislation without these amendments. The amendment I propose adds two conditions to the minister's consideration when granting a permit to dump carbon dioxide in the ocean or under the ocean floor. The first condition added states that any greenhouse gases removed must result in fewer greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than if the activity had not occurred, net negative emissions. The second condition states that they must not offset or compensate for new emissions of greenhouse gases. It cannot be a carbon capture and storage project to compensate for the expansion of fossil fuels.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 1, heading to Part 1, page 4 (line 2), omit "Export of carbon", substitute "Carbon".

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

(7B) The Minister may only grant a permit for controlled material that is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation if:

(a) the carbon dioxide capture processes removed greenhouse gases from the atmosphere by human activity, resulting in less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than if the activity had not occurred; and

(b) the removed greenhouse gases have not been, and are not to be, used to offset or compensate for new emissions of greenhouse gases by any facility under any legal, regulatory or voluntary agreement or target; and

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

(d) in the case of a permit for exporting the controlled material to another country—the Minister is satisfied 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; and

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

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

Note: The facility mentioned in paragraph (b) need not be the facility that removed the greenhouse gases.

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Fowler MP Dai Le (Independent), which means they were unsuccessful.

What do the amendments do?

The amendments would have required workplace diversity programs to be established to promote diversity.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 16), after item 2, insert:

2A Paragraph 10A(1)(g)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(g) recognises and promotes the diversity of the Australian community and fosters a diverse perspective in the workplace.

(2) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 8), after item 5, insert:

5A Section 18

Repeal the section, substitute:

18 Promotion of employment equity

An Agency Head must:

(a) establish a workplace diversity program:

(i) to allow for the proactive development of individuals of diverse backgrounds; and

(ii) to assist in giving effect to the APS Employment Principles; and

(b) promote diverse and inclusive recruitment within the Agency to give effect to the APS Employment Principles.

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel. The amendment would have amended a previous amendment introduced by Curtin MP Kate Chaney (Independent), which was to add the words below to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill).

Ms Chaney's amendment

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"The House declines to give the bill a second reading until such time as the report on the Robodebt Royal Commission is handed down".

Ms Daniel's amendment

That all words after "time" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"as the government responds to the recommendations of the Robodebt Royal Commission, the results of the Secretaries Board Integrity Taskforce review are made public and the recommendations of the Thodey Review on appointments and termination of Secretaries are acted upon".

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bills for a second time, which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with their main idea. This means that the House will now consider the bills in greater detail.

What is the bill's main idea?

According to the bills digest summary:

• The Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 (NRM Bill) seeks to establish the legislative framework for a voluntary national market in biodiversity certificates. The market would enable project proponents to undertake – on a range of land tenures, including in aquatic environments and the ocean to the extent of Australia’s territorial sea (generally, 12 nautical miles from the coast) – projects that protect or enhance biodiversity. The project proponent would be able to apply to the Clean Energy Regulator for a unique biodiversity certificate that could then be sold to interested persons in the market.
• The NRM Bill is framework legislation, with significant elements of the scheme to be provided in a series of legislative instruments to be made by the Minister, including rules, biodiversity assessment instruments and methodology determinations.
• The Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 makes minor amendments to the Clean Energy Regulator Act 2011 and National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 to facilitate operation of the proposed scheme.
• The Bills indirectly respond to two key reports and reviews relating to the state of Australia’s biodiversity, the State of the Environment Report 2021 and the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Samuel Review). These highlight the deteriorating state of terrestrial and marine biodiversity and the failure of our national environmental law to adequately protect Australia’s biodiversity and iconic places.
• Over 400 submissions were made to 2 rounds of consultation undertaken by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW).
• A review of submissions indicates stakeholder views’ range from cautiously optimistic – largely in recognition of the urgent need to increase investment in the protection and enhancement of biodiversity – to highly critical of a broad range of policy and technical issues. Chief among these are concerns about market-led commodification of nature and the integration of the proposed market with the still-to-be-implemented reform of Australia’s national environmental laws. A large number of submitters were of the view that the Bills should not progress until those reforms are finalised.