Gas Code of Conduct could be sent back to drawing board

Australian Greens

The final Gas Code of Conduct was tabled in the Parliament last sitting week. While this is a complex piece of regulation that needs closer scrutiny, what is clear is that the government has again watered down its proposal to benefit Australia's powerful gas corporations. The Greens cannot guarantee support for this weakened Code.

New Ministerial powers in the Code allowing gas companies off the hook have exploded from five classes of exemptions to thirteen. These include exemptions that would encourage new gas field developments in spite of catastrophic global boiling.

Before coming to any decision about disallowing or protecting the regulation, the Greens have secured support to send this legislative instrument off to a Senate inquiry before a final vote in October. Evidence presented at the inquiry will inform the Greens final position.

As put by Treasury spokesperson, Senator Nick McKim:

"The government should not take our support for this instrument for granted."

"There is no doubt this country needs policies that regulate the greed and unscrupulous behaviour of gas companies, but not at the expense of encouraging new gas fields to open."

"The Greens are open to sending the government back to the drawing board on this. This should be our opportunity for Australia to wean itself off gas by electrifying homes and businesses. Instead Labor is using this code of conduct to encourage new gas supplies even as the planet boils around us."

"While the Albanese Government is again bending over backwards to please Woodside and Santos, it seems to have forgotten that it is the Parliament, not the powerful gas cartel that has the final say on what laws are put in place."

/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).View in full here.