Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The beaches and the ocean environment of the Central Coast and Lake Macquarie are renowned for their natural beauty and abundant sea life. It's one of the reasons so many of us choose to live there. I remember spending my youth jetty jumping and fishing for flathead. I remember learning to catch waves as a nipper. It was an immense privilege to grow up in a fibro worker's cottage with a beach at the end of the street. I was thinking about this as I was standing in the water at Redhead Beach nine days ago watching my seven-year-old daughter using her bodyboard for the very first time while my five-year-old son ran through wave after wave.

It struck me how different it would be if I could see an offshore gas drilling rig from that position. It struck me what a tragedy it would be if my kids were unable to swim at the beach due to an accident on that rig. It saddened me to think about if the only fish the families fishing along Nine Mile Beach saw were dead ones washing on the shore. This is what is at stake when we debate the petroleum exploration permit 11 licence and the application by Advent Energy to begin exploration drilling off Redhead Beach.

I stand with my community in saying no to PEP 11, no to endangering our beach and coastline, no to endangering the lifestyle we love, and no to endangering the fishing and tourism industries that employ thousands of people. There is no justification for drilling to extract gas and oil off our beautiful coast. From a local jobs perspective this development will probably employ fewer than 100 people—most of whom will likely not be locals—but will risk thousands of jobs locally in tourism and recreational and commercial fishing. I simply will not risk our jobs in whale watching, bait and tackle shops, fishing charters, surf schools, cafes and accommodation for this development. There are thousands of direct jobs and tens of thousands of indirect jobs that depend on our pristine beaches and maritime environment. From an economic perspective, the clear answer must be no to drilling.

With regard to energy security, in the short to medium term, New South Wales does need to produce more gas, but there are projects, some of which are in advanced development now, that will produce gas more cheaply and in less sensitive environments without endangering existing industries. Beyond the short-term need for adequate gas supplies, the answer to Australia's energy security is more renewable energy—renewable energy firmed by batteries and pumped hydro for electricity generation, leading to lower power bills and lower emissions; renewable energy exported to the rest of the world, either directly through cables or indirectly as hydrogen, or embodied in clean steel and clean ammonia; renewable energy generating hydrogen as a feed stock for industry. This is the answer to Australia's energy security, not drilling within sight of the most densely populated region of the nation.

I've never seen a proposal generate such deep and broad opposition from all segments of our communities as I've seen with PEP 11. I've met with recreational fishing industry advocates deeply opposed to this. I've been approached at markets by 80-year-old grandmothers worried about this development. I've had local engineers spontaneously raise this issue when I've talked to them about other matters. On the same day I was at Redhead Beach, I held a stall at Pelican Markets, where a young mum came up to my stall with her 10-year-old daughter and expressed to me her fervent opposition to PEP 11. I want to say thank you to everyone who has expressed their opposition to PEP 11. Thank you for your passion. Thank you for your commitment to our beautiful environment and for fighting against climate change. Thank you for your commitment to our coastal way of life.

To those who are concerned about how we create jobs in our region, I say this: this project is not the answer. Growing jobs in Lake Macquarie and the Central Coast is my first priority, and it always will be, but this project will not grow jobs. Instead, it has the potential to destroy thousands of jobs.

This motion is a good start, but the future of this project rests in the hands of the New South Wales and federal Liberal governments. The current PEP 11 application for a secondary work program variation and a suspension and an extension of year 4 of the permit are currently sitting with the offshore petroleum joint authority. The joint authority is the decision-maker for offshore petroleum title matters, and its sole members are the federal minister for resources, Keith Pitt, and his New South Wales counterpart. They can kill this project right now, and they should.

Let me finish where I began, by saying that I stand with my community in saying no to PEP 11. I say no to PEP 11. I say no to endangering our beaches and coastline. I say no to endangering our lifestyle. I say no to endangering the fishing and tourism industries that are the bedrock of local employment. PEP 11 must be stopped because it is the wrong project in the wrong place.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm always intrigued when a member of the government stands up and tries to spruik their credentials when it comes to conservation, particularly when it comes to the Barrier Reef, because quite frankly you can't protect the Barrier Reef without talking and acting on climate change—and this is a government that don't. In part, I kind of understand the circumstances they're in. Since first forming the Liberal Party in 1944, they've never governed in their own right. They've always had to form a coalition, and a number of members of their coalition partner do not believe in climate change, so I understand the pressure they are under. We've seen that relationship teeter. We've seen all of that. But climate change is real, and we need a government that will act on it.

If you are talking about the Barrier Reef, you have to talk about climate change. You have to talk about the three devastating mass bleaching events in the last five years. You have to talk about that, no matter what you do. There's much to be done when it comes to the Barrier Reef in terms of run-off, including run-off from fires, which are becoming more devastating because of climate change. There are lots of things you need to do about the Barrier Reef, but the single thing you have to do for the long-term health of the reef, after you've done everything else, is care for the climate and worry about climate change. This is a government that can't even have a climate change policy. They've been trying for a while, and they can't. I guess they thought to themselves: 'Well, we can have an energy policy. We can at least do something about transitioning,' in the way that some of them know this country needs to, but they haven't managed to do that either. They've had 22 energy policies in the last eight years. They can't even settle on an energy policy. So to get up and talk about the Great Barrier Reef in this way, to talk about it as if the government is protecting it, when for seven years they've done virtually nothing except hand over $444 million to an oddly selected organisation that has essentially failed to do the job it was funded to do—this is a failure coming right at this government. And the reference to protecting the Great Barrier Reef in this motion is really quite absurd.

I also want to talk today about Petroleum Exploration Permit 11, known as PEP 11, which is a permit to explore for oil and gas in what is known as the offshore Sydney Basin. That's the little bit of ocean between Manly and Newcastle right off Sydney. When you stand on any Sydney beach, you're looking at it. This motion, this private member's business, says that the government opposes oil and gas drilling off the coast of Sydney. Well, the decision hasn't been made, and two people can make it: the minister federally and the minister for the state. So, if they do oppose it, it's time they made that decision. Of course it's nonsense to drill for oil and gas so close to the Sydney shore and Newcastle that you can actually see the rigs in the ocean. That would be absurd.

I can tell you that even though I don't live in one of the ocean-side suburbs that most of the speakers today live in—I live in Parramatta; we're kind of landlocked—I get more contacts from my community when we talk about marine health than anything else. It's the marine parks; it the Coral Sea, it's the PEP 11, it's the Great Barrier Reef—you name it. The people in Parramatta come out in droves—hundreds of them in a few days—if they believe there is any threat to this wonderful ocean that surrounds our country.

So I'd say to the member who's moved this motion that, if he genuinely believes the government opposes oil and gas drilling off the coast of Sydney, if he honestly believes that PEP 11 should be rejected, then let him convince his government to vote for this, actually vote for it. It's not good enough when you're talking about something this serious to get up here in this Chamber and pretend you care about it and not act. If you're in the government, you wear the government's actions. It's that simple. You don't get to walk both sides of the fence. This is an incredibly serious matter. Whether it's his first sentence about the Great Barrier Reef or whether it's about PEP 11, he should really put his vote and the government's vote where his mouth is. This is just not good enough.

Our oceans are incredibly important and the single act that protects those oceans from the federal perspective is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and we've got a government that's about to delegate that authority to the states. That's how much this government cares about this issue. (Time expired)

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mackellar for tabling this motion. Earlier this year I tabled a petition with 60,000 signatures to this parliament opposing Petroleum Exploration Permit 11, PEP 11. PEP 11 covers 4,500 square kilometres of ocean, from Newcastle through the Central Coast to Manly. The permit area exists adjacent to the coastal boundaries of Warringah, and many constituents have written to me with their concerns. Offshore oil and gas exploration and production through PEP 11 could have dire consequences for our ecosystems, tourism businesses, coastal communities and climate. Under no circumstances should it proceed. The Central Coast and Newcastle both have a gross regional product worth an estimated $14.33 billion and $35 billion respectively. It's beyond ludicrous that this coalition government could put those economies at risk with their obsession with fossil fuels. We must protect these coastal economies.

PEP 11 is due to expire next February, so the projects proponents, Advent Energy Ltd and Bounty Oil & Gas NL, are seeking a renewal of the permit and a variation of the conditions to allow for exploratory drilling. I wrote to Minister Pitt asking him to reject the renewal and variation in June and was advised that it was with New South Wales Minister Barilaro and himself. I wrote to Minister Barilaro, and he advised the decision was with Minister Pitt. So Minister Pitt was not forthcoming about any decision he had made. And, unfortunately for all the communities, we don't know what recommendations NOPTA has made to the ministers for their decision. So I say to Minister Pitt, and to the government, once again: coastal communities do not want gas platforms off their coasts through PEP 11.

But do we really expect the minister to not back a gas project when all the government's rhetoric to date has been about a gas-led recovery? The government, throughout the Independent Planning Commission's planning process for Narrabri, lent on the commissioners in public statements, put Narrabri on a list of 15 major projects to be fast-tracked and has dedicated $50 million to accelerate the development of the basin, alongside four other projects. We can only hope that good sense will prevail and that investors, insurers and financiers will see the risks inherent in supporting Santos and projects like this.

In August, Minister Pitt, seemingly completely deaf to community concerns for climate and oceans, released approximately 100,000 square kilometres of additional gas exploration acreage, spanning coastal waters from Western Australia across to Victoria and Northern Territory. An Australia Institute report found the existing pipeline of 22 gas projects alongside the new prospective gas resources could emit up to three times annual world emissions, so Australia's gas resources alone would chew up 28 per cent of the global carbon budget at a time when we need to reduce it. When releasing the acreage, Minister Pitt said it was a key component of the government's strategy to promote and encourage investment in petroleum exploration for the benefit of the Australian community. So, it seems we are on a continual march to become the world's largest gas producer, despite the science stating that we must leave it in the ground.

So, I welcome the member for Mackellar's motion against a deeply unpopular development in his backyard, and I thank the members for Wentworth and North Sydney for speaking up against PEP 11. But will those same members nevertheless support government extension into other people's backyards, gas extraction and exploration in other electorates? It's time to pull back the curtain on how MPs vote. It's time for MPs to be held accountable, for their electorates to know that it's not good enough to say one thing to your community, but then vote in this place in support of expanding fossil fuels and, in fact, voting the same way as climate deniers.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020 will come to the House in due course. I expect it shortly. If this is enacted, it will pollute Australia's clean bank by allowing it to invest in gas and loss-making projects. So my question to the MPs who don't want PEP 11 in their backyard is this: will these MPs, if they're genuine in opposing this kind of project, withhold their vote or vote against the legislation? For our oceans, businesses, climate and wellbeing, PEP 11 must not go ahead, not in our backyard, in anyone's backyard. No gas off the coast.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Props are not allowed in the chamber. I warn the member against using props in that circumstance, as the last page of a speech. It shouldn't be done. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.