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

I seek leave to move the following motion:

1. That the House notes that:

a. in February this year, the Federal Court released consent orders in the litigation between the federal government and Asset Energy regarding the Petroleum Exploration Permit 11, which returned the project to further consideration by the joint authority;

b. in February 2021, under the previous government, the Prime Minister and many representatives of this current government categorically stated that PEP11 would not proceed under their government;

c. the quickest way to ensure that the licence is cancelled is by debating and passing the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Stop PEP11 and Protect our Coasts) Bill 2023;

d. passing this bill will reduce the risk of litigation based on apprehended bias and provide the government with a legitimate mechanism to cancel exploration in the PEP11 area permanently; and

e. the Prime Minister and the ALP voted to suspend standing orders to urgently bring on this bill for debate when in opposition.

2. That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent private members business order of the day No. 17, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Stop PEP11 and Protect Our Coast) Bill 2023, being called on immediately and given priority over all other business for final determination of the House.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent private members business order of the day No. 17, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Stop PEP11 and Protect Our Coast) Bill 2023, being called on immediately and given priority over all other business for final determination of the House.

This is an important motion. This motion must be debated today because it deals with vital issues—climate change, environmental destruction and the fate of the economy—for a significant portion of the east coast of Australia. We have just heard the resources minister and the shadow minister support further gas exploration. It is essential that this issue be resolved without delay, as so many in our communities demand it. Petroleum exploration permit 11, known as PEP-11, is a work bid permit granted under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. Petroleum exploration permit 11, PEP-11, is a licence for oil and gas exploration off our coast, covering some 4,575 square kilometres of ocean from Newcastle through to the Central Coast and down to Manly, coming as close at points as within five kilometres of our coast. The area covered is home to millions of people and significant biodiversity and is on a whale migration path. The community's wellbeing and local economy is tightly intertwined with the health of the ocean in this area.

Last month the Australian government and Asset Energy agreed in legal proceedings to set aside the decision made by Scott Morrison in 2022 when he secretly took on the additional portfolio of resources. This means the application to extend and vary the PEP-11 licence is back before the federal minister for determination. The Warringah community and so many others along the coast are strongly against this application, and while this was a headache for the previous coalition government—with a love of gas exploration, a focus on gas and local MPs threatened by this project—the irony is it now impacts all seats that are held by either Independents or Labor government MPs. So the Prime Minister now has a problem. He is on the record at numerous demonstrations and rallies, as are many members in this House, making an election promise to oppose this licence and project. Now they need to make good on that promise without delay.

This bill must urgently be debated because it will stop PEP-11 once and for all. When we hear statements in this House spruiking more gas exploration, it's incredibly important we deal with this issue without delay. This bill will ensure no future applications for any reason can be granted by the joint authority or titles administrator for the area covered by PEP-11. Without changes to the legislation, the joint authority's decision could be subject to further review or challenge. Questions around bias and apprehended bias will be made by those proponents, and they will remain, given previous statements made by the Prime Minister, numerous members of government and those impacted along the coast. There is a high likelihood proponents of the project will pursue litigation against the government regardless of the final decision by the joint authority, in light of comments made in the lead-up to the election. It's open to the government now at any time to make laws enabling and excluding activities in certain areas.

This bill provides a much simpler and faster resolution of this issue. I urge the government and minister for resources to consider the merits of pursuing this route to cancellation, rather than the joint authority process. Our communities were promised that this licence would not proceed. The government must deliver on its promise. For so many reasons this should be debated without delay and this licence should not proceed. The project will affect communities from Newcastle, Shortland, Dobell, Robertson, Mackellar, Warringah and the broader Sydney coastal area. Our communities in the vicinity of PEP-11 know this and are adamantly opposed to any explanation or drilling for oil or gas. In February 2020 I tabled a petition of over 60,000 names calling for the cancellation of PEP-11. I've received hundreds of emails from concerned constituents. I thank Save Our Coast, Beyond Gas Network, Surfrider, Surfers for Climate and many other community organisations fighting against this project. Many are here today.

Once PEP-11 is resolved we must turn our attention to all other exploration licences, but for today it is urgent, particularly in light of comments made in this chamber, that we debate the PEP-11 bill. This bill is for the millions of people that are living near PEP-11. It's for their continued wellbeing and economic prosperity. It's for our amazing diversity of animals and marine life and to protect them from the ravages of an oil spill.

This bill is for the climate and for our children. It speaks to our commitment to net zero by 2050, and it should speak to the government's commitment. I urge the Prime Minister and the government to support this motion, to debate this bill, to pass this bill and to stay true to that election promise.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I second the motion to suspend standing orders as moved by the member for Warringah. This issue to extinguish the licence for PEP-11 needs to be urgently debated today. My electorate of Mackellar and the people up and down the coast of the northern beaches are absolutely horrified after being promised by both sides, by both large parties, at the last election that this was dead in the water—100 per cent, exclamation mark, full stop—and that there was no chance that this would go ahead. But here we are debating it again. We are still here. It needs to be urgently debated today because the people of Mackellar and all the other electorates that it affects have had this hanging over our heads for way too long, for year after year. We were promised that it was dead in the water, and now we know that it has gone back to the joint authority. This is not nearly good enough because it will give us no finality whatsoever. It will only assess the current companies' licences. It will leave the door wide open for future companies to take on this license. So we will have to fight this over and over again.

Also, this current process of it being assessed by the joint authority leaves it open to being challenged in court again because of the argument of apprehended bias. We know that the Prime Minister, the minister for resources and all sides of government have publicly commented that they do not support it, so there would be a good reason to challenge this in court. We must have finality on this. I must say that people up and down the northern beaches will never accept this—never. It will be strongly opposed if any company wishes to go ahead. It will be vehemently opposed.

We hear that there is a gas crisis. Let's be clear: there is no gas shortage in this country; it's just that up to 80 per cent of it is shipped overseas. We don't have a gas shortage in this country. Even in Japan, which is one of our greatest markets, in their latest strategic energy plan they are reducing their gas consumption by 30 per cent by 2030. The world is in transition. We are moving to the future. We are moving away from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are the past. They are 20th century technology. Why are we hanging onto the past when we should be moving to a profitable future in renewables? We know that the whole world is transitioning. So why do we have people hanging onto the fossil fuel past? It is time to move forward to a profitable future.

The people of Mackellar and up and down the coastline want some absolute certainty on this. We cannot keep debating it. We have been promised by both sides of parliament. Now is the time to act. This amendment is the way to get some finality and some certainty around this. It's time to move on and move into the future. The transition is on. Let's do it. Let's make a profitable future for our country. It's time to debate this now, with no more delays.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll open by explaining the reasons why the government will oppose the suspension of standing orders. But, in doing so, I want to indicate the utmost respect for both the member for Warringah and the member for Mackellar and the reasons they wanted to bring this forward.

The position that the Albanese government finds itself in regarding the PEP-11 licence is simply because of an indefensible administrative process that was undertaken by the previous government. Both the New South Wales government and the Australian government are required, under law, to consider any future decision on PEP-11 in a manner that's fair and in accordance with proper procedure. While I respect the member for Warringah's bill, which proposes an alternative pathway—that is, that rather than it being dealt with under current law it be dealt with through parliamentary debate—the government intends to consider the PEP-11 application under current law.

Going back to the reason we are in this situation, the member for Cook took an extraordinary course of action when he was Prime Minister. He provided an ongoing commentary on official decisions of government and then took a portfolio for himself. The member for Cook expressed a view on the project and then intervened on an official decision to end the project. That's not a defensible process, and, as a result, we as a government weren't able to defend the decisions of the previous government when they were being considered in the Federal Court.

We're not going to involve ourselves in a similar abuse of procedure. Any decision that is with the current minister and any decision that the minister makes will be based on the facts and consistent with legislation. This is the approach that any responsible government would take. It's a basic competency that the Australian public expect of their elected representatives.

In terms of the straight procedural issue of whether we give this precedence over other legislation, I'm wanting the House to be able to return to the gender equality bill. I do believe that under current law we have an appropriate process of being able to deal with PEP-11, but we have nothing under current law that allows us to deliver the various issues that we're wanting to deliver on the gender equality bill. I'll leave time in case anyone else wants to contribute, but for those reasons the government will be opposing the suspension.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the words of both the member for Warringah and the member for Mackellar. In the lead-up to the last federal election, Anthony Albanese told voters:

A Labor Government that I lead will rule out PEP-11—

and said:

My position on PEP-11 is clear. It's a bad idea and only a Labor government will stop it.

No ifs, no buts.

He even reiterated to parliament:

This … project should be consigned to the dustbin of history, where it belongs … This is a complete no-brainer.

Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, talked a big game in opposition about stopping the toxic offshore oil and gas drilling project, PEP-11, but, contrary to his election promise, all we've heard from the Prime Minister are excuses.

The Prime Minister's claim that PEP-11's fate is now a matter of regulatory procedure is an absolute cop-out. His government has the power to legally kill the project. Anthony Albanese could at least personally assure the communities that rallied to stop PEP-11 that the Prime Minister will fight to uphold his election promise. This is a serious test for the Prime Minister and the government. Is he going to stay true to his words on stopping this grossly unpopular climate bomb, or is he going to pander to fossil fuel companies and hide behind excuses of procedure or propriety? Not only is this project affecting the New South Wales coastal areas which the members for Warringah and Mackellar and others represent; it affects all of us. So it should be consigned to the dustbin of history, as the Prime Minister said.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be disagreed to.