Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020 on behalf of the Greens. The bill is a very simple one. It inserts a new object into the act which will ensure that the exploitation of these natural resources is for the benefit of the Australian community. One Nation claims that this bill will fix the offshore gas issue, and that the government and the Australian community don't profit enough from these projects. Whilst the Greens agree that the fossil fuel companies don't pay their fair share of tax, we know that the problem goes further than this. We also know that this bill is being worded too broadly to actually give its desired effect.

The Greens believe that if we truly want to benefit the Australian community, these gas and oil reserves are best left in the ground. There is no other option to do that. We should be leaving it there because we now need to transition to renewable energy sources. This applies to offshore projects, which this bill relates to, but onshore projects as well, as Senator Whish-Wilson has already outlined. We are in a climate crisis, and the science could not be any clearer. No new fossil fuel projects should be approved, opened or expanded. Not one, and definitely not the 114 that are currently in the pipeline.

It's really not that hard to understand, but it appears the major parties are still struggling, in particular, when the global markets indicate differently. They are telling us that the customer wants cleaner, greener energy sources. From the perspective of trade, and from mine as the Australian Greens spokesperson for trade, we know that 65 per cent of this gas actually goes offshore. It goes through the trade that we export to other nations around the world. We need to make sure that we actually create that certainty for investors and the public with that environmental and social governance legislation regulation that is required. It is already in the EU, it is already in the US and it is already in the UK, so we need that here. We must do that to make sure that the customer at the other end of the pipeline is happy with that greener, cleaner resource that we trade with them.

We need to think about the benefits not just in terms of money, but in terms of what that drilling of dirty gas brings to our future generations? What message does that continuation of those fossil fuel projects say to them? We know what that is because of the case where those brave kids who tried to prove that the federal government had a duty of care. The government claimed they didn't have a duty of care to protect future generations from the impacts of climate change. Senator Whish-Wilson has already outlined this, but this is about the assessment of those fossil fuel projects. These kids were initially successful, but had their hope ripped away from them when the then environment minister, Sussan Ley, now in the opposition, spent taxpayer money appealing this case. I mean, what benefit does exploitation of gas and oil accelerating the climate crisis bring to them? It's the legacy that we are passing on.

Even though in this place those opposite will argue that scope 3 emissions don't matter, what we know is that these will benefit the rest of the global community—in particular small island nations already feeling the effects of climate change—and we think we've done the least to contribute that. But in the Torres Strait Islands, in that landmark case last week in the UN Human Rights Commission—which they've won—they argued that actually article 27, the right to culture, and article 17, the right to free and arbitrary interference with privacy, family and home, were proven because we are not caring about the impact of these offshore gas projects on other nations.

What are the benefits to our oceans that are becoming more acidic, our unique wildlife, our reefs that are dying and the cultural heritage of our First Nations people? I'm glad Senator Pocock mentioned the Munupi clan of the Tiwi Islands, which I had the privilege to sit with on country and listen to their evidence. We need to think about whose land, sea and sky country this is, and what the impact is on those people. We cannot continue to ignore the voice of First Nations people at every step, right through to rehabilitation. We also cannot ignore First Nation businesses that need to be involved in this. We can't ignore First Nations indigenous knowledge and science, and they must be incorporated in all of this.

This bill specifically deals with offshore projects, which are all happening on unceded sea country that traditional owners have not provided their free, prior and informed consent to. On top of that we need to legislate the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which authorises us to be able to provide that free, prior and informed consent. But for over 200 years our voices have been ignored, our culture is continually being destroyed in this country, and if the government really wants to give First Nations people a voice, this bill does not require a referendum, and it will have an immediate impact on acknowledging our sovereignty.

With gas being the largest polluter in Australia—it's as dirty as coal and it's overwhelming that, like coal, the majority of the gas is extracted in Australia and, as I said, exported. It is not for domestic use. That is a myth. It's one of the biggest myths that is being bandied around in this place and throughout the media to the Australian public. It is the case because huge amounts of energy—dirty energy—is needed to extract and process that gas into liquid so that it can be exported. They're burning that. The Global Methane Pledge says that, so we have to listen to the science.

PRRT is a huge issue. We need to crack down on tax avoidance in Australia, and big companies need to pay their fair share as Senator Whish-Wilson has already outlined. And I'm glad to hear Senator Bragg and others in this place have been part of the previous Senate inquiries into PRRT. This is about making sure they pay their fair share of rent in this country. As Senator Whish-Wilson said, there is no other business in Australia or globally that gets its resources for free and sells them on for profit—and yet this is what's happening in this country with these gas companies. We have to make sure also that these companies are not a revolving door for ministers. They grant leases and exemptions and funding for these companies to continue the climate-wrecking projects that they once rolled out into their cushy jobs with the same companies.

We know that the major parties have the strong hold—I'm so glad to see us united on the crossbench—but it's really no surprise that they're against any attempt to ensure that corporates in this country pay their fair share of tax. These companies are eroding democracy—Senator David Pocock talked about state capture and the importance of our democracy—are destroying our planet and are wrecking the cultural of First Nations people around the country. Unfortunately, the governments in this place have been letting them do that. They are letting them continue to do that because they're too scared to stand up to them and do what the public actually wants them to do, enact change and say no to new fossil fuel projects. This is happening from the Barossa to the Beetaloo to Narrabri and to Scarborough in my home state. We need change and we need it now.

What we have to do is make sure that in the PRRT changes—the Australian Taxation Office has already named those gas companies, and Chevron is one of them, as systemic nonpayers of tax, despite Australia's gas exporters earning more than $50 billion in exports. The tax office says that they don't expect any significant revenue to be paid under the existing tax system until the mid-2030s. That is unreal. In 2017 Shell admitted that they would never pay PRRT, especially on their 25 per cent share of the Gorgon project.

The last election was very clear in its message. The Australian public wants meaningful change on climate change action, and we emphasise 'meaningful'. I'd like to take this chance to remind the government, yet again, that we are not seeking just to reduce climate emissions by 43 per cent. We now need to be ambitious and reduce them by 75 per cent. We cannot keep opening new fossil fuel projects. You cannot claim to care for the environment by supporting climate- and environmental-wrecking projects like Beetaloo and Barossa, and you cannot claim to care for First Nations people and their voice while you're ignoring their opposition to drilling in their sea country, fracking on their country and removing their sacred rock art. You cannot do that.

Whilst the Greens support this bill in principle, we do not support One Nation's move to prevent members from contributing in the second reading debate. Mine is being cut short. This is the place of debate, and we shouldn't be trying to gag that.