Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I withdraw that, sorry, Chair. You just need to go onto the websites of seismic companies that are trying to sell their services to potential carbon capture and storage developers or oil and gas developers, and they'll tell you this. I'll read you some information from one service provider called SeisWare. They have a convenient summary at the end of their pitch. It says:

Overall, seismic data—

which comes from seismic surveying, which comes from seismic blasting—

is vital for site selection, reservoir characterization, monitoring, leakage detection, risk assessment, and regulatory compliance in CCS projects. It enables informed decision-making and future CCS policy, enhances operational safety, and helps ensure the long-term effectiveness of carbon capture and sequestration efforts.

They go into a lot of detail on why constant seismic testing will be required if a carbon capture and storage field is established in the ocean.

We know we have four projects from the minister that are looking to import CO2, which falls under this bill, and we know that, all around the country, oil and gas companies with offshore fields are scrambling to get NOPSEMA to give them one for domestic operations as well. You said you're not an expert, Minister, and I totally respect that. I don't think any of us are. But I will say that the Greens did initiate the world's first Senate inquiry into seismic testing in our oceans. It took three attempts to get it through the Senate, because the oil and gas companies were so ferocious in here trying to stop it happening. I know that because commercial fishing interests, who normally have pretty good sway in this place, were also lobbying to get the inquiry, and I got feedback from those interests that there was basically a clash of interests as to whether this inquiry would get up. Pardon the pun, but I did say to them, 'There's a bigger fish in the ocean than you, and that is the oil and gas industry.' In fact, they are the biggest fish in this building, arguably.

What we learnt from that inquiry, which took significant evidence right around the country, was that seismic blasting is one of the loudest noises produced by human beings. We're talking about something louder than a jet engine and equivalent to the detonation of nuclear bombs. In terms of its detection rate by the human ear, if you were to be directly underneath a seismic blast from a boat, it would kill you.

Now, in water noise travels faster and is much more amplified than in the air. The seismic blasting that's currently going on for new oil and gas fields happens 24 hours a day, every 10 seconds, potentially for months on end. Our ocean is being subjected to a relentless assault by oil and gas companies searching for the exact product that, if we find and burn it, is killing our oceans. It's the definition of insanity.

Nevertheless, Minister, why would we support legislation today that is just going to lead, if this is ridgy-didge and legit and companies actually are going to try to establish carbon capture and storage fields under this legislation or under domestic legislation—and I think that's a very big 'if'. If they do, why would we support something that's just going to lead to so much more seismic testing in our ocean? Seismic testing only happens now for new oil and gas fields. Thankfully, that has been slowing down in terms of greenfields exploration, but there are some very concerning new projects around the country, like TGS's project off King Island and the west coast of Western Australia—by the way, the biggest seismic testing program not just in Australia's history but in international history is about to happen off the coastline of my state. The companies are staying they believe there's an oil and gas bonanza there that's bigger than the North West Shelf off WA.

There are people right around this country—I want to shout out to Annie Ford, an activist who's riding her bike from Tasmania to Noosa, doing film nights in small town halls, in pubs and in churches to highlight the risks of seismic blasting. With this in mind, why would we support legislation that will facilitate risking our oceans even more than we currently are?

One thing that did come out of the Senate report was the FRDC working with the fishing industry because they don't want seismic testing in the ocean either. They hate oil and gas companies exploring anywhere near their commercial fishing grounds, because the research we've done so far suggests serious potential for harm to rock lobsters and scallops. We know from the few studies that have been funded by oil and gas companies that commercial fish stocks will completely leave an area during seismic testing, as you and I would if we were subjected to that relentless assault of noise. We know it's catastrophic and kills plankton, the basis of our ocean's food chain. That's established. And we know it's extremely dangerous for whales. We know it impacts on cultural heritage and songlines for our First Nations people.

People are waking up to this. They don't want this stuff anymore, because we don't need it. But here we are, about to pass legislation that's going to take a significant step towards giving companies the green light to establish carbon capture and storage fields in the ocean and go out there and blast them a lot—blast the guts out of them, as Senator Waters has said. Given all the concerns we have about seismic testing, why would we want to see any more of that?

Minister, are you aware and is the environment minister aware of the risks from seismic testing? Are you aware of the big groundswell of opposition building round the country to ban this activity, which was one of the recommendations of the Senate report? One recommendation they said did get picked up was FRDC doing research into other techniques to try to protect commercial fishing stocks, but I would be very surprised if that ever comes to anything. Nevertheless, I support the attempts and the science to do so. But are you aware of the risks from seismic testing to whales, to First Nations cultural heritage and to commercial fishing stocks?