Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I refer to the Department of the Environment and Heritage decision not to accept major seismic work being proposed by Woodside at Scott Reef in the Kimberley. Is the minister aware that DEH’s conditions of 14 July 2006 initially prevented Woodside from undertaking seismic work during the peak nesting periods of green turtles? Can the minister explain why this decision was revoked by the DEH on 17 August this year to allow seismic work to occur?

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is one of many decisions that the department makes. I think it has been made without reference to me. I am not blaming them. Most of the decisions, in fact, are dealt with in that way. I am aware that they have been working alongside Woodside. They are very aware, as a company, of not only the issues relating to turtles but also a range of other issues that affect their operations in the north-west. They are very cognisant of those. I regard Woodside as one of the exceptionally well-behaved corporate entities in this country who care very deeply about Australia’s unique environment and our heritage. My department works very closely with them.

For all Australians who would like to see Australia’s energy resources developed—particularly those in the north-west, where we have abundant supplies of gas, which has a phenomenal capability to transform the way the world produces energy in terms of greenhouse gas emissions—and who care deeply about the future of the globe and the impact that massive increases in greenhouse gases could have on the climate, one of the truly transformational things we can do is to supplant the coal and oil that is burnt in places like China and North America and in other rapidly growing economies such as Korea and Japan with gas from the North West Shelf. Depending on what you are replacing—whether it is coal or oil—and on how dirty the oil is, you get a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of somewhere between 40 and 60 per cent for the same amount of energy created by using gas from the North West Shelf. So there is a phenomenal environmental advantage in developing those abundant resources of gas off our North West Shelf and exporting them to the world and replacing coal and oil burning facilities. It is one of the great contributions of Australia—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order. That is fascinating, but it is irrelevant to the question, which was about the impact of seismic testing on green turtles. The minister might either get the information from the department or say that he does not know.

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the point of order: seismic testing is done to assess what gas is in the ground. My comments are absolutely relevant to the question. Senator Brown may not like the answer, but you cannot ask a question about seismic testing for gas reserves and then get upset by an answer that talks about why we are seismic testing in the first place.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I remind you that you have almost two minutes left to complete your answer; I would ask you to return to it.

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Seismic testing is, of course, a crucial part of the process of developing the North West Shelf’s gas resources. Woodside have been a leading entity in doing that. They have also been an exemplary corporate citizen when it comes to complying with Australia’s world-leading environmental standards and the protection of our heritage. I am absolutely confident that Woodside should be encouraged to go on with their partners in exploring for gas, using seismic testing to find that gas. I wish them well with their Scott Reef projects and all of their projects off the North West Shelf. I look forward to maintaining Woodside’s incredibly strong relationship with my department, whereby they have enormous respect for Australia’s environment and for our heritage. We wish them well, because what they are doing up there can transform the globe in terms of greenhouse gas emissions by massively reducing the emissions that occur from burning coal or oil in other parts of the world. (Time expired)

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Am I to understand from that answer that the reason that decision was overturned was so that Woodside was able to go and explore to find gas, not because Woodside was able to demonstrate that seismic work does not have an impact on the green turtles? Could the minister please answer the question: why did they overturn their initial decision? Also, is the minister aware of the impact that seismic surveying has on small cetaceans, smaller marine fauna and fish? What follow-up studies is the department doing to look at the mortality and morbidity of these species?

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the senator wants to say that it was overturned because they are exploring for gas, then she did not listen to my answer. The department is working with Woodside to ensure that seismic testing does not impact on marine mammals, small cetaceans and all affected fauna in the area. Woodside has been one of the leading corporate entities that have engaged with the department in a constructive process—along with the oil and gas industry generally—around the Australian coast to minimise the impact on all cetaceans, not just small cetaceans. If the Greens want to try to stop seismic testing off the North West Shelf they will be standing in the way of an industry that has a transformational benefit for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions on this planet, and this is one of the crucial ways to address climate change. But that is not the reason the decision was made.