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

[by video link] My question is also to Senator Birmingham, representing the minister for resources. Last week the New South Wales Liberal member for Mackellar, Jason Falinski, called on the House to oppose oil and gas drilling off the coast of Sydney and oppose the renewal of the petroleum exploration permit PEP 11 licence. Is the federal government aware of the reasons the member for Mackellar doesn't want to see new oil and gas exploration off the New South Wales coastline? And does your government agree with Mr Falinski?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for the question. I did not see Mr Falinski's comments. He's welcome in the Senate if he wishes, but he does a fine job in his electorate already. Since I didn't see his comments I'll take on notice any details that might be necessary to add in relation to that. But I would make the point that we have well-established approvals processes in relation to oil and gas exploration where that is offshore, working through NOPSEMA, an agency that has had its expertise and credibility demonstrated time and again, most recently by work that Australia's chief scientist did following the last election to review NOPSEMA in terms of the approvals processes to ensure that the way they assess environmental risks and other factors occurs in a most thorough manner.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question?

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

[by video link] The permanent holders of PEP 11, Asset Energy and Bounty Oil & Gas, want to go straight from seismic testing to drilling, a change of permit that would require and skip community consultation. Given that the New South Wales Liberal government also opposes any extension to PEP 11 and that the ultimate decision rests with the federal minister, will your government listen to your federal and state colleagues rather than a few oil and gas interests and step in to protect the New South Wales coastline from a potentially deadly oil spill and a divisive— (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can say that what our government will do is not listen to a few interests, on any side of any one debate, but we will apply the law fully, thoroughly and rigorously, as it's intended to be. We will let our independent agencies, who operate under laws passed through this parliament, undertake the assessments of any applications for permits, changes in permits or otherwise, without any political interference but on the basis of the merits of those cases, including of course the thorough and proper environmental consideration that will be given to any such applications or requests.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question?

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

[by video link] Minister, there's little to no scientific research on the impacts of oil and gas exploration, especially seismic testing, on our oceans and fisheries. The limited research we do have suggests significant risks, with caution to be applied. Minister, do you appreciate why commercial fishing bodies and stakeholders right around the country, from Ningaloo in Western Australia to the Great Australian Bight to King Island off Tasmania to the Otway Basin, are up in arms over new offshore oil and gas exploration acreage— (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suspect that Senator Whish-Wilson exaggerates somewhat what he describes as those who are 'up in arms'. I again restate, as I did in answering the primary question and the first supplementary question, that when it comes to any applications for seismic testing, offshore drilling or any such activities they go through a very thorough assessment process. That assessment process is designed to ensure that the scientific evidence is heeded, that safeguards are met and, indeed, that it involves opportunities for communities, stakeholders, or others to have their say as part of that assessment process and to present evidence to those assessments. That's precisely what will occur in the case of any of the types of hypothetical circumstances that Senator Whish-Wilson raises. It will be done properly in a way that balances those interests and assesses the evidence but also still provides an opportunity for job creation to occur in Australia where projects meet the appropriate safeguards.