Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter from Senator David Pocock:

Pursuant to Standing Order 75, I propose that the following matter of urgency be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

"The climate and health risks from the Middle Arm development which will receive $1.5bn in Commonwealth funding. Noting the project's proponents have confirmed it will be used as a major processing and manufacturing centre for gas fracked out of the Beetaloo Basin rather than the 'Sustainable Development Precinct' the Commonwealth and NT governments have falsely claimed. Also noting that the expansion of the fossil fuel industry is contrary to advice and warnings from the International Energy Agency, IPCC and UN."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required b y the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the information arrangements made by the whips.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

"The climate and health risks from the Middle Arm development which will receive $1.5bn in Commonwealth funding. Noting the project's proponents have confirmed it will be used as a major processing and manufacturing centre for gas fracked out of the Beetaloo Basin rather than the 'Sustainable Development Precinct' the Commonwealth and NT governments have falsely claimed. Also noting that the expansion of the fossil fuel industry is contrary to advice and warnings from the International Energy Agency, IPCC and UN."

In 2022 Australians voted for climate action. They voted against the shameless promotion of fossil fuels in a climate crisis. It is here. We are seeing the effects of climate change. The 2019-20 bushfires will be seared into Australians' memories. We look at what's happening in Canada; this is the new normal. We are entering a climate that is unprecedented and not well suited to support humanity. Yet we have a new government that continues to back the fossil fuel subsidies of the Morrison government.

The most problematic of these decisions is the $1.5 billion for what they are now trying to call the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct. Let's be very clear: Middle Arm is far from sustainable. The driving force behind the whole development is gas extracted from new fields in the Beetaloo—and maybe Barossa, and maybe other offshore projects—and yet the details of why and how this decision was made remain shrouded in secrecy, and some of what has happened is truly bizarre.

I asked the department of infrastructure and Infrastructure Australia if they were aware that the whole site at Middle Arm will likely be underwater by 2100. They had not even considered this risk. So why is this going ahead? How much of this precinct will be driven by gas projects? And what studies have been done to consider the potentially horrific health impacts that will flow from a petrochemical plant so close to Darwin? We just don't know. We don't know how much of this has been looked at.

I've been asking questions about the project in estimates. The Environment and Communications References Committee, chaired by Senator Hanson-Young, has considered the issue as part of an inquiry into oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo basin. In fact, they saw fit to recommend that there be a separate inquiry into the project, and I look forward to the government supporting that inquiry and participating in it.

One thing is clear: that federal funding for Middle Arm so that it can become a gas processing and export hub will be bad for the climate and bad for the health of Darwin residents. The Beetaloo basin, according to the Northern Territory government, has 500 trillion cubic feet of gas. That's the equivalent of 3,177 years of household use in Australia. The scale of these projects that Labor is promoting and using our money to fund is just extraordinary when we know that the International Energy Agency is clear, the IPCC is clear and the UN is urging countries, particularly developed countries like Australia, to stop expanding our fossil fuel industry.

You're going to hear from Labor that we need gas for the transition and this is about jobs and development. You'll hear from the coalition that this is about creating a new industry in the Northern Territory. What good is a new industry in the Northern Territory when Darwin and other parts of the NT will likely be unlivable within the next seven years if we continue down this path? Look at the heat. Look at the humidity. There are a number of peer reviewed papers saying that in large parts of the NT, if we continue down this path of expanding fossil fuels, humans will not be able to live there.

The immediate health impacts on people in Darwin look dire. We have a huge amount of research from the US looking at Cancer Alley, the notorious section of the Mississippi River where petrochemicals have led to the deterioration of so many communities in the area. There are 2,000 papers published on this topic. We know that the processing of gas in the heart of Darwin will cause increased cardiovascular disease, asthma presentations, leukaemias, pregnancy complications, congenital birth defects and stillbirths and generally higher rates of premature deaths. How can we do this as a Senate? How can the government go ahead with a project like this when we know the impacts? We know the impacts on people in Darwin and we know the impacts on the health and wellbeing of all of us and on the future of us and of future generations.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pocock for moving this urgency motion, and I rise to speak on it. The Albanese government will provide $1.5 billion in planned equity to support the development of the Middle Arm precinct, together with $440 million for regional logistics hubs along key transport links to connect Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek to Darwin. I would point out that this is an election commitment that the government made prior to the election last year, so we very much see this as delivering on an election commitment that we made to the Australian people.

I would add that a couple of weeks ago I was in Tennant Creek on some government business and I had the opportunity to talk with locals there about the opportunity that the Middle Arm precinct will provide but also with those regional logistics hubs at the same time. There is really strong interest in the local community, amongst traditional owners, in the Sun Cable project and the tremendous opportunity that renewable projects will provide in the Northern Territory. So I think that there is strong support for this project within the Northern Territory and they do see it as an important part of creating the jobs of the future and long-term sustainable industries that can create reliable jobs that people know they can rely on to build a long-term future for themselves and their families in that area.

To be clear, the government's investment in Middle Arm is an investment in common-user marine infrastructure that supports industries critical to achieving the government's commitment to net zero, including specialist product wharves, modular offloading facilities for manufacturing and dredging of the shipping channel. It will also help position the Northern Territory and northern Australia to take advantage of international demand for Australian clean energy. We are confident that there is enormous opportunity across the Northern Territory when it comes to creating both jobs and economic opportunity.

This is infrastructure that will support industries critical to meeting our commitments to net zero while generating jobs and economic opportunities across the Territory. The proposals include developing a hydrogen facility using solar energy to produce green hydrogen for domestic use and potentially for export; developing a green hydrogen hub, which comprises green hydrogen and green ammonia production—again there are plenty of opportunities for jobs and economic development—and a processing facility for critical minerals, which are to be used in energy storage batteries and precursor battery materials, and the manufacturing of these products. Again this is a key priority of the federal government. The truth is that gas remains an important energy source for Australia and our trading partners during the transition to net zero and decarbonisation. A lower-CO2-emissions liquefied natural gas export facility is also one of the proposals.

The projects linked to Middle Arm will provide significant economic benefits and create an estimated 20,000 jobs in the Territory. It is, however, deeply disingenuous to ignore the facts, as some people have continued to do, and claim that this is an investment in fracking. It isn't. It is also disappointing that those people fail to engage in the detail of the proposition that the Australian government has put to the Northern Territory government.

I understand that there are a range of views and perspectives on this project. While the government remain committed to the projects, we are also committed to working with the Northern Territory government and the community to ensure the necessary assessments take place before the project proceeds. The Australian government is committed to working with traditional owners and First Nations communities as the proposal is developed further.

The Australian government's decision to make an equity investment in this project will allow us to work in partnership with the Northern Territory government to ensure our vision is met. This is particularly important as new markets to process and export green hydrogen and energy transition components are established. Instead of giving handouts to private companies, we are investing in common-use infrastructure to give all potential users in the market the opportunity to grow and thrive. The government know how important it is to deliver on our commitments to the Australian people, by investing in enabling infrastructure that creates economic opportunity and jobs of the future in renewable energy and manufacturing. We think that the Northern Territory deserves those opportunities as well.

We know that we can take action on climate change and work towards our net zero commitments while creating jobs and opportunities. Despite attempts by others to ignore the facts and the reality, this is the record of the Albanese government. It is one we are proud to deliver on, particularly for those people in the Northern Territory who rely on good-quality jobs.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Senator Duniam.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President Polley, I do feel for you with your current lost voice, although it probably means that the interjections can't be reined in.

Australian Greens senators interjecting—

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is true. Look out, Senator Duniam!

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was not an invitation to the Australian Greens or my Labor colleague from Tasmania, who shamefully voted against the forestry industry on the last motion. I will turn to the urgency matter before the Senate proposed by Senator David Pocock relating to the Middle Arm industrial precinct. Anyone would think when you look at these matters before the Senate and listen to the claims that are made about the coalition and, to a degree when they're pretending to be pro-jobs and pro-economy, the Australian Labor Party that we actually want to go about trashing the environment, that there's some hidden agenda and that there's something we gain from doing that. The reality is that no-one wants to do that.

Humans have an impact on the environment by their very nature of existence. We all drive cars that use fossil fuels—well, some of us do; I know that some of my colleagues do drive EVs. We fly on planes. We use timber for building houses. We eat fish and meat. All the things we do as humans have an impact on the environment. As technology improves we should minimise that impact.

I don't believe that fossil fuels are in any way inconsistent with the notion of sustainable development. There is a problem we have here. There is an idea that we must just turn off the tap on gas or coal, which supports the majority of energy generation in this country. It powers our factories and keeps the lights on for the majority of mainland states in particular. If we turn off the tap on these resources and what they do in terms of energy generation and future exploration for such resources, what are we replacing it with? No-one has been able to point out to me the sustainable base load dispatchable and renewable alternative to what we are castigating here, and that is fossil fuel. It is an important part of the mix, and we cannot deny that. But I don't buy the claims about this.

In supporting this project the Albanese Labor government is rightly backing in a project that we in government supported as well because it is about economic opportunities for all parts of Australia—in this case, the Northern Territory, a part of the country we want to ensure has a strong economic future—and so I commend the government on its support of this project. I do have doubts about their capacity to deliver it, but we will keep an eye on that over time, particularly with this ethereal project and property management branch in the Department of Finance—I am struggling to figure out what they do—who will be managing this project. We will come back to that another time. The fact is, it is an important project, an important part of a suite of measures to support the economy to access resources we need to have a functioning economy and keep the lights on.

That is not a bad thing, but these concerns around sea level rise make me think of something that was said back in 2007 by my good friend and former senator Dr Bob Brown. He went down to Salamanca on Hobart's waterfront and painted a red line on the side of those beautiful sandstone buildings in Salamanca Place—quite the crime, in my view. He said that because of John Howard's light-touch carbon tax at the time—or however he described it—sea levels due to global warming were going to be four to six metres higher than they were then. That was 16 years ago, and last time I went to the Salamanca Market the waves were not lapping at the first-floor windows of Salamanca, and so I have to say that we must be cautious about alarmism. Yes, take note of warning signs but respond appropriately. Don't shut down the economy and deprive Australians of the opportunity to have a strong economic future.

There are competing interests here, and we need to manage them in the best interests of our country, including the Northern Territory where we have large numbers of disadvantaged Australians, so giving them economic opportunities as well as managing the environment—they're not inconsistent with one another. We can do both, but we must accept that, in order to grow our economy, sometimes we have an impact on the environment. We should minimise that, but we can't pretend we won't have an impact on the environment or shouldn't have an impact on the environment and development won't come at a cost. To do both is important. To do both well is what a mature government does to make sure that Australians have all the opportunities that are available to them and that they have the best standard of living, so we can't support this matter of urgency.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion isn't just about another of the 116 coal and gas projects in the pipeline; this is about Labor handing out public money to build what would be Australia's biggest ever gas export terminal, using gas piped from Australia's biggest ever fracking field. At the last election the Australian people kicked out the coalition and their gas-fired recovery, which was their bizarre centrepiece for Australia's COVID response. But this new government has regurgitated former prime minister Morrison's gas-fired recovery with one of the single biggest contributions to expanding the toxic and dangerous gas industry—$1.9 billion of taxpayer money will be thrown at the development of the Middle Arm site in Darwin Harbour to enable the expansion of Australia's gas export and petrochemical industry.

For months the Albanese government have tried to pretend that they have nothing to do with enabling fossil fuels with the public money, never mind the billions in fossil fuel subsidies that continue to be in their budget. But they say, 'Oh, it's for solar and batteries and hydrogen.' 'It's a sustainable development precinct,' they said. The word 'petrochemical' was wiped from government websites. They refused to mention the word 'gas', with the minister instead calling them 'low-emission hydrocarbons', which is greenwashing at an epic scale that Woodside and Santos would be proud of.

But, two weeks ago, US fracking company Tamboran announced to the ASX that they had rights to a part of the Middle Arm site to build a gas export terminal that would export 20 million tonnes per annum—bigger than any currently in existence in Australia. So now the Labor government's cover is blown. It is a monumental fossil fuel subsidy. Now that we know that this money is enabling fossil fuel expansion, the Albanese government cannot proceed with a hand-out of $1.9 billion of public money to a gas company in the middle of a climate crisis. All of the coal, oil and gas facilities currently in operation have us on track to break through the safe 1½ degree limit. We have to phase these out, not keep them going. This puts their 2050 target completely out of reach. The government has to choose. (Time expired)

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The rapid expansion of Middle Arm will set off a carbon bomb that will destroy Australia's chance of hitting net zero. I am desperately concerned that, in the process of setting off this carbon bomb in the Beetaloo, the people of the Northern Territory are going to be the ones left holding the bag.

My own community of Gladstone in Central Queensland bears the scars of fossil-fuel boom-and-bust cycles. When fossil-fuel markets crash, which they always do, these corporations don't stick around to make sure that the community is supported. They suck up resources, they pay off their party-affiliated lobbyists and they vanish.

Northern Australia needs genuine, sustainable, long-term investment in its future. With Labor wanting to top up the NAIF with an additional $2 billion, they must also rule out using it to funnel money towards projects like Middle Arm. The Northern Australia infrastructure fund is an Abbot-era relic, through which the Morrison government tried to fund the Adani coalmine and which could yet be used to provide funding for Tamboran's gas export hub in Darwin and fracking the Beetaloo Basin. The ball is in Labor's court to rule out public spending on gas and coal, including from the NAIF.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I thank Senator Pocock for his motion. I question why we need a dedicated export facility for the Beetaloo Basin's natural gas. Australia has 10 natural gas export terminals—two in Darwin. Beetaloo output is expected to be huge, and much of it should be used here in Australia, not exported.

Australia's parasitic mal-investments in wind and solar are destroying our energy generation capacity. Gas generation is essential to keeping the lights on, while commercial gas hot water and cooking are likewise essential. Everyday Australians will never accept the insane idea that Australia should stop using gas. This is despite the advertising spent on climate campaigns designed to do one thing—line the pockets of climate carpetbaggers, like those funding teal senator David Pocock's campaign. Gas connections are being banned in new builds and existing lines will be ripped out because, at some point, we will need to recycle that copper, since world production will never be able to supply the copper needed for UN net zero.

My own building that I rent in Campbell, in Canberra, sent out a note to owners this week saying that the body corporate had been told they will need to remove the gas hot water system, rip out the pipes and remove all gas appliances by 2035. Homeowners will have to pay the bill—likely, over a million dollars all up. This is a brand-new building! What a waste.

On one hand, the green ideologues will require owners to spend tens of thousands of dollars per unit to pull out near-new hot water heating, gas lines and equipment and replace them with less efficient solutions. Then the ideologues will complain, 'Rents have gone up!' Of course rents are going up. Green ideology is forcing rents up by forcing landlords' costs up. How are the climate lobby not connecting the dots here? How much more productive capacity are we going to rip out, to replace it with shiny new electric capacity that doesn't do the job as well as gas? Never mind the environmental waste of tossing millions of stoves into landfill where they can rot beside broken and toxic solar panels and wind-turbine blades! And these people were worried about plastic straws! Please!

One gas provider proudly claims on their website that they're banning gas to 'save the planet'. No, you are depriving Australians of our own gas so you can sell it for a larger profit into an energy starved world market, a situation the government's price cap on gas made worse because it made exports more profitable than domestic sales in a disrupted supply market.

Meanwhile, another energy retailer is advertising on their website—listen to this—that:

We all like to do our bit for the planet, so you'll be happy to know you can reduce your household carbon emissions by switching from appliances running on grid electricity to natural gas.

It goes on to say that 'gas is the perfect partner for solar' and by connecting your home to natural gas you 'can lower your carbon emissions by up to 77 per cent in Victoria compared to electric cooking and hot water appliances.' Which is it? Is gas a perfect partner to solar or is it environmental vandalism?

Another energy provider's website has a spiel about renewable gas, which turns out to be hydrogen. Hydrogen is not even a viable fuel yet as it takes huge amounts of energy to make it out of water and yet they have rebranded it already. That must be some sort of record! What a mess climate carpetbaggers have created through their green and teal shills in the Senate. What I have not heard in the gas debate at all is a major reason gas is better than electricity, and that is transmission loss. Electricity suffers transmission loss getting from the point of generation miles out in the countryside to homes in the city. Gas does not suffer a transmission loss. Factor that into energy calculations and electrification becomes an even worse idea.

We're banning Australians from accessing our own natural resources while allowing our gas to be flogged off to international bidders at a premium just as our coal is shipped to China where it powers the solar panel and wind turbine export industry that the Greens and teal Senator David Pocock worship with no hint of irony. Meanwhile, a rapidly increasing global energy market values and prefers hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and gas. The West is deindustrialising while the rest of the world, including China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, are industrialising using our gas and coal. The war on gas is a heist of our nation's natural resources. We're sacrificing economic prosperity and the opportunity for advancement for all the Australians in the name of a corrupt United Nations sustainability agenda that sustains nobody except the billionaires behind it all. It is wealth transfer from we the people to global billionaire elites and global predators like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street.

One Nation rejects the electrification of Australia's gas supply and questions the Middle Arm project. Natural gas must stay as a choice for all— (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak in strong support of this MPU submitted by Senator David Pocock. My crossbench colleague is 100 per cent right. There are unacceptable climate and health risks posed by this project that is receiving taxpayer money, and I thank him for bringing this topic to the Senate today. Let's be clear: Middle Arm is a dirty petrochemical plant and gas terminal and it's going to impact on the cultural heritage in this area because petrochemicals have been found in the Darwin Harbour. It will also impact on the health of those living close by and the climate. It absolutely cannot go ahead if this government is serious about its emissions reduction target and maintaining Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement.

We are in a climate crisis. The Greens have reminded the government of this many times, and we will continue to stand to do so. It is estimated that this precinct will generate 15 million tonnes of carbon emissions per year, increasing the emissions in the Northern Territory by 75 per cent. Let that sink in for a moment. This project alone would increase the emissions just in the Northern Territory by 75 per cent. So much for the 43 per cent emissions reduction target that we legislated.

Further, Middle Arm could increase industrial pollution by over 500 per cent, raising serious health concerns particularly for the community of Palmerston, which is only three kilometres away. The Greens have some serious concerns about this project and the potential implications on First Nations cultural heritage, the environment and also the climate. Middle Arm, the Beetaloo basin and the Barossa projects are all linked. Gas from the Beetaloo basin and Barossa will be funnelled straight through to Middle Arm. These are three climate bombs that we absolutely cannot afford to set off. These projects alone will blow the government's emissions reduction target and wreck the surrounding environment of the projects. Both the Beetaloo and Barossa projects are already facing opposition from traditional owners of Larrakia and the Tiwi Islands. So if this government wants to push ahead with Middle Arm, Barossa and the Beetaloo, they will be doing so against the wishes of traditional owners, against scientific advice and against the advice of countless organisations, both nationally and internationally, who know it's time to move away from fossil fuels.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that the motion moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.