Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 12 August 2024, from Senator McKim:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Federal Government to unequivocally rule out approval of Woodside's Browse gas project following Western Australian Environment Protection Authority advice that its impacts on Scott Reef and its threatened wildlife are unacceptable."

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator McKim, I move:

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

The need for the Federal Government to unequivocally rule out approval of Woodside's Browse gas project following Western Australian Environment Protection Authority advice that its impacts on Scott Reef and its threatened wildlife are unacceptable.

I rise to contribute to this important debate today because one of our country's most precious places is under serious threat. Scott Reef, in Western Australia, is an ancient coral reef. It has been growing for over 15 million years. With at least 29 species of marine mammals, 41 species of birds and almost a thousand species of fish, sharks and rays, it's a very, very special part of our ocean.

Last week, WA's own environmental protection authority revealed their preliminary recommendation that Woodside's Browse project—that is, a big gas well—would have unacceptable impacts on the environment. Now, this proposal from Woodside is for $30 billion to drill for gas in the heart of this very, very special part of Scott Reef and would continue until 2070 or beyond. The Environmental Protection Authority of Western Australia doesn't make these decisions lightly—in fact, it's virtually unheard of. This authority is saying the threat to the environment at Scott Reef is so concerning that this project should not be given environmental approval. The EPA says it will have unacceptable impacts on endangered green turtles and their nesting areas sinking below the sea level and unacceptable impacts on blue pygmy whales, who pass through on their migration. The EPA is very, very concerned at what would happen in the event—a devastating turn of events—that there was an oil spill on Scott Reef.

There are moments when big projects like this need to be called out for being unacceptable. We have some very precious and ancient environments right around this country, and over and over again we see development and corporations come in and argue that, because of their desire to drill in that area or to build or to knock down or to log, the environment will just need to cop it. Sometimes we need to say no, and the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority is saying, 'No, this is unacceptable.'

We don't need to change any law to make this happen. We actually have environmental laws. They are not perfect; they are pretty weak. But do you know what? They would stop this project in its tracks, if they were implemented properly by the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek. So the environment minister has a very big choice to make—to listen to the scientists and the experts to protect this precious ancient reef, to look after the sea turtles, to protect the whales, to make sure those migratory birds and those very special fish and those shark species are looked after, to make sure there isn't an unnecessary and unacceptable risk to them. The environment minister needs to do their job. Rule this out of order. Agree with the WA EPA that the environmental impacts are simply unacceptable. This is no place to drill for gas. This is not an area that should be sacrificed just because Woodside wants it.

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

It's all or nothing with the Australian Greens when it comes to projects that need to occur across our country. I note that this motion calls on the Commonwealth government to unequivocally rule out approval for the project that's been mentioned here, a project described by the Prime Minister as one that is needed for energy reliability. That's something that wasn't canvassed in the contribution we've just heard or, indeed, canvassed in the motion we have before us, and that is part of my problem with the debate we're about to have.

There is one word that you will never hear pass the lips of the Australian Greens, and it starts with the letter B. It's the word 'balance'. There should be a balance between the considerations of environment, the need to protect what is fragile, what is special and what needs to be looked after for future generations, against the economic imperative we have—the need to have economic activity and productivity, the need to bring down power prices, the need to have jobs in our country. A balancing of those considerations is absolutely essential, but it's something that isn't in any way considered in what we have before us here.

It really is a sneak preview into something I think we may, as a country, see more and more of as time progresses. While I'm on it, a news poll came out overnight which pointed to the high likelihood of there being a hung parliament after their next election. Coming from the great state of Tasmania, which has had more than its fair share of hung parliaments, I know what goes into decline with a hung parliament, where there's a power-sharing arrangement with a particular cohort—the Australian Greens or perhaps the Tasmanian Greens. It's the economy. Jobs go missing; they go offshore. Standard of living heads south like there's no tomorrow. And this is a sneak preview of the kind of thinking we're going to have in this brave new world of coalition governments between the Greens and the Labor Party, if the polls are to be believed. I hope they're wrong, and I'll be doing my darndest to ensure that they're not accurate come election day, but I know exactly—

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

What about Jeremy Rockliff?

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

Well, to take an interjection from the assistant minister, the good thing is the Liberals in Tasmania are not in coalition with the Greens—thank the good Lord, I say.

One other thing that didn't really rate a mention in the last contribution—and I expect we won't hear it in any other contribution in relation to this, perhaps even from the government—is that we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, and that is in part because of the cost of energy. This project isn't there just because Woodside want to make a dirty, great, big profit and want to destroy the environment. It's actually because we need energy to be fed into the grid. There's this shocking notion that we need resources to make our economy tick over—as if it's going to come out of thin air if we don't get it out of projects like this.

The idea that, frankly, we don't need these projects to be able to generate energy in our current energy mix is quite fanciful, and, again, it demonstrates just how out of touch the Australian Greens are when it comes to ensuring we have stability in our economy and indeed in our grid. But, again, why would we worry about that when they're going to be in charge after the next election, calling the shots! It'll be the Greens tail wagging the Labor dog, if the polls are to be believed.

Of course, one could be forgiven for thinking that the federal environment minister would give in to such a demand from the Australian Greens. The Australian Greens are calling on the government to unequivocally rule out this project, calling on the Australian government—

It is not an EPA motion, just to take Senator Hanson-Young's interjection there. It's a motion from Senator McKim that the federal government unequivocally rule out approval for this project, so it is a Greens motion. Frankly, I would not be surprised if the environment minister, Ms Plibersek, did rule it out, because of course the Greens are snapping at her heels in her electorate. It's the kind of thing that she will be worried about in terms of her own re-election chances and of making sure that green votes flow to her in her seat.

So decisions will be made on a political basis rather than a practical one—one where we should be balancing these considerations. It's the material approach: balancing the economic against the environmental and factoring in that thing I mentioned before and I hope we hear a bit more about—but I doubt we will—and that is the cost-of-living crisis that is absolutely crippling Australian households, making it hard for business to do what they do best. (Time expired)

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion is calling for us to rule out something that is currently in the middle of a process. The Greens are getting quite vexed about the fact that the EPA WA advice has caused this project to be put on hold while further information is obtained, but that is surely exactly what we want in this country—that, when projects and ideas are put forward, they are fully scrutinised and the process is followed so that that scrutiny follows all of the various elements of the EPBC Act. That's so we know that, at the end of the day, if a project gets up then it's going to be a good project and that, if it's not going to get up, that's because it will do too much damage and will not be an appropriate pathway. But this is what happens in every single case. The decisions are looked at in accordance with the facts and in accordance with the law. It is not appropriate to unpack that specific detail while those processes are ongoing.

The federal environment department has paused the assessment, so this assessment is on hold. Just to be clear, because there seems to be a great deal of confusion here, it's on hold because there are questions to be answered. That is exactly what the process affords, and that is exactly what's occurred. The decision about this project will go no further until that information has been received from the Western Australian government and from Woodside. Surely that's exactly what we want?

We know that there are shortcomings with the EPBC. Labor's been talking about that for years and years. We have tried so hard to get movement on this. It could well be that, if the Greens want stronger laws, as Labor does, they get onside with our EPBC work. Rather than standing in the way, refusing to engage and whipping up excitement with the environmental groups, they could actually become constructive. They could maybe come up with some ideas, maybe get on board with that whole consultation and the work that we're doing and be the collaborative partner in getting a better outcome—a novel idea, but worth a thought, though. Right?

We have done so much since we came to government, two-and-a-bit years ago, to try and strengthen our environmental protections. We've done so much to try and strengthen our climate scenario here, to put in place solid policies to deal with emissions and to improve and increase the renewable energy that is available in this country, and we are, once again, stuck in a situation between 'too much' and 'not enough'. What is missing from a lot of these debates is any form of collaboration or any sense of having a meaningful conversation about what this country needs. What this country needs is more renewable energy to bring down those prices. So, Senator Duniam, it's exactly the case you're making: we need to lower energy prices. One of the ways to do that is to increase our renewables—to make a structured change in our electricity sector that also recognises the change we need in our economy.

We have in front of us a motion that is, to be honest, quite ridiculous, because the process is in train. There are laws, structures, going along as they should. Issues have been raised with this project. It has been placed on hold, while further information is obtained to work out what the situation is here: is it a project that should go ahead or is it a project that should not? That process is underway.

This motion is another stunt so we can sit around and talk about the 'Don't do anything,' and the 'You're doing too much,' which will get us precisely nowhere. (Time expired)

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

Western Australia's environmental protection agency has recommended that the Woodside's Browse Basin gas project not proceed. This Greens motion celebrates that recommendation, which was based, in part, on the effect of gas platforms on migrating whales.

The Greens support offshore wind turbines off the Illawarra and Hunter coasts—turbines that are not fixed to the seabed but rather held in place by a spaghetti of cables. Those cables are likely to gather debris and provide a substantial hazard for migrating whales. This inconsistency is easily explained: the Greens are happy to use the natural environment only when it suits their political ideology. Offshore wind, the environmental destruction of native forest for wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines and access roads are all okay as long as the net zero wrecking ball continues.

The north-west of Western Australia holds 97 per cent of Australia's gas reserves. It makes economic and environmental sense to use that resource for the benefit of all Australians—of course, not in a manner that damages the natural environment, which One Nation cares about all the time, not just when it is convenient. The canary in the net zero maze is South Australia, which no longer has base-load coal power and must rely on gas to keep the power on. The elimination of coal is disastrous enough. If the green lobby is successful in eliminating gas, then Australia would be forced into energy deficiency. The most energy-rich country in the world will not be able to provide enough energy for Australians to live without energy rationing—control of your energy use.

One Nation has introduced a bill to create a domestic gas reservation to ensure 15 per cent of Australia's gas production is reserved for Australians. This will keep the power prices down and keep the lights on—not as low as ending this crazy ideological war on coal and nuclear power, yet it will help. Is it any wonder that the Greens oppose these measures? The Greens want everyday Australians to have less, consume less, be less and be controlled.

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

I support this urgency motion brought by Senator McKim today. Pulau Dato is actually the traditional Macassan name used by the Indonesians for Scott Reef. Scott Reef makes up two groups of reefs that are 300 kilometres off the Western Australian coast in the Timor Sea. Most people in this place wouldn't have visited a wonderful place like Scott Reef. With an abundance of ocean life, it sits in the middle of the migratory route of the pygmy blue whale.

As a First Nations person I know that there are, in fact, two songlines of whales. One of them goes through my country, and the other goes to the north, around through the Bass Strait and out to the Pacific. We call the whales the elders of the sea. It's our connection between the land, the animals, our lore and sea country, and it's something that we celebrate greatly. But there are 28 other kinds of marine mammals and thousands of other kinds of fish that are out there at Scott Reef, not to mention the abundance of coral.

It is places like Scott Reef that are used for an economic base, so I reject Senator Duniam's conversation around how the Australian Greens are not also concerned about this. This actually represents part of the transnational boundary. Indonesian people go to areas around Scott Reef for the collection of sea cucumber and seaweed—and the protection of seagrass in areas like that. These places are precious, because we currently don't have the protection with any legislation, whether it be the EPBC or the OPGGS legislation—offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas. We see time and time again the state capture of the two majors in this place. And in my home state of Western Australia we also see the destruction of climate change and the impact that has on places like the Kimberley. In the East Kimberley just last year there was a flood, for the first time in 120 years, that destroyed the Fitzroy River Bridge, at Fitzroy Crossing.

And it is projects like the Browse project, not the use of domestic reservation on the North West Shelf, which comes and flows down the west coast all the way to Perth. That's a myth. The parliamentary committee and the state parliament have already done an inquiry into this. They're supposed to give 15 per cent of the gas out of the North West Shelf to the WA people. Do you know how much they give? It's seven per cent. They're not even halfway into 15 per cent. So it's some fantasy that people have. But it's the First Nations people that have connection to this sea country who have said: 'We don't want the Browse project. We don't want the destruction of the abundance of sea life that exists in the Timor Sea.' On top of that, it's going to pump millions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere.

We've been in this fight before in this area, and I want to acknowledge the work of former Greens senators Rachel Siewert and Scott Ludlam, who were at the front line of the James Price Point protests. When the Browse was first introduced, they were at the front of those picket lines and protests, helping out, shouting louder, echoing what the communities of Cape Leveque, north of Broome, were saying. They knew the destruction. They knew the displacement. They knew that people would be forced from country and from doing recreation like fishing at their favourite spots in case there was an oil spill. We know that methane leaks out of some of these wells already, and they're already not being regulated.

The Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority is clear, and we need the federal government to back that in.

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

Scott Reef is our nation's largest oceanic reef system. Some senators might be surprised that it's not the Great Barrier Reef, but it is indeed Scott Reef. It is also one of the most biodiverse oceanic ecosystems in our country. Underneath Scott Reef, precisely because of its geology, lies the country's biggest untapped conventional gas deposit, the Browse deposit. If developed, this deposit would underwrite the North West Shelf assets for Woodside, and the planned Burrup Hub. One project alone would emit 4.3 billion tonnes of carbon into our atmosphere. That is equivalent to 10 years of this nation's emissions—every car, every cow, everything, in one project.

Not only will the planned wells that Woodside want to drill—up to 50 of them within two kilometres of this precious ecosystem—risk the endangered and rare pygmy blue whales that migrate through this area, green turtles and hundreds of other invertebrates and marine creatures; we'll be burning those fossil fuels at a time where we've seen, on the east coast of Australia, the Great Barrier Reef record the highest ocean temperatures in 400 years and the seventh mass coral bleaching event in just over 30 years. It's almost hard to believe we are even contemplating approving a project like this. It beggars belief. It flies in the face of all the evidence and the logic we know.

For the senators who've said it's somehow some kind of stunt that we've put up a motion on this, let me tell you why the Australian Greens have put up this motion today. We know that this is a corrupted political system and that big companies like Woodside Energy always get their way in this place, and they always have. And if you think the EPA WA declaration that was given—or leaked—to the media, saying that this project cannot proceed because it is too risky, means that they're beyond political interference, think again. I saw, in the paper the other day, Mark McGowan standing with the CEO of Woodside. We know there's been political interference with the EPA's decisions before. They very rarely ever reject a project, but they have very clearly said this is too risky. Remember the Great Barrier Reef was declared a national park and World Heritage Area to avoid oil and gas drilling on its structures. Woodside and the other oil and gas fossil fuel giants that want to access these resources for their profits are insatiable, and our political system supports that. That is why we are bringing this forward.

If we accept and approve these projects—and it is in front of the federal environment minister as it is in front of the Western Australian authorities—we are condemning future generations on this planet to climate hell. Every weather record around the world is being broken. We're still seeing record temperatures in our oceans around the planet. We saw record temperatures in Japan this week, after record temperatures in China and across the Middle East. We are in a climate breakdown. How foolish and stupid are we to even think about approving a project like this? We owe it to future generations to stand up and say: 'No. We can do better than this. We are smarter than this. We are not going to corrupted by the greed of a company fighting a rearguard action to protect its profits and its shareholders' profits.'

To finish my contribution: that is why the major parties are losing votes. I heard Senator Birmingham reflect on that earlier today. This is why one in three Australians are voting outside the major parties. Labor's Future Gas Strategy was a present to the fossil fuel industry. The Greens won't stand for this kind of development. (Time expired)

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Woodside wants to turn the pristine waters of Western Australia into an industrial gas zone. The fossil fuel giant is already ploughing ahead with the first stage of its Burrup Hub, drilling up to 30 gas wells at Scarborough, near Ningaloo Reef. Now Woodside has his sights set on the national treasure of Scott Reef, off the Kimberley coast, a biodiversity hotspot, home to the ancient coral which has grown for over 15 million years. Woodside wants to drill 50 additional wells at Browse, some as close as two kilometres from the reef itself. Extracting the gas will create a void under the reef, causing it to sink into the ocean. When research showed that Sandy Inlet, a part of Scott Reef where hundreds of threatened green sea turtles lay their eggs each year, was in danger of being washed away permanently due to Browse, do you know what Woodside's response was? Sandy Inlet would wash away anyway due to sea level rise from climate change, and drilling for gas at Browse would likely just make that process happen faster.

The audacity of Woodside to profit from extracting and burning gas, resulting in sea level rise, and to then claim that the additional destruction caused by Browse doesn't matter—well, it matters to the hundreds of threatened green sea turtles, and it matters to the millions of Australians who would rather protect our precious marine environment than see it drilled for gas, which will still be operating in 2070, well past the deadline for Australia to phase out the fossil fuels.

Recent reporting at Western Australia's EPA has confirmed what we have long known—Woodside's Browse project would be devastating for the environment in Western Australia and is an unacceptable risk. Woodside's own environmental approval documents show a worst-case oil spill at Browse would cover Scott Reef and 54 endangered species such as whales, sharks, fish, turtles and coral. Putting our marine life at risk to suit the financial interests of one of the world's polluters is unacceptable. For Labor to urge protection of the Great Barrier Reef on one side of the country and approve Woodside's Browse project on the other side of the country would be hypocritical at best and a disaster for nature at its worst.

The federal environment minister has the power to protect Scott Reef and the endangered wildlife that call it home by rejecting this project and its unacceptable impacts. Minister Tanya Plibersek must unequivocally rule out Woodside's environment-wrecking project and instead protect this precious ecosystem.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young, on behalf of Senator McKim, be agreed to.