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

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator McKim:

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

Woodside's proposal to drill for gas right next to Scott Reef, releasing billions of tonnes of climate pollution out to 2070, would have unacceptable impacts on threatened wildlife such as the dusky sea snake, pygmy blue whale and green turtle and must be ruled out by the Federal Government."

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.

Dorinda Cox (WA, 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:

Woodside's proposal to drill for gas right next to Scott Reef, releasing billions of tonnes of climate pollution out to 2070, would have unacceptable impacts on threatened wildlife such as the dusky sea snake, pygmy blue whale and green turtle and must be ruled out by the Federal Government.

It is a crucial time for the climate and for those in this chamber that have been captured by Woodside and other donors in the gas cartels of Australia. The Greens bring this motion to the Senate today as a matter of urgency. Scott Reef and the group of atolls and reefs 300 kilometres off the Western Australian coast near Cape Leveque in the Timor Sea at the edge of the continental shelf are home to an abundance of marine life. They sit in the middle of a migratory route for pygmy blue whales, 28 other kinds of marine mammal and thousands of kinds of fish. As a proud saltwater woman and custodian of sea country and also a proud Western Australian and a Greens senator, I know that the ocean is an extension of our waterways. After the survival of two ice ages in Australia, the ancient lagoons and the small straits that were once a separation of the lands are now hundreds of metres below sea level. Places like this are precious in Western Australia, and we have spectacular places for diving and swimming. Salt water is, in fact, part of our healing and celebration of culture, which is now the Australian way. It's on every postcard; the beautiful blue oceans and the beaches are what we are famous for.

Unfortunately for the reef, it sits on top of deposits of natural gas, and Woodside have eyed this off for their proposed Torosa field, part of the Browse project, one of the most damaging fossil fuel developments in Australia, which will pump out 1.6 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over the next 47 years. It's now time to rule out the Browse project and preserve this area of ocean while at the same time preventing millions of tonnes of carbon from entering the atmosphere. The Minister for the Environment and Water has also listed the dusky sea snake as endangered, and this is why the government need to stop Woodside if they have any sense of value for the environment and for the health and wellbeing our communities, particularly on the Burrup Peninsula, where this gas will be produced for export. First Peoples from both sides of this transnational border, fishermen and tourist operators will all be impacted when our important places like the reef are destroyed. You will absolutely see the effects for up to 300 kilometres from that location.

The economic base argument that we often hear is big marketing hysteria paid for and run by the gas lobbyists of this country. Gaslighting Australians about the gas shortage in the next decade is nothing short of misleading. Nearly 80 per cent of the gas in this country is exported, with the crumbs going to domestic markets because governments are too weak to stand up for Australians, especially in the west. We are paying premium prices while Woodside and the rest of the gas cartel bank their big profits. When governments fail to do their due diligence and fail in their election promises to strengthen the environment laws, they get a big fat zero for effort, particularly in Australia, where they preach about removing the green tape for their projects.

Today I'm urging senators in this place, especially those from Western Australia, to vote for this motion at a time when WA, with the exposure that we have to wind and sun, could be a world leader in accelerating a just transition to renewable energy which will help protect our communities, the environment and especially our economy. Take some time to think about the air quality and the emissions of this project until 2070 and the impact that will have directly on the cultural heritage, the marine life, the destruction of this planet and the health and wellbeing of my constituents in Western Australia on the Burrup Peninsula. It is time to axe the Browse project and show the Australian public that this Labor government can actually keep election promises and do something to preserve and protect the environment.

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

I've never actually heard anyone describe what is being told to Australian people by analysts, by experts, about a gas shortage on the east coast of Australia as gaslighting anywhere. I just cannot believe that anyone would suggest that a problem, a crisis, we are facing is somehow gaslighting the Australian community. It does not matter how much gas is exported because it doesn't matter to the Greens; they will not allow any projects through. This argument that we don't want this project to occur because it's all for export purposes is a folly and a furphy. The Greens just don't want gas—full stop—and that brings us to the problem such an approach in policy would have for our country, would have for energy prices, would have for reliability and would have for things like fertiliser production, which then goes into food production, which is what stocks our shelves and keeps us sustained. This is where these arguments of these approaches go.

If you listen to what was said, you could walk outside this chamber, like you could after any Greens contribution on any matter before the Senate, and look for the smouldering tree stumps and the dried-up creek beds and wonder how we managed to breathe every day. You would think that any project that comes before this government, or any government of any colour, is going to destroy the planet and that therefore we must stop it. There has to be balance in this debate. There has to be an approach where we look to the economic and social impacts and benefits of these projects alongside the environmental impacts.

Nothing in the contribution made by Senator Cox that we've just heard talks about the years and years of environmental assessments and reports—hurdles and hoops to jump through—that the proponents of this project have gone through, all set out in law. Neither the process governed by the laws of this country nor the bureaucrats that actually administer these processes should be besmirched as being beholden to donors. There is this ridiculous argument that just because someone makes a donation to a political party our project gets up. It's easy to say. It's the kind of thing we say when talk about gambling reform. People like Duncan Turpie make donations to the Greens, but it only matters when its fossil fuel donations. It's an appalling approach to public policy. It's one that is shortsighted, and, of course, it results in very negative outcomes for our country, but it doesn't suit the arguments that they make.

Do you know what? I agree with Minister Plibersek rarely, but, on this occasion, she ruled out the need to go and do the reviews that have been called for in relation to the project we're talking about. It was a swift decision, proving this government can make swift decisions. It doesn't always happen—in fact, it rarely happens—but, on this occasion, the minister did it because it was the right decision. As I said before, because of years and years of work, proper assessments and the science based work being done—something that is an inconvenient truth those who are proposing this matter of urgency choose to ignore—the project is safe to proceed. It isn't going to do all of the things that the Greens are telling us it will. Since 2018, these sorts of assessments have been occurring.

I'll tell you what is alarming, though: you've got another example of the Australian Greens wanting to try and dictate how economic policy in this country should go. This is not purely environmental policy; this is economic and energy related policy that we're talking about here. Knocking a project on the head like this, which is exactly what is being asked for, will have implications beyond the environment. The argument is that, just because it's exported, it doesn't matter. Well, then, find us one that they support for domestic purposes. There isn't one. There is not a single gas project in this country, export or domestic use, that the Australian Greens would support, even if the science says, 'It is okay to go.'

Human life has an impact on this planet, and we need to minimise that impact and manage it well. But we have an impact. We don't go and live in caves. We need energy to cook. We need to cool things down. We need energy to create fertiliser and to grow food. The Greens ignore those hard facts in their approach to policy. And the people who miss out are those who are paying more for energy and whose jobs are no longer secure because of policies like the ones we're pursuing here. That is why we totally and utterly oppose what is before us. It's because it is a disastrous policy that is being written by the Greens, which is what will happen under a Labor-Green government if they get into minority government.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened intently to the contributions of my colleagues earlier and to the first contribution from the Greens senator Senator Cox. She said that she's representing her constituents in WA. Well, I have represented the constituents of WA for nearly 20 years. I am a member of a party that has 52 of the 59 seats in WA in the lower house, with the majority in the upper house, and the Greens have just one. I just want to get that on the record. So the Labor Party represents a hell of a lot.

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

That means nothing.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cox—through you, Chair—I listened respectfully to your contribution. I did not interrupt you once. Have some manners. Here we are again. Another stunt and yet another day where we get fanciful ideas from the Greens political party.

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

My first point of order is that Senator Sterle should be addressing his comments through the chair. My second point of order is that I ask him to remove that comment about me.

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

Senator Sterle, it will assist the chamber if you withdraw.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For you, Madam Acting Deputy President, oh, God almighty, yes, I withdraw. You've got a glass jaw.

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

Senator Sterle, please withdraw.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw it.

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

Senator Sterle, please resume your seat. It's not assisting the chamber when there are additional comments made beyond what is asked. I'm not going to resume the debate until everybody does it in a respectful way. So, Senator Cox, Senator Sterle has withdrawn the second comment. Senator Sterle, please resume.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens claim to believe in transparency. Seriously, give me a break. Meanwhile, those opposite are always quick off the block when it comes to criticising, but, in reality, they're all show and no substance. Do you remember all those energy policies that that mob over there had for the nine years they were last in power? It was 22 at the last count, and they didn't land one. On their watch, 24 coal-fired power stations were scheduled to be closed and replaced with nothing. And who could forget the former Prime Minister's stunt when he walked into the House with a lump of coal? Then there is their latest fanciful stunt, the nuclear power plants scattered around the nation. Do you remember that one? You know how it goes: stunts to the left of us, stunts to the right. I mean, seriously! Let's not be distracted by the fanciful and the critical; let's get to the point.

It's time for this chamber to do its job and focus on providing real solutions that address the very real problems facing Australians, both in the short and medium term and in the long term. In the short term, this government has acted to shore up electricity supply and stabilise prices. In the medium term, we have developed and adopted a strategy that will ensure gas supplies as the intermittent fuel source. Australian gas will also play an important role in the global energy transformation and in meeting our legislated climate goals. Remember them? And, in the long term, we are focused on transitioning our economy to be powered by renewables. We are doing all this while respecting the methodical approach that needs to be undertaken through the environmental approvals process. The approvals processes involved with this particular project commenced in late 2018 and are reaching their conclusion. That's six years ago. These are important processes that must not be thrown in the bin simply because the Greens political party are worried they may not get their own way.

So let's focus on the facts. I quote:

Should the Browse project go ahead, which would be subject to regulatory/environmental approvals:

The North West Shelf has delivered trusted and reliable energy supply in WA for 40 years. I know that because back in 1982 I delivered the furniture to their first office. That's how long they've been up there. It is a major employer in and around Karratha and Dampier and has invested well over $300 million in social and community infrastructure in the region. This contribution is in addition to the corporate income tax paid at 30 per cent on taxable profits. This is on top of the $40 billion paid in royalties and excise by the North West Shelf project since the start of production in 1984.

Colleagues, when you go into WA you see a sea of fluoro shirts. I would challenge the Greens senators to stand in Perth Airport and condemn the gas industry. I dare you. It's alright to make big statements while you're hiding here in Canberra. I tell you what: I am pro fluoro shirts, I am pro employers, I am pro jobs and I am pro gas as a transition.

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

This motion demonstrates the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Greens in a nutshell. This is the party which demands that wind turbines and solar panels be spread across the regional Australian landscape like a lethal cancer. But they refuse to acknowledge that, without natural gas, their precious renewables will never work. The Greens are deliberately ignorant of the laws of nature and celestial mechanics which dictate that the wind doesn't always blow in Australia and the sun does not always shine. These laws cannot be changed for the Greens amendment. These laws are immutable and beyond the power of human beings to change.

When the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, you need something to generate energy other than the toxic solar panels and wind turbines polluting the Australian landscape. More specifically, we need natural gas. There's no getting around it. Even in South Australia, the state with the greatest renewables pollution, the gas is always on to provide a reliable back-up for these deficient renewables. That state's Labor government claimed 100 per cent of South Australia's energy was being generated by renewables for a period of time. Gas was being burned to make up the shortfall.

So here we are in 2024 with Australia sitting on some of the richest gas reserves on the planet. We are now facing domestic shortages of natural gas to the point at which energy providers are talking about importing it. This is appalling. The world's largest exporter of natural gas is facing domestic gas shortages. Only in Australia, where the energy market has been interfered with so badly, could such a ridiculous situation come to pass. The Greens want to restrict our supply even more. They think the welfare of snakes, turtles and whales is more important than the welfare of the Australian people. They think anything and everything is more important than the Australian people, who pay their salaries, pay for their airline tickets and subsidise their precious renewables. They hate this country, which is why they try to cripple it by banning any new gas or coal developments and opposing the one proven emissions-free technology that can provide reliable energy—nuclear power. This robs the Australian people of the natural wealth that is their birthright and robs our nation of the energy security we must have for a prosperous future.

Senator Sterle mentioned the North West Shelf, which I totally agree with. Just to put that into perspective, we are the largest gas exporter, and Senator Sterle mentioned a figure of $40 billion that we've got in royalties from our gases off the North West Shelf of Western Australia. Qatar is the next biggest exporter to Australia and they've made $26 billion a year out of their gas exports. The North West Shelf has been going for 40 years, so what did we make in that time? When you look at it, we've made only about $300 million. It was only last year's budget that brought in $2.4 billion. That's all we're making out of it. To make $40 billion over 40 years is pittance considering the resources that we have in this country. We are not getting paid properly for it and that's due to both the coalition and this Labor Party. In this country they're reluctant to go after the multinationals to pay their fair share of tax for the resources that belong to the Australian people.

Renewables will not give us the power that we need because a lot of industries and manufacturing are shutting down. We have to have diversity of power. We need to have the gas supplied. South Australia would not run, it would be in blackout, if it weren't for the gas that props it up when they don't receive the wind and solar power that they need. Wind and solar supplies between only 18 and 32 per cent of the power on a daily basis. You have to have gas. You have to have it. We're not in a position—they talk about the batteries. It's not going to happen. Green hydrogen won't happen—it can't—because it costs about $15 a kilogram to actually produce it, and you can't run it on renewables.

Queensland is in a position where we're going to lose our—we're producing the power only because of coal-fired power stations. You're living in a dream world with all these renewables because we can't keep this country going and keep the lights on for those people who dearly need it. And one day you'll end up with no power, no industry, no manufacturing and in poverty. That's where we are headed under this Greens-Labor government.

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

What a load of piffle from the members of the major political parties, arguing that this is backed by science. Come on! I am so relieved that there are no young people sitting up in the public gallery today to hear that sort of rot. They know it's not backed by science and they know bulldust when they hear it.

Thank you to Senator Cox for talking about what a climate bomb of a project this would be—a tourism-wrecking project, a climate-wrecking project, a complete dismissal of First Nation interests. I could talk about the big donations that both of the major parties receive—the last time I checked, the Labor Party were takin more in big donations from the gas corporations than the Liberal Party—or I could talk about them not paying enough tax on the gas that the corporations are exporting, but I want to focus on the environmental impacts of this climate-wrecking proposal.

Fossil fuel giant Woodside is planning to take another wrecking ball to our environment. Woodside wants to drill 50 additional wells at Browse, an area rich in critical biodiversity. Extracting the gas will create a void under the reef, causing it to sink into the ocean with devastating impacts. Sandy Islet, a low-set sandy cay within Scott Reef, provides critical nesting habitat for the Scott-Browse green turtle population. The Browse project is expected to cause subsidence at Sandy Islet. This sinking is likely to hasten any damage from rising sea levels, which will only be made worse by new fossil fuel projects like Browse. There is a very real chance that we will see Sandy Islet disappear beneath the waves in our lifetime, which would be a devastating blow for the ongoing survival of the green turtle population.

Scott Reef provides critical foraging habitat along the migratory route for the blue pygmy whale as the species makes its biannual journey between Indonesia and southern Australia. Whales are especially vulnerable to noise impacts, and Browse would see gas wells be drilled inside the designated foraging habitat and more inlines piled into the sea bed. If Woodside proceeds with carbon dumping in addition to Browse, there will potentially be repeated seismic surveys in this crucial habitat for decades to come.

While these two issues alone should sound alarms for the government, they almost pale into insignificance in comparison to the damage that could be done by a spill of condensate, the oil-like substance mixed in with the gas in the reservoir. The impacts from this type of spill are every bit as bad as those from an oil spill. Woodside's plans show that the area at risk of being impacted by a spill is massive, spreading almost 1,000 kilometres from Scott Reef and even reaching Indonesian waters. Woodside itself has admitted that the impacts from a spill could be catastrophic, with severe and potentially irreversible damage to Scott Reef. Woodside's Browse project is simply too dangerous to proceed.

To quote our resources spokesperson, Senator Dorinda Cox:

The Greens, Traditional Owners and community have shown their commitment and determination to fight these gas wrecking projects.

First Nations people have protected lands and waterways for over 65,000 years. They will not be silenced. Now it's time for the minister to listen. Labor must put the environment before the interests of fossil fuel profits and profiteers. Labor must consider the future of the green turtle and pygmy blue whale populations. It must resist the urge to do a dirty deal with the coalition on our nature laws, and it must reject this environmentally catastrophic project and its unacceptable impacts.

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

Australians want the extraordinary places and species that make this continent so unique to be protected and looked after. They want a government that makes decisions as if we are here for a long time—decisions that will protect the climate and environment that we're handing on to our children and future generations of Australians. They want a government that actually recognises that we're part of nature and that, if nature goes down, we're going down with her.

Burrup Hub is an opportunity for the government to show young people that it cares enough to avoid doing damage to the world in which they will grow up. If approved, the Burrup Hub gas project would be the largest fossil fuel project in Australia. Let's just think about that for a moment. It's 2024. We're being warned about the climate that we are moving into. It is unprecedented territory for humans. Yet we have the Labor government not acting in line with the science, and then we have the coalition continuing with this mantra of more fossil fuels at any expense. We're talking about 6.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, roughly 13 times Australia's annual emissions. That's 30 times the total savings made by the safeguard mechanism that Labor love pointing to as their signature climate policy, and it poses unacceptable risks to the incredible Kimberley Coast and the more than 1,500 species that call it home, including many endangered species that we've heard about during this debate.

This project would be nothing short of a gas led destruction of pristine ecosystems. And for what? We're not even getting a fair return on our gas. The major parties are happy just to ship this overseas: 'Don't worry about paying royalties or petroleum resource rent tax. Here's our gas for free. Ship it off and make record profits.' For what? What are we doing? This is total insanity. Around half of our gas is sold without royalties, and, last time I checked with Treasury, there was yet to be a single cent of petroleum resource rent tax paid on LNG exports. As a result, over the last four years, multinational companies made $149 billion exporting gas they got for free, with no royalties and no petroleum resource rent tax. We should all hang our heads in shame. It is outrageous.

This is what state capture looks like. You don't have to look it up in the dictionary; just look at the major parties in Australia selling our futures away basically for nothing, for a few political donations, or because of a few threats of a campaign if they dare to tax gas companies and get a return on our gas. The Minister for the Environment and Water should be standing up and putting an end to the disastrous proposal before the next election. Australians deserve to know what Labor's position is on this. We've seen them kicking any hard thing beyond the next election. 'Small target' may have got you elected, but I don't think it's going to get you re-elected in a majority. Australians want to see some courage. They want to see you stand up for our future and stand up to the gas companies that have been totally dudding us.

Not long after I was elected to the Senate, a Western Australian sent me a book in the mail: Trillion Dollar Baby: How Norway Beat the Oil Giants and Won a Lasting Fortune by Paul Cleary. It would be fascinating reading for any parliamentarian interested in what you could actually do with our resources, our wealth. It belongs to Australians, but we currently have major parties who not only are willing to approve fossil fuel projects in a climate crisis and sell our future away but are willing to give our gas away basically for free. We can do so much better than this. I would urge the major parties to have a think about what they're actually doing. Who are you here to represent, people or gas companies? (Time expired)

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

The question before the chair is that the motion moved by Senator Cox, at the request of Senator McKim, be agreed to.