Matters of Urgency — Western Australia: Fossil Fuel Industry

Penny Allman-Payne

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

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

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

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

That means nothing.

Glenn Sterle

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

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

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

Glenn Sterle

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

Penny Allman-Payne

Senator Sterle, please withdraw.

Glenn Sterle

I withdraw it.

Penny Allman-Payne

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.

Long debate text truncated.