BPH - PEP11 = politics, page-64

The fundamental problem here is that every single Australian wants uninterrupted and endless energy provided to their homes and businesses regardless of the source. But most Australians don't want any of the infrastructure (even wind turbines cop bad press and who wants dams for hydro) in their backyards. It's ok to put it in someone else's. That's got to change.

I am not an environmental scientist, but IMO, I question how much more of an impact a gas rig (which cannot be seen from the beach and so won't spoil anyones views) is going to have on migrating whales and dolphins any more than the hundreds of very large ships that cruise up and down the east coast and anchor offshore already quite regularly.

Grant it will mess up a tiny bit of the seafloor where I am sure whatever life is there at the time will relocate for the time being. I'd also like tourism operators and the PM who say they don't support PEP11 to tell us precisely how its going to interfere with tourism. Other areas of Australia that have gas exploration off shore are still popular tourist destinations, eg the Gippsland Basin.

If the government reject PEP11, they will be setting a precedent to reject future resource exploration and even the installation of renewables if a particular group of people don't like how they believe it's going to spoil their view or get in the way of a migrating something.

Setting a precedent like that is dangerous ground for a government that says it supports transitional resource exploration, which leads me to think it will be approved if it ticks all the boxes that it's supposed to, despite the PM's off the cuff comments.