Here are some Quotes from the Pollies during the Debate of Gas (Safety) Bill on 25th March 2024:
(NOT FULL QUOTES. Taken from different parts of their speech)
NOTE: Mr Pearce Liberal @ 12:25
NOTE: Madeleine King @ 18:38 and 18:46
NOTE: Ms Watson-Brown @ 19:11
NOTE: Ms Spender @ 19:16
FULL HANSARD HERE:https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansardr/27620/toc_pdf/House%20of%20Representatives_2024_03_25.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (12:25): On behalf of the federal coalition I rise today to speak on the Offshore
Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024. In doing
so, I'm proud to affirm to the House that on this side of the chamber the coalition continues to be a strong, dependable
and ardent supporter of Australia's resources sector. On this side we remain committed to ensuring that this crucial
industry, which generates and delivers so much wealth, is able to keep investing in our nation
It's worth recognising just how important that contribution is. In 2022 and 2023 Australia's gas industry generated
approximately $92 billion in export earnings, which provided direct economic support to federal, state and territory
budgets. Australian gas also powers energy and manufacturing across our country and provides affordable energy
security to our international partners. Therefore, if these sorts of projects continue to be threatened, we jeopardise
billions and billions of dollars worth of investment and run the risk of not being able to supply the international
market with the vital energy supplies it needs. Further to this, Australia is set to hit a gas supply cliff by 2026, and
with continued attacks on the gas sector we run the risk of not being able to encourage, to facilitate and to secure
the substantial investment our country requires to avert this crisis. Therefore sensible government policy which
supports the resources industry, which incentivises investment and which will help develop greater prosperity of
this sector and the whole nation is so desperately needed at this time.Ms WATSON-BROWN (Ryan) (12:38)Here we are in a truly perverse situation where the Labor government is siding with
the LNP to take powers that protect the environment away from the environment minister and hand them to the
resources minister—a resources minister who is notorious for her full throated support of that gas industry.
State and federal governments can fix this. They can fix tax loopholes, raise federal taxes on gas companies and
raise royalty rates. They don't because Labor and the LNP are beholden to gas corporations via political donations,
lobbyists and that revolving door between politics and corporations. Resources like gas belong collectively to all of
us, to all Australians. Companies pay a royalty for the right to extract and sell them, but the resources do not belong
to the corporations. They belong to all of us. Asking that they pay their fair share is only reasonable
We don't need to open a new gas field. We don't need a new gas project—not a single one. Of Australia's current
gas production, 84 per cent is used for export. That's only 16 per cent that we use for domestic use—households
and industry. Australia is already producing a truly staggering amount of gas—far, far, far more than we need—but
the gas corporations don't care one bit about whether Australian households have cheap and reliable energy. They
don't care about ensuring our industry has the energy it needs. They care about making maximum profit, and that
means more gigantic gas projects to export the maximum amount of gas overseas at the maximum price. It's not
helping us. That's billions upon billions of dollars going to wealthy shareholders, so when the Minister for
Resources—to whom Labor seem to want to hand control of all gas approvals—says we need gas as a transition
fuel, look closely at whose talking points she's running. Look closely at whose interests she's actually serving,
because they're not yours, they're not the Australian peoples', they're not those of everyday people around the
world—they're the interests of the gas corporationsMr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:51)Santos said, 'Jump', and Labor said, 'How high?'
So here, on the eve of Easter, we have a dirty deal between Labor and the
Liberals to fast-track new gas projects and take away First Nations voices and to give the resources minister huge
powers to say that gas corporations don't even have to comply with the minimum standards that were set down by
John Howard.Ms WATSON-BROWN (Ryan) (13:02):Yet what does our government do in the face of this crisis? It shamelessly attempts to ram legislation through,
handing the resources minister unprecedented—and this really is unprecedented—authority to fast-track new coal
and gas projects, completely undermining the environment minister. It's pretty amazing stuff, really. The
government is essentially passing legislation written by the gas industry for the gas industryMr CHANDLER-MATHER (Griffith) (13:07):
The role Australia could be playing in combating dangerous, destructive, deadly global heating could be world
leading. We could be sending a signal to the world and saying that we will not open a single new gas or coal project.
We could be sending a signal to the world saying that we will tax existing coal and gas projects and raise money
that could be spent on phasing out coal and gas in this country, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and lifting
people out of poverty. Instead, we're in parliament, and the government is trying to rush through a bill that will
make it more likely and easier for Santos to get giant carbon-bomb gas projects approved.
Mr CHANDLER-MATHER (Griffith) (13:21):
It seems that when Santos says, 'Jump,' the government now asks, 'How high?' This change will lead to more gas and less
consultationMs MADELEINE KING (Brand—Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia) (14:59):What I have observed in my time working on this offshore safety legislation and other matters is this: it's become
increasingly clear to me the Greens political party simply want to continue the situation where there is an absolute
lawyers' picnic over approvals of various projects going through the courts. They would prefer to see millions of
dollars get spent in the courts, delaying the right of Indigenous people to have their say. What we are doing right
now is making sure consultation provisions are indeed improved so they're more clear for everyone concerned,
whether it be traditional owners or the wider community that host these projects or have concerns over them, no
matter where they're from. This is the point of the consultation we're undertaking right now. It's very open and very
public. We have extended it. Many people have submitted to it.
The Senate inquiry last week, indeed, revealed that traditional owners, as well as the wider community, as well
as proponents, are frustrated by the lack of certainty around the consultation provisions as they now stand. I for one,
and this government, would rather pursue reform to that to make it more certain through legislation rather than let
this endless lawyers' picnic continue. You may shake your head, Member for Melbourne, but the truth is the Greens
political party would prefer lawyers to get a lot of money pursuing this through the courts and wasting everybody's
time—and wasting the courts' time, I might add—rather than letting environmental regulators look over approvals
and see them done properly, and see consultation and make sure consultation is required to be face to face, has
guardrails around it and introduces certainty for everybody, not just bits and pieces of who has interest, who has
money to go to the court, who has access—like millionaires that go to courts, as you well know, and publicly funded
bodies that get donations from very rich international trusts that go to fund these processes through the courts. I for
one want to end this lawyers' picnic, end the practice where we see dodgy academic people going through the courts
to support Greens—
An honourable member interjecting—
Ms MADELEINE KING: Well, they are dodgy; I can hear the interjection—apologies, Mr Speaker. We know
what the court has said about some dodgy academic practices that go toward this lawyers' picnic. I want it to end,
and I want it to end now.Ms DANIEL (Goldstein) (16:35):
The genesis of this legislation appears to be what might politely be referred to as 'pressure' by Japan and South
Korea. Earlier this month the Saturday Paper reported the Chief Executive Officer of Japanese resources company
Inpex telling a function hosted by the resources minister that the government's decision to cap domestic gas prices
and insist that supplies were not diverted offshore was 'damaging Australia's hard earned international reputation as
a premium trading partner'. He demanded 'certainty in policy direction and a stable regulatory framework'Dr SCAMPS (Mackellar) (17:00):
The resources minister and the Minister for the Environment and Water are acting in direct opposition to one
another, as in the case of this amendment. Just as the environment minister is holding in-depth consultations about
how to strengthen our national environment laws, the resources minister is creating a pathway around them—a back
door, if you like—for the fossil fuel companies.Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (17:18):It's those 'other measures' that are the sneaky little inputs that have come in from the Minister for Resources. This bill provides
an unacceptable carve out for the offshore gas industry. It shows that the government, like the coalition, is
completely captured by the gas industry.
We do not need more gas. The very thing we should be doing is holding the gas industry to higher scrutiny—to
more environmental controls, not fewer. And we certainly should not allow a carve out from the Minister for
Resources essentially being a minister for gas.
It is giving a carve-out to the gas industry. It's effectively giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to the gas industry and
its polluting projects—the very industry that needs the most scrutiny.
You cannot, on one hand, be concerned
about that and then give a get-out-of-jail-free card to the gas industry by providing only the resources minister with
the right to approve activity, without having to go via the environment minister and the EPBC Act.Ms TINK (North Sydney) (17:30):While 'other measures' sounds innocuous, this legislation is anything but that. A more apt name, indeed, would
be 'Offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage legislation amendment (safety and curtailing environmental
approval) bill 2024', or perhaps 'Safety and reducing First Peoples' engagement and participation in decision-making
bill', or, even further, 'Safety and allowing the resources minister unfettered discretion to approve offshore gas
projects bill'. That's what this bill does; it seeks to permanently change the way offshore gas projects are assessed
at the same time as Australia's primary environmental legislation is undergoing significant reform to strengthen the
consultation processes—all just before some of the most contentious offshore gas projects in Australia's history,
including Santos's Barossa gas project, are assessedMs WATSON-BROWN (Ryan) (17:56):
What's the government
actually doing in the face of this crisis? It's shamelessly attempting to ram legislation through, handing the Minister
for Resources unprecedented authority to fast-track new coal and gas projects—completely undermining the
environment minister. On the back of this, the government is now effectively trying to legislate another loophole back in for gas
companies to get the green light on environment-destroying projects. Basically, the government is allowing
companies like Santos or Woodside to get around complying with the current requirements of environmental laws
for gas projects. We simply cannot let this bill proceed without a Senate inquiry. With these provisions, gas
companies will essentially be exempt from complying with certain environmental regulations under even the new
amendments. This is why these amendments are not going to fix this flawed bill.
The independent regulator, NOPSEMA, has an endorsed program for the requirements of any gas project, and
the government is giving gas companies more powers than they've had to date to bypass this process or to rush it
through altogether. Just at the moment, Santos has six approvals through NOPSEMA for the Barossa project, and
they could all be exempt from any environmental approvals process in the next 12 months.Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand—Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia) (18:38):I reject the assertion made by the member for Ryan that somehow the tens of thousands of jobs in the gas industry
are not valuable. These workers are valuable. Their work is valuable. Their jobs are important, and I value them. Of
course, I value their safety, and that is why I'm moving the safety parts of this bill.
I also reject the assertion of the member for Griffith, which has been followed by a number of people, about
supposedly cancelling the export of gas in this country. That would, of course, be an economy-wrecking proposition,
but it is not unexpected from the Greens political party. We are a nation with an economy built on trade with the
world, and the size of our population means we can never consume all that we make. That includes the gas we
extract. Without international investment to make sure those gas fields have been developed and will continue to
extract gas for the use of our neighbours, we would not have the gas at all. These arguments that are continually put
forward show staggering ignorance or wilful blindness to the economic reality of our export industry in this country.
I might say that international investment goes the same for every other kind of export industry, whether in the
agricultural sector, such as with grain, or with gold or iron ore. This is the case even for international investment in
wine, and it will continue with critical minerals and rare earths.Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand—Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia) (18:46):
In relation to the role of gas and various things that have been said about it, I would also note the view of the
International Energy Agency, which has made it clear in its Net Zero Roadmap that, in all scenarios it has modelled
globally, gas will play a role in firming renewable energy in the net-zero transition. They have stated:
… natural gas-fired capacity remains a critical source of power system flexibility in many markets, particularly to address
seasonal flexibility needs.
Of course, the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the
ACCC, have repeatedly warned of seasonal shortfalls on peak demand and structural shortfalls in gas supply in the
east coast market emerging well before 2030. These very public reports have indicated that, at least in the short
term, new supplies of gas are going to be needed to make sure we have reliability of supply. In the longer term, gas
will help smooth the transition to renewables while guaranteeing high energy security, both for Australia and for
our partners in the region.
I spoke before of how important it is that Australians have access to affordable gas and that Australian industry
has access to affordable gas. We all know that critical minerals and rare earths will be required for green energy
technologies—I noticed there was some debate on this in the House this morning. Of course, to process those critical
minerals and rare earths, we will need more gas—hence the increase in demand for gas in Western Australia,
because there is no alternative as yet, although, as you would know, the government—
Anyway, let's not go down that path. The point is that right now we have an industry
that does support the lives of tens of thousands of workers, does support our transition and does support how we
process critical minerals and rare earths into the future, both for our own technology capabilities and for those of
our friends and our partners.
Our resources exports, particularly our energy exports, are very important to our international standing. Australia
provides energy for a significant share of the power needed by the world's fourth biggest economy, as well as the
Republic of Korea, Singapore and also China. It helps provide stability in the region, and it will help those countries
and others on their transition to net zero by 2050, which, as everyone in this chamber knows, is a clear objective of
this government.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand—Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia) (18:53):
As I explained before, we are in fact seeking to improve consultation around offshore gas. The problem—and I've said
this in the chamber earlier today and have said it publicly as well—is that right now we have what I call—and maybe it's a result of having been one—a lawyer's picnic around offshore gas approvals. That is no good for anyone,
in my opinion and in that of the government. It is clogging up the courts, for one, but equally it is forcing those with
interests and concerns to take their concerns to court—the traditional owners. That doesn't seem to me to be a
sensible way to manage the approval system for offshore gas projects.Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand—Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia) (19:03):
Sadly, whenever there is a bill before this parliament with the word 'gas' in it, it turns into a theatre and an
opportunity for the ideological debates that we've seen, with the three-word slogans from the Greens political party,
to progress, that are thoroughly unrelated to safety or, really, the other measures that we're talking about, which are
about ensuring the proper consultation rules for offshore gas projects for the benefit of the whole community.Ms WATSON-BROWN (Ryan) (19:11):
We can't just stop oil and gas production and consumption in Australia overnight; we know that. We do need
some gas in our energy mix for the next decade or so in this country, but we already have far more than we'll need.Ms SPENDER (Wentworth) (19:16):
Thirdly, I'd like to raise the point that the minister made earlier in relation to new gas. The minister made the
point that gas is a transition fuel, and I accept absolutely that gas is a transition fuel. But the IEA that the minister
earlier quoted also said 'no new coal or gas'.
Dr RYAN (Kooyong) (19:21):
We haven't heard from the environment minister. We haven't heard from the minister for Indigenous affairs. We haven't heard them say that they feel comfortable about this bill, and I would ask the Minister for Resources why that might be.You can read the context of these comments in Hansard. I have only taken the quotes that I believe is relevant towards PEP11/Gas
Some of these quote go on to say - NO MORE GAS/ WE DONT NEED MORE GAS/IEA SAYS NO MMORE GAS TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING etc etc etc.
Expand
