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

It is. Everyone's been so friendly, President; I thought I might stay! My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Murray Watt. Woodside's gas project around Scott Reef, off the coast of Western Australia, is a massive carbon bomb that will release 1.6 billion tonnes of climate pollution. Scott Reef is a marine biodiversity hotspot with numerous endangered species. The Western Australian EPA has previously recommended against this project proceeding on this basis. In your approval decision, you are currently considering new attribution science that ties this project's carbon emissions directly to significant coral deaths on our iconic Great Barrier Reef. Minister, can you confirm today that you received more than 70,000 submissions opposing this project in just a few weeks? What have you got to say to these Australians who care about protecting our oceans and marine life from the greed of fossil fuel companies like Woodside?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Whish-Wilson. I am glad that you had an opportunity to ask one last question before you depart the Senate. It has been a pleasure working with you in the years that we've both been here.

In answer to your question, I'm obviously well aware that the proposed gas development off the Western Australian coast, often referred to as the Browse project, is a controversial project. There are people in Australia who support that project. There are people in Australia who oppose that project. I know very well, Senator Whish-Wilson, that you are one of the people who opposes this project. As is always the case when applications are made for environmental assessments and decisions under the federal EPBC Act, I will be applying the law of this country. That's what I will be taking into account. Of course, the decision that always needs to be made is whether a particular project is likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance.

Your question, Senator Whish-Wilson, went to the recent application by the Australian Conservation Foundation for a reconsideration of an earlier decision regarding this matter. The figures that you quoted as to the number of submissions received on that are roughly about right. I don't have the precise number, but it's roughly in the order that you referred to. What now needs to be decided is whether an additional matter of national environmental significance is likely to be impacted by this project. That decision will be made in accordance with the law and, when that decision is made, we'll have public announcements to make about that.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, first supplementary?

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

Minister, one of the first things you did as environment minister was approve Woodside's North West Shelf extension out to 2070, which will require gas from Browse to be economic. Are you going to take instructions on Browse from WA Labor, who are practically Woodside lobbyists? Has a political decision to approve this climate-wrecking carbon bomb all but been made? And could you also indicate whether you got any submissions in favour of this project?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy, Senator Whish-Wilson, to provide what information I can about what submissions were received in support of the project. I haven't analysed those submissions at this point. That work is happening now. But I utterly reject the suggestion that the decision that I made regarding the North West Shelf project or any other decision that I or this government has made has been influenced by politics. We have always made the decisions that we've made in accordance with the law.

The decision that I made regarding the North West Shelf project has never been properly understood by the Australian Greens. It has constantly been misrepresented by the Australian Greens party as a decision that went to carbon emissions. If you knew anything about the EPBC Act, you would know that the decision was based on what impacts that project would have on ancient rock art. It wasn't about carbon emissions, but you choose to be ignorant of the facts and to propagate your propaganda.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, second supplementary?

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

Minister, you are minister for the environment and are no doubt aware our oceans are at record temperatures and the outlook for this El Nino is very concerning. This is likely to have severe consequences for coral reefs and other marine habitat around our nation. Murray, you're a decent human being. What legacy do you want to leave as our environment minister—that you protected our oceans for future generations or that you sacrificed the environment to protect fossil fuel giant Woodside's profits?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the free character assessment, Senator Whish-Wilson. It's a much more positive one than I'm used to receiving from that corner of the chamber! I'm very proud of being part of a Labor government that is taking strong action on climate change. This government, unlike any other government that we've had in Australia, has set ambitious and achievable targets for the reduction of carbon emissions. We all know—well, most of us who believe the science know—that our reefs, our oceans and our natural environment in general are at great risk due to the impacts of climate change. And that's why our government is taking action to reduce emissions through the expansion of renewable energy, through bringing in new fuel efficiency standards when it comes to motor vehicles, through taking action in agriculture, in heavy industry more generally and through the safeguard mechanism. They are the practical policies that are delivering the reductions in carbon emissions that our environment needs, and we'll continue to act on them— (Time expired)