QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (15:28): I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the Browse project. Minister Watt said in here that he will make his decision according to the law, but I think it needs to be pointed out that what Minister Watt didn't say was that his approval will be on the previous EPBC laws, not the new laws that this chamber passed recently in this parliament.
They also will not include any impacts from climate change. What really concerns me about this is that the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority recommended that the Browse project not proceed because of the sensitivities of Scott Reef, one of Australia's great oceanic ecosystems. Not only is the subsistence of the area, a coral atoll offshore, very sensitive to seismic testing and to offshore oil and gas drilling but it is full of wonderful, endangered marine creatures.
Now here's the thing: the Western Australian government didn't like that, so they changed the law on the EPA and made the EPA also accountable for the economic consequences of its decisions, which is very similar to the Tasmanian EPA. Why don't we just call them the 'economic protection agency'? They're not set up to protect the environment.
The Western Australian government has done that to try and circumvent the scientific expertise of the Western Australian EPA. I would say this to the minister: I think this will be the most significant decision that he will make in his career as the Australian environment minister. This will be the most significant decision he will make.
He can say, 'Well, according to the law, there are only minor matters of national environmental significance; there's nothing else I can do.' He can reject the attribution science that says approving a 1.6 billion tonne carbon bomb is going to lead to the loss of more than 30 million coral colonies every time we have a bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. He can say, 'Well, that's not my problem; it's covered under the safeguard.' But let me tell you about that.
The safeguard, if it even works—we're talking about offsets here that have been proven to be completely useless in reducing emissions—we're talking about scope 1 or 2 emissions from one of the biggest fossil fuel projects in our nation's history. More than 80 per cent of the emissions from this project will be burnt overseas. They're being exported to countries that don't have climate frameworks in place to reduce emissions.
It doesn't matter where fossil fuels are burnt; they are warming our planet and warming our oceans. The area around Scott Reef and south of Scott Reef, areas like Rowley Shoals, are some of the most precious reef systems in the country. They rely on tourism, and they're very sensitive.
You're from this beautiful state, Deputy President. To get ocean temperatures recorded, we were told when we visited Ningaloo with Australian Institute of Marine Science—we had a fantastic time. We dived three sites with the scientists.
They talked us through the impacts of the mass coral bleaching that happened last summer. We heard records of 38 degree water temperature off places like the Rowley Shoals. It's unbelievable how warm the ocean is getting.
Right now, it's the warmest it's ever been, again, and it's going to get warmer. Next year is going to be, unfortunately, based on the models now, the warmest year again in human history records. So how can we approve massive new fossil fuel projects in a time of climate breakdown?
It is delusional and deranged to be promoting clean energy—which the government does, and I accept that; that's a good thing—and also be approving fossil fuel projects. At this time in history, the International Energy Agency, which is a very conservative agency, has said that we need to leave all new fossil fuels in the ground. There are already enough fossil fuels, if we use them, to push us past two degrees of warming.
There's enough for our needs now. We need to get on with the clean energy revolution, otherwise we will not have a safe climate. We are putting our children and our families at risk.
The minister can be remembered as a minister for the environment who protected the environment, who protected our children and future generations, or he can be remembered as the environment minister who protected the profits of Woodside. I know what I would want my legacy to be if I were a federal environment minister. I urge him as a human being to consider the gravity of his decisions.
(Time expired) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I suspect this is the last time I will chair you, Senator Whish-Wilson. I wish you all the best for the future. Question agreed to.