Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

This legislation is a line-in-the-sand moment for the Albanese government. It's ironic that that line in the sand is three miles offshore. The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 should improve safety outcomes for Australia's offshore resources sector workforce. Some parts of the legislation—the ones which are named in its title—are uncontroversial. Others are deeply concerning, and they speak volumes about the Albanese government's unhealthily close relationship with the gas industry. They should not be in this bill. This retrograde piece of legislation would actually weaken the environmental protections for offshore gas put in place by the Liberal Party's industry minister Ian Macfarlane when he approved the endorsed program in 2014. What sort of legacy would that be for Minister King?

The regulation of offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage in Australian waters is divided between the Commonwealth government and state and territory governments. The states have responsibility for activities in the zone of coastal waters up to three nautical miles seaward of the territorial sea baseline. The Commonwealth has responsibility for offshore areas, those beyond the coastal waters, to the outer limits of the continental shelf. Offshore petroleum exploration and production and the storage of greenhouse gases under the seabed in offshore areas are regulated under this piece of legislation, the OPGGS Act. That act regulates all aspects of offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities, from exploration to production to decommissioning in offshore areas. It oversees two statutory offices with specific responsibilities, the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator, or NOPTA, which issues titles for offshore petroleum activities, and the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, or NOPSEMA, which regulates offshore work health and safety, well integrity and environmental management.

In 2014 the then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, scrapped 9,500 regulations in one day, and it was at that time that the then Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, delegated responsibility for environmental assessments and approvals of offshore gas developments from his office to the industry funded regulator NOPSEMA. Since 2014 NOPSEMA has overseen a streamlined environmental management authorisation process for petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities. Not all such activities are permitted under this streamlined process. Actions which are not permitted under it and which therefore have to be assessed and approved in accordance with the usual processes under the EPBC Act include those likely to have a significant impact on the environment, on Commonwealth land, on the World Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef property and on the injection and/or storage of greenhouse gas—that is, those related to carbon capture and storage.

The bill before us today contains several amendments which should strengthen the role, expertise and protections of health and safety representatives on offshore vessels and which should give NOPSEMA greater ability to monitor compliance with diving-related safety obligations on vessels. Those amendments seem entirely reasonable. More importantly, however, the bill also proposes a new section, 790E, to allow for amendments to the OPGGS Act, or regulations made under it, which are inconsistent with the endorsed program authorised by the EPBC Act 1999.

By allowing further changes to the NOPSEMA approvals program, while still retaining those EPBC rubber stamps, the government is proposing to subvert the process of the EPBC Act and further reduce oversight of the offshore gas industry. Under this proposed legislation the Minister for Resources will have the ability to provide approvals for offshore gas exploration and mining and for sea dumping or carbon capture and storage under the seabed even where those processes are likely to have a significant impact on the environment or on World Heritage areas like the Great Barrier Reef, even where the prior approval of these projects was contingent on conditions imposed under the EPBC Act.

The bill will concentrate an enormous amount of power, including the power to wind back First Nations consultation rights and environmental protections, in the federal resources minister, who, let us remember, is also responsible for promoting that resources industry. There is no guarantee resource ministers under future governments or even this government will use this power in the interests of the environment or of First Nations people. In the last 24 hours this government has added a milquetoast amendment purporting to limit the minister's discretionary powers. But section 1C(b) of that amendment effectively neutralises the limits that the amendment seeks to place on the bill. Sorry, Minister, but we can see through this appalling subterfuge.

I remind the House that on 11 March 2024 we saw the hottest recorded daily sea temperature of the world ever: 21.2 degrees. This was just one of dozens of climate records broken in months in Australia and overseas. The Great Barrier Reef is already bleaching. Does the resources minister want it gone more quickly? We know that we can't trust NOPSEMA to act in the best interests of traditional owners or the environment. To recent cases in the Federal Court have cast a spotlight on this fact. In Santos v. Tipakalippa the Full Court of the Federal Court found that Santos had not properly consulted with the traditional owners. In Cooper v. NOPSEMA, Justice Colvin found that NOPSEMA had in effect trusted Woodside to determine the environmental impacts and risks as well as the value of the measures adopted to address those risks. NOPSEMA has a demonstrable track record of giving the fox free access to the henhouse.

The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is currently consulting on the major reforms to the EPBC Act that were recommended by the Samuel review. It is unclear whether or how this proposed section of legislation will interface with those reforms. That consultation process will continue for the next few months.

The bill also fails to directly address issues raised in relation to the consultation requirements for offshore oil and gas developments under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2023—for example, two specific amendments clarifying consultation processes. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources is currently consulting on those reforms. Submissions closed on 8 March 2020. It's extremely disappointing that the bill has been introduced while we are still in the middle of not one but two major government consultation processes.

The bill has been provided with a very short time frame. It was introduced to parliament on 22 February 2024 and referred to an inquiry by the Senate on 29 February. The results of that Senate inquiry are still pending. There seems to be no rationale for this unseemly haste. The bill not only undermines the very role of national environmental laws; it comes from right field at a time when we're supposed to be addressing and, ideally, fixing those laws. The bill aims to pre-empt the major reforms we are participating in in this term of government by the EPBC Act and the nature positive reform package. The bill means to bypass the very reasonable standard set by the law, upheld in Tipakalippa: that First Nations communities have traditional cultural connections with the sea; that will they have reliance upon and a relationship to marine life and environment; that offshore oil and gas projects can pose a significant risk to First Nations communities, marine life and the environment; and that First Nations communities are put at risk by oil and gas projects and therefore must be consulted about those projects.

The government's explanatory memorandum for this bill claims that it has consulted with major industry interest groups and with government departments. But the fact that this bill has been welcomed by the oil and gas industry tells us all that we need to know about it. FOI documentation has revealed that a joint letter was sent by Santos, JERA and SK E&S to Minister King on 6 October 2023, demanding changes to the approval process for offshore petroleum developments. It would appear that this bill is the minister's response to those demands.

I would note that another concerned stakeholder is the LNP coalition, members of which are not speaking to the bill, because they're also pretty happy with it. This bill is part of the quid pro quo for the LNP's support of the government's piddling changes to the petroleum resource rent tax. The EM for this bill does not stipulate the extent to which to which the minister for the environment was consulted during the preparation of this legislation. One suspects the answer to that is: not very much.

The Minister for Resources should be embarrassed that she has so clumsily slipped this amendment in with what are—let's face it—some important industry protections. I suggest that the relevant unions, those who are supported by this administration and these amendments, should see this and they should hold the minister to account for her behaviour.

I note that the Treasurer has also spoken in favour of this bill to reassure fossil fuel companies not only that the government has their back but also that, extraordinarily, all changes under the bill will be grandfathered. The foreign minister has recently said yes to Santos, yes to Woodside and yes to Inpex in the other place. But we need to say no to this government's continued deference to and delegation of power to the gas industry. The environmental minister seems to have been bypassed both in the preparation and in the proposed operation of this bill. I would like to see her speak to it. She should hold her colleagues to account for this.

Introducing important protections for workers in dangerous occupations is something that our government should do. But it diminishes those protections when they're used as a political shield and when they're used to take away the rights of First Nations people to appropriate consultation about things which are very important to them. They should not be introduced in the context of a sneaky piece of side legislation which substantially reduces the protection of our seas. This bill cannot be supported, and it should not be supported unless proposed section 790E(2) of schedule 2 is deleted.

The bill has been prepared as a favour to the multinational gas industry to help it develop new offshore gas projects and to dump more carbon dioxide under our seabeds. Now, in 2024, the Albanese government is helping the gas industry to develop new fossil fuel projects. The people of Australia should know this, and they should remember it when they next vote in a federal election. I cannot support the bill.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context