Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024. While the vast majority of this bill delivers what are arguably necessary changes to improve the safety of those working in offshore industries—that is, the 'safety' part in the bill's title—it is the 'other measures' part that I will focus on today. In this context, this amendment to Australia's offshore gas legislation would weaken oversight and accountability within the environmental approvals regime and accord broad new powers to the resources minister.

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 assessed. It curtails First Peoples' engagement in the project approvals and effectively grants the offshore oil and gas industry a free pass from national environmental laws.

As we face this bill, the whole process is triggering for me as I cannot help but be struck by the parallels between the approach taken around this piece of legislation and the approach that was taken when the sea dumping amendment bill was rushed through the House late last year. At the time the sea dumping amendment legislation was presented to this House, many, including myself, sought reassurances from the environment minister that that piece of legislation was not simply a veil for fossil fuel companies to reduce barriers to progress commercially. We were assured then that there was no veil, that the reason the legislation was being pushed was to ensure Australia met its international treaty obligations. Yet, during Senate hearings only a short time later, we learned there had indeed been communication between Santos and our government, which, on review, made it difficult to believe the assurances given to us at the time of the legislation's introduction could really be trusted. Both that legislation and this have ultimately involved this government rushing a bill through, so it should not be surprising that many members, including myself, now fear this is yet again a veil for a commercial endeavour to achieve a desired outcome. I can't help but note the lack of government speakers in favour of this legislation.

I acknowledge that, in listening to both my and others' concerns, the government has sought to amend this bill. But in my opinion these amendments do not go far enough to address the serious concerns this legislation raises, and, ultimately, perhaps cynically, I wonder if they have been suggested as a way for this government to try and build a case that it has somehow listened to concerns. Specifically, the amendments still do not require compliance with the EPBC Act or give the environment minister any kind of veto power over changes.

I was elected on a platform of climate action and integrity in politics, and I daresay the Labor Party was returned for that very reason. It's not just the people of North Sydney that value these things; it is many people across this country. They're fed up with policy decisions made behind closed doors to enable vested interests. Legislation and processes like this are exactly what they are sick of. This bill lacks integrity. It lacks proper consideration of the impact it will have on our environment, on climate change and on First Nations people.

As I said earlier, the bulk of the legislation is designed to improve safety outcomes for Australia's offshore resource sector's workforce. Unfortunately, this section of the legislation will not receive the attention it arguably deserves due to the government's decision to hide egregious changes to the consultation requirements for offshore gas projects within the same bill. This follows shortly after the passage of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023, which combined inadequate changes to the petroleum resources rent tax with a legislative response to the actions of PwC, another entirely inappropriate bundling of separate issues into one bill.

The contentious section of this bill is part 2 of schedule 2. Currently, some of the environment minister's responsibilities under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act are, in effect, delegated to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, or NOPSEMA as I'll call it, which regulates offshore oil and gas. This environmental authorisation process is set out in Streamlining offshore petroleum environmental approvals: program report, of February 2014, and it was endorsed by the then environment minister, Greg Hunt. In practice, this means that, with some exceptions, offshore oil and gas project proponents have only to seek an approval from NOPSEMA without needing to seek separate approval under the EPBC Act.

Schedule 2 part 2 of this legislation essentially means that any action approved under the offshore petroleum regime, including the offshore environmental management regime, would be assumed to be within the scope of the original EPBC accreditation. So, regardless of any changes proposed, there would be no need for new EPBC accreditation, and the offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage environmental management regime would be taken to be accredited forever. This section would commence the day after the bill receives royal assent.

The bill should be amended to withdraw part 2 of schedule 2, and I thank the member for Warringah for her amendments that seek to do just this. I'll be supporting those amendments. This section should be deleted, not only because it weakens consultation requirements but also because it will adversely impact First Nations communities, and there are very real questions about whether this bill is compatible with human rights in this regard. It also curtails the EPBC reform that is currently underway and the ongoing review of the OPGGS environmental regulations.

Many of these issues were unearthed by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, particularly through the dissenting reports of Senator Thorpe, Senator Pocock and the Greens, and I thank those senators for their work in shining a light on this murky piece of legislation. During the Senate committee inquiry, First Nations people and traditional owners expressed concern that, by carving out the OPGGS regime from the EPBC Act, part 2 of schedule 2 could weaken the consultation requirements that apply to the approvals process for offshore petroleum and gas activities. This raises serious questions about whether this bill is compatible with Australia's human rights obligations, specifically with Australia's obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP.

The bill's statement of compatibility with human rights does not consider First Nations people or the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and there are several relevant articles of UNDRIP, including: article 11.1, which relates to Indigenous people's rights to practise and revitalise their cultural traditions and customs; article 11.2, relating to states providing redress with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without free and prior informed consent; article 18, relating to Indigenous people's rights to participate in decision-making matters which would affect their rights; and article 25, relating to Indigenous people's rights to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their lands, territories, waters and coastal seas.

As a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I note Senator Thorpe's dissenting report to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, including recommending amending the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 to include consideration of UNDRIP so that no legislation is passed before proper consideration of its engagement and compatibility with the rights of first people. Standing here today, I can't believe I have to ask that of this government. I thank Senator Thorpe for her work in this area and support her recommendations.

Furthermore, this bill impedes the work that is currently being done to reform Australia's central environmental legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The independent review of the EPBC Act, undertaken by Professor Graeme Samuel and delivered to the environment minister in 2020, recommended a fundamental overhaul within the EPBC Act, including provisions related to strategic assessments and accreditation.

The government, in its Nature Positive Plan, has responded to these recommendations and has committed to new national nature-positive laws. Importantly, this includes a new requirement for strategic assessments and regulatory systems proposed for accreditation to be assessed against proposed new national environmental standards, including a standard for First Nations engagement and participation in decision-making, a standard for community engagement and consultation, and a new national regulator, the environmental protection agency.

Yet the Nature Positive legislation reforms are behind schedule. The December 2022 Nature Positive Plan committed to bills being introduced into the parliament by the end of 2023. But development of the draft is well behind its timeline, and all we've heard since is that bills are to be introduced as soon as possible in 2024. The government should be prioritising the development of the Nature Positive reform package, not pre-empting it through carve-outs to the EPBC Act as proposed here.

Part 2 of schedule 2 is completely contrary to the government's commitment to reform strategic assessments to incorporate new national environment standards and ensure they are subject to oversight from an independent environmental protection authority. In the words of Dr Megan Evans, a senior lecturer in public sector management within the School of Business at the University South Wales—and I ask the members of the government to note these words—'The proposed amendment would render completely pointless any improvements made to environmental laws, since it carves out a loophole for just one regulated industry, which just happens to contribute disproportionate environmental harm.'

Part 2 of schedule 2 also pre-empts the ongoing offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage environmental management review, tasked with recommending improvements to the environmental management regime to make sure it is fit for purpose in decarbonising our economy. Ultimately this bill shows us this government can progress legislation at pace when it wants to. Imagine if the same urgency had been channelled into progressing the EPBC reforms. Australia could be well on its way to fundamentally addressing the current integrity deficit in our environmental regulation and opening the processes up through transparency and accountability measures that ensure the strongest possible community participation.

Ultimately this bill points to a much broader issue, one that looms large in this country. That is the influence of the fossil fuel industry still in this House. Correspondence released under freedom of information reveals the CEO of Santos asked the Minister for Resources for 'urgent action to deliver regulations which provide clarity and certainty for industry'. That correspondence came through on 6 October 2023, raising the question of whether the changes proposed in this bill have been added at the request of fossil fuel companies. No wonder this question has been raised. Between 1 July 2022 and 30 June 2023 the Labor Party received donations of $110,090 from Santos and $84,700 from the Minerals Council, not to mention the dark money, the millions from unnamed sources. This undue influence erodes our democracy

The government has said the changes in this bill are necessary and aimed at improving the quality and clarity of consultations with third parties under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act. Maybe they are; but the dodgy process around this bill suggests there is something to hide. There was no public consultation period on this bill to allow for feedback from stakeholders—only private, closed-door briefings with little information released about who was consulted and when. The Senate inquiry was rushed, with senators only provided with a half-day hearing to ask questions and scrutinise these complex changes. While the government has amended the proposal, stakeholders and experts have been given insufficient time to consider the amendments and they do not appear to rectify the significant issues I have outlined. While this may be a genuine attempt on behalf of the government to streamline consultation processes, I cannot help but feel that this is at best poorly executed and at worst a deliberate attempt to silence First Nations voices and fast-track offshore gas.

Quite simply, we cannot risk any more dodgy environmental legislation. There has been a barrage of reports and broken climate records highlighting the dire state of the environment and catastrophic climate change. We are nowhere near where we need to be as a nation in our climate policy ambition. While much of that is due to the inaction of previous governments, this current government is responsible as well. According to the Australian Institute, in the 2022-23 budget the federal government provided $9.8 billion worth of subsidies to fossil fuel industries. Since May 2022 the federal environment minister has approved four new coal mines and expansions with 156 million tonnes of lifetime emissions. This is despite it being abundantly clear that to curb catastrophic climate change no new coal, gas or oil projects should be approved, as has been made explicit by the IPCC and by the International Energy Agency, the International Institute for Sustainable Development and many others.

With Australia's emissions failing to decrease at the necessary rate, and report after report outlining the dire state of this planet, we must ensure the utmost integrity in our environmental decision-making and project approval process, and that is what the EPBC Act reform is meant to do. It is bills and processes like the ones that are in front of us right now that erode public trust and confidence in environmental decision-making. Part 2 of schedule 2 should be removed.

See this speech in context