Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I stand in support of this amendment. I have three problems with schedule 2 part 2 of the bill: the timing of it, its potential to weaken environmental protections, and how it interfaces with the broader issue of a lack of adequate climate regulation.

On the timing, in January this year the Department of Industry, Science and Resources commenced a consultation, which concluded last week, to clarify the requirements for regulatory approvals for offshore oil and gas storage. In other words, the government is currently considering whether we have the right regulatory approvals in place for these types of projects. Surely we should wait for the outcome of the consultation process before making changes. If the government's serious about consulting stakeholders, it can't jump to the answers before reviewing the submissions to that consultation. Also, as we go through the process of updating the EPBC Act, we should not be making piecemeal changes that add further complexity and exempt offshore oil and gas storage projects from evolving standards.

The second issue is the watering down of environmental protections. These changes could mean that regulations could be quietly changed in a way that's inconsistent with the approved program arrangement between the EPBC Act and NOPSEMA relating to offshore oil and gas projects. In other words, it could be weakening environmental safeguards on those projects, which have a huge climate and environmental impact. I'm not comfortable with this. We can't afford to open the door to weaker environmental regulation, especially in light of an evolving regulatory framework with the EPBC Act review underway. Even though there's a sunset clause, decisions made this year under this bill would still hold.

The third issue is much bigger than this bill. We don't have an adequate regulatory framework to consider climate impacts. Because we don't have an appropriate regulatory framework to make sensible decisions about projects so we can prevent climate bombs going ahead, we're shoehorning climate concerns into regulatory frameworks designed to address other problems. People are using every angle possible to create barriers to these projects: environmental, committee consultation—you name it. If there isn't a law that says projects that contribute to an unlivable planet shouldn't go ahead, people who care and think there should be use what they've got.

The minister says these amendments will allow her to provide more certainty for offshore oil and gas projects. Unsurprisingly, fossil fuel companies want greater certainty, but anyone who knows that more offshore oil and gas projects are bad for the planet doesn't want to provide that certainty. There are many reviews underway, and I hope that these various reviews will recognise and reflect that climate impact is a huge factor that needs to be considered in our regulatory framework so we don't keep investing more money in projects that are bad for the world and ultimately will end up being stranded assets when we come to our senses. In the meantime, I can't support anything that gives greater certainty to these projects that have significant climate impacts.

So, even though I'm supportive of the safety changes in this bill, I back the member for Warringah's amendment removing part of the bill, because it puts the cart before the horse, because it potentially weakens environmental regulation and because, even though the current lack of certainty is a weak tool, it's one of the few available when we don't have an appropriate regulatory framework to make sensible long-term decisions about projects that are, in effect, carbon bombs.

See this speech in context