Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying before, we're in a massive climate crisis. We should be in this parliament debating bills to phase out coal and gas. Instead, we're here debating a bill that will make it easier for large gas corporations to get approvals for their massive gas projects—in particular Santos with their Barossa project.

We just saw the resource minister in question time give, frankly, one of the more bizarre answers to a question I've seen in this place. It focused, really quite a lot, on the length of court cases when it comes to groups opposing massive gas projects. She was talking about the idea that these court cases are going on for too long. Well, therein lies the point, because what has frustrated Santos, this large multinational gas corporation, is that it's taking too long, from their perspective, to get approval for their massive gas projects. It seems to me, from reading between the lines, that the intent is to speed up those court cases. What's clear is that the effect of this bill will be not only to speed up those cases and the approval time line but to make it easier and faster for Santos to get approval for the massive Barossa gas project. We now know, under a freedom of information request, that Santos wrote to the resource minister about exactly this point. We still have yet to have the government get up and explicitly rule out this making it easier for large gas corporations to get approval for large gas projects, and I think that's because they know in their hearts that this is exactly what this bill will do.

Again, we've been told by the International Energy Agency and basically every leading climate scientist in the world that if we want any chance of stopping climate change then there can be no new coal, oil or gas projects. Here we are debating a bill, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, that will make it more likely that in the future we will see approvals for massive gas projects like the Santos Barossa gas project—which, by the way, will release 80 per cent of Australia's 2022 emissions, over 400 million tonnes. I don't know how the government can justify this, and it would be interesting, I think, for them to go to members for the public who have been victims of climate change fuelled natural disasters and say their response to that is to open up more coal, oil and gas projects and pass laws, like the one we are debating right now, that will make it easier and faster for massive gas corporations like Santos to get approval for massive climate bombs like the Barossa gas project.

It might be one thing for the government to turn around and say, 'Oh, well, this will increase government revenue,' but it won't even do that, because the vast majority of the revenue generated out of these projects will go into shareholders' pockets and into the profit margins and revenue margins of gas corporations like Santos and Chevron. So what we have, in effect, is a bill that will allow for the opening up of massive new gas projects, driving the climate crisis and putting profits in the pockets of corporations like Santos, to no benefit to the public. What it will do is drive the climate crisis. The more gas projects are opened up and, in particular, the more methane and CO2 is released into the atmosphere, the more it will make the climate warmer and make floods, droughts and bushfires worse in the future—and heatwaves such as we've just experienced in Queensland and across the country as well.

I think the government should come here and justify why their policy is not only to keep opening up new coal, oil and gas but to make it easier than it was under the Morrison government to get approvals for massive gas projects. I've said this before and I'll say it again, future generations will look back on bills like this and ask, 'What was this government doing?' When we're being smashed with future climate fuelled natural disasters—I say 'natural disasters', but I should say 'fossil fuelled disasters': more floods, more bushfires and more heatwaves—members of the public will rightly ask, 'Well, why did the government keep pouring fuel on the fire by allowing for the opening of new gas projects, new coal projects and new oil projects?' The government should be deeply ashamed of this bill.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm always very pleased to follow the member for Griffith, but it's astounding that I'm coming straight after him, because ordinarily on bills like this, especially government bills, you'd expect someone from Labor to jump up in between. Someone speaks for it; someone speaks against it. Not one single Labor backbencher or member of Parliament and the minister has had the guts to come in here and speak to this bill.

I can tell you who has spoken to the bill: the Liberals. The Liberals got up and said, 'This is the bill we've been calling for, so we're going to vote for it.' This is a bill designed by Santos, the gas corporation, the fossil fuel industry and the Liberal Party, but drafted by Labor and put to parliament to fast-track gas projects and take away First Nations voices.

I want to tell you about Dennis Tipakalippa. He is an elder and a senior lawman and a traditional owner of the Munupi clan, and he lives on the Tiwi Islands. Santos wanted to come and still wants to come and build a massive gas project in his clan's sea country. Mr Tipakalippa has been brave enough to take on the massive gas giant Santos and take them to court. He took them to court and won. The Full Court of the Federal Court, when it went on appeal, backed him up. They said 'Yes, you are right.' What was a court case about? It was about him on behalf of his people, the First Nations traditional owners, saying, 'If you want to do this, then under existing law you need to come and consult me.' Do you know what Santos said when it went to court? Santos said, 'No, he's not a relevant person under the law. We don't have to consult him.' That is what they argued. 'We don't have to talk to First Nations owners and listen to their voices.' The court disagreed.

But then Santos went and complained to the minister and wrote her a letter and said, referencing this court decision, 'These terrible court decisions that these First Nations people keep winning are tying us up too much. You need to change the law.' They referenced another court decision from one of their mates in Woodside, where Raelene Cooper, a custodian of Murujuga in north-west Western Australia, took Woodside to court. They wanted to start seismic testing on her sea country. The court backed her and said, 'Yes, you can't just go ahead without properly consulting them. You've got to sit down and do it. Santos said that was terrible as well: these court decisions that these are First Nations and traditional owners keep winning, where, heaven forbid, they demand the right to be consulted, are slowing down our multibillion-dollar gas projects on their Country, projects that are huge climate bombs, that these First Nations people are saying they have the right to be heard about and to oppose.

What does the minister do after getting this letter from Santos? The minister says, 'Sure; I am prepared to change the rules so that the consultation requirements can be weakened and First Nations voices don't have to be listened to in the way that the court has said they have to. You know what the minister said? The current consultation system is unworkable. The Full Court of the Federal Court said the rules are workable. They are working for the First Nations owners, who get to be heard. They're not working for Santos or the Woodside, because they have to go and talk to First Nations owners. The minister says, 'I don't care.' And the minister brings this piece of legislation to the parliament.

What does this piece of legislation do? It says that even the weak consultation rights that First Nations people have, under a plan that was put in place by John Howard, can now be ignored if the resource minister says so. The resource minister gets to say 'You do not have to comply with the consultation and the other rules that were put in place by John Howard if I so decide.' The minister gets to decide that the basic rights of consultation no longer apply. Why? Because Santos has asked for it. This is from a government that said it wanted to hear First Nations voices, that took the country to a referendum. We campaigned together with the government for a successful 'yes' vote, and we shared the disappointment when we couldn't put into our Constitution a provision that said there will be a voice for First Nations peoples. We took the Prime Minister and the government at face value when they said they wanted to hear what First Nations voices have to say. It seems that promise was paper thin because the first piece of legislation about First Nations consultation and rights that the government is bringing to this parliament is one that takes away the rights that First Nations peoples have, because the big corporations have asked for it. It is no wonder the race baiters and climate deniers in the coalition are lining up to support the bill. Doesn't that tell you something, Labor—that the support you're getting for this is from the climate deniers in the coalition who spread misinformation to defeat the Voice in the first place?

Why is Labor breaking an election promise and working with the climate deniers and race baiters in the coalition to weaken our environment laws, fast-track gas projects and take away First Nations voices? That's what this legislation does. I suspect a bunch of people in Labor didn't know about it when it was slipped through by the resources minister, because this is one schedule in an act that's about worker safety. The legislation we're debating here is about worker safety. The caucus was probably told that this is a worker safety bill, but buried in it is this provision that lets the resources minister write a great big exemption for the gas giants in this country to go ahead and do whatever they want to do. Even though the Federal Court has said it's illegal, even though laws John Howard put in place would have said it's illegal, they get a free pass and get to work around all that thanks to this Labor government. This is at a time when some people in northern New South Wales haven't been able to get back into their homes since the floods, when people in Queensland fear every time the weather gets hot or when there are reports of more storms because it could mean they lose their homes yet again to extreme weather events. It comes at a time when, over summer, in some parts of this country, the temperature didn't drop at night for consecutive nights in a row and parents struggled to get their kids to bed and elderly people suffered just as they did during the Black Summer, when more people died from the heatwaves than from the tragic bushfires.

We are hurtling towards climate catastrophe. The UN Secretary-General has said we are in an era of global boiling. A 1½ degree target our Pacific island neighbours are pleading with us to meet may well be breached, and that means goodbye to their homes. As we are told, a bare minimum for tackling the climate crisis is to stop opening new coal, oil and gas projects because there's just not enough room in the atmosphere to put more climate pollution in it. What does Labor do? Labor brings a bill to this parliament to fast-track new gas climate bombs. Labor says: 'We care about climate. We're passing electric vehicle legislation.' I tell you what: even just one new big gas project approved under this fast-track law that Labor and the Liberals are ramming through will wipe out all the gains from the electric vehicle projects and legislation. Approving just one new gas project under this law is the equivalent of ripping solar panels off four million roofs in this country.

We're saying to Labor very clearly: enough of the greenwashing, and enough of saying you want to put more electric cars on the road and solar panels on people's roofs, while quietly doing a dirty deal with the Liberals to fast-track new gas projects that cook people's future. There can be no new coal and gas projects for us to have any chance of having a safer climate. The decisions we make now will reverberate for generations because the thing about the climate crisis is that once we breach a certain threshold, and the planet gets too hot, climate change becomes runaway. Our kids and our grandkids won't be able to rein it in. It will be too late. The decisions that we make now, right here in this parliament, will determine what life is like for our kids and our grandkids. It will determine what life is like for primary school students alive today as to whether or not parts of this country become uninhabitable during their lifetime.

Just think about that: the decisions that we make now will determine whether parts of this country are habitable for kids at primary school right now. This is an emergency. We need to be pulling out all stops. And what does Labor do? Labor brings forward a law to fast-track new oil and gas projects. Astounding! People will look back at this in decades and go: 'We can't believe Labor and the Liberals did that. What was Labor thinking to fast-track new gas projects in the middle of a climate crisis?'

When we came into this parliament, when the Liberals were turfed out because of their climate denial and Labor came in promising climate action and we got more third voices in this parliament than ever before off the back of people wanting climate action, I thought, perhaps naively, that the debates we'd be having with Labor would be how quickly we were going to get there—and we'd want to go as quickly as the science demanded, and Labor wouldn't, and we'd have a debate and maybe meet somewhere in the middle. What I didn't expect was that Labor would do a dirty deal with the Liberals to make it easier to open new gas projects and put more climate pollution into the atmosphere. But that's what they're doing.

The first step in tackling a problem is to stop making the problem worse. You can't put the fire out while you are pouring petrol on it. There's a reason the world's scientists are saying that we can't open any new coal, oil and gas projects. There's a reason the International Energy Agency said that a couple of years ago was the time we had to stop building new projects. There's a reason the UN Secretary-General is pleading with us to stop opening new coal, oil and gas projects. There's a reason our Pacific island neighbours are pleading with Australia to stop opening new coal and gas projects. It's because we are in a climate emergency, and the decisions that we make now will determine whether or not we get out of it.

Labor, don't come here and pretend to care about climate change. Don't come here as climate con artists and say, 'We're going to put more solar panels on roofs,' and then rip the equivalent of four million roofs worth of solar panels off by approving one new gas project. There are 116 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline. Through safeguard negotiations and pressure, the Greens managed to stop about half of them by putting a hard cap on pollution. But what is becoming clear is that Labor is hell-bent on opening the rest of them.

As we head towards the final year of this parliament, what you're seeing is this: you're seeing Labor work with the Liberals on migration, Labor working with the Liberals on discrimination, Labor working with the Liberals on climate. I've got a message for you: have a look at what happened over the weekend in South Australia and in Tasmania. Have a look at the fact that at the last election Labor's vote went backwards and the coalition's vote went backwards. People want this parliament to start acting for the public interest, not for the big corporate interests. Your vote's going to keep going backwards. Labor and the Liberals can prop it up by doing dirty deals across the aisle on political donations and the political system, to try to rig it in their favour, or on migration, in a race to the bottom, or to fast-track new oil and gas projects. The more you do that, the more people are going to see through you and demand what they demanded in Tasmania, what they demanded in South Australia and what they demanded at the last election.

It is time to stop opening coal and gas projects, listen to First Nations voices in this country and ditch this bill. (Time expired)

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on this bill, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, and I'm feeling disappointed with a government that once again has put up incomplete legislation in this place which illogically merges two separate issues into one bill. This is poor governance, and I will not be supporting this bill.

Like the Nature Repair Market Bill and the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill last year, this bill is once again putting the cart before the horse. It's making changes that could greatly impact the natural environment before we've seen the long promised bill to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the EPBC Act, under the government's Nature Positive reforms.

My constituents dearly value our natural environment. They need to protect it and they want the government to help them do so. A recent community survey undertaken by my office asked, 'What do you love most about living in your local area?' Time and time again, consistently across hundreds of responses, my constituents say they love nature, they love the scenic environment, they love the natural beauty and they wish to protect it.

When I was elected as the member for Indi, I was also given a clear mandate by the community to make meaningful action on climate change a priority and to protect the natural environment which we all hold so dear. I take these mandates very seriously and I carefully scrutinise any legislation that could impact how the government approaches fossil fuel projects and environmental protections. This includes the bill before us today.

This bill has two purposes. The first is to improve safety for offshore resources sector workers. This will implement recommendations of a 2021 review into offshore oil and gas safety. It includes measures like strengthening the role of health and safety representatives, providing better protections against discrimination and improving protection for diving activities related to gas and oil projects. Of course I support these provisions of the bill. These are dangerous jobs, and I recognise the need to ensure that our laws offer the best protections for workers, particularly for those operating in dangerous environments, as with offshore resources work.

However, the second purpose of the bill is entirely unrelated to worker safety and is deeply problematic. It is to make changes to the offshore environment management regulations to allow the Minister for Resources to make amendments to them—that is, to change how offshore petroleum and gas projects, which, let's be clear, are fossil fuel projects, which are contributing to climate change, are regulated.

Currently, offshore projects are approved by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, which I'll refer to as the authority. More than 10 years ago, the minister for the environment said that the authority's approvals for new offshore gas projects are taken to be compliant with the EPBC Act. This means that new offshore gas projects do not have to go through separate referral assessments and approvals under the EPBC Act.

The government say the problem with this current system is that the approval authority's regulations have not been updated and improved over time, and this bill changes that by allowing the Minister for Resources to effectively change regulations that govern offshore gas approvals. One aspect of these regulations that the minister would be given the power to change is the requirement for companies to consult with impacted traditional owners, who have rights and important cultural connections to the waters on which these projects may be built.

The government admits that this bill is in response to recent court cases, including one which found that the gas company Santos did not adequately consult with traditional owners on the Tiwi Islands for a proposed offshore gas project as required under the authority's regulations. The government says that, in response to this court case, both companies wanting to build offshore gas projects and the traditional owners who are impacted by the projects are unsure what the consultation standards are. They want clarity.

The minister has tried to sell these changes as technical. Indeed, they're only referred to as 'other measures' in the bill's title. But I suggest that if you dig a little deeper you will see that these amendments could have serious ramifications.

A major issue that I have with this bill is that it does not guarantee that these regulations will be of the same or a higher standard as the assessments under the EPBC Act. The EPBC Act, let's remember, is there to protect and conserve our unique natural environment and minimise any harm to it. In addition, right at this moment the government is drafting important reforms to strengthen the EPBC Act. These include the creation of a national environment protection agency, which would make sure regulations for offshore gas projects are consistent with new and hopefully higher environmental standards. The laws in this bill may come into effect before these new environmental protection laws, and they may be at a lower standard. That is cause for concern; it is cause for alarm.

Another concern is that this bill pre-empts the review of community consultation and engagement requirements currently underway, announced last year in response to the court cases mentioned earlier. The Climate Council has criticised this, stating:

Introducing and seeking passage of this bill before this consultation process has concluded is very poor public policy practice, and leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the Government is simply engaging in performative consultation designed to reach a foregone conclusion.

It's scathing. I'm worried that this bill is a foregone conclusion because it's exactly what the gas companies want.

A freedom of information request found that Santos—a major gas company I mentioned earlier—wrote an email to the minister asking for the changes to the laws that we are seeing here today in black and white in this bill. The Senate committee's inquiry into the bill similarly received evidence from the gas industry urging the parliament to pass it. I note that this committee was given less than a month to receive submissions and hold a public hearing, and that this rushed process fails to give adequate time to consider clearly controversial legislation, which risks subverting the independence of environmental regulations. So it leaves me asking the question: why is the government rushing this controversial bill through parliament, if not to appease the interests of the fossil fuel industry over good process and good governance?

Many reputable organisations and academics have sounded the alarm that consultation standards in particular could be weakened. The Australia Institute have said that the changes proposed in the bill allow the minister to relax the rules imposed on offshore oil projects, including rules about consultation requirements. They warned of serious risks—that the bill 'risks bypassing traditional owners, local groups and tourism and fishing businesses'.

Ensuring high standards for community consultation and engagement is critical. The Australia Institute, again, in criticising the bill, said:

Given how disruptive and destructive offshore oil and gas projects can be, they should not be built unless they have a genuine social licence to operate from the people whose lives and livelihoods will be affected.

Genuine social licence, achieved through community engagement and benefit from energy projects, is important. Communities have the right to have questions answered and concerns addressed. They must have the opportunity to benefit from a project that may impact them. I include this for fossil fuel projects, but for renewable energy projects too.

In my own electorate, renewable energy developers are currently proposing massive solar and battery projects in small rural townships, but my constituents—some of whom will live next to these projects—are finding out about them through a letter in the post or under their door, or sometimes through a news report. Community consultation matters. Community consultation undertaken by companies is woefully inadequate. It leaves communities feeling disempowered; it leaves them feeling anxious; it leaves them worse off. This government must prioritise changing this. They must legislate best practice for energy projects, whether that be for a fossil fuel project or for a renewable energy project.

I am concerned that, with this bill, the government is once again sidelining community engagement as just ticking a box—just an exercise to get developments off the ground. It's disingenuous. It is not good enough. The minister says that any changes to consultation requirements for offshore gas projects would go through separate policy processes with the appropriate scrutiny. This might be the case, but I want to see that in black and white. Right now, we have no certainty whatsoever.

I urge the government to amend the bill, to strengthen protections against the Minister for Resources weakening regulations below EPBC standards, and to require the minister for the environment to agree to any changes in regulations proposed by the Minister for Resources. I understand amendments have been drafted by the Minister for Resources, but these amendments don't stop the minister from watering down consultation requirements. They don't allow the minister for the environment to veto the regulations if they don't comply with the EPBC Act. They simply don't address the concerns I have laid out. What a weak effort.

Until I see these concerns adequately addressed, I will support the amendments of my crossbench colleagues the member for Warringah and the member for Goldstein, which would remove the provisions relating to the offshore regulatory system entirely.

The parliament should pass immediately reforms to improve worker safety while allowing members of parliament adequate time to consider controversial changes to other parts of the bill on their merits. As an Independent I consider each bill on its individual merits, and I cannot support legislation such as this that has serious flaws for the environment and for the communities. I will not be supporting this bill.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's becoming a bit of a habit, isn't it? Once again, we're being asked to rush undercooked legislation through the House and, worse, once again the government is packaging two utterly unrelated legislative objectives into a single bill. Now we're seeing the government make urgent twelfth hour amendments to its own legislation in light of significant interest group and crossbench concerns—and, it seems, the belated concerns of some of its own backbench, who initially took at face value the caucus briefing from the resources minister. It seems they only woke up to what was going on once crossbenchers raised the alarm after a similarly anodyne briefing from the minister.

All the emphasis was on the safety element of the legislation and then, almost as an afterthought, 'Oh, there's a bit of a change to the approval process, but it's not a big deal'—or words to that effect.

This reflects poor legislative practice and, arguably, a lack of good faith. The thing is that the crossbench reads legislation, so trying to slip this kind of thing into bills is also poor strategy. Did the government think we wouldn’t notice?

My view on this legislation can broadly be captured by a single phrase: it's all in a name—or, rather, in this case, what is not in the name. By virtue of its title and how it's been presented to the parliament, one could be forgiven for mistaking the central policy objective of this bill as relating to workplace safety. Until now, I was yet to see a bill which so silently delivers more for the 'other measures' side of its name than its ostensibly principal safety side. 'Other measures' is being called on to do an awful lot of work here.

Two principles underline my concerns with this legislation. The first, as I've already mentioned, is the principle of good legislative practice. The second is the substance of much of schedule 2, the 'other measures', and the risks that these proposals pose to environmental protection, genuine First Nations engagement and the importance of integrity in good governance.

The genesis of this legislation appears to be what might politely be referred to as 'pressure' by Japan and South Korea. Earlier this month the Saturday Paper reported the Chief Executive Officer of Japanese resources company Inpex telling a function hosted by the resources minister that the government's decision to cap domestic gas prices and insist that supplies were not diverted offshore was 'damaging Australia's hard earned international reputation as a premium trading partner'. He demanded 'certainty in policy direction and a stable regulatory framework'.

The government seems to have received that message loud and clear. First came the euphemistically titled Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. In fact, the legislation was little more than a sop to Santos, which had threatened to pull the pin on its Barossa offshore gas project unless the government agreed to allow the sequestration of vast amounts of carbon dioxide under the sea. All this, even though carbon capture and storage has not yet worked at scale anywhere in the world and, according to some experts, never will. There are also a range of open questions about its environmental impact.

Now the second shoe has dropped with this legislation, also apparently designed as a sop to the resources sector. Let's be real. How much does this legislation have to do with the fact that the government depends for its majority on the four seats it gained in Western Australia at the last election, the fact that the resources sector has an outsize ability to influence public opinion in WA and the fact that that state's media are the most concentrated, if not monopolistic, in the country?

The government has clearly heard the quite significant concerns voiced by me, the rest of the crossbench and industry-leading experts on the non-worker-safety related provisions in this legislation. The minister's introduction of last-minute amendments over the weekend is a clear sign of just how unacceptable the original legislation was, not only to the crossbench but also to elements within the minister's own party. It would be preferable if those backbenchers were prepared to stand up and be counted. But the fact that they've raised their concerns behind closed doors is positive. The amendments are a start, but the government would need to go much further to assure me—and the Australian public, I believe—that this legislation would not seriously undermine the integrity of Australia's environmental protection regime.

I reject the government's suggestion that consultation between two ministers to determine whether regulation is 'not inconsistent' with ecologically sustainable development principles enshrined in the EPBC Act would be sufficient to uphold the integrity of Australia's existing environmental protection system. 'Not inconsistent' is legislative backwards gobbledygook if ever I've seen it. Why not simply make it 'consistent' with ESD principles? Unfortunately we don't know, because these amendments have been introduced without the opportunity of a briefing from the responsible minister. On the basis of the supplementary explanatory memorandum, it looks like the government wants us to believe that the environment minister is being brought back into the process. That's just where she's been under current law and where she should be into the future.

The amendments go through a series of contortions worthy of Houdini himself to give the environment minister some role in this increasingly convoluted process. As the Australian Conservation Foundation notes:

The changes allow for exemptions from Australia's environment law for offshore gas project approvals to be switched off by the Environment Minister if she is not satisfied that changes to the regs are not inconsistent with ecologically sustainable development principles.

The double negative doesn't provide much confidence for people who value nature protection or First Nations' rights to say no to projects they don't want on their Country.

The original legislation, before these amendments, would have given the resources minister significant ability to limit the powers of First Nations people to be consulted on resources projects and to raise objections. It is very difficult to see how the amendments as they stand overcome these concerns.

All in all, this is an extraordinarily low standard for this government to hold itself to—a government ostensibly committed to delivering ambitious Nature Positive EPBC reform. Meeting such a definition—one steeped in vague and confusing double-negative language—is likely to be ineffective in imposing substantive boundaries on ministerial decision-making. The fundamental point remains: no consultation between ministers would be necessary if the government had acted with greater speed to reform the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

As for the proposed sunset clause in this bill, it's good as far as it goes, because the carve out for resources project approvals is no longer permanent. But the provisions do not appear to be limited to the changes to consultation that the government says are the purpose of the amendments. The government was elected on a commitment to deliver ambitious environmental protection reform via the amendment of the EPBC Act. Numerous delays have left crossbenchers, including me, and experts and interest groups in suspense as to whether the final shape of these proposed reforms will correspond to those outlined in the government's Nature Positive Plan.

With consultation and work actively underway, the government should resist carving out particular reforms and instead focus on delivering holistic reform to Australia's environmental protection regime as it promised to do. In my view, holistic environmental reform would at the very least include: a truly independent Environmental Protection Agency with zero ministerial capacity to interfere with decision-making, whether it involves three ministers, two ministers or just the one; ambitious and upfront protections for habitats of threatened species; no weakening of biodiversity-offsetting frameworks; consideration of how project approvals may worsen climate change; and genuine engagement with First Nations people.

I began my speech by talking about patterns and principles. In the context of environmental policy, our nation needs less resort to the former and much more implementation of the latter. I want to make my position on this very clear. Australia currently stands at a unique political moment where historic reforms to the EPBC Act are now within reach. This has not been the case for many decades, and, if we miss this genuine opportunity, we may not get another for many more. Our environment, our biodiversity and, indeed, our future will be much the worse for it. On this bill, therefore, I stand by my stated position—that the EPBC carve out should be removed. As it stands, I will not vote for this bill.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.