Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak against this bill in the strongest possible terms. One of the main reasons the people of Mackellar sent me to this place was that they wanted greater integrity and transparency from our politicians and in our political system. The way the Minister for Resources has tried to sneak through an amendment to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, an amendment which would weaken the consultation obligations of offshore oil and gas proponents, is a masterclass in lack of transparency and lack of consultation.

For nearly a decade people across Australia, including in my electorate of Mackellar, have grown increasingly frustrated by the lack of integrity in our political system. For nearly a decade they've watched on as former governments failed to put in place measures to combat corruption within their own ranks; pork-barrelling flourished, as did the jobs-for-mates culture; the influence of vested interests flourished; and there was a lack of transparency around political lobbying and donations. It seems that here the fossil fuel interests are once again pulling the strings.

The Australian people sent a very clear message to this place at the last election: they had had enough of the lack of transparency and they expected better. However, the manner in which the resources minister has attempted to slip through an amendment to this bill lacks transparency and integrity. The minister is trying to slip in an amendment which would weaken obligations for offshore oil and gas proponents to consult with communities and First Nations peoples, thus circumventing our national environmental laws, and get it through unnoticed. It is couched as being among amendments to improve safety for workers on offshore mining projects, something that we of course support. But the way this has been couched—in amongst many other different amendments, in a 'nothing to see here' mentality—lacks transparency.

This is another example of the vital importance of the crossbench in holding the government to account and calling them out when they don't live up to their own ambitions of being more transparent and collaborative. I was optimistic that that message had got through at the last election. I was hopeful that the new government would act with integrity and transparency. Unfortunately, on this occasion I have been disappointed. In fact, when it comes to laws to protect our environment, the Labor government have repeatedly failed Australians. The Labor government have greenwashed us over and over again. They are, quite simply, speaking out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to the environment and climate change.

The resources minister and the Minister for the Environment and Water are acting in direct opposition to one another, as in the case of this amendment. Just as the environment minister is holding in-depth consultations about how to strengthen our national environment laws, the resources minister is creating a pathway around them—a back door, if you like—for the fossil fuel companies. Despite all the rhetoric that followed the dire state of the environment report that was made public in 2022, the Labor government have done very little to actually protect our environment or halt the devastating effects of climate change. Of course they will claim otherwise, quite naturally. They are very good at tinkering around the edges and making the Australian public think they are taking action. They use phrases like 'signature climate policy', 'nature positive plan'. They're very good at spin. But once they've unveiled their signature climate policy or Nature Positive Plan they will very quickly and quietly introduce tricky pieces of legislation which subvert or negate the effects of what they claim they have set out to do.

Let's go through some examples, Mr Deputy Speaker, first of all the safeguard mechanism. This is the government's signature climate policy. It's a policy which deals only with scope 1 emissions and only those from Australia's 219 largest emitters. To put that in perspective: scope 1 emissions are direct greenhouse gas emissions from sources that are controlled or owned by those 219 largest emitters. If we take the example of fossil fuel companies, that means the safeguard mechanism seeks to regulate only the emissions created from taking fossil fuels out of the ground, when they are being mined. It does nothing to cover emissions created from what happens next: the burning of those fossil fuels, which, as everyone knows, is where the devastation really occurs.

Further, the safeguard mechanism does nothing to deal with emissions from transport or households. On transport, we are nearly two years into this term of parliament, and this government has still not legislated the vehicle efficiency standards. Yes, a proposal is on the table, but as of today Australia remains partnered with Russia as one of the only OECD countries without vehicle efficiency standards. Two years into the government's term, manufacturers are still able to treat this country as a dumping ground for heavy-polluting vehicles.

But back to the safeguard mechanism: it was introduced with much fanfare, and I supported that piece of legislation. Like everything related to the climate or the environment that this government is doing, it wasn't adequate, but it was progress. I negotiated with the government on it and helped achieve a concession in relation to the new gas facilities, which as a result are required to be net-zero emissions from their commencement.

Shortly afterwards, however, the Minister for the Environment and Water introduced the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. Documents released under the freedom of information laws revealed that this bill was introduced so the government could help gas companies like Santos subvert the requirements of the safeguard mechanism. This bill allowed the import and export of carbon dioxide for injection into the seabed. That's right: Santos demanded an exemption from this provision in the safeguard mechanism, and they got it—inject carbon into our oceans or ship it to East Timor and inject it into their ocean bed. The safeguard mechanism, in this way, has been thwarted. Carbon capture and storage, an unproven technology at best, can now be used as a way for fossil fuel companies to expand their gas projects massively. And don't forget: our safeguard mechanism does nothing to address what happens when gas is actually burnt for energy.

The next big reform the government boasts about is the changes to our country's environment laws, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. For this, the government has a Nature Positive Plan, but we have not seen the government's proposed amendments to the EPBC Act, despite having been promised that we would see them well ahead of now. There are even suggestions that some of the necessary reforms to the EPBC legislation will not be introduced in this term of government.

But, to be fair, there was one necessary reform to the EPBC Act which the government did introduce late last year. That was to extend the water trigger in the EPBC Act to cover all forms of unconventional gas. In other words, as a result of that reform, where mining for any type of gas occurs onshore, it must be referred to the environment minister for approval if it is likely to have a significant impact on water resources.

But—and there's always a 'but'—there are two current proposals for new gas projects in the Beetaloo basin which we know have not been referred to the minister under this expanded water trigger. The minister has written to the proponent, Tamboran Resources, informing the company of its obligations under the new laws but has not yet used her call-in powers to require the project to be referred to her for assessment. I asked a question about this in question time last week, and there was no indication that the call-in powers would be used.

So the question arises: What happens if the proponent fails to refer projects to the minister under the new water trigger? Is there a consequence? The answer is that the water trigger is a law which essentially leaves the decision about whether a project needs federal approval up to the profit driven fossil fuel company, the proponent. Any penalty in relation to a failure to refer can only be imposed after the relevant fossil fuel project commences. The fossil fuel company may, of course, already have destroyed the water aquifer by that point. Once that's done, a maximum penalty of around $15 million can be imposed. This would be a drop in the ocean for a fossil fuel company that might make billions of dollars in profit from already having destroyed our water resources. They will consider such a penalty a cost of doing business.

Another example of industries receiving exemptions from environmental laws is the logging industry. Where a regional forestry agreement is in place in a particular state, logging operations covered under that agreement are exempt from the EPBC Act. Again, as a result of a question I asked in parliament last year, the minister confirmed that the reforms to the EPBC Act would remove that exemption. But in subsequent dealings with the environment minister's office they have often sidestepped the question of precisely when the regional forestry agreements would lose their exemption. Some of those regional forestry agreements, after all, have up to 20 years still to run. Will it only be new regional forestry agreements that are caught up by these environment laws? Will others still have 20 years to log our native forests free from the restriction imposed by our national environment laws?

With this bill and with the amendments to this bill, as we have seen but not yet been briefed on or even officially told about, we see yet another example of the government speaking out of both sides of its mouth. This bill is called the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, and it is the 'other measures' bit where we immediately are concerned. In amongst the detail of new safety measures for offshore gas industry workers the government had hidden an amendment which basically allows the resources minister to sidestep the requirements of the EPBC Act when approving projects. The bill facilitates the weakening of current obligations for offshore oil and gas proponents to consult with interested communities and First Nations representatives about their projects. It empowers the resources minister to introduce lower standards than those that would be required under the EPBC Act. This is an incredible example of the government doing its level best to subvert its own environmental legislation. When it comes to projects as environmentally destructive and catastrophic for the climate as offshore oil and gas production, why on earth would the government weaken its own existing environmental standards? Not only that, why would it hide that it is weakening it in a bill which was otherwise about a very different issue entirely?

Then we get to the procedural problems in the government's handling of this bill. This bill was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for a truncated, some might say quick-and-dirty, review of the legislation. Lo and behold, that inquiry recommended no changes to the bill. The inquiry report noted:

The committee notes that many witnesses have submitted that—

the changes at issue—

… may be applied in such a way which could potentially weaken environmental standards or consultation requirements.

The report did not quote or analyse those submissions but went straight on in the next sentence to highlight evidence from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources:

… that the bill under consideration does not change approval or consultation processes.

It is only after the howls of protest from the crossbench and the entire environmental community that the government is seeking to introduce amendments to this bill.

What do those amendments do? They basically establish an optional consultation process between the resources minister and the environment minister. The effect of the amendments is that when the resources minister wants to make a regulation bypassing the EPBC Act, she must be satisfied that those regulations are not inconsistent with that act. She must consult with the environment minister, and the environment minister must send the resources minister a notice declaring whether the regulations are consistent or inconsistent with the EPBC Act. But at the end of all that the resources minister may ignore everything and put through the regulations anyway, to use the language of the amendment, even if the environment minister thinks the regulations she wants to make are inconsistent with the environment laws. Even if the environment minister issues a notice to the resources minister declaring exactly the same thing, the resources minister may go ahead and make the regulations anyway.

So at the end of it all, this bill and the government's amendments to it do nothing to resolve the reality of accelerated offshore gas approvals. Unfortunately, this Labor government has proven itself just as willing to approve coal and gas developments as the coalition government was. In seeking to pass this bill the government is making a complete mockery of our national environment laws. (Time expired)

(Quorum formed)

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to finally see some backbenchers and members of the government in the House to listen to the debate in relation to this important bill. It is of importance that not a single backbencher of government is speaking to defend this bill. All these members of parliament that go to their communities with a staunch commitment to Indigenous voices being heard and action on climate change are silent when their own government is introducing bad legislation. At a time when the world is reaching record temperatures and unprecedented levels of risk from climate-fuelled disasters, Australia's most polluting industries cannot be permitted to carve out from climate or environmental legislation and make things worse.

I wonder just how many members of the government are aware of the terms of this legislation, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024. It's those 'other measures' that are the sneaky little inputs that have come in from the Minister for Resources. This bill provides an unacceptable carve out for the offshore gas industry. It shows that the government, like the coalition, is completely captured by the gas industry.

Australia is currently the world's largest exporter of LNG, exporting a record 80.9 million tonnes of LNG just in 2021. Gas is fast-tracking global warming, with methane 80 times more potent over its first 20 years in capturing heat. We do not need more gas. The very thing we should be doing is holding the gas industry to higher scrutiny—to more environmental controls, not fewer. And we certainly should not allow a carve out from the Minister for Resources essentially being a minister for gas.

The Climate of the Nation 2023 poll found a clear majority of Australians, 55 per cent, support no approval of any new gas, coal or oil projects. Approving new gas projects is entirely at odds with our commitment to the Paris Agreement to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees, and it's against the International Energy Association, which states that we can have no more new oil and gas projects if we wish to achieve that goal. How many members of government have gone to their communities with a commitment around global warming, a commitment to action? Yet today on the speaker's list for this legislation there is not a peep. Not a single person is willing to stand up to defend this terrible legislation.

Since 2014 the offshore gas industry has circumvented the direct requirements of the EPBC Act due to changes that allow approvals to be managed by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA, with a proposal to streamline offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas activity environmental approvals in Australia. This green-light approach to the industry was specifically flagged for reform by Graeme Samuel in the Samuel review of the EPBC Act and has been the subject of two recent Federal Court cases. The Federal Court cases confirm that consultation with First Nations people with a connection with the land is a requirement for NOPSEMA to accept environmental reports for offshore gas projects. But now, in the wake of those decisions, the government is presenting this current bill to, essentially, circumvent that.

Today we see a bill that seeks to further water down the EPBC Act and the First Nation communities consultation requirements of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act. I'm sure many members in this place didn't listen particularly closely, but, as we in the crossbench listened to the second reading speech of the minister and in our face-to-face briefing, you would think there was nothing to see here—'Move along. This legislation is all fine.' But the bill does so much more than what was first obvious.

It contains part 2, schedule 2, which appears to be in response to the Federal Court decision that the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act requires First Nations people with a connection to land to be consulted with. So the bill before us now is a deliberate attempt to placate gas companies by amending the law that requires First Nations communities to be consulted.

It is quite incredible that the same party of government that brought forward a referendum for First Nations voices to be heard is now the party that has introduced legislation to circumvent those voices for communities. It's quite outrageous. It's quite incredible that we stand in this place knowing that so many members campaigned to their communities for First Nations people to be recognised in our Constitution and, through a Voice to parliament, to be heard and to be able to engage in legislation in a meaningful way.

In Warringah, hundreds of volunteers doorknocked, campaigned and stood at a booth on the day for the referendum. I'm proud that my electorate, like the electorates of many of my colleagues on the crossbench, voted yes. But when the referendum failed, we, together with many other Australians, put the government on notice. It must continue with its commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and it must especially listen to and consult with First Nations people, recognising that listening to First Nations people is not only through a legislated voice but—in practice, every day—through every piece of legislation and decision that matters.

It's quite outrageous now that when something doesn't suit the government's agenda it is seeking to circumvent that requirement, and it's doing it by stealth. It's hiding this dirty little section of this legislation to improve workers' rights. No-one disputes workers' rights. That has broad support. But we've seen too often from this government these sneaky little bits of additional legislation that come into play and undermine any kind of goodwill or good work.

The agenda of gas companies is clear. The government, in delivering the agenda of gas companies, is hiding grossly inadequate petroleum resource rent tax reform in a tax integrity bill. Now we're seeing this sneaky little amendment. This approach lacks integrity. It's playing politics, and I share the views of Senator David Pocock and so many here on the crossbench that it is really unbefitting of this government. So I call on members of the government to speak up in this place, represent your communities, represent First Nations Australians and make sure those communities have a voice when it comes to these projects.

There are many environmental concerns around this bill and around the current state of play. It's not only consultation with First Nations communities that the government and polluting gas industries are seeking to circumvent; it's also critical environmental laws. There are serious risks in regard to the application of new environmental laws once the government's Nature Positive Plan, which is currently under consultation, is enacted. Again, it seems incomprehensible. These are significant reforms that, in the government's own words, are outcomes focused decisions that are nature positive, involving better partnerships with First Nations people and conservation planning that targets resources to areas where they have the greatest impact.

While the government says all those things that sound so good, while it promises environmental reform that is well overdue, through this bill it is seeking to give carve-outs to the very industry that puts the environment at risk. It is giving a carve-out to the gas industry. It's effectively giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to the gas industry and its polluting projects—the very industry that needs the most scrutiny.

It's really important that we understand why part 2, schedule 2 is so important. We know we are facing a climate and environmental crisis. This month we've had announcements around bleaching events at the Great Barrier Reef, the hottest water temperatures off the New South Wales coastline and, globally, the hottest year on record. The last 12 months have seen record ice deficits in Antarctica, fires ripping through Europe, weeks of non-existent snow and record glacier melting.

In Australia we know we are on the front line of impacts. Climate change will impact all of our communities. Fifty per cent of the Australian population lives within seven kilometres of our coastline. What do you think will happen when all of this, all those predictions of what will happen, comes to pass? So many of our communities will be exposed to flooding, to coastal erosion and to extreme weather events. How is anyone going to afford insurance in Australia? What is going to happen to the safety of so many communities? You cannot, on one hand, be concerned about that and then give a get-out-of-jail-free card to the gas industry by providing only the resources minister with the right to approve activity, without having to go via the environment minister and the EPBC Act.

We know that there is so much risk ahead, so it's incredibly important that we have proper scrutiny around offshore gas projects. These are putting everybody's endeavours at risk—all of the emissions reductions that people make personally through their rooftop solar and through their actions. It all becomes for nothing if we keep on approving offshore gas projects. These projects must be put under the highest scrutiny under the EPBC Act.

Unfortunately, we're seeing none of that. Instead, we're seeing a carve-out at a time when there is great risk that our emissions profile is even greater than we think it is. It is highly likely that satellite data will reveal that Australia's emissions may be up to 60 per cent higher than we currently think they are, because of methane. Just stop and think about what that means. In the meantime, even with that clear warning bell for the resources minister and for the minister for climate change, we have before us legislation that seeks to carve-out an industry that is a major emissions producer with projects that risk our environment. It is a massive carve-out to ensure they do not have that highest level of scrutiny. It is just incredible.

At the consideration-in-detail stage, I will be moving an amendment, with the support of the member for Goldstein and many here on the crossbench, to try and improve this bill. It is an absolutely shameful day for the Albanese government.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

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

I seek to leave to move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the question for the second reading of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 being put to the House for decision only when the Government's the Government's amendments to the bill have been considered by a Senate inquiry.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the question for the second reading of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 being put to the House for decision only when the Government's the Government's amendments to the bill have been considered by a Senate inquiry.

We heard, very eloquently set out by the last speaker, about how rushed the consultation process surrounding this bill was. Of course, the bill is coming through primarily as a worker safety bill. Most people, and I presume many of the members of the caucus, would have been told that this is a worker safety bill. What is actually happening is buried in this bill in one schedule, and this one schedule is the one that is causing great consternation amongst traditional owners, amongst the environment movement, amongst the climate movement and among most of us here on the crossbench. What it does is effectively give the Minister for Resources the power to completely alter and remove the rights that First Nations people have to be consulted on these projects and, further to that, effectively allow a carve out of these projects from key environmental protections.

In other words, under this bill, if the resources minister says that the provisions of the EPBC Act and the consultation provisions are not to apply then that's what happens. At the moment there's a requirement under the 2014 plan which sets out comprehensive albeit very inadequate requirements for consultation—it's Tony Abbott era stuff—which a full Federal Court has found to be workable. Under this bill that has been put forward, the resources minister is able to say, 'Well, they just don't apply.'

The government have been called out on this dirty deal with the Liberals that they are trying to sneak through as one short schedule to a bill that has nothing to do with it—it's about work and safety. They've been called out. We got a Senate inquiry up into this. The coalition and Labor together did another dirty deal and graciously allowed a half-day Senate inquiry where hardly anyone had time to come up and give evidence. But what we did discover through that Senate inquiry was a great deal of consternation from traditional owners, climate groups, environment groups and, indeed, unions, who said: 'Hang on! This bit in the bill should not go ahead. It's not what the bill is about.' The government has said that they have got amendments that they are going to perhaps respond to some of that with. After being called out, the first reaction of the government was to say: 'No, you've got it wrong. You've got it completely wrong. All of those groups who have come up—the ACF, the Environmental Defenders Office, the lawyers and everyone who has looked at it—have all got it completely wrong. It doesn't do that.'

Then they jumped to the next step and said: 'Well, maybe there's something in what you say. So what we'll do is use a fig leaf to put it through—pass some amendments.' I thank the government for the briefing on those amendments, but what we need to know is whether those amendments do what the government says they will do or whether they are just like the first bill, where, in fact, the government says one thing—'Just trust us'—but, as soon as you put the microscope on it, it becomes crystal clear that the amendments dissolve and the law dissolves. What becomes clear is that this is all about ramming through and fast-tracking gas projects and taking away First Nations voices.

It is vital that we have the chance to examine amendments that the government says are going to fix some of these problems. I don't think they will, because the whole point of this bill is to respond to Santos's concerns. Santos raised concerns and said: 'Traditional owners are winning too many court cases. Those court cases are saying that they've got rights and that they're to be consulted. We need to get around that.' They wrote a letter to the resources minister. Santos said, 'Jump,' and Labor said, 'How high?' and they came in with this legislation.

I don't see how you can move amendments to that that are consistent and that are in keeping with what the government wants to be the original purpose of this—namely, to circumvent that and deal with Santos's objection, which is, of course, that they didn't think that the First Nations people should have succeeded in court. Remember that Santos itself, when it went to the full Federal Court, said, 'We don't think we have to consult at all.' The government said, 'Firstly, here's this really broadbrush piece of legislation that has zero detail in it, but just trust us because we're going to issue new consultation requirements—they'll be okay,' even though we know they're doing it because Santos asked for them to be weakened.

Then you apply a bit of interrogation to that and put a bit of sunlight on that and that falls apart. They briefed it out to the media this morning, saying: 'No, it's okay. We've worked up amendments that apparently deal with some of the problems.' Notably, one of the articles references the government as saying, 'We think these are amendments the industry is going to be happy with.' That should tell you everything about it; they probably wrote them. But, if they do those things, given how significant this bill is and given what the government says is the purpose of the amendments, let's test them. Let's send the bill to an inquiry to test whether it does what they say it's going to do. If it goes to the inquiry, we will be able to hear from the likes of the Climate Council, who came to the last inquiry and said this—and I'm talking specifically about the question of proposed amendments to the government's bill and why we need to have further scrutiny of those:

On this basis, the Climate Council's strong preference would be to see this section removed from the bill in its entirety.

That's the section that has this rogue schedule in it that's about removing consultation rights and undermining the EPBC Act, which has absolutely zero to do with workers' safety. They went on to say:

However, if this section is to proceed for further consideration by the Parliament, Climate Council calls for it to be significantly re-drafted to clarify that:

They went on to say:

Adopting these amendments would provide some assurance that the bill is not seeking to weaken the OPGSS project assessment regime in order to give major proposed offshore gas projects quicker and easier passage through it.

That's the Climate Council talking about the climate components of it, as opposed to the First Nations component of it, but the point they raise is a valid one. If it's doing what the government says, are there going to be amendments to that effect? If there are going to be amendments to that effect, then they've got to follow certain principles. We know now, from the rushed process that this bill has gone through, that we cannot just take the government's word that the amendments that they bring will do the job.

We've seen legislation brought in where, at first, the government said it didn't do what we claimed it would. Then they're turning around and introducing their own amendments, by way of admission. But now what we've got to work out is: if these amendments are going to come, do they do what the government says they're going to do? We've only had half a day of Senate inquiry into this significant bill. What we're proposing is that, given the significance of the further amendments that the government want to bring—which they have foreshadowed in the media—they also need to be considered by a Senate inquiry. This is a sensible motion that I hope the government will consider supporting. Having any proposed amendments examined by a Senate inquiry would allow people to have confidence about what the government's legislation will actually do. (Time expired)

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. This flawed bill, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, cannot be fixed by amendments. We need to put it to a Senate inquiry. The Labor government and the Minister for the Environment and Water have absolutely failed to deliver on their promises to overhaul our broken environment laws, to make them stronger and to truly protect our environment.

It's pretty clear that the government is siding with the gas cartels, making it easier for them to continue destroying our precious environment. We shouldn't be voting on this bill until we have a Senate inquiry. What's the government actually doing in the face of this crisis? It's shamelessly attempting to ram legislation through, handing the Minister for Resources unprecedented authority to fast-track new coal and gas projects—completely undermining the environment minister. We should not be voting on this bill until we have a Senate inquiry. It's pretty amazing stuff, really. The government is essentially trying to pass legislation written by the gas industry for the gas industry. Some wag said to me that it could be called the 'Santos bill'! The government gets a letter from a few gas company execs, and a few months later they cough up a bit of legislation that removes all of the headaches of the environmental approvals processes. Evidently that's what you get when you give big political donations to the Labor Party. It's a pretty good return on investment for those big political donations.

The fact that the resources minister can make changes to regulation and not have to consider the environmental laws is absolutely reckless in an age where we all know the absolute urgency of the climate crisis, and many here in this House have spoken about it. That's why this bill must be voted on after a Senate inquiry. The Greens, environment groups and First Nations groups have been campaigning for a decade to expand the environmental laws to include a water trigger which effectively closed the loophole that gives gas fracking corporations a licence to drill without any federal environmental water assessment.

On the back of this, the government is now effectively trying to legislate another loophole back in for gas companies to get the green light on environment-destroying projects. Basically, the government is allowing companies like Santos or Woodside to get around complying with the current requirements of environmental laws for gas projects. We simply cannot let this bill proceed without a Senate inquiry. With these provisions, gas companies will essentially be exempt from complying with certain environmental regulations under even the new amendments. This is why these amendments are not going to fix this flawed bill.

The independent regulator, NOPSEMA, has an endorsed program for the requirements of any gas project, and the government is giving gas companies more powers than they've had to date to bypass this process or to rush it through altogether. Just at the moment, Santos has six approvals through NOPSEMA for the Barossa project, and they could all be exempt from any environmental approvals process in the next 12 months. The Barossa project, which would emit 401 million tonnes of CO2 pollution in its lifetime—that's the equivalent of 80 per cent of Australia's total emissions in 2020—that's the project they're trying to push through.

The Australian population has gone through endless pain this summer—through multiple flooding events, a sweltering summer, outrageous humidity, heatwaves and fires—and we know this is only going to get worse as the planet gets warmer. We're in a climate crisis right now. We cannot afford to pay the price of any new coal and gas projects, yet this is what this legislation is setting up for our country. The government must not give fossil fuel companies any more power than they already have—and they already have an outrageous amount of power within this system.

This bill must be considered after the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act reforms have come into place. It needs to go to a Senate inquiry. These amendments will not fix this flawed legislation.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government—unsurprisingly—doesn't support the suspension motion, for two reasons. First, the House has already voted today on whether or not this bill would be delayed, and the House decided that it should not be. While the suspension motion that is in front of us uses different words, it effectively has the same effect.

The second reason that we oppose it is—and it's not surprising—that the House is always reluctant to agree that when we proceed we'll be in the hands of a Senate inquiry. So, for those two reasons, the government is opposing the suspension, and I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be now put.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Australian Greens be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be now put.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be read a second time.