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

The Leader of the Australian Greens, on a point of order?

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

I am seeking clarification. Is it not the case that we are now at the point where divisions cannot be called further after this point?

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

Post 6.30, under the standing orders, any divisions will be deferred to tomorrow.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "Parts 2 and 3", substitute "Part 3".

(2) Schedule 2, Part 2, page 61 (line 1) to page 62 (line 36), omit the Part.

These amendments are important. Earlier today, I spoke in this House regarding my concerns in relation to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The amendments I am moving remove part 2, schedule 2 from the bill. Part 2, schedule 2 is completely off topic when it comes to the primary purpose of this bill, which is to improve the conditions of workers in the offshore gas industry. Instead, it is a sneaky attempt by the government to include in an otherwise noncontentious bill significant carve-outs for the gas industry from environmental regulations and the requirements of the offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage legislation and regulations themselves. It does this by providing, in part 2, a new clause, 790E, which enables existing projects approved by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA, to undertake additional actions that may be inconsistent with future regulatory changes—a get out of jail free card delivered to the oil and gas industries. This get out of jail free card is being provided to a polluting and environmentally damaging industry in the midst of the government's major reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act outlined in its Nature Positive reforms.

This legislation is gaslighting the Australian public and making a mockery of the government's climate and environmental reforms. It undermines Federal Court decisions that have affirmed the need to consult First Nations people who have a connection with the land in environmental plans approved by NOPSEMA. It undermines the government's own referendum agenda to give a voice to and listen to First Nations communities. There is absolutely no reason or place for providing this carve-out. There is no justification for streamlining the approvals process for these polluting projects at the expense of our environmental and consultation laws and the improvements to them that we anticipate over the coming months.

In what appears to be a response to the inquiry of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee into this bill, the government yesterday circulated amendments. But it is understood that those amendments will not go far enough; in fact, they maintain this carve-out. They provide a sunsetting clause and a series of hurdles, it being at the discretion of the Minister for Resources and the Minister for the Environment and Water to determine whether future changes to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act are consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development—the irony of it, when we are faced with this legislation! In the event that the regulations are deemed not to be consistent with those principles, the get out of jail free card loses its currency, but if those regulations are deemed to be consistent then we remain in this situation.

I do not accept that these amendments are sufficient to address my concerns. Firstly, there is too much ministerial discretion, particularly for the Minister for Resources, whose agenda often appears to be completely aligned with that of the gas industry and not with proper environmental protection. We need only remember the last parliament, when in fact the Prime Minister stepped in as minister for resources, which begs the question. It is not good environmental protection to hand this power solely to the Minister for Resources.

Secondly, the clauses, particularly the sunsetting clause, are convoluted and contain far too many loopholes to instil any confidence that existing endorsed projects and plans will be subject to future Nature Positive plans. The government could easily commence a series of reforms on time lines that would effectively cause the sun never to set. Therefore, this amendment to repeal part 2 of schedule 2 is absolutely essential to ensure proper scrutiny around offshore gas projects and curtail this carve-out that the Minister for Resources is seeking for herself.

It is telling that in this debate we have just seen the government gag second reading speeches from the crossbench. It is telling that not a single government member or backbencher has been willing to defend this terrible bill and its terrible provisions. It is telling that the minister for the environment has not stepped up to say that she is fine with the idea that the Minister for Resources will supersede her on offshore gas projects and that the Minister for Indigenous Australians has not stepped up to say she's okay with the voice of First Nations communities being silenced—especially in the aftermath of the Voice referendum. It makes a mockery of the government's position when it comes to climate action. It makes a mockery of its stated desire to listen to First Nations people.

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the member for Warringah and her contribution to this debate. The government will be opposing this amendment. Schedule 2, part 2 of the bill allows the Minister for Resources to amend offshore environmental regulations. We've clearly explained why this provision is needed in order to work within the inflexibility of the existing endorsed program in place between the EPBC Act and our offshore resources legislation and to avoid invalidating that existing streamlined arrangement. If we did invalidate streamlining, as has been asked for by the member, it would mean two sets of approvals, increasing the regulatory burden, particularly on traditional owners in the community as well as of course on industry. This is precisely what we've been asked to repair and what we are seeking to repair through amendments to the consultation provisions and regulations.

Accepting the member's amendment would prevent the government from clarifying this system of optional consultation for the better—and better for everyone. But I do accept the genuinely held view of the member in relation to the potential reach of the power, notwithstanding that any regulatory changes I would make would be subject to parliamentary oversight, inclusive of scrutiny and disallowance. That is why the government has moved an amendment that reflects our longstanding intention to maintain the integrity of our environmental protection regime. This amendment will require any minister for resources to be satisfied that any proposed regulatory improvements to offshore environmental regulations are consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development as set out in Australia's environmental laws. The amendment will mandate that consultation on any proposed improvements occur between the minister for resources and the minister for the environment. As the member said, it will include a sunset provision in 12 months time.

If I can speak to the various discussions relating to this amendment during this debate through the course of the day, the member for Ryan, the member for Melbourne, the member for Griffith, the member for Indi, the member for Goldstein, the member for Kooyong, the member for Mackellar and the member for North Sydney have all spent the day questioning my integrity and making imputations as to my motivations and those of the government. I note the hypocrisy of those members, who continually call for a better standard of debate but instead choose to assassinate my character in this place. They also continue to push the misinformation that has been spread by the Greens political party. Each of these members has, in their own special way and for their own electoral advantage, continued an egregious misinformation campaign about this bill and about the review of offshore environmental approvals, as well as the consultation process that was proposed in May of 2023. I entirely reject their assertions.

I also reject the many assertions made through the course of the date by each of these members as to my integrity and the imputations they have made against me. I reject the absurd and untrue accusations that a single letter could somehow drive the policy of this government. What an absurd thing to say in this place and to say about me as the Minister for Resources!

I reject the assertion made by the member for Ryan that somehow the tens of thousands of jobs in the gas industry are not valuable. These workers are valuable. Their work is valuable. Their jobs are important, and I value them. Of course, I value their safety, and that is why I'm moving the safety parts of this bill.

I also reject the assertion of the member for Griffith, which has been followed by a number of people, about supposedly cancelling the export of gas in this country. That would, of course, be an economy-wrecking proposition, but it is not unexpected from the Greens political party. We are a nation with an economy built on trade with the world, and the size of our population means we can never consume all that we make. That includes the gas we extract. Without international investment to make sure those gas fields have been developed and will continue to extract gas for the use of our neighbours, we would not have the gas at all. These arguments that are continually put forward show staggering ignorance or wilful blindness to the economic reality of our export industry in this country. I might say that international investment goes the same for every other kind of export industry, whether in the agricultural sector, such as with grain, or with gold or iron ore. This is the case even for international investment in wine, and it will continue with critical minerals and rare earths.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Curtin to the debate on the amendment before us. Contrary to what has been incorrectly stated in this place—again, throughout the day and before—this bill does not give me, as Minister for Resources, sweeping powers to override approvals. It includes a technical amendment allowing the government to adopt future recommendations for the offshore environmental management review, and I would note that the private senator's bill introduced by Senator Cox, the Protecting the Spirit of Sea Country Bill, would require precisely the same kind of amendment for it to go forward without damaging the streamlining provisions, which, as I explained before in the last portion of this debate, means that you don't have to go through, and therefore TOs and the community don't have to go through, two series of approvals processes. Again, streamlining provisions were agreed to in this place many years ago.

Any changes made to offshore regulations are subject to the usual oversight procedures, including parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance, as has always been the case. I repeat again: we've introduced a government amendment to further clarify that future regulatory changes are consistent with and will not diminish our national environmental laws. That's an amendment that is before the House and has been tabled, and you all would be aware of it, I'm sure. The amendment requires the Minister for Resources to consult with the minister for the environment and that the minister for the environment agree that any proposed regulatory changes are consistent with Australia's national environmental laws.

Everybody wants certainty in relation to consultations. The member for Curtin mentioned, of course, that the industry does. Equally, as we heard from the Senate inquiry last week, those that would like to be consulted would like to have that set out in a stronger fashion, and that is what we are working toward through the work being done on the regulations. That includes notions that we have been told: that there should be more requirements around face-to-face interactions around how one communicates for consultations. That work is going on right now.

In relation to the role of gas and various things that have been said about it, I would also note the view of the International Energy Agency, which has made it clear in its Net Zero Roadmap that, in all scenarios it has modelled globally, gas will play a role in firming renewable energy in the net-zero transition. They have stated:

… natural gas-fired capacity remains a critical source of power system flexibility in many markets, particularly to address seasonal flexibility needs.

Of course, the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, have repeatedly warned of seasonal shortfalls on peak demand and structural shortfalls in gas supply in the east coast market emerging well before 2030. These very public reports have indicated that, at least in the short term, new supplies of gas are going to be needed to make sure we have reliability of supply. In the longer term, gas will help smooth the transition to renewables while guaranteeing high energy security, both for Australia and for our partners in the region.

I spoke before of how important it is that Australians have access to affordable gas and that Australian industry has access to affordable gas. We all know that critical minerals and rare earths will be required for green energy technologies—I noticed there was some debate on this in the House this morning. Of course, to process those critical minerals and rare earths, we will need more gas—hence the increase in demand for gas in Western Australia, because there is no alternative as yet, although, as you would know, the government—

I would love to take that interjection, Member for O'Connor, but I don't think nuclear power provides the heat required for the processing of critical minerals and rare earths. I think the gas—

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does. It absolutely does.

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Anyway, let's not go down that path. The point is that right now we have an industry that does support the lives of tens of thousands of workers, does support our transition and does support how we process critical minerals and rare earths into the future, both for our own technology capabilities and for those of our friends and our partners.

Our resources exports, particularly our energy exports, are very important to our international standing. Australia provides energy for a significant share of the power needed by the world's fourth biggest economy, as well as the Republic of Korea, Singapore and also China. It helps provide stability in the region, and it will help those countries and others on their transition to net zero by 2050, which, as everyone in this chamber knows, is a clear objective of this government.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would observe that this one bill tonight completely and utterly shreds this government's climate change credentials. It's as simple as that. I have some questions for the minister, to ask through you, Deputy Speaker.

In many of the responses to the very brief Senate inquiry on this bill, concerns were expressed about the fact that it appears to be carving out an approvals loophole for one specific regulated industry. To be clear, that industry is the offshore oil and gas industry. This follows the government's awful sea dumping legislation last year, which the foreign minister appeared to admit was about the government saying yes to Santos, Woodside and Inpex. So, through you, Deputy Speaker, I ask the minister: why is the government so allergic to transparency and proper community consultation for fossil fuel projects, and will you explain why the government is cutting a special deal for the offshore fossil fuel sector that no other industry in Australia gets?

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I explained before, we are in fact seeking to improve consultation around offshore gas. The problem—and I've said this in the chamber earlier today and have said it publicly as well—is that right now we have what I call—and maybe it's a result of having been one—a lawyer's picnic around offshore gas approvals. That is no good for anyone, in my opinion and in that of the government. It is clogging up the courts, for one, but equally it is forcing those with interests and concerns to take their concerns to court—the traditional owners. That doesn't seem to me to be a sensible way to manage the approval system for offshore gas projects.

What I would sooner do, and what I'm trying to do—and this is a technical amendment that enables that reform to happen promptly—is make sure that the consultation provisions of the offshore regulations are fulsome and appropriate and that they ensure various levels of consultation are there, at a bare minimum, for the gas industry, so that they actually do it. That is what the reform is ultimately about. I know this is a staged process. If, in a perfect world, perfect historical legislation existed where this was simple, we might not be in this morass of misinformation that the Greens political party and their allies have sought to propagate around the country.

Yes, I would like it to be simpler. I absolutely would. But it's not because we have a situation where we have an offshore regime that is matching up to the EPBC Act, and the EPBC Act, as has quite rightly been pointed out by the member, does extend well beyond resources projects—roads, rails. Any kind of impact on any kind of environment is covered by the EPBC Act, as well it should.

But right now in our country we are seeing traditional owners as well as other community members finding that they are not getting the privilege of the proper consultation for offshore gas projects. If we do not progress these reforms soon, that will last while we pursue the EPBC Act. It would be appropriate to make sure that the traditional custodians that are right now being forced to go through various parts of the court system do not have to go through the court system. Rather we should ensure that the gas industry and those proponents, no matter where they are, undertake a proper consultation process. That is my intention.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for her response to my question. Obviously, I do not agree with the minister's characterisation of the current situation as a lawyers' picnic. I would characterise it as people exercising their fundamental right to challenge in the court things that they feel are illegal. Where the minister and I probably do agree is with the goal of improving health and safety for offshore oil and gas workers, and I think that is commendable. However, can the minister explain to the House why provisions likely to weaken environmental oversight and community consultation standards are attached to this bill if it's about health and safety for offshore oil and gas workers? And why on earth are we being asked to urgently pass these unrelated changes together in the same bill?

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for the question. I do want to clarify—and I'm sorry if there has been any confusion—I absolutely respect the court process. I don't object to people taking objections to administrative decisions, and I've always said that through other parts of my portfolio as well. We saw court cases about inadequate consultation around the storage of low-level radioactive waste, and I certainly do not mind the TOs going to court.

What I think is objectionable is that it goes on forever. Instead of having a proper consultation process, which means you wouldn't need to go to the courts all the time to have your voice heard, we instead have embedded adequate requirements within regulations from the very start so that these consultations are undertaken not within the court system. But, again, if at the end of a fulsome consultation process someone is still dissatisfied and if that is a matter up for review, of course they would be most welcome to take it to the courts. I have a great concern that only a few are able to access the courts to have their voices heard. They are supported by other groups, of course, but that might not be the case for other TOs, other traditional owners, that are affected. I don't want anyone to think that I don't respect the court process or people's ability to go to court if they want to challenge decisions.

With regard to different items being within this bill, it is because this bill is the appropriate place for them to be. The safety parts of the bill were the predominant parts of the bill for me, as the Minister for Resources, and for the workers themselves, of which there are tens of thousands. Those take up the bulk of the bill, so that's more of a nuance around nomenclature and nothing much more than that.

Again I also reject a lot of other accusations that have been made about me 'slipping things through', or hiding things. But again I note all the spam email I'm getting on this as well, so I take that as part of the misinformation campaign that's generally running. There's no such thing as that. It's hard to 'slip through' something when you actually pop it in a bit of legislation that everyone sees and is tabled and can be read and on which you can get briefings.

I've also had accusations about the inadequacy of the briefings provided. I take that on board. I'd thought that we, and my office, did a lot of briefings to a lot of people, trying to explain what was going on. As I said before, I know this is not perfect—I absolutely know that. And it won't ever be perfect, to be honest, because of the complexity of the bills and how they interact.

So this part of the bill, to do with the technical amendment to allow for the consultation process to be improved, was the ordinary course of business in a bill that was about the offshore regimes. So it seemed the right thing to do—and I still think it is, as a matter of efficiency—for the parliament to consider it in this one bill.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be absolutely clear: I'm not, for one moment, reflecting on the integrity of the minister. I have a lot of time for the minister. As to the appropriate place for legislation improving workplace health and safety for offshore oil and gas workers: I just genuinely don't understand for a moment how it is appropriate to mix that with completely unrelated legislation that has the effect of weakening environmental rules and safeguards for offshore coal and gas projects. So I would hope that the minister can go further than just simply saying, 'It's the right thing to do,' or, 'It's the appropriate place to do it.'

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Member—I agree that you have not cast any aspersions on me today. But that is not the case for many people in this chamber.

The bill is called the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill. It is the pathway. In government, one has to make choices as to how a legislative program can go forward. I accept that you might not agree with that choice, but that is the choice the government has made, so that, again, we can make sure, firstly, that the safety provisions of this bill—which I realise everyone supports, and which are very important—are passed, but also so that we can move forward with the reform of the consultation provisions in the regulations without invalidating the streamlining effects of the EPBC Act and the offshore environmental regime.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the sake of the argument, if we accept the minister's explanation—that it's the right thing to do; that it's an appropriate thing to do—I suppose it's like accepting that a country that's called the Democratic Republic of North Korea is actually a democratic republic. But we'll put that aside, for the sake of moving on.

Let's just dwell, then, on the environmental aspect of this. I have two questions for the minister. I think I might ask them separately, to make it easier for everyone to follow.

The minister must be aware that changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources' review into 'Clarifying consultation requirements for offshore oil and gas storage regulatory approvals' are both currently underway. Both are highly relevant to the proposed changes in schedule 2, part 2. So—and this is the question—why not remove these changes from the bill and await the outcome of both of those processes before proceeding? Why are we getting ahead of ourselves in this way?

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason is: I believe that any legislation that comes before this House that has the words 'gas' or 'offshore gas' in it will go through the same process that we've been through—it wouldn't matter what it was about, Member. So we can keep doing this, time and time again. I don't think it's worth it, because I really am prioritising making sure that the consultation processes and rules are clear for everyone, particularly traditional owners and the wider community. Sadly, whenever there is a bill before this parliament with the word 'gas' in it, it turns into a theatre and an opportunity for the ideological debates that we've seen, with the three-word slogans from the Greens political party, to progress, that are thoroughly unrelated to safety or, really, the other measures that we're talking about, which are about ensuring the proper consultation rules for offshore gas projects for the benefit of the whole community.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for her responses. And this is likely my final question for the minister. The community rightly expects transparency in development approvals. Can the minister explain how, under this proposed regime, the public will be made aware of the decisions made by the environment and resources minister in relation to projects and the reasons for those decisions?

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

With respect to some of the minister 's comments, I'd like to point out that I and the other crossbenchers are here as direct representatives of our communities, and the concerns that we have about this bill go to the concerns that are being raised by people in our communities about approval of new fossil fuel projects. I cannot tell you how many people in my community speak to me about their disappointment in a government that they thought came in with so much promise in regard to climate policy and is now giving with one hand and taking with the other.

As I've said over the last couple of weeks about this bill, you can't fake it 'til you make it when it comes to getting to net zero. Really the crux of it is in the amendment from the member for Warringah, and that is that other measures that are sort of a sidebar to this bill are being called on to do a lot of work within it. The crossbench in this place calls things as it sees it, and the call was, and I think remains—and I don't want to speak on behalf of my colleagues, but certainly for me—that this other-measures piece is not a sidebar to this legislation; it's very central to it. That is the concern about putting something that is framed as a small thing into legislation that is about something else entirely and actually has the potential to have a big impact on our carbon emissions and our carbon footprint.

At the end of the day, these other measures do pose risks to environmental protection, do pose risks to genuine First Nations engagement and do go to the integrity and good governance piece. Again, with respect to the minister, our job is to create accountability in this place. Unfortunately, that sometimes means pointing out hard truths. The hard truth about this bill is that this piece of it should be taken out, properly considered by more than a five-hour Senate inquiry and considered separately. Really, that is at the centre of the conversation that we've been having over the last couple of weeks and that we continue to have today. Those here in this chamber are doing our job by questioning the government about this bill. That's what we were elected to do. That's what we will continue to do. Sometimes that's a tough conversation, and it has to be had.

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept, Member for Goldstein, that that is the job of each of us here as representatives of our local community. I accept that. I don't think character assassination is necessarily part of that, but I guess everyone makes their choices in this House. I do reject the assertion you made during the second reading debate and just then that I've ever characterised any part of this bill as—I think these were the words you used earlier today—'not a big deal' or, just then, a 'sidebar'. I have absolutely not. Safety offshore is a big deal, as we all recognise, and enabling much-needed improvement in consultation for offshore projects is absolutely a big deal. As I have explained often and as remains the truth, this is so that we can improve consultations, and a technical amendment will be required to make it so.

That would be the same for the Greens political party private senators' 'spirit of sea country' bill as it is for this. This bill enables improvement to consultation and enables more voices to be heard, and if the member for Goldstein and others would rather that their voices not be heard, we can progress on the path that they would like. Of course, I would not agree to that. The thing is, if we don't reform this, fewer voices will be heard because they will be limited in restraints or guidance or, in fact, absolute rules around regulations for offshore projects to adhere to. That is what I'm trying to get to. As I've explained often, it's certainly not simple, and if it were, I'm sure we would be in a different place, but I'm working within the legislation I have to work with for that objective.

There is no diminution of environmental approvals or who they go to. I've explained amendments, and I'll explain the government's amendments later once this debate is finished on the member for Warringah's amendments. The case remains that this is not exempting the industry from Nature Positive reforms—the sunset clause that we've added in the amendment is, surely, indicative of that. As I have said all along, we welcomed any participation in discussion on this, and that is why I have moved the governments amendments.

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

I wanted to concur with the sentiments of the member for Goldstein: we are representatives of our communities. I want to share some observations, and relay and echo some commentary, from my own community. The Labor government and the environment minister have failed to deliver on their promises to overhaul our broken environmental laws, to make them stronger and to truly protect our environment. This is from my constituents. In fact, they're continuing to undermine these laws every chance they get—basically, doing the gas industries' work for them. And they've tried to do it—and this is the point we were making earlier today—in an underhand way, without anyone noticing.

We, the Greens, are not protesting the safety provisions in this bill; what we are protesting is the rest of it. Basically, what part 2 of schedule 2 of this bill does is, effectively, say that if an action is proposed by Santos or Woodside—for example—but doesn't comply with the requirements of the existing NOPSEMA-endorsed program for a gas project or CCS under environmental laws then, despite not meeting those requirements, the action is still considered to be compliant with the law.

The amendments introduced today by the government do nothing to change the original intent of the provision. That's because they require only that regulations made are not inconsistent with the objectives of ecologically sustainable development—which, coincidentally, have been left to be very vague principles. More importantly, the government's amendments effectively changes nothing about the original draft because the legality of any regulations won't be affected if the rules aren't consistent with ecologically sustainable development, if the resources minister doesn't consult with the environment minister, or if the resources minister does consult with the environment minister and she says it is inconsistent with ecological sustainability. The only thing changed by the government's amendments is that the power to fast-track gas projects expires after 12 months, but anything approved within 12 months will be legally valid. That is why the entire schedule 2, part 2 needed to be scrapped. It's reckless. It's reckless that in a climate crisis—and this is what we're concerned about and what our electorates and our constituents are concerned about—Labor is effectively knee-capping the environmental approvals process to fast-track new gas projects. It's pretty clear that that's actually what's happening.

Just over the weekend, there was a massive paddle-out to protest the Otway Basin mega-seas Mcblasting project—a project that would see underwater explosions every 10 seconds at more than 250 decibels. This is louder than the atomic bombs of the sixties. I'm sure none of us want to even try to imagine the impact on our precious marine ecosystems of blasting of that frequency across a landscape almost the size of Tasmania. These are the sorts of things that are proposed to happen. Labor is actually abandoning the environment; this is in the view of our constituents. Our very future, our grandchildren's future, is why we're here. By giving gas companies increased licence to destroy—as we mentioned before, the government gets a letter from a few gas company executives, and all sorts of other approaches, and then later offers up a bit of legislation that removes all the headaches of environmental approvals processes. Unfortunately, there is a link, we believe, between the levels of donations that are given to the Labor Party and the hearings they get. What could be the reason? This is irrational. The science says this shouldn't be happening.

We can't just stop oil and gas production and consumption in Australia overnight; we know that. We do need some gas in our energy mix for the next decade or so in this country, but we already have far more than we'll need. We're not fabricating this; this is based on scientific reporting. Let me repeat that: we don't need a single extra gas well drilled and we don't need a single extra gas project approved. We just can't afford it. We can't afford the increasing devastation that comes from a warming world.

In terms of the amendments of the member for Warringah, section 790E(1) says that even if a regulation made by the minister for resources under the offshore act is not consistent with the endorsed program, it is regardless considered to be compliant, and that is the issue— (Time expired)

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the amendments moved by the member for Warringah. I would have loved to have had an opportunity to speak on the bill itself but I was gagged from that opportunity.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By the member for Melbourne!

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No—by the Leader of the House.

My concerns are very similar to those raised by the member for Curtin. Let me talk to each of them. The first is a question of timing—I'm sorry, the minister is running away but she can still hear me; that's good! The point that has been made about timing is a sincere one. This is an important bill. There is real concern in the community, across the House and across the environmental movement. I give credit to the environmental movement, who, on many issues, are very willing to work with the government on issues of environmental protection as well as climate action. I think it is an issue that the environmental movement is, as a group and almost as a united voice, deeply concerned with this bill; I take that very seriously. I urge the government to consider some very thoughtful contributions saying: 'Take this part of the bill out.' We all support worker protections. Take this part of the bill out and make sure it has the inquiry and the consideration it really needs. The minister says this should give great opportunities for consultation of First Nations people. I say: if that is the case, that is certainly not the message any of the First Nations communities that have been consulted around this are saying to the community and to Independent and other members of this House. Either there is a deep misunderstanding or perhaps the bill is not right. On that first point, I'm saying: stop it now, take it out and reconsider.

My second concern on the bill is about the environmental protections. I quote members of the Biodiversity Council, who spoke on the bill—and these are sincere, serious members from a wide range of our universities. They say the bill:

… is wrong in principle because it would override, indefinitely, an important environmental protection in the … (EPBC Act). Second, the Part is inconsistent with the Government's wider environment policy, as set out in its Nature Positive Plan.

This is the legitimate concern of myself and others on the crossbench. I do not want to see the environmental protections of our country overridden by this bill. The government is amending this bill. I think it indicates that there is some area of at least ambiguity in the original bill, and real concern that people sincerely hold about what this bill means and what protections this may stop the government or the parliament using to protect our environment.

Thirdly, I'd like to raise the point that the minister made earlier in relation to new gas. The minister made the point that gas is a transition fuel, and I accept absolutely that gas is a transition fuel. But the IEA that the minister earlier quoted also said 'no new coal or gas'. New coal and gas are not needed if we're going to reach the environmentally consistent maximum warming of 1.5 to two degrees. New coal and gas are deeply concerning to our collective efforts to retain our climate. We know that retaining warming to the 1.5 degrees is going to have the biggest positive impact on nature.

Any bill that is going to fast track the opportunities for new coal and gas—new gas in this case—to be moved forward is going to be of deep concern to the community, who cares about climate action. These are the very legitimate concerns that the community have, which are about the timing of the bill. If the best actions of the minister have not managed to convince the environmental movement and the First Nations community, if the minister is not addressing the legitimate concerns of the scientific community, then this is why I support the amendment from the member for Warringah.

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

Whether or not the minister chooses to accept the emotions and concerns that have motivated the crossbench to speak out about this bill as we have today, those emotions are real and those concerns are real. I think I can speak for my crossbench colleagues when I say that none of us feel that we can support this bill in its current form, and we've been similarly concerned by the fact that no members of the government, other than the minister, or of the opposition have spoken to this bill. Our concerns have been met with some personal criticisms and blanket denials, not with factual or detailed responses. I think I can speak for my crossbench colleagues when I say that we might consider supporting this bill if we had a feeling of surety and confidence that all members of the government supported it. We haven't heard from the environment minister. We haven't heard from the minister for Indigenous affairs. We haven't heard them say that they feel comfortable about this bill, and I would ask the Minister for Resources why that might be.

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be now put. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until the first opportunity of the next sitting day.

Debate adjourned.