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

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the member for Warringah be agreed to.

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

I rise to support the amendment from the member for Warringah, because buried in this bill about workers' health and safety is a provision that has nothing to do with workers' health and safety and everything to do with making the lives of people in Australia less safe, by increasing the climate crisis by allowing the minister to fast-track gas projects. There is currently in place an offshore gas plan that requires corporations to go through certain steps before they are able to proceed with their climate-destroying gas projects. That was put in place by a coalition government. Former prime minister Tony Abbott, if I recall correctly, put this plan in place. The way the legislation works is that if you comply with the minimum steps set down by Tony Abbott then that's taken as complying with our environment laws.

Now, that's not the way it should be. Our environment laws should be strengthened so that First Nations owners get more consultation, so that the environment gets a say, so that we take climate change into account, for goodness sake. But what we're dealing with—and this is what's dealt with by the amendment from the member for Warringah—is an attempt by the government to say that even those restrictions that were put in place by Tony Abbott are too much and we should be able to get around them. Why is that happening? It's happening because some First Nations owners took corporations like Santos and Woodside to court and said, 'You've got to consult with us.' And the court agreed, saying, 'Yes, you have to consult with them.' Then Santos wrote to the minister and said: 'Those court decisions are too much of an impediment for us. Can you change the rules?' And the minister said, 'Yes, I will.' That's how this legislation has come before us—after a request from Santos: 'Can you change the rules, because these First Nations owners are winning too many cases in court.' The minister said yes, despite the full Federal Court saying that the consultation provisions are workable. Now, as a result, we have this extraordinary provision before us that's buried in a bill that's about workers' safety.

Under the provision as it stands—part 2, schedule 2, which the member for Warringah is rightly trying to remove—gas corporations get a blank cheque. Gas corporations get a free pass from having to comply with regulations that are in force. I want to ask the minister about 790E(1) in particular, where it says:

(1) If:

(a) a person engages in conduct in accordance with this Act or prescribed regulations made under this Act, as in force from time to time, in relation to a relevant action; and

(b) for the purposes of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage approval [that is, the Minister's approval under section 146B], the relevant action would not (apart from this section) be taken in accordance with the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage endorsed program—

that is, the Abbott one. So, if you take action and it would not have been in accordance with the coalition-approved program:

then, despite the conduct, section 146D of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 applies in relation to the approval and the taking of the relevant action as if the relevant action had been taken in accordance with the endorsed program.

My question to the minister is this: doesn't that provision, on its face and in its words, explicitly allow a gas corporation to take a step not in accordance with the plan and for it to be just presumed that it is in accordance with the plan—that black is white? Minister, isn't that what that provision means?

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

I move:

That the question be put.

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

The question is that the question be put.

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

The question is that the member for Warringah's amendments be agreed to.

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

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, and I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (3) as circulated together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (3) together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 6, page 61 (line 9), omit "If", substitute "Subject to paragraph (1C)(b) and subsection (6), if".

(2) Schedule 2, item 6, page 61 (after line 22), after subsection 790E(1), insert:

Consultation with Environment Minister etc.

(1A) Before the Governor-General makes regulations (the designatedregulations) that amend or replace regulations (the prescribed regulations) that are prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the Minister must:

(a) be satisfied that the designated regulations would not be inconsistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in section 3A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and

(b) consult with the Environment Minister about the designated regulations; and

(c) have received notice from the Environment Minister that:

(i) the Environment Minister is satisfied that the designated regulations would not be inconsistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in section 3A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; or

(ii) the Environment Minister is not satisfied that the designated regulations would not be inconsistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in section 3A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

(1B) If subparagraph (1A)(c)(ii) applies in relation to the designated regulations, the designated regulations, and any subsequent compilation (within the meaning of the Legislation Act 2003) of the prescribed regulations, must:

(a) specify that subparagraph (1A)(c)(ii) applies in relation to the designated regulations; and

(b) contain a statement setting out the effect of paragraph (1C)(b).

(1C) If subparagraph (1A)(c)(ii) applies in relation to the designated regulations, then:

(a) if a provision of the designated regulations would, apart from this paragraph, commence earlier than 28 days after the day the designated regulations are registered on the Federal Register of Legislation—the provision commences at the start of that 28th day; and

(b) subsection (1) does not apply in relation to conduct engaged in in relation to a relevant action on or after the earliest day on which any of the provisions of the designated regulations commence.

(1D) None of the following affect the validity or enforceability of regulations made under this Act:

(a) a failure to comply with paragraph (1A)(a) or (b);

(b) the fact that notice mentioned in paragraph (1A)(c) is not given;

(c) if subparagraph (1A)(c)(ii) applies in relation to particular designated regulations—that fact.

(3) Schedule 2, item 6, page 62 (after line 36), at the end of section 790E, add:

Sunsetting

(6) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to conduct engaged in in accordance with regulations (the designated regulations) if:

(a) other regulations are prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a) (the prescribed regulations); and

(b) the designated regulations amended or replaced some or all of the prescribed regulations; and

(c) all of the provisions of the designated regulations commenced after the end of the period of 12 months starting on the day the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Act 2024 receives the Royal Assent.

In response to the misinformation spread in this chamber yesterday, I want to make it clear that the bill does not change one sentence, one word or even one letter of the offshore resources consultation provisions. The bill does not change the legal requirements for offshore consultation in any way, shape or form. Since the moment I introduced this bill, I have made it clear that I am willing to work constructively with those in this chamber to strengthen the bill, but unfortunately some are much more interested in driving a misinformation and fear campaign for their own political ends.

The Senate inquiry in relation to this bill, while recommending the passage of the bill, illustrated that there is scope to introduce additional protections to give the community further confidence that this bill reflects the government's longstanding intention to maintain the integrity of our environmental protection regime. That is why I'm introducing government amendments to further clarify that any future regulatory changes are consistent with and will not diminish our national environmental laws.

The amendments require that any new regulatory changes made by the Minister for Resources must not be inconsistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development that underpin our national environmental laws. The amendments require that the Minister for Resources consult on any proposed regulatory changes with the minister for the environment. The amendments require that the minister for the environment agrees that any proposed regulatory changes are not inconsistent with the principles underpinning Australia's national environmental laws, and the amendments include a sunset provision of 12 months time. While the power to made changes to the offshore consultation provisions will only exist for a 12-month period, any regulatory change made by me as the Minister for Resources will endure beyond 12 months, up until the point where the government's broader nature-positive reforms are legislated.

As has always been the case, this bill is about bringing a greater certainty and clarification to the existing regulatory regime as it stands today. The bill does not, in any way, exempt the offshore resources industry from the government's broader nature-positive reforms or bypass these important reforms into the future.

The bill, importantly, does not silence First Nations voices. I think that is an outrageous claim that has been made in this chamber and outside of this chamber far too often. It is an untrue claim, and I reject it entirely. It's an offensive thing to claim, I think. The bill will enable changes to be made to the consultation process for offshore gas projects. These changes will seek to ensure consultation requirements are better for traditional owners and for the wider community and, of course, for all concerned in such projects. I have absolutely no objection to judicial review of government decisions, but judicial review and the court system should not be the only place where First Nations voices are heard with respect to these projects. They should be consulted properly, and that is what this bill aims to do in concert with the review of consultation provisions we announced in May last year.

This bill does not fast-track any approvals, nor change any approvals processes. To claim otherwise is manifestly untrue. The Greens political party and many of the crossbench have pursued a truly unedifying and hypocritical campaign seeking to misinform their own electorates and the wider Australian public. Any changes to Australia's offshore resources environment regulations will be subject to the full suite of parliamentary scrutiny, including committee scrutiny and disallowance procedures.

This should give the community complete confidence that this bill, with the amendments, reflects the government's longstanding intention to maintain the integrity of our environmental protection regime while providing proper consultation provisions for the whole community in relation to offshore gas projects.

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

This is a question to the minister. The minister said that it is her intention that consultation requirements will be better, but the minister also said that the provisions of the bill will allow for changes to consultation requirements. Can the minister please identify which part of either the bill or the recent amendments introduced provide a guarantee that no consultation requirements can be lost?

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.

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

The question is that the question be put.

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

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable minister be agreed to.

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

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 2, item 6, page 62 (after line 36), after section 790E, insert:

790F Ministerial opinions about regulations

(1) This section applies for any regulations (the relevant regulations) that:

(a) are prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 790E(1)(a); or

(b) amend regulations prescribed for the purposes of that paragraph.

(2) If, before the relevant regulations were made, the Minister:

(a) was of the opinion that the relevant regulations would, or would not, be inconsistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in section 3A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; or

(b) was given a written notice by the Environment Minister setting out the Environment Minister's opinion on that matter;

the Minister must table that opinion (including the reasons for that opinion) in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the day the relevant regulations were made.

Note: If the Minister and the Environment Minister each held an opinion on the matter, then the Minister must table both opinions.

In a recent survey of the constituents of Wentworth, repairing our broken environmental laws was at the top of their environmental priority list for 2024. They wanted to see the parliament finally act on Graeme Samuel's review of the EPBC Act, which is now getting on for four years old, and they wanted to see a comprehensive response to the devastating State of the environment report, which made clear the extinction crisis facing our country. When I held a forum in Bondi last Sunday with youth advocates Anjali Sharma and Lottie Dalziel, the message was equally clear: parliamentarians have a duty of care to younger generations—a duty to strengthen our environmental laws and to do everything we can to prevent the accelerating and devastating climate crisis. This is why I'm speaking on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024.

Proposed section 790E of the bill introduced to this House provides the resources minister with an extremely broad power to change the rules governing environmental approvals for offshore oil and gas projects. Under the bill introduced to the House, changes to rules around environmental approvals would have been made without oversight by or even the involvement of the environmental minister, and they would not have had to be consistent with the provisions that currently exist under the EPBC Act. As the Biodiversity Council, an independent expert group founded by 11 Australian universities, set out in their submission to the Senate inquiry, this bill 'is wrong in principle because it would override, indefinitely, an important environmental protection' under the EPBC Act, it 'is inconsistent with' the government's Nature Positive Plan, and it 'takes an objectionable approach to legislation, because it buries' these changes in a bill that is supposed to be about worker safety.

It is a bill opposed by many First Nations leaders, who have come to parliament today to ask the government not to pass it, and I believe the government should listen to these First Nations leaders and should remove section 790E of the bill altogether. But if it cannot remove it in its entirety, there must be safeguards put around it. Along with other members of the crossbench, this is what I've been pushing the government to do. At a minimum, we need to see the environment minister consulted before regulations are made, and we need to see this consultation consider whether regulations made by the Minister for Resources under the extraordinary powers conferred by the legislation are consistent with the principles that underpin the EPBC Act. That is why I supported the government's amendments and welcomed those pieces that did that.

However, the government amendments still leave a lot to be desired. There are gaping holes in this legislation. Merely requiring the minister to be satisfied that regulations are not inconsistent with the high-level principles of ecologically sustainable development is a very weak test, and it is much weaker than the law currently provides. Under the current EPBC-endorsed program there are detailed requirements around how matters of environmental national significance should be protected, and regulations are then made to operationalise these. Compared to this concrete detail, a subjective test against a few high-level principles offers only minimal protection. At the very least, we need the Minister for Resources and the environment minister to explain why they are satisfied that regulations are or are not consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. We need their reasons, their explanation and their justification for any new regulations made as a result of this law. That is what my amendment will do and that is why I have moved this amendment. It would compel the Minister for Resources and the environment minister to table their opinion on whether regulations made under this bill are consistent with the principles that underpin the EPBC and explained the reasons why. It is an important transparency measure, it would improve the integrity of the amendment already passed today and it would make a bad bill a little bit better.

I note I have tried to engage the environment minister's office and the resources minister's office regarding this, and the feedback I have had from the Minister for Resources' office is that they don't have enough time to consider these. These are amendments based on the government amendments which I got on Sunday. We then went through and did the work on yesterday to try to provide a useful amendment to the government's own amendments, and then I was told by the Minister for Resources' office that it looks like they didn't have enough time to consider these amendments. This is why this bill shouldn't be rushed through like this, this is why the debate should not be gagged like this, as it has been throughout this bill, and this is why this piece is so important.

Finally, I'm also deeply concerned about the implication of proposed subclause 790E(1D), which states that even a failure to comply with the new provisions does not invalidate any regulations made under this act. That is, even if you don't do what the government's amendments have provided for, it doesn't matter. If this is the case, it's a shocking loophole. Some people are calling this provision a 'get out of jail free' card, and so I welcome the good minister's clarification on the point of the government's own amendments—which I wasn't allowed to speak to because the government gagged my debate and stopped me speaking earlier on this bill.

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

I move:

That the question be 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 amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.

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

The question before the House is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.