Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I want to follow up on what Senator Brown said and respond to Senator Colbeck. Senator Colbeck actually confirmed exactly what I was saying about this legislation being resource security for the oil and gas companies. That is what it was intended to be 40 years ago and remains intended to be now, except we should know better. What he said in terms of the offer is that, when it comes to new acreage releases, there is an offer process to the oil and gas companies, which then come back and put down their claim over certain areas. That means a process has been gone through before that at government level, to identify certain areas of ocean that they want to open up as new acreage releases, including frontier areas of the sea for which they give tax breaks. The companies then come and put their stamp on it.

The point I was making is that there is no public process involved in this identification of areas that are then to be offered to the oil companies. There is no public process. Senator Colbeck said that the Department of the Environment and Heritage is consulted. My point is: does it have a veto? Does the National Oceans Office, the national ocean policy or the Department of the Environment and Heritage have a veto on opening up new areas of sea as prospective areas to be offered to the oil companies? I see nowhere in this legislation where the national ocean policy, the department or the Minister for the Environment and Heritage has any veto rights over the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources offering areas of ocean. This is the commons. This is the global commons we are talking about, and we have got a department of industry going out and assessing that area on the basis of pro-spectivity, not on the basis of a marine-planning process and all of the values that might be considered.

I want to know if there is a veto capacity in this legislation for the department or the minister of the environment in consultation with the National Oceans Office, in the event that an area is too sensitive to sustain petroleum exploration or production, or if the environmental values are not known in the area. This is especially for the deeper areas where they are going to now. You should be able to veto that ever being offered. I want to know if the minister for the environment has that veto power. I hear the glib phrase ‘consultation with the department of the environment’. Well, the other night I heard about consultation and all the groups that had supposedly been consulted. When I spoke to some of the groups, I discovered that they were invited to a workshop 12 months ago or more, and that is about the only consultation they have had—and that was on the regulations, not on the act. So I would like the minister, if he would be so kind, to document exactly how and when he consulted with all of the groups that he proudly read out the other night as having been effectively consulted in this process.

Senator Colbeck went on to say something when I asked about compensation if we hand over areas of sea to the oil companies for, as I said, up to 26 years—which can occur in that process. If they are offered that, they get resource security over the global commons for a long time. Then, if we identify environmental risk that is not covered in their environment plan and we want our ocean back—the same way the people of Tasmania want back their forests, which were handed over to the forestry companies—for a marine-planning process or for protection, do we have to compensate the companies? And Senator Colbeck said, ‘Oh, well, it is a court process.’

Why should the Australian community have to go to court to argue compensation matters with oil companies to get our own ocean back? That is what I want to know, and I want to know who pays the court costs. Presumably the Commonwealth, or the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority through the Commonwealth, had to go to court because the oil companies were seeking compensation for not being able to drill on the Great Barrier Reef. That is my point precisely here: this legislation is entrenching the very process that got us into such a mess on the Great Barrier Reef. When cultural and community attitudes moved to the point where they wanted to protect the reef from oil exploration and drilling, the company said: ‘No. We’ve got a permit. We’ve got a right to it. We want compensation. Take us to court.’ You have gone to court. Who paid the court costs? Were they awarded against the companies in the Great Barrier Reef court case? Why should we be entrenching a process that sets up the community having to go to court to get compensation? I would like an answer to that question.

I would also like an answer to the question that I asked before—and I am not going to stop until I get an answer—and that is: are whales regarded as a resource of the sea and seabed in the absence of a definition or the inclusion of the broader concept of marine environment? Why does this legislation persist with a definition of ‘resources of the sea and seabed’ and why have you not incorporated the broader definition of ‘marine environment’ in this legislation?