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

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 4708:

(1)    Clause 6, page 17 (after line 7), after the definition of location, insert:

marine protected area means an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources, managed through legal or other effective means.

(2)    Clause 77, page 76 (line 5), at the end of paragraph (1)(b), add “or a marine protected area”.

(3)    Clause 77, page 76 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add:

             (3)    Subsection (2) does not authorise exploration for petroleum in a marine protected area.

I rise to address these Australian Greens amendments on the issue of oil exploration prohibited in marine reserves. In so doing, I want to respond to something Senator Colbeck said a moment ago. I want an answer from Senator Colbeck. There is a Department of the Environment and Heritage seismic steering committee, which has been dealing with the EPBC seismic cetacean guidelines. I want to know whether the new guidelines have been drafted and released and whether they are being implemented, because the guidelines that were being used, which were the limbo stick, if you like, above which all activities were allowed, were absolutely outdated and unacceptable and in no way could deal with international concern about noise pollution and scientific evidence in relation to seismic testing and the like.

Further, Senator Colbeck did not listen to what I said. I said that at the time of the whale strandings in south-east Tasmania the Navy was in the area using sonar. In the case of the first stranding, they were in port. In the case of the second, they were not. Also, I said that offshore petroleum seismic activities had commenced in Bass Strait in the days before the testing. I then went on to say that it is time we dealt with those particular issues. I accept that the Navy report has not been released publicly. I would be delighted if Senator Colbeck would release all the details from the Navy in relation to that particular stranding, the updated seismic cetacean guidelines and any minutes from the Department of the Environment and Heritage seismic steering committee to tell us how often that committee has met and what it has done in the last 12 months. That would be a considerable improvement in public knowledge of what is going on in relation to that particular matter.

The amendments that I am moving now are in relation to the prohibition of oil exploration in marine reserves. It is fairly self-explanatory. A definition exists for ‘marine protected area’—an area of land or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources managed through legal or other effective means.

The Offshore Petroleum Bill 2005 should have been dealt with in the context of regional marine planning. We should be looking at statutory integrated regional marine planning, and it should be very proactive about requiring companies to be looking at a duty of care to protect the environment, not just to mop up after the damage they have caused. All this bill does is require them to mop up after the damage. It does not require them to take a duty of care. It has no object to adhere to ecologically sustainable development and it does not come within the context of integrated regional marine planning. We are going to see major conflict in relation to the marine environment in the next 20 or 30 years because of the government’s complete failure to look at integrated regional marine planning.

Fish stocks are running out. Oil is running out. There will be huge pressure on gas reserves. At the same time, there will be a recognition that the marine environment is so overstretched that it cannot maintain the ecosystems, in part because of global warming and in part because of the damage that has been done as a result of a range of things, not least of which is the oil and gas sector. I find it absolutely incomprehensible that this legislation does not make provision for the precautionary principle, for this legislation to be incorporated into regional marine planning in the context of oceans policy, which should by now have some legislative backing or statutory framework, and it does not.

In the absence of that, it is logical and quite clear that, if you are going to set aside a marine protected area in order to maintain biological diversity of natural and associated cultural resources and if you take the time and trouble to exclude the fishing industry in order to allow ecosystems to be managed as whole ecosystems in an attempt to maintain their viability and some sustainability into the future under the stresses that they are currently under, then you would allow mining, exploration, drilling and seismic testing in those areas, which go against all of the principles of marine park planning. On that basis, these amendments set aside quite clearly a recognition that marine protected areas are important.

The amendments are consistent with the agenda laid out at the World Parks Congress, which was welcomed by the Department of the Environment and Heritage and the minister for the environment, and the plan of action out of Durban, which became endorsed as a plan of action at the World Conservation Union Congress in Bangkok, where Australia had a delegation. There we are, at all of these international fora, agreeing that the marine environment is important, agreeing that we need to increase marine protected areas by 10 per cent in the next decade and agreeing that we need to have ecosystem planning. I do not know whether all of those things were even consulted on. There is no suggestion of where EPBC, the Department of the Environment and Heritage or anyone fits into this, but they are certainly excluded. Given that, I am now moving to include this prohibition of oil exploration in marine reserves. It is entirely logical to accept these amendments, and it would be consistent with the government’s stated aims to protect the marine environment, which I have heard at any marine conference I have ever been to.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the steering committee that Senator Milne referred to, that process is continuing. I do not have any specific information on its deliberations, but it will reconvene in the second week of March. As to the issue of what activity was occurring in and around Bass Strait at what time, I stand by my comments. The seismic work that was being conducted at the time of the whale stranding was over 430 kilometres away in Bass Strait. The strandings occurred off the south-east coast of Tasmania. There are a range of issues in relation to that on which the science is being developed. I recognise it is a serious issue and there are a range of scientific opinions on that. But, as I said earlier, I believe to apply carte blanche blame to certain things without putting the details of the facts on the table is disingenuous.

I ask Senator Milne to consider the terminology she uses, particularly in relation to marine parks and marine protected areas. There is a distinct difference. Under operations occurring at the moment, marine protected area proposals are currently being developed for the south-east region of Australia. Under the proposals, something like 17 per cent of that region will be included in marine protected areas, as opposed to the 10 per cent that Senator Milne talked about. But they are not marine parks; they are marine protected areas. There are different classifications of use allowed within those marine protected areas. In some circumstances, they allow fishing. I am concerned at Senator Milne’s understanding of that as an issue because the fishermen are not necessarily locked out of marine protected areas, depending upon the use classification. Given the prominence of the issue in her home state of Tasmania over the last few months, I am really concerned that she does not appear to understand exactly what is going on with that.

In relation to interaction with the EPBC Act, for every activity authorised under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, an environmental management plan is required. These requirements are set out in regulations made under the act, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Management of Environment) Regulations 1999. They effectively deal with the issues that Senator Milne raised in relation to her amendments. That is the basis on which the government will not be supporting the Greens amendments.

The government, throughout this process, has consulted with the environmental movement. It has consulted with the Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth Australia, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, the Wilderness Society, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, the World Wide Fund for Nature Australia, the Surfrider Foundation, the Marine and Coastal Community Network and the conservation council of Australia.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Colbeck for bringing up the definitional difference. As the minister here tonight, I ask him to explain to the Senate the difference between a marine protected area and a marine national park. I think it is very important that we get that from the government, which has introduced the legislation, so there can be no room for doubt. In relation to the proposed marine protected area of St Helens, which he has referred to, what is the delimitation on fishing that will apply to this protected area? What is the delimitation on offshore petroleum exploration, the matter in hand tonight, that will apply to that area?

The minister, in response to Senator Milne, spoke about the 450 kilometre gap between the seismic testing in Bass Strait and the whale strandings off the east coast of Tasmania. Could the minister please tell the committee how far a whale can move in 24 hours? Could he also tell the committee what the government’s knowledge is on how far sonar testing can be picked up across the span of ocean to which it is exposed? It would help us to work out the potential impact on the cetaceans that Senator Milne talked about if the minister could give us the government’s knowledge on these important matters which are, of course, central to this amendment.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, I do not have the specific information here with me about whale travelling distances, sonar travelling distances or the rate of fall-off, for that matter, of sonar sounds. I can undertake to get that for you on notice and I am quite happy to do that.

In relation to marine parks and marine protected areas, my understanding of a marine park is that it is essentially a whole of water environment with floor to surface protection of that environment around the marine park. As to the key fundamentals of marine protected areas, particularly those that are being proposed at the moment in the south-east of Australia as the first of a range of MPAs proposed around Australia, the principle objective is protection of the benthic environment—in other words, the ocean floor and the immediate environment of the ocean floor: the floor itself and what is growing on the floor.

That brings into play the capacity for different methods of operation of fishing, particularly, that are determined to be of low impact within those zones. That includes recreational fishing and, in other areas where there is no impact on the benthic environment, commercial fishing. There are other classification areas that under the proposals are no-take zones, which are protected completely. There is capacity for exploration through those areas but, as I said during my presentation earlier, any formalised application for those issues needs to go through an application under the EPBC Act in accordance with the regulations of 1999.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Surely any reasonable person listening to that must start to query a situation where a marine protected area is not a marine national park because it is the sea floor that is being protected, not the waters above. You can fish in the waters above but presumably not drop your line—or whatever other equipment you have—to the ocean floor, or the area above it, unless you are a petroleum explorer. Then you can come in and set up your establishment on top of it and drill right through it. Could the minister explain the government’s logic in this?

The minister, Senator Colbeck, does not know how far whales travel and does not even know how far exploratory sound bombing of the ocean floor travels but says he will get that information for us. We, of course, need that information for these particular amendments which are to protect marine reserves and the associated ecosystem. So I ask the minister if he could give us information on, firstly, the logic of allowing petroleum exploration damage to the benthic zone and to the ocean floor and, indeed, below it, and the risk which goes with that of oil spills—the attendant risks that we all know about—while keeping it as a marine protected area from a fishing point of view. And could he please tell us when he will get the information which is essential to these motions—basic information which no minister should come in here without—about the movement of cetaceans and the distance in which sonar testing can be picked up.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, those issues would quite rightly and quite properly be dealt with in the management plan that would be required to be put into place under an application to operate in one of these zones. I reject the assertion that you make in relation to the information that I might or might not have here tonight. But those issues should and quite properly would be dealt with as part of a management plan, as is provided for in the act.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, no. I know the minister is standing in tonight but when you bring legislation before the Senate you bring it with the knowledge that there will be a debate on it. The last thing you want to do is say that there is some other device, some other piece of information which is centrally germane to the legislation and to amendments and is the information that is going to inform a committee, but you cannot have it while you are debating it. This does not stand.

The minister might say that the management plans are a regulatory device and that the Senate will be able to look at them at some future time, and I would like him to inform us about that. But Mr Temporary Chairman Brandis, as you will no doubt agree, it is the minister’s responsibility to come in here informed about all aspects of this legislation. Copping out by saying, ‘Well, I don’t know’ or ‘I’ll tell you later’ is simply not adequate to an informed debate on a matter as important as this. So I ask him: can he get that information? We have doubled the size of the adviser’s box since Senator Milne spoke. Can he get that information and inform the committee before we move on?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, as I have said—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the interjection, Senator O’Brien. The adviser’s box is exactly the same size it was before. Senator Brown, as I said before, it is quite right and proper that there is a process in place and via the EPBC Act issues relating to the marine environment will be dealt with under that act. I refute your assertion. We can go in a circular argument all night, I suppose, if that is what you want to do, but it is my responsibility to have provisions in place to deal with these issues. I think I should have an understanding of that and I am quite confident that is the case.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party has, in fact, some sympathy with Senator Colbeck’s arguments on behalf of the government in that it is our view that this act, or indeed other acts of this parliament, contain adequate provisions for environmental assessment, determination of approvals and management of exploration programs in environmentally sensitive areas. The argument does not stand or fall on whether every single pertinent provision that Senator Brown mentions is contained in this legislation. For example, as Senator Colbeck has pointed out, aspects of the EPBC Act do apply to exploration under this legislation. We do take the view that that is a more appropriate place for that material to be dealt with. We do not think that this is the appropriate legislation which would, for example, prohibit exploration in a particular area.

The appropriate legislation would be either Commonwealth or state legislation, depending on whether the waters under the constitutional arrangements were Commonwealth or state waters. Those particular pieces of legislation would need to establish the various tenures for marine protected areas. That legislation would need to clearly spell out the prohibitions on use and the permitted use for the areas which are to be described as marine protected. Those are the premises on which the opposition will be approaching this legislation. We understand the intent of the amendments, but we do not accept the premise upon which they are based—that is, that the absence of every single aspect of the material mentioned in the amendments should be in this bill.

It is our view that there are provisions in other legislation which cover the measures which are intended to be addressed. In some cases, in terms of marine protected areas, that legislation will be beyond the reach of this parliament, because it will not be Commonwealth waters that we are dealing with. We think that, in that case, it is more appropriate that it be dealt with by the state legislation. We are not minded to support the legislation on the basis of those principles. Whilst we understand the matters being pursued by Senator Brown and Senator Milne, we do not believe that they are matters which need to be contained in the bill now before the Senate.

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

I want to comment on a couple of matters. When I talked about consultation, I was referring to the fact that the decision whether to issue a permit, lease or licence does not involve collaborative decision making or involvement with those with expertise in ecology; the decision to issue a permit or licence is made by the designated authority, who is the state or territory minister alone. No reference is made to other sectors or agencies. When I was talking about consultation, I was talking about this bill in the context of regional marine planning and the fact that the other agencies that have expertise in these matters over a range of issues are not included and that, ultimately, the minister can decide and will do so as the designated authority.

In terms of consultation, Senator Colbeck listed all of the NGOs, or non-government organisations, which had been consulted in relation to this bill. Perhaps he would like to enlighten the house as to what they said about this bill. Consultation does not mean just asking them, hearing what they have to say and then taking no notice whatsoever. Consultation, if it is genuine, means you incorporate into the bill some of the concerns expressed by the people you have consulted.

Perhaps Senator Colbeck could tell us: what is incorporated into this bill that has come from all of those NGOs who are involved with environmental protection? What did ACF have to say? You have quoted them as one of the groups who have been consulted in relation to this bill. Did they think it was a great bill and had no problems? What did the environment groups have to say about this Offshore Petroleum Bill? Now that you have listed them all, let us hear the comments that they had to make in relation to this bill before you proceed to tell us that you consulted them. You have proceeded anyway. I would suggest that every one of those groups would have drawn your attention to the fact that this legislation does not use the word ‘oceans’ once, does not use the word ‘marine’ once and fails to talk about ecologically sustainable development or ecosystem based management.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne, my advice is that, in relation to the management of environment regulations that form part of this process, which came into force in 1999 and were updated in 2005, WWF and ACF in particular were part of the consultation and agreed with our proposals in relation to that.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did they agree with the proposal in relation to everything, or was there some point of concern or disagreement? That is the whole question that Senator Milne asked, and that is what we have a right to be informed about. Senator Colbeck might tell us about that. In not unexpectedly professing Labor’s support for the legislation, Senator O’Brien claimed that the EPBC Act in part covers the matters at hand here. I ask that minister—and I invite Senator O’Brien to contribute—which parts of the EPBC Act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, cover activities, including granting of exploration licences, that are involved in this legislation and which parts of the EPBC do not. If the minister cannot answer that, Senator O’Brien obviously does know about it and would be able to answer it.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not have, and nor do I think I should be expected to have, all of the details of the consultation process that was undertaken. I think that is a reasonable position that I can and should take. I will say that, for every activity authorised under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, an environmental management plan is required, which would obviously deal with the issues that we are talking about. As I have said before, these requirements are set out in regulations made under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Management of Environment) Regulations 1999. As I have said, the amendments to the management of environment regulations were entirely agreed upon by all stakeholders, including the WWF and the ACF.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Really? What about the other environment groups? What about the legislation as a whole? In his second reading speech, the minister said:

I refer to issues such as establishing more comprehensive and up-to-date provisions about delegations and bringing the enactment into compliance with modern administrative law principles, for instance by explicitly requiring consultation with relevant parties before certain adverse decisions are taken.

Could the minister’s delegate tell us what is meant by that sentence, what are the relevant parties referred to in that sentence and what sort of adverse decisions are being referred to there?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not going to enter into a debate to interpret the minister’s second reading speech. I think the speech is quite clear in what it says and in my view the issues that we are debating have been dealt with in my previous answers.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is exasperating that we have a parliamentary secretary who cannot understand a sentence that is written by the minister and is presented as an explanation of this legislation to the Senate. It is a very important sentence and the minister’s delegate should be on top of it. I ask him if he would be good enough to ask the minister to report back to the Senate as to what is meant by the term ‘requiring consultation with relevant parties’, who the relevant parties will be and what the ‘certain adverse decisions’ referred to in that sentence are.

This is a second reading speech on a very large piece of legislation and this is critical terminology. It is not explicit. It does not give an example. It is entirely reasonable and common—that is what this committee debate is about—for the committee to be informed about such a matter. It is a failure of Senate process when a minister’s delegate in a debate like this says, ‘I’m not going to tell you.’ This is a failure by government to inform the parliament on a debate which is quite critical.

Senator O’Brien, who was trying to help the parliamentary secretary out before, might know. I invite him to contribute to the debate if he does. If not, there are a couple of other pieces of the second reading speech I would like to ask about. We all know that second reading speeches above all have to be clear in what they state because they describe and explain the government’s approach to and reasons for legislation. It is absolutely critical that they not be misunderstood and that they be totally explicable by the government representative. I have a few more of those but, while the parliamentary secretary is considering that with advice, I will sit down and wait.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, I do not think it is reasonable for you to decide, as you usually tend to do, that the best way to debate an issue is to attack the person debating the issue rather than argue the issue. If that is the track that you want to go down, I will ask for some advice in relation to that issue. If you have some other questions, you might like to put those on the record while I am waiting for that advice.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the parliamentary secretary for responding. He is going to try and get some information. I do not want to put the other questions on record; I want to ask the parliamentary secretary because he is here. We do not put these things on record; we get them explained during a debate. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would give the chamber the government’s definition of ‘ecologically sustainable development’. The paragraph in the second reading speech immediately following the one which I quoted earlier says:

An example of this—

referring to the previous sentence—

is the right by holders of exploration permits and retention leases to recover petroleum on an appraisal basis.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain that sentence?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I do not have specific interpretations of these particular issues here with me. I am going to have to seek advice in relation to this. I think ‘ecologically sustainable development’ is a commonly used term that we have an understanding of. Perhaps we have different interpretations of what we would like it to mean, but I am not going to get involved in a circular debate on this matter as part of this process.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not a circular debate. It is called snookering when a minister’s delegate says, ‘I can’t explain.’ Mind you, I did tempt the parliamentary secretary to explain that term because he would have been the first government member in the history of this parliament to explain what the government means when it uses that term. He is rating as well as his predecessors on that one. While he is looking for an explanation of that sentence, I go to the next paragraph, which says:

Other changes are intended to achieve greater administrative tidiness, one instance of which is the proposal that exact periods of a year would no longer be required for fixing work program milestones. In addition, there are refinements to National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority powers and functions plus machinery amendments, such as disapplying the Navigation Act 1912 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 in relation to an offshore petroleum facility.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could explain what is meant by the term ‘disapplying’ and why that is occurring.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the first issue, about compliance with modern administrative law principles and the requirement for consultation of relevant parties, my advice is that that relates to those who may be impacted on by the activities undertaken under the act and therefore a consultation process is required to occur. In relation to the second point that you raised and which you say is contained in the second last paragraph of the second page of the second reading speech, I am not sure that we do not have a different format of the document, because neither I nor my officials can identify the section you are talking about. You might like to run through that for me again so that we can explore that.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I asked for a copy of the legislation and attendant papers here 20 minutes ago, and I was reading from the Senate Offshore Petroleum Bill 2005 second reading speech. I was reading from the second page and the second last paragraph.

In response to what the minister just said: he says that consultation with ‘relevant parties’ means with those impacted on; does that mean that, where there is some activity that requires consultation with relevant parties, the environment drops out at that stage—‘before certain adverse decisions are taken’? Suddenly even the WWF and the ACF are no longer relevant to the deliberations of this government over what should happen in that particular instance.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, that is not the interpretation that I would place on it. It refers back to the requirements of the 1999 act, which was updated in 2005 and does include the involvement of environmental groups.

I am not trying to be difficult about this paragraph that we are seeking. Please don’t get me wrong in that respect; I am genuinely trying to find the paragraph. It may be that the documents that we have are formatted in a different way, but we cannot at the moment find the words that you quoted. If you would like to run through them again for me, I can perhaps identify them in my document.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure. The paragraph begins:

There are also amendments deleting unused provisions, which no longer need to remain in the legislation. and amendments to make explicit concepts that are currently implied or merely to be deduced. An example of this—

this is what I quoted before—

is the right by holders of exploration permits and retention leases to recover petroleum on an appraisal basis.

That beats me and I would be happy if we could get an explanation as to what that meant.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does appear that we have a conflict in documentation here. That particular paragraph does not appear in the second reading speech that I have as part of my documentation, so I really have no choice but to take the question on notice.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I will be interested to find out the explanation there; that has heightened my interest somewhat! Chair, I did ask Senator Colbeck about the next paragraph, which begins:

Other changes are intended to achieve greater administrative tidiness …

It goes on to say:

… there are refinements … such as disapplying the Navigation Act 1912 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 in relation to an offshore petroleum facility.

I asked why those acts are being, to use the term in the second reading speech, ‘disapplied’.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I help the parliamentary secretary out to the extent that I can on the advice that I have. The passage which refers to the recovery of petroleum on an appraisal basis apparently refers to a previously existing arrangement where a lease and permit were required to assess, and another lease was required to take oil from a lease to appraise the value of the lease. Those two provisions are being combined into one. That is the advice that I have. I am not sure how far that takes the debate, but perhaps that helps the parliamentary secretary out.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator O’Brien. Senator Brown, it appears to me that we have very different copies of the second reading speech, which is extremely unfortunate in the context of conducting this debate. So, in relation to that final point that you raised, I am going to have to take that on notice too, Senator Brown.

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

I wanted to ask why it is necessary to have a situation where you can in fact prescribe oil exploration in certain areas, especially in relation to protected marine areas. It seems to me that this legislation is creating, if you like, new acreages where the petroleum industry will effectively have private property rights for a long period of time. There should be a process which should be gone through, which involves public notification of the proposed creation of new acreages for oil and gas exploration and the seeking of public comment on those, not just in petroleum magazines but also in daily newspapers relevant to the state, on the web, nationally and so on because, in frontier areas which are new to petroleum exploration and development, there may well be very significant environmental values and ecosystems which need protection. The Department of the Environment and Heritage and, in particular, the National Oceans Office should have veto rights if an area is too sensitive to sustain petroleum or any other exploration or if the environmental values are not yet known or fully understood. As I said before, very little of the oceans has been adequately explored, and we simply do not know what is there.

This legislation is effectively creating private property rights over the global commons which are the oceans and not providing a capacity to proscribe oil and gas exploration in areas. There is an assumption that there is no place where the oil and gas sector cannot go. For some reason or another, people think that it is perfectly fine to use the seabed in any place for this particular purpose. The fact that these new acreages are being created without the capacity to proscribe makes it even more important that we have in this legislation the amendment as proposed that, in considering an area for an oil or gas permit or licence, there should be the capacity to assess it as a marine protected area in full consultation with the Oceans Office and the Department of the Environment and Heritage and therefore proscribe oil exploration. At the moment, there is no provision anywhere. There just seems to be an assumption that the industry can operate sustainably anywhere; it is just a matter of the technology.

I would dispute that absolutely. I do not believe that that is the case. That is the point I was making earlier about the failure of this legislation to be integrated with environmental legislation and with the National Oceans Office. The failure to have an oceans policy backed by a legislative or statutory framework means we get into these situations where we are considering oil and gas exploration as if it were a single-user regime in complete isolation from any other marine use, let alone marine conservation. That is not the case.

The oceans are complex ecosystems, just as we find with terrestrial ecosystems, and you cannot bring in legislation that deals just with a single use without recognising the integrated nature of that. That is why it is imperative that we have a situation where, in marine protected areas, it is possible to prohibit exploration for oil, gas or petroleum exploration—any of that exploration and seismic testing et cetera—which would then allow the provision to prescribe areas in the first place rather than have as the basic assumption of this legislation that oil and gas exploration can go anywhere where there is not currently a marine protected area. I would like the minister to explain to me whether in fact this legislation is creating new acreages and why there is no provision for full public consultation and consultation with the Department of the Environment and Heritage and the National Oceans Office in order that there be consideration of veto rights on the basis of environmental values and the precautionary principle.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not concur that the assertion that you are putting forward is in fact the case. As I have said previously, for every activity authorised under this act, an environmental management plan is required. Those environmental management plans are developed in accordance with the EPBC Act and also the environmental regulations that were referred to previously. So it is not a situation of carte blanche. If a company want to conduct some explorations, they make an application to do so and it goes through the processes that we have described. So I would reject the assertion that you are making that it is in fact carte blanche. There is a process for approval that does include consultation, and the process for the development of management plans under that process has gone through a process of consultation with players, including environmental groups, and they have ticked off on that. So I cannot agree with the assertion you are making, Senator Milne, that essentially any area outside a marine protected area—or a marine park, for that matter—is carte blanche.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I presume when the minister is saying that they have ‘ticked off on it’ that he means the legislation. I would like him to say what he does mean. We will check on this overnight, no doubt. I go back to the second reading speech. In the middle of page 3, it says, talking about the boundaries that are encompassed by this bill:

A small northward displacement of the scheduled area outer boundary north-west of Western Australia is also proposed, in line with Australia’s continental shelf claim beyond 200 nautical miles from the baseline that has been submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Could the minister tell us where that is or take it on notice so that we can find out in the morning? Also, it says up the front:

The Government saw the need, some years ago, to rewrite the Act to provide a more user-friendly enactment that will reduce compliance costs for governments and the industry.

I wonder if he could give a description to the committee on what the order of reduction of compliance costs is in dollars for both those entities—the governments and the industry—on a per annum basis.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, I was not talking about the legislation; it was the regulations that I have referred to several times before that were developed in consultation with all key stakeholders and that went through a review process. They are the regulations that are part of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Colbeck may have been distracted by one of his colleagues when I asked—

Kay Patterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No he wasn’t.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were two other questions; would he like to answer those?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The distraction was in fact quite an informative process, which has informed me that there are in fact two different documents. There was a second reading speech prepared for tabling as part of the legislative process, which the minister asked to be cut down. But the original second reading speech, which you are referring to in the questions are asking, was actually tabled. This clarifies the reason why we have different documents to refer to. The issues that you raised in your last question are also raised in parts of the second reading speech, which I do not have. Again, I will have to take that issue on notice.

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

I want to return to the point I made previously. I understand that, in the explanatory memorandum, in relation to retention leases mention is made of marine protected areas and the power of the joint authority to lay down conditions over a retention lease. The memo says that while the joint authority has the power to make conditions such as the lessee being excluded from marine protected areas, those powers must conform to the general scope and purposes of the act. It would therefore appear that this act is being put before any marine protected area or national park legislation in the hierarchy of decision making. It seems curious that the joint authority can tell the lessee to stay out of a marine protected area, but the park service cannot. I want to know which takes precedence when it comes to gas and oil exploration—this particular act or an act to provide for a marine protected area?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will have to seek some advice on that particular point for you. I do not have that information here with me.

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

I think this highlights the point I have been making throughout: what this legislation does is entrench a disintegrated, multijurisdictional approach to the oceans that has artificial boundaries and delegated responsibility. We would have hoped that we would get real integration with marine regional planning, and the fact that we have not—the fact that this legislation is pertaining to oil and gas outside the context of other jurisdictions and authorities that have responsibility for oceans—means we are going back to something that was current 40 years ago. This act was written 40 years ago as a policy framework and set of underpinning assumptions, and the rewrite of this act does not in any way challenge the assumptions on which that act from 40 years ago was written. Now we are getting into a total tangle here because it is not integrated. It is a single-user approach to what we now know is a highly complex, integrated ecosystem. This is a critical issue for me: to determine whether, in the hierarchy of legislation, the parks and environment legislation will take precedence over this act, rather than the other way round.

Progress reported.