Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5934:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 62D, page 28 (after line 9), after subsection 780A(1), insert:

     (1A)    The terms of reference for a Commission of inquiry appointed under subsection (1) are taken to include the following:

             (a)    the resource management implications of the incident; and

             (b)    the environmental impact and potential impact of the incident; and

             (c)    an assessment of the management and effectiveness of responses to the incident, including the coordination of responses across the Commonwealth Government and across jurisdictions; and

             (d)    the provision and accessibility of relevant information to affected stakeholders and the public.

This amendment relates to the issues that I mentioned in my speech on the second reading. It seeks to amend schedule 1, item 62D, by inserting further terms of reference for a commission of inquiry. In moving this amendment I will not go over the issues that I just went over a few seconds ago in my speech on the second reading but I would like to ask a couple of questions of the government, as I previously indicated. Firstly—and I am going on comments Minister Ferguson has made about intending to refer the Montara incident to be investigated under these provisions—does the government see that as its sole response in terms of an inquiry? I will ask that question first and go on from there later.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the committee that the government opposes the Greens amendment moved by Senator Siewert. The government’s purpose in giving the responsible minister the power to appoint a commissioner is to enable an independent inquiry into the operational, human and regulatory factors relating to a significant offshore petroleum or greenhouse gas incident, a power the minister does not presently have. Undoubtedly a minister establishing a commission of inquiry would take a broad view of the issues to be considered in any proper consideration of the operational, human and regulatory factors relating to the incident, the subject of the inquiry. The minister would want to ensure that all the lessons that could be learnt were in fact learnt.

There will be circumstances where the issues referred to in the Greens amendment are relevant to the incident to be investigated, but there will be other occasions where some or all of those issues are peripheral or not relevant at all. It is inappropriate to mandate in the legislation some of the terms of reference of a commission of inquiry, particularly terms of reference relating to matters in relation to which there already exist adequate Commonwealth powers and processes to investigate and consider. The committee can be confident that the responsible minister would look to any commission of inquiry established by him or her to provide a comprehensive report on the causes and consequences of the incident being investigated. In the government’s view the amendment is therefore unnecessary. Under the national response plan there would also be an automatic review. I hope that assists.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does partially, but I will seek some clarification. I appreciate the comments around the review of the response plan. However, as I understand it, that would be a review of that particular response rather than of whether the response plan was suited to the nature of the particular incident. We have not had an incident in recent history like the current one in terms of its remoteness and ongoing nature. We have not had a blow-out of that particular nature since 1984, as I understand it. With all due respect to the minister, he did not address the issue of whether this is seen by the government as the only investigation that will take place into this incident. I am not reassured that the potential environmental impacts of the incident, the coordination, management and effectiveness of the response across government and jurisdictions, and the resource management implications of the incident will be reviewed in relation to all the issues that we are concerned about. Can and will those issues be considered under the provisions currently before us, or is the government planning to do some other form of review? To date I am not confident that these issues can and will be considered under the provisions as they stand in the amendments proposed in the bill.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, what I can assure you of is this: under the national plan the parties would conduct a review of the incident. If they found systemic failures then those failures would be addressed.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to try and keep this short. I am not trying to drag it out. As we know, the plan deals with the incident, the clean-up of the incident and a number of other things. It does not deal with the environmental impacts. It does not deal with the environmental response. That is under separate agencies. As I have articulated already, there are a series of agencies involved here. There is some coordination but there are also some gaps. It does not deal with those issues. It does not deal with the various government jurisdictions and the various government agencies. That has been made pretty plain from the responses and the way we are getting briefed. I appreciate the briefings that we are getting, but we are getting them from separate agencies and there is no one person that you can go to and find out what is going on across the whole of the government response. How is that going to be assessed? Can I be guaranteed that these provisions will enable that and that that is what the government will refer for investigation?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, what I can assure you of is that, in assessing the response, naturally we will have to examine the effectiveness of the response in dealing with the environmental impacts.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will that review and assessment of the response have the same powers, ability to call evidence et cetera as are going to be available under the provisions of this particular bill?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I can say in response to that—and, again, I am only acting for the minister at present—is that it is a review of the impact of the response. Therefore, that inquiry does not need those sorts of coercive powers. That would be the view of the government.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not going to drag this out. With all due respect and without intending to be rude, I do not think that the government’s approach is adequate. I will not call it a ‘response’, because the minister is trying to give me an understanding of the government’s approach, but I do not think the government’s approach is adequate.

I think that it would be much better to have an inquiry which had the power to review all of these issues rather than the not quite so strong powers the commission will have under this act to look at only some issues relating to oil spills. I find it quite difficult, to tell you the truth, to think of an oil spill that would not have some potential impact on the environment. I am all for covering resource management implications across government jurisdictions and for looking at the effectiveness of the response of those jurisdictions. I find it hard to think of any offshore incident that would not need to look at those issues.

I am not satisfied with the government’s response. The government are obviously taking a very strong view on the seriousness of some of the implications of an oil spill, and I congratulate them for that, but I am particularly concerned that they are not taking that same seriousness of approach to looking at the impacts—the environmental implications, the resource management implications and the other things that we have included in our amendment. There seem to be two different emphases here and I find that unsatisfactory. You are going to have a mishmash of investigations and inquiries into these incidents, which I do not think is satisfactory. If the government is not going to refer a complete investigation to the commissioner, I have very strong concerns about the way we will be investigating future spills because we will have a disjointed approach.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government also believes these are very serious matters and that was noted during the debate. We take on board your concerns and note your submissions.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can assure the government that we will be pursuing a full investigation. If it turns out that complete terms of reference are not referred to this inquiry, we will continue to pursue a proper investigation into all aspects of this incident.

I think the government are missing a critical opportunity to put in place provisions for a thorough investigation rather than a halfway house, which is what we are going to get. As I said, I fully appreciate and congratulate the government for acknowledging that they need to look at the regulatory powers and also for acknowledging that they may need to change the regulatory powers. Minister Ferguson has done that and I congratulate them for that, but they have only gone halfway. They need to be looking at the other areas. I will not hold up the Senate any longer, but we will continue to pursue this issue.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition does not support, indeed may I say that we oppose, these amendments. The powers in the bill for a commission of inquiry are more than adequate. This amendment, incorporating a resource management implication aspect, requires the commission, or the inquirers, to undertake a quite considerable investigation—indeed, may I say, a study. This is utterly inappropriate when we are looking at reporting factually on what has occurred.

I underline the inclusion of environmental impact and then potential impact as being completely an ambit claim and requiring the commission to undertake a vast study of matters that are tenuously connected to an incident. The assessment of management and effectiveness and the provision of accessibility of relevant information to affected stakeholders and the public is in a similar vein. This is an ambit claim.

I see no real understanding, in this amendment, of what the bill seeks to do and achieve in terms of a post facto inquiry into incidents. NOPSA has a very proud and successful history of managing, for many, many years, offshore safety in the petroleum industry and I see no benefit in this amendment at all.

Question negatived.

Bills agreed to.

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 and Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety Levies) Amendment Bill 2009 reported without amendment; report adopted.