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

I would like to ask the minister: when was this issue first brought to the attention of the government and how was it discovered?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, I am advised that this issue first came to the attention of departmental officials in a meeting on 16 December 2015. That was a meeting with the Department of the Environment to discuss petroleum titles and Commonwealth marine reserves. Obviously, on becoming aware of this issue, the department sought legal advice on the status of renewed or extended petroleum titles. The department informally briefed the minister's office in the lead-up to Christmas and a formal brief was sent to the minister's office on 19 January 2016 once the final legal advice and the necessary work had been undertaken to identify the scope of the issue.

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

I have just had an opportunity to read Mr Gary Gray's second reading debate speech on this bill. In that he talks about it being first exposed in the government in 2011. Could I please have an explanation about whether he got the facts wrong or whether, in fact, it was raised and nothing was done about it.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I obviously have no knowledge, and the government cannot have any knowledge, about advice provided to a previous government. I have not spoken to Mr Gray about that particular issue. I did mention in my earlier comments that there were amendments proposed in 2011 in response to the Montara issue which, apparently, at the time, if those amendments had proceeded, would have removed this requirement and removed this issue. That is one reason why there was some confusion in the department, and how this error arose. But I cannot have any knowledge about advice that department officials gave to a minister from a previous government.

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

Was there no handover? Were no records kept? Mr Gray said in his speech during the second reading debate:

I apologise because this oversight, this shortfall, this lack of consistent dealing consistent with the act's fine requirements, was first exposed to the government in 2011 and we, and I, did nothing to attend to it then, placing an onerous obligation on the current government to act in a legislative way …

So quite clearly the department knew about it in 2011. Does this happen frequently?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again I must stress that I or the government cannot have knowledge about the advice provided to a previous minister in a previous government from a different side of politics. I am advised though that the issue here arose because of staff turnover in this particular area, so that corporate knowledge—and I have no knowledge of what was provided to the previous government—may have been lost to the department. In this government for this minister the issue first came to departmental officials' attention just before Christmas and the minister was only formally briefed that there was an issue on 19 January 2016.

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

That raises a point. The fact here is that the department has not been carrying out the legislative requirements. Is that not what it boils down to?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think, Senator Siewert, we have been open and frank about the fact that there has been an oversight here. There has been a legislative requirement to seek the Minister for the Environment's approval for renewal or extension of these petroleum titles. That has not happened. We have been as open as we can be about why that has happened, due to the issues in the department. Obviously, as I said in my summing-up speech, we all make errors from time to time, including me. The best thing we can do is make sure we fix those errors when they are exposed. We have the expert legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor about the best way to fix these problems while still maintaining our strong environmental protections.

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

I agree that errors get made. I acknowledge that we all make mistakes. This is a very long mistake and it is about the implementation of Commonwealth legislation and environmental protections. How can the community be confident that there are no other oversights? I will add a supplementary question to that. Have you done a review to ensure that the legislation is now adequately being implemented? If you have, can that be made public?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the first question—can the Australian people be confident?—I certainly think they can be confident about our environmental protections and I think that is demonstrated by our strong environmental record as a country and as a nation, including in the protection of our offshore areas. That is the ultimate test obviously of whether our environmental protections are working.

This particular issue was an administrative requirement in the sense that we needed to receive approval from another minister for certain decisions to be renewed or extended. Those renewals and extensions were still assessed based on the requirements that go to the more substantive issues of protecting the environment in the act. That particular administrative check was not received in this case. We have discovered that and are seeking to fix it through this bill.

I am advised that the department is conducting a further comprehensive review to ensure that any other legislative requirements are adhered to. Of course I am confident that if any other issues are discovered through that process that the government will act quickly to rectify those issues, as it has in this instance where within a matter of months processes have changed and this legislation is here. I should add that I am advised that the Department of the Environment has established a new process to ensure that any further renewals or extensions of petroleum titles do receive approval by the Minister for the Environment or his or her delegate. Of course, this legislation affects only those decisions made before 1 January 2016. Decisions to renew or extend licences after that date will need to accord with the legislative requirement that exists to receive the Minister for the Environment's approval.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill obviously corrects a mistake made by the previous government, but there is nothing—I do not attribute any blame in that. I am grateful that Mr Gary Gray, who was the relevant minister at the time, is, as always, very frank and open about this. This is fixing an administrative error. As the minister has mentioned here, we all make mistakes. The important thing is to fix them as soon as possible. The minister in the other place clearly indicated that this was an oversight. There were reserves granted without ministerial approval, and this legislation, according to the minister's speech in the other place, is simply to backdate what would have been ministerial approval at the time.

I want to ask the minister a question generally about this area. Senator Siewert, in her speech, spoke often about marine protected areas, and I agree with most of what she said. Marine protected areas were introduced by a Liberal government, something the Greens political party have never acknowledged.

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

That's not true!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, you do acknowledge it. I simply want to make the point that any serious environmental legislation in this parliament has always been introduced by Liberal-National party coalition governments. Fraser Island, the environment department—I could go back for hours. We are never given credit for it, but then we are not here to get credit; we are here to do the right thing by the Australian environment.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are hilarious!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the reasons I am speaking today is because I am very proud of the record of Liberal-National party federal governments in the environment area. You can go back: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Fraser Island, setting up the first environment department, the first environment minister—all Liberal government initiatives. Nothing has ever come from the Labor Party—very little, with respect, in the Labor Party, encouraged by the Greens. You can laugh all you like, but the facts are there. Unfortunately, we do not get the credit for it. If you talk about the environment, you think it is the Greens that do it, but every serious piece of environmental legislation that has come through this parliament has been an initiative of Liberal governments—not of the Greens and certainly not of the Labor Party. I want to make that point, as I often do, because we have a very proud record of environmental legislation and regulation. Unfortunately, the listening public—I notice we are on broadcast today—never appreciate that. We do not want thanks; we just want to do what is right, and marine protected areas are an example of that.

In fact, it was a Liberal government and a Liberal minister that first introduced an oceans policy. The first oceans policy anywhere in the world was done by a Liberal-National government—Senator Hill, in fact. That was a world first. And as a result of the oceans policy, we introduced a series of marine protected areas. Some people were a bit upset about that at the time, but we did it because it was right for the Australian environment. It is a proud record that we have. But in relation to marine protected areas, the basis upon which they were introduced is that they be multipurpose, that they address all of the issues that might happen in our ocean. Some of them are petroleum exploration. The plans of management that come under these marine protected areas are the important issues. Setting up the marine protected area is fine; it is the management plans that come under it.

I remember that the first one was in the southern seas between Victoria and Tasmania. It took a long time to get the management plans right, but eventually—and I have said this many a time in this place—all sides of the argument were 80 per cent happy; no-one was 100 per cent happy, but all sides were 80 per cent happy. So, we had marine protected areas, but we allowed controlled fishing; we allowed exploration provided that it was done the right way and was very strictly controlled. That is why I wanted to say just a few words today, engendered by Senator Siewert's comments on marine protected areas. We have to make sure that the plans of management in marine protected areas do look after the oceans, as was the original intention of the Liberal and Nationals governments when this was introduced. But we have to make sure it is done sensibly. And as you would expect, as a Queensland senator living on the coast near the Great Barrier Reef and the Coral Sea I am particularly interested that the plans of management, particularly for the Coral Sea marine protected areas, are sensible—not doing what the Pew foundation would want.

You may know, but in case you do not, the Pew foundation is an American environment group, funded, I might say, by the oil industry in America, which apparently has a bad conscience about what the oil industry did in America earlier in the last century. So, the Pew group has now put a lot of money into this organisation. It is not too keen, it seems, about looking after the United States' problems but comes out here and tries to tell Australians how to look after our natural resources. I might say, just in passing, that I have as much respect for President Obama's entry into the environment debate in Australia as I do for the Pew foundation's entry into the debate! I will never forgive the American president for blowing into Australia and starting to lecture us about control and protection of the Great Barrier Reef when, again, Australia has a wonderful record in protection of one of the seven wonders of the world—the Great Barrier Reef. I wish the American president would look after his own backyard and not bother about giving us a lecture about our environmental control and management of some of the wonderful natural assets we have in Australia. In fact, as was mentioned earlier, it was the Liberal and Nationals governments that first set up the protections of the Great Barrier Reef—at a time, I might say, when there were also Liberal and Nationals state governments in Queensland, and of course they were very much involved in this.

So, I just want to emphasise that in dealing with marine protected areas—and this bill before us relates to that—we have to make sure that the management plans are right, and we have to make sure that we properly manage those marine protected areas. That means, particularly in relation to the Coral Sea, that fishing must be allowed, but in a controlled way. Fishermen more than anyone understand the importance of the ecology and of sustainable use of the environment. And it is very important that the department and the advisers and those who deal with these areas do not overlook the fact that you can have controlled and managed fishing operations in marine protected areas. Again, I am aware that in the marine protected areas and in the Coral Sea there are wonderful new initiatives for fishing—sustainable initiatives. Fishermen would be the first ones to say that they do not want to overfish, that they do not want to destroy the fish stock, because that is their livelihood.

And we have to get through to the Greens political party, to the Pew foundation and hopefully to the bureaucrats who administer these acts that it is important to have these marine protected areas in a multifaceted, multipurpose arrangement, and the management plans need to address that. I am particularly passionate about the fishing industry everywhere, but specifically in the north. As we all know in this chamber, most of the fish that Australians eat these days is imported, and very often we are not very sure what its origin is, how it has been grown or how it has been caught. We do know about that in relation to the small amount of fish that we do catch or grow because we have a very strict regime of fisheries management in Australia. The Australian Fisheries Management Authority is a wonderful organisation made up of professional fish managers and scientists who look into these things. They determine the sustainability of any fishing in those areas, and they are far better placed to do it than the Pew foundation and some of the Greens political party.

I say 'some of the Greens political party' because I know that Senator Siewert was part of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia that has just tabled a report on aquaculture. It was a unanimous report, and I thank Senator Siewert for her contributions to that report, the same as I thanked, yesterday when I tabled that report, Ms MacTiernan, Mr Gray and Mr Snowdon, for their positive contributions to that report on aquaculture. I know that some in the Greens political party understand that you can have fishing, you can have aquaculture, providing it is properly controlled and managed.

In this committee stage of the debate my question to the minister, which is almost a rhetorical question, is: does this amendment act in any way impact on the other uses of marine protected areas, particularly in fishing? As I say, it is important that we have marine protected areas, but it is important that we, as a nation, manage them properly and do allow controlled exploitation of those areas that is done in a way that will not impact upon the ecology or on Australia's wealth.

I will leave that there. I obviously support the bill. It is an administrative bill correcting an oversight of the previous government and needs to be done. I just want to ensure that nothing in the bill, in any way, impacts upon the proper management and use of marine protected areas for other purposes.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his contribution and I share his particular interest and concern for our fishing industry. I can confirm that this bill only relates to petroleum titles and, indeed, only to the renewal or extension of petroleum titles and not to their original designation. It only relates to an issue where petroleum titles existed in an area before a Commonwealth marine reserve came into force or overlapped with an area when a Commonwealth marine reserve area came into force. As you would have seen in other contributions in this debate, any renewal or extension of those originally designated petroleum titles does require the approval of the Minister for the Environment. That has not happened over the period from 2008 until late last year, and this bill seeks to rectify the issues with those renewals and extensions, but only for petroleum titles. It does not affect other activities that may occur in Commonwealth waters or our offshore waters including those relating to fishing.

If I can respond a little to the senator's contribution about the proud record of the coalition government in protecting the environment. As Senator Macdonald would know, it was a coalition government that introduced the EPBC Act and, of course, the requirement in section 359 for the Minister for the Environment to approve extensions or renewals for the petroleum titles is a requirement introduced by a coalition government. It is regrettable that that particular requirement has not been adhered to in these cases over this period of time involving both Labor and coalition governments, but we are committed to fixing it and, of course, we are committed to the proper environmental management of our offshore waters, including making sure that we support environmentally sustainable activities such as fishing, that any newly designated marine reserves—I know the senator's interest in the review of Commonwealth marine reserves in his area—are properly assessed, and that we allow economic activities that are in concord with the protection of a strong environment and a protected Great Barrier Reef, in the case near Senator Macdonald's territory.

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

I want to return to the line of questioning that I was asking previously. I thank the minister for his answer in terms of the review that is being undertaken within the department. Part of that question—I know it was a triple-part question, so I should have waited to ask this one—was: will that review be released publicly?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry if I missed some of that previous question. I thought it was a double question, not a triple one. But the review that is being conducted is an internal review, as of course was the process which has led to these particular changes. That internal review is not expected to be made public, because it is a review of departmental operations and procedures. However, I am sure, as I said earlier, that any particular issues that arise from that review will be rectified by the government. If any of those issues lead to a need to change regulations or otherwise, they will, of course, be brought to this chamber for review and, of course, through the normal practices the senator and any other interested senators will be free to question the department and the government about these issues further in other committees and other avenues.

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

I am disappointed it will not be released publicly. I presume estimates in the future might be an interesting place to continue to ask questions about the progress of the review.

I just want to go back to the issue of how this oversight was identified and how it occurred. Was there a process of review? I understand you cannot answer the question around 2011. Obviously there was a process there that identified the problem. That seems to have disappeared. What led to it being identified now?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I obviously did indicate earlier that it arose in a meeting between departmental officials. I am advised that that meeting was part of our due diligence process to ensure systems were working properly. Obviously it arose at that meeting. I was not at that meeting myself, and neither were any ministerial officials; it was a departmental meeting. But this issue arose. As soon as it did arise and came to the attention of departmental officials, they immediately sought to investigate further, including through expert legal advice in that process and that review of these issues. That legal advice has led to these particular changes we are proposing today.

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

Fair enough. That meeting is where everybody agreed there was an issue. Did either the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science or the Department of the Environment identify it as a problem at the meeting, or did they bring it to the meeting?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not quite agree with the premise of that question. My understanding is that, while the issue was raised at the meeting and identified, there was no agreement at that meeting that this particular legislation, for example, had to be introduced. They obviously felt that there was something worth investigating. As the senator might appreciate, some of these renewals and extensions go on a rolling basis, so they affect titles differently. So there were questions about whether the titles themselves will continue to be valid, regardless of the particular requirements in the act. So there was not necessarily an agreement by one set of officials or otherwise that this was going to be a problem that needed legislative correction. It was raised, in my understanding, as a matter of concern, and further work was done to decide exactly what needed to be done in response to that concern. That is why we are proposing this legislation now.

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

I apologise if my question was not clear. I did not mean to imply that it was agreed at the meeting. The point I am asking is: was the particular issue of the oversight—in other words, that the requirements under the act had not been met—actually identified when they were going through the process at the meeting, or did one of the agencies identify it and bring it as an issue when they were at the meeting?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that this particular meeting and these conversations were just part of normal practice and communication between the departments and that, through those conversations and discussions, this issue was identified as it arose.

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

I understand there are 42 leases affected. Is that correct?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. My understanding is that there are 42 petroleum titles that are potentially affected by this oversight.

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

Which marine reserves are affected, not just in the overall bioregion but in the actual reserves? Is there a list available?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can outline the marine reserves for the senator. I can also outline the numbers of reserves. Keep in mind that when you get these numbers they will not add up to 42 because some titles have been surrendered in the interim. My advice is that there are 33 active titles in these marine reserves. Two are in the south-east CMR network, nine are in the South-west CMR Network, 17 are in the North-west CMR Network and five are in the North CMR Network.

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

Thank you for that; I appreciate it. I am actually after the specific reserves within the bioregion.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can provide that level of detail as well. The two in the South-east CMR Network are in the Zeehan Commonwealth Marine Reserve. Of the nine in the South-west CMR Network there are six in the Great Australian Bight Commonwealth Marine Reserve, two in the Western Eyre Commonwealth Marine Reserve, and one in the Jurien Bay and Abrolhos Commonwealth marine reserves.

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

Abrolhos.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will stand by your pronunciation in that part of our country, Senator Siewert! Of the 17 in the North-west Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network, there are three in the Kimberley Commonwealth Marine Reserve, three in the Argo-Rowley Terrace Commonwealth Marine Reserve, four in the Montebello Commonwealth Marine Reserve and seven in the Gascoyne Commonwealth Marine Reserve. The remaining five, in the North Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network, are all in the Oceanic Shoals Commonwealth Marine Reserve.

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

I am wondering if the minister could table the list. It would be appreciated if he could.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to table this list.

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

Thank you. Are the BP permits or titles that are overlapping the Great Australian Bight Marine Park affected by this legislation?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can report that some titles provided to BP are affected by this particular issue. However, I would also stress that my advice is that all of the titles that BP are operating under are operating under an originally approved valid term. That means that they are still in the original time period of approval right now. Their activities are still originally valid from that time period. The renewals and extensions that they have sought which are affected by this decision would be for future periods beyond the current time frame.

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

I thank the minister. If I understand what you have just said, in fact decisions were not made under the administrative oversight—that time period—on prior acreage.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( ): Just to be clear, the renewals and extensions to the BP titles occurred over this 2008-to-2015 period. However, right now in February this year the BP titles are still in their original term. They have not completed their original term. But the renewals and extensions had already been granted in those previous periods and they will take effect once the original term expires.

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

Thank you for that clarification. During the period of time this has occurred, have there been any reportable incidences in the effective marine parks?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that there have been no reportable incidences over that time frame.

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

In the process now, does the Director of National Parks have the right to refuse the granting of petroleum titles in Commonwealth marine reserves?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might just need to clarify with the senator what precisely she means by that question. As I have said previously, future extensions or renewals of petroleum titles will require the approval of the Minister for the Environment. My understanding is that the delegate for the Minister for the Environment at the moment is the Director of National Parks. So they would need that approval going forward. Obviously this piece of legislation will make those renewals and extensions that occurred prior to 2016 valid, so the Director of National Parks will not need to formally extend or renew those titles. However, I can advise that the Director of National Parks has written to the minister and advised that, in his view, there would have been no barrier and he would have approved these renewals and extensions even if consent had been sought over this period from 2008 to 2015.

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

During the period of time that this occurred, did the Department of the Environment or the Director of National Parks contact the relevant resource agency, whatever it happens to be called at the time, separately over any of these leases?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding from the information we have is that, no, there was no contact about any of the particular titles from the Department of the Environment or any of its agencies in regards to this issue prior to it being revealed to us as a government lease in December last year. I should also add that all of the activities that have occurred in these offshore areas under the petroleum titles issue have continued to remain compliant with the conditions and restrictions placed on those activities in these areas as it is now regulated by NOPSEMA and it was regulated by the joint authority before NOPSEMA was put into place. But we are not aware of the Department of the Environment or anyone else otherwise raising this issue to do with renewals and extensions of petroleum titles with us prior to December last year.

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

I have a final couple of questions going back to the review. Is it possible to table the terms of reference for the review that is being undertaken?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said previously, it is an internal review of the department. The government does not propose releasing the report itself or the terms of reference. As I said earlier, I think the parliament and the public can remain confident that, as we have dealt with this issue openly and quite quickly, we would do the same with any other issues that might arise through that review process.

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

It was worth a try! Will the review be looking at the actual process now that is undertaken by the resources portfolio as it goes through the granting of petroleum titles in Commonwealth marine reserves and whether their extensions or renewals are in fact new titles?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The review itself has obviously been initiated in response to this particular issue. It is of course focusing on this particular issue in proposed section 359. But it is also, I am advised, extending to review all of the legislative requirements that are placed on the Department of Industry, Science and Innovation in regards to the OPGGS Act and any other ancillary requirements that may relate to that act. I think the Senate can be confident that it will focus on all the potential issues. As I said, if there are any issues, problems or errors, we will seek to bring those to the parliament's attention and do what we need to do to fix them.

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

Will that include the process with the Department of the Environment?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where any of the requirements of the OPGGS Act relates to legislation administered by the Department of the Environment that consultation will occur, as it has in this case. I think we can also say that with any of the requirements that relate to other ministers or across portfolios we will ensure there will be consultation with other departments to ensure that processes are right and proper and adhering to the legislative requirements that were put in place by this place. This particular issue has arisen due to a cross-portfolio, cross-departmental requirement and oversight, so I am sure the review will make sure that it focuses on those particular issues that might arise in other requirements of this bill.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.