Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition supports the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Petroleum Pools and Other Measures) Bill 2016. The bill makes a number of straightforward technical amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. This legislation arises out of the proposed development of the Browse Basin. Oil and gas were discovered in the Browse Basin in the 1970s. However, there has not been a lot of development, due to its relative isolation and the depth of water 425 kilometres off the coast of Western Australia. In recent years, the development of resources in the Browse Basin has begun. The Ichthys field is being developed by INPEX, piping gas and condensate over 800 kilometres from the basin to Darwin for processing. The LNG processing facility in Darwin is currently under construction, and the first train is expected to be operational in September 2017.

The Woodside led Browse Joint Venture has also looked at the development of three other fields in the Browse Basin, including the Torosa field. This project has been a source of tension between the Western Australian government, the Commonwealth government and Woodside. The Torosa field straddles Commonwealth and Western Australian jurisdictions. Its maritime borders were redefined in 2014 when Geoscience Australia discovered several rocky outcrops above the field. It was concluded that these outcrops should be considered islands and therefore belong to Western Australia rather than the Commonwealth. This meant that Western Australia's share of the royalties from the Browse project rose from approximately five per cent to 65.4 per cent, and the Commonwealth government's share dropped to 34.6 per cent.

The purpose of this legislation before us is to provide protection and certainty to all parties in the event that the area contains multiple petroleum pools rather than a single pool. Currently, section 54 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act contemplates that an apportionment agreement relates only to a single petroleum pool that straddles a Commonwealth-state jurisdictional boundary. If it subsequently becomes apparent that the area specified in the apportionment agreement contains multiple petroleum pools, as may be the case when fuller technical information is obtained while this resource is being developed, then the apportionment agreement would fail. The bill also makes other amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act to allow the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority to refund fees paid to it where necessary. I note that in March of last year Woodside decided to defer its Browse Joint Venture, citing low prices and high costs. That does not mean that this legislation is not important. We expect that the Browse Basin will be further developed, and that is why this amendment applies equally to existing and any future agreements. This is all about providing real investment certainty.

In contrast, what Western Australian Nationals leader Brendon Grylls is doing at the moment is undermining investment certainty in our resources sectors. I want to spend a few minutes on this. Mr Grylls is proposing a $5-a-tonne iron ore mining tax that would apply at first instance to BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto. This is expected to generate about $3 billion a year. It is different to a profit based tax. It is based on tonnage, not profit; the amount of iron ore dug out of the ground, not how much profit a mining company makes. That means companies could conceivably have to pay it even if they were making no profit at all. Not surprisingly, it is being condemned by Rio Tinto and BHP, who would be the first companies that would have to pay this new tax. Both would have to pay an additional $1.5 billion a year. Both have said publicly that it will hit jobs and investment in Western Australia.

This proposal has also been criticised by the Premier of Western Australia, the Western Australian opposition leader—and we will probably hear them speaking a lot in the next couple of weeks—the Prime Minister, the federal Leader of the Opposition and, although it has taken him a while, last but not least the Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce. Last week he urged the WA Nationals leader to dump the plan. That earned him a bit of touch-up from Brendon Grylls, who called him a lackey from the Pyne-Xenophon government. It will be interesting to see what happens from here. It was only a few weeks ago that the Deputy Prime Minister was telling the New South Wales National Party to dump their plan to ban greyhound racing. He got his way there, and we have seen what has happened. It will be interesting to see if he can roll the Western Australian National Party as well. I hope that he succeeds sooner rather than later. What is important here—generally and in this legislation—is certainty. That is what this legislation is about: providing certainty for the oil and gas industry. It is also needed in the iron ore industry. I commend this bill to the House.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment Storage Amendment (Petroleum Pools and Other Measures) Bill 2016 and foreshadow that I do have an amendment that I will seek to move in the committee stage. This bill seeks to amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 in a number of ways, including to give effect to arrangements between the Commonwealth and states relating to revenue from petroleum pools that straddle the boundaries of Commonwealth and state jurisdictions.

It also—and this is important—retrospectively validates payments by NOPSEMA since December 2011 by making it clear that there is a regulation-making power supporting those payments. These amendments are in response to a High Court case that threw them into doubt. In other words, this is just another of the frequent bills that come into this place and pass this parliament and are aimed at keeping the offshore oil and gas industry going, giving that industry the regulations that they want and that suit them. We spend a long time in this place making sure that big oil and fossil fuel companies get exactly the regulatory settings they ask for, and this bill is no exception.

The campaign to protect the Great Australian Bight in my home state of South Australia is one that has galvanised our local communities. It is a campaign based on wanting to protect our precious marine life, protect that precious ecosystem and ensure that drilling for oil by massive multinationals does not occur. But we know that, because of the lack of courage and spine from both the state Labor government and the federal Labor and Liberal parties, big multinational oil companies like Chevron continue to put pressure on our parliamentarians to get access to the Great Australian Bight so that they can drill for oil.

Now, there is an argument that this is all about generating jobs in South Australia. Well, we know that is false. We know that is not true. Even when BP, as recently as last year, put forward applications to drill for all, it became clear that they had no intention of employing South Australians or indeed any Australians at all in these oil-drilling operations. Most of the jobs would be kept for specialists who would be flown in from overseas. But of course local jobs in the area would be put at extreme risk—the tourism industry in South Australia and the fishing industry in South Australia, all at risk if companies like BP or, now, as we have heard, Chevron, get their way and are able to start drilling for oil in the Great Australian Bight.

Well, it is time that this parliament started standing up for these precious marine areas. Where these big multinational oil companies want to drill is right smack bang in the middle of a whale sanctuary—smack bang in the middle of an area that is meant to be a Commonwealth marine park protecting our fishing industries and protecting our tourism industry. But all of that would be put at risk if big oil, big multinational companies like Chevron, got their way. It is time that this parliament started to stand by the previous obligations of the Commonwealth Marine Park, an area that is meant to be protected, and do something to ensure that this national treasure is kept free of a disaster such as what we saw in the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico has been devastated—marine life killed, local jobs devastated—because of BP's oil mess there.

Chevron wants to put our spectacular marine park at risk, and if they are given approval there will be several other companies lining up behind them. What is the point of having a marine protected area, a Commonwealth marine park, if you are just going to let big oil come in and drill willy-nilly? The bight is an essential sanctuary for our southern right whales and a feeding ground for threatened sea lions, sharks, tuna and migratory sperm whales we cannot afford to put that at risk. South Australians do not support opening up the Great Australian Bight to big foreign oil companies, and it is time this parliament stood up for the area and for our local communities. That is why, when we get to the committee stage of this bill, I will be moving an amendment to say that we cannot allow the drilling of oil to occur in what is meant to be a marine protected area, a Commonwealth marine park, a whale sanctuary. It is too precious to put at risk. Our tourism jobs in South Australia, our fishing jobs in South Australia are too precious and too important to our state's economy to be put at risk so that a foreign oil company can rack up some more profit. We know that the South Australian community will miss out. It is time that South Australian MPs and senators in this place do the right thing and tell big oil to bugger off.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise with pleasure to support the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Petroleum Pools and Other Measures) Bill 2016, and I thank Senator Moore for her courtesy in supporting what is an incredibly sensible bill. I will be attempting in the next few minutes to not only explain the significance and importance of this bill but also, naturally, to explain to the chamber and to those listening how vitally important the offshore oil and gas industry is to Australia and to employment and the $200 billion of investment that is undertaken in Australia today in the gas sector, making us, by 2019, the largest exporter of LNG in the world. I will also be commenting on the enormous value of Chevron extending its environmental responsibility, which you have seen evidenced in abundance on Barrow Island—offshore Western Australia—to the Great Australian Bight.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Senator Hanson-Young and I have sat in the inquiries in Adelaide, in which I have been able to spell out the—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, we will move to questions without notice. You will be in continuation, Senator Back.