Tim Storer (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with the motivation behind the Green's Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2016, debated this morning. The Great Australian Bight is a unique Australian asset and is worth fighting to protect. As we heard earlier today in debate, the Great Australian Bight provides an essential breeding ground for threatened species such as the southern right whale and an ideal habitat for the endangered sea lion, as I saw on a recent visit to Kangaroo Island. We now know that there are at least 1,200 species of plants and animals in the region, around 85 per cent of which are probably endemic, making the bight one of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet. Those are all important points, but economic reality alone makes petroleum activity in the bight a clear loser for South Australia. The economic reality is that fishing and tourism industries provide critical, sustainable and long-term economic benefits to South Australia through thousands of jobs and billions of dollars each year. It is obvious that protecting the sustainability of those industries is in the best interest of South Australians and, indeed, all Australians.

Fishing in the bight brings half a billion dollars a year to South Australia. Tuna, crab, prawns, sardines, lobster, oysters, abalone—the list goes on. The entire fishing and aquaculture industry could be wiped out in the event of a major oil spill, perhaps irreversibly. Tourism in the region also brings in about a billion dollars each year to South Australia, much of which could be irreversibly impacted from an oil spill. There are at least 10,000 tourism jobs based in the bight region, all of which would be under threat from a spill. As I said in September, we must not put that at risk from a future oil spill. It is worth remembering as well that modelling of economic benefits of petroleum activity in the bight is based on many assumptions, such as the volume of oil available for extraction and reliance on the global oil market, predicted by many to have a massive slowdown in the next couple of decades. This is not mere fearmongering.

My concerns run deeper, to the question of whether the current evaluation processes operate in the best interests of South Australians. The stakes are clearly too high to outsource decision-making on petroleum activities in the bight to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority; yet that is what currently occurs. The simplistic argument of streamlining regulatory requirements is not persuasive in this case. The minister should have ultimate oversight and responsibility for decisions which could have such massive ramifications. The current process of simply ticking a box which says that the risks have been reduced to as low as reasonably practicable—ALARP—and are acceptable is obviously at odds with the fact that even a small oil spill could be catastrophic for the region. Long-term consequences, including rehabilitation and remediation, should be appropriately taken into account.

Despite those worries, it is important to acknowledge the considerable expertise that NOPSEMA does have in evaluating some narrow technical engineering and scientific risks at specific sites. Health and safety assessment, especially in remote isolated areas of the bight, where waves can reach up to 23 metres and water can be three kilometres deep, seems to be a combination which makes petroleum activity even more unsuitable. The so-called safeguard of a capping stack stationed on site just in case of a spill seems basically worthless in such treacherous weather conditions. Further insight into the flaws of the ALARP criteria is evident in the Montara case, which is a well that blew out in Australian waters near East Timor in 2009. The well was leaking for about three months, an equivalent period of time to the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. There are still 15,000 fishing and aquaculture operators in Timor who even today are pursuing a class action for compensation for that event, supported by the Indonesian government. Do we really believe that any oil company would have the capacity to fairly compensate the entire fishing and tourism industry in the case of an oil spill in the bight irreversibly leading to losses to the tune of billions of dollars each year for South Australia? The Montara case reminds us that current criteria have clear problems of compliance and enforcement. In those respects I agree with the motivation behind this bill that broader criteria of social licence, economic sustainability and irreversible environmental damage are not sufficiently taken into account in the current site-specific evaluation process. I agree that something has to be done and that NOPSEMA alone provides insufficient assessment of what is at stake in petroleum activity in the bight. But what?

The government has apparently realised this fact as well, announcing plans to broaden the content of what NOPSEMA must take into account. That is a positive step forward. However, I have serious reservations about whether those proposed changes are able to go far enough. Even if more content is submitted during the NOPSEMA review process, there remains the fundamental problem that NOPSEMA is still taking into account the same criteria to assess those submissions, so the idea of simply broadening what is submitted in the NOPSEMA evaluation phase may end up being a red herring, designed to make us feel more confident in a system that is actually distracting us from the real problem that NOPSEMA is more of a facilitator than a regulator.

The bill we're debating today provides a clean option that removes complexity in the assessment processes and would not interact with other legislation by simply prohibiting any mining activity in the bight. But we already know the outcome: both the coalition and ALP will oppose that bill. As the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee review made clear, most of us agree that the assessment process currently undertaken by NOPSEMA should be broadened, at least to some extent. So I suggest the Senate's time could be much better spent debating realistic options that we might all be able to agree on.

On that score, this week I will propose a pragmatic bill that will return ultimate responsibility for petroleum activity in the bight to the minister, who would be forced to take into account more rigorous assessment criteria. It is an approach that I believe all parties can support as it is a workable and realistic solution. The ultimate authority to decide mining exploration and drilling applications should never have been outsourced to NOPSEMA back in 2014. The stakes are far too high to allow that decision to be delegated out. The minister should take personal responsibility to make that call after a rigorous and inclusive evaluation process such as those undertaken under the EPBC Act.

Under my two-stage proposal, which I will outline in more detail later this sitting, the initial NOPSEMA review would be retained. If NOPSEMA approved an action then the EPBC Act review processes would kick in, with the final decision being made by the minister. This would mean a more rigorous evaluation process which would fairly balance environmental, social, economic and safety considerations by ensuring adequate public consultation and social licence. It would increase transparency and accountability in the decision-making process, with the minister acting consistently with additional considerations such as the precautionary principle, treaties and conventions, leading to improved public trust. It would strengthen powers of review by extending the definition of 'persons aggrieved' who could challenge an approval. Finally, it would ensure penalties for noncompliance are appropriately broad and strict.

Another option that has been proposed is to list the bight on the World Heritage List. I would support such a proposal, both in order to protect the bight from risks of mining exploration and drilling and to lock in the status of the bight as a major tourist destination. That support, of course, would be conditional on appropriate assurances that there would be no negative impacts on the South Australian fishing industry, which as we know provides critical jobs and economic growth for South Australia. I'm also aware that the World Heritage Listing process would necessarily be lengthy, maybe taking three or four years. That seems too long to wait given the imminent threats to the bight by interested companies such as Equinor and others. It seems prudent to move ahead with enhanced assessment processes such as those outlined in my private senator's bill rather than just wait for World Heritage Listing, which is by no means guaranteed and could risk an oil spill in the meantime.

To conclude, I would support the Great Australian bight Environment Protection Bill put forward this morning, but, knowing that the Australian Greens bill will fail to meet with the support of the Senate, I hope instead that the Senate will support my bill when it comes up for debate this week.