Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight I rise to speak on the welcomed decision by Equinor to abandon plans to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight. Centre Alliance has been opposed to drilling in the Great Australian Bight for a very long time. But we didn't just oppose it on political or philosophical grounds. As we do for all propositions, we examined it on its merits and, in the end, it just didn't stack up.

As part of that consideration process, I met with Statoil—now Equinor—and asked a range of reasonable questions. I asked them about the capital investment that would be involved, about the jobs they would create and about what their supply chain arrangements would be. I also asked them about what sort of experience they'd had in similar waters to those in which they were going to drill. I asked them about tax payments across the project life both in terms of petroleum rent resource tax and corporate tax. None of my questions were answered. I actually met with them a second time and put the same questions to them and reminded them that I had asked them and received no answers—and, again, I got no response.

To find answers, I searched for any public domain analysis and, in particular, any economic analysis that existed that would shed light on whether or not there would be economic benefit. I came across a report by ACIL Allen Consulting. It was a glowing report that talked up the economic benefits. The report claimed to be independent, but, as it turned out, it was commissioned by the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, APPEA, the oil and gas industry lobbyists. Not only was the report funded by APPEA but the data they were using for the study was derived from APPEA. If I go to the document and look at the very, very fine print—I sometimes struggle with my glasses to see the fine print and in this case it was quite small—it says:

ACIL Allen Consulting has relied upon the information provided by the addressee—

in this instance it's APPEA—

and has not sought to verify the accuracy of the information supplied.

So APPEA commission a report and supplied the data for the report and the people generating the report didn't look at the sources of the data. They didn't verify the accuracy of the data in the report. It's quite astounding really.

The reality is there was very little benefit for my home state of South Australia or indeed for Australia. Offshore processing means that there's likely to be, or there will be, no royalties for South Australia. Those royalties would normally come to the Commonwealth. It was likely that the program was going to involve offshore processing with fly-in fly-out workers. There were going to be very few jobs. This is probably why Equinor at no stage spelt out what their plans were.

For Australia, it's highly likely that there would be no corporate tax paid and very little PRRT. This parliament has examined PRRT and we know that it is not effective in providing a return to Australian taxpayers for our oil and gas. I say that with knowledge of companies like ExxonMobil, who have, over the last five years, received $42 billion in revenue. You might wonder how much corporate tax is being paid on $42 billion of revenue. I know that Senator Brockman won't be surprised, because he's the chair of the economics committee. They paid zero dollars in corporate tax. Chevron had $15.7 billion in revenue. Senator Duniam, I wonder how much corporate tax they paid? The answer is zero. Shell had $4.6 billion in revenue and zero company tax was paid.

Technically I'm incorrect, and I don't want to mislead the chamber. Chevron ended up going to court, trying to defend themselves against the pursuit of the ATO—good on the ATO—and were ordered by the Federal Court to pay $866 million of unpaid tax. They had set up a regime where the parent companies received loans in the US for 1.2 per cent and they charged through the Australian entity at nine per cent interest rates—hardly arm's length; hardly proper. Shell is now being pursued for an estimated $755 million in unpaid tax. All of these companies are unquestionably tax dodgers. They are corporate thieves. They steal from Australians. They are guided and instructed by real people who are directors of these companies, which operate without social licence.

It's highly likely Australia would not have ended up with any taxes being paid. All we would have got was the risk. Where they were going to drill was in deep water and in rough seas. In the event of an oil spill, it would have been a catastrophe. There would have been suffering, in terms of the pristine environment in and around both South Australia and extending to Victoria, and there would have been a huge negative impact to our tourism and fisheries industries in South Australia.

The reality was there was nothing for South Australia and nothing for Australia. If the project had proceeded, we would have had a foreign controlled company extracting oil and exporting it overseas, paying no tax, giving low employment opportunities for Australians, and with a high impact if a spill were to occur. Who wants to have a Deepwater Horizon in our backyard?

In the end, although Equinor claimed that they withdrew for commercial reasons—they say it wasn't economically viable—it was simply people power that brought this to a halt: widespread lack of support in and around all the coastal communities in South Australia and down in Victoria. There were protests held in Brighton, Victor Harbor—I went to that one—Torquay. Thousands of everyday quiet Australians gathered to protest against drilling and to protect their local beaches. We also had protesters in Oslo. I recall a South Australian parliamentary delegation going to meet parliamentarians in Norway to say, 'We do not want this.' Sadly, the federal government was happy to proceed with the project, blind to the lack of benefit, blind to the risks and failing to listen to the views of Australians.

In some sense we have to stop and ask ourselves: 'How did we get to that point? How did we get so far along to where our regulators and our government support this when there were no benefits and Australians did not want this to proceed?' But as we pause to celebrate the announcement, we do need to pause and reflect on the value we place on our sacred, pristine beaches, unspoilt shorelines, clean oceans, wildlife and the enjoyment of all of that. We shouldn't ever take it for granted. We have to protect it now and into the future. This is why, sadly, the fight is not over. We need to pursue a national heritage listing for the bight because oil and gas is there. We need robust protections for this pristine environment to protect it from the constant threat of companies seeking to drill for oil and gas there.