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

I've circulated amendments in the chamber today to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Cross-boundary Greenhouse Gas Titles and Other Measures) Bill 2019. These amendments would put a moratorium on oil drilling in the Great Australian Bight. We all know that the debate over oil drilling in the Great Australian Bight has been hard fought. The majority of South Australians want to protect the Great Australian Bight. They want to protect our beaches and they want to keep our marine wonder world pristine. The last thing they want is to see the Great Australian Bight turned into an oil and gas field.

Given Equinor's decision some months ago to withdraw their proposal to drill in the Great Australian Bight, these amendments are now very well timed, because there is no current proposal before government, before the agency NOPSEMA, for drilling in the Bight. So we now have a wonderful opportunity to realise the hopes and dreams of South Australians and many other Australians right across this country to protect the Great Australian Bight for good, to make sure that we don't allow any big corporation to come in and think that they can trash what is a pristine, internationally important area, a whale sanctuary. Eighty per cent of the species who live in the Great Australian Bight are found nowhere else on earth. This is a very, very special place. People were fearful of what would have happened had Equinor been given the tick of approval and gone ahead with turning the Great Australian Bight into an oilfield. Let's make sure we do what South Australians want—that is, protect the bight for good. Putting in place a moratorium on drilling is a really good way to send a signal to industry, to overseas companies and to the Australian people that the government has listened to the wills and desires of the community.

Make no mistake: it was the community campaign—particularly out of South Australia, but it spread right across the country—of people wanting to protect this area. They want to protect the Great Australian Bight because it is so unique and so special. But they also know that turning the Great Australian Bight into an oilfield would make it very difficult for us to ever properly tackle climate change in the future. The enormous amount of carbon that would be omitted as a result of these drilling operations and the product coming out would make it near impossible for Australia to keep global warming below two degrees. We know we've got a long way to go to reduce the carbon pollution we already have. Opening up the Great Australian Bight would make the job even harder, because it would put even more pollution out there and into the atmosphere.

For two key reasons—the science and the will of the community—it is absolutely essential that this parliament acknowledges today that we need a moratorium on protecting the Great Australian Bight and a moratorium on any type of drilling in that area. To that point, one of the best things we can do is celebrate how good the bight is by giving it World Heritage protection and by making sure that the area that is now protected is given full opportunity to be celebrated as an area that Australians and people from all over the world will want to visit. We know that South Australia's tourism industry has been kicked hard over the last few months. With the bushfires, the devastation on Kangaroo Island and in the Adelaide Hills, and now with COVID-19, South Australia's tourism has been decimated. Wouldn't it be wonderful if this government made an investment in our state and our state's tourism by protecting the bight and celebrating it as a place to be visited and rejoiced. This is what South Australians want.

I implore this government to step in and do what is right. I know it was always going to be difficult to make a change while there was an application on foot, but we don't have that problem anymore. Equinor, the Norwegian company, pulled out; they've gone. Say no to oil and gas drilling in the bight and yes to World Heritage protection. That's what these amendments do, and I encourage my fellow senators to support them.

The CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, do you wish to move those amendments?

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8886 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 3 (at the end of the table), add:

  (2) Page 201 (after line 19), at the end of the Bill, add:

   Schedule 5—Moratorium on drilling exploration in Great Australian Bight

   Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006

   1 Section 7

     Insert:

      Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area has the meaning given by Schedule 9.

   2 After section 97

     Insert:

           97A Moratorium—drilling exploration in the Great Australian Bight

        (1) A petroleum exploration permit may not be granted on or after the moratorium start day in respect of an area in the Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area.

        (2) A petroleum exploration permit that is in force immediately before the moratorium start day ceases to have effect on and after that day.

        (3) On and from the moratorium start day, nothing in this Act authorises or requires, or gives the power to authorise or require, any of the following:

        (a) exploring for petroleum in the Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area;

        (b) recovering petroleum in the Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area;

           (c) carrying on operations, and executing works, in the Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area for those purposes.

        (4) In this section:

            moratorium start day means the day this section commences.

   3 At the end of the Act

     Add:

       Schedule 9—Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area

     Note: See the definition of CommonwealthGreat Australian Bight area in section 7.

     1Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area

     The Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area is an area in the Southern Ocean bounded by the line commencing at the point described in item 1 of the following table and running progressively as described in the table.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Cross-boundary Greenhouse Gas Titles and Other Measures) Bill 2019. The amendments are moved by Senator Hanson-Young of the Australian Greens. The amendments are also referred to as 'the moratorium—Great Australian Bight drilling'. That's an accurate summary of what the amendments do. Effectively, the Greens require that this bill only commence if it contains a moratorium on (a) exploring for petroleum in the Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area, (b) recovering petroleum in the Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area and (c) carrying on operations in the Commonwealth Great Australian Bight for those purposes.

We oppose this moratorium for several reasons. Firstly, this bill is concerned with greenhouse gas storage. It makes changes to petroleum titles so that the Commonwealth regulator for offshore petroleum activities, NOPSEMA, can have oversight of offshore greenhouse gas storage activities that straddle both state and Commonwealth waters. It means one regulator has oversight of greenhouse gas storage activities in different jurisdictions. This has been done for improved environmental management and improved workplace safety in the greenhouse gas storage industry of the future.

The bill is also, according to the explanatory memorandum, concerned with the proposed greenhouse gas storage operations in the Bass Strait regarding the CarbonNet and hydrogen energy strategy in Victoria. This bill is not concerned with the Great Australian Bight and is not specifically concerned with petroleum exploration recovery or petroleum operations. These amendments from the Greens detract from a bill that is attempting to improve environmental and workplace safety outcomes in greenhouse gas storage—a technology that will help Australia reduce its greenhouse gas emissions into the future. We therefore oppose the amendments.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government opposes these amendments. These amendments, in singling out the Great Australian Bight, would exclude a significant area of potential for Australia's oil and gas sector from possibly being realised in the future. The government remains committed to encouraging the safe and sustainable development of Australia's offshore petroleum resources, overseen by the world-class regulator—and through regulatory standards—the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, or NOPSEMA.

As senators are well aware, to provide additional assurances around NOPSEMA's processes and their robustness and foundation upon science and evidence, last year the government commissioned an independent audit of NOPSEMA's assessment of exploration activities in the Great Australian Bight. This was conducted by the Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, together with experts in community engagement, geoscience, marine science and offshore exploratory drilling and regulation. The audit found that NOPSEMA is a highly skilled, professional and competent regulator and has appropriate processes and practices to ensure environment plans are assessed against relevant, sufficient and complete scientific and technical information and against the requirements of relevant legislation.

Communities around the bight should be assured that oil and gas exploration, where undertaken, is undertaken safely.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

I note the interjection from Senator Hanson-Young there. I would equally note that, in other parts of Australia, where we have seen oil or gas drilling undertaken for decades, there is successful coexistence of industries like tourism, fisheries and other agricultural industries within those same regions. This amendment is not proposed on the basis of science or rigorous assessment processes but is simply opposition to resource development. Indeed, I think everybody in this chamber, if they were being honest, would acknowledge that, if the Greens thought they could propose an amendment that banned all drilling exploration in any Australian waters, they would cheerily put that forward as well. The bight has strong and appropriate protections, with 14 marine parks covering some 508,371 square kilometres, stretching from Kangaroo Island to the Abrolhos islands in Western Australia, all part of the South-west Marine Parks Network. The bight basin remains one of Australia's frontier basins and any proposals for new oil and gas fields in this area will be assessed fairly and independently by NOPSEMA, whose powers and authorities are expanded as a result of the bill that we are putting forward, in terms of protections provided. For those reasons, the government opposes the amendment.

The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments, as moved by Senator Hanson-Young, on sheet 8886, (1) and (2), together, by leave, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would have called a division, but, given the social-distancing practices we're undertaking, I would ask that every party's vote be recorded in Hansard.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. We'll make sure that the Greens' opposition is agreed to. I'm just seeking the advice of the Clerk as to whether all parties' votes can be recorded. Senator Hanson-Young, you can record your support for your amendment.

I would like some clarification on this because I understood that the Labor Party voted against this amendment. I also understood that the Liberal Party voted against this amendment.

The CHAIR: Yes; that's correct.

The Greens are voting for it. I think Centre Alliance are voting for it and supporting it. I would like that recorded in Hansard because, otherwise, I may as well call a division so it's very clear as to where the parties stand.

The CHAIR: May I suggest you seek leave and, if leave is agreed to, that's how it can be recorded. Can we take it that you seek leave?

I seek leave.

Leave granted.

The CHAIR: Leave is granted, so it will be recorded as you outlined—your support for the amendment—and we have, in this place, the acknowledgement of the government and the Labor opposition that they're not supporting the amendment. Senator Patrick.

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

It might be helpful if both the government and the opposition simply stood up and stated their position.

The CHAIR: Senator Patrick, we've had the debate. The parties have stood up. We now have leave, so it will be recorded as I've just outlined, unless you're now contributing to something else.

I'd like to actively put on the record that Centre Alliance supported this amendment.

The CHAIR: Thank you. We will do that as well. I'm in the hands of the chamber. We've dealt with that amendment. Senator Patrick.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), together, on sheet 8897:

(1) Clause 2, page 3 (at the end of the table), add:

[commencement]

(2) Page 201 (after line 19), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5—Duration of petroleum exploration permits

Part 1—Amendments

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006

1 Section 7

Insert:

Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area has the meaning given by Schedule 9.

2 After section 102

Insert:

102A Duration of petroleum exploration permit—limit on extensions of permits relating to Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area

(1) This section applies to a petroleum exploration permit granted in respect of an area in the Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area.

(2) Despite the provisions of this Act that allow for the extension of the duration of a petroleum exploration permit, the period for which the petroleum exploration permit remains in force must not be extended under those provisions (whether by a single extension or by multiple extensions under one or more of those provisions) to remain in force for a period of more than 10 years beginning on the day the permit came into force.

Note: See notes 1 to 4A at the end of section 102 for the provisions about the extension of the duration of permits.

3 At the end of the Act

Add:

Schedule 9—Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area

Note: See the definition of CommonwealthGreat Australian Bight area in section 7.

1 Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area

The Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area is an area in the Southern Ocean bounded by the line commencing at the point described in item 1 of the following table and running progressively as described in the table.

Part 2—Application and transitional provisions

4 Application provision

The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule apply in relation to the following:

(a) a petroleum exploration permit that is granted on or after the commencement of this Schedule;

(b) a petroleum exploration permit that:

  (i) is in force immediately before the commencement of this Schedule; and

  (ii) has not been in force at that time for a period of more than 10 years; and

  (iii) has not, before that time, been granted an extension of the duration of the permit that would result in the permit remaining in force for a period of more than 10 years beginning on the day the permit came into force.

5 Transitional provision—petroleum exploration permit in force for more than 10 years

(1) This item applies in relation to a petroleum exploration permit that:

(a) is in force immediately before the commencement of this Schedule; and

(b) was granted in relation to an area in the Commonwealth Great Australian Bight area; and

(c) has been extended one or more times under one or more provisions of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 such that:

  (i) the permit has been in force, when this Schedule commences, for a period of more than 10 years beginning on the day the permit came into force; or

  (ii) the permit will, as a result of an extension granted before this Schedule commences, remain in force for a period of more than 10 years beginning on the day the permit came into force.

(2) On and after the commencement of this Schedule, the duration of the petroleum exploration permit must not be extended again under any of the provisions the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 that would otherwise allow for the extension of the duration of the permit.

I did cover this in my second reading speech, but, just to make the chamber alert to what this is about: this is an amendment that seeks to place a time limit on exploration in the Great Australian Bight, basically saying that you cannot perpetually get extensions upon extensions upon extensions that stifle investment in the tourist industry and, indeed, the fishing industry, particularly on the Eyre Peninsula but right along the South Australian coastline.

I make the point that I know Minister Birmingham did rise and talk about the need for energy. His position would be more palatable if, for example—and I say this with Centre Alliance quite supportive of things like gas as a transitional energy source; we're not seeking to stop things, but, at the same time, we are seeking government direction and leadership in relation to things like electric vehicles, which can reduce our dependencies on oil and gas. Nothing seems to be happening in that space. Not only do electric vehicles assist in terms of reducing reliance on oils but they also improve productivity. Electric vehicles involve less maintenance, they have fewer moving parts than regular vehicles and they don't emit poisonous gases in the same way that internal combustion engine cars do. It is the future, and most countries around the world have adopted electric vehicles. They're encouraging electric vehicles and, indeed, have placed limits upon the time frame in which it will be possible to purchase an internal combustion engine vehicle. As I move this, I just indicate to the government that there are things that they can do where there's a win-win, and unfortunately they're not showing leadership in those sorts of areas.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the amendment to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Cross-boundary Greenhouse Gas Titles and Other Measures) Bill 2019. This amendment was moved by Senator Rex Patrick from the Centre Alliance. It primarily concerns the duration of petroleum exploration permits and applies only to offshore exploration permits in the Great Australian Bight. The amendment would limit the extension of Commonwealth offshore petroleum exploration permits so that no exploration permit in the Great Australian Bight could be granted for more than 10 years. The 10-year limit would also apply to transitional provisions and to permits already in force.

There are problems with Senator Patrick's amendment. First, it has little to do with the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Cross-boundary Greenhouse Gas Titles and Other Measures) Bill. The bill ensures that where there are offshore greenhouse gas storage areas that straddle Commonwealth, state and territory titles the Commonwealth's offshore petroleum regulators have authority. The bill is intended to ensure that the strongest safety and environmental protections are in place for offshore greenhouse gas storage operations and that a Commonwealth regulator, such as NOPSEMA, can enforce them. The bill is not concerned with limiting the duration of exploration permits. Second, Senator Patrick's amendment—

Senator Patrick interjecting—

With due respect, Madam Chair, I was quiet while Senator Patrick produced his drivel. Could you please request the same courtesy?

The CHAIR: We are in Committee of the Whole, and there is usually a little bit of leeway given, but I remind senators that it is the requirement that you refrain from heckling during someone else's contribution.

Thank you for that protection, Chair. Second, Senator Patrick's amendment limits the duration of offshore exploration permits, but only in the Great Australian Bight. No reasons are given for that. This is the effect of treating one operator differently to others based not on their actions or misdeeds but on where they are exploring. This goes to the third point, which is that there are already established ways to create protected marine areas. To properly protect marine areas we don't have to introduce anomalies to bills that are concerned with quite separate matters. The offshore greenhouse gas storage cross-boundary gas titles bills strengthen environmental and safety regulation of greenhouse gas storage, which is an important technology to help Australia reduce its future carbon emissions. The bill is not concerned with the duration of exploration permits on one part of Australia's coast. For the reasons listed above, we oppose Senator Patrick's amendment.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government also opposes this amendment for many of the same reasons that I outlined in relation to the amendment moved earlier by the Australian Greens, which I won't repeat. This amendment is slightly different in that it seeks to create a new and separate class of petroleum title for the specific geographic area that encompasses the Great Australian Bight in Commonwealth offshore waters. Rather than it being a blanket ban, as proposed by the Greens, it would create a new and different title. The government has concerns that this would leave investors questioning the viability of an investment, that it would create considerable additional financial risk in frontier areas like the Great Australian Bight and relative to other parts. It's an area that, as a frontier area, already comes with significant risk, and the proposed amendment would compound those uncertainties, heighten sovereign risk and make investors look elsewhere for safer projects and more-certain regulation.

I note Senator Patrick's comments in relation to other matters—electric vehicles and the like. Whilst I don't have with me in the chamber a comprehensive list of actions on those unrelated topics, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, for example, has engaged a number of co-finance programs with major banks and non-bank lenders in relation to EVs, and I know that CEFC and ARENA continue to engage in other work to enhance and promote the adoption of EVs.

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

I rise to offer the Greens support for this amendment. I make that clear, and I'd like that recorded when we put the question.

Question negatived.

The CHAIR: As requested by Senator Hanson-Young, we will show that the Greens supported that amendment.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendments; report adopted.