Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

In December 2022, the Full Court of the Federal Court upheld the landmark determination made in Tipakalippa v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (No 2) [2022] FCA 1121, dismissing Santos' appeal, who were also a party to these proceedings.

This case centred around Santos' proposed Barossa Gas Project, off the coast of the Tiwi Islands. It is important to note at the outset that this project was, and continues to be, opposed by the Traditional Owners of the Tiwi Islands.

Santos' so-called consultation with the 8 clan groups that make up the Traditional Owners of the Tiwi Islands consisted of 2 emails and 1 unanswered phone call to 1 of the clan groups.

When proponents of projects prepare an environment plan or an offshore project proposal for their projects, they are legally required to consult with various people, departments, agencies, and Ministers who are deemed to be a 'relevant persons' under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations2009 (Cth).

Under these regulations, Traditional Owners and knowledge holders within First Nations communities are not explicitly included as a 'relevant person' that must be consulted and there are no standards for consultation.

In this case there were also concerns raised around the identification of cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible, the risks that projects may pose, and how these risks will be mitigated or avoided.

These are three shortcomings of the regulatory framework that governs offshore projects. No standards of consultation. No requirement to consult with Traditional Owners and knowledge holders within First Nations communities. No requirement to identify underwater cultural heritage that may be impacted by projects.

This bill seeks to change that.

First Nations people MUST be consulted in a genuine and meaningful way about projects that are proposed to happen on their country. Sea or land country.

This includes but is not limited to: providing easy to understand information about the project about the size of it, the methods that will be used, the level of disturbance that will occur, infrastructure that will be built, timelines; providing opportunities for members of the community to raise questions or concerns about the project with online and in-person meetings that are held at reasonable times, with sufficient notice, and take into consideration any cultural events that may be happening in that community at that time; providing information in language and having interpreters present.

This will look different for each community. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to consultation and nor should there be.

This bill intentionally leaves setting these standards to regulations so they can be updated more easily over time and so that broader consultation and co-design can occur with Traditional Owners and knowledge holders within First Nations communities and other 'relevant person's on how they would like to be consulted. It is our intention that any standards will be extensively consulted on and will be regularly updated. As stated in the text of this bill, they must include the principle of free, prior and informed consent as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

For far too long, First Nations people have not been consulted with in a genuine way about projects that are occurring on their country. This has to change.

This case was a massive win for Traditional Owners, not just in the Tiwi but across the country. However, it is disappointing that the onus is continually placed on Traditional Owners to engage in timely and costly legal challenges for their right to be heard. Fossil fuel companies, who make billions of dollars in profits, have the capital to afford these legal battles, many First Nations communities don't. The power imbalance between Traditional Owners and proponents of these projects has been skewed for far too long, that is why we are seeking to legislate the principles of this case. To give Traditional Owners the legal right to be consulted with about projects occurring on their land.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.