Chapter 2Views on the bill
2.1This chapter provides an overview of the key issues raised by submitters and witnesses during the Senate Economics Legislation Committee’s (committee) inquiry into the provisions of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 (bill).
2.2In particular, the chapter considers the evidence received in relation to:
Schedule 1—the bill’s proposed offshore worker safety measures;
Schedule 2, Part 1—the bill’s proposed application of maritime safety regulations to certain offshore vessels; and
Schedule 2, Part 2—the bill’s proposed changes to preserve the effect of the endorsed program for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage approval.
2.3The chapter concludes with the committee’s views and recommendations.
2.4As the committee received no substantive evidence relating to Parts 3 and 4 of Schedule 2, these sections are not discussed in this chapter.
Schedule 1—Offshore worker safety measures
2.5Overall, submissions that addressed Schedule 1 of the bill were broadly supportive of the proposed measures to improve the safety regime for workers in Australia’s offshore resources sector.
2.6While there was broad support for Schedule 1, submitters considered that there were issues with the bill in relation to:
the harmonisation with model offshore oil and gas sector safety regime with Australia’s model Work Health Safety (WHS) laws;
addressing workplace psychosocial hazards for offshore oil and gas workers;
the prohibition of discriminatory conduct;
civil penalties for breaching work health and safety standards; and
the application of occupational licencing regimes and Australian standards to offshore installations.
Harmonised approach to WHS regulation
2.7The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA), and the Electrical Trades Union of Australia (ETU) supported further harmonisation of the bill’s provisions relating to health and safety with the Model WHS Laws.
2.8The ACTU noted the government’s stated intention to harmonise the rights of workers and health and safety representatives (HSR) in the offshore oil and gas sector. The ACTU also identified a number of provisions relating to health and safety that should be harmonised with the Model WHS Act and Regulations.
2.9The ETU stated its support for the ACTU’s submission to the inquiry and the means of addressing the gaps and inconsistencies as recommended by the ACTU.
2.10Dr Penny Howard of the MUA expanded on their calls to harmonise workplace laws and the impact of the bill:
…the Maritime Union supports the move towards harmonisation. This bill is progress, and we're very happy to see that it has finally come to parliament. Unions have been calling for this for well over 10 years. But there are two areas where we would like to see improvements. First of all, where the bill is making amendments to the OPGGS Act, we think those amendments should go all the way to full harmonisation … Secondly, we welcome the fact that the minister has said the government will be moving to a review that heads towards fuller harmonisation in other areas of the bill, and we would be pleased to have the committee's support for the move towards that fuller harmonisation.
2.11The ACTU identified that the bill would set an obligation on the HSR to be trained, and compared this to the Model WHS Laws provisions, which ‘infer a right to be trained and an obligation on PCBUs (employer) to release and pay a worker for training’. The ACTU further identified that the Model WHS Laws require employers to allow a HSR time off work for training as soon as practicable within three months, where this bill would only direct an employer to release the HSR as soon as practicable. They suggested that a three-month timeframe should be included in the bill and raised concerns that HSRs may be disadvantaged for attending training.
2.12Regarding the provisions which would empower HSRs to review safety management-related documents, the ACTU supported harmonising the bill with Model WHS Laws and stated that elements of these provisions in the bill are weaker than the Model WHS Laws or uncertain in their operation. The ACTU also suggested several other provisions relating to the election of HSRs should be harmonised with the Model WHS Laws. Namely, they suggested harmonising provisions so that HSRs are able to exercise functions relating to publication in the workplace, are given pay to undertake the role and exercise powers or functions, and maintain ongoing powers to ensure continuity of HSR functions between elections.
2.13Safe Work Australia also welcomed the safety provisions in the bill and encouraged a harmonised approach to health and safety. While they noted industries may require specific legislation for specific hazards, they supported a harmonious approach on the bases of providing equal standards for workers, conferring greater regulatory efficiency and reduced compliance burdens, and providing more certainty for duty holders.
2.14The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) also submitted its support for the measures in the bill that ‘seek to align the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (OPGGS Act) work health and safety measures with the WHS Act’. DEWR described the measures as a ‘step towards aligning work health and safety protections for workers in the OPGGS scheme with the WHS Act and the national model WHS laws’.
2.15Australian Energy Producers (AEP) supported the intention behind the amendments in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to improve safety outcomes for sectors which operate offshore. However, they stated that introduction of fair work concepts, such as discrimination, into offshore safety legislation would be duplicative of anti-discrimination laws such as the Fair Work Act 2009. AEP suggested that the government should avoid this duplication.
2.16Woodside Energy echoed the sentiments made by AEP, stating that the introduction of fair work concepts into offshore safety legislation may result in overlapping regulatory jurisdictions.
Psychosocial hazards
2.17Some submitters identified a need for more certainty in how psychosocial hazards would be identified and managed, and how the sharing and reporting of psychosocial harms would occur.
2.18The ACTU identified that the changes proposed in the bill will clarify obligations regarding psychological health. They suggested that the provisions should be strengthened and should include a psychosocial hazard regulation which ‘specifically prescribes the method of identifying, assessing and controlling psychosocial risks’.
2.19AEP stated further detail is needed on the referral, sharing, and content of such reporting, and further consideration of how to de-identify and de-aggregate information to protect the privacy of individuals. They also asserted that reporting obligations around psychosocial hazards, including sexual harassment, would be introduced in the absence of a robust privacy and confidentiality regime.
2.20Woodside Energy echoed the sentiments made by AEP and indicated their concern about ‘reporting obligations related to psychosocial matters, including sexual harassment, without a robust privacy and confidentiality regime’.
Discriminatory conduct
2.21The ACTU welcomed the provisions prohibiting discriminatory conduct in the bill. They noted the high level of insecure work in the offshore oil and gas sector, and how workers and HSRs may be fearful of reprisal for making complaints or taking action. They pointed out that the provisions would only relate to employers and employees, rather than the broader category of ‘workers’, and identified that a high use of contractors in the sector means that it would be preferable for the discriminatory conduct provisions to be broadened to apply to all workers.
2.22The ACTU also argued that the prohibited reasons are too narrow or complex compared to other jurisdictions. Clause 130 of the bill would introduce a new section 88B which would list prohibited reasons. Employers would not be able to engage in discriminatory conduct for a prohibited reason. The ACTU highlighted provisions which may potentially deter workers from ceasing unsafe work and provisions which do not cover WHS Entry Permit Holders. The ACTU suggested these provisions should be strengthened.
Civil penalties for breaching work health and safety obligations
2.23Some submitters opposed the bill’s proposed introduction of civil penalties for enforcement of health and safety provision. AEP stated that current criminal penalties and other levers are adequate for enforcement, given the importance of health and safety. They asserted that ‘additional civil penalties would be excessive and likely ineffective’. These sentiments were echoed by Woodside Energy.
Unclear application of occupational licencing regimes and Australian standards
2.24The ETU noted several situations in which employers have asserted that licencing regimes and Australian standards do not apply at offshore installations. The ETU expressed their concern that the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) ‘has sided with employers in arguing that these regimes and standards do not apply.’ The ETU asserted that this increases safety risks and has caused safety incidents, and suggested updating the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (OPGGS Act) to specify that occupational licencing and Australian wiring standards do apply on offshore installations.
2.25Mr Matthew Murphy, National Industry Coordinator, Electrical Trades Union spoke about occupational licencing at the public hearing, saying:
Any regime that looks to the future of the offshore industry must include references to onshore state based occupational licensing, and those state based occupational licensing regimes must apply offshore.
Schedule 2—Other measures
2.26Submissions that addressed Schedule 2 of the bill commented on:
Part 1—the application of maritime safety standards; and
Part 2—approval under the EPBC Act.
2.27This section considers the issues raised in submissions regarding Part 1 and 2.
Part 1—Application of maritime safety standards
2.28In general, submissions from unions called for the provisions in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to be enhanced to give effect to certain international maritime safety standards, and to consistently apply domestic maritime safety regulations to vessels involved in the offshore gas and oil industry.
2.29The MUA and the ACTU submitted that the provisions in Part 1 would empower the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) to apply certain maritime safety rules and ensure that International Maritime Organisation (IMO) requirements are fulfilled.
2.30However, the MUA argued that the bill’s proposed amendments would be insufficient and pointed to the discretion of AMSA to apply some unspecified maritime safety rules to offshore facilities through legislative instruments. The MUA considered this arrangement would be opaque and create uncertainty. Further, the MUA noted that there is no transparent process or consultation specified to determine what aspects of maritime safety rules will be adopted.
2.31The ACTU echoed the points made by the MUA and stated their support for the recommendations in the MUA’s submission.
2.32The MUA emphasised their concern that the bill does not require maritime qualified crew on floating production storage and offloading vessels to ensure that these vessels are maintained to maritime standards and are safely prepared for disconnection and navigation. The MUA argued that maritime safety legislation should consistently apply to all vessels. In support of this, the MUA pointed to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau report into the death of an MUA member in 2008 aboard the Karratha Spirit during an emergency disconnection in a cyclone. This report indicated that jurisdictional confusion over the application of safety legislation was a ‘significant safety issue’ under both the OPGGS Act and Navigation Act.
2.33The MUA noted that international-flagged floating facilities have operated in Australian waters and have been subject to IMO maritime safety standards, while Australian-flagged facilities have been exempted from these standards. The MUA does not consider the concurrent application of the Navigation Act 2012 and the OPGGS Act would cause confusion and highlighted the existing mechanisms in place where this occurs in other parts of the Australian maritime industry. They noted that in ports and state waters, the Navigation Act 2012 may apply to some vessels, state WHS Acts may apply to other vessels, and some vessels may be subject to both state WHS Acts and the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012.
2.34The MUA contended that the bill should specify certain IMO Conventions and associated Marine Orders should apply to offshore units, as any changes to the international IMO requirements are slow, and Australia should be in a position to observe any changes to the requirements.
2.35The MUA asserted that disapplication of maritime safety standards was supported by oil and gas companies for the purposes of removing maritime crew from facilities. The MUA also argued that vessels subject to the disapplication of maritime safety standards have deteriorated into safety and environmental hazards.
2.36The MUA considered it positive that the Australian Government is looking to reapply some maritime safety standards but argued that further work is required to address safety concerns about relevant offshore vessels. As MrGlen Williams of the MUA told the committee:
We think it's positive that the government is looking to reapply some maritime safety standards, but we're concerned that this proposal does not actually do the job of properly addressing the real safety concerns about these vessels.
Part 2—Approval under the EPBC Act
2.37As outlined in Chapter 1, Part 2 of Schedule 2 proposes section 790E be added to the OPGGS Act to preserve the effect of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage approval. As the Explanatory Memorandum notes, there is no provision that enables the endorsed program to be amended under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). However, it may be necessary to revise the environmental assessment and approval process under the OPGGS Act or prescribed regulations. Section 790E would allow amendments to be made to the OPGGS Act or prescribed regulations that may be inconsistent with aspects of the endorsed program, while preserving the approval and the effect of the approval under sections 146B and 146D of the EPBC Act.
2.38Submissions which addressed Part 2 of Schedule 2 expressed differing views:
submissions from oil and gas industry proponents expressed support for Part 2 of Schedule 2 to preserve the effect of the endorsed program for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage approval; and
submissions from environmental organisations and First Nations organisations raised issues regarding the potential impact that Part 2 ofSchedule2 could have on environmental and consultation requirements.
Views from industry proponents
2.39Submissions from oil and gas industry proponents welcomed the proposed addition of section 790E in Part 2 of Schedule 2.
2.40Australian Energy Producers, which represents companies that produce around 95 per cent of Australia’s petroleum, submitted that the Australian Government has recognised ‘that regulations need to be clarified to provide certainty for titleholders’. AEP explained that recent court rulings, particularly Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd v Tipakalippa, have ‘highlighted some ambiguities in the regulations which has led to a significant increase in the consultation required by NOPSEMA for Environmental Plans’. AEP described the impact of this situation as follows:
In addition to creating "consultation fatigue" for titleholders and Traditional Owners, the uncertainty has also significantly increased the workload of [NOPSEMA], resulting in a significant backlog of EPs with NOPSEMA awaiting acceptance and unprecedented delays in project approvals. This has delayed potential gas supply to contracted customers in Australia and Asia, and impacted decommissioning and carbon capture and storage projects.
2.41As such, AEP considered that the ‘new clause 790E is necessary to maintain the processes for environmental management approvals’ under the OPGGS Act. AEP urged the Senate to pass the bill ‘to facilitate the regulatory changes needed to restore certainty and clarity in NOPSEMA’s decision-making’.
2.42The oil and gas companies which participated in the inquiry also expressed support for the changes proposed in Part 2 of Schedule 2. For example, Chevron Australia stated that it is ‘important to amend the regulations to improve clarity and certainty for both projects' proponents and stakeholders that we consult, without reducing or diluting consultation’. Santos Limited argued that:
This bill is required so that current best practice can be reflected in the regulations, not locked into 2014 era regulations—as we currently are. Industry and the regulator have experienced issues from lack of clarity and certainty in the current regulations. We want to see regulations that give the community confidence that environmental risks are appropriately assessed and managed at acceptable levels and that give investors and project proponents the certainty of a process they can rely on, and have the confidence to invest in a reliable regime that has certainty and integrity.
2.43Woodside Energy also supported Part 2 of Schedule 2 and submitted that changes were needed to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2023 for the offshore regulatory framework to ‘remain robust and fit-for-purpose’. Further, Woodside Energy noted the proposed amendments in Part 2 of Schedule 2:
…only seeks to provide the mechanism by which changes can be made to the Regulations in a manner that does not impact the application of streamlined approval arrangements already in place, under section 146B of the EPBC Act.
2.44Further, Woodside Energy argued against suggestions the bill aims to ‘detract from the environmental and consultative obligations of the offshore oil and gas sector’, and ‘may add to the confusion and division we are observing across communities from a lack of clear guidance’.
Views from environmental organisations and First Nations organisations
2.45Submissions from environmental organisations and First Nations organisations raised concerns that the proposed amendments in Part 2 of Schedule 2 would alter the interaction between the EPBC Act and the OPGGS Act in a manner that could be detrimental to the environment and adversely impact First Nations communities by weakening the consultation requirements in the approvals process for offshore petroleum and gas activities.
Environmental issues
2.46The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) considered that the provisions of Part 2 of Schedule 2 are inconsistent with the legislative intent of the EPBC Act and provide too much power over the approval of OPGGS activities to the Resources Minister. The ACF submitted that:
The proposed reforms subvert the legislative policy of the EPBC Act by allowing the Resources Minister, or her delegates, to implement changes to the regulations which form part of NOPSEMA’s environmental management framework while maintaining the exemption from the need for proponents to obtain a separate approval under the EPBC Act. Under the amendments as proposed, the Resources Minister could make these changes at any time and without any limitation as to what the regulations provide for, other than the constraints in the proposed s 790(E)4, which simply reproduce constraints already contained in the EPBC Act and the approval decision that followed the strategic assessment of NOPSEMA’s environmental management framework.
2.47Further, the ACF considered that Part 2 of Schedule 2 circumvents ‘important environmental safeguards’ of the EPBC Act by allowing for proposed OPGGS activities to avoid the considerations required by a ‘strategic assessment’ under Part 10 of the EPBC Act. The ACF suggests that this would allow for the approval of projects which were inconsistent with public consultation requirements, Australia’s international environmental commitments and other instruments developed under the EPBC Act.
2.48The ACF expanded on this point in their evidence to the committee, stating that:
Our concerns are that it basically provides the resources minister with free reign to go around the current endorsed program under the EPBC Act and to effectively undermine the protections that the EPBC Act is intended to provide through that endorsement. There was a 2014 decision to accredit, effectively, NOPSEMA's regime under the EPBC Act, but that was subject to the environment minister's conclusion that the standards under the EPBC Act had been satisfied. These provisions switch off that mechanism in the sense that the resources minister can introduce new rules or regulations and the proponents of offshore oil and gas projects will continue to have the advantage of the exemption based on the endorsed program.
2.49Several other submitters raised issues regarding the power provided to the Resources Minister under Part 2 of Schedule 2. For example, DrKirsty Howey, Executive Director of the Environment Centre NT, described Part 2 of Schedule2 as establishing a ‘carve-out that gives a pretty unfettered discretion to a minister who is in charge to promote the offshore oil and gas industry with barely any regard to environmental protections’.
2.50The Climate Council submitted that Part 2 of Schedule 2 would:
…appear to have the effect of removing any requirement for the Minister for the Environment to be involved in determining changes to the OPGGS Act, and open the door to significant weakening of environmental standards under this Act while still maintaining the standing EPBC approval for offshore oil and gas activities.
2.51The Biodiversity Council argued that Part 2 of Schedule 2 should be removed from the bill as it overrides an important environmental protection in the EPBC Act, is inconsistent with the Nature Positive Plan, and it takes an objection approach to legislation by creating a de facto ‘carving out’ of the OPGGS regime from the EPBC Act.
2.52Several organisations highlighted concerns that Part 2 of Schedule 2 could exacerbate the environmental and climate impacts associated with offshore oil and gas activities. Additionally, several organisations suggested the timing of the changes proposed by Part 2 of Schedule 2 were pre-emptive, given the Australian Government is currently consulting on reforms to the EPBC Act and, separately, consultation requirements for offshore oil and gas storage regulatory approvals.
2.53All of the organisations that expressed reservations about Part 2 of Schedule 2 considered that this schedule should be removed from the bill.
2.54While acknowledging the concerns raised regarding Part 2 of Schedule 2, DISR and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) sought to clarify the operation of the bill. For example, MrRobertJeremenko, Head of the Oil and Gas Division at DISR, told the committee that:
…schedule 2 allows for improvement of the offshore environmental regulations by ensuring that any changes do not remove the existing—and when I say 'existing', it has been in place since 2014—arrangements that remove the need for duplicate approvals to be undertaken by proponents between DCCEEW…and DISR. It maintains that streamlining. The schedule does not introduce anything new into the law; it simply allows flexibility for improvements to the law to be made without automatically reintroducing a burdensome and overly bureaucratic process that was removed in 2014. This seeks to maintain that.
2.55Mr Bruce Edwards, Head of the Nature Positive Regulation Division at DCCEEW, confirmed the arrangement for offshore oil and gas approvals:
From a DCCEEW perspective, or from a legislative perspective, the EPBC Act does not currently apply to the NOPSEMA arrangements. What we've done is endorse their arrangement as being the equivalent process to be worked through, under the EPBC Act. What that essentially does is turn off the EPBC Act, recognising that there's another process, rather than having a duplication of the two. …I want to clarify that the EPBC Act does not apply to those arrangements, because they've been endorsed as meeting the act's requirements.
2.56In its submission to the committee, DISR discussed the findings of the Samuel Review, which noted that ‘the regulatory settings for NOPSEMA are effectively frozen, stifling continuous improvement of environmental regulation and further streamlining’ and the lack of any mechanism in the EPBC Act to amend or modify an approved strategic assessment.
2.57DCCEEW also spoke to the streamlined arrangements. Mr Bruce Edwards, Head of the Nature Positive Regulation Division at DCCEEW, said that:
Graeme Samuel identified that strategic assessment approvals have limited to no flexibility, so you couldn't even make a simple change to a regulation that had been endorsed through one of those approvals, even if it were to improve the effectiveness or efficiency of that.
2.58DISR stated that the provisions in Part 2 of Schedule 2 will enable amendments to be made to the OPGGS Environment Regulations under the OPGGS Act to clarify and strengthen the offshore framework, while maintaining streamlined arrangements for NOPSEMA approvals under the EPBC Act. DISR contended that without this measure, applicants would need to seek separate approvals under both the OPGGS Environment Regulations and the EPBC Act.
2.59DISR claimed that this would frustrate the approvals process and increase the regulatory burden on industry and government and the consultation burden on stakeholders without any increase in environmental protection.
2.60DCCEEW spoke to an alternative to the existing streamlining arrangements, which would be to revert to separate approvals processes under the EPBC Act and the OPGGS Act. For example, Mr Bruce Edwards indicated that:
The alternative is to have people go through two different regulatory regimes. The government and all ministers are committed to the Nature Positive Plan and in maintaining environmental approvals. They're also committed to sustaining streamlined arrangements. My understanding is that's what Minister King is aiming for—to be able to make sensible adjustments, but not be inconsistent with the environmental standards that this government is applying.
2.61In response to the concerns that Part 2 of Schedule 2 would allow applicants to bypass relevant environmental considerations, DISR noted that, in accordance with section 17 of the Legislation Act 2003, the Environment Minister and DCCEEW would still need to be consulted on any future proposed amendments to the prescribed regulations prior to them being made.
2.62DISR affirmed that Part 2 of Schedule 2 does not change the legal requirements for environmental approvals for offshore activities and that there will be no change to strategic assessments under these amendments.
Consultation issues
2.63In giving evidence to the committee, First Nations people and Traditional Owners outlined their concerns that the provisions of Part 2 of Schedule 2 could have a negative impact on their relationship with their cultural lands. Further, First Nations people and Traditional Owners expressed concern that Part 2 of Schedule 2 could weaken the consultation requirements that apply to the approvals process for offshore petroleum and gas activities.
2.64Ms Therese Bourke, Tiwi Islands Traditional Owner and Senior Elder of the Malawu Clan told the committee of her community’s concerns:
We are here to help you understand that we are very worried about this new law and how it will impact our rights to have a say about our home. We are really worried about how this law will ignore the environment minister and give the resources minister the power to change the laws for which we have worked so hard to have our human rights respected and honoured. For us Tiwi people, our ties to sea country are so important to the survival of our connection to our cultural and spiritual beliefs, which non-Indigenous people may not understand or comprehend. Our connection to sea country is way too strong, and it has been since the creation of time for us. The water may have risen and moved over time, but it has never interrupted our spiritual connection to the land that is now under water. We will always be part of the sea environment and the land where our ancestors lived, where they are buried and where they practised our ancient culture.
2.65Other First Nations people who participated in the inquiry strongly emphasised their cultural connection to land and sea and the importance of environmental preservation. Ms Raelene Cooper told the committee that she was ‘heartbroken, devastated and furious that our governments continue to allow Woodside's Burrup Hub to destroy our sacred rock art, our songlines, our precious marine sanctuaries and our environment’.
2.66While the majority of witnesses speaking from and on behalf of First Nations perspectives agreed there were some concerns, The Top End Aboriginal Coastal Alliance Incorporated stated its support for the ‘the proposed additions of section 790E to preserve the effects of the offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage proposal’. As Mr Wunungmurra told the committee:
We welcome measures that reduce the chance of bad events happening to people whilst they're working on country. We acknowledge the importance of improving health and safety measures and outcomes for workers and for the offshore industries more broadly. As such, TEACA are supportive of the proposed changes presented to the bill that provides for these matters regarding the proposed additions of section 790E to preserve the effects of the offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage proposal.
2.67Dr Jack Pascoe, from Saltwater People, told the committee of the sheer volume of consultations by oil and gas companies and the short timeframes in which they are conducted. Further, Dr Pascoe outlined that, in his experience, the consultation that gas companies do with First Nations communities is characterised by a lack of face-to-face consultation and can involve multiple, lengthy environmental plan documents. This has the effect of splitting the limited resources of First Nations organisations and making it difficult for First Nations people to contribute appropriately.
2.68Pirrawyingi, Traditional Owner and Senior Elder of the Manupi Clan, also gave evidence to the committee that Santos’ consultation with his community was not sufficient, not effective and not conducted in a culturally appropriate manner.
2.69Mr Kabay Tamu, a claimant from Torres Strait 8, emphasised the importance of consultation with traditional owners:
Consultation with traditional owners must be done properly. We have a right to a voice about what happens in our sea country. There is nothing in this bill about our rights to be heard when it comes to our country. Instead, it is proposing to remove oversight for offshore oil and gas, which is not acceptable. We are concerned that this could lead to less consultation with traditional owners about what happens on their sea country. We are feeling the impacts of climate change on our country, and we are here to stand with other nations who are feeling the impacts of oil and gas extraction on their country.
2.70Despite the challenges for First Nations communities in being consulted, DrPascoe told the committee that it is not appropriate to reduce the level of consultation, given the significant environmental impacts that offshore oil and gas activities can have.
2.71The MUA supported these sentiments and commented that ‘it is clear that much work remains to be done in providing genuine consultation’ with Indigenous peoples. The MUA highlighted an instance of Woodside Energy’s conditional approval of an Environment Plan pending further consultation with First Nations organisations. Both the MUA and the ETU considered that First Nations organisations should be provided resources to ensure their proper participation in consultations with free, prior and informed consent, and according to their customs and law.
2.72The MUA also submitted that some industry proponents are pushing for regulatory or legislative change to reduce consultation requirements that arose from the Federal Court’s decision in Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd v Tipakalippa.The MUA noted that it had been consulted by more offshore oil and gas companies on decommissioning plans, following the changes resulting from this decision.
2.73The ETU echoed sentiments from the MUA regarding a push from industry to reduce consultation requirements. They argued that unions must be protected as relevant persons whose functions, interests or activities may be affected, in order to protect unions’ rights to be involved in consultation with industry.
2.74Both the MUA and Woodside Energy identified that DISR is currently undertaking a detailed consultation process of the consultation process under the Environment Regulations, and that DISR has flagged a broader review of the regulatory framework. In their submission to this inquiry, Woodside summarised their feedback to DISR regarding the consultation requirements. In this summary, Woodside stated that it supported reforms that could:
provide clarity for all participants on the purpose, standards and expectations of consultation;
provide certainty to titleholders by facilitating timely approvals for undertaking offshore activities;
ensure consultation is targeted and meaningful to support identification of environmental impact and risks and to adopt appropriate environmental controls;
provide NOPSEMA a clearer process to support decision-making and minimise challenges to NOPSEMA’s decisions.
2.75DISR identified that, as part of the Offshore Environmental Management Review, the Government will ensure any reforms are consistent with the National Environmental Standards being developed as part of the Nature Positive Plan, including the standards for First Nations engagement and participation in decision-making and community engagement and consultation.
2.76Giving evidence on the department’s ‘Clarifying consultation requirements for offshore oil and gas storage regulatory approvals: consultation paper’ at the public hearing, Mr Robert Jeremenko, Head of the Oil and Gas Division at DISR, commented that the bill and expected regulations will not reduce or denigrate extensive consultation requirements:
… they [terms of reference] make it very clear that one of the many stakeholders seeking clarification and certainty as a part of this government review are First Nations stakeholders as well as the other stakeholders in this space who all seek the clarity and guidance from the government that this broader review will seek to provide. But it doesn't in any way intend to nor will it denigrate from the extensive consultation requirements as outlined both under legislation and in recent court cases.
2.77Mr Jeremenko also confirmed that the bill does not allow for the bypassing of EPBC Act approval processes, saying:
It's certainly not the case that there is any bypassing involved as a result of schedule 2 at all.
…
I'll reiterate that the changes in this bill do not change the legal requirements for environmental approvals. They do not go to overriding anything at all, as has been suggested.
Committee view
2.78This section provides the committee’s views and recommendation on the bill.
Schedule 1
2.79Workers in the offshore petroleum and gas industry face unique and significant work health and safety risks. Australia’s laws and regulations need to account for these risks so that worker safety is appropriately managed in all offshore petroleum and gas operations.
2.80Schedule 1 of the bill proposes several new measurers that significantly improve the safety outcomes for Australia’s offshore resources workforce. These measures are proposed following extensive consultation with industry, unions, the offshore workforce and state and territory governments through the Safety Review.
2.81The committee welcomes the bill’s proposed offshore worker safety measures and is encouraged by the Australian Government’s commitments to further improving offshore worker safety. As DISR submitted, the majority of the proposed changes from the Safety Review will be implemented through regulations under the OPGGS Act. This will involve remaking the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety) Regulations 2009ahead of the scheduled sunsetting on 1 April 2026.
2.82In addition, the Hon Madeleine King MP, Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia, has announced a ‘new offshore safety review to identify further opportunities to harmonise the offshore petroleum safety regime with our national Work Health and Safety laws’. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations will work closely with DISR on the review and ‘progress harmonisation of work health and safety regulatory frameworks to improve safety outcomes and better protect the health and safety of workers in the offshore oil and gas industry’. The committee notes that this review may be an opportunity to explore further harmonisation of the offshore safety regime with the Model WHS Act, which was recommended by a number of witnesses from unions.
Schedule 2, Part 1
2.83The committee welcomes the bill’s provisions in Part 1 of Schedule 2 that would enable the Australian Safety Maritime Authority (ASMA) to make rules under the Navigation Act to apply components of Commonwealth maritime law to facilities regulated under the OPGGS Act. The committee recognises the benefit for ASMA in having a level of rulemaking flexibility to ensure that relevant IMO requirements are applied to OPGGS Act regulator facilities.
2.84The committee also notes that the submission from the Maritime Union of Australia in relation to Part 1 of Schedule 2 highlights several ways in which the maritime safety regime may be improved.
2.85The committee encourages the Australian Government to continue to consult with workers and unions in remaking the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety) Regulations 2009 and in identifying any further opportunities to improve the safety of workers in the offshore petroleum and gas industry, including through the announced safety review focused on harmonising with WHS laws.
Schedule 2, Part 2
2.86The committee notes the intent of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to preserve the effect of the endorsed program for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage approval.
2.87The committee recognises that Australia’s offshore oil and gas industry makes significant contributions to the domestic economy and energy security. At the same time, the offshore oil and gas development poses risks to the environment and cultural heritage that must be managed. Australia’s regulatory regime for offshore oil and gas activity needs to carefully manage these sensitive issues.
2.88The bill’s proposed introduction of section 790E would provide a mechanism for the Resources Minister to make regulations that maintain the existing streamlined approach for the approval of offshore oil and gas developments. Section 790E would not change the current environmental requirements or consultation requirements for offshore gas developments.
2.89The committee notes that many witnesses have submitted that section 790E of Schedule 2 may be applied in such a way which could potentially weaken environmental standards or consultation requirements.
2.90The committee highlights evidence from DISR that the bill under consideration does not change approval or consultation processes.
2.91Further, the committee welcomes DISR’s evidence that its consultations on regulations are aimed at improving the quality and clarity of consultations with third parties under the OPGGS Act.
2.92The committee encourages the government to continue consultation with First Nations, environment and industry groups in this next phase of these reforms.
2.93The committee recommends that the bill be passed.
Senator Jess Walsh
Chair