5.1
Petroleum titleholders must submit an environment plan (EP) to the regulator—the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA)—for assessment and approval for proposed offshore petroleum activities, including seismic surveying, prior to commencing an activity.
5.2
The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 (OPGGS Regulations) prescribe eight criteria for acceptance of an EP, including that the plan:
(b) demonstrates that the environmental impacts and risks of the activity will be reduced to as low as reasonably practicable [ALARP]; and
(c) demonstrates that the environmental impacts and risks of the activity will be of an acceptable level; and
…
(g) demonstrates that:
(i) the titleholder has carried out the consultations required [with 'relevant persons']; and
(ii) the measures (if any) that the titleholder has adopted, or proposes to adopt, because of the consultations are appropriate.
5.3
Throughout the inquiry many submitters and witnesses expressed concerns about the acceptance criteria and the assessment process. For example, Greenpeace Australia Pacific stated:
The nature of the environment plan criteria and process is itself a cause for concern … The environmental plan acceptance criteria are riddled with grey areas, rather than just black and white requirements, further drawing attention to the fact that not enough is known to set strict regulations on the issue of seismic testing.
5.4
This chapter examines the three criteria that most concerned participants.
ALARP and acceptability
5.5
As mentioned in Chapter 4, some submitters and witnesses disputed whether the regulatory framework provides any environmental protection from the impacts of seismic signal exposure. A key concern was the ALARP threshold that they considered is set too low. For example, the Victorian Rock Lobster Association argued that this threshold does not seriously attempt to manage environmental risks:
… the 'bar' for risk reduction is a term called ALARP … which effectively means that it is a given that a survey will go ahead, but with as much 'tweaking' around the edges as the surveyor can bear … This is not environmental risk management but an exercise in trying to minimise impacted party concern. In the end, as has always been the case, these surveys will continue to go ahead.
5.6
Similarly, the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council (TSIC) and Seafood Industry Victoria (SIV) submitted:
We remain unconvinced that the use of ALARP provides adequate, if any, protection to fish stocks (including larvae) and broader marine ecosystem services, especially in light of the significant unknown impacts of seismic. To adequately protect current and future fish stocks, TSIC and SIV recommend a more precautionary approach to seismic survey activities.
5.7
Seafood Industry Australia (SIA) remarked that the commercial fishing industry is subject to a much higher standard than the offshore petroleum industry. Australian Marine Conservation Society representative
Mr Adrian Meder commented similarly:
… the fishing industry … is subject to a substantial range of very science based, precautionary measures that require them to protect the marine environment they operate in to a much higher level than 'as low as reasonably practicable'. To give an example: for a fishery off South Australia, if an Australian sea lion is caught in a net, a large zone of that fishery will be closed for 18 months. They are very explicit and very tight controls. There's no such control on the seismic industry and, likewise, there isn't the extent of management and monitoring for integration with the other industries and other cumulative impacts that may be occurring. That's a really unusual double standard. While 'as low as reasonably practicable' sounds good and is marketed as a big level of effort from industry, it actually falls far short of what other industries are expected to do as part of their normal operations.
Interpretation of ALARP and acceptability
5.8
Although the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) emphasised the oil and gas industry's compliance with the statutory thresholds, other submitters and witnesses argued that these thresholds are open to interpretation.
5.9
Mr Patrick Gardner from The Wilderness Society WA, for example, expressed concern at the absence of an objective definition:
Naturally, you want as much objectivity to be engrained within any regulations or stipulations for industry. Leaving concepts open for interpretation or levels of subjectivity almost tacitly allows a form of self‑regulation, and, unfortunately, we do see this … across environmental legislation and regulation.
5.10
Mr Peter Owen from The Wilderness Society SA, and representing the Great Australian Bight Alliance, remarked that 'there is a significant difference … between what the industry may consider [an] acceptable [risk] and what the Australian community—in fact, the international community—is willing to accept'.
5.11
APPEA contended that there is no scientific formula to determine whether a proposed offshore activity is ALARP but expressed its view that ALARP broadly means 'meeting legal requirements and other agreed criteria (such as the 'acceptability criteria') to the extent that is reasonably practicable'.
5.12
Similarly, APPEA defined the meaning of 'acceptable level' as:
… the specified amount of environmental impact and risk that an activity may have which is tolerable, is consistent with all relevant principles, and does not compromise the management/conservation/protection objectives of the environment.
5.13
APPEA submitted that oil and gas companies comply with and demonstrate ALARP and acceptability in a variety of ways depending on the activity (such as sound modelling, stakeholder consultations, et cetera):
Following demonstration that all reasonable and practicable control measures have been adopted to reduce the impacts and risks to ALARP, the pre-defined acceptable levels of impact [are] compared with the residual levels of impact and risk. If the residual risk and impact levels lie within the boundaries of the pre-defined acceptable levels, the impact or risk is considered acceptable.
Precautionary principle
5.14
Some submitters and witnesses referred to the limited evidence base (see Chapters 2 and 3) and argued that, in its assessment and approval processes, NOPSEMA should be implementing a more precautionary approach to safeguard against the impacts of seismic signal exposure. For example, The Wilderness Society submitted:
The absence of conclusive scientific studies and baseline data in relation to impacts of [marine seismic surveying (MSS)] on marine species protected under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 [(EPBC Act)], and also their food sources, creates considerable uncertainty in the identification and appropriate assessment of environmental impacts of MSS. Accordingly, the principles of [ecologically sustainable development (ESD)] require NOPSEMA, in respect of the assessment and approval of any MSS, to act with precaution to ensure that there is no risk of irreversible adverse impacts or changes to the environment as a result of the activity.
5.15
The Wilderness Society representative Ms Jody Williams stated unequivocally that 'there should not be approval of surveys where scientific uncertainties exist'. TSIC, SIV and the Victorian Rock Lobster Association agreed, with the latter organisation submitting that 'we should be proceeding with caution and not allowing a lack of knowledge to be the excuse for continued use of what we know is a lethal tool'.
5.16
APPEA submitted that uncertainty is unavoidable in any EIA and for, underwater noise impacts, 'scientific uncertainty is … a key issue … as the calculation and determination of the potential impact is complex and there is often not specific data on individual regions'.
5.17
APPEA stated that petroleum titleholders manage this uncertainty by submitting EPs that use a supported evidence base to demonstrate the predictions of environmental impact, whether the control measures will be effective, and a detailed response to stakeholder concerns. It argued that NOPSEMA will not accept a plan where these matters are not satisfactorily addressed.
5.18
APPEA submitted that, where uncertainty remains, 'considering the worst case scenario is appropriate' however, the precautionary principle, a key ESD principle, is a duty to be cautious while enabling progress and development:
Its purpose is not to halt development (or seismic) until full scientific knowledge can be established. Instead, the precautionary principle is used to guide mitigation decisions to evaluate and avoid serious or irreversible damage to the environment. Uncertainties in risk are replaced by conservative (worst case) assumptions resulting in safety controls being more likely implemented.
5.19
NOPSEMA maintained that, although there are recognised impacts from seismic signal exposure, 'suitable environmental management measures' ensure that seismic activities can be conducted within acceptable levels of environmental risk and impact.
5.20
The regulator reiterated that its role is to assess and make decisions about 'individual activity proposals to ensure that [these] impacts and risks are reduced to [ALARP] and … are acceptable'.
5.21
In response to concerns that there might be various interpretations of what might be ALARP and acceptable, Mr Cameron Grebe acknowledged the concern but said:
Put simply, the observation is that people are perhaps seeking no-impact or no-risk combined with no-uncertainly of those two things to be the hurdle that has to be got over. That simply isn't the regulatory regime as it's defined currently, so we can't deliver on that. If those are people's expectations, then they won't be met … It won't be because we're not doing our job. It's because that's the framework of legislation that we have to apply.
5.22
NOPSEMA highlighted that it provides information on how ALARP and acceptability are to be defined and demonstrated in EPs, by referencing its Guidance Note on Environment plan content.
5.23
NOPSEMA emphasised that it makes 'expert, impartial decisions based on merit and with regard to relevant science and facts'. Where there is scientific uncertainty, NOPSEMA submitted that it applies the government‑endorsed precautionary approach to decision making:
For seismic surveys, the greater precaution is typically achieved by requiring more management controls during the seismic surveys or more stringent application of those controls to prevent acceptable levels of harm in locations where sensitive species are found … If the predicted impacts to sensitive marine fauna cannot be managed to result in an acceptable environmental outcome, NOPSEMA will not allow the survey to proceed.
5.24
Mr Grebe noted the 'significant' level of scrutiny that NOPSEMA has experienced in the past nine-odd years:
… I've been through an Australian National Audit Office performance audit, which extended for several months; the Chief Scientist's audit of our environmental approval process for the Great Australian Bight activities; operational reviews that are a statutory requirement under the Act—I could go on and on. In the last two years, we've been subject to about nine different reviews and audits … You can be assured that we get our fair share of concerns about the level of scrutiny and the burden we cause through the environmental protection requirements we administer onto industry.
5.25
NOPSEMA representatives highlighted the expertise of staff and Mr Grebe further noted that the regulator is a member of the International Offshore Petroleum Environment Regulators forum, which was established to enable regulators to share good practice and pursue common interests to improve the global industry's environmental performance. He spoke of the high regard in which NOPSEMA is held in that forum:
… we have observed that we have a very strong agency in terms of the resourcing, funding and also capacity from our ability to recruit people … and retain them to perform. That doesn't bear out in all of those other countries … When we benchmark, I would give evidence—and it's been observed by other members of those jurisdictions—that Australia has a strong regime and regulator. They're rather envious of us. We've also exchanged staff with different jurisdictions. For example, swapping staff who have spent a year in New Zealand and in the UK.
Committee view
5.26
The committee understands that environmental assessment and approval processes seek to mitigate environmental risks and impacts associated with marine seismic surveying.
5.27
The committee heard throughout the inquiry that the full extent of these risks and impacts are not currently ascertainable, although NOPSEMA sought to assure the committee that the unknown risks and impacts can be managed, consistent with Australian Government policy.
5.28
Multiple submitters and witnesses disputed this view and the committee heard that two key thresholds are ambiguous and tend to favour offshore petroleum activities, regardless of potentially unknown environmental impacts.
5.29
As discussed in previous chapters, the committee was told that a stronger evidence base is required to properly understand and manage environmental risks and impacts and, until this is obtained, the regulator should be applying at least a more precautionary approach to its decision-making.
5.30
The committee acknowledges these valid concerns and notes NOPSEMA's response that it already adopts a precautionary approach in the face of scientific uncertainty, primarily through more stringent control measures. The committee notes its comments in Chapter 4 that these measures are in need of review.
5.31
In relation to ALARP and acceptability, the committee recognises that these concepts are highly subjective and therefore can be complex and difficult to apply. Further, consistent with the objectives‑based approach to regulation (see Chapter 6), these terms are defined and demonstrated by activity proponents in EPs. In the committee's view, this could lead, and may have led, to negative perceptions about the quality of environmental risk assessment in EPs proposing offshore seismic surveying.
5.32
The committee considers that there should be specific guidance on the definition and meaning of 'ALARP' and 'acceptability'. Given the ambiguity of these terms, the committee suggests that the guidance note contain various examples of the terms' correct application with a view to improving the implementation of the regulatory requirement and to increase transparency in the regulator's decision-making process.
5.33
The committee recommends that the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority issue a Guidance Note to specifically address the interpretation and demonstration of the key regulatory terms 'as low as reasonably practicable' and 'acceptable level'.
Consultations
5.34
The OPGGS Regulations provide two means by which stakeholders and the Australian community can receive and provide information on proposed marine seismic surveys.
5.35
Firstly, activity proponents must consult with relevant authorities, persons and organisations (defined in the regulations as 'relevant persons') when preparing or revising an EP. The term 'relevant persons' includes:
(d) a person or organisation whose functions, interests or activities may be affected by the activities to be carried out under the environment plan, or the revision of the environment plan;
(e) any other person or organisation that the titleholder considers relevant.
5.36
Secondly, after assessing the content of an EP, NOPSEMA must publish the plan and its associated material, and, as the plan relates to seismic activities, invite public comment within 30 days of publication.
5.37
Numerous submitters and witnesses commented on the OPGGS Regulations consultation requirements and identified a number of concerns, most of which related to consultations with the commercial fishing industry and the community.
Commercial fishing industry consultations
5.38
Although APPEA emphasised its members' ongoing commitment to co‑existence, commercial fishers questioned whether the offshore petroleum industry's consultations genuinely seek to take commercial fishing interests into consideration.
5.39
TSIC and SIV submitted that the traditional approach—emailed information and telephone calls—is not fit‑for-purpose and is counter-productive:
… the consultation processes … [have] resulted in individual fishers being bombarded with emails and phone calls concerning seismic activity and has resulted in confusion and misunderstandings as to who fishers are talking to, have they talked before, are they new companies, where are they proposing to go, what is a 3D vs 2D seismic survey etc. The end result has been consultation fatigue, and in turn, a disengagement by the fishing community to the oil and gas consultation process.
5.40
One witness—Mayor Julianne Arnold from the King Island Council—indicated that it can also be difficult for local government authorities to engage in meaningful consultations with activity proponents.
5.41
Some submitters argued that, even when consultations do occur, commercial fishing concerns can be completely disregarded by activity proponents. Ms Marion Gordon from the Port Campbell Fishermen's Association submitted, for example, that consultation frequently amounted to:
… a meeting in the local pub to tell us what they intended doing … Constant objections relating to seismic fell on deaf ears and all continually denied that any damage would be caused to marine life except for whales.
5.42
Southern Rocklobster Limited similarly submitted:
… the decision-making process for mining, gas and petroleum project proposals must require proponents to demonstrate that their consultation and negotiation strategies engage appropriately … This consultation process must address and where possible mitigate environmental and access issues. Our industry believes that the duty to consult lies solely with the titleholder. The provision of information alone does not constitute appropriate and meaningful consultation.
5.43
According to the Northern Territory Seafood Council, its members view regulatory consultation as a waste of time and resources:
Consultation is now viewed not as a means to find a middle ground, rather a mechanism that wastes both time and resources for an outcome (that being a seismic survey) that will occur regardless of concerns or issues raised.
5.44
The Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fishermen's Association submitted that the failure to genuinely engage with the commercial fishing industry results in NOPSEMA receiving and accepting EPs that do not fully appreciate or address fishers' concerns.
5.45
The committee notes information received from Geoscience Australia, TSIC and the Australian Southern Bluefin Tuna Industry Association, to the effect that there have been examples of EP modification following stakeholder consultations.
Consultation burden
5.46
Some submitters and witnesses advised that regulatory consultations impose a significant burden upon the commercial fishing industry, especially when compared to the resources of the offshore petroleum industry. SIA, for example, submitted:
… our sector [is] at best around 1/10th the size of the petroleum industry. This disparity goes to the heart of many of the concerns and frustrations expressed by the seafood sector. While there are a number of points in the approval of marine petroleum activities where we are technically able to comment, associations generally do not have the people or funds available to fully participate. The situation is often worse for individual fishers asked to provide feedback on EPs created by highly qualified and skilled, multidisciplinary teams. This leads to concerns the consultative process is not designed or delivered in the true spirit of consultation … The apparent power asymmetry leaves us exposed and often in a ‘David and Goliath’ struggle to protect our livelihoods.
5.47
The Commercial Fishermen's Co-operative Ltd agreed that the 'consultation burden' is untenable:
The oil, gas and seismic industry has to consult as a legislated requirement for their environment plan. However, this industry often fails to recognise that this consultation comes at a significant cost to the commercial fishing sector—in time, effort and energy; our industry is struggling to recognise the value of this investment when identified potential impacts are either mitigated to an oil, gas and seismic version of ALARP or dismissed via the use of selective reference to science of convenience.
5.48
A few participants indicated that, rather than compensating the commercial fishing industry for its time, it would be preferable to improve the consultation process with a view to more collaborative and meaningful outcomes. Mr Thomas Cosentino from Southern Rock Lobster said, for example:
Our members have said that compensation is not what they want; that demonstrates that we can, in essence, be paid off. It's not about the hourly rate that we receive for consulting, it's about the outcome we get from the consultation. If that means a healthier fishery or less disruption to our fishing businesses, then that's the objective.
5.49
TSIC and SIV supported the development of an 'Agreed Collaborative Consultation Framework'. However, 'there have been … attempts to develop an agreed consultation framework between seafood and APPEA. Although some discussions have been promising, there has been no outcome to date'.
5.50
Mr Andrew McConville, Chief Executive of APPEA, indicated that it is challenging to 'land on agreement and common understanding of issues' due to the number and variability of representative fishing bodies:
It's been challenging probably on the side of all parties. APPEA is a single organisation that is representative of … 90 per cent of the industry. That's not the case with the fishing industry; it's a much more fragmented sort of body of organisations and at times the views of the different fishing industry groups don't align either... But certainly the commitment is there and we continue to work with the diaspora, if you like, of fishing groups and continue to engage with them individually.
5.51
On this point, Mr McConville noted that APPEA supports 'a standard approach in terms of the minimum standard on consultation and how we do that in a more cooperative manner'.
5.52
When asked to describe progress of the 'Agreed Collaborative Consultation Framework', another APPEA representative Mr Jason Medd stated that development is 'ongoing'.
5.53
Section 280 of the OPGGS Act requires a person carrying out activities in an offshore area under title to refrain from interfering with the rights of other specified users of the offshore area to a greater extent than is necessary for the reasonable exercise of the person's rights and performance of their duties.
5.54
Both DISER and NOPSEMA referred to this provision, noting its express recognition of marine industries and users other than the oil and gas industry. NOPSEMA submitted that these multiple rights and interests are balanced through the regulator's assessment and compliance functions, in particular the 'relevant person' consultation requirement in the OPGGS Regulations.
5.55
DISER submitted that the term 'relevant person' is to be broadly defined, with an expectation of:
… direct and open communication between titleholders and relevant persons during the consultation process, and early engagement, appropriate consultation strategies and respectful communication techniques.
5.56
Similarly, NOPSEMA acknowledged that, 'certain good practice principles should be evident in all processes to provide open and effective engagement between the titleholder and the relevant person'. In its view, this includes the exchange of information about proposals and their potential effect on stakeholders.
5.57
NOPSEMA noted that, in assessing EPs, it determines whether titleholders have carried out consultations and whether control measures adopted in response to those consultations are appropriate. The regulator clarified that, in assessing compliance, it checks only to ensure that titleholders have made reasonable attempts to resolve any objections and claims.
5.58
Ms Marie Illman representing DISER said that 'engagement between the fishing and petroleum sectors has become increasingly fraught over recent years, due to the overlap in space and time of their activities'. Despite this tension, the two industries have committed to working together constructively, with assistance from DISER, NOPSEMA and the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment.
5.59
NOPSEMA acknowledged attempts between the offshore petroleum and commercial fishing industries to work collaboratively on a standard method of consultation. However, 'progress has been slow' and NOPSEMA considered that there is no 'one size fits all' approach:
The model for engagement utilised for any given activity may vary depending on a range of factors such as the type and size of the activity, the number of relevant persons and the extent to which they are affected by the activity.
Committee view
5.60
The committee heard that the commercial fishing industry is underwhelmed with activity proponents' compliance with the relevant person consultation requirement set out in the OPGGS Regulations. In particular, there is considerable dissatisfaction with how the consultations are conducted and how fishers' concerns are subsequently addressed in EPs.
5.61
The committee concurs with NOPSEMA that there is a need for 'good practice principles' in all processes and is concerned that, as these principles are not explicitly articulated in the OPGGS Regulations, not all activity proponents are conducting cooperative and meaningful consultations.
5.62
In the committee's view, if activity proponents are responsible for conducting consultations and reporting on those outcomes, and the regulator does not carefully examine those matters, then this can result in poor consultation practices and outcomes. The committee therefore considers that there is a need for stricter requirements and compliance assessment of an activity proponent's consultations with relevant persons.
5.63
The committee recommends that the Australian Government review the consultation requirements of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 and ensure these requirements meet reasonable community expectations and good practice principles.
5.64
The committee heard that the relevant person consultation requirement places a significant burden on the offshore petroleum and commercial fishing industries, which are seeking to mitigate the burden by developing an agreed framework for collaborative consultations.
5.65
The committee notes evidence from NOPSEMA that progress toward a collaborative consultation framework has been slow. However, the committee considers that an agreed framework would help resolve some of the tension between the two industries.
5.66
As with a nationally agreed compensation framework (see Chapter 3), the committee notes that progress toward a collaborative consultation framework has been slow and somewhat difficult to achieve. In particular, as there is no national peak body for the commercial fishing industry, negotiations have been occurring with state-based representative bodies, which may or may not have the resources to invest in protracted discussions.
5.67
In the committee's view, the Australian Government should assist both industries by mandating minimum consultation requirements (see Recommendation 16) and identifying the process by which parties can comply with those requirements.
5.68
The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Science, Energy and Resources, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, develop a collaborative consultation framework to assist activity proponents and relevant persons to comply with the consultation requirements set out in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009, including any changes that result from Recommendation 16.
Consultations with other stakeholders
5.69
A large number of community and environmental stakeholders referred to the lack of consultation by some oil and gas companies, particularly, for example, Asset Energy Pty Ltd's (Asset Energy) consultations on its 2018 2D marine seismic survey in the Sydney Basin offshore New South Wales (see Chapter 4).
5.70
Some submitters contended that Asset Energy did not consult in accordance with the OPGGS Regulations. For example, Dr John Mackenzie submitted that the City of Newcastle has long opposed 'offshore exploration and mining that puts the marine environment at unmitigable risk'. However, 'there has been no consultation with the City of Newcastle, as a relevant person'.
5.71
Similarly, Mr Frank Future, a local marine tourism business owner, described the level of consultation afforded him by Asset Energy:
I have operated whale and dolphin cruises off the coast of Port Stephens for 25 years … and have grave fears that prospecting using 3D technology is highly invasive to all marine life and could affect the movement of cetaceans through these waters … I was not contacted initially to respond to their intent to prospect and when I searched for who they had contacted, found they had gone to a UK Cetacean agency and had not contacted one single whale watch operator in the region! My livelihood and that of many of my colleagues and staff depends upon whales and dolphins.
5.72
Ms Eleanor Lawless, representing the Protect Our Coast Alliance, indicated that, apart from the public consultation process, the local community was not consulted about the Baleen 2D Marine Seismic Survey.
Community consultations
5.73
Numerous individuals and organisations—representing environmental groups, recreational and commercial marine users—opposed the Baleen 2D Marine Seismic Survey, citing its potential impacts on fisheries and the marine environment, as well as future offshore petroleum development and its associated impacts (including climate change).
5.74
For example, the Hunter Community Environment Centre summarised that 'there is no social licence or public support for seismic testing or an offshore extraction industry in the [Hunter and Newcastle] region' (see Figure 5.1).
5.75
The Peninsula Environment Group expressly asked the committee to recognise:
…the significant opposition to seismic testing in the local community as demonstrated by the ‘Hands across the sands’ community gathering at Umina beach [south of Gosford] attended by more than a thousand people in May 2019 as well as the Save Our Coast petition which currently has over 50,000 signatures.
5.76
Surfrider Foundation Australia similarly stated:
Public opinion polls demonstrate that the majority of Australians oppose drilling activities and seismic testing. Off-shore drilling activities are a risky business, putting profits to international entities above local jobs, tourism, health and environment. It provokes a loss of local control. Australians consider the coastline as our recreational playground, and the health and well-being component of our nation has a greater value, than any short term fossil fuel gains.
5.77
Ms Susie Crick, who submitted on behalf of a local preschool in central New South Wales, likewise noted the community's deep connection to the natural environment:
Our preschool is located on the beach and the children (and educators) love seeing whales and dolphins from our schoolyard; we should be protecting these magnificent creatures and their habitat, as well as the other species such as turtles, seals, fairy penguins, that live in or traverse these coastal waters all year round. Seismic testing is just the first step in the development of offshore exploration for fossil fuels, with plans for offshore mining for gas. This is completely unacceptable. My entire community feels a deep connection to our coast.
5.78
The committee notes that these views were strongly reflected in the nearly
8500 form letters and short statements submitted to the inquiry.
5.79
DISER and NOPSEMA recognised that the Australian community is concerned about the degree to which offshore seismic surveying impacts marine animals and the marine environment. NOPSEMA attributed this concern to specific factors, such as:
inaccurate media reports about the potential impacts from seismic surveys;
a low level of understanding about the limitations in applying scientific research to inform environmental impact assessment and the management of full scale seismic surveys; and
limited understanding of how the petroleum industry is regulated.
5.80
DISER submitted that the Australian Government is aware of the need to assure the community that all relevant scientific and environmental factors are considered by NOPSEMA.
5.81
NOPSEMA further commented that the OPGGS Regulations provide for relevant person consultation and public consultation only:
The public comment process affords the opportunity for all members of the community to make input to assessment of seismic survey environmental approvals, however only a specific set of community stakeholders are identified in the regulations for direct consultation by titleholders.
5.82
In relation to public consultations, NOPSEMA considered it good practice for oil and gas companies planning to undertake a seismic survey to consult interested stakeholders. However, 'NOPSEMA does not have any role or powers to enforce compliance for these aspects'.
5.83
The regulator highlighted that it has encouraged activity proponents to consult more widely and to facilitate community feedback during the public consultation period:
NOPSEMA has recently clarified via an Environment Bulletin how community consultation features in the regulatory system it administers (statutory consultation) and how companies planning to conduct seismic surveys should consider consulting with the wider community … NOPSEMA identifies the requirement for titleholders to promote the public comment period, by publishing advertisements in relevant local, state and national newspapers as well as on their website.
5.84
Mr Grebe informed the committee that, in addition to the offshore petroleum industry's engagement, NOPSEMA has a program of direct engagement with communities where there's the most interest and/or activity:
We maintain a program of direct engagements with local governments and community groups. Over the years, we've been to many regional areas in South Australia and engaged directly with communities—both with other government agencies and on our own—in public forums and in meetings, private and public … We've also formalised a community environment reference group, which has operated for a few years now, to provide a more structured and direct way for us to have a read on how the community is concerned and wishes to understand and provide feedback to us on how the industry performs environmental management and how we regulate.
Committee view
5.85
The committee heard that, beyond the commercial fishing industry, environmental and community-based stakeholders are also dissatisfied with some activity proponents' consultation on proposed marine seismic surveys.
5.86
The committee agrees that offshore petroleum exploration requires social licence to operate and notes NOPSEMA's submissions regarding the role of misinformation in fuelling community concerns.
5.87
The committee considers that local governments and communities should be advised and kept well informed of proposed and ongoing activities in their area. In particular, the committee notes that activity proponents are not required to proactively consult with communities during either the EP or public consultation process.
5.88
In the committee's view, oil and gas exploration companies should be required to conduct this broad and transparent consultation, to properly engage with communities that may feel threatened or be impacted by proposed activities. Without this level of genuine engagement, the companies may risk their social licence to operate.
5.89
The committee recommends that the Australian Government amend:
the definition of 'relevant person' in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 to include any relevant local governments and local communities in consultations concerning proposed offshore seismic activities; and
the public comment provisions in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 to require activity proponents to proactively engage with local governments and local communities that might be impacted by proposed seismic activities.