Wooooo Hooooo Go BPH :)$$$$$$, page-20632

Madeleine King set to take offshore gas approval power from Tanya

Proposed changes to the way the oil and gas industry is regulated would sideline federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek by stripping her office of the power to oversee the offshore petroleum industry.

The changes – the first bill the government has introduced to parliament in 2024 – are buried in an uncontroversial series of amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. The rest of the bill mostly concerns improvements to worker safety.

A provision within this bill, however, proposes to remove the federal environment minister’s responsibility for overseeing the offshore oil and gas industry’s operations where their activities fall under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The changes are highly technical but broadly concern the way approvals are carried out and overseen by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, which operates with delegated authority from the environment minister.

If passed, the amendments will mean the environment minister is automatically assumed to agree with any regulatory changes made by the resources minister concerning directions to NOPSEMA on how it makes decisions during approval processes.

As these regulations have not yet been written – pending the outcome of a current review – this would give Resources Minister Madeleine King broad ministerial discretion to rewrite the way projects are approved.

The proposal appears to follow fierce reaction from the gas industry calling for changes to approval processes after a series of high-profile legal challenges.

On October 6, 2023, Santos chief executive Kevin Gallagher sent a letter to Minister King, co-signed by the heads of South Korean and Japanese petroleum companies, demanding the government “take urgent action to deliver regulations which provide clarity and certainty for industry”.

Released under freedom of information, the letter appears to be a reaction to a legal win by Raelene Cooper, a Mardudhunera woman and Save Our Songlines campaigner, against Woodside in the Federal Court and is explicit about the industry’s expectations of government.

“Investors have previously committed funds based on a level of trust in the Australian regulatory regime and a reasonable expectation that environmental approvals consistent with [Barossa Area Development Offshore Project Proposal] will be forthcoming,” it said.

“… The events of the last 18 months have eroded confidence in the current regulatory approvals regime as it fails to deliver certainty of cost, schedule and ultimately the ability to complete a sanctioned project. This in turn decreases the attractiveness of Australia as a place to invest in for major capital projects.”

Annika Reynolds, national climate policy adviser with the Australian Conservation Foundation, said the changes “carve out” special protections for the oil and gas industry while simultaneously undermining two separate ministerial reviews currently under way.

“We are deeply disappointed and concerned that this bill has been introduced part way through two major consultation processes,” Reynolds said.

“This bill is seriously concerning to us because it not only undermines the very role national environmental laws are supposed to be playing but it comes at a time when the government has said, and is engaged in, urgently fixing those laws.

“And it pre-empts all the major reform the government says it will introduce this term.”

King is currently overseeing a review into the regulation of the offshore oil and gas industry, to decide if they should be changed and how. Plibersek is engaged in a separate review looking at overhauling and updating Australia’s environmental laws.

The introduction of the bill to parliament prompted a flurry of queries from environmental and climate groups seeking clarity from Plibersek’s office. These were redirected to King’s office.

Among the concerns raised was whether the change could also empower a future resources minister to unilaterally rip up environmental protections covering the petroleum sector following a change in government.

Rachel Walmsley, head of policy and law reform with the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), said her “phone was ringing off the hook” with requests from organisations and clients asking about the significance of the change.

“The potential for one minister to be able to make changes in regulation but not have to review standards under environmental laws – that is problematic,” Walmsley said. “What we’d be concerned about there is if there were changes made to regulations that involved any reduction in environmental protections.”

The Saturday Paper understands King and Plibersek began reviewing the provisions after concerns were raised about the scope of the change.

Following the introduction of the changes, no briefings were held with major environmental or climate groups, but a meeting was scheduled on Wednesday.

“At first glance, this bill is just administrative minutiae. It’s only when you zoom out and understand this bill as a power shift from the environment portfolio to the resources portfolio, that its insidious potential is realised.”

This week, The Saturday Paper sent a list of questions to Madeleine King and Tanya Plibersek’s offices to clarify what occurred.

King said the amendments were introduced to “allow the Government to act in line with the recommendations of [the] review” her office was leading to “reform Australia’s complex offshore resources environmental laws”.

“We have been clear that our environment laws aren’t working – for the environment or for industry,” she said.

King denied the proposed change would weaken or bypass existing environmental regulations, or fast-track gas projects. “We are happy to work with stakeholders on sensible amendments to the current bill, to give everyone further confidence about the intent of the changes,” she said.

The environment minister did not respond to requests for comment.

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, of the South Australian Greens, said the government had been caught in a “sneaky” effort to clear the way for the approval of new gas mega projects.

“On one hand we have an environment minister saying she will fix Australia’s broken environment laws, on the other hand we have a resources minister quietly giving herself the power to bypass those laws via loopholes to approve new mega gas projects,” Hanson-Young said.

“Our wildlife, forests and ecosystems are already at breaking point. We can’t afford weaker environment laws.”

Although the Department of Industry, Science and Resources lists 118 potential fossil fuel projects as in development across Australia, an independent analysis by Greenpeace found there were only 30 projects that had been submitted for approvals. Among them are Woodside’s $16.5 billion Scarborough development and Santos’s $5.7 billion Barossa gas project.

“The fact the gas industry is happy, says everything you need to know,” Hanson-Young said. “It’s a favour for the gas lobby, at the cost of our environment and First Nations voices.”

Following the bill’s introduction to parliament last Thursday, the chief executive of the lobby group Australian Energy Producers (AEP), Samantha McCulloch, welcomed it, saying it would provide “regulatory certainty” in an “untenable” business environment created by recent litigations against major gas projects.

Asked whether her group met with King or Plibersek prior to the amendments being tabled in parliament, McCulloch said the association did not comment on individual meetings but noted the AEP only published its press release after details of the bill were published in the media.

“We have regular engagements with ministers and departmental officials as part of our work representing our members and the critical role they play in supporting the nation’s economy, energy security and net zero targets,” she said.

Over the past 18 months the group has taken a more muscular approach when defending the Australian oil and gas industry, particularly as its members have come under increasing scrutiny in the courts.

In December, Australian oil company Santos suffered a major loss when the Federal Court ruled it had not properly consulted with Tiwi Islanders about its plans to develop the Barossa gas field.

The decision was small but sparked a wave of industry panic as the regulator, NOPSEMA and individual companies rapidly sought to double-check whether they had engaged in proper consultation

.As mentioned before,
what are your thoughts on the above
article and the changes to NOPSEMA ?

Could the delay be because they are making changes in the background which will effect PEP11, or the rest is just a smoke screen.

I feel like it relates to Albos comments: The application has changed …….
Could the NOPSEMA application now be different and effect PEP?