Senate debates

Wednesday, 1 March 2006

Offshore Petroleum Bill 2005; Offshore Petroleum (Annual Fees) Bill 2005; Offshore Petroleum (Registration Fees) Bill 2005; Offshore Petroleum (Repeals and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2005; Offshore Petroleum (Royalty) Bill 2005; Offshore Petroleum (Safety Levies) Amendment Bill 2005

Third Reading

10:48 am

Photo of Kerry O'BrienKerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Hansard source

I rise only to correct a couple of matters that have been dealt with in the debate so far. I am not trying to prolong the debate, but it is important to note that, at a time when the world faces an uncertain energy outlook and the vast majority of its oil is located in unstable areas of the world, it is more important than ever that Australia has a clear picture of its oil prospectivity, and that as much as possible is done to find and map prospective reserves. But, having said that, we also believe that there should be a proper environmental assessment process, and we are assured that the regulations will provide for a continuation of that.

We are also satisfied that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act continues to apply to proceedings under this legislation. I am reminded that, in terms of the regional forest agreements legislation, the Greens repeatedly called for that act to apply to the regional forest agreement areas. In this case, they are now saying that we should have it in this act and not in the EPBC Act and that the EPBC Act is a farce. I understand that is what Senator Milne said. You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to suggest to the parliament that there should be a pre-eminent environmental protection act—and, whatever criticisms the Greens may have of the EPBC, they have suggested that in relation to other legislation—to criticise the opposition because we hold that view in relation to this is just pure inconsistency.

We did not support the amendments because, as we stated early in the debate, we believe that it is not appropriate to deal with the environmental assessment provisions in this legislation as such. We believe that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. But we are also aware that under the current arrangements applications for exploration have been rejected on environmental grounds. That was not mentioned by the Greens during the debate, but those are the current arrangements. Everything can be improved upon. We are not uncritical of this government in terms of its environmental credentials. This legislation is a rewrite of existing legislation, but we do accept that the environmental protections can be upgraded continuously through the process—and not merely by amending the act but also by the promulgation of regulations—and we would like to see that happen.

Comments

No comments