Great Australian Bight Oil Exploration

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (15:41): Many of my constituents are greatly concerned at the proposal for BP to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight. Their comments to me are that this is a ridiculously risky proposition and that it is crazy to allow for any form of drilling some 400 kilometres off the coast. They are worried that there will be an accident and that if there were, the resultant environmental disaster would be worse than BP's Gulf of Mexico disaster.

They say to me that these waters are amongst the most pristine ocean waters left, amongst the most isolated on the planet, and also the most savage and unforgiving waters, that these waters are home to the most unique intact marine habitat anywhere in the world. They say to me, 'Why? Why would we be even considering such a proposal?' I explained to my constituents that this is a commonwealth approval process in the waters under federal government control. They reply, 'What is your government's position?' My response is that we have yet, to my knowledge, determined a position—something that they say is unsatisfactory. Well, guess what—and it should come as no surprise—I agree with my constituents.

We have the nuclear fuel cycle that was just mentioned—it is a debate, a consultation, a discussion—and I have a view on this particular matter as well. At least under this process, I have an opportunity to engage because of the very public process that has been established. In the absence of any broad debate on this particular matter taking place in South Australia—and I do acknowledge the work of the Wilderness Society in public engagement on this matter—I will reveal my position and hope that it might contribute to a broadening of the debate. I say that it is absolute madness for BP (or any other proponent)—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: —to be allowed to explore and mine—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: —for oil in the GAB. I was a firefighter for almost 20 years, and in that time dealt a bit with risk management.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The deputy leader is on one warning.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't care.

The Hon. P. CAICA: In dealing with risk, the most important consideration is benefit versus consequence; that is, what are the consequences of taking that risk? What I say is that the risks posed by this project are too great. The impact that a spill would have on our environment, on our wildlife and on every living thing that inhabits this environment is simply too great. I say that the risk to our coastal communities is simply too great. I say that BP's track record—and what better evidence is there than the Gulf of Mexico—should, in itself, warrant NOPSEMA to not approve this project.

Previously, a project like this would have been dealt with by government under the EPBC Act, but now falls under an independent regulator. This is too important a time for the commonwealth to wipe its hands of any responsibility by hiding behind an independent regulator. If a disaster occurs, it will stop with the government. It will also be the people in South Australia who will have seen their livelihoods, and the environment that sustains these livelihoods, lost, saying to us, 'Why didn't you speak up? Why didn't you do something that would have prevented this?' BP's own modelling under the worst case scenario indicates that anywhere across our southern Australian coastline will be and could be impacted, from Western Australia across to Tasmania.

I seek leave to insert into Hansard a table of purely statistical data produced by BP that reflects in percentage terms the likelihood of oil reaching locations across Australia should an environmental disaster like the one in the Gulf of Mexico occur.

Leave granted.

Table 5 Stochastic modelling results—summary of moderate shoreline contact: relief well scenario (149 days) with no oil spill response

The Hon. P. CAICA: The impact of an oil spill would be devastating for marine life, birds, coastline, fisheries and coastal communities. The risk is just too great. BP modelled a 149-day spill, that being the time it would take to drill a relief well to permanently stop a blowout. Even if BP were capable of capping the well in the 35 days, as it claims, it would still have a high chance of impacting Adelaide, Port Lincoln, Kangaroo Island and elsewhere.

It is important to remember that BP's Deepwater Horizon blowout spilled 800 million litres of oil into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days. It is also important to remember that the proposed BP sites in the GAB provide a far more difficult scenario than the Gulf of Mexico when it comes to responding to a blowout, for reasons that are obvious. Why is such a project even being considered? It is madness for all the reasons I have mentioned. Scientific evidence shows that existing reserves of fossil fuels cannot be fully utilised. I say: why go looking for more? Focus on renewables.

I acknowledge and recognise that, to date, three coastal councils—Victor Harbor, Kangaroo Island and Yankalilla—have passed motions opposing BP's proposal. I believe it is likely that others will follow. It is time to broaden the debate. South Australians are entitled to be aware of what is being proposed and to have the ability to express their views. We should help this to happen. BP should release publicly its full oil spill modelling and its full oil spill response plans. That will assist in the debate.