Motions

Great Australian Bight

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M.C. Parnell:

That this council—

1. Notes that proposals to drill for oil and gas in the Great Australian Bight pose enormous risks to the marine environment, the fishing industry and tourism in South Australia; and

2. Calls on the state government to work with the federal government to seek listing under the World Heritage Convention of the waters, seabed and coastline of the Great Australian Bight as a matter of urgency.

(Continued from 4 July 2018.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:51): I rise to speak briefly, given the hour, in support of this important motion put forward by my colleague the Hon. Mark Parnell. It is clear in our communities that there is no social licence for oil and gas drilling in the Bight, and these proposals pose a clear threat to tourism and fishing industry alike, coastal communities and marine life.

The Great Australian Bight is a unique natural wonder, with more than 36 species of whales and dolphins, and more marine diversity than the Great Barrier Reef. 85 per cent of species found here are not found anywhere else on earth. With applications for drilling and testing for oil and gas in the Bight not showing any signs of going away or stopping, it is vital that we come together and protect one of our most precious natural places in South Australia.

While BP and Chevron previously abandoned their plans to drill in the Bight, BP still owns two of the four offshore leases currently in that area, and passed the other two off to Statoil last year. BP's own modelling has shown us that a major spill would pollute up to 750 kilometres of our beaches and shoreline. Moreover, even standard drilling could affect the migration patterns of the engaged southern right whale, and the Great Australian Bight is one of the world's most important nurseries for these whales.

Arguments have been made in the past that sections of the Great Australian Parks are already protected as marine conversation parks, but proposals and plans to drill still exist, and an oil spill does not recognise such boundaries. with the world and global economy moving towards sourcing energy from renewables, on top of the risks that have been explored in this and other speeches on this bill, the risks clearly outweigh any potential reward.

Drilling for oil and gas in the Great Australian Bight makes no sense, either from an environmental or an economic standpoint. Let us not just prevent it from happening now, but let's make sure it can never happen into the future. State and federal governments must work together and seek world heritage listing for our Bight. This is critical, because without this cooperation, we will not be able to achieve that world heritage listing. This listing would be good for tourism, good for jobs, good for the Bight and good for South Australia.

Labor and Liberal state governments in the past have supported a push for world heritage listing before watering down their commitments by 1996 to a marine conservation park status. The Greens are going back to the future by asking them to get on board with this campaign and support this motion, so that the Great Australian Bight has a future, and make a submission to the federal government so that we can get this process underway.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:54): I rise to speak in support of the motion. The timing of this motion could not be more fitting, given today's front page story in The Advertiser with the headline, 'SA's Bight at 50-year oil boom'.

The story, originating from a speech by the oil and gas industry's mouthpiece the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) at an industry conference in Adelaide yesterday, espoused the potential 50-year economic stimulus oil and gas production in this pristine marine wonderland would provide to the South Australian economy if it were allowed. In the story APPEA's SA and NT director, Matthew Doman, said drilling in the Bight was 'the big opportunity' for the oil and gas sector in South Australia. He went further, saying that the industry was committed to winning over community support despite fierce opposition to drilling in the Great Australian Bight.

Well, some of the fiercest opposition comes from SA-Best, and today we applaud the Greens for their campaign to give the Great Australian Bight world heritage protection. The Bight has long been described by the Wilderness Society as a 'place of unparalleled natural beauty', a playground to more than 36 species of whales and dolphins and home to more marine diversity than the Great Barrier Reef.

Coastal communities across South Australia depend on the Bight's natural resources and environmental value for their quality of life and, in many instances, their livelihoods. The fishing and tourism industries are the backbones of many South Australian coastal towns, which my federal colleague Rebekha Sharkie, the candidate for Mayo, an electorate that takes in the pristine coastal regions of Victor Harbor and Kangaroo Island, knows only too well. Yet all this is at risk if deep-sea oil drilling in the Bight goes ahead. Mayo's coastal communities would be amongst the hardest hit if oil spilled in the pristine bight.

BP withdrew its plans to drill in October 2016 but said that the Bight remained a potential site for drilling. Its own environmental modelling indicates that the consequences of an oil spill would be catastrophic, and any oil slick would spread hundreds of kilometres in all directions, polluting up to 750 kilometres of beaches and shoreline. Further, the oil and gas monolith's own documents reveal its drilling might impact the migration of the endangered southern right whale.

The local fishing industry, the local tourism and hospitality industry—you name it—would be badly affected, if not wiped out, for years. The environmental damage would be disastrous. We simply cannot risk deep-sea drilling in the Bight. SA-Best knows this, our Centre Alliance colleague Rebekha Sharkie knows this, and her community of Mayo knows this. We wish her every success in the Mayo by-election this weekend, and hope the voters of Mayo allow her to continue providing a strong and independent voice for residents and businesses in the electorate.

I would also like to pay tribute to Kangaroo Island's mayor Peter Clements for his strong stand on protecting the Bight. You may recall that in May Peter attended the annual general meeting of Statoil in Norway to press the case for his and the six other councils in the region of the Bight that are opposed to drilling. Interestingly, at the same meeting the company changed its name to Equinor, removing the oil reference. We wonder why.

Let me quote some of the message Peter delivered that day:

I understand that oil companies like Statoil will have certain tolerances to the risks and impacts of their activities. However, we wish to be clear to you that the community of southern Australia has no tolerance for those risks or the inevitable impacts of petroleum industrialisation in the bight. For us, any risk presents an existential threat to our businesses, our industries, our environment and our communities.

Statoil's position as a socially responsible global entity is well understood. BP has withdrawn its plans to drill our bight. Chevron has withdrawn its plans to drill our bight. I am asking you to do the same—withdraw your plans to drill our bight.

Lastly, I want to ask you, as a responsible company: are you really prepared to drill the Great Australian Bight against our local community's express wishes, and what else do you need to hear from me and the people of South Australia to convince you to assess your petroleum exploration plans in the Great Australian Bight?

Peter told me recently that his message was actually well received by the big oil executives. In fact, I understand the Port Lincoln council, one of the seven, has since been told by the company that they do not proceed with projects if they do not have a social licence to do so. Well, I cannot see one being issued here. I note that there will be a community forum in Port Lincoln on this matter on 13 August.

The major parties need to support long-term protection of the Bight. Despite APPEA pushing the oil and gas industry's strong environmental credentials in Australia, as a nation we simply cannot give the green light to drilling in one of the world's most pristine marine environments. The country cannot risk a devastating spill like the Gulf of Mexico on 22 April 2010—the largest ever accidental marine oil spill in history.

That spill was caused by an explosion at Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the gulf, releasing an estimated 4.9 million barrels of crude oil into the sea. Oil gushed continuously over 85 days, leaving over 920 kilometres of shoreline along five American states drenched with oil, killing thousands of marine mammals and sea turtles and contaminating their habitats. Research indicates that populations of several marine mammal and sea turtle species will take decades to rebound following steep declines in populations and habitat destruction in the gulf.

Eight years on, BP is still counting the financial cost of the disaster, currently standing at more than $65 billion as compensation payouts draw to a close, but much higher than the $61.6 billion the company estimated in 2016. For BP, that financial pain has been softened by increases in crude oil prices, but nothing will ever fix the irreparable damage caused to the environment or the impact the disaster has had on everyone from a local fisherman to tourism operators and other businesses.

For those reasons, SA-Best supports this motion, calling on the state government to work with the federal government to seek world heritage listing for the Great Australian Bight. The federal government has stated that it has not received any formal proposal to commence world heritage listing for the Bight, and further stated that any proposal that is advanced needs to have the support of local communities and relevant state governments. A recent Australia Institute poll shows that 74 per cent of Mayo residents want world heritage listing for the Great Australian Bight, so it already has overwhelming, strong community licence. It is now incumbent upon the Marshall government to advance the matter on behalf of the people of Mayo and all South Australians.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (18:02): I rise to speak to this motion and to the amendment that has been circulated in my name. I move to amend the motion as follows:

Delete paragraph 1 and insert in its place the following:

1. Notes that the Great Australian Bight (GAB) is an area of significant importance for many marine species, including southern right whales and blue whales;

2. Notes that South Australia's clean waters are home to some of the world's most sought after seafood, including rock lobster, tuna, oysters and prawns;

3. Notes that the protection of our aquatic environment through our environmental monitoring, aquatic animal health programs and strict zoning requirements ensures South Australian seafood retains a high standard of environmental credentials;

4. Notes that the commonwealth government is the decision-making authority in relation to oil and gas mining activities in the Great Australian Bight;

5. Notes that the commonwealth government has issued the current exploration permits and the approval process is overseen by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Agency (NOPSEMA);

6. Notes that any negative impacts of oil and gas exploration in the pristine waters of the Great Australian Bight are unacceptable and South Australia recognises the risk that any potential environmental incident may have on our coastline, our tourism industry and our fishing industry.

Renumber paragraph 2 to be paragraph 7.

In moving the amendment I want to congratulate the Hon. Mr Parnell for moving his motion. My amendment purely seeks to put a little bit more detail into the text of the motion. I do it because I think it is important to put on the record our understanding of the complicated environmental and economic interactions inherent in human activity into the Bight. It is a significant environmental asset for many, many species and it is also therefore a significant economic asset for our state in relation to the many species of economic importance.

South Australia's clean waters are home to some of the world's most sought after seafood including rock lobster, tuna, oysters and prawns. The protection of our aquatic environment through our environmental monitoring, our aquatic animal health programs and strict zoning requirements ensures that South Australian seafood retains a high standard of environmental credentials. In 2016-17 South Australia's fisheries and aquaculture sectors produced about 67,000 tonnes of seafood, generating revenue of $908 million for our state.

Our agriculture, our food and beverage and seafood industries are a vital part of our state's economy. They are our largest export sector and they are a major employer in our state. They are therefore a central part of our prosperity and our identity. The increasing global demand for premium products that are safely and sustainably produced has created an opportunity for our primary industries and our food manufacturing businesses to expand their markets and continue to grow. In 2016-17 our agriculture, food and beverage and seafood industries generated a record $19.97 billion in revenue, an increase of about $1.3 billion over the previous year.

Labor has not and will not support any exploration in the Great Australian Bight that would risk our reputation as a producer of clean, safe and sustainably produced food. We acknowledge that the commonwealth government is the decision-making authority in relation to oil and gas mining activities in the Bight and the commonwealth government has issued the current exploration permits and the approval process is overseen by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Agency (NOPSEMA), as my amendment details.

Labor will continue to push for the strictest standards through the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator, the joint authority, ensuring that companies adhere to the most stringent environmental protections, and we will do that when we talk to the companies when they come to our state to talk to us, as they have done with many honourable members in this chamber.

For us, the Great Australian Bight is of significant importance, not just for the marine species that I have mentioned, including the southern right whales and blue whales, but also for those commercial species that are so important to this state's prosperity. It is a very important part of why we instituted the conservation programs that we did, particularly the state government's establishment of the state's 19 marine parks, nine of which I think are in the Bight area.

Any negative impacts of oil and gas exploration in these pristine waters of the Great Australian Bight are unacceptable. We recognise the risk that any potential environmental incident may have on our coastline, our tourism industry and our fishing industry, and we acknowledge the serious concerns being expressed by our South Australian community.

That is why I am moving the amendment, to put all of those facts on the record, and that is why the Labor opposition will support the amended motion. The opposition understands the incredible importance of the Bight to our state's economy and to our environment and to our citizens. Again, I commend the Hon. Mr Parnell for bringing this matter forward.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (18:08): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 8

Noes 11

Majority 3

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Liberal Party opposed continuing debate on those particular amendments of the Labor Party because we wished to consider them. They were dropped in this chamber. I do not think either the Minister for Environment or the Minister for Mining and Energy were made aware of those, and I am not sure whether the whips were, but it is fundamentally bad practice. I note, however, that other parties as well have enabled this practice to go forward. I hope that it is not something that we will consider into the future as a particularly good practice, because I consider it disrespectful to honourable members to enable these things to happen, particularly without consultation.

The Liberal Party opposes the original motion as it has been moved, and I will explain my reasons therefore. The Labor amendments to this motion improve it, and we are supporting those. However, we cannot support the original paragraph 2. I suspect that were the Labor Party in government they would also support paragraph 2, but it is interesting how these things change; how they change their spots and how this motion is conveniently being forced through this place before the Mayo by-election.

However, the new government is committed to the protection and restoration of the environment through our environmental policies and a commitment to practical environmentalism. We want to restore, protect and enhance our natural and built environment. The Liberal Party is focused on delivering improved environmental outcomes, not empty symbolism or token gestures, but real lasting results that the people of South Australia can see and experience.

As a party, we want to see stringent conditions in place for development in sensitive areas that ensure environmental protection but also allow ecologically sensitive development that creates economic benefit and employment. The South Australian coastline and waters of the Great Australian Bight are of great ecological significance, providing habitat for many protected species, most notably the nationally endangered southern right whale, which congregates in large numbers at the Head of Bight every year to give birth and rear calves.

Oil exploration companies in the Great Australian Bight—Statoil, Chevron, Murphy and Santos—all hold current commonwealth exploration permits for petroleum in the Great Australian Bight. The tenements are somewhere between 200 and 400 kilometres off the South Australian coast. The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) is responsible for assessing any proposal in commonwealth waters. South Australia has no statutory role in the approval process; however, a number of South Australian departments are considered relevant organisations, and proponents must undertake meaningful consultation and address all concerns.

All petroleum exploration permits in the Great Australian Bight are in commonwealth waters, with the state national park not permitting mining access. Australia has recently been elected to the World Heritage Committee for a four-year term, to 2022, and has agreed, as part of its nomination, to not submit any world heritage nominations during this time. All mining exploration in the Great Australian Bight is regulated by NOPSEMA, in line with strict processes for approval. Ultimately, NOPSEMA is the appropriate body to decide whether the impacts of a proponent are as low as reasonably practical and acceptable. There are already numerous protected areas within the Great Australian Bight region immediately adjacent on the land, such as the Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area, and in state and commonwealth waters.

South Australia's Great Australian Bight Marine National Park extends eastward from the West Australian border, and the Far West Coast Marine Park complements and overlays much of this national park. The Great Australian Bight Commonwealth Marine Reserve covers a vast area of ocean under commonwealth control. This is a level of protection already in place. The federal government is responsible for submitting world heritage nominations to UNESCO, and the state government should not support nominations that are merely an instrument to stop development that is already regulated. No assessment has been undertaken to date of whether the Great Australian Bight would even meet the world heritage criteria. With those remarks, I have indicated our position on this motion.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (18:17): I will sum up very briefly, given the hour. First of all, I thank the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the Hon. Ian Hunter and the Hon. Michelle Lensink for speaking. In relation to the Hon. Michelle Lensink's issue with late-breaking amendments, I would point out that I have been with her on that debate very often. However, this is a motion, not a late-breaking amendment to a bill. All of the amendments commenced with the word 'notes'. The action item has not changed. The action item is: 'We as a state are going to join and call on the federal government to try to get this world heritage thing happening.'

All that the amendments did was set out what I thought were some indisputable facts that relate to the area. So I cannot see that there was any great harm done in that. As the Hon. Michelle Lensink said, they were going to oppose the original action item anyway, which was to call on the state government to work with the federal government to seek world heritage listing. So no harm has been done. I just wanted to put that on the record. Given the numbers, it looks like this motion will pass. I am very grateful for that, and I will finish with this line: the only people who should be drilling in our Bight are dentists.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.