One of the first bills Anthony Albanese’s government introduced into Parliament in 2024 was a series of largely uncontentious changes to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006.
The raft of amendments were geared towards long overdue improvements to the health and safety of petroleum industry workers. But buried in the changes — which were introduced by Resource Minister Madeleine King — is a provision that will fundamentally alter how the oil and gas industry is regulated and how approvals are authorised.
The key provision within the bill proposes to strip the federal environment minister of the powers to regulate the operations of the offshore petroleum industry that fall under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
If successful, oil and gas companies would no longer need to comply with key environmental laws. It would also mean that the environment minister is automatically assumed to agree with any changes made by the resources minister — who would have increasingly broad and centralised powers to rewrite the way petroleum industry projects are authorised.
The provision is the culmination of increasingly aggressive lobbying from the fossil fuel industry in the wake of major setbacks for the gas industry, which has repeatedly failed to meet the already low bar of development-friendly environmental and cultural heritage laws.
In December 2022, the Federal Court halted Santos’ $5.6 billion Barossa Project after finding that the company had not properly consulted with Traditional Owners. Along with extensive delays, it is believed that the ruling from Santos v Tipakalippa will cost the company up to $800 million.
In September 2023, Woodside’s plan to conduct seismic blasting for its $16.5 billion Scarborough gas development was indefinitely halted after Mardudhunera woman Raelene Cooper successfully argued that the company failed to consult Traditional Owners. One month later in October 2023, Santos CEO Kevin Gallagher sent a strong-arm letter to Minister King, demanding the government “take urgent action to deliver regulations which provide clarity and certainty for industry”.
The Labor government’s bending of the knee also coincided with another legal blow to Santos as the full Federal Court held that the impact of its $3.6 billion Narrabri Gas Project on climate change should have been taken into account by the Native Title Tribunal when deciding whether to approve it.
While Anthony Albanese’s government attempts to quietly usher in legislation that would enable major oil and gas companies to sidestep environmental protections, his centre-right counterpart on the other side of the Tasman is incisively taking a different route to effectively land at the same destination.
Christopher Luxon, who is the former chief executive of Air New Zealand, was recently elected on a typically centre-right platform of economic growth, tax cuts, business development, infrastructure investment and fiscal responsibility via drastic slashes to government spending.
With the NZ Treasury facing a significant fiscal hole in its budget books, Luxon’s government has used its first 100 days to introduce a range of bills that — together — are designed to unlock offshore drilling.
Along with plans to rewrite the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, New Zealand’s founding document, which is widely seen as an attempt to strip Māori people of their powers to protect the territorial integrity of the nation’s resource-rich lands and waterways, Luxon’s government has also introduced a contentious fast-track consenting bill.
Parallel to the changes being sought by Albanese and King, Luxon’s proposed regime also sidesteps environmental laws and consolidates authorisation powers under the ministerial portfolios of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
Described as the “one-stop shop” for major projects by NZ Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop, the new regime has wide-ranging application across multiple pieces of law.
Similar to Albanese and King’s legislative endeavours, the new statute prioritises economic development through the fast tracking of marine consents, access arrangements under the Crown Minerals Act, applications for archaeological authority under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act, concessions and other permissions under the Conservation Act and Reserves Act, approvals under the Wildlife Act, and aquaculture decisions under the Fisheries Act.
The timing provides a fascinating contrast of how two governments from opposite sides of the political spectrum and with vastly different mandates pursue policy changes that capitulate to the powerful interests of the offshore petroleum industry.
While the Albanese government tries to delicately walk both sides of the street by firstly cutting out the Greens and instead opting to work with Peter Dutton’s opposition, and then using political chicanery in an attempt to secretly usher in the changes, Luxon is unapologetically straightforward about his government’s intent.
Although the domestic provision is designed for offshore petroleum producers to circumvent the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Labor Treasurer Jim Chalmers recently said in an op-ed that “these reforms will deliver better environmental and economic outcomes”.
Meanwhile New Zealand’s Minister for Resources Shane Jones, who is the “godfather” of the fast track bill, has repeatedly said that this is a move from “cancel economics to can-do economics”.
Another stark contrast is the manner in which Australia’s Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek and her New Zealand Labour counterpart have responded to the changes. As Plibersek adopts the same low profile that is usually seen after authorising another coal mine or major gas development, NZ Labour’s environmental spokesperson Rachel Brooking hasn’t minced her words.
“This will make New Zealand a banana republic where a minister can be lobbied to make a decision and can disregard the interests of the public,” she said.
“We should not decide what happens in New Zealand via lobbyists with fat wallets.”
While both bills being pursued by respective governments still have some hurdles to jump, the central message from Australasia to the offshore petroleum industry is clear: we’re open for business.
