Bills Digest no. 133 2008–09
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage
Legislation Amendment Bill 2009
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage history
Purpose
Background
Financial implications
Main provisions
Contact officer & copyright details
Passage history
Date
introduced: 19 March
2009
House: Representatives
Portfolio: Resources and Energy
Commencement:
Sections 1 to
3 - on Royal Assent
Schedule 1 Parts 1 to
6 and Parts 9 to 14 - on the day after Royal Assent
Schedule 1 Parts 7 and
8 - on 1 January 2010.
Links: The
relevant links to the Bill, Explanatory Memorandum and second
reading speech can be accessed via BillsNet, which is at http://www.aph.gov.au/bills/.
When Bills have been passed they can be found at ComLaw, which is
at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/.
The main purpose of the Offshore
Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment Bill
2009 (the Bill) is to amend the Offshore Petroleum and
Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (the Act) to:
- implement policy changes that have arisen since the passing of
the Act
- strengthen the offence provisions and to correct omissions and
clarify certain provisions relating to greenhouse gas that came
into effect in November 2008, and
- make technical amendments.[1]
At the end of 2007, COAG s Business Regulation and Competition
Working Group (the COAG Working Group) prioritised reforms
proposing to benefit competitiveness, productivity growth and
workforce mobility. The COAG Working Group decided on 27 areas of
reform to be included in the implementation program, of which two
of the following key areas appear relevant to proposed amendments
in the Bill:
- national harmonisation of occupational health and safety
(OH&S) laws was a top priority to be reflected in an
intergovernmental agreement (IGA) by May 2008:
- COAG to consider scope for a reduced implementation timetable
in July 2008, and
- model legislation to be developed and submitted to the
Workplace Relations Ministers Council by September 2009[2]
- nine new areas were added to COAG s regulation work program,
which included:
- upstream petroleum (oil and gas) regulation
- maritime safety, and
- in relation to upstream petroleum, COAG agreed that the
Productivity Commission (the Commission) undertake a review on the
regulation of crude oil and natural gas projects involving more
than one jurisdiction and report back to COAG by April
2009.[3]
The Inter-Governmental Agreement (the Agreement) was signed on 3
July 2008 between the Commonwealth and the States, the Australian
Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The Agreement was
designed to:
1.4 produce the optimal model for a national
approach to OHS regulation and operation which will:
- enable the development of uniform, equitable and effective
safety standards and protections for all Australian workers;
- address the compliance and regulatory burdens for employers
with operations in more than one jurisdiction;
- create efficiencies for governments in the provision of OHS
regulatory and support services; and
- achieve significant and continual reductions in the incidence
of death, injury and disease in the workplace.[4]
In 2008, COAG identified the upstream petroleum sector as an
area where overlapping and inconsistent regulation threatens to
impede economic activity, and agreed that the Productivity
Commission should undertake a review. [5]
The Report of that review[6] was released on 30 April 2009.
According to the Chairman of the Commission:
the focus of the Commission s report is on
measures that have the potential to reduce unnecessary burdens on
the upstream oil and gas sector in other words, regulatory burdens
that can be removed without compromising desirable outcomes, such
as relating to resource management, the environment, heritage,
development, land access and occupational health and
safety.[7]
Chapter Seven of the Report deals specifically with OH&S
issues in the upstream petroleum sector.
In the Report, the Commission recommended that:
- the Federal Government establish a new national offshore
petroleum regulator in Commonwealth waters, with regulatory
responsibility for resource management, pipelines and environmental
approvals and compliance, and
- the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority (NOPSA) remain
a separate independent statutory authority for the regulation of
offshore petroleum OH&S.[8]
NOPSA was established in 2003 as a Commonwealth statutory
authority to regulate safety on offshore petroleum facilities on
behalf of the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory,
under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Act 2003
(PSL Amendment Act) (the relevant provisions now form part of the
Act).[9]
When NOPSA undertakes its regulatory activities in Commonwealth
waters, it acts under powers conferred by the Act. Whereas in the
coastal waters of States or the Northern Territory, it acts under
mirror powers conferred by the relevant State or Northern Territory
legislation.[10]
The primary functions of NOPSA are to promote the OH&S of
persons engaged in offshore petroleum operations. NOPSA monitors
and enforces OH&S obligations in Commonwealth, State and
Northern Territory legislation. In addition, it has the power to
investigate accidents or circumstances that could increase the risk
of accidents and to report the results of these investigations to
the Commonwealth, States and Northern Territory Ministers.[11]
NOPSA uses the safety case approach, also used in other
jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and Norway. According to
NOPSA:
The safety case is the chief health and safety
document for a facility. It documents the operator s commitments to
reducing risks to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable.
The safety case describes arrangements for health and safety that
are used by managers, supervisors and the workforce to understand
health and safety issues and their controls. The safety case is a
regulatory requirement that forms part of the duty of care regime.
This regime supports high standards of health and safety behaviour
within the offshore industry by requiring operators of facilities
to take all practicable steps to ensure the facility is safe and
that activities at the facility are carried out safely and without
risk to health. Safety cases have proved effective in regulating
safety in many complex, high risk activities, such as nuclear power
plants. Australian law now requires that each offshore facility
must have a safety case which has been accepted by NOPSA, the
National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority. Under this
framework, responsibility for the health and safety of persons
working on offshore facilities rests with the operators, employers,
employees and others. The safety case must include a
description of the facility, a detailed description of the formal
safety assessment and a detailed description of the safety
management system (SMS) for a facility. The regulations specify the
required contents of the safety case.[12] (emphasis added)
The safety case approach involves operators of offshore
facilities:
- assessing all risks to the facility
- undertaking formal hazard and risk studies, and
- describing the management systems for safe running of the
facility.
Once accepted, the safety case is in force and provides the
basis for safe facility operations.[13]
The Varanus Island gas explosion occurred on 3 June 2008 at
Apache Energy s gas operation in the northwest of Western Australia
(WA) approximately 116 kilometres west of Dampier. No-one was
injured in the explosion and the 152 employees were evacuated. The
incident cut WA s gas supply by 30 per cent.[14] The incident resulted in a report
prepared by NOPSA for the Western Australian Department of Industry
and Resources (DoIR), which investigated the immediate causes of
the explosion. The Western Australian Minister for Mines and
Petroleum(the WA Minister), however, stated the investigation s
limited terms of reference meant that it had not addressed issues
relating to regulatory oversight of the safety regime on the
Varanus Island facility and considered that a full and independent
investigation into this issue should have been ordered.[15]
A joint inquiry was announced in January 2009 by both the
Commonwealth Minister for Resources and Energy (the Commonwealth
Minister) and the WA Minister. The terms of reference of that joint
inquiry included the following:
- review safety-related documentation that existed in the lead-up
to the incident including that related to activity undertaken by
the operator in accordance with safety case commitments and
requirements outlined in the relevant licences for operation,
- examine the effectiveness of NOPSA and
DoIR, as well as the arrangements underpinning the operating
regime,
- assess the adequacy of the responses from the owners/operators
of the operations and facilities including an assessment of the
adequacy of pipeline licence (PL12) safety obligations, safety case
documentation and implementation, and
- consider options and make recommendations (if required) to
improve the regulatory regime and the safety and integrity of
petroleum operations and facilities, particularly integrated
onshore/offshore operations and facilities in Commonwealth and
Western Australian jurisdictions.[16]
The Commonwealth Minister also stated that if shortcomings are
found in the regulatory regime and its administration, then he is
committed to taking the steps necessary to protect Australian
workers and Australian energy supplies and exports.[17]
As reported on the West Australian news website[18], there has been a delay in
submitting the joint inquiry report to the respective Ministers.
Apache Energy s request to see a draft copy of the report was
upheld in the Federal Court on 8 April 2009.[19] It was reported that David Parker,
Apache government and public affairs manager commented:
Apache sought and obtained an agreement to have
access to the draft report of the Offshore Petroleum Regulation
Inquiry and comment on it before it is submitted to the
ministers.[20]
It is also reported that Apache have been given until 1 May 2009
to comment on the report, which would not be submitted to the
Ministers until 15 May 2009.[21]
In addition, it was reported that Apache was seeking to stop
confidential papers being handed over to the joint inquiry.
Proceedings commenced by Apache were scheduled to be heard on 14
and 15 May 2009.[22]
The Varanus Island gas explosion illustrates the jurisdictional
complexities that exist in the offshore petroleum industry and the
Commission had summarised these complexities in its report:
At the time of this incident, Apache s
operations on Varanus Island were regulated under the WA
Pipelines Act 1969, with regulatory responsibility for OHS
and integrity issues lying with the then WA Department of Industry
and Resources (DoIR) (which was restructured in January 2009 and
its regulatory responsibilities moved to the Department of Mines
and Petroleum). NOPSA provided technical advice and contractor
services to DoIR under a service contract.
Under the Offshore Petroleum Act 2006
(Cth) and the WA Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1982,
NOPSA had OHS regulatory responsibilities for offshore platforms
and pipelines feeding into the Varanus Island hub in Commonwealth
waters, and in designated coastal waters where power was conferred
on it.
The OHS and integrity issues relating to the
mainland onshore operations of the pipelines were the
responsibility of DoIR, with the WA Department of Consumer and
Employment Protection providing regulatory services to DoIR for
these pipelines under a memorandum of understanding (RET
2008d).
While the Commission is not suggesting these
arrangements played any part in the Varanus Island incident, the
arrangements do highlight that despite the formation of NOPSA,
offshore regulatory arrangements can be quite complicated. Indeed,
anecdotal evidence provided to the Commission has suggested
projects could be subject to a number of OHS regulators (and
alternate between regulators) if they went, for example, from
Commonwealth waters, to onshore islands, to designated coastal
waters, to State and Territory internal waters, to the mainland
onshore.
The OPGGSA (and mirror legislation in the
States and Territories) allows jurisdictions to confer powers on
NOPSA in designated coastal areas and (subject to necessary laws
being passed and funding arrangements being agreed with the
Commonwealth) in State and Territory internal waters. It appears
there would be a reduction in the unnecessary regulatory burden
faced by the upstream petroleum sector if these powers were
conferred on NOPSA more widely.
There would potentially be further benefits
from giving NOPSA OHS regulatory responsibilities for islands
located off the mainland States where offshore petroleum activity
takes place.[23]
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill foreshadows that NOPSA
would have an increased role in the regulation of offshore
pipelines when the safety case levy for pipelines replaces the
pipeline safety management plan levy.[24] Acceptance of a safety case by NOPSA
and of an environment plan by the Designated Authority (DA) will be
necessary in order to commence future operations for a licensed
pipeline.[25]
The Minister s Second Reading Speech states that:
This Bill removes references to the pipeline
safety management plan levy and removes a consent to operate a
pipeline. These two amendments are linked to planned amendments to
the regulations in force under the Act which will see regulatory
arrangements for the construction and operation of pipelines being
incorporated into safety regulations.[26]
In Part 10 of the Bill, proposed amendments introduce the
application of absolute liability to the jurisdictional element of
specific offences that the person is subject to the requirement
that an operator of a facility must take all reasonable steps to
ensure that:
- the facility is safe and without risk to anyone at and near the
facility, and
- work and other activities carried out on the facility are done
so in a safe manner without risk to the health of anyone at or near
the facility.
The application of absolute liability to an element of an
offence means that there is no defence of honest and reasonable
mistake of fact. The effect of the proposed amendments is that a
person, responsible for an offshore petroleum facility, would not
be able to subsequently claim that they were unaware of their
OH&S responsibilities under clause 9 of Schedule 3 of the Act,
even if this lack of awareness was reasonable in the
circumstances.
The Senate Standing Committee on Economics (the Economics
Committee) looked at the economic impact of the Western Australian
gas crisis as a result of the Varanus gas explosion in 2008. The
report entitled
Matters relating to the gas explosion at Varanus Island,
Western Australia was published in December 2008.[27] Briefly the report
examined the following issues:
- overview of the inquiry and details concerning the Varanus
Island incident;
- the economic impact on the Western Australian economy and which
particular industries and regions were most affected;
- the government response to the incident with reference to the
use of emergency powers, contingency planning, the government s
consultation strategies allocation of available energy and the role
of Commonwealth government agencies;
- response of the energy industry to the incident; and
- development of an energy security strategy and options for
diversifying sources of energy in Western Australia.[28]
Importantly, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of
Bills (the Scrutiny of Bills Committee) reviewed the Bill and
provided its comments on 13 May 2009.[29] The main concerns of the Scrutiny of
Bills Committee concerned the following matters:
- the exercise of administrative power in Schedule 1, items 29
and 30 is not defined with certainty. Proposed sections 471A and
523A concern the notation of the Register by the DA in the case of
section 471A and by the Minister in the case of section 523A with a
new datum. The Committee suggested that greater certainty would
result if the particular circumstances were included where it is
deemed appropriate to notate the Register;
- the delayed commencement of Schedule 1, items 32-37 concerning
the amendments to the pipeline safety management plan levy and
consent to operate a pipeline. The Committee considered that as
there was a significant delay in the commencement of these
provisions, then the explanatory memorandum should have provided an
explanation.
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the largely minor and
administrative changes will not have any financial impact on the
Federal Government Budget, and it was noted that the pipeline
safety management plan levy will be replaced with an equivalent
safety case levy covering pipelines.[30]
Proposed amendments are set out in Parts 1-14
in Schedule 1 of the Bill. This Digest will focus only on proposed
amendments that are more substantive, as opposed to being purely
technical, in nature.
Item 1 of
the Bill proposes to insert new paragraph
245(1)(d) into the Act. Section 245 provides for
consultation requirements[31] imposed on the DA before approving a grant of a
petroleum access authority in relation to adjoining offshore areas.
According to existing subsection 245(1), section 245 applies
if:
- an application has been made for a petroleum access authority
in relation to an adjoining offshore area
- that area is subject to a specific petroleum title, and
- the applicant is not the registered petroleum titleholder in
relation to the specified area.
Proposed paragraph 245(1)(d) would introduce an
additional (as opposed to alternative) factor to the above list of
factors affecting the application of section 245. In other words,
section 245 would apply if all of the above factors are met,
as well as if the relevant registered petroleum
titleholder had not given written consent to the grant of the
petroleum access authority. The effect of this amendment is that if
the titleholder has already consented to the grant of a petroleum
access authority then the consultation requirements for a 30 day
notice period would not apply, hence the expedited consultation
arrangements.
Items 3-11 of the Bill propose to amend
sections 95-96 and 128-133 of the Act
relating to declarations of locations, or nominations of blocks,
where petroleum has been discovered.
These sections currently refer to the Designated Authority (DA)
making such declarations and the nomination of blocks. A DA is
defined in section 70 of the Act as the responsible State or
Northern Territory Minister.[32] The responsible Commonwealth Minister is the DA
for the Eastern Greater Sunrise offshore area, as well as the
external territories of Norfolk Island; Christmas Island; the Cocos
(Keeling) Islands; Ashmore and Cartier Islands; and Heard and
McDonald Islands.[33]
Proposed amendments change references to the DA to refer instead
to the Joint Authority (JA). The JA for a State is defined in
subsection 56(2) of the Act, as constituting the responsible State
and Commonwealth Ministers and is known as the Commonwealth [name
of State] Offshore Petroleum Joint Authority.[34] It is stated in the Explanatory
Memorandum that the nomination of blocks and declaration of
locations are necessary steps to be taken before an exploration
company applies for a retention lease or a production licence, both
of which may be granted by the JA.[35] The proposed
amendments would achieve consistency in the process,
particularly with the provisions relating to retention leases and
production licences process in which the JA is already involved and
allow more input by the responsible State Minister in the overall
decision-making process.
Items 13 and 14 of the Bill
propose to amend subsections 253(1) and
254(1) of the Act respectively, by substituting
references to the DA with references to the JA.
The proposed amendments mean that it will be
the JA, not the DA, who would be able to grant petroleum
investigation consents and impose whatever conditions on consents
that the JA considers appropriate. As the JA involves the
Commonwealth Minister as well as the State Minister, the
significance of these amendments relate to the ability of the
Commonwealth Government to have a role in implementing
international obligations under the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).[36] UNCLOS consists of a body of rules agreed to by
States (countries) regulating the use of the oceans, maritime
boundaries and the use and exploitation of the oceans resources.
[37]
Item 16 of the Bill proposes to insert
new subclause 41(c) into Schedule 6 of
the Act.
Clause 41 of Schedule 6 of the Act relates to OH&S
prosecutions.
The proposed amendment would effectively extend
the application of clause 89 of Schedule 3 of the Act, which deals
with proceedings commenced by NOPSA or an OH&S inspector for
offences that had existed for the purposes of subsection 140H(2) of
the now repealed Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967
(PSLA), as in force during the period beginning on 1 January 2005
and ending just prior to the commencement of the Act.
Item 17 of the Bill proposes to amend
subsection 284(1) of the Act.
Section 284 provides for the requirement for notification of
petroleum discoveries in petroleum exploration permit and petroleum
retention lease[38]
areas.
Proposed subsection 284(1) would extend the
application of section 284 to petroleum production licence[39] areas. It is stated in
the Explanatory Memorandum that the proposed amendment is intended
to enable more particular information to be obtained with respect
to petroleum accumulations.[40] Item 18 of the Bill proposes to
substitute subsection 284(2) and repeal
subsection 284(3) of the Act.
The effect of the proposed amendment is that
the permittee, lessee or licensee would no longer have to
immediately notify the DA of the petroleum discovery. Instead, he
or she would have to inform the DA of the petroleum discovery
before the end of a 30 day period of time commencing on the day
that the well resulting in that discovery was completed. It is
stated in the Explanatory Memorandum that the extra time would
allow the petroleum company to obtain more detailed information
about the discovery and its potential for commercial
development.[41]
Item 21 of the Bill proposes similar amendments
to subsections 452(2) and (3) of
the Act, with respect to the notification of petroleum discoveries
in greenhouse gas assessment permit, greenhouse gas holding lease
and greenhouse gas injection licence areas.[42]
Part 6 of the Bill sets out proposed amendments in relation to
the datum. A datum is a framework to define coordinate systems used
for referencing geographic positions on maps.[43] In Australia, the Geocentric
Datum of Australia (the GDA) is the new coordinate system replacing
the Australian Geodetic Datum (the AGD). The GDA is part of a
global coordinate reference frame and is compatible with the Global
Positioning System (GPS).[44]
Item 24 of the Bill proposes to
substitute table item 8 in section
42 of the Act, which relates to the use of the current
datum. The proposed amendment would mean that for
all greenhouse gas titles, the position on the earth will be
determined by reference to the current datum.
Item 27 of the Bill proposes a similar
amendment to section 43 of the Act, in relation to
the use of the previous datum.
Item 28 of the Bill proposes to
substitute sections 44 and 45 of
the Act, dealing with variations of titles and instruments, as well
as the variations of title applications, respectively.
Proposed subsection 44(1) would mean that the
DA s authority to issue an instrument varying petroleum titles or
instruments for the purposes of relabelling using geographic
coordinates based on the current datum derives directly under the
Act, as opposed to under the Regulations as is currently the
case.
Proposed subsection 44(2) would similarly
affect the responsible Commonwealth Minister s authority in
relation to greenhouse gas titles and instruments.
Proposed section 45 also changes the source of
such authority (of the DA or Commonwealth Minister, as the case may
be) from the Regulations to the Act.
Items 32 and 33 of the Bill
propose to repeal paragraph 683(d) and
section 688 of the Act, referring to the pipeline
safety management plan levy.
On commencement of these items, the pipeline safety management
plan levy will become a safety case levy.[45]
Item 35 of the Bill proposes to repeal
subsections 210(3), (4), (5) and (6) of
the Act, removing the requirement for the DA s consent when
starting or recommencing pipeline operations. The Explanatory
Memorandum states that under the future regime, NOPSA will have
greater regulatory control of pipelines and the proposed
amendments would remove some of the duplication and extra
compliance costs that would otherwise result.[46]
Items 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48 and
49 of the Bill propose to amend the OH&S
offence provisions of Schedule 3 of the Act as
follows:
- clause 9 duties of an operator (item 41)
- clause 10 duties of persons in control of parts of a facility
or particular work (item 43)
- clause 11 duties of employers (item 44)
- clause 12 duties of manufacturers in relation to plant and
substances (item 45)
- clause 13 duties of suppliers of facilities, plant and
substances (item 46)
- clause 14 duties of persons erecting facilities or installing
plant (item 48), and
- clause 15 duties of persons in relation to occupational health
and safety (item 49).
In general, the proposed amendments introduce the application of
absolute liability to the jurisdictional element of those offences
that the person is subject to the requirement that an operator of a
facility must take all reasonable steps to ensure that:
- the facility is safe and without risk to anyone at and near the
facility, and
- work and other activities carried out on the facility are done
so in a safe manner without risk to the health of anyone at or near
the facility.
For example, item 41 of the Bill proposes to
insert new subclauses 9(4A) and
(4B) into Schedule 3 of the Act.
Proposed subclause 9(4A) provides that absolute
liability would apply to paragraph 9(4)(a). Sub clause 9(4)
provides that:
(4) A person commits an offence if:
- the person is subject to a requirement under subclause (1);
and
- the person omits to do an act; and
- the omission breaches the requirement.
Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.
Subclause 9(1) provides that:
9 Duties of operator
General duties
(1) The operator of a facility must take all
reasonably practicable steps to ensure that:
- the facility is safe and without risk to the health of any
person at or near the facility; and
- all work and other activities carried out on the facility are
carried out in a manner that is safe and without risk to the health
of any person at or near the facility.
The application of absolute liability to an element of an
offence means that there is no defence of honest and reasonable
mistake of fact. The effect of the proposed amendments is that a
person, responsible for an offshore petroleum facility, cannot
subsequently claim that they were unaware of their OH&S
responsibilities under subclause 9(1) of Schedule 3 of the Act.
It is noted that proposed subclause 9(4B)
provides that the other elements of the offence have, as their
fault element, negligence. According to section 5.5 of the
Criminal Code Act 1995, a person is negligent, in relation
to a physical element of an offence, if his or her conduct
involves:
- such a great falling short of the standard of care exercised by
a reasonable person in the particular circumstances, and
- such a high risk that the physical element exists or will
exist,
that such conduct warrants criminal punishment.
Similar amendments are proposed in relation to the other items
as listed.
Item 47 of the Bill proposes to insert
new clause 13A into Schedule 3 of the
Act. Proposed clause 13A would impose obligations
on petroleum and greenhouse gas titleholders in relation to the
design of facilities, requiring the relevant titleholder to take
all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that the facility is
designed to be safe and without risk to health, when it is properly
used.
Absolute liability would apply in a similar way as in items 41,
43, 44, 45, 46, 48 and 49.
It is noted that the Government assures that while the
proposed amendment would allow titleholders to be
held responsible for their contributions to unsafe situations,
there is no intention to shift responsibility from facility
operators where they are at fault.[47]
Part 13 of the Bill contains proposed
provisions designed to address and resolve various
inconsistencies in the Act. Examples of these provisions are as
follows.
Items 55 and 58 of the Bill
propose to amend paragraphs 297(3)(b) and
304(3)(b) of the Act by replacing day with day
before the day , in relation to the timing for release of
greenhouse gas assessment areas following the end of the notice
period of 60 days. The effect of these proposed amendments is that
release of a greenhouse gas assessment area cannot occur until the
day after the end of 60 day notice period.
Importantly, items 60 and 61
of the Bill propose to amend subsection 358(8) and
insert new subsection 358(8A) into the Act, in an
effort to deal with an inconsistency arising when amendments were
made to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Bill 2008 in the
Senate.
This inconsistency related to the source of the greenhouse gas
to be injected into the greenhouse gas formations. The amendments,
as proposed and passed in the Senate[48] and now incorporated into
subparagraph 370(c)(i) of the Act, allow for the Commonwealth
Minister, when deciding whether to grant a greenhouse gas injection
licence, to be satisfied that (among other factors) the greenhouse
gas substances are not only located within the production licence
area in question, but from other production licence areas as well,
if the Minister considers it in the public interest to grant the
greenhouse gas injection licence.
Section 358 of the Act, in contrast, provides for conditions to
be placed on greenhouse gas injection licences and only allows a
greenhouse gas injection licence to be granted to a licensee, where
the origin(s) of the greenhouse gas in question is/are located
within the licence area in question.
In addition, proposed new subsection 374(4A),
in item 62 of the Bill, would provide that the
Commonwealth Minister may vary the licence in accordance with the
matters set out in items 60 and
61, as discussed above.
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain further
information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277
2784.
Moira Coombs
21 May 2009
Bills Digest Service
Parliamentary Library
© Commonwealth of Australia
This work is copyright. Except to the extent of uses permitted
by the Copyright Act 1968, no person may reproduce or transmit any
part of this work by any process without the prior written consent
of the Parliamentary Librarian. This requirement does not apply to
members of the Parliament of Australia acting in the course of
their official duties.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian
Parliament using information available at the time of production.
The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the
Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal
opinion.
Feedback is welcome and may be provided to: web.library@aph.gov.au. Any
concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary
Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the
contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff.
To access this service, clients may contact the author or the
Library’s Central Entry Point for referral.
Back to top