Senate Economics Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 1:54:06 to 2:06:18
Inquiry into NOPSEMA's gift register, the hiring of former industry employees, and the technical safeguards used to prevent conflicts of interest during sensitive investigations into offshore fatalities.
Topics: Integrity, Fossil fuels, Workplace culture
Speakers: Sue McCarrey, Senator David Pocock, Cameron Grebe, Senator Susan McDonald, Speaker 14, Speaker 1
>> thank you uh chair. Thank you very much for your time uh this evening. On the NOPSA gift and hospitality register, I can see that Mr. Blair received a stakeholder tour of the Gorgon facility in April valued at um $800.
>> I I'm happy to lead in and then and Mr. Blair can do any clarification. So,
>> I just I was just
>> Oh, yes. Yes, it was. And it was I was
just asking that.
>> Yeah, it was a group of government uh employees from state and federal who were actually invited to go and actually see the facility.
>> Great. Um have you seen the the um news articles about allegations that the facility has been releasing thousands and thousands of tons of methane with an impact of over 20 years equivalent to adding an estimated 500,000 cars uh to
the road. So, uh, thanks, Senator. Are you referring to the Gorgon project and the the photos that have been seen? So, yes, I'm aware of it and yes, I've seen it. Uh, just reminded that Gorgon project is actually within Western Australian jurisdiction and Western Yes, we have seen it.
>> Mr. Blair, I assume that you saw nothing of concern when you were at Gorgon and they didn't mention this this methane
>> Thank you, Senator, for the question. Gre Blair, deputy CEO for regulatory operations at Noximma. Uh there was no mention and of course uh any leaking that might have been occurring that had been detected at that time wouldn't be obvious to any visitor to the site.
>> Yeah. Sure. have any other gifts been given uh to Mr. Blair or Miss McCary um that haven't been disclosed? Any lunches or dinners?
>> No, Senator. Uh look, anything like that and in a sense um we have a very strict policy around gifts. I'm not saying I don't occasionally get invited to go somewhere. I refuse those invitations and I refuse them in writing. Uh and generally refuse in a way that says it would not be appropriate for me to attend. Uh so we do not something like the uh event that Mr. Blair has been on was as I said it was a whole group of government employees taken up to show them the project and how it actually
worked. >> Um and and it's and it's disclosed. Thank you very much. That's good to has NOPSA employed a former Woodside employee who was involved in Woodid's investigation following the death of Michael German um in 2023?
>> Uh, yes, Senator.
>> Um, what assessment was undertaken of potential conflicts of interest before the appointment was approved?
>> Uh, look, thank you, Senator. way. All all of our staff actually complete and and first of all while I can say many of our staff come from oil and gas industries because we are a specialist regulator. We actually need to have that expertise within NOPSA to be able to undertake the role that we do. So we have a number of staff from that have come from Woodside or Santos etc. Every single employee as they commence with us declare what roles they have undertaken and what companies they have worked with uh including the particular staff member that you have mentioned. Uh we also have wherever it is needed to be declared it gets declared more than once. So for example an employee we have a compliance committee internally that compliance committee is actually responsible and I chair that committee for uh any regulatory action we are taken is discussed and determined through that uh committee when we do that if there is any past then that is declared and if there is a person in that room who is actually in that situation they leave the room and they're not a part of that conversation. uh it was declared uh it has not been discussed past that because his role at Woodside. We have done our own investigation into that fatality and that is the evidence that we use.
>> Thank you. And without revealing identities, uh what was the employee doing for Woodside? Um how were they involved in the investigation and what what sort of role do they now have at NOPS?
>> I wouldn't have that level of detail on me, Senator, but I could follow up. Um
>> um maybe you take that on notice. Um, does does this employee have any responsibility for overseeing investigators uh working on uh matters involving Woodside now?
>> No, Senator. So, we all of our inspectors will do the occasional they do regular investigations, but they're lower level ones. So, what we call level one and two. The type of investigation that you're referring to and particularly the one involving um the fatality of Mr. Jaman was actually undertaken by our investigations team which is deliberately sitting in a different part of the organization in Mr. Greavves area for that very reason and that's where the more serious investigations including that one are undertaken.
>> Okay, that's really good to hear. Um, does that employee have access to NOSA's uh investigative records relating to the Michael German death?
>> No, Senator.
and what technical restrictions um, prevent employees with these sorts of declared conflicts from accessing sensitive investigative records? How do you actually do that?
>> Yeah, I'll I'll hand over to Mr. Grieve in a moment, but generally like any document management system, it allows us to put certain restrictions, including our legal area would put restrictions on a lot of their documentation, but Mr. Grieve can give more detail.
>> Thank you for the question. Senator Cameron Grieve, deputy chief executive officer, strategic regulation improvement. We operate uh document management system now under SharePoint. Previously, it was a different system. There are restrictions in place uh and we use the Australian government security classification for documents. These are classified accordingly and restrictions to only those that need to know which is the investigation team, the legal team and um the CEO. the physical sorry in the physical evidence thinking well the physical evidence itself which is part of the investigation material is in the evidence room which is um managed in accordance with the Australian government's investigation standards and the only people with access is actually the investigations team not even the CEO
>> okay that's that's good to know um has uh no audited access to the the Michael um German investigation record since the employee commenced is that something that
>> Um I don't I can't recall specific audit senator but could take on notice checking what
>> if if you can. Thank you. Um >> has NOPSA appointed employees on temporary contracts or seconments uh who are expected to return to Woodside or other regulated operators. So say you have a gap um that you need to fill. Have you brought someone in from a company and then they go straight back?
>> No, Senator. No. And we would not second from an oil and gas entity or any entity that we regulate. The only time we've ever had a small number of secments is usually from another regulator or another government agency.
>> What about temporary contracts, short-term contracts?
>> No, Senator, we wouldn't bring them direct from uh as I said, we do have a number of people across the agency from time to time who and they have worked in the industry, but again, that is always declared up front. And Mr. Agree.
>> Uh then Senator, we we have employed people on short-term contracts who have worked previously before companies like we've employed people who have worked in companies we regulate on permanent ongoing contracts. But in each instance, they're employed under the Australian Public Service Act. >> Um the non-going contract is because it's relates to non-going work and that hasn't been on any basis or agreement um that they continued employment um after or during their term at NOSMA.
>> Okay. But there's never been a case where you expect that they will then return to Woodside or one of the
>> No. If someone resigns and leaves, of >> they can work wherever they choose. We don't restrict that.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's good to know. Um when did NPSA last participate in a full-scale exercise simulating a major offshore oil spill?
uh in relation to an offshore oil spill. Um we've actually we reviewed our own desktop um procedures around beginning of last year where we actually reviewed a whole number of uh emergency procedures including uh offshore or spill response. Um we have been at the periphery involved in an industry. So sometimes the industry if a company's going through a response exercise we're included in that. Uh we also in the last few years were involved in briefing the WA government on our processes and procedures in relation to oil spill. Um we have also uh a couple of times this year not for oil spill but we have a couple of times this year actually stood up our incident management uh team.
>> Sure. Thank you. That's good to know. But the question was when did you last participate in a full-scale exercise simulating a major offshore oil spill?
>> Uh so thank you very much for the uh question Senator. to my mind and would have to take it on notice to double check, but I recall being involved in one at the periphery of it that was hosted or exercised by Shell in early 2024.
>> 2024. Okay. Thank you. I've got some other questions I put on notice. Thank you very much. Thanks, J.
>> Senator,
>> thank you. Um, Senator McDonald,
>> If I could just return to my questions on um staff members of involved in assessing offshore project proposals. Um we're working our way through a list but how many were involved in assessing an environmental plan.
>> Uh again Senator uh very difficult. So it it we assess obviously a number of environment plans throughout the year sometimes up to around 40 to 50 each one of those it very much depends. So it's a very small activity. Uh it might be a very small team that's assessing that environment plan. uh but there may be a much more complex one particularly when if it's a a new project that's getting ready to come into commissioning phase uh then there may be a number of complex issues in the environment plan. So it would be a much wider team so it could be as as small as two or three it could be as large as 10 uh depending on the subject matter of that particular environment plan and any complexities
involved. Okay. Is there an increase in staffing requirements for an individual proposal when considering scope 3 greenhouse gases during assessments?
>> Uh, no, Senator, not a deliberate increase. As I said, it all depends if if if greenhouse gas emissions. So I'm going to stick it's not so much scope 3, but if greenhouse gas emissions are a potential impact from the particular activity that is the subject of the EP, then one of those people are referred to the two uh that with that expertise is involved in the assessment of that environment plan, but it's not specifically related to scope 3. It's only where there is a potential impact from greenhouse gas emissions. Senator
Cameron Gre sorry just to clarify as well those individuals that have the expertise in that area they're not restricted to only work on that subject so I think that what's important here is we have a number of environment specialists that are in both Mr. to Blair's division and mine which have a broad environmental management background. Some have special come from specialisms in areas such as marine science, turtles, um birds um and and some have gained experience and knowledge in greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, international frameworks, safeguard mechanisms, so on um and so they aren't limited and only assess greenhouse and we have not recruited people to specifically cover that topic.
>> Okay. Um, in February 2022, NOBS was expressly directed to assess scope one and scope 2 emissions only. Um, but in June 2022, the minister removed that prohibition in a revised statement of expectations just weeks after being sworn in. Did not recommend, suggest, or request removal of the scope one and