Senate Economics Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 2:17:05 to 2:23:02
Debate over the June 2022 removal of scope 1 and 2 limitations in the ministerial Statement of Expectations and whether it altered NOPSEMA's legal obligations.
Topics: Integrity, Climate change, Emissions reduction
Speakers: Cameron Grebe, Senator Susan McDonald, Sue McCarrey, Unknown Speaker
>> Senator? We were assessing accordance to the law, which was the EPBC act at the time, which is unchanged in terms of section 527E. uh and our environment regulations which required us to consider impacts including those indirect consequences where they met the definition of impact under section 527E that that was the law that we would have been applying it not semma
>> so you're disregarding the statement of expectations then
>> no we had regard to the statement of expectations senator
>> I'm just I the two aren't marrying if the if you removed if the minister removed or recast the statement of expectations to remove the prohibition and previously there was a prohibition but you were still assessing emissions including then you were just [clears throat] disregarding the previous ministerial >> senator the law doesn't expectations
>> as as you'll know because you would have read the provision it doesn't the EPBC act nor our regulations identify scope three at all it's not mentioned so what we're assessing is impacts to the environment we're required under the law to do that and to not um and and and to have regard to section 527E policy and that and apply that when making those assessments and decisions that continued uh and and and the statement of expectations doesn't talk about how NOPS assesses environmental impacts.
>> Well,
>> so we don't assess scope three. This is sorry Senator just to emphasize this is why I was making the distinction a bit earlier that we don't assess scope three. We aren't looking at scope 3 emissions that occur overseas and working out, for example, whether they fit into the global accounting scheme of things. That's not our role. It's not our jurisdiction. Um, we're solely focused on environmental impacts. And and that's something in accordance with the law. If we're making decisions and making them a timely manner against the regulations, for example, within 30 days, we're making those decisions in the law that applies at the time and it was then and still is about environmental impacts. So why do you
think the minister changed the scope three the statement of expectations
>> changed to include it or to remove it
>> or made the change if it didn't make any difference to what you were doing
anyway? I can't comment on that, Senator. I'm not the minister. I don't
know. >> But you you had discussions with the department. You're going to see if they're written or verbal. But you know, surely then you said to the department, doesn't matter what you do cuz we're doing we're doing it anyway. Won't change what we do. >> Statement of expectations doesn't change what we do.
>> I definitely didn't say that, Senator. I I I what I said was was probably not as well put together because we've been practicing it for some time to how to explain a complex bit of legislation. Um but I would have um explained the situation that I've just done to you now which is we consider environmental impacts. um we don't at NOPSA then um get involved in writing the statement of expectations or changing it or providing a view on on what it should be or the asked the question about what are the implications our answer then I recall was we the EPBC act and our environment regulations are the law and as the regulator we're following the law
>> so did the change of the statement of expectations change the work that you do
>> when it was introduced. >> Um it certainly changed um Senator we had to think about the specific wording and the statement expectations uh how we conducted our assessments. Um it certainly um we were already focused and recognizing that that that it is about the assessment of environmental impacts was our bread and butter and that um there was often a misunderstanding externally that we're getting into the space of managing emissions and that's not our domain which is correct because it's there's separate legislation that deals with that both here and overseas. Uh and so it it it essentially reaffirmed that our focus should and would need to be in accordance with the law on environmental
>> Okay. So so it didn't change the sort of work you did. It just changed the way you thought about it.
>> Correct. That's often what statement of expectations do. Senator,
>> absolutely. So uh senator as you're aware any statement of expectations often uh includes a whole range of topics and issues which we go through uh and that does impact the way in which we undertake our role. Um but in this partic in this particular set of circumstances as Mr. agree explained I think there's often that misunderstanding between people refer to scope 3 whereas our job is around looking at the environmental impacts whatever those impacts might be and that continues and as a statuto authority our responsibility is to implement the law
>> okay statements of expectation can form part of legal cases can't they having a statement of expectation becomes a more sorry I should turn back to you now because you're now >> here for the new statement of expectation.
>> Senator uh if a subject to I'd actually have to get legal advice on that. Um but certainly it does influence whether or not it could be uh referred to uh law but certainly they're public uh our response to the statement of expectations uh is also made public on our website. We certainly take it into account for example it really has increased our focus on psychosocial health issues uh across the industry because that was a particular thing raised in statement of expectations as with a number of other topics that have been raised. So it does help us focus on what uh particular policy issues might be but at the same time our first and foremost the day-to-day work we do is implementing the law as laid down by parliament.