Wednesday, 18 June 2025

Petitions

Barry Beach marine terminal

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (17:44): I move:

That the petition be taken into consideration.

I want to start by thanking the Gippsland community and Friends of the Earth for bringing this petition and the issue it represents to the attention of our Parliament. This community has been on the front line of many decisions made by our government when it comes to offshore oil and gas, and they have been fierce defenders of our precious marine and coastal systems. I want to thank them for not giving up on the fight to protect our environment and our climate. Last year I stood in this chamber and raised concerns emerging from the community about how to decommission fossil fuel infrastructure at the end of its life and how fossil fuel companies are inevitably shirking their environmental responsibilities, focusing instead on whatever is cheapest and easiest. I was proud that members of this Council listened to those community concerns and voted in favour of the Greens’ inquiry, which will take place next year.

Across Victoria’s coast there are estimated to be around 400 rusty old oil–gas wells in need of decommissioning, and now 13 of these rigs previously operated by Exxon Mobil are the subject of this petition. Exxon Mobil is proposing to construct an onshore reception centre at Barry Beach terminal in order to decommission up to 13 rigs currently situated in the Gippsland Basin. These rigs are the first of their kind to be decommissioned in Australia. At the outset, what is essential here is that the right precedent is set so that the hundreds of other wells to be decommissioned over the coming decade are properly handled and recycled and that local procurement and a just transition for the industry is at the forefront of this planning.

Unfortunately, Exxon Mobil’s environmental and industrial track record in the Bass Strait is problematic. Three hydrocarbon spills were reported in 2024 alone. The Gippsland Basin rigs are in a dangerous state of disrepair, putting workers at risk. Routine inspection protocols have been neglected, and employees reporting mental and physical fatigue have been ignored. Exxon Mobil’s decommissioning proposal involves transporting 60,000 tonnes of material via barges through the Corner Inlet shipping channel to a new reception centre at Barry Beach marine terminal. Here they will be stored for years to be dismantled and then transported elsewhere for recycling or disposal.

But Corner Inlet is not just a shipping channel; it is a Ramsar-listed wetland. Not only is it the southernmost tidal mudflat system on mainland Australia with the southernmost occurrence of white mangrove in the world, it actually contains the most extensive system of intertidal mudflats in Victoria, making it a haven for migratory shorebirds. Over the cool months 50 per cent of the overwintering population of migratory wader species can be found at Corner Inlet. For twitchers that is a very exciting statistic, but for the broader community it demonstrates that this is a special habitat in need of serious protection.

Concerns have also been raised about Exxon’s construction and use of the reception centre at Barry Beach. Locals have highlighted contamination concerns, pointing to a 2018 EPA audit of lands adjacent to the terminal which found that the company had contaminated groundwater with hydrocarbons to the point that it was considered unsuitable for potable water supply, water-based recreation or stock watering. The terminal’s operator has also conceded the likelihood of marine sediment contamination following spillages and the use of anti-fouling paint in the port. So whilst at face value the proposal by Exxon to decommission its rigs in the middle of this site may appear uncontentious, there are serious risks that need to be properly scrutinised. And so the community’s request is a simple one: that the Minister for Planning commission an environment effects statement into Exxon Mobil’s plans and ensure that the EES process involves a period of public consultation, recognising that any decommissioning activity undertaken in Victoria must reflect international best practice.

Decommissioning of these rigs is no small task. Exxon have anticipated there will be 20 barge movements in and out of Corner Inlet over a four-month period, after which they will be stored onshore for years while they are broken down and sorted. It would then take a significant number of trucks travelling through isolated farmland in South Gippsland to establish a recycling facility for the remaining material to be disposed of.

There is lots more to say about the risks of moving this material, the risk to the Ramsar site and all the different types of materials and hazardous waste that will be removed. But suffice to say decommissioning requires serious scrutiny and oversight. I commend this petition to the house.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (17:49): I rise to speak on this petition sponsored by Dr Mansfield. I want to acknowledge all those that have signed the petition to participate in the democratic process here in the Legislative Council. It is an important and topical issue. I do not have a lot of time, but I just want to address how environment effects statements work. The environment effects statement, the EES, process is the highest level of environmental assessment in Victoria. Proponents and stakeholders invest heavily in an EES and should be confident that processes and principles are applied consistently and transparently. A project is referred by a proponent or decision-maker in accordance with the referral criteria. The minister will make one of three decisions, normally within 20 business days of effecting a referral. If it is yes, an EES is required and approval decisions are put on hold until the EES process is completed. If it is no, an EES is not required and decision-makers can proceed with their approval process; or alternatively an EES is not required but conditions must be met, and conditions might relate to the location or dimensions of the project, mitigation measures or alternative requirements for further studies or consultation.

The matters to be investigated and documented in an EES are set out in the scoping requirements issued by the minister. These are different for each project and depend on the associated environmental risks. Draft scoping requirements are prepared following input from the proponent and other agencies. These are released for public comment for at least 15 business days before the final scoping requirements are published. The proponent must prepare a quality EES as well as a study program and consultation plan consistent with the scoping requirements. A technical reference group with members from government agencies, local government or statutory authorities is appointed to provide advice to the proponent and the department during the preparation of the EES. When the EES is deemed suitable, it is released for public comment for between 20 and 30 business days. During this time the public can make written submissions. The minister may appoint an inquiry to evaluate the effects of the project, having regard to the EES studies and the public submissions. The inquiry may take one of three forms, depending on how complex the issues are, whether that being a desktop review of written submissions, a conference of submitters and review of submissions or a formal hearing where the proponent and submitters can speak and present expert witnesses.

Regarding the Barry Beach marine terminal, Esso Australia have been given a general direction from the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) to commence removal of decommissioned assets – that is, oil and gas platforms and associated infrastructure – from their petroleum leases in the Bass Strait by September 2027. The assets are located in Commonwealth waters. Esso have commenced discussion with Victorian and Commonwealth governments about the required assessment and approval pathways for the project, including the potential referral of the project under the Victorian Environment Effects Act 1978 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the EPBC act. Within the Victorian jurisdiction the project involves upgrades to Barry Beach marine terminal stage 1, the transport of decommissioned assets to Barry Beach marine terminal and offload and storage of the assets at Barry Beach marine terminal, and stage 2, which is the dismantling and decontamination of the assets for disposal and/or recycling or reuse.

Esso Australia have approached the Department of Transport and Planning, DTP, to discuss a staged approach to the consideration of the environmental impacts of their project as the timing for the upgrade of Barry Beach marine terminal needs to commence construction by quarter 1 of 2026 in order for Esso to meet their obligations under NOPSEMA’s general direction.

Qube Energy separately referred their Gippsland regional port project focused on the redevelopment of Barry Beach marine terminal. In 2020 the Minister for Planning decided that an EES is required for the project. The project was placed on hold while the proponent considered the project and waited for further commercial information from potential customers. Stage 1 of the project has been referred under the EPBC act and is on hold while a proponent responds to a request for further information from the Commonwealth. DTP are awaiting further information from Esso Australia about the project and its impacts, and on receipt the department will continue to engage with Esso about the necessary assessment and approvals process for their project.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (17:54): I am pleased to rise to make a contribution the petition put forward by Dr Mansfield today. I did have a look at some of the petition signees, and I noticed that as well as many people from the Gippsland region there were many Melburnians signing that petition as well. I am someone who knows Barry Beach and Port Anthony very well. In fact I was only down there 12 months ago on the request of Qube to have a look around and to investigate the work that Qube is doing in order to get in readiness for the potential, the opportunity, of the offshore wind industry and some of the very exciting developments for that region – and jobs as well as a renewable energy source into the future.

Barry Beach terminal was certainly established 50 years ago, and when I was at school many of the young people at my school actually went on to do a trade out there. It was part of the whole industry, and indeed it serviced that industry. At the time it was actually part of the construction and therefore, then and after, part of the maintenance of the oil and gas industry from that spot. Over that time there have been literally thousands and thousands of tonnes of whether it be food or supplies or fuel or equipment to the offshore platforms and installations. It has, by context, both a historic and a current and a potential future use. The oil and gas industry is winding down out in Bass Strait, and indeed part of that is going to need to be the decommissioning site.

We had a look, and there was a discussion around the various pieces of infrastructure that need to occur for the decommissioning and the care and thought around that and the planning that is occurring. Surely that must get a nod from the Greens for a renewable industry. I did ask, when I was out there, about the Ramsar convention and the Ramsar wetlands and where they were in relation to the terminal. We certainly had a discussion about how the Ramsar convention talks about the wise use of wetlands keeping in balance the requirements of sustainable development. I also know that Gippsland Lakes, Western Port and Port Phillip – 12 Ramsar wetlands occur in Victoria and are identified in Victoria, and many of the lakes actually have coexistence with other industry. However, people are right to be concerned, and the nub of this petition is around the decommissioning and the importance of making sure that regulation and acts are adhered to and then the safeguards and the rigour around those.

We have got state legislation and federal legislation, and Mr McIntosh went through that in quite some detail. But certainly there are a number of acts and indeed regulations that are required. The regulator is the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environment Management Authority, and there is also the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. What Gippslanders want to know, what environmentalists want to know – and they can be one and the same people – and what careful-thinking people and the industry want to know is that these will be decommissioned safely and removed safely to enable the facilitation of the future.

The environment effects statement can occur. The proponent has criteria. They have said that it is not required, that it does not meet the threshold for the criteria. But the key factor here is that the minister has the opportunity to call it in. If the minister thinks that it is dangerous enough, is concerned enough, they can call it in. What I do find quite obtuse and what is a frustration for other Gippslanders in my electorate is that there is the Delburn wind farm, and that has been on the books now for five or six years. Indeed there was an EES proposed. It did trigger an EES. It is over forest – 33 wind turbines over plantation, over forest. There was a trigger. It was supposed to go to an EES. What happened? The minister actually called that in and said, ‘No, we’re not going to bother doing an EES.’ So on one hand we have got the Greens very concerned, and rightly so, but there is safety and rigour around that. And then we have got another concern – we have got the government shutting down an EES. The government needs to back in its legislation and back in safety. I thank Dr Mansfield for the opportunity to have this conversation.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (17:59): I thank my colleagues in this place for their contributions. I think Mr McIntosh, in outlining the triggers for and the stages involved in an environment effects statement, made a very good case for why that is exactly the process we need in this instance. Nine per cent of the material to be decommissioned nationally is in the Gippsland Basin. If stringent standards for decommissioning are not established right now in this process, it will set a very dangerous precedent for the rest of the country. Decommissioning retired infrastructure requires investment with no return for private companies such as ExxonMobil, who will naturally attempt to minimise expenses. Considering their history both globally and in Australia, it is not unreasonable to question whether they would sacrifice the environment for the benefit of shareholder returns. Allowing the plans to continue without an environment effects statement is irresponsible, and I commend the petition to the house.

Motion agreed to.