Thursday, 18 June 2026

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (09:35): Under standing order 23.22, I table a report on the inquiry into the decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure, including an appendix, extracts of proceedings and a minority report, from the Environment and Planning Committee, and I present the transcripts of evidence. I move:

That the transcripts of evidence be tabled and the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

Ryan BATCHELOR: I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

The Environment and Planning Committee has undertaken an inquiry into the decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure in Victoria. As I am sure members will know, Victoria has been well served by plentiful reserves of oil and gas, particularly in the Bass Strait, for the last 60 years. But those reserves are finishing; they are dwindling. The extraction phase of much of that natural resource is now complete, particularly with oil but also soon with gas. As a result, there is significant existing oil and gas infrastructure in the Bass Strait which needs to be decommissioned. The Environment and Planning Committee over the last year and a bit has undertaken a detailed inquiry into how that process should occur. The committee went down to the Barry Beach marine terminal and held public hearings in Leongatha, as well as some public hearings in Melbourne, hearing from local industry, hearing from experts, hearing from unions and hearing from local government and regulators about this important issue.

There is a jurisdictional complexity here. Most of the well infrastructure and a lot of the pipelines in the Bass Strait sit in Commonwealth waters and are regulated by the Commonwealth. However, much of the pipeline and onshore infrastructure associated with these facilities obviously passes through Victorian waters and will end up being dismantled in Victorian jurisdiction, so this is one of these cases where there is enormous jurisdictional complexity. The committee has recommended that end-of-life offshore oil and gas infrastructure should be fully removed unless leaving it in place can be shown to deliver better environmental outcomes. The report contains 38 findings and 24 recommendations and recognises and underscores the scale of the task ahead. It is an enormous effort to get the wells, get the jackets and get the pipes out of the water, safely returned to shore, dismantled and, as the committee recommends, recycled to the fullest extent possible. Much of the steel that is involved in these pipelines and on the wells, jackets and topsides can be used in steel recycling, and there are tremendous opportunities for value-adding in the circular economy here in the state of Victoria from this significant undertaking.

These opportunities, however, should come to Victoria and to Victorian workers. We recommend that there be an investment and a development of a industry plan for the offshore oil and gas decommissioning industry, that there be dedicated training and skills development provided to the workforce to ensure that this work is done safely, that the monitoring of the decommissioned wells and the decommissioned infrastructure is ongoing and that there is an ongoing assurance provided to the Victorian people that there is no longer any environmental risk from this former infrastructure and this extractive industry. To do that, the committee recommends that the bill should not be borne by Victorian taxpayers but that a trailing liability scheme be introduced in the state of Victoria, mirrored on the approach that the Commonwealth already has in law, to ensure that the licence holders, who for so many years, so many decades, have made substantial profits out of the natural resources that exist here and off the coast of Victoria, foot the bill for the clean-up and that that ongoing assurance that there is environmental safety following the decommissioning process is one that is borne by those companies.

I want to thank all the members of the committee for what I think was an extremely collegiate approach to this inquiry. We visited these facilities together. The inquiry was conducted I think in a really positive spirit. I want to particularly thank the committee secretariat for the enormous work that they did, particularly on untangling the regulatory complexity that exists here. I think understanding and appreciating which regulator, Commonwealth or state, has control over what part of regulation, whether it is occ health and safety or environmental concerns, when you are dealing with things that exist in Commonwealth waters, Victorian waters and onshore, is no mean feat. I think the report that the secretariat has helped us produce does service to these important issues, and I commend it to the house.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (09:41): I too just want to thank the committee for the work on this – the secretariat, the chair and my fellow committee members – and echo the words of the chair that this was I think a really collaborative inquiry that was undertaken. It was incredibly valuable in shedding a light on the urgent need to step up oversight and regulation of oil and gas infrastructure decommissioning, particularly in Victoria. There are significant volumes of oil and gas infrastructure, especially offshore, reaching end of life right now, and what happens to these platforms, wells and pipelines is critical for our environment, communities and the economy. But the inquiry made it clear that much more work is required to address issues around all of these areas. In particular, there is a lack of public information about exactly what infrastructure exists, where it is, who owns it and what condition it is in, and this inquiry calls for a public register of all of that information.

Additionally, one of the key findings and recommendations of this committee relates to a trailing liability scheme for Victoria. At the moment there is a potential loophole that could expose taxpayers to the risk of footing the bill for decommissioning if an oil and gas company sells off its liabilities and cannot cover them. So this inquiry report calls for a trailing liability scheme to cover infrastructure in Victorian waters and onshore.

It is clear that oil and gas companies have a strong preference to leave infrastructure in situ, but the committee found that the longer infrastructure remains in situ, the higher the risk of degradation and toxic leaks that cause harm to the environment, so it reaffirms that full removal should be the base case. We need greater transparency about what is out there and the risks we are exposed to. Oil and gas companies must be required to clean up after themselves and not leave taxpayers and the environment to pay the price, and I think the committee did a really good job of identifying practical ways to deal with that.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (09:43): This is a very important industry. It has been a very important industry for my Eastern Victoria electorate and in Gippsland and the Gippsland Basin for 60 years. Of course it has been the industry that has created vital energy sources, both oil and gas, for Victoria, and it has also been the source of prosperity and jobs and been vital to communities, not only Sale and Longford but down at Barry Beach at Welshpool. This has been a great source of pride for the people of Gippsland and fuelled the rest of the state.

We believe of course that gas has a significant role not only now but into the future. We know that it is vital for peaking in electricity supply but also as feedstock. As the decommissioning of oil and gas wells occurs, there are opportunities in that decommissioning, disassembling and deconstruction but also in recycling. I think that certainly in our region, in Gippsland – and I know that we went down to Barry Beach and saw the opportunities there – for many, many decades there has been a balance between sitting on a Ramsar wetland and still conducting safe operations, but into the future, where there is this decommissioning and additional traffic on roads, both companies and government can ensure that it can happen and our regions are not disadvantaged.

I want to thank the South Gippsland Shire and all of the Gippsland representatives and good people who made submissions to this very important inquiry and also thank the committee. Yes, I do believe it was very collegial and largely constructive. There is a small minority report, and I invite people to look at that as well.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (09:45): Oil and gas out of Bass Strait have supported our state economically with energy and with jobs for decades, particularly in Gippsland. We know from these hearings that oil in the Bass Strait has run out and gas supplies have about one decade to go. It is critical that we deal with the infrastructure that is there and that we deal with it appropriately so that our local habitat, our fish stocks and our water supplies come out of this process as they should for future generations. It is important that all infrastructure is identified so that we know what we are dealing with. It is important that that infrastructure is decommissioned to a standard where, as I said, we are not seeing adverse impacts. It is important that there are ongoing trailing liabilities for the decommissioning of this infrastructure and to ensure that that infrastructure is not causing issues going forward.

As for jobs going forward with the recycling of this material, there is an incredible opportunity to see this material reused in our economy here in Victoria and indeed around Australia. There are incredible quantities of steel and other products. Having visited Barry Beach, I have seen what the opportunities are at Barry Beach and in South Gippsland and Gippsland more broadly, and indeed Victoria, and recycling and reselling that product is a big part of the findings to come out of this inquiry as well.

I thank everyone on the committee for the work they did establishing the hearings in South Gippsland and all those that presented information, whether that be the companies involved, the communities or the unions – all that came along who have a strong interest in that workforce and ensuring that the infrastructure that comes out of decades of industry is decommissioned safely and appropriately and that materials are used well into the future.

 Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (09:47): I also rise to speak on the committee report. This was an extremely interesting inquiry into the decommissioning of oil and gas. I would like to thank, firstly, our secretariat for all of the hard work that they put into assisting us to do our job and then into writing the report. But I would also like to particularly thank those who took the time to share their expertise with us about the decommissioning of oil and gas: the people who wrote submissions, the companies who presented to us and the organisations who presented to us as well.

Oil and gas have been a very important part of the Victorian economy, and Victoria has benefited greatly. Businesses in Victoria have benefited greatly from having reliable and cheap energy supplies through the reserves in Bass Strait, but it is right that as we finish up those oil and gas reserves there the infrastructure is removed responsibly. I think that this has been a great exercise for the state to look at the decommissioning of this particular industry but also to look forward and to now think about the decommissioning of other energy sources – renewable energy projects like solar and wind farms. As we move forward, they will also need to be decommissioned, and there should be a plan put in place that does not leave the impost of cost on the landowner but rather on the people who benefited from the energy that was generated due to those facilities and profited from it – the companies that run those facilities.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (09:50): (By leave) Can I just make a few comments on this report. It is an important report. The opposition is very aware of the issues raised here and compliments the committee on the work that has been done. What is clear from reading the report is that by and large ExxonMobil are working very well to go through this process of decommissioning. There are recommendations here for improvements, but by and large there is a sincere attempt by the relevant groups to make sure that the decommissioning is done in a proper way. There are a number of recommendations I note that the Liberals and Nationals did not support, and I certainly think that they are relevant to be singled out as ones we would not report.

Motion agreed to.