Published name
Confirm that you have read and understand this declaration.
1. Are the revision triggers listed in subsection 53(2) of the proposed Regulations appropriate?
1.1 Are there any other circumstances that should be addressed?
To provide additional governance as the offshore renewables sector develops in Australia, consideration for the first management plan review to take place at 3 years, then 5 yearly thereafter for licence holders.
2. Is 5 years appropriate for a periodic review?
3. Is the consultation process provided in the proposed Regulations appropriate?
3.1 What changes (if any) do you recommend?
Please consider the following questions in drafting your response to question 3.1:
a. Is it appropriate for licence holders to consult representatives and representative bodies where these bodies could reasonably be regarded as representing the interests of individuals, persons, organisations, groups or communities?
b. Is it appropriate for the same consultation requirements to apply to all types of projects (for example, for research and demonstration projects compared to commercial projects)? If not, what changes do you recommend?
c. Do you consider the proposed stakeholder engagement strategy described in the management plan, but separate to the management plan, to be adequately flexible and appropriate? If not, why, and what might be an alternative approach?
d. Do you agree with the list of information that must be described in the management plan in relation to the stakeholder engagement strategy? Should any other matters be described?
The consultation framework is appropriate for industry. It would also be appropriate for licence holders to consult with representatives from government/businesses/organisations and this consultation should be considered representative of that stakeholder group.
In 57(f) could wording be amended from 'recreational fishers' to 'recreational marine users' as this would also cover divers, seabirders or others who recreationally use offshore areas for pleasure - it may be that a certain activity is more popular in one area than another causing a user group to not be included in consultation.
The stakeholder engagement strategy and list of information required are sufficient to ensure authentic and efficient stakeholder consultation.
4. Are the content requirements for a management plan listed in Division 4 of Part 2 of the proposed Regulations appropriate?
4.1 Are there any other matters that should or should not be addressed?
No
5. There is strong public interest in enabling public access to relevant and reliable information on OEI projects. Are management plan summaries an efficient and effective way to make information available to the community?
5.1 What are your concerns and how can they be addressed?
Management Plan summaries would provide a simpler access to relevant, reliable and approved information. I would also support the publishing of an annual sustainability statement/MP review of MP activities.
6. Do you think alternative approaches of publishing management plans in full (with necessary redactions), or requiring licence holders to publish management plans themselves is more efficient or appropriate than the current approach in the proposed Regulations?
6.1 What are the reasons for your answer?
In line with Q5 response, an annual update to the regulator on MP activities against the approved plan could be published. Licence holders themselves should publish a public version of their full MP. This may address social licence for the industry that the OER can faciliate and be a central place for public to be redirected to specific licensee/project information. If licensee's are publishing MP's on their own websites the social licence for both general public and business sectors can be built from here.
7. Is the list of matters that must be included in a management plan summary in section 71 of the proposed Regulations appropriate?
8. Is the list of matters that must be included in a design notification in subsection 93(2) of the proposed Regulations appropriate?
8.1. Are there any other matters that should be addressed?
Duration of construction, i.e. how (what equipment) and when (specified days/weeks/months) certain construction activities will take place. Construction activities will vary at different times during each project.
9. The design notification scheme only applies to transmission and infrastructure licences and commercial licences. Should the design notification scheme be extended to all licence types, so that it would also include feasibility licences and research and demonstration licences?
You should consider the following questions in drafting your response to question 10:
a. Should a certain level or standard for verification be prescribed? Why or why not?
b. Should independent third-party verification be required in all cases, or is it appropriate to allow verification to match the scale of a project?
Independent 3rd party verification should be the standard - is there an AASB guideline that can be applied? 3rd party verification is used already for charity audits, climate certifications etc. and should become the norm.
11. Subsection 102(1) of the proposed Regulations outlines a list of arrangements that may be treated as financial security. Is this list sufficient and appropriate?
12. The list of arrangements that may be treated as financial security in subsection 102(1) of the proposed Regulations uses the term “financial institution”. The proposed Regulations define the term “financial institution” as “a corporation that is an authorised deposit-taking institution (ADI) for the purposes of the Banking Act 1959”. Is this an appropriate definition?
13. Is the list of arrangements that may not be treated as financial security in subsection 103(1) of the proposed Regulations appropriate?
15. Subsection 103(2) of the proposed Regulations prescribes minimum characteristics that an acceptable form of financial security must possess. Do you believe these prescribed minimum characteristics are appropriate?
15. Should the Commonwealth restrict eligible financial institutions to those that meet certain credit rating requirements?
16. Once an amount of financial security has been provided, it may only be adjusted (either upwards or downwards) through a revision to the relevant management plan, submitted to and approved by the Regulator.
Is the revision of a management plan the appropriate process for managing changes to the provided amount of financial security, or should security adjustments be administered through a separate process?
Yes
17. Are the procedures around applying for a safety zone appropriate?
18. Section 113 of the proposed Regulations requires the Regulator to notify a licence holder if a safety zone application is made in relation to the licence holder’s licence area by a third party. Broadly, do you have any concerns with this arrangement?
No
19. Are the procedures around applying for a protection zone appropriate?
20. Section 126 of the proposed Regulations requires the Regulator to notify a licence holder if a protection zone application is made in relation to the licence holder’s licence area by a third party. Broadly, do you have any concerns with this arrangement?
No
21. Section 120 of the proposed Regulations provides that the maximum area for a protection zone is 1,852 metres on each side around the infrastructure it will protect. The size of the zone will be minimised to the extent practicable and will be case-specific.
Is 1,852 metres around each side of infrastructure an appropriate maximum size for a protection zone, considering that a protection zone may potentially prohibit or restrict the activities of other marine users?
Do you consider any specific activities should be prescribed under the proposed Regulations?
No
23. Divers and diving supervisors must hold appropriate qualifications under the Australian Diver Accreditation Scheme (ADAS).
Is an ADAS qualification an appropriate reference standard?
24. Subparagraphs 174B(2)(c)(i) and (ii) of the diving provisions of the proposed Regulations prescribe qualifications that demonstrate that a medical practitioner may conduct medical examinations for divers.
Should any be removed, or should any new qualifications be added?
No, this approach to work related diving seems appropriate for the industry
25. Section 173A of the diving provisions in the proposed Regulations requires a licence holder to give a start-up notice to the Regulator at least 28 days (unless otherwise agreed) before diving work begins on a diving project connected with the licence.
Noting that the Regulator will need sufficient time after receiving a start-up notice to review it and make further investigations, are there any concerns with the time period?
26. The diving provisions are modelled on Chapter 4 of the ‘Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety) Regulations 2009’. Therefore, there is an opportunity to further align the regulatory processes under both schemes. For example, it might be possible to provide that a diving safety management system accepted under one scheme was taken to be accepted under the other.
Considering the similarities and differences between the schemes, are there any risks or benefits with this dual recognition?
No this appears to be a consistent approach.
27. Item 49 of the work health and safety modifications prescribes certain events as dangerous incidents. Dangerous incidents will require an incident notification under section 38 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHS Act). Noting there are some circumstances in section 37 of the WHS Act which may not be relevant to OEI activities, are there any additional incident types that should be included as dangerous incidents for OEI activities?
No
27.1 Are the three new listed dangerous incidents appropriately categorised and described?
28. Chapter 9 of the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011 regulates “major hazard facilities”, which are facilities where certain chemicals are present above predetermined threshold quantities. Schedule 15 of the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011 prescribes the relevant chemicals and threshold quantities.
Are the types of chemicals and the quantities specified in Schedule 15 appropriate for the OEI context?
29. Regulations under the OEI Act may prescribe codes of practice that apply to OEI work. The proposed Regulations do not prescribe any codes given the need to undertake detailed evaluation, in collaboration with industry and representatives, of the appropriateness of each code to be prescribed under the OEI Act.
Are there any codes of practice currently under the WHS Act that could be adopted in the proposed Regulations (either as is or with minor modifications)?
Unsure
29.1 Should existing codes from other regimes be adopted?
Unsure
29.2 Alternatively, should bespoke codes tailored to the OEI context that are focused on specific issues (for example, diving, laying or repairing subsea electrical cables, vessel-based construction work, etc.) be produced for OEI activities?
Unsure
30. Subsections 134(1) and (2) of the proposed Regulations provide for certain types of records that licence holders must keep. Please note that the ability to prescribe types of records that must be kept is limited to the types of records mentioned in paragraphs 268(1)(a) and (b) of the OEI Act. Is it appropriate for licence holders to keep the certain types of records specified?
31. Subsections 134(3) and (4) of the proposed Regulations establish storage requirements for records that licence holders must keep. Are these appropriate?
32. Would organisations benefit from geophysical and geotechnical data being made publicly available?
32.1 Which organisations do you believe would benefit?
Any research organisation, other government department, general public/international community
33. How regularly should licence holders be required to submit survey data to the Commonwealth? For example, should it be provided on an annual basis, or more or less frequently?
It could be annually, in line with annual MP review statement (Q5/6), i.e. these surveys were conducted during this time period and now the data from these surveys is stored here. Licence holders can advise the OER if data is confidential/time sensitive at the time of annual submission. Independent locations for the publishing of data could include to AODN or IMSA (Index of Marine Surveys for Assessments). Data management including publication should consider the FAIR Data Principles.
34. For survey data that may be commercially sensitive, should there be an embargo period in which the data would not be published until the embargo period has ended?
34.1 What is a reasonable embargo timeframe or milestone that could trigger the release of data, either publicly or under licence?
The most reasonable trigger would be the management plan review, but acknowledgment of survey/data collection activities could take plan in annual MP statements
35. What offshore renewable energy supply chain components could be sourced from or manufactured in Australia and are there specific companies to support this?
Unsure
36. What approaches to maximising the use of local supply chains will support both the development of local suppliers and project economics?
Stakeholder consultations at project stages, if licence holders are publishing project information on their own websites then development of suppliers can take place through professional services registers etc.
Would you like to upload a submission as part of this consultation?
