Dutch-owned 'super' trawler "Geelong Star" has left Australian waters and will not be returning

Save Our Marine Life is celebrating the fact that the Dutch-owned factory trawler Geelong Star has left Australian waters and will not be returning.

The trawler has removed its Australian flag of convenience and been reflagged as Dutch – in the process its old name KW 172 Dirk Dirk has been re-instated.

ABC News reported on 24 November 2016 that:

The ship's departure came just before Labor and Greens members on a Senate committee recommended all mid-water trawlers be banned from fishing in Australian waters.

The committee had been investigating the environmental, social and economic impacts of super trawlers.

In 2012, ships known as super trawlers were prohibited from fishing in Australian waters, but the ban only applied to vessels over 130 metres, and not the Geelong Star, which is 95 metres.

Labor and Greens committee members also urged the Federal Government to appoint a National Recreational Fishing Council.

The report said public confidence in the management of Australia's fisheries needed to be enhanced, and it suggested the Australian Fisheries Management Authority publish information about fishing activity in the Small Pelagic Fishery regularly, such as bycatch quantities.

Liberal Senators Jonathon Duniam and David Bushby dissented from the recommendations, and said the Government was "committed to maintaining a balanced and science-based approach to all decisions regarding access to Commonwealth fisheries".

The Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications report into the Environmental, social and economic impacts of large-capacity fishing vessels commonly known as 'Supertrawlers' operating in Australia's marine jurisdiction was published in November 2016.

The Committee report stated:

1.46 The FV Geelong Star commenced fishing in the SPF on 2 April 2015.⁴⁰ The Geelong Star is a 3181 tonne factory freezer vessel with a hold capacity of 1061 tonnes. At 95.18 metres, the Geelong Star is the longest fishing vessel in the AFZ.⁴¹

1.47 The operation of the Geelong Star in the SPF is a joint enterprise between Seafish Tasmania and Dutch company Parlevliet & Van der Plas BV and its Australian subsidiary, Seafish Tasmania Pelagic Pty Ltd.⁴² The fish caught by the Geelong Star is shipped to export markets, usually in West Africa.⁴³

1.48 AFMA was notified that Seafish Tasmania had nominated the Geelong Star to fish its concessions in the SPF on 12 February 2015. Following registration of the Geelong Star as an Australian-flagged boat by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority,⁴⁴ AFMA confirmed that the vessel met its requirements. The Geelong Star commenced fishing in the SPF on 2 April 2015. As the Geelong Star is less than 130 metres in length, it is not affected by the ban introduced by the government in April 2015….

1.50 Since it commenced operating, AFMA has initiated various regulatory measures in response to mortalities of protected species caused by the operations of the Geelong Star. Various stakeholders are also concerned about the effect of the trawler's operations on other commercial fishing operations and recreational fishing activities. Both the fishing activities of the Geelong Star and the regulatory approach taken by AFMA have attracted controversy. 

1.51 Environmental non-government organisations expressed opposition to the activities of the Geelong Star and the approach taken to managing the SPF. Environment Tasmania and the Australian Marine Conservation Society both called on the government to 'enact a permanent ban on the operation of factory freezer trawlers in the Small Pelagic Fishery'.⁴⁵ The Conservation Council SA provided a list of recommendations regarding potential localised depletion, adverse environmental effects, how to minimise impacts on protected species and the presence of AFMA observers on the vessel. The Conservation Council SA called for vessels such as the Geelong Star to be banned from the fishery 'until management strategies', including the recommendations outlined in its submission, 'are in place to effectively minimise impacts on protected species'.⁴⁶

1.52 Recreational fishing interests are another key stakeholder group. Submitters in this group expressed concern about potential repercussions for the Australian recreational fishing sector from the operations of the Geelong Star. The Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation (ARFF) called for a moratorium on 'industry scale' fishing in areas of the SPF that are of concern to the recreational fishing sector. The ARFF argued that this moratorium should remain in place 'until a comprehensive assessment has been conducted to determine whether industrial scale fishing of the SPF is the highest and best use of the SPF, in our nation's interest and whether the small pelagic fishery should be commercially fished at all'.⁴⁷

1.53 Seafish Tasmania, the operator of the Geelong Star, argued that the use of a factory freezer trawler such as the Geelong Star is the only way that operations in the SPF can be commercially viable. Seafish Tasmania also advised that, over 11 years, it has worked within the regulatory arrangements to assist in developing management plans and strategies 'that support the sustainable management of the SPF'.⁴⁸ Seafish Tasmania added: 

The current management regime in the SPF, and in particular the conditions applied to the Geelong Star, are extremely strict. Clearly, they are designed  

to provide a high degree of public confidence that the operations of the vessel are being closely monitored and managed.⁴⁹

1.54 Seafish Tasmania concluded: 

The company has made substantial investments in supporting scientific surveys and more recently in bringing freezer trawlers from Europe to catch our quota and to produce high quality fish for human consumption. It is time to let us get on with the job of catching our quota.⁵⁰

1.55 Seafish Tasmania and the Small Pelagic Fishery Industry Association (SPFIA) also argued that the science-based management of the fishery and the statutory fishing rights associated with the vessel should be respected. For example, the SPFIA submitted: 

The impact of the continued political interventions in the management of the Small Pelagic Fishery is being felt well beyond the confines of this Association. Although SPF quota holders are effectively the primary target of the political attacks, there is widespread erosion of industry confidence in the ability of AFMA to manage fisheries in an independent, non-political and science based manner. Consequently, industry confidence in the quality and security of their Statutory Fishing Rights is being steadily undermined. 

In these destabilising circumstances, it should not be surprising if industry were to take a shorter term view of their investments reflecting the increased political risk being faced. This is exactly the situation that Government sought to avoid by providing the fishing industry with well defined, long term secure fishing rights to inspire operators to take economically responsible decisions and to look after the marine resources on which their businesses depend.⁵¹

1.56 Other commercial fishing interests urged the committee and other interested stakeholders to separate concerns about factory freezer vessels operating in the SPF, where resource sharing issues involving recreational fishers are important, and the operation of factory freezer trawlers in other fisheries. Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing, which has operated a factory freezer vessel in the blue grenadier fishery since 1988, urged the committee to separate 'what we see are two dissimilar issues', namely concerns about 'super trawlers' in the SPF and the operation of factory freezer trawlers elsewhere. It explained: 

The current community concern which has led to this inquiry is not necessary driven by the size or freezing capacity of the vessel or the science of the fishery, as evidenced in the blue grenadier fishery, but centres around resource sharing and access to a fish species that recreational fishers consider is a significant driver in maintaining healthy populations of key recreational species.⁵²……..

1.62 The Geelong Star is 95 metres long and, therefore, is not covered by the 130-metre definition of super trawler used for the ban. Nevertheless, the Geelong Star has commonly been referred to as a super trawler, including by the media and state governments.⁵⁸ In addition, some of the concerns expressed by groups that opposed the Margiris have similarly been applied to the Geelong Star. Some submitters also argued that there is only a marginal difference in the quota allocated to the Abel Tasman, which was banned, and vessels such as the Geelong Star that are not.⁵⁹ Other submitters, however, maintain that 'there is no correlation between vessel size and fishing power'.⁶⁰

1.63 On this issue, Mr Allan Hansard, Managing Director, Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation, commented: 'It is not necessarily the size of the boat; it is that intensity that we need to really focus on in this case'.⁶¹

1.64 From the perspective of the Stop the Trawler Alliance, which is an alliance of environment, fishing and tourism organisations established in 2012 in response to the Margiris, the principal issue is that a factory freezer vessel is operating in the SPF, not that a vessel of a certain size is operating.⁶²......

The end result was this:

Recommendation 1 

6.22 The committee recommends that the Australian government ban all factory freezer mid-water trawlers from operating in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery.

The full report can be read here.

Because the recommendation is not yet reflected in legislation and because there is some uncertainty about the reasons the trawler vacated Australian waters as well as a fear it may eventually return, concerned people should write to Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Barnaby Joyce MP and Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Senator Anne Ruston who have portfolio responsibility for fisheries management and to their federal MP calling on government to permanently ban all freezer mid-water trawlers from operating in Australian Small Pelagic Fisheries.

Save Our Marine Life has started a petition here. 

Multinational gas and petroleum giant BP withdraws from offshore exploration in the Great Australian Bight - for now.

Multinational gas and petroleum giant BP plc (British Petroleum) operating as BP Developments Australia Pty Ltd (BP), in its capacity as operator of the proposed Great Australian Bight (GAB) Exploration Drilling Program has announced that:

We have looked long and hard at our exploration plans for the Great Australian Bight but, in the current external environment, we will only pursue frontier exploration opportunities if they are competitive and aligned to our strategic goals. After extensive and careful consideration, this has proven not to be the case for our project to explore in the Bight.

Concerned citizens and environmental groups can see this as a win – even if business economics and the risk profile for mega storm in the Great Australian Bight may have had a much to do with this decision as the strength of community opposition.

However, it should be noted that BP does not appear to be abandoning its offshore petroleum exploration leases in the GAB which don’t expire until 2020* and, this multinational is not the only oil and gas corporation with exploration licenses in the area - Santos, Chevron and Murphy Australia Oil received exploration permits in 2013-2015 which are current until 2020-2021, Karoon Gas has a permit current until 2022, joining a Bight Petroleum Pty Ltd presence there not due to end until 2020-21.

Petroleum exploration leases current in GAB in 2016

Nor has the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) indicated that it is averse to further mining exploration being undertaken in the Great Australian Bight.

* BP had guaranteed to undertake exploration worth about $605 million and drill four exploration wells in 2016-17 and under a “Good Standing Agreement” entered into with the federal government it is reportedly liable for that amount unless it commits to a new project within Australia or its Norwegian joint venture partner StatOil decides to exercise an option to proceed with the GAB exploration program.

The trouble with blueberries....

An Coffs Harbour man and a Canadian multimillionaire decide to farm water-hungry blueberries in the Clarence Valley.

The Daily Examiner, 3 October 2016, p.12:

VOICES FOR THE EARTH

Media reports in August of a proposed 850 hectare blueberry development at Bawdens Bridge raise serious issues that add to growing community concerns about the industry.

The application to Water NSW to extract 66ML of water annually from the Orara River indicated the proposed orchard size would be just 30 hectares.

In a meeting with concerned neighbours, the proponent scoffed at rumours they intended to plant as much as 100ha, explaining there just wasn't enough available water.

That comment is supported by the Department of Primary Industry's Primefacts which states: "Water storage facilities of 2-3 megalitres per hectare are required for blueberry production".

Currently there is only 90ML available to the proponent as a harvestable right (collected run-off in dams), plus the 66ML from the river if the licence is approved. So where will the remaining 2000ML come from, and how will it be stored?

Council's director environment, planning and community, Des Schroder, was quoted in the media, describing the partnership between a Coffs Harbour grower and Vancouver businessman Luigi Aquilini, as providing "a multi- national presence in the region", and seemingly in awe of Mr Aquilini describing him as, "a Rupert Murdoch figure in Canadian business circles".

However, as the former manager of the NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation, Mr Schroder should be well aware that, in a drought year, there would be insufficient water in the Orara River to pump at all, much less irrigate 850ha of blueberries.

Proponents engaged in intensive horticulture can legally clear native vegetation, even supposedly protected vegetation, to build massive harvestable rights dams, and can transform the rural landscape into an industrial complex, covered end to end by netting or plastic, without applying for approval, or any need to consult honestly with neighbours.

So the industry needs to do much more to change that perception, and open and transparent consultation would be a good way to start.

John Edwards

Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition

BACKGROUND

The Land, 19 August 2016:

THE sale of Grafton’s old abattoir to Golden Eagle Berries and its planned conversion to packing and cold store signals a new direction for the Clarence Valley with the business saying it will require 1200 picking jobs by 2018 – as much as the abattoir ever used to employ.

Clarence land previously deemed too poor for agriculture remains very attractive to the industry as blueberry shrubs prefer an acid soil, well draining.

Last year Mr Dosanjh formed a partnership with Vancouver businessman Luigi Aquilini and together they are growing blueberries on 120ha at Clarenza and will develop another 850ha at Waterview Heights.

Mr Dosanjh is both excited and a little frightened of a bright berry future in the valley. There is potential for employment and career paths but high prices are overdue for correction. The new reality will require smart farming.

“Unless we can export blueberries the industry may go the way of bananas,” says Mr Dosanjh.

Fruit fly protocall for markets like Japan remains the greatest obstacle but cold storage at low temperatures will kill fruit fly larvae.

NSW Government Gazette No 21 of 24 March 2016:

WATER ACT 1912

An application under section 10 of the Water Act 1912 for a 150 Megalitre dam & 150mm pump on UNNAMED WATERCOURSE has been received from HARJAP SINGH DOSANJH for irrigation and farming purposes (150 megalitres) on Lot 137 DP 751362 Parish Clarenza County Clarence. (30SL067326)

An application under section 10 of the Water Act 1912 for a 150mm pump on ORARA RIVER has been received from DOSANJH INVESTMENTS PTY LTD for irrigation and farming purposes (66 megalitres) on Lot 262 DP 751383 Parish Rushforth County Clarence. (30SL067327)

Objections to the granting of this licence must be registered in writing to Locked Bag 10, Grafton NSW 2460 within 28 days of this notice. The objection must include your name and address and specify the grounds of objection. Any queries please call (02) 6641 6500.

PETER HACKETT Water Regulation Officer. Department of Primary Industries (DPI) Water

Clarence Environment Centre Newsletter Winter 2016:

There is no gazetted Water Sharing Plan for the Clarence River, with only a Draft Report Card for the Lower Orara River available on the DPI web site, which is now rendered obsolete by the permanent closure of the Nymboida Power Station.

We also learned that the proponent had already begun work on a very large dam on a local creek line known as “Chain of Ponds”, removing some 300m of gully vegetation. Enquiries to Council revealed that, despite the Local Environment Plan clearly indicating the water storages cannot be built on land of that zoning, the proponent can in fact construct a dam big enough to store the property's harvestable rights, without any approval. Those rights, for the 1000 hectare plus property, amount to some 90 megalitres annually.

Because blueberries are highly chemical dependent, there are other matters of concern, particularly the potential for pollution of the Orara River, which runs along the property's boundary. Pollution could impact on threatened species like the endangered Eastern Freshwater Cod, and the unique riparian vegetation community. Dominated by a mix of Black Bean (Castanospermum australe), Silky Oak (Grevillea Robusta) and Satinash (Syzygium floribundum), that community, to the best of our knowledge, only occurs along the lower reaches of the Orara and nowhere else in the world.

Vancouver Sun, 9 September 2013:

a vast family empire that owns the Vancouver Canucks hockey team, development companies, investment and hotel properties, North America’s largest blueberry and cranberry farms, and a lot more. The empire is wrapped up tightly in an extraordinarily complex trust system that Francesco’s father Luigi set up years ago to protect the family assets for his wife Elisa, their three sons Francesco, Roberto and Paolo, and others.

The multinational Aquilini empire outlined here.

Australian and foreign-owned companies who are laughing all the way to the bank

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED with an income of $14.90 billion stated it had no taxable income in in 2013-14 so paid no tax. Hmmmm…..

ENERGYAUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LTD earning 8.84 billion and EXXONMOBIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD bringing in $9.94 billion in that same financial year also had no tax to pay.

News Corp’s APN NEWS & MEDIA (owner of most of the regional newspapers in Northern NSW ) with a taxable income of $21.29 million in 2013-14 also paid no tax.

They are among the hundreds of Australian and foreign-owned companies with incomes of over $100 million a year which the Australian Tax Office (ATO) lists as paying no tax.

ATO Corporate Tax Transparency - 2013-14 Report of Entity Tax Information

Corporate tax transparency – further contextual background

Oxfam calls on major parties to address the fact that multinational tax dodging is costing Australia billions

Medianet Release
Multinational tax dodging costs us billions Nearly $AU9 billion that could be spent on schools, hospitals and critical infrastructure in Australia and in poor countries is instead being hidden by Australian-based multinationals in tax havens, according to an Oxfam report released today. According to The Hidden Billions – How tax havens impact lives at home and abroad, and based on the latest available data, tax haven use by Australian-based multinationals cost Australia around USD $5 billion (AUD $6 billion) in lost tax revenue annually, and cost developing countries an estimated USD $2.3 billion (AUD $2.8 billion) every year. The report is being launched with an online poll that shows 90 per cent of Australians polled think the Government should do more to stop multinational corporations avoiding paying tax in Australia and in every country in which they operate. Oxfam Australia Chief Executive Dr Helen Szoke said the report showed how much the public lose out when big companies do the wrong thing and governments don't step in and stop them. "The Oxfam report, for the first time, puts dollar figures on what Australians and poor people in our region are missing out on because Australian-based multinational companies aren't paying their fair share of tax like the rest of us," Dr Szoke said. The Oxfam-commissioned poll also found: ·         60 per cent of Australians polled believe the main thing the Federal Government should do to raise revenue is crackdown on tax avoidance by multinationals; ·         90 per cent of Australians polled believe the Federal Government should legislate to prevent all multinationals operating in this country from moving their profits to tax havens to avoid paying tax here; ·         87 per cent think that those Australian companies who operate in developing countries and in Australia should publicly report their earnings and how much tax they pay everywhere. Globally, tax-dodging is rampant in developing countries, with big companies ripping USD $172 billion (AUD $209 billion) of tax revenue out of their economies in 2014, money that could have been used to fight poverty and generate equality and prosperity. Dr Szoke also said The Hidden Billions report found that use of tax havens overseas by big businesses based in Australia would cost developing countries USD $4.1 billion (AUD $5.6 billion) in desperately needed revenue for essential public services over the next five years, including many of Australia's poorest neighbours. "Over the next five years, it's estimated that Indonesia will be deprived of around USD $360 million (AUD $493 million) that could have gone towards education, and PNG stands to lose around USD $17 million (AUD $23 million) in expenditure on essential services such as hospitals, schools and sanitation," Dr Szoke said. "This is shocking, given in PNG, 60 per cent of the population don't have access to clean water. "In Ghana, funding lost due to the use of tax havens by Australian-based multinationals could pay for an estimated additional 1,400 primary school teachers, and nearly 600 nurses, a year.  In The Philippines, an estimated 1,700 new classrooms per year could be built. "It doesn't have to be this way. Australia should show that it's tackling this issue by making the tax affairs of Australian-based multinationals public – not only for their operations in Australia, but for every country in which they operate. "Our research relies on IMF data, which shows the flow of money from Australian-based multinationals.  Unfortunately, there is no way to find out which individual companies are dodging tax, as they're not required to publish their tax affairs on a country-by-country basis."  Dr Szoke said this lack of public reporting enabled big companies to hide billions of dollars they should be paying in tax. "Other countries, including the US, France and Canada, have made tax reporting public for high-risk sectors in big business, such as for mining companies and big banks; it's time Australia caught up," she said. Dr Szoke said the report showed that Australia was a major part of this global problem that affected so many lives here and overseas. "With inequality worsening around the world, making the fight against poverty even harder, companies must pay their fair share of taxes, so that the revenue can be used to improve people's lives, both here and for the world's poorest people," Dr Szoke said. Oxfam is calling on all political parties to commit to: ·         Make tax transparent at home and abroad; ·         Curb irresponsible use of tax havens; ·         Make multinational ownership information public; ·         Support developing countries with tax infrastructure, and, ·         Support global action to end tax dodging. Notes to editors: Research Now conducted the online poll of a nationally representative sample of 1009 Australians, from 25-27 May.
	© Australian Associated Press, 2016

Adani threatens to take his bat and ball and go home - half the Australian east coast rushes to open the door

Essential Research poll, commissioned by environmental activists 350.org, The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 December 2015:

The Australian, 4 June 2016:

Indian billionaire Gautam Adani may abandon his proposed $16 billion coalmine in central Queensland if environmentalists continue to delay the project in the courts.

In his first interview with the Australian media, Mr Adani said he was disappointed the “pit to plug’’ project had yet to receive the green light after six years of environmental assessments and court battles.

Mr Adani, who late last year appealed to Malcolm Turnbull to act over the legal activism, said he hoped the court challenges to Australia’s largest proposed coalmine would be finalised early next year.

With one court case yet to be heard in the Federal Court, and at least two groups threatening High Court action, Mr Adani warned he could not wait indefinitely. The self-made billionaire, who plans to export up to 60,000 tonnes a year of Australian coal through the Great Barrier Reef, said he was already scouting alternatives to feed his power stations in India.

“You can’t continue just holding,’’ he said at the headquarters of his $US26 billion ($36bn) energy and infrastructure conglomerate in Ahmedabad, northwest India. “I have been really disappointed that things have got too delayed.’’

Mr Adani confirmed he had met the Prime Minister last December to implore him to deliver greater certainty on projects like his proposed Carmichael mine. It is forecast to deliver thousands of jobs to the economically depressed central Queensland region. “We were suggesting how to bring in the certainty of the timings,’’ he said. “We were asking how we get certainty of the time schedules … that is the most important for us in committing all of our resources.’’

The Carmichael mine, rail and port project promises to open up the untapped Galilee coal province to other mega-mines, including one being planned by Gina Rinehart in a joint venture with another Indian giant, GVK.

Mr Adani’s comments come after the focus of the federal election this week turned to measures to tackle coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef and climate change…..

Australian Federal Election 2016: which major political party is likely to put brakes on the petroluem industry's risky commercial ambitions in the Great Australian Bight?

For the second time in less than a year multinational gas and petroleum giant BP plc (British Petroleum) has not met all environmental assessment criteria according to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA):

BP Developments Australia Pty Ltd (BP), in its capacity as operator of the proposed Great Australian Bight (GAB) Exploration Drilling Program proposes to drill four exploration wells in Commonwealth marine waters in the GAB. Exact well locations are yet to be determined for all wells; however they will be drilled within a defined ‘drilling area’. The drilling area is the previously acquired Ceduna 3D seismic survey area, which covers 12,100 km2 across Exploration Permit for Petroleum (EPP) 37, EPP 38, EPP 39 and EPP 40. BP and Statoil are the registered titleholders of EPPs 37, 38, 39 and 40, with BP being the Operator. The drilling area has water depths ranging between 1,000 and 2,500 m Lowest Astronomical Tide. At the closest point, the drilling area is located approximately 395 km west of Port Lincoln and 340 km southwest of Ceduna in South Australia (SA). The project is scheduled to commence in the summer of 2016-2017, with each well taking between 45 and 170 days to drill. The wells will be drilled using a dynamically positioned semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU). The purpose of the drilling program is to determine whether the target formations have commercially recoverable volumes of hydrocarbons. Additional project details are available on BP’s project website www.bpgabproject.com.au.

National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, 17 May 2016:

On 16 May 2016, NOPSEMA provided BP an opportunity to modify and resubmit their environment plan for exploration drilling in the Great Australian Bight. If BP accepts this opportunity, the modified plan is expected to be resubmitted by 15 July, at which time NOPSEMA will recommence the assessment.

An opportunity to modify and resubmit is a normal part of NOPSEMA’s environment plan assessment process. In fact, NOPSEMA is required by law to provide a titleholder (the company proposing the activity) a reasonable opportunity to modify and resubmit their plan if it doesn’t meet the regulatory requirements for acceptance. NOPSEMA will typically provide two opportunities to modify and resubmit, but is not restricted to providing only two opportunities.

If a titleholder has been given a reasonable opportunity to modify their plan and NOPSEMA determines that it still doesn’t meet the regulatory requirements for acceptance then NOPSEMA will refuse to accept the plan. Since NOPSEMA was established on 1 January 2012, 4% of all environment plans submitted for assessment have been refused.

NOPSEMA has updated the status of the assessment on the Great Australian Bight Exploration Drilling Program submission page. Stakeholders are encouraged to subscribe to the page to receive email alerts of any changes.

For more information about the environment plan assessment process see NOPSEMA’s Assessment process and FAQ pages at nopsema.gov.au.

The Wilderness Society re-released this animated graphic on 17 May 2016:

The oil and gas independent regulator, NOPSEMA, has handed down its decision. It has once again knocked back BP’s environment plan. BP has shown it has learnt nothing from its Gulf of Mexico disaster.

BP now has the opportunity to resubmit its application to drill in the Great Australian Bight as early as July. However, BP still hasn’t released its oil spill modelling, so we released independent modelling which shows some the far-reaching impacts of a potential spill.

https://youtu.be/B5OnMGtx1cQ

An explanation of NOPSEMA’s environmental approval process can be found here.

BP currently owes the United States of America an est. US$7.1 billion in fines and compensation for the environmental damage caused by it Deepwater rig oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

This multinational is not the only oil and gas corporation with exploration permits in the Great Australian Bight - Santos, Chevron and Murphy Australia Oil received exploration permits in 2013-2015 which are current until 2020-2021. Joining Bight Petroleum Pty Ltd in the race to drill and be damned.

Petroluem exploration leases current in 2016

In November 2013 the Abbott Government ordered a review of certain national marine reserves. In effect by establishing this review it sought to block any increase in level of environmental protection afforded the Great Australian Bight when the GAB Commonwealth Marine Reserve was extended to cover 45,926 km2 with a depth range of 15 to 6,000 metres as part of a wider extension of national marine reserves by the former Labor federal government.

At the time of writing unpublished review recommendations have been in the hands of the Turnbull Government since December 2015 and to date mining exploration is still allowed within the waters of these south-west marine reserves at the discretion of the government of the day.

Although the current petroleum leases appear to be adjacent to but outside the boundaries of the GAB Commonwealth Marine Reserve it is clear from the aforementioned major spill modelling that oil/chemical contamination would reach both this reserve and major commercial fishing grounds within the Bight and Bass Strait.

Before casting your vote on 2 July 2016  you might consider this question: Which major political party is likely to put the brakes on these risky commercial ambitions in the Great Australian Bight?

BP plc BACKGROUND AS A SERIAL OFFENDER

Corporate Research Project, accessed 18 May 2016:

Starting about 2000, BP attempted the difficult feat of depicting itself as an environmentally friendly oil company. Some of its initiatives were merely symbolic—adopting a sunburst logo and claiming that its initials now stood for “Beyond Petroleum”—while others were concrete steps, such as (modest) investments in solar power. BP’s campaign was all the more difficult because of its involvement in controversial Alaskan oil and gas production, and because its environmental compliance record was far from unblemished.

For example, in 1990 BP agreed to pay a $2.3 million fine as part of a settlement of an $11 million suit that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brought against the company in connection with illegal discharges from BP's Marcus Hook refinery into the Delaware River. Several months later the state of California sued the company over a 400,000-gallon spill of crude oil that occurred in February 1990 near Huntington Beach.

In July 1991 BP was one of ten major oil companies the EPA cited for discharging contaminated fluids from service stations into or directly above underground sources of drinking water. BP agreed to pay a fine of $74,000, and to clean up the contaminated water sources by the end of 1993.

In 1992 the EPA charged BP Chemicals with violating hazardous waste laws at its plant in Lima, Ohio, and sought almost $600,000 in penalties.

In 2000 a federal judge imposed a $500,000 criminal fine on BP for failing to report the illegal disposal of hazardous waste on Alaska’s North Slope. The company was also ordered to establish a national environmental management system to prevent future violations. The total cost to the company from this and a related civil matter was said to be more than $20 million.

In 2002 BP was fined £1 million by UK authorities for violating safety regulations in connection with several accidents at a refinery in Grangemouth, Scotland (later sold by BP).

In 2003 California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District filed an omnibus complaint against BP, seeking $319 million in penalties for thousands of air pollution violations over an 8-year period at the company’s refinery in Carson. BP acquired that facility through its purchase of Atlantic Richfield in 2000. The agency later filed another suit against BP for $183 million. In 2005 the parties reached a settlement under which BP agreed to pay $25 million in cash penalties and $6 million in past emissions fees while spending $20 million on environmental improvements at the refinery and $30 million on community programs focused on asthma diagnosis and treatment.

In 2005 BP was accused of trying to cover up deficiencies in the anti-corrosion coating on the 1,000-mile-long Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that carries oil from Azerbaijan to the Mediterranean. BP is the lead participant in the joint venture that operates the pipeline, the largest shareholder in the consortium that owns it, and the operator of the oil fields that supply it.

In March 2006 more than 250,000 gallons of crude oil spilled at BP’s Prudhoe Bay operations in the Alaskan tundra. Several month later, the company shut down the huge Prudhoe Bay oil field because of additional leakage caused by corrosion in the transit line that carried crude oil to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. There were press reports that BP had been warned of the problem more than two years earlier. In May 2007 the House Energy Committee released documents suggesting that cost-cutting pressures weakened preventive maintenance and other safety practices in the period leading up to the leaks.

In October 2007 BP agreed to pay a total of $60 million in fines to the EPA. The amount included $50 million for violations of the Clean Air Act in connection with the 2005 explosion at the Texas City, Texas refinery in which 15 workers were killed. The company also pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the act and was to serve three years of probation. Apart from the fine, BP agreed to spend $265 million for a facility-wide study of its safety valves and a renovation of its flare system to prevent excess emissions.

At the same time, BP agreed to pay the EPA a $12 million fine in connection with the March 2006 oil spill in Alaska, pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act, and was ordered to serve three years probation on this offense as well. The company was also required to replace 16 miles of pipeline at a cost of $1.56 billion.

Later, in October 2010, BP agreed to pay $15 million in Clean Air Act penalties in connection with violations at the Texas City refinery.

In 2008 BP and several other oil majors agreed to pay $422 million to settle suits that had been brought by public water systems in 20 states and consolidated in federal court relating to the contamination of groundwater supplies by the carcinogenic gasoline additive MTBE.

At its annual meeting in mid-April 2010, BP faced a barrage of criticism over its involvement in controversial tar sands oil production in Canada.

Only days after that meeting, BP had to contend with a much bigger problem: an explosion at its Deepwater Horizon oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico that killed 11 workers and opened a massive underwater oil leak. While the disaster continued, government investigators were looking into indications that BP pushed for work on the well to move ahead despite evidence of unsafe conditions……

Read the full post here.

The Turnbull Government and multinational tax avoidance

On 2 October 2014 the Australian Senate referred the matter of corporate tax avoidance and aggressive minimisation to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day of June 2015 and, after repeated extensions, on 2 May 2016 the Senate granted the committee a further extension to report by 30 September 2016. 

The committee’s interim reports clearly indicated that the Australian taxation system was being gamed by foreign-based multinationals using aggressive tax practices such as avoidance of permanent establishment, excessive debt loading, aggressive transfer pricing, and the use of tax havens.

On 11 December 2015 the C’wealth Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law (MAAL) came into effect and, its provisions applied from 1 January 2016 to corporations with global annual incomes of AU$1 billion and over and consolidated groups with a parent entity having a global annual income of AU$1 billion and over.

MAAL was designed to counter the erosion of the Australian tax base by multinational entities using artificial or contrived arrangements to avoid a taxable presence in Australia, adding to anti-tax avoidance measures already found in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.

However, less than three months later on 26 April 2016, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) discovered that some taxpayers are entering into artificial and contrived arrangements to avoid the application of the MAAL.

On 3 May 2016 the Turnbull Government released a consultation paper on its proposed Diverted Profits Tax (DPT).

The DPT will impose a 40 per cent tax rate on corporations and consolidated groups with global annual incomes in excess of AU$1 billion that reduce the tax paid on the profits generated in Australia by more than 20 per cent by diverting those profits to low tax jurisdictions. The government hopes to have this new law in place by 1 July 2017.

According to the consultation paper both the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law and the Diverted Profits Tax are based on Britain’s diverted profits tax introduced on 1 April 2015.

One can only hope that both these laws will be more effective than the U.K. law on which they are based. Because less than eight months after that law was introduced it was found to be ineffective in stopping large multinationals from diverting profits to low tax jurisdictions. As an example, Google with its U.K. advertising revenue held in low taxing Ireland had not had to make payments under the new diverted profits tax.

There is no way that multinationals operating in Australia will not mount legal challenges if the ATO attempts to impose penalties under provisions in MAAL and DPT. 

To some extent the loser will always be federal government revenue because, successful or otherwise, the corporate millions spent in legal fees fighting the tax man are apparently tax deductible.

Australian Federal Election 2016: it couldn't happen to a more deserving multinational

The Australian, 28 April 2016:

Broadspectrum has entered a trading halt this morning as it seeks to clarify the impact of a potential closure of the Manus Island detention centre.

The detention centre operator’s Manus Island contract is highly lucrative and investors fear it may be taken away after the PNG Supreme Court labelled the detention centre “unconstitutional and illegal” this week.

That ruling preceded PNG Prime Minister Peter O’Neill’s assertion on Wednesday that the centre would “now be closed”, but there remains little clarity on the way forward with the Commonwealth insisting the asylum seekers will not come to Australia.

“The trading halt is requested following press speculation in relation to developments following the PNG Supreme Court decision and their possible impact on Broadspectrum,” the firm said in a statement.

It said it intended to release an update on Friday, April 29.

The action has come as an $800 million takeover offer for Broadspectrum appeared likely to fall over before Monday’s deadline.

In May 2016 Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd formerly Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd has barely ten months left to run on its $2.189 billion contract with the Australian Government to provide operational, welfare and security services to asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island, so it is highly likely that there will be relatively low compensation payable to this multinational corporation flowing from the closure of the both Nauru and Manus Island off-shore detention centres.

Perhaps this is the moment that the federal government can finally begin to rid itself of a corporation plagued by allegations of human rights violations and violence.