Submission

a

Draft

Consultation

WA Work Health and Safety (Resources)

Bill

August 2015

Page | 2

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 3

APPEA AND THE AUSTRALIAN OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY .............................................................................. 3

THE BENEFITS OF A CONTEMPORARY REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 4

ENSURING A HOLISTIC REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA .................................................... 4

DELIVERING CONSISTENT REGULATION .................................................................................................... 5

KEY POINTS ................................................................................................................................................. 6

MARSDEN JACOB ASSOICATES CONSULTATION PAPER ................................................................................ 8

COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC ISSUES IN WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (RESOURCES) BILL .................................. 9

OBJECTS .......................................................................................................................................... 9

DEFINITONS .................................................................................................................................... 9

OTHER COMMENTS ON THE WA WHS(R) BILL .......................................................................................... 11

BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................................... 14

Submission

a

INTRODUCTION

The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) appreciates the

opportunity to work with the Western Australian (WA) Government’s Ministerial Advisory Panel

(MAP) and the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) on proposed reforms to WA’s safety

legislation applying to mining, petroleum and major hazard industries.

APPEA supports the WA Government’s work in modernising and streamlining safety legislation

applying to oil and gas operations both onshore and offshore, through the adoption of objective

and risk based regulation, whilst emphasising the need to ensure consistency both across oil and

gas regulation in WA and with the Commonwealth for offshore oil and gas activities and operations.

The nature of this submission is to provide further discussion and input to assist DMP with achieving

an optimum legislative solution and Draft Bill. APPEA supports or does not support a number of

aspects of the reform process, and also makes a number of proposals and raises questions that seek

to achieve greater clarify. In some cases amendments to certain provisions of the WA Work Health

and Safety (Resources) Bill will be required.

Importantly however, the oil and gas industry in WA strongly support the maintenance of a separate

regulatory regime for the oil and gas sector e.g. separate from mining but aligned with major hazard

facilities. This is largely as a result of the integrated nature and risk profile of, in particular, offshore

petroleum activities and operations. This risk profile is different because it includes inherent

process safety hazards associated with significant quantities of hydrocarbons under pressure.

The primary driver and measurement of any regulatory change must be to achieve better safety

outcomes and to reduce and avoid introducing any new unnecessary prescription and regulatory

burden.

APPEA AND THE AUSTRALIAN OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

APPEA is the peak national body representing Australia’s oil and gas exploration and production

industry. Its member companies account for around 98 per cent of Australia’s total oil and gas

production and the vast majority of exploration.

Across Australia, almost $200 billion is being invested in oil and gas projects including seven major

liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects that will add to the three LNG projects and result in 21

complex LNG process trains operating across Australia. By 2020, the sector’s economic contribution

will more than double to $70 billion and taxation paid will rise from $8.8 billion in 2012 ($4.9 billion

in corporate taxes and $3.8 billion in production taxes) to reach almost $13 billion. The stakes are

high in realising the industry’s potential benefits.

With this huge investment and extensive oil and gas activity, the Australian oil and gas industry is

committed to demonstrating it has uniformly high standards in place at all times to protect the

safety, integrity and health of people, the environment and our communities.

Page | 4

THE BENEFITS OF A CONTEMPORARY REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Given the substantial benefits to the national and WA economies, regulation of the oil and gas

industry should be designed and implemented to promote the necessary high standards of

performance and risk management for equipment integrity (wells and facilities), safety, health and

environment without imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens.

In Western Australia, as across all of Australia, the high cost of doing business and declining

international competitiveness has also focussed government attention on ensuring that regulation

does not provide a disincentive to investment, and driven a regulatory reform agenda to remove

obsolete regulation and reduce duplication, inconsistency and complexity. For the workforce,

stakeholders and community, effective regulation sets clear and transparent standards that reflect

community expectations and provides an enforcement solution for non-compliance.

APPEA has been an active partner with the Commonwealth and state/territory governments and

regulators over many years in developing the current regulatory frameworks and industry practice

governing safety, structural integrity and environment for oil and gas activities and operations. At

the same time however, unnecessary, overly administratively complex and duplicative regulation

has increasingly placed a costly and inefficient burden on oil and gas projects without contributing

to raising standards or performance outcomes. It is vital that any policy and regulatory changes are

clear, objective and technically justified, and that they genuinely provide independent scrutiny and

assurance to stakeholders and the community that the risks associated with oil and gas operations

are managed in line with world’s best practice.

APPEA therefore acknowledges the commitment of the WA Government and the Department of

Mines and Petroleum to address this regulatory burden through modernising and streamlining

safety regulation applying to WA based oil and gas operations and activities both onshore and

offshore in adjacent waters.

ENSURING A HOLISTIC REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

1 Dr T. Hunter, ‘Regulation of Shale, Coal Seam and Tight Gas Activities in Western Australia’, http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/documents/000041.jason.medd(1).pdf , P. 19 [Accessed 7/5/14]

Figure 1 – The regulation of upstream petroleum at DMP1

Page | 5

The safety, environment and

resource management

components of a petroleum

activity need to be

considered as a holistic

system/nexus that mitigates

risk. The regulatory

framework should encourage

interaction across these

regulations, including by ensuring a common approach to regulation. Protecting people and the

environment, while enabling the commercial extraction of hydrocarbons, is a highly complex

operation which requires an integrated approach to safety, environment and well design and

construction.

There is therefore a need to ensure consistency of approaches across the key regulatory areas

that DMP oversees for petroleum operations, including the safety, health and integrity of facilities

(safety case), environmental risks and impacts arising from petroleum activities (environment

plan) and the maintenance of well integrity (well management plan). These three key

‘permissioning’ documents often cover activities that can interrelate, include common

performance standards (e.g. for well integrity hazards, risks and controls), and can cross-reference

each other at key points. It is therefore critical that the underpinning principles and approaches

across these areas are consistent and are able to facilitate cross-referencing, which also helps to

reduce duplication.

DELIVERING CONSISTENT REGULATION

The consistency of regulation, or the extent to which jurisdictions take a similar approach to

regulating activities, is a key focus for APPEA. Consistency of regulation provides certainty to

companies operating across multiple jurisdictions which can subsequently reduce the cost of

doing business. It can also encourage the adoption of best practice across jurisdictions.

Interactions between the Commonwealth & Western Australian Governments

Consistency of regulation across the three regulatory zones in Western Australia (including onshore areas, areas within three nautical miles of the coastline and areas beyond the three nautical mile mark as shown in Figure 2) is critical for providing an efficient regulatory framework for petroleum activities. While APPEA recognises that these three zones are regulated by two separate bodies, consistency should be a key consideration in the design of any regulations impacting these areas. The importance of this consistency was recognised by the State/Territory/Federal Governments as a means of addressing the numerous Acts, directions and regulations relating to offshore safety. As noted in the nine principles for offshore regulation agreed by the Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources: “a consistent national approach to offshore safety regulation in both Commonwealth and State/NT waters is essential for the most cost-effective delivery of

Page | 6

safety outcomes in the offshore petroleum industry.”2 Such an approach provides industry with certainty by ensuring that the rules for operating are the same regardless of where an activity might occur.

KEY POINTS

Modernise and Streamline: APPEA supports modernising and streamlining safety legislation

applying to oil and gas operations both onshore and offshore, through the adoption of objective

and risk based regulation that:

o is consistent with international best practice;

o clarifies Robens’ duty of care based concepts for today’s complex workplaces and

structures;

o reflects contemporary thinking on how to reduce and mitigate risks to as low as

reasonably practicable in high hazard industries;

o provides flexibility to allow for the implementation of new and emergent technologies

as they become available, and which is designed to lead to continuous improvement in

health and safety, structural integrity and environmental performance; and

o achieves consistency with the Commonwealth’s regulation of offshore petroleum

operations and activities.

Well established Safety Case Regime in place for oil and gas operations: The oil and gas

industry has over many years developed an integrated and sophisticated approach, consistent

with international best practice, to managing and mitigating risk throughout the lifecycle of

operations, including in the early design phase. Safety case regulation built upon safety

management systems, is already fully implemented for offshore operations, onshore

petroleum facilities and for Major Hazard Facilities, and provides for continuous improvement

to respond effectively to changes in technology and nature/risk profile. The recent WA

Legislative Assembly’s Economics and Industry Standing Committee Inquiry into Floating

Liquefied Natural Gas (FLNG) safety‐related matters provides a useful summary of the safety

regulation of oil and gas operations.3

Integrated nature of operations offshore: It is APPEA’s view that there is a compelling rationale

for maintaining a separate regulatory regime for oil and gas operations, but one that is closely

aligned to that applying to Major Hazard Facilities (MHF) and consistent with the principles of

the general Work Health and Safety Bill 2014 (the Green Bill), subject to some qualifications

and concerns with some specific provisions. Oil and gas operations are by their nature

integrated and cover a complex range of activities, such as:

o subsea wells and infrastructure

2 ‘Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources nine (9) principles for offshore industry regulation – 4th March 2—2’, Department of Mines and Petroleum, http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/documents/MCMPR_Principles_for_offshore_industry_regulation.pdf, [Accessed 7/5/14]. 3 Report No. 5 Presented by Mr I.C. Blayney, MLA: Laid on the Table of the Legislative Assembly on 7 May 2015

Page | 7

o offshore facilities

o vessels doing work on petroleum facilities

o onshore wells, infrastructure and pipelines

o onshore facilities which are MHFs, e.g. LNG trains

The safety and integrity of oil and gas structures and wells is inherently integrated with risk to

the environment, for example with the loss of well control providing the single biggest safety

and environmental risk faced by the oil and gas industry. It would seem that the consolidation

approach proposed by the proposed Work Health and Safety (Resources) Bill, (the WHS(R) Bill),

which attempts to regulate mining, MHFs and oil and gas through one Act, is based on

administrative convenience rather than best practice regulation of an integrated, high risk

offshore and onshore petroleum operations.

Industry is not convinced that full consolidation of resources health and safety legislation will

deliver any net risk or cost benefit in regards to the oil and gas sector, and may in fact introduce

additional complexity and risk at the critical point of interaction between subsea wells, facilities

and the environment.

APPEA notes and supports recent changes within the Department of Mines and Petroleum

(DMP) to establish an expert regulator model similar to NOPSEMA, with the employment of

industry‐trained experts with the appropriate skills and competencies for regulating high risk

industries.

APPEA endorses the consolidation of the safety provisions in multiple legislative instruments

applying to petroleum into a single Act and recognises a need for adequate transitional

provisions to be agreed with the oil and gas industry.

APPEA acknowledges that there are some differences between the current safety regulatory

approach to onshore versus offshore ‘petroleum operations and activities’ and pipelines, with

the onshore regime containing general OHS provisions and safety management systems and

the offshore and pipeline regimes requiring safety cases; but all petroleum operations require

environment plans and well management plans (from offshore through onshore), and the focus

is fundamentally on the titleholder/operator demonstrating the existence of management

systems and processes that will mitigate risk to As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) and

deliver safe and sustainable operations.

In the event the WA Government does pursue a single Work Health and Safety (Resources) Bill,

APPEA’s support would be contingent on clarification and potential amendments to some

provisions of the current draft of the Bill.

Support Contingent on reviewing supporting regulations: APPEA’s support would also be

contingent on reviewing the detail of the accompanying Regulations. The supporting

regulations are critical to APPEA’s support for the Bill, being as they are the mechanism by

which the different resources industry sectors will be regulated, and given the integrated

nature of the Bill and supporting regulations. It is anticipated that the accompanying

regulations will address the practical implementation and administration requirements, as is

addressed in the relevant current petroleum safety regulations.

APPEA therefore recommends that the full package of proposed legislation be considered

together for each sector.

Page | 8

No support for introducing new prescription: APPEA does not support the introduction or

rollover from the general work health and safety legislation of prescriptive regulation for oil

and gas.

Support for alignment: APPEA supports the move to align the safety case approach across

major hazard facilities (MHF) and oil and gas operations, recognising that this assists with

achieving an integrated approach to the oil and gas industry’s safety cases for both oil and gas

operations and petroleum MHFs (LNG trains onshore).

General WHS provisions: APPEA also supports the move to have DMP take over what were

WorkSafe WA’s responsibilities for general work health and safety. This will reduce the number

of regulators and achieve a consistent regulatory approach, which should, again in the long run,

reduce compliance costs.

MARSDEN JACOB ASSOICATES CONSULTATION PAPER

In regard to the Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement, prepared by Marsden Jacob Associates

for DMP, APPEA would make the following brief points:

The paper was very light on analysis of the issues or any demonstrable understanding of the

very different risk profiles, economic value and structural differences within the resources

sector, and was heavily mining focussed.

The paper demonstrated little understanding of the current regulation of the oil and gas

industry in WA, and therefore little understanding of what the changes actually imply for the

onshore and offshore oil and gas sectors.

The paper demonstrated little understanding of the workforce and skills profile of the oil and

gas industry, with much of the workforce made up of highly skilled process manufacturing

maintenance and operational technician/operators/engineers.

There was no real analysis of the major risk profile and safety performance of the oil and gas

industry (whilst DMP may not have sufficient data, there are many other credible sources

including APPEA’s historical data collected through PwC, the International Oil and Gas

Producers Association, NOPSEMA, UK HSE Executive).

Cost Benefit Analysis: The basis of the cost analysis (e.g. cost of training would be $25 per

worker), taken as it is from some work undertaken in 2009 by Access Economics, is out of date,

inaccurate and insubstantial. APPEA supports the Chamber of Minerals and Energy

consideration that, as a minimum, resource facility operator will be required to:

o Conduct a gap analysis of current procedures against the requirements of the new

legislation to identify if any amendments were required;

o Update legislative references in documents; and

o Conduct training across all levels of the workforce.

In regard to the issue of cost burden, APPEA notes the delay in progression of the WA Work

Health and Safety Bill 2014 (the Green Bill), and notes that the KPMG report to Safe Work

Australia in November 2014 on ‘The economic impact of WHS harmonisation’ did find a

significant additional cost to businesses and government entities due to harmonization. KPMG

though still concluded that the net benefits for all industries across Australia justified

Page | 9

harmonisation, especially over the longer run as the full benefits of achieving consistency across

regulatory regimes were realised.

COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC ISSUES IN WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (RESOURCES) BILL

OBJECTS

Section 3 (a) and (aa) address the need to eliminate or minimise risks at resources facilities

operations or resources facility arising from work, plant or substances. The definition of

‘resources facility operations’ then refer to ‘petroleum operations’ but not to ‘petroleum

facilities’. The stated object is therefore focussed on eliminating or minimising risks at

petroleum operations arising out of work, plant or substances. The object is not limited by

‘so far as is reasonably practicable’, which is a central and well established principle of risk

management and addressed in Section 17 of the Bill under management of risks. APPEA

recommends objects (a) and (b) be qualified by the concept of ‘so far as is reasonably

practicable’.

Whilst it would appear to be analogous, APPEA would seek assurance that the legal

concept of ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ which is embedded across all of Australia’s oil

and gas industry safety management is legally the same as ‘so far as is reasonably

practicable’.

In regards to section 3 (ab), APPEA proposes that this be amended to make clear the

different approach triggered by a safety management system versus a safety case, given

that the latter also require a safety management system.

APPEA also notes that it is the’ resources facility operators’ that must develop, implement

and maintain e.g. a safety case. This definition is then clarified as the ‘petroleum operator’

who has overall control of the operations (resources, management, planning and

operations) and is the person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) who is

registered by the regulator; but the definition of ‘resources facility operator’ also contains

the concept of ‘resources facility’ which in turn is defined as ‘an onshore or offshore

petroleum facility’. So, the safety case would appear to be the responsibility of the

petroleum operator for a facility (see comment on definitions below). APPEA has concerns

that the confusing nature of the interlinked ‘resources’ definitions, in attempting to cover

very different scenarios between the different industry sectors, could make interpretation

and application unnecessarily complex.

DEFINITONS

APPEA understands the definitions used in the WHS(R) Bill remain under development and

are likely to be provided to the Ministerial Advisory Panel (MAP.

APPEA recommends the final proposed drafting of the definitions be released for industry

comment as a matter of priority.

Page | 10

APPEA is of the view the current definitions of ‘resources facility operator’, ‘offshore

petroleum facility’, ‘petroleum operation’, ‘petroleum operator’ require further

consideration and clarification before the Bill is finalised. In particular, APPEA would seek

clarification on the intent to have a safety case triggered for a facility or for petroleum

operations that could be contiguous.

Exploration Activities: APPEA does not support the extension of the safety case regime to

certain oil and gas exploration activities such as Seismic and survey vessels not related to

the drilling or extraction/production or transport of hydrocarbons

Certain Exclusions from Safety Case Requirements: APPEA supports the specific exclusions

in the current DMP and NOPSEMA regimes being retained.

APPEA notes that the ‘petroleum operator’ will be the person in overall control and

registered, and this could include a drilling contractor of a MODU (as the facility operator)

being registered as the operator or one titleholder nominated as the operator as part of a

joint venture arrangement. Other parties will also retain duties, including the titleholder

in the case of a Modular Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU), and other titleholders in the case

of a joint venture arrangement.

APPEA recommends the provision dealing with a situation where no selection of an

operator has been made under section 5G (3) should be removed. An operator must be

registered.

Site Senior Executive: APPEA recommends an amendment to the definition of ‘site senior

executive’. Current definition of SSE as the most senior natural person representing the

resources facility operator at the site’ could be problematic. APPEA recommends the

definition be amended so that the resources facility operator must ensure that a person is

appointed as the ‘operator’s representative’ who has the day to day management and

control of that facility and that such a person is there at all times. It must always be clear

who that person is at any point in time and the details should be displayed in a prominent

place. APPEA does not support the need for any guidance on the ‘qualifications’ of such a

person for the oil and gas sector, but it should be clear that they do have the capacity and

authority to have day to day management and control.

Potential Unintended Consequences:

o APPEA is concerned the inclusion of ‘accommodation’ (as defined in clause 4 of the

WHS(R) Bill) in the definitions of ‘mining operations’ and ‘petroleum operations’

may have the unintended consequence of ‘accommodation’ being considered to

be a ‘workplace’. This is because clause 8 of the WHS(R) Bill defines a ‘workplace’

as ‘a place where resources operations are carried out for a business or

undertaking’.

o APPEA supports the concerns raised by the CME that the inclusion of

‘accommodation’ as a ‘workplace’ for resources operators may have unintended

consequences for right of entry by entry permit holders.

o APPEA supports CME’s recommendation that a mechanism to ensure there is no

unintended extension of right of entry entitlements to residential premises be

included in the WHS(R) Bill, or though consequential amendments to the Industrial

Relations Act 1979 (WA). For example, this might be achieved by:

Page | 11

including sections 129 and 170 of the Model WHS Act in the WHS(R) Bill; or

including a provision similar to the restriction on entering premises used

mainly for residential premises contained in section 493 of the Fair Work

Act 2009 (Cth).

o The modification of the model WHS legislation in respect of determining a MHF,

where the regulator has the power to declare a site a MHF regardless of published

criteria, creates uncertainty about the appropriateness of the process by which a

site is determined to be a MHF and may lead to inappropriate regulation in some

cases.

OTHER COMMENTS ON THE WA WHS(R) BILL

Incident Reporting and Notification:

o The provisions relating to incident reporting and notification (sections 36 to 38)

need further clarification and some amendment.

o APPEA supports a primary objective of promoting the reporting of incidents and

dangerous occurrences being to achieve rapid and effective whole of industry

learning and continuous improvement in safety performance, backed up by a

second requirement for compliance and enforcement purposes.

o APPEA seeks additional information be provided by DMP on the intent behind the

amendment to the definitions of ‘serious injury or illness’ and ‘dangerous

incident’, and what the intent is for further detail in supporting regulations.

o In particular, APPEA notes the potential lack of clarity arising from the inclusion of

the words ‘…includes but not limited to…’ in the definition of serious injury or

illness; and would seek further discussion on what might be deemed an

appropriate and flexible framework to determine what ‘…has the potential to

expose’ in the definition of ‘dangerous incident’.

o APPEA would seek further clarification on the term ‘medical treatment’, which

could be interpreted very broadly and could too easily become an onerous

regulatory reporting requirement but that achieves little for improved safety

outcomes.

o Under section 38 it is not in all cases practicable to require ‘immediate’ reporting

of incidents. APPEA recommends section 38 be amended to the effect that the

resources facility operator must report the incident to the Regulator as soon as

practicable after e.g.

Initiation of an emergency response (medical treatment, evacuation of personnel, incident scene secured); and

the first occurrence of the reportable incident; or if the reportable incident was not detected by the resources facility operator

at the time of the first occurrence—the time the resources facility operator becomes aware of the reportable incident; and

must contain all material facts and circumstances concerning the reportable incident that the resources facility operator knows or is able, by reasonable

Page | 12

search or enquiry, to find out; and any action taken, or proposed to be taken, to stop, control or remedy the reportable incident.

Remote Operations: APPEA recommends that the section 26(A) needs amendment to

ensure clarity. Whilst the control of a facility may be located offsite e.g. ‘remote’ from the

actual facility, the facility itself will often be remote. Subsection (2) should include wording

something to the effect of ‘….that the manner in which operations are conducted at a

facility, from an operational control centre not located at that facility ….”. This would also

address the situation where an unmanned offshore petroleum facility may be remotely

operated from another manned offshore petroleum facility.

Accommodation (see comments on definition of accommodation above):

o From discussions with DMP, APPEA understands it is not the intention of the DMP for

accommodation to be treated as a workplace under the WHS(R) Bill, but in some

circumstances for offshore petroleum operations the accommodation is part of the

workplace.

o Noting the above, in general APPEA supports CME’s comments in relation to the

treatment of accommodation under the WHS(R) Bill, and would also emphasise that

any changes must not result in unintended consequences that potentially expand

union rights of entry to accommodation premises used by resources workers.

o APPEA considers the duty to maintain accommodation as proposed by clause 19(4) of

the WHS(R) Bill is (subject to the changes to the definition of ‘accommodation’

discussed above) appropriate and supports its inclusion in the Bill. APPEA agrees that

a duty to maintain accommodation to a standard which, so far as is reasonably

practicable, does not expose occupants of the accommodation to a risk to their health

and safety is appropriate. Such a duty is consistent with international safety and

health legislation dealing with worker accommodation e.g. a similar approach is taken

in applicable petroleum legislation in the United Kingdom4.

o APPEA recommends (subject to the changes in the definition to ‘accommodation’) the

duty to maintain accommodation as proposed by clause 19(4) of the WHS(R) Bill

remain as currently drafted.

o APPEA would not support any further extension of this duty or the adoption of the

19(4) from the Model WHS Act.

o Appropriate Duty Holder: APPEA considers the way in which accommodation is

defined in the WHS(R) Bill may not recognise the diverse range of accommodation

which is provided for resources workers. Specifically, there may be situations where

the resources facility operator is not the owner or the person with management or

control over the accommodation.

4 See, for example, clause 66 of the Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction etc) Regulations 1996 (UK).

Page | 13

o APPEA considers the duty to maintain accommodation should rest with the person

that has the closest nexus of control over the accommodation, consistent with the

underlying concepts of work health and safety legislation.

o Further, APPEA considers the duty to maintain accommodation in the WHS(R) Bill

should include an exclusion of premises the subject of a written agreement e.g.

containing terms that might reasonably be expected to apply to a letting of the

residential premises to a tenant. This is because in a lease arrangement, the landlord

will have duties to maintain the property and it is therefore not appropriate for

additional duties to be imposed through the WHS(R) Bill.

o For these reason, APPEA supports CME’s recommendations that:

A new clause (which, using the existing numbering would become cluse 5H) be included to define the ‘Person with management or control of accommodation’ to mean:

The person conducting a business or undertaking who has overall management or control of the accommodation.

Clause 19(4) of the WHS(R) Bill be amended to read:

‘A person with management or control of accommodation must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that accommodation is maintained so that the worker occupying the accommodation is not exposed to risks to their health and safety’

The definition of accommodation be amended to read:

‘accommodation means any accommodation in which a worker of a resources facility operator resides; and

(a) the occupancy is necessary for the purposes of the workers’ engagement because other accommodation is not reasonably available; and

(b) is not:

(i) within a town site within the meaning in section 26(1) of the Land Administration Act 1997; or

(ii) within the metropolitan region as defined in the Planning and Development Act 2005’; or

(iii) pursuant to a written agreement containing terms that might reasonably be expected to apply to a letting of the accommodation to a tenant.’

Changes be made to the definition of ‘mining and petroleum operation’ so the definition is appropriately limited to accommodation used solely in connection with the mining or petroleum operations.

Publication of information by DMP:

As stated earlier, APPEA supports the rapid and effective sharing of appropriate

information on lessons and good practices that will lead to continuous improvement

across the resource sector and improved safety outcomes.

Page | 14

APPEA also supports clarity and providing transparency and assurance around robust

regulatory requirements, effective regulatory oversight and consistent regulatory

decision making processes, industry’s risk management practices and importantly

safety performance. This all combines to help build trust in and support for the

resources sector amongst the workforce, stakeholders and the community.

APPEA would however recommend further consideration be given to what would be

appropriate mechanisms for achieving effective transparency and public assurance,

particularly where complex technical, modelling and risk based decision making is

involved.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dr T. Hunter, ‘Regulation of Shale, Coal Seam and Tight Gas Activities in Western Australia’, http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/documents/000041.jason.medd(1).pdf, P. 19 [Accessed 7/5/14]

PwC (2014), Value-adding: Australian Oil and Gas Industry, pages 28-29 (available at

www.appea.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/PwC-Report-Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Sept-2014-

FINAL.pdf).

Page | 15

‘Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources nine (9) principles for offshore industry regulation – 4th March 2—2’, Department of Mines and Petroleum, http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/documents/MCMPR_Principles_for_offshore_industry_regulation.pdf, [Accessed 7/5/14].

Economics and Industry Standing Committee: FLNG Safety Matters: Report No. 5 Presented by Mr I.C.

Blayney, MLA: Laid on the Table of the Legislative Assembly on 7 May 2015.

Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction, etc) Regulations 1996 (UK).