Environment groups have condemned the state government for its refusal to support legislation to make projects like the controversial PEP11 gas exploration project illegal in NSW waters.
A report from the parliamentary inquiry set up to examine the Opposition's Offshore Drilling and Associated Infrastructure Prohibition bill acknowledged significant community concerns about the environmental impacts of projects such as PEP11.
But it found that key aspects of the bill may be constitutionally invalid or have unintended consequences.
"The focus of this inquiry has been to examine the environmental impacts of offshore drilling and
also identify risks with passing the legislation. The inquiry has revealed that the legal framework
regulating offshore activities in the state is complex and there are serious risks that could result in
negative consequences for the State," committee chairman Clayton Barr said.
"Amendments to the Bill were also considered. However, the majority of the Committee is of the
view that amendments would undermine a core purpose of the Bill. Therefore, the Committee has
recommended that the Bill not pass."
Rather than ban new projects, it recommended that existing environmental assessments standards be reviewed.
Shadow energy and climate change minister James Griffin said the Liberal's bill was designed to ensure offshore drilling would be banned for good in NSW.
"But once again, NSW Labor under Chris Minns has put the environment last. We call on the Albanese Government to step in and protect NSW coastal waters," Mr Griffin said on Tuesday night.
The Surfers for Climate group, which gave evidence to the inquiry, said the report's key recommendation was disappointing and surprising given the community support to ban all new offshore oil and gas projects in NSW waters.
"We have yet to read in full the report's findings released earlier today. However it is clear this recommendation goes against everything the people of NSW want. The Government needs to tell us: Why isn't it stopping PEP11?," Surfers for Climate co-founder Belinda Baggs said.
"Sea temperatures are rising, pollution levels are increasing and low lying coastal towns are under threat from erosion and flooding because of climate change."
Marque Lawyers partner Hannah Marshall disagreed with the report's findings that the bill may be constitutionally invalid.
"We disagree that the Bill carries any significant Constitutional risk. It does not create any new inconsistency with Commonwealth laws," she said.
"NSW already controls activity in NSW coastal waters. Activity in the offshore areas falls under federal authority. NSW can already 'impair' offshore exploration and drilling activity by denying licences for infrastructure in NSW coastal waters. It is already the NSW policy position not to support new offshore drilling activity. If the idea was that the Commonwealth retain control over infrastructure in state coastal waters, the law could say that. But it doesn't."
A recent Surfers for Climate survey by of more than 1,700 people across Australia, found 98 per cent of respondents "strongly supported" the proposed bill.
According to the survey, the top three reasons respondents gave for supporting the Bill were to conserve the oceans and marine life for future generations, protect beaches from pollution and to create more clean energy jobs.
"Given the Government is serious about climate change, we look forward to it banning offshore oil and gas. We urge Premier Chris Minns, the Climate Change Minister and Resources Minister to draw a line on all new offshore oil and gas projects for good," Ms Baggs said.
The Wilderness Society said many of the risks identified in the report were either hypotheticals that were unlikely to occur, or could be remedied with minor amendments. "We are disappointed by the recommendation, and urge the NSW government to find a way forward and secure a gas-free coastline in step with what coastal NSW communities have been calling for," a spokeswoman said.
