Abstract Conflicts between marine conservation and extractive industries are escalating globally. This is particularly evident in Australia, where societal perceptions of sustainability, climate concerns, and socio-ecological ideals clash with government economic priorities and fossil fuel interests. Australia’s offshore petroleum licensing and regulatory processes are examined, focusing on the initial decision to release offshore acreages for bidding and how this contradicts marine conservation objectives. Twenty-two semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders from federal and state governments, regulatory bodies, environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs), commercial fisheries, recreational fishers, and community and Indigenous representatives. Findings indicate Australia’s offshore petroleum governance relies on procedural consultation, creating an illusion of inclusivity and environmental protection. Non-governmental participants reported that the decision-making framework prioritises industry interests over marine conservation and fails to address community concerns about climate change and sustainability. This disconnect undermines regulatory credibility and heightens conflict, particularly where petroleum activities overlap with marine protected areas and citizens’ socio-ecological values. Four themes are explored: regulatory process is marked by a number of inadequacies, notably fragmented governance and limited transparency in acreage decisions; consultation practices perceived by ENGO, Indigenous, and community stakeholders as lacking credibility; resulting in mobilisation by these groups for stronger environmental protections; and, despite mobilisation, decisions tend to reflect the disproportionate influence of powerful fossil fuel actors. This research provides insights into how Australia’s offshore governance can improve stakeholder consultation and collaborative planning for offshore fossil fuel development and marine protected areas.
Rutherford et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: