The New South Wales Parliament’s Upper House just passed this motion unanimously today (13.10.16):
1027. Mr Buckingham to move—
That this House:
(a) condemns the misogynistic, hateful comments made by the Republican candidate for President
of the United States of America, Mr Donald Trump, about women and minorities, including the
remarks revealed over the weekend that clearly describe sexual assault,
(b) reflects on the divisive, destructive impact that hate speech from political candidates and
members of elected office has on our community, and
(c) agrees with those who have described Mr Trump as ‘a revolting slug’ unfit for public office.
Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham said: “It’s a great that all sides of Australian politics, from conservatives to liberals to greens, agree that Donald Trump is a ‘revolting slug’ and completely unfit for public office.”
“It’s clear that all reasonable and decent people find Donald Trump’s behaviour obnoxious and that the world is hoping American voters reject his politics of hate”.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (15:15:05): My question without notice is to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. I recently visited southern Queensland where I saw a large amount of cotton coming off Cubbie Station and irrigated farms near St George and Dirranbandi. Can the Minister update the House on the representations he previously stated he would make to the Queensland Government regarding water allocations in the Darling, Culgoa, Condamine and Balonne river systems?
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (15:15:40): I would be delighted to update the House because I recently made representations—I am trying to remember; I do not want to mislead the House—two or three Fridays ago when the water Ministers met in Brisbane. Not only did I make representations but I did it on their turf. One issue I raised on behalf of New South Wales was the Northern Basin Review and the work that is being done by the Murray‑Darling Basin Authority.
New South Wales has met a lot of its obligations under that review, including the water recovery that has occurred from our system. Queensland is lagging behind, and that frustrates me as the New South Wales Minister for Lands and Water. Indeed, I have commented at every ministerial council meeting that the results of the Northern Basin Review are outstanding—meaning they are overdue. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority engaged consultants to conduct this review but, unfortunately, they made a mess of it and we had to engage another set of consultants. They messed up part of the socioeconomic review relating to the northern communities, which for a long time have relied upon a strong agricultural sector and the use of productive water.
That is the first matter I have addressed with my Queensland counterparts. The other measure—and it was a win at the ministerial council, on behalf of the people of New South Wales—was to make sure as we move through the key decision points of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that New South Wales continues to advocate for infrastructure projects to deliver water savings. We need to start thinking outside the box in order to deliver those water savings and so that we do not see productive water being purchased out of New South Wales and flowing downstream to South Australia and then eventually out to sea.
If that water and those savings can be made through infrastructure projects or projects such as the carp eradication program, we know that we can do great things for the environment and our agricultural sector. Significantly, at the last ministerial council meeting, all States and the Commonwealth agreed to look at non-flow related projects to help bridge the gap, particularly for the sustainable diversion limit [SDL] projects and the required 650 gigalitres.
What does that mean for New South Wales? If we can stop the release of cold water or black water events in our river systems, then we can deliver proper outcomes for the environment, such as the eradication of carp or the prevention of the death of fish populations. It will mean that we will not have to enter the market and buy productive water from our producers in regional New South Wales, and it will ensure that we have better rivers, more productive regional businesses and better socioeconomic outcomes for the people of regional New South Wales.
I thank the member for the Dixer. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to stand up and show that we are advocating on behalf of all of New South Wales and that if we have to have uncomfortable conversations with other States or the Commonwealth we will.
Here is my dissenting report to the NSW Parliament Inquiry into gas supply and prices in which I highlight some areas where i think the committee could have been much stronger in its recomendations. The full report is available here. My media release on the report is here.
By Mr Jeremy Buckingham, The Greens
Coal seam gas development is not in the public interest
I am pleased that the committee accepted the strong evidence presented that the development of coal seam gas in NSW will have no meaningful impact on the supply or cost of gas in NSW. However, given the significant risks that the development of a coal seam gas industry poses to water resources, the environment and public health, it is disappointing that the committee decided not to go a step further and recommend that the industry not be allowed to proceed in NSW.
I believe that the report should have included the following recommendation:
The NSW government should not risk public health, the quality or quantity of water resources or the nature of farmland and rural communities by developing an indigenous gas supply from unconventional resources.
I am also concerned that the Liberal, National and Shooters Party members of the committee voted to prevent the important evidence given by NSW Farmers and Lock the Gate, that the risks and the widespread and determined community opposition to unconventional gas exploration and production cannot be ignored when examining issues which affect gas supply and pricing issues, being included in the final report.
Significant concerns were expressed in evidence to the committee by a number of stakeholders, including the Minister for Resources and Energy, about the lack of transparency in the gas market and the possibility of cartel behaviour and price-gouging to the detriment of consumers are very serious and warranted stronger recommendations from the committee to rebuild public confidence in the industry. To this end I recommend that the NSW government:
requests that the Australia Competition and Consumer Commission investigate current arrangements and practices in the upstream gas industry to ensure that any monopoly, cartel or other behaviours are not being practiced to the detriment of Australian gas consumers, and that upstream gas companies are disclosing adequate information to ensure a competitive gas market, and
requires the disclosure of the details of gas export contracts to the government on a confidential basis, for those companies wanting to do business in NSW.
Transition to renewable energy alternatives
While gas is currently a significant energy input for many businesses and households in NSW, in the medium term it is not a vital energy source and can be replaced by renewable energy alternatives. Unfortunately, this committee report is woeful in its failure to make any recommendations regarding the need for government support for households, business, the public sector and energy generators to transition away from gas and towards renewable energy alternatives. This is especially important for low income households and renters for whom the upfront cost of switching from gas to renewable alternatives could be prohibitive and who will therefore be impacted the most by a sudden increase in gas prices. In recognition of this, I believe the following recommendations are appropriate and should have been supported:
To assist in the development of other sources of energy, the NSW Government should develop contingent legislation that provides a guarantee that in the event of any future change to the federal Renewable Energy Target, no renewable energy generator in NSW would be worse off.
Further, that the NSW Government implement policies and strategies to facilitate a complete phase out of fossil fuels, including gas, for energy generation and other purposes by 2030.
The NSW government should develop programs, policies and strategies that facilitate households, businesses, the public sector and industry transitioning from gas and fossil fuels to high efficiency energy use and renewable forms of local energy generation, including the provision of low interest loans, independent technical advice and benefit sharing schemes.
The NSW Government should undertake detailed, segmented analysis of the financial impacts of rising gas prices on low-income and vulnerable households in NSW, including analysis of the extent to which gas is used in:
NSW public housing and the cost impacts for residents (over 5 and 10 year timeframes)
community housing and the cost impacts for residents
low-income rental housing and the cost impacts for residents.
The NSW Government should undertake detailed research into the barriers and opportunities related to disconnecting from gas for residential consumers, especially public and community housing tenants and low-income renters.
The NSW Government should develop policies and programs to support to support improved energy efficiency by NSW households, especially dedicated support for low-income households.
The NSW Government should provide NSW households with accurate information on the relative costs of electrical and gas systems for cooking, hot water heating and space heating, and encourage people to switch to efficient electrical systems where it is cost effective to do so.
The NSW Government should facilitate identification and financing of energy efficiency and economic fuel switching alternatives to gas use in the commercial and industrial sectors.
Climate change context
It is disappointing that the committee refused to support amendments to the report which would acknowledge that any examination of the supply and cost of gas must take into account climate change. Governments around the world, including Australia’s, have recognised that greenhouse gas emissions need to be significantly and rapidly reduced to ensure global temperature increases are limited to two degrees Celsius. Measures to reduce emissions, whether through government regulation or market mechanisms, are being introduced around the world and it is inevitable that in the near future global or national policies will act to reduce the carbon intensity of our economy and this will have a direct impact on the supply and cost of gas. A recent study in the Journal Nature has concluded that order to ensure global temperature increases are limited to two degrees Celsius between 51 and 56 percent of gas reserves in the OECD Pacific would have to remain unused. (FOOTNOTE: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7533/full/nature14016.html)
Jeremy Buckingham, the Greens NSW mining spokesperson, and Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Council Inquiry into ‘supply and cost of gas and liquid fuels in NSW’ today welcomed the conclusions and recommendations of the Inquiry which found developing coal seam gas in NSW would do little to reduce gas prices, and criticised the lack of foresight and regulation in the development of coal seam gas for export in Queensland.
The Inquiry concludes:
On the dynamics of domestic gas price:
Paragraph 3.55:“The more impartial, economic evidence before this Committee leads us to favour the proposition that increased domestic supply of gas will not by itself lead to reductions in gas prices, or even a reduction in the rate of price increases. This is because the predominant driver of domestic gas prices will be the international gas price and an indigenous NSW gas supply would be very small in the context of the world gas market and will not impact upon the world price. This means that government regulation of the gas market will be necessary to have a significant impact on price or to guarantee domestic supply.”
Paragraph 4.52:“With gas now being produced in Australia on a scale that completely eclipses any demand by domestic residential or industrial users, any difficulty with supply or increased price can only be as a result of rent-seeking by private interests, allowed by market and regulatory failures. Governments in this State and other jurisdictions should take action to prevent, or remedy this occurring.”
On the past failure to recognise knock-on impacts of moving to gas exports:
Paragraph 4.46:“The committee expresses its disappointment that no-one appears to have recognised the significant disruption that the move to LNG export would have on the domestic gas market.”
On gas reservation policy:
Paragraph 4.48:“Given the importance of gas to New South Wales households and industry, particularly manufacturing businesses, and the changing dynamics of the eastern Australian gas market, the committee considers that an Australia-wide domestic gas reservation policy is needed to assist in containing gas prices and ensuring security of supply.”
Paragraph 4.56 and Recommendation 2:“The committee recommends that while the recommendations of the Chief Scientist are being implemented, the NSW Government pursue through the Council of Australian Governments the implementation of an Australia-wide domestic gas reservation policy.”
Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham said: “The Inquiry has found it is the pursuit of coal seam gas for export as LNG that is squeezing supply and driving prices up, and that coal seam gas projects in NSW will make no meaningful difference to this equation.
“The Resources Minister, Anthony Roberts himself admitted that modelling he’d seen showed the completion of both Santos’ Narrabri and AGL’s Gloucester projects would only lower gas prices by 3%. For such a tiny benefit, coal seam gas is simply not worth the risk.
It is a massive failure of governments and the industry that no thought was given to the knock on consequences of moving into the export of coal seam gas. The inquiry heard evidence from business, economists and unions that billions in economic activity and tens of thousands of jobs particularly in manufacturing are being put at risk.
“What we are witnessing here is both the market failing to benefit Australian businesses and households and governments failing to regulate the market to address this issue.
“A domestic gas reservation may have been possible as a condition when governments gave the initial approval for LNG exports, but implementing such a reserve now through various state and federal governments will be difficult.
“Government policy should focus on transitioning our energy system away from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy. This should include programs to assist households and business to shift away from gas.
“The inquiry revealed major issues with a lack of transparency in the upstream gas market. The Greens and Labor members of the inquiry voted for a recommendation that the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission investigate the upstream gas market for cartel or other anti-competitive behaviours. Unfortunately this recommendation was defeated by the government members and the Chair,” he said.
Contact: Max Phillips – 9230 2202 or 0419 444 916
The Legislative Council Inquiry Report is available here
The Greens NSW water spokesperson Jeremy Buckingham today condemned the Baird Government for opposing a motion that called on the government to fund a new weir for the town of Wilcannia, saying they were neglecting the basic needs of people in Outback NSW, particularly Aboriginal communities.
“The Greens moved this motion in parliament to put the issue of the need to build a new weir for Wilcannia downstream of town on the political agenda in Sydney,” said Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham.
“For over ten years successive government have failed to act on the issue of moving the weir, despite the fact the project would make a big difference to the people of Wilcannia.
“The disinterest and neglect of Outback towns such as Wilcannia is demonstrated by the fact the government opposed this motion being passed by formal business yesterday. The government should state exactly what they found objectionable in the motion?
“The Greens want to see a new downstream weir for Wilcannia built in 2015. We want justice for the Badrkindji people. I am going to be on Water Minister Kevin Humphries case from now, until the election and beyond, until we get action on the weir project,” he said.
MOTION: A new weir for Wilcannia
Mr Buckingham to move—
That this House notes that:
(a) life expectancy of males in Wilcannia, New South Wales is 37.5 years, and for women is
42 years of age,
(b) this is a matter of deep shame for our entire community, state and nation,
(c) the worst life expectancy of any nation on earth is Sierra Leone at 42 years of age,
(d) an assured and high quality water supply for the people of Wilcannia and for the
Barkintji people is essential to their health, economic, social, environmental, cultural and
personal wellbeing,
(e) the Darling River adjacent to Wilcannia is an integral part of recreation and fishing
activities for that community,
(f) the town of Wilcannia is now on water restriction and sourcing its water from emergency
water bores, and that this water is intermittent and of very poor quality,
(g) the Wilcannia community has been calling for the construction of a new weir for nearly
40 years,
(h) that the current weir is in a poor condition and located upstream from the town, meaning
that in dry conditions the Darling River is a dry ditch running through the town,
(i) the construction of a new weir, downstream from the town is supported by the Murdi
Paaki Regional Enterprise Corporation, Wilcannia Community Working Party and the
Central Darling Regional Council, and
(j) that a new weir downstream of the town will create a weir pool running through the town
for recreation, drinking, fishing and cultural activities.
That this House calls on the Government to:
(a) immediately begin the process of planning and constructing a new weir in Wilcannia,
(b) immediately consult with the Wilcannia community on the construction of a new weir
and delivery of an assured and quality water supply, and
(c) commit funding for the construction of a new downstream weir to commence as soon as
engineering plans are finalised.
Contact: Max Phillips – 9230 2202 or 0419 444 916
Video of the motion being put on the notice paper is below
Listen to Greens mining and coal seam gas spokesperson, Jeremy Buckingham talk about the Coalition Government’s failure to prevent CSG in Sydney’s drinking water catchment on ABC Illawarra – 6/11/14
The Greens NSW mining spokesperson Jeremy Buckingham today welcomed the establishment of a select committee into gas supply and price in NSW, saying the issue was of huge consequence to consumers, manufacturing, agriculture and the environment, and would likely reveal that the crisis was artificial in nature, created by the pursuit of coal seam gas for export as LNG from Queensland.
The inquiry will be chaired by The Hon. Robert Borsak with Mr Buckingham as Deputy Chair. It will report by 25 February 2015.
“A tripling of wholesale gas price on the east coast, as well as the inability to sign long-term supply contracts will have huge knock on effects for consumers and manufacturing, but state and federal governments have had their head in the sand hoping that the same market that has created the crisis will somehow magically fix it too,” said Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham.
“Governments have a responsibility to act in the national interest and address market failures, and I hope this inquiry and its eventual recommendations will provide the foundation for governments to stand up to some very large corporate interests.
“I have been warning of this gas supply crisis for two years so I am pleased to see the NSW Parliament now taking the issue seriously,” he said.
Contact: Max Phillips – 9230 2202 or 0419 444 916
Terms of Reference
Mr Brown to move—
That this House notes ongoing concerns regarding the availability and cost of gas supply in New South Wales.
That a select committee be established to inquire into and report on gas supply, cost and availability in New South Wales, and in particular:
(a) the factors affecting the supply, demand and cost of natural gas in New South Wales,
(b) the impact of tight supply and increasing cost of natural gas on New South Wales
consumers, including manufacturing, agriculture, energy production, small business,
public services and household consumers,
(c) the commercial conduct of gas producers and the operation of the international and
domestic gas markets,
(d) the adequacy of Commonwealth and State cooperation in gas market regulation,
(e) the possible regulatory responses to protect New South Wales gas consumers from
adverse market fluctuations and failures, and
(f) any other related matter.
That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders, the committee consist of seven members comprising:
(a) three Government members,
(b) two Opposition members, and
(c) two crossbench members, being Mr Borsak and Mr Buckingham.
That the Chair of the committee be Mr Borsak and the Deputy Chair be Mr Buckingham.
That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders, at any meeting of the
committee, any four members of the committee will constitute a quorum.
That a committee member who is unable to attend a deliberative meeting in person may
participate by electronic communication and may move any motion and be counted for the
purpose of any quorum or division, provided that:
(a) the Chair is present in the meeting room,
(b) all members are able to speak and hear each other at all times, and
(c) members may not participate by electronic communication in a meeting to consider a
draft report.
That the committee report by 25 February 2015.
(Notice given 4 November 2014—expires Notice Paper No. 32)
Jeremy Buckingham, the NSW Greens spokesperson for Mining and Agriculture has developed legislation to introduce clear no-go zones for mineral and gas exploration, mining and gas production.
The Greens’ Responsible Mining (Protecting Land, Water and Communities) Bill is a response to the demands of the NSW public to bring to an end the failed adaptive management and co-existence strategies of successive Governments that have seen mining and coal seam gas encroach on our agricultural lands, communities, and environment.
Securing agricultural land and water supplies to produce enough high quality food for the Australian and global population requires a clear segregation policy and a precautionary approach to extractive industries that prioritises the protection of food producing land and water.
The Responsible Mining Bill offers a clear alternative to the Coalition Government’s failed Strategic Regional Land Use Policy which ignores the Liberal and National Party’s own election commitment by not implementing protections for those places where mining and other extractive industries simply should not occur.
What is responsible mining?
Mining and other extractive industries access finite, non-renewable resources. While we need many of these resources to support our communities and economy, the extraction and processing has a significant impact on other vital resources including food producing land, clean water, clean air, a safe and healthy environment in which to live, and a stable climate.
Responsible Mining is a model to manage these finite resources as demand for both mineral resources and other natural resources increases. A Responsible Mining approach looks to conserve mineral resources for the long-term benefit of the public while minimising the negative impacts and protecting those natural resources we rely on for survival, like water, air and food producing land.
In 2005 a range of non-government organisations developed a discussion paper titled A Framework for Responsible Mining. The lead chapter was titled: Deciding whether mining is an appropriate landuse. The arguments for the importance of no-go zones are clearly outlined in this paper and no-go zones are seen as a critical step to address the negative impacts of mining on communities.
This legislation would work in conjunction with a number of other Acts and government policies including developing a strategic approach to the location of mining, providing employment and training opportunities, encouraging sustainable mineral use and recycling and ensuring royalties are appropriately and equitably reinvested. The Greens also support the establishment of a cost recovery scheme to pay for environment rehabilitation as well as the regulatory costs of effectively policing the industry.
What will the Bill do?
The Bill establishes a clear and responsible framework for mining by:
Introducing No Go Zones for productive agricultural land, National Parks, state conservation areas, State Forests, biodiversity hot spots, urban areas and drinking water catchments
Legislating a right to say no for both local councils, through their Local Environment Plan, and landholders
Putting a gate in the Mining and Petroleum Gateway so that inappropriate mines can be rejected from the outset by independent experts who will assess significant impacts on:
Climate change
Agricultural land
Critical industry clusters
Water resources
Ecological communities
Establishing an independent, well-resourced Mining and Petroleum Authority which will ensure that all approved mining and petroleum developments meet their ongoing legislative and regulatory requirements and the granting of mining license is free from corruption.
Restoring the Public Interest Test so that existing licenses to be cancelled by the minister if it is in the public interest, such as where there is significant public opposition, concern for the environment or corruption.
The Bill also makes a number of important amendments to the Mining Act 1992 and the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991, including fixing up access agreements, preventing conflicts of interest for decision makers, improving environmental protections, mandating audits of petroleum licence compliance and introducing strong penalties for late or incorrect payment of royalties.
RESPONSIBLE MINING (PROTECTING LAND, WATER AND COMMUNITIES) BILL 2014
Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by Mr Jeremy Buckingham.
Second Reading
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [11.13 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Since becoming a member of the Legislative Council, my office and I have been working with people in the community to introduce the Responsible Mining (Protecting Land, Water and Communities) Bill 2014. I am very proud of this bill.
New South Wales is currently suffering a death by a thousand cuts when it comes to exploration, mining and gas production. Currently there is not a single place in New South Wales a person can move to and be guaranteed that they will not be subject to mineral exploration, mining or gas development.
There are no guarantees that our productive agricultural land, our water resources or our precious natural resources will be protected from the cumulative effect of project expansions, new greenfield developments, and the layering of coal seam gas development next to coalmines. Left unchecked, we have seen mining industries dominate landscapes, communities and the environment. The Government proudly projects a massive expansion in mining over the next decade and has proclaimed its intentions to develop a coal seam gas industry in this State. It is therefore not surprising that the New South Wales community feels under siege by mining and gas exploration and development. This bill is a response to the demands of the New South Wales public to bring to an end the failed adaptive management and co-existence strategies of successive governments, which have seen mining and coal seam gas encroach on our agricultural lands, communities and environment.
Securing agricultural land and water supplies to produce enough high-quality food for the Australian and global population requires a clear segregation policy and a precautionary approach to extractive industries that prioritises the protection of food producing land and water. This bill offers a clear alternative to the Coalition Government’s failed Strategic Regional Land Use Policy, which ignores the Liberal-Nationals election commitment by not implementing protections for those places where mining and other extractive industries simply should not occur. The Strategic Regional Land Use Policy was meant to be the Government’s answer to the clear conflicts between mining and agriculture, with our best land mapped and placed off limits from extractive industries. Within the Coalition’s 2011 election platform it stated:
The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals believe that agricultural land and other sensitive areas exist in New South Wales where mining and coal seam gas extraction should not occur.
It was in that context that the Coalition made this clear commitment:
The strategic land use planning process will be able to identify strategic agricultural land and associated water and ensure that it is protected from the impacts of development.
The Leader of the Government in this House, the Hon Duncan Gay, has called for ring fencing of certain areas from mining and gas development. But what has been delivered to the people of New South Wales is a weak and confused policy, which allows mining on our best agricultural land, fails to protect our water resources and favours the Government’s big coal and gas mates over regional communities. The Chinese Government’s Shenhua Watermark Coal Mine is on the verge of approval in the heart of the Liverpool Plains, some of the most significant and valuable agricultural land in the country—perhaps on earth. Despite massive flaws in the data on water impacts, it is set for approval.
The gateway process was meant to streamline the planning process by identifying and rejecting inappropriate proposals from the outset but what has been delivered is a hole in the fence rather than a gateway. The gateway process has a lot of value—if only it were working properly. The gateway assessments have provided a lot of useful information and made that information available to the public in an accessible form. The problem with the gateway process is it has no power. It has no teeth. It is unable to say, “This project has major issues that should be addressed before it can progress to the planning assessment stage.” There is no red light. There is no gate in the gateway. There is only a green light, or perhaps an amber light. The Mining and Petroleum Gateway Panel must issue either a gateway certificate or a conditional gateway certificate. The Greens want to fix the gateway panel, and give it some real powers. This bill will put a gate in the gateway, which will stop some extremely problematic mining projects in their tracks.
The three mines which have so far been assessed by this panel have progressed through the gateway despite failing the majority of assessment criteria. For example, the Bylong coal project was assessed as having “direct and significant impacts on the agricultural productivity of verified Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land [BSAL]” and to be “noncompliant with respect to its assessment of the equine Critical Industry Cluster [CIC]”, lacking “proper assessment of potential impacts”, and to have “misconstrued the gateway process and failed to put forward a compliant or considered assessment”. Yet the project was given the tick of approval and allowed to move on through the planning process. This is clearly a broken system.
The NSW Aquifer Interference Policy, which was meant to be a regulation which protects our vital underground water resources, is even more toothless. It simply acts as a “guide” to decision makers and is ignored by miners. A clear example of this is the Caroona coal project near Quirindi. This is a proposed underground longwall coalmine which will result, according to the gateway panel, in subsidence of 8,500 hectares of prime agricultural land and surface cracking of up to 300 millimetres. The panel report says there will be:
… changes to soil water drainage, increased surface water ponding and potential inundation of subsoil layers with associated physical and chemical degradation issues.
The panel report says:
With respect to ‘highly productive’ aquifers it has also been predicted by the applicant that 27 private bores located in the Gunnedah—Oxley Basin MDB (Spring Ridge) groundwater source will have impacts greater than minimal harm …
The gateway panel is particularly concerned about “the potential cumulative impact on the ‘highly productive’ Upper Namoi alluvial aquifer”. Despite all of this, the full extent of the application of the Government’s Aquifer Interference Policy is a letter from the Minister for Natural Resources, Lands and Water, Kevin Humphries, which says:
I have considered the input of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee and note their advice in relation to incomplete information and uncertainty in regard to impact predictions. As a result, there is not sufficient information available to allow for a proper assessment of the impacts of the proposal on water resources.
And that is all there is. Another Government initiative to supposedly safeguard our agricultural resources is the creation of Critical Industry Clusters [CICs]. These were created to protect centres of agriculture from mining, but the Government has ignored rice, citrus, cotton, sugar and dairy farmers, who have all indicated they want this limited protection. There is no process for industries to apply for protection; it is clear that this policy is merely a political fix for the equine industry and viticulturists in the Hunter Valley and not a serious initiative. Fiona Simson, President of NSW Farmers Association, summed up the Government’s approach to date earlier this year when she said:
The New South Wales Government has comprehensively failed to put in place the right checks and balances to protect precious agricultural areas.
Given neither Labor nor the Coalition have chosen to protect the community, the water supplies and the agricultural land of New South Wales, I am proud to introduce this bill, the Responsible Mining (Protecting Land, Water and Communities) Bill, on behalf of The Greens. The New South Wales community is overwhelmingly calling for this kind of action and protection. At the heart of this bill is a simple proposition: Mining should be undertaken responsibly and strategically and our land, water and communities should be protected from its impacts, where possible. Mining and other extractive industries access finite, non-renewable resources and we need many of these resources to support our communities and economy. The Greens are not opposed to mining.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: You are kidding me.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Farmers are not opposed to mining. I note the interjection from the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps. I have worked as a miner. I come from a mining family. We are not opposed to mining. My father was a tin miner. My grandfather worked in gas.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: It is impossible to hear the member’s second reading speech because of the constant interjections from the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps. I ask that he be brought to order.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order: The member is deliberately provoking members opposite.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the point of order: The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps is flouting the rules of this House. He should be not only called to order, he should be named.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! I remind members that Mr Jeremy Buckingham has the call. Members will remain silent so everyone call hear the member with the call, including Hansard.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: The Greens are not opposed to coking coal coalmines. We do not want to see any new ones, but we acknowledge the role of coking coal in the production of steel. The Greens are not out there campaigning against iron ore or the appropriate mining of rare earths, nickel, zinc and antimony—some of these are things we use on a daily basis—as long as they are mined responsibly. That is exactly what this bill is about. We do not want to see new coalmines, and certainly we oppose all thermal coalmining and want to see it phased out. But to say that we are opposed to mining is juvenile and utterly incorrect.
We know that extraction and processing has a significant impact on other vital resources, including food-producing land, clean water, clean air, a safe and healthy environment in which to live, and a stable climate. Responsible mining is a model by which to manage these finite resources as demand for both mineral resources and other natural resources increases. A responsible mining approach looks to conserve mineral resources for the long-term benefit of the public while minimising the negative impacts and protecting those natural resources we rely on for survival—such as water, air and food-producing land.
This bill establishes a framework based on clear no-go zones, an independent and transparent planning and enforcement regime, and the ability for communities and landholders to prohibit mining or prospecting for minerals or petroleum. This legislation does not specifically prohibit coal and gas mining but would restrict all types of mining in protected areas and ensure mining development in other areas goes through an independent, transparent and accountable planning framework to ensure land, water and communities are not impacted by irresponsible mining. The Greens remain opposed to new coal and coal seam gas development and support a phase-out plan for existing operations. I now turn to the detail of the bill.
The Green’s Responsible Mining (Protecting Land, Water and Communities) Bill 2014 will establish a clear and responsible framework for mining by introducing clear no-go zones where mining and petroleum exploration and production cannot occur; legislating a right to say no to exploration and mining for communities and landholders; putting a gate in the Mining and Petroleum Gateway Panel to ensure inappropriate projects are rejected from the outset; and establishing an independent, well-resourced mining and petroleum authority to ensure that all approved mining and petroleum developments meet their ongoing legislative and regulatory requirements and that the granting of mining licences is free from corruption.
The bill makes a number of important amendments to the Mining Act 1992 and the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991, including fixing up access agreements, restoring the public interest test, preventing conflicts of interest for decision makers, improving environmental protections, mandating audits of petroleum licence compliance and introducing strong penalties for late or incorrect payment of royalties. The Greens welcome the call by NSW Chief Scientist Mary O’Kane for an extensive review and overhaul of these Acts with significant public involvement. We will move to establish an upper House inquiry into each of these Acts as soon as Parliament resumes following the 2015 election. We hope that we will receive the support of all parties in undertaking this overdue review.
The bill sets out clear no-go zones for mining and prospecting for minerals or petroleum by declaring or empowering the Minister to declare certain areas as protected land. This includes land in, or within two kilometres of, the following: national parks and State conservation areas; State forests; the areas of operation of the Sydney Catchment Authority and the Sydney Water Corporation; protected catchment areas; productive agricultural land; and tier 1 biodiversity land. It also includes land in, or within five kilometres of, residential, business or industrial zones under a local environmental plan.
Mining and extractive industries are already prohibited in national parks in New South Wales but not in State conservation areas and other reserve types. In fact, the key difference between a national park and these other areas is that mining is allowed. Although around 800 parks and nature reserves are managed by the Office of Environment and Heritage as part of its reserve system, only 199 are national parks with the highest level of protection. These other areas are identified in the reserve system for their natural assets and often the presence of endangered ecological communities and threatened species. If an area is gazetted as a reserve for environmental and recreational purposes either as a national park or a nature reserve it should be protected from mining because that is clearly an incompatible use when considered against the environmental and social objectives of these reserves.
State forests are natural resources that have been put aside to ensure a viable native forest industry for wood products. Often these areas are also important reserves for endangered ecological communities. To continue to diminish these natural assets by allowing exploration, mining and coal seam gas development will result in long-term or possibly permanent loss of this land for those purposes. We need only look at the Pilliga and Leard forests to see that is true. The responsible mining bill would ensure that land that is identified as a State forest will be maintained for that purpose for the long-term benefit of future generations and will not be opened up for mining or gas development.
Coal seam gas exploration and longwall mining are occurring within Sydney’s drinking water catchment and exploration licences continue to operate across many critical catchment areas. That is inappropriate. The protection of water quality for domestic use, stock and irrigation and the health of our river systems is not something that can be risk managed or traded away for a short-term benefit. An aquifer cannot be fixed. A river once polluted is almost impossible to clean.
In 2011, in response to a question in Parliament, the New South Wales Government acknowledged that historic antimony mining on the Dorrigo Plateau had deposited a plume of material containing heavy metals in the Macleay River system over approximately 200 kilometres and that the plume would continue to release elevated levels of heavy metals for millennia. Clearly, a precautionary approach is the only management technique available to protect our water systems.
The responsible mining bill allows the Minister with responsibility for water to declare certain areas as protected catchment areas so that mining or gas production will not be allowed within two kilometres of river systems, productive aquifers and drinking water catchments. The bill specifically prohibits mining or gas production within the areas of operation of the Sydney Catchment Authority and the Sydney Water Corporation, which have already been established by legislation. I know the member for Heathcote rarely supports that. The bill also creates an offence for interfering with highly productive aquifers as declared by the water Minister.
I am passionate about productive agricultural land. The Government’s Strategic Regional Land Use Policy deals exclusively with what is termed “strategic” agricultural land or the “best of the best”. The plans for the New England north-west and Hunter show that massive areas of productive agricultural land are left out of the plans and continue to be subject to mining and coal seam gas proposals. Clearly, the “best of the best” definition means that many farmers in New South Wales who are growing important food for the Australian community continue to be exposed to the risk of mining and gas development on their land.
Australia produces high-quality food for local and international consumers but is increasingly constrained by water availability and the loss of productive land because of urban and industrial encroachment. We simply cannot afford to lose more productive agricultural land to irresponsible and in some cases unnecessary development. While it is generally accepted that national parks and conservation areas should be protected from mining and extractive industries, there has been a slower realisation that there is a need to preserve our food growing areas. This country needs to protect productive agricultural land in food reserves. Protected productive agricultural land under the responsible mining bill is land identified as such under a scientifically based land classification system and declared by the Minister for Primary Industries.
Tier 1 biodiversity land is land declared by the Minister for the Environment after taking into account the need for the protection of vegetation in threatened and over-cleared landscapes, poorly reserved and severely depleted landscapes, source habitats for native fauna and critical landscape corridors and landscape connectivity. We have seen from leaked Santos internal documents on the Strategic Regional Land Use Policy obtained by TheLand newspaper that the Coalition Government originally intended to protect land declared as tier 1 biodiversity but it was rolled by industry lobbyists and failed to protect our important natural assets. That is a cause for deep shame.
Mining and coal seam gas exploration and development are currently occurring close to and under residential communities. In Gloucester AGL is fracking wells within 350 metres of people’s homes. Today in Gloucester people in the Forbesdale residential estate are looking out their windows at frack rigs only 350 metres away. It is an utter disgrace. In Sydney the AGL Camden gas project is slated for expansion into the Camden and Campbelltown local government areas, which are parts of the Sydney south-west growth corridor, and into the heart of Liverpool. International, Queensland and local experience has demonstrated that subsidence, air quality and health impacts, well explosions and polluted waterways are likely impacts from mining and gas development. These risks are completely unacceptable in and around urban areas whether they are residential areas or non-mining industrial and business areas.
Another important aspect of the responsible mining bill is the provision to allow the community to make the ultimate decision about whether or not its village, town or region becomes a mining or gas precinct. Giving power back to the grassroots is a fundamental principle of The Greens and one I am proud to incorporate in this bill. The failure of the mining and gas industries to demonstrate that they can coexist with other industries means that, without the assurance of a veto, local communities and the long-term sustainable industries that support them, particularly agriculture and tourism, will continue to be sacrificed. In its 2009 Mineral Futures Discussion Paper the Institute for Sustainable Futures noted:
A major discrepancy exists in the power of local communities to influence regional futures planning and decision-making relative to global corporations and governments.
This discrepancy has been illustrated numerous times as communities are encroached upon by mines approved originally as boutique operations that over time have expanded to the point of forcing out other industries and turning some towns into a little more than mine service centres.
Mr Scot MacDonald: Just like Blakefield South.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Exactly. Bulga Coal is doing that there and in Muswellbrook. In fact, 51 councils have made statements on coal seam gas development unequivocally indicating their opposition to coal seam gas in their local government areas. A further 27 council have expressed significant concerns about coal seam gas. Despite this overwhelming opposition, local councils have no power to prevent mining in their communities.
In response to this communities are taking charge of their destinies via a grassroots process to declare their communities Gasfield Free. There is no better example of community opposition than in the northern rivers region where at last count 128 communities had declared themselves Gasfield Free with an average “yes” response of 95 per cent. The responsible mining bill would enable local councils to veto mining and gas activities through local environmental plans [LEPs]. The community can decide what mix of industries they want and where these industries go. It removes the right of State and Federal governments to overrule a council’s decision about where extractive industries can and cannot occur, but retains the responsibility with the State Government to ensure development occurs under suitable environmental and planning conditions.
This bill establishes a Mining and Petroleum Gateway panel, which will consider applications from all mining and prospecting for minerals or petroleum. The panel is similar to the current panel established by the Government but differs in two important aspects: first, it has the ability to reject inappropriate project applications if they do not meet the relevant criteria; and secondly, it expands the relevant criteria beyond simply looking at the impacts on biophysical strategic agricultural land and critical industry clusters so that the panel also must consider impacts on water resources, ecological communities, climate change and Aboriginal cultural heritage. In making its determination the panel must consider: whether or not there is a real or not remote chance or possibility that there will be a significant impact; the duration, extent and intensity of any impact; any proposed avoidance, mitigation, offset or rehabilitation measures in respect of any such impact; and the cumulative impact of the proposed development in addition to existing development.
The public has completely lost faith in the ability of this Government to regulate the industry, enforce licence conditions and hand out licences free from corruption. The establishment of an independent mining and petroleum authority is imperative to the efficient, effective, transparent and accountable management of mining developments in this State. This bill establishes such an authority to act as an independent and accountable body to ensure that all authorised mining or petroleum activities comply with any legislative and regulatory requirements. The authority also will be responsible for making assessments of applications for the grant or renewal of mining or petroleum exploration licences as recommended by ICAC.
There has been a big debate in New South Wales and across the country about the need for landholders to have the right to say no to mining and petroleum developments on their land. In response to that, one of the most significant and powerful grassroots movements in our nation’s history has emerged—the Lock the Gate Alliance. This movement encourages landholders to lock the gate to coal seam gas companies as a form of non-cooperation because the law, through arbitration, effectively allows gas companies to force their way onto people’s properties, regardless of whether or not landholders approve of it. The clear unfairness of this situation has meant that many senior Coalition members including Prime Minister Tony Abbott, agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce, and industry Minister Ian MacFarlane, all have supported the right to say no.
There is a clear community expectation that mining companies should not be able to force their way onto private land and that the serious power imbalance that exists when negotiating access arrangements should be addressed. This was clearly demonstrated in polling conducted by Essential Research in May 2013, which found that 86 per cent of people in New South Wales support allowing landholders to refuse access by mining companies to their land. I note that the Government is yet to respond to the Walker inquiry into access arrangements. The Government is sitting on its hands, has not responded to the Chief Scientist and has not responded to the very reasonable review conducted by Brett Walker, SC. The Greens call on the Government to immediately respond.
This bill establishes a simple and clear method of giving landholders the right to say no. The bill removes all sections in the Petroleum (Onshore) Act and the Mining Act relating to arbitration, meaning that there will need to be voluntary access agreements between the title holder and landholder before mining companies are able to lawfully access private land. Any prospecting operations to which a landholder agrees will be required to be carried out in accordance with an access arrangement agreed on between the holder of the prospecting title and each landholder in that area of land, which is very reasonable. The current procedure for an arbitrator to determine an access arrangement when the landholder has not agreed to such an arrangement will be removed.
Another important aspect of this bill is reinstatement of the public interest test as grounds for cancellation of a mining or petroleum licence. Earlier this year the Government sneakily removed the public interest test that was introduced as recently as the end of last year—we barely knew it—and in doing so significantly reduced the power of the Minister with respect to cancellation of mining and petroleum licences. That was another flip-flop from this Government as it staggers around in the mining and petroleum space. It is clearly appropriate for the Minister to take into account public interest when assessing the ongoing appropriateness of a licence for an activity that causes significant disruption to our land, water and climate. In this bill we have moved to reinstate this provision.
In fact, currently there are numerous instances where it would be appropriate for the Minister to use this power. BHP’s Caroona and Shenhua Watermark coal projects are set to be developed in the Liverpool Plains where some our most fertile soil and best climate for agriculture exist. It is an absolute disgrace that those projects were allowed to proceed. It is clearly in the public interest that those mines be prevented from proceeding. The Government would not be in the legal mess it currently is in with Metgasco, which owns unconventional gas licences in the northern rivers region, were it to have that power.
It is clear that this bill is needed. It restores balance to the community. It provides a framework for responsible mining. It empowers the community. I acknowledge the work of my staff—Justin Field, Adam Guise, Jack Gough and Max Phillips—and commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Can a CSG industry co-exist with the dairy industry?
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: We have processes in place now to greater facilitate different industries working in harmony and I do not see any reason why it could not.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: So you have not read the upper House inquiry into coal seam gas where Norco made a submission saying that it could not co-exist with a CSG industry?
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: There is a lot of emotion around your particular subject of choice in relation to that question. I prefer to deal with the fact, that is, the New South Wales Government has instituted a new way forward for allowing mining and agriculture to co-exist. We have put in place a variety of tools to assist industries working cooperatively, such as the implementation of an agricultural impact statement, a new aquifer interference policy, the gateway policy, identifying bio-material-physical strategic agricultural lands and so on.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: With all respect, the question was: Have you read the report?
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: I read a lot of reports. I may have read that one along the way but I know what the New South Wales Government has done to correct the misdeeds of the former Government in that space and that is a lot of work to assist with the co-existence—
CHAIR: I bet the Minister did because it was my report.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: It was an excellent report.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: A very good dissenting report, too.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Are you aware of Norco’s submission that it does not believe its industry, which you said is doing such a great job, can co-exist with a coal seam gas industry? What is your response to that?
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Point of order: I am having trouble working out how this fits in with the budget estimates process. Perhaps Mr Jeremy Buckingham could quote the line item in the budget which refers to this issue.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: To the point of order: The Minister pointed out that the role of Norco, including in exports of fresh milk, directly related to her portfolio.
CHAIR: Order! I will not uphold the point of order. As I said before, the Minister is well aware of the limitations in her answering questions with regard to other portfolios. However, if the Minister wishes to answer questions she may do so. She has provided as much advice as she can. I suggest Mr Jeremy Buckingham move on.
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: I refer Mr Jeremy Buckingham to a media release entitled “AGL partners with Dairy Connect to help Gloucester’s dairy industry”, which stated:
A new powdered milk plant being proposed in the Gloucester/Hunter area could be one of the many benefits of a landmark agreement between AGL and peak industry body Dairy Connect. Last week in Sydney, AGL’s CEO Michael Fraser and Dairy Connect’s CEO Mike Logan signed a cooperation agreement which could facilitate the development, production and responsible growth of both the dairy and gas industries in NSW.
This signing with Dairy Connect further strengthens AGL’s partnerships with agricultural groups, with the long-term goal being AGL providing energy and land to assist dairy-related industries in Gloucester.
“This agreement has the potential to create jobs, help farmers better manage production costs and in doing so, open up new overseas markets, ” said Mr Fraser.
“Natural gas not only operates side by side with agriculture but can also be a powerful contributor to its success.
“We’re serious about bringing lasting benefits to individual farmers and rural and regional communities.
At a community meeting in Gloucester … attended by more than 60 locals, Mr Logan shared the NSW dairy industry’s aspirations for a powdered milk factory in the Gloucester area.
“The hope is that powdered milk—
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I hate to interrupt, but are you reading an AGL press release?
Mr SCOT MacDONALD: Dairy Connect.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Is that a Dairy Connect?
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: “AGL partners with Dairy Connect to help Gloucester’s dairy industry”.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Who is that release from?
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: You just asked me.
CHAIR: Order!
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Point of order: The Minister is meant to be answering questions. I understand that the Minister just read out what was handed to her. I find that disrespectful of the budget estimates process. She did not know what she was reading.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: It is a broad-ranging question about the compatibility of the dairy industry and the coal seam gas industry, and the Minister’s view on that. The Minister has responded by providing contemporary evidence which cuts across Mr Jeremy Buckingham’s chief line of attack. Now obviously The Greens are upset and are trying to call a point of order while the Minister was answering the question asked of her.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: To the point of order: The question related to Norco, one of the most successful cooperatives in Australian history, a major exporter, a massive employer, actually key to the economy of the northern rivers and, indeed, the whole coast of Australia. The question related to Norco and its submission to an upper House inquiry that it could not coexist, and I have not heard anything. But the question and the supplementary question to that was—
CHAIR: No, Mr Jeremy Buckingham, we are still on a point of order.
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: It was an AGL press release. It was passed to me by the Director General.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: It was an AGL press release.
CHAIR: Hansard will not record any of this; I am still ruling on the point of order. There is no point of order. The Minister is able to answer a question in any way she feels fit.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: To confirm, that was an AGL press release you were just reading out?
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: At the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute [EMAI] in Camden there are something like more than two dozen coal seam gas wells operating in perfect harmony with all the activities that we are conducting in the EMAI, including dairy.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Minister, was that an AGL press release you were reading out?
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: I do take Norco very seriously, of course I respect its submissions. But the proof is absolutely evident in the broader community—
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Is it an AGL press release you just read out?
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: —and at EMAI, the Department of Primary Industries—
Mr SCOT MacDONALD: Point of order: The Minister is trying to answer the question.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: No, she is not.
Mr SCOT MacDONALD: Mr Jeremy Buckingham is cutting across.
Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: She has read out the CSG industry’s release.
CHAIR: There is no point of order. The Minister can continue with her answer, if she so wishes.
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: The point is that at EMAI, which is the Department of Primary Industries lead biosecurity facility, we have dairy operating side by side with CSG wells. Obviously the proof is there; the proof is broad that the two industries can coexist quite harmoniously. Of course I respect Norco and its right to express an opinion but the evidence shows that these two industries can operate harmoniously side by side.
CHAIR: The questions for this portfolio have concluded. I thank you, Minister, your officers at the table and your assistants for attending today. Questions taken on notice will be sent to you and the Committee will requires answers to those questions on notice within 21 days.
jeremybuckinghammlc.wordpress.com 