Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to thank members for the support for this legislation. I recognise the member for Groom and the amendment that the opposition is introducing. Essentially, I think the bill incorporates pretty much what you are suggesting, but you are spelling it out a little bit more than maybe the bill does. I hope the minister is supportive because I think it would be a very good thing if this particular piece of legislation got through the parliament with a united approach. It is critical, and the member for Groom made the point that we have appropriate assessment. I take on board what the member for Maranoa said when he suggested that we want to make sure that this is not just a talkfest of scientists, that there is some degree of community input. I thought his contribution was very good as well. This is in stark contrast to the situation some years ago when there was division on this very issue, on the need for independent scientific assessment in terms of risk and knowledge and cumulative impact on landscape. So in a number of years we have come quite a long way.

I remember a similar debate in the Senate, which the member for Groom would also remember, where there was a change of heart overnight and the coalition members, particularly the National Party at the time, recanted their vote the very next day after making glorious speeches about how they had been able to deliver a scientific process to look at these very issues in some of the lands that we are still talking about today. So progress has been made.

The Minerals Council back in 2008—the member for Groom would remember this as well—made the point through their environmental officer, Melanie Stutsel, who is still there, that there should be some form of bioregional assessment process engaged in before exploration licences are granted, so that we have some idea of what the landscape can accept. I think that has been taken up through the national partnerships agreement that the minister and the Prime Minister have been involved with and that is reflected very much in the independent scientific analysis. The money for that analysis, the $200 million that allows this to go forward, is in fact money that has come out of the minerals resource rent tax. In the very kindest of ways, I remind the member for Kennedy that he did not support that funding base. I believe he is going to try to amend it today and I will be interested to listen to his contribution.

The $150 million of funding will go towards the risk assessment process, the cumulative process. I think all of us want to know about that, irrespective of which catchment we live in. I take the point, which I think was made by the member for Groom, that none of us are against development. We just want to make sure that it is risk free or, if there are risks, that we prioritise our better agricultural lands, particularly where water is involved, and that we get it right prior to taking risks.

In relation to gas in New South Wales, the gas companies themselves ran an advertising campaign some months back where they made the point that within New South Wales there was enough gas to power Sydney for 5,000 years. The point I made in relation to that was: well, what's the hurry? Why don't we get this right—get the science right and make the assessment process one where there is a degree of objectivity rather than political platitudes and decision making based on the income of the state or the politics of the day? Five thousand years is a long time. If we lose a few at the start in getting the process right, I think the people in 5,000 years may well thank us.

See this speech in context