Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. Yesterday we moved that there be an independent assessment of the impact on the aquifers and the catchment of mining exploration and/or mining before licences be granted. That is a very sensible proposition. I say at the outset: where is the logic in having a mining corporation being allowed to proceed to exploration and then doing a water study, which would show that mining interrupted and degraded the aquifer, and therefore the productivity of the farmlands above, so that the mining is halted? Clearly, the study should be done before any licence for exploration or mining is carried out. That is the clear logic that was accepted by the coalition yesterday. Overnight, the Australian Mining Industry Council and the big miners have moved in, alarmed by this sensible proposition, and have talked the opposition, in particular the National Party, into reneging on the decision to support this amendment.

I understand the lobbying power of the mining industry as against the farming industry, but I do not understand the logic of saying that we will require a study of the impact of mining on the catchment but not before exploration takes place. The mining industry itself ought to look at this because it is being invited to expend large amounts of money on exploration at the risk that an independent study will show significant risk and the mining cannot then go ahead.

The second amendment here is the important one that I will be asking the opposition to look at again, because it effectively says that no matter what happens or what is found in an independent study it will not impact on the go-ahead for mining. I want to quote from the debate yesterday. Firstly, Senator Williams said:

We need to have a proper independent inquiry into underground aquifers in these areas … It is vital that the truth be brought out about these prime agricultural areas. It is vital that this study be undertaken;—

that is, to have a study before licences are granted for exploration—

hence I offer my support for this amendment.

He goes on:

The National Party has worked on this area over the last 12 months. My state colleagues Andrew Fraser, Rick Colless and Andrew Stoner have had a close look at the issue. We need to ensure that the long-term viability of this agricultural land is not put under threat at any stage …

That includes, of course—and I am interpolating here—before exploration is undertaken. Senator Joyce said:

I hope the message is conveyed to the people of the Caroona area …

And we are talking here about the Liverpool plains, where there is a farmers’ blockade of BHP Billiton’s plan to explore farmlands for the potential underground mining operation. Senator Joyce went on:

… that we will support them on this matter, create the numbers so that this amendment will succeed.

Well, overnight, suddenly the support is gone, the numbers are going and the people of Caroona have lost that support. Senator Joyce said:

As Senator Williams rightly said, there is no point in compromising the prosperity of the future and our capacity to feed ourselves for the sake of a 30-year window in mining.

Yet these amendments being put forward by the National Party today would do just that. Senator Joyce went on to say:

I hope the wonderful people of Caroona and Breeza Plains and the Haystack Plains realise that, for something to succeed, you need at least 39 senators to vote for it and you need more than half of the lower house to vote for it. I hope that is recognised and taken back to the people of the Liverpool Plains, and I hope we get a chance to read about it in the Northern Daily Leader.

I hope if it is in the Northern Daily Leader that Senator Joyce will read it, because overnight he has reneged. Suddenly the numbers that are necessary to get this vital amendment up—and, yes, it did come from the Independent member for New England, Mr Windsor—are very different. Senator Boswell said:

I find it very unusual that we seem to be getting closer and closer to the Greens. We have not seen eye to eye with the Greens on this for the last seven or eight years.

I suspect, actually, that we have seen eye to eye but there is some political mystique here which is getting into the commonsense that is required to ensure that, in the interests of farmlands right throughout the Murray-Darling Basin, a proper study of the impact on aquifers is done before exploration or mining takes place. Nevertheless, Senator Boswell went on to say:

As Senator Barnaby Joyce has pointed out, you can have all the best ideas in the world, and you can have right on your side, but if you do not have the numbers it does not mean one iota.

Well, right was on the side of the people of Caroona yesterday, and right is on the side of the people of Caroona today. The only thing that has changed is the National Party, which is withdrawing the numbers. It is going from right to wrong. It is going from right to wrong because they do not have the lobby firepower in this place. The Australian Mining Industry Council and BHP Billiton have got at the National Party overnight and have changed their minds. And the people of Caroona still have right on their side. It is the National Party and the coalition that are wrong here today. It is the Australian Mining Industry Council, which has might on its side, which is overriding the people of the Breeza Plain, who have right on their side. Senator Boswell went on to say:

Today we have delivered the numbers in the Senate to carry this amendment, and that will give them—

the farmers—

some sort of satisfaction. I again point out to those people that Independents can do nothing.

That was aimed at Mr Windsor. I think it will be left to the people of the Liverpool Plains as to who is doing something for the farmers as against the big mining companies who have suddenly got hold of the coalition and changed its mind. Senator Boswell said:

Anyone can huff and puff, but it is only the numbers that will deliver on these issues.

He is not here today. There is no huffing and puffing going on. There is nothing. And suddenly the numbers are not going to deliver. Senator Nash said:

It is about a study to be undertaken about due diligence.

I totally agree, because due diligence means you do the study before the exploration which leads to the mining takes place. You do not wait till after the exploration and you certainly do not insert an amendment like her second amendment, which says: ‘If you find that the aquifers are going to be interrupted and significant damage will occur to the potential of the farmlands and their productivity, you don’t have to do anything anyway. Remove that clause.’ Senator Nash went on to say:

What we are seeing here is a very sensible measured approach to ensuring that the operations of mining in rural areas do not impact in an untoward fashion on the water system.

She was right yesterday and she is wrong today. The only thing that has happened is that, overnight, BHP Billiton has got to the National Party. Yesterday Senator Nash said:

Perhaps in the Senate the minister might be rather more agreeable to what is a very sensible, very pragmatic and very good amendment.

But what was ‘very sensible, very pragmatic and very good’ yesterday is today neither sensible, pragmatic nor good. Suddenly this amendment is being eviscerated by the National Party because that is what BHP Billiton and the Australian Mining Industry Council want.

Let me go back to the basis of the amendment here, which came from Mr Windsor, who has done a lot of work on this and who has simply said it is good sense to do a study on the impact on the aquifers and the catchment—because the above-ground water and the below-ground water are interconnected—before you go to explore or mine. That compelling good sense has not changed overnight. I will tell you what has changed, Chair, the Mining Industry Council and BHP Billiton have said: ‘Suddenly this is for real. Suddenly this is important. This amendment may be adopted by the government in the House of Representatives in order to get this important piece of legislation through, because it is an amendment of compelling good sense. We’d better get down to the National Party and the Liberal Party and change it from good sense to bad sense.’ That is what has happened, and I am disgusted by it. I appeal to the National Party to get back to what was described just yesterday by Senator Nash as ‘very sensible, very pragmatic and very good’.

We will, of course, oppose this amendment because it means that the impact of mining on the groundwater systems would not have to be studied before exploration proceeded, the implication being that, once exploration had found that the mining should go ahead—and big mining corporations rarely put millions into exploration if they are not intending to mine—you then do a study. The second amendment here says, ‘And when you’ve done the study, if you find a significant impact is going to occur to the water system, you don’t have to take any notice of that. We abolish that clause as well.’ I will be moving for some consistency when we get to the second amendment. I think this is a very sad outcome. The principle has not changed but the people have. The representation in here has changed because the mining lobby got at the National Party overnight. That is not good enough.