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

The Australian Greens oppose this amendment absolutely. I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5678 to opposition amendment (2) as circulated:

(1)    At the end of the amendment, add ‘, substitute:

        (2)    Where a substantial risk is identified licences must not be granted.”

This amendment is to ensure that we are very clear about this issue. Senator Nash said, ‘There will be a study done before mining is undertaken,’ under the previous cave-in amendment of the coalition. That does not change the fact that there is no longer any need for a study to be sensibly done. The bush common sense that she agreed with yesterday is that the study should be undertaken before exploration takes place. The amendment that we now have from Senator Nash means that yesterday’s position—jointly held by the Greens, the Nationals and the Liberals that, where a substantial risk is identified, exploration licences must not be granted—is abolished. When you look at that, together with the amendment that the Nationals have just moved, you get to the point where the amendment from Senator Nash would mean that, where a substantial risk is identified, licences for mining are not altered. You can identify a substantial risk but the mining can go ahead.

My amendment is simply to accept, as the numbers beat us, that a study does not have to be undertaken before mineral exploration; it now has to be undertaken before mining. My amendment would mean that, where a substantial risk is identified, the mining licence must not be granted. I ask the coalition to look at that carefully. If what Senator Nash says is true then my amendment should be supported. It is consistent with the last amendment that was made. We have lost the fight to ensure that a study is done before exploration is undertaken. It now has to be undertaken, as Senator Nash says, before mining is carried out. My amendment is to ensure that, where a substantial risk is identified in that study, the licence for mining is not granted.

I see that there are hurried discussions between Senator Nash and Senator Wong. That is fine. But I think this is very important. What I am doing here is ensuring that, where a substantial risk is identified, the licence to go ahead with the mining is not granted. I beseech the coalition to support this amendment. It is entirely consistent with what Senator Nash has been putting to the committee this morning. It is a very important and logical amendment and I would expect that the government would also support this amendment. What is the point of having a study if a substantial risk is identified and it does not make any difference?