Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, you should not interject. You should be polite. Quite clearly, Mr Windsor never went outside of parliament when in the past he accused the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, John Anderson, of bribery. He did not go outside and make that allegation because it was fallacious, wrong and stupid; nor did Mr Windsor go outside and reassert allegations he made about Senator Sandy Macdonald. So it is a bit rich for him to be making statements about a coward's castle, because it is a place where he has resided quite happily a number of times.

I noted in Mr Windsor's letter to the editor on 28 July 2010 that he gave a number of points in seriatim and they run completely counter to the arguments that he is spreading around the district. He gives an explanation for why they could mine coal on his family's place. It has been in his family for I do not know how many generations, but they grew a very good crop of sunflower there, so it must be decent land. He runs this explanation of why coalmining is quite appropriate there but just down the road it is not. The argument was on the premise of the EPBC Act and water aquifers. In fact, he states himself in his letter to the editor:

10. A gravel ridge is the type of land that should be mined, not the fertile land of the Liverpool Plains.

The problem with that is that Shenhua and BHP were looking at mining on gravel ridges and he was one of the people protesting against it. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot decide one day because it works in your favour financially that you agree with mining so you can get paid $5,000 an acre for country which sales data of about that time indicates should get you, at best, $2,000 or $3,000 an acre—so you got way above the market for it—and then stand literally down the road and have a completely different position. It just makes you look like a total and utter hypocrite.

Point 7 of his letter to the editor says:

It is believed there will be an application to extend the Coal Company's mining area at some time in the future—that application may impact on "Cintra" land if approval were to be given. The Coal Company has a legitimate right to make such an application.

So he knew full well that his family's place was going to become a coalmine. It is a point of interest as to how that application went. Who approved it and why? A fair question to ask is: which state ministers at that point in time were part of that approval process? There might be nothing to answer for or there might be further questions to ask, but I think that is a fair question that can be asked in this chamber; it is a fair question that needs an answer. If the answer makes sense, the issue rests; but, if the answer does not, further questions need to be asked. That would be fair enough as well.

Mr Windsor says:

4. The Coal Company has purchased a number of properties within what is called the "zone of affectation" of mining activities.

5. Most of these properties will not be mined.

Why does he say that? Coalmining companies generally buy country because they have an expectation that there is coal somewhere around it. There may be buffer areas, but most of them will be mined. If you go through Werris Creek now, what you see is a massive mine. If someone had concerns about water tables, they are certainly not showing much concern there. It just seems peculiar that you could say, 'We'll just close our eyes and pretend that mine on the edge of Werris Creek doesn't exist. We'll pretend it's not there.' If you stand behind the mining industry, that is well and good. I believe in the mining industry. I think Australia would be broke without the mining industry, but I have no coalmine on my family's place. There is not one there.

To return to this piece of legislation, we need to make sure that we afford these people protections. A principle that we stand behind with coal seam gas, because a lot of this is pertinent to coal seam gas, is that there will be no coal seam gas extraction on primary agricultural land. If you are getting $5,000 an acre—if that is its true value; if that is really what it was worth—that sounds like primary agricultural land to me. That is a pretty good price. In other areas, you would have to be buying irrigation country for that amount. I do not know how you would go right now—if you were willing to buy land at $5,000 an acre, I reckon you would be buying the best land in the district. In fact, I think you would be buying the best land in the district with a lot of change left over. I do not know why someone would pay you $5,000 an acre. They get the land and you get the money—but anyway.

You should not be mining on primary agricultural land. You should not be destroying aquifers. When they put a coalmine down on a place, they never really questioned it much then. You should not be near—and this is pertinent—to domestic dwellings. I can assure you that this mine on Mr Windsor's place is right on the edge of town. It is right next to a residential area. I used to live there. I lived at 31 Gordon Street, Werris Creek. That was my house—it was the first house I bought for myself and my wife. My local member was Tony Windsor, in state politics at that time, I think. If you are on the land—