Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I support the comments Senator McLucas made about the special scientific committee, but the unfortunate thing about this bill is the fact that the government, having set that committee up—and set it up with the support of the coalition—has now largely ignored it. What is the point of approaching and getting the concurrence, agreement and input of a panel of experts—people the community, the states and federal parliamentarians would accept the views of—only then to ignore them and to turn around and say, 'There is absolutely no value in the contribution they have made'?

The scientific committee were tasked with the responsibility of consulting widely and of examining overseas circumstances—we know that in the United States and other countries there are concerns about coal seam gas and the deeper shale gases. That is what they were asked to examine, to give consideration to as a panel of expert scientists, and to come back and report to parliament on. They were also asked to report on whether or not they had the concurrence, the sympathy and support of the community and of the states and territories. Their report would then provide the basis for decisions.

As my colleague Senator Birmingham has said, it is the issue of duplication which has caused so much grief amongst our colleagues at state level and amongst those in industry and business. This country is now competing with all other nations—developing countries and developed countries alike. We are in a world of strong competition, with finance moving around the world to pursue the best opportunities. Increasingly, we are falling off the pace—because Australia is no longer regarded as a safe place to invest.

As I said in a contribution earlier this afternoon, every Australian wants to make sure the environment is well protected. We want to make sure that there are no ill effects on residential areas from coal seam gas exploration or extraction. We want to make sure that those who are competent to look at these issues are tasked with doing so. But we must then offer them the courtesy of actually taking notice of what they say.

As has also been mentioned in a contribution to this debate, when the Senate committee met we had people speaking about the Hawke review of the act, saying that, regrettably, the government, having commissioned the review—I believe, Senator Birmingham, with the support of the coalition—then largely cherry-picked the limited areas in which they would actually accept recommendations and largely ignored the areas in which they would not. We have seen this so often with this government, in so many other areas. The Henry tax review is the first one that comes to mind on which eminent Australians did an enormous amount of good work, only to be insulted by having most of their recommendations ignored. Unfortunately, we seem to be seeing the same thing again here.

It is the duplication of efforts that we must try and avoid. The Prime Minister herself, in her contribution on this matter, spoke of avoiding state and federal duplication when it comes to environmental and other assessments, yet she has led and allowed a process which will do exactly that. More regrettable is the fact that the government has reversed its own position. As indicated by Senator Birmingham in his original contribution, the government has reversed its own position on a whim, as a result of the member for New England, Mr Windsor, who came along for his own shallow political purposes and influenced the government to change its position. That is not good enough, in my view. It is not good enough, and I firmly believe, Senator McLucas, that the government which you are representing in this debate must take on board the amendments that have been suggested. We must get this bill to a stage where it will be good law rather than skewed law.