Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister, for finally admitting what we have been talking about for the last three hours—namely, that there was not duplication with the Water Act provision that your government is seeking to repeal and with the water protections in a different act applying to different mining activities. Thank you for at least finally admitting that it is not duplication. You have now just said, 'Oh, well, the states are going to do it, so it shouldn't have to be our problem.' We know that is your general approach to environmental protection, we know that you are trying to delegate your existing federal approval powers under the EPBC Act down to states and we know that you contend that the standards will not drop—and yet you are actually also, with legislation before this house, seeking to allow the states to not need to change their laws to reflect those standards. So, in essence, we know your environment policy is a complete dog's breakfast and the mining companies are writing it.

But I do appreciate the honesty with which you have eventually—after the, I think, sixth time I asked the questioned—admitted that there is actually not duplication between these two provisions. Your justification now is, 'It's somebody else's responsibility; so the federal government doesn't need to care.' As I say, I commend your honesty but you do not care about subsidence mining in the Murray-Darling Basin and its impact on groundwater—because that is 'somebody else's problem; that's the state government's problem.' But fact remains that you are removing a federal requirement from the Water Act and you are therefore reducing protection provided by this level of government for groundwater in the Murray-Darling. Again, at least you have now been honest about that fact. It has been perfectly clear to anyone who understands environmental law that that is what was happening all along. But I am grateful to the advisers in the box for eventually providing you with the information that explains what you are actually doing.

I do not think I have anything to add, other than that we think this will result in lower protection for groundwater; that we think this will potentially result in greater subsidence in the Murray-Darling; and that we do not trust the state governments to look after internationally environmentally significant assets. It is not their job. They do not have the personnel to do that job. Queensland have sacked 220 workers from the environment department and I understand you are already sacking many hundreds of environment employees at the federal level. There are not going to be the people to do the work that is currently done by the very busy public servants in the environment department federally. Those people are not going to be in the state department.

We will see standards drop, particularly if you insist on ramming through this place the Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill, which says that state laws do not even need to reflect those federal standards, that they can be partially in plans or guidelines and that is fine. We all know the legal status of plans or guidelines—that is, they can be considered and they do not need to be adhered to. So I am afraid that your rhetoric about standards being maintained is completely wrong at law—and you should know that and have some concern for the flagrant mistruth in that statement. However, my wonders will never cease.

Given the influence that Hansard records the Australian Minerals Council—as it then was back in 2008 when this Water Act provision of 255AA was first introduced—having, I ask whether the mining industry in any of its representative bodies or mining companies themselves have lobbied to have this section removed? What has been the pressure from the mining industry about section 255AA? Is this just your own idea or is the mining lobby driving this one as well?