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

I feel as if I have given three speeches on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013. The issue is that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act will be utilised to give greater oversight over protection of the aquifers. It is something that we are supporting. I think this is very important for former Gunnedah mayor, John Lyle, for his wife, Suzie, for people such as Xavier Martin, and for other people on the plains around Breeza and other places east of the Condamine River—people who have a serious concern about that. So let's clearly state that we are supporting this. After debate, after lobbying and after working hard on their behalf, we are supporting this.

But I think it also needs to be stated that you can understand the frustration that is held by the government when one of the so-called champions of this, Mr Windsor, seems to want to sit on both sides of the fence. That is clearly understood because he sold his place to a coal miner. He sold it not just for an ordinary price but for an extremely good price—almost $5,000 an acre. He has been highly sensitive about this. We could see that the other day when I was accosted in the media gallery about this issue. He wanted to, as he said, take it outside. Obviously, the impending threat of litigation, which of course you just do not have the resources to do—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should resign. If all you're going to do is campaign for a New South Wales seat—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to 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—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the Senate is just where you give campaign speeches?

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

If you want to make a speech, Senator Wong, you should stand up and make one. Otherwise you are just a rude person.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why won't you resign if you can't represent the state of Queensland?

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Wong, stop interjecting.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Touchy, touchy—worried about the Labor Party in New South Wales!

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left too! Senator Wong, please desist. Senator Joyce, direct your remarks to the chair.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy President. I can understand why some people might want to protect their colleague in the Green-Labor Party-Independent alliance. They have worked very closely together for a number of years. They have been very close, at a state level and at a federal level—at a state level in trying to make sure that their interests are looked after, and at a federal level in making sure that their interests are looked after.

We do not believe it should be on prime agricultural land. If you are selling something for $5,000 an acre, that would sound to me like prime agricultural land, because I do not know where you would be buying land, I really do not, for $5,000 an acre, even today—not for dryland farming. I would say that that would be one of the top prices you could possibly pay. Would that be a fair comment, Senator Heffernan? Senator Heffernan nods. He knows this country.

As far as aquifers go, I reckon putting in a coal mine would raise a few questions. Now, the big one is: should it be next to towns? This mine is on what was Mr Windsor's place. He has got it back now on a peppercorn rent. He also got the next-door neighbour's place on a peppercorn rent. It is an awfully good trick, except the neighbour wanted it back himself on a peppercorn rent—but I think Mr Windsor has got it. It is right next to town, so that is a bit of a problem. The final thing is: a fair return should go back to the landholder. I must admit, he ticked that box. He got that one right. He got a very fair return back to the landholder. So maybe on one issue, a fair return to the landholder, we and Mr Windsor are on the same ticket. We have to make sure that in dealing with this industry we acknowledge that.

Mr Windsor is working with mining companies. He has sold his place to a coalmining company. He got a very good price for his place and has obviously of late had a very strong working relationship or has been in discussions with Mr Palmer. Good luck to him! That is all right; I have no problems with that. It is clear to see that having a strong working relationship with mining and being the strong benefactor of what has happened in mining makes sense. This is obviously one of the questions that people ask: who were the ministers at the time?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have seen a bit of mining in New South Wales lately.

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

Yes. If there is nothing that needs to be answered, that is fair enough. We just need to clear the air; that is all. We just need to clear the air and get it off the cards. It is now very important that this piece of legislation goes through and that the people around Kiruna, the people around Breeza, the people around Nea, the people around Werris Creek and the people around Quirindi clearly understand that we support this legislation—because they will be reading this; you can bet your life on it—and that Xavier Martin, John Lyall and even Tim Duddy understand that we are in support of this legislation. They can communicate to the people of the area that we support this legislation and, in supporting this legislation, that we clearly show that the coalition in New England are trying to work to resolve issues. Hopefully, they will have a strong hand in a future coalition government to continue the work that needs to be done to make sure that we get the proper balance right.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013. That is not to be confused with the EPBC Amendment Bill 2012. I have both reports here. They say slightly different things, I admit, from the government's perspective. Nonetheless, I am a member of the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee and, throughout the inquiry into this piece of legislation, the committee received 235 submissions from across industry, environmental groups and community. There was a keen interest in discussing this particular matter.

The bill seeks to amend the EPBC Act by creating a new manner of national environmental significance under the act. Currently, there are eight matters of national environmental significance, including World Heritage properties, Commonwealth marine areas, wetlands, national heritage places and the like. The amendments go to set out requirements and civil offences regarding actions which could have a significant impact on water resources, from coal seam gas to large coalmining developments.

The impact of coal seam gas on regional communities is of great concern to the Nationals and the coalition generally. To get the balance right between farmers, community and the environment is paramount. It is summed up best by the Nationals leader, Warren Truss, in 2011, when he stated:

A properly managed coal seam gas industry represents an unprecedented opportunity for regional Australia. Poorly managed it could tick every box of a social and environmental disaster.

This is why we have developed some core principles around the development of the industry, in direct response to community concerns.

The core principles go to the heart of the concerns about inappropriate developments. I think Senator Joyce has already touched on these. Firstly, no coal seam gas development should proceed where it poses a significant impact on groundwater or surface water; it has to be safe for the environment. Secondly, prime agricultural land is our most precious asset; its value drives our regional communities and our export industry. We do not want to see any negative impact on that. Thirdly, regional Australia is home to many thousands of locals living in our towns, cities and districts. We think that the development of the coal seam gas industry needs to take the concerns of those householders into account. Fourthly, we believe landowners are entitled to appropriate returns for access to and use of their land that goes beyond mere compensation. Finally, there needs to be a recognition that, as regional communities are the areas contributing to the development of this resource, it is only fair that they receive a fair share of revenue generated by the industry so that they can reinvest that in their communities.

We have been upfront in outlining our desire for appropriate development of this industry, recognising that it also brings much needed jobs and economic stimulus to regional areas. But, again, I reiterate that it must be balanced. That is why we are not opposing this bill. However, there were numerous issues raised throughout the inquiry, which included several suggested amendments that the government could consider. They are sensible amendments, supported by both sides of this debate—those sides being environmentalists and industry.

Both recognise that there was no consultation in the construction of this bill—that is, with any of the groups involved: farmers, industry or environmental groups. That evidence is borne out in our Senate committee report. This suggests that once again the federal government has sought to play politics instead of being guided by principles. Look at how that particular strategy has gone so far: five years of politics ahead of policy and principles has resulted in bills requiring significant amendment and having unintended consequences, and a legislative agenda that reads like a stakeholder wish list—I would cite the latest tranche of the Fairwork amendments as an example—as the national long-term interest of this nation is butchered on the altar of the Labor Party's desperation to cling onto power. The desire to cling on to power overrides good policy process. There is no regulatory impact statement with this bill; there was no consultation with stakeholders, states, industry, famers or environmental groups. The minister himself stated six months ago that the Commonwealth government had no constitutional powers to make such laws that would seek to regulate coal seam gas—and he was right. Yet the Greens foreshadowed amendments using the executive power under our Constitution, and I look forward to Senator Waters moving those later on in this debate so we can have a conversation about them. But it was clear that the government consulted with someone—their powerful allies and co-conspirators in the ALP government's longevity and negative legislative agenda. These powerful allies in this game of national and moral fiscal malaise are none other than Tony Windsor, the member for New England, and the Greens.

This bill and its process of development has been categorised by haste, lack of consultation, lack of a regulatory impact statement and lack of clarity, which was raised over and over again throughout the inquiry. There is ambiguity about the impact it will have on the process of environmental legislative reform that is already underway that states are having a national conversation about on how we can get better at this as a team. Mr Windsor's determination to support them is a perfect example of this government's determination to hang on to power for as long as it can. It is a very powerful alliance, indeed.

Nobody disputes the importance of getting the balance right. What is a point of debate, as the report rightly states in the government majority section, is that the regulation of coal seam gas is 'primarily a matter for states'. This bill supersedes the cooperative process already in place and already being conducted to deal with the issues of coal seam gas developments. That is precisely why the national partnership on coal seam gas and large coalmining proposals is important—a COAG process working collaboratively with the states to bring state environmental laws up to federal standards without impacting on their sovereignty. It has been, according to stakeholders in the process, circumvented by this bill. I refer specifically to the evidence given to the committee by the NFF representative Ms Kerr.

This process has been time consuming and people have approached it in good faith, but they are now left wondering as to the status of the review due next year and what role that will play. I know the Greens do not like state parliaments. Our federated structure is an anathema for them—ironic, really, as they sit here in the states' chamber in federal parliament.

As Senator Birmingham noted in his contribution to this debate, the coalition supports the work of the independent scientific committee as it provides up-to-date advice to both state governments, who are tasked with approving and assessing coal seam gas developments, and, indeed, the federal minister on matters deemed appropriate. This is a good initiative; we support it. To make the coalition out to be environmental vandals because we support scientific oversight and a collaborative approach to the national partnership on coal seam gas which brings the stakeholders together makes the hypocrisy of the Greens and Mr Windsor clear.

I recognise that the development of the coal seam gas industry in New South Wales is a significant issue to local landowners and communities; however, using the federal EPBC Act as a method for riding roughshod over the rights of states to regulate what occurs within their boundaries is an abuse of Commonwealth power. As Fiona Simson, President of NSW Farmers, stated to a question about her preferred option for how to deal with the issues of coal seam gas development in New South Wales:

My preferred option, and our association's preferred option, remains that the state government provide the protections that it promised it would prior to coming into office. We feel that that could quite easily happen through some of the instruments are currently in place—by making the aquifer interference policy enforceable, for instance.

Mr Gregson from the New South Wales Irrigators' Council said:

I think it would be our preference if New South Wales were to revisit its perspective and make its good set of rules applicable to at least someone so that we do not have to have the difference between the two jurisdictions.

It is clear, I think, that harmonisation is the way forward, rather than regulating all to fix one.

It may be news to the Greens that some states have taken a different approach to mining development. I would like to highlight one such state involved in this debate which has taken a different approach, one reflective of the coalition's stance on the development of our regions with respect to the mining industry—my home state of Victoria. It will now be subject to additional legislation and regulation and will be unable, if the Windsor amendment is passed, to seek bilateral agreements with the Commonwealth simply because New South Wales could not get it right. There is no coal seam gas production in Victoria and still no confirmed commercial reserves. However, the Victorian government is taking a very careful approach to the issue of coal seam gas and is determined not to rush into anything. It will not put at risk the water aquifers, agricultural production and liveability that are the hallmarks of the magnificent regional areas of Victoria. It has taken a strong, responsible approach to managing issues associated with coal seam gas. While further work is being undertaken at a Commonwealth and state level to better understand and manage the prospect of coal seam gas development, the state coalition has taken decisive action to protect local communities, including: a hold on approvals to undertake hydraulic fracturing as part of onshore gas exploration; a hold on the issuing of new exploration licences for coal seam gas; and a ban on the use of BTEX chemicals in hydraulic fracturing in Victoria.

This action is in addition to Victoria's already tough regulatory framework that includes Victoria's environmental protection policy under the Environment Protection Act 1970, which does not allow discharge from exploration and mining activities that will pollute groundwater. The Victorian state government is responsibly investigating approaches to ensuring both ongoing gas supplies and energy security with respect to natural gas development. That includes unconventional sources such as tight gas, shale gas and coal seam gas.

While some in the community would like to see the government permanently ban these industries, the state government does not believe that is a responsible approach. Despite the potential economic benefits of unconventional gas, protection of the environment is the state government's first priority. It goes right against the claims of the Greens that somehow state governments are subject to a conflict of interest around the approval of coalmining activities in terms of the state royalties they collect. But the Victorian state government has taken the sensible approach by participating in the national partnership conversation and is looking at what has happened under previous and current governments in Queensland and New South Wales. It is looking at a way to better regulate the development of the coal seam gas industry, and particularly its impact on regional communities. To legislate for all and to regulate all because of the bad behaviour of a few undermines all the potential good that could come from appropriately developed coal seam gas projects.

I would like to briefly mention Labor's record in Victoria. Licences to explore for coal seam gas have existed in Victoria for the last 12 years. It was the former Labor government that granted those exploration licences. Over 70 per cent of the 24 current exploration licences were issued under the former Labor government. Fracking was last approved and undertaken under the former Labor state government in 2009. It is interesting that Senator Cameron is not here spruiking the track record of the New South Wales Labor government on this issue. I look forward to him arriving in the chamber and standing up for the decisions made by the former New South Wales state Labor government with respect to mining development and more specifically to coal seam gas development throughout regional New South Wales. And where are Queensland senators? I am looking—Senator Feeney, Senator Brown, but no Queensland senators from the Labor Party. Senator Waters, I am more than happy if you want to stand up and spruik former Premier Bligh's track record on approvals and assessment of coal seam gas projects in Queensland, but I am guessing you will not be wanting to do that. Correct. Any Queensland Labor senators should head on down. We would love to hear your take on coal seam gas mining project development approvals and assessments in Queensland.

It is a bit rich that this bill is before us now. The fact is the concerns outlined by Senator Birmingham and the issues canvassed throughout the committee's report are specific to some state governments and that was made very clear in the evidence, but not all state governments—and not even a majority of state governments, just a handful. Here we are legislating in an area where we do not know what the unintended consequences are. There is ambiguity around definitions, which I hope to get to. A number of issues were raised during the inquiry that are not dealt with in the bills or in the amendments before us. Regarding the issues raised, I will touch on three, and they are clarity, overriding state processes and unintended consequences.

Clarity in definitions is important, and it is particularly important when writing laws—because lawyers get paid a lot of money to argue about what various clauses and words mean. The definitions frame and define what and whom is covered by various pieces of legislation. Submitters from both sides of this debate were concerned about the lack of clarity in this bill. The specific classic was what defined 'a water resource' under this legislation. Was it any dry gully? Did it refer to any water resource? Apparently, it did. Tracey Winters had this to say:

But the effect of this bill is to extend water resources—for example, a dry gully, every dry gully in the country, because a watercourse is defined as every watercourse, whether it is flowing or not. So this bill would make every dry gully in the country a matter of national environmental significance.

Even so, the government's committee report stated that:

It is most unlikely that all dry gullies would be included.

But once it is law, it is law. While Senator Cameron and other senators who support the majority report into this piece of legislation might think that it is enough to put a line in a Senate committee report that it is unlikely that dry gullies would be considered a water resource under this piece of legislation, I would prefer to see that articulated in the bill, because once it is law it is law. I wonder what the perspective of our catchment management authorities, our local farmers and local councils would be if this were the case. I guess we can leave it for the lawyers to sort out.

There was no clarity either around whom is affected. What do large coalminers look like? A lack of transparency continued about how far the trigger should go. Should it cover other industries? I was particularly interested in this aspect. At the moment it only covered coal seam gas and large coalmining industries but it was of particular concern to the National Farmers Federation that this particular trigger could end up covering other types of regional industries. Apparently, according to Mr Knowles from Economists at Large, it should apply to other industries. It absolutely should. In fact, when he was asked to apply this trigger to agriculture, Mr Knowles said he thought it was a 'logical and equitable approach to take'.The whole push behind this is not just for coal seam gas and large coalmining developments but also for any industry's impact on a water resource, however that is defined. Why should the farmers in Western Australia or South Australia or Victoria or Tasmania be subjected to this ambiguity? Because the government needed once again the political support of Windsor and Waters. This was not one of the recommendations of the Hawke review—the massive review of the EPBC Act. It was not there. The experts did not find it there. It was not part of the government's response to the review. So, the government had the opportunity to say: 'You know what? We think we should do this. We think this should be how the EPBC should look.'

Did the government put it in their response? No, they did not. I may be cynical! The refusal to work with the states and stakeholders towards an agreed national response to the very real challenges that the coal seam gas industry and its development pose for regional communities changed when the politics changed. Waters and Windsor wanted it as a wedge—that is clear—and Burke brought it on.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator McKenzie, I remind you to refer to members and senators by their correct titles.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Burke brought it on. Clearly, we will be backing regional communities, as we always do. I have appreciated the opportunity to highlight once again this government's inept handling of the legislative process—the rushed and reckless approach to regulation as they conspire against the national interest and our institutions, and against their own stated objectives with respect to environmental legislation, in an effort to maintain their hold on power, hand in hand with their most complicit allies, Windsor and the Greens.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind senators that at 4.30 the debate on this bill will be interrupted to move to general business.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013, I have to say what a lot of politics has been dragged into this whole debate. Yesterday I listened to Senator Waters talking about food security. The Greens do not care about growing food, and their history proves that. Go back to the Native Vegetation Conservation Act—of which Senator Heffernan would be well aware—which the then Premier of New South Wales, now Senator Bob Carr, brought into New South Wales to stop farmers ploughing even country that had not been farmed for 10 years. They could have grown some wheat crops on it. They could have grown more food. New South Wales could have yielded a lot more food to human consumption. But no—the Native Vegetation Conservation Act brought that to a complete stop, and it was driven by the Greens in the New South Wales parliament. Then Premier Bob Carr said his government would be the greenest New South Wales had ever seen. That he was. He cuddled up to the Greens and put all the environmental costs on to the farmers.

It is interesting that it was the then minister, one Kim Yeadon—John Laws used to call him by his full name, Kimberley Maxwell Yeadon—one of Premier Carr's senior staffers, who drove the SEPP 46 and then the Native Vegetation Conservation Act, with no compensation to farmers when they could not grow food, driven by the Greens. And who was one of the chief advisers? One Senator Penny Wong. That is where she came from, in her pre-Senate life. This was a Greens-Labor stooge of a policy to blame those terrible farmers, those 'environmental vandals', as they refer to the farmers—who actually feed everyone in Australia plus millions of other people around the world.

That is what has come into this whole debate, once again: politics. It is not about the environment; it is about politics. We have seen the Greens just recently up at Liverpool Plains, the fly-in fly-out visitors to regional Australia. None of them live out there.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do! Get it right.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not realise—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will ignore the interjections, Senator Williams.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ignore the interjections. Put it this way: none of them live up near Liverpool Plains. If Senator Di Natale lives in regional Australia, he would be a rarity in that group, I can assure you. On 25 April, an article in the Namoi Valley Independent said:

Greens leader Senator Christine Milne is questioning why Shenhua Watermark Coal was granted a coal exploration licence on farmland that she believes could be vulnerable to water contamination from mining.

What is amazing is that this delegation led by Senator Milne did not go and visit Shenhua Watermark Coal:

Shenhua Watermark Coal issued a statement yesterday, saying it had not been consulted about the visit or asked to provide a tour of the proposed mine site.

Don't go and look at the facts; let's play politics with the issue. The article said:

It said when the company did invite the delegation to visit, the request was rejected.

Shenhua also said in its statement:

'This is extremely disappointing as our tour would have allowed her to see first hand how the project is avoiding any disturbance on the region’s black soil Liverpool Plains and highly productive acquifers which are used by local farmers …

Contrary to Ms Milne’s comment, the Watermark Project is actively managing the farms we have acquired and the overall loss of agricultural output will be minimal as a result of mining.'

I have spent all of my life in rural Australia, and being a member of the National Party of New South Wales I know we are the last people who want to see any damage done to the Liverpool Plains or any other farming country in Australia. There is very little of the sort of magnificent country of the Liverpool Plains, about three per cent, on this planet.

This bill is giving more authority to the federal government, but we on this side of the parliament supported the $150 million scientific study. We actually got the amendments through the Rudd government, from this place—despite the bashing we got from some—that said you could not mine coal seam gas in the Namoi Valley until a water study was carried out. It was the coalition that pursued that and, in conjunction with the Labor Party, we achieved that. So they could not move from exploration to mining without a water study being carried out. It was the Labor Party and the coalition that put that in place. The Greens opposed it because they wanted the water study done before exploration. If that were the case, no exploration would ever be done. Let's be fair dinkum here. The four-wheel-drive utes and tractors that people drive around their farms are not made out of tree bark and leaves; they come from mining. That is why mining has served our country well, as has agriculture. Mining represents a finite resource. Agriculture represents a renewable resource that will hopefully go on for as long as mankind lives on this planet.

But the problem is the politicisation of this issue. The Nationals leader, Warren Truss, made it quite clear when he announced our five-point plan for coal seam gas in November 2011. We said:

or the environment more generally.

We know that some in this place like to just lock it up for national parks. We have seen the record of the Labor Party and the Greens on that. We could go to Toorale Station, Senator Heffernan, couldn't we? Ninety-three thousand hectares of good grazing country and good farming country—with some irrigation—is now a national park. Our coal seam gas policy continued:

That is what was put out a long time ago and has been stated for a long time now. We have made it quite clear where we stand on this. We must tread with extreme caution. One thing we cannot do in this place is destroy the environment for future generations, especially the land and water needed to grow food. If you do not have healthy soil, you do not grow healthy food. If you do not have healthy food, you do not have healthy humans. It is actually a health issue.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 4.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.