Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the committee adjourned consideration and reported to the chamber just prior to question time yesterday, I was in the midst of making some comments regarding the amendment before the chamber, which is the Australian Greens amendment to extend and dramatically change the way in which ownership of minerals is recognised, by doing it with a backdoor method by essentially giving carte blanche power to landowners to be able to block any type of mineral exploration or development on their properties.

I gave the chamber some background on the very extensive history of state laws in this area, as did Senator Joyce, at length. We recognised in those contributions the genuine concerns of landowners and adjourning landowners, which need to be managed carefully. But I think it is important we recognise that laws as they exist at a state level at present do provide levels of process to ensure consent is ideally given and, if not, that mediation processes are undertaken. Not always do these processes provide the perfect outcome, but this Greens amendment would be a complete and utter over-reaction to the lack of perfection in some of those state processes.

To understand exactly where the states are in terms of their assessment of applications, and the processes they go through, I thought it would be useful for the chamber if in a reasonable quick way we went through step by step what some of those processes are. Importantly, there are distinctions between exploration activities and production activities in terms of the rights of landowners and the way in which consent is given or allowed.

For landowners in New South Wales, under the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 as it currently stands, if a petroleum licence holder seeking to undertake exploration seeks to enter a property, a written notice detailing the licence holder's intention to obtain an access agreement must be served on the landowner. The licence holder and landholder must then reach an access agreement in order for such exploration activity to be undertaken. If that access agreement cannot be reached within 20 days of the serving of the notice of intention then an arbiter may be appointed whose role is to facilitate a conciliated agreement. If an agreement still cannot be reached, the arbiter is then bound to make a decision on access arrangements. This initial decision is known as an interim determination to allow for it to be varied either by the landholder or by the petroleum exploration licence holder subject to the agreement of both parties. If within 14 days no agreement variation is made to the interim determination, the determination becomes the arbiter's final determination. However, as a further right of recourse either party may apply for a review of the arbiter's final determination through appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

An access agreement may include arrangements for the time period for which access is permitted. It may identify the parts of the land that may be explored. It may identify the kinds of activities that can take place. It may identify the conditions that must be observed during the activities that are being undertaken. It may identify measures surrounding the protection of the environment. Importantly, it may identify the relevant compensation to be provided to the landholder. A licence holder cannot carry out any activity on the landholder's land other than which is prescribed in the access agreement.

Compensation, which as I indicated is a very, very important part of the agreement process, can be agreed to under the access agreement or determined separately. The licence holder is liable to compensate the landholder or every person having an estate or interest for any loss or interference as a result of any operations conducted by the licence holder. That is an important point and one that should be emphasised in this debate: the licence holder, the party planning to undertake exploration, is liable to compensate the landholder for any loss or interference as a result of any operations conducted by the licence holder. A licence holder cannot undertake any exploration activity on any land within 200 metres of a dwelling house, within 50 metres of a garden, vineyard or orchard or over any improvements or valuable work structure except with the written consent of the landholder. Those are the features in relation to exploration activities.

There are other features in relation to production and others in terms of how the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 works in New South Wales. It is also relevant to note that there must also be appropriate development consent given under the New South Wales Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. So there are several hurdles that must be cleared. Under the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991, New South Wales must grant an approval. Under the New South Wales Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, New South Wales must grant an approval. And, as we know—and are debating extending this—at the federal level there is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and approval must be granted there.

In relation to production activities in New South Wales, a licence holder cannot carry out any mining operations or erect any works on the surface of any land that is under cultivation except with the consent of the landholder. Cultivation for the growth and spread of pasture grasses is not considered cultivation within the meaning of the act, though. The minister may, however, permit mining operations on land under cultivation if the minister considers that the circumstances warrant it.

There is no requirement in relation to production to enter into an access agreement. However, provisions relating to compensation—which I outlined before—and to the protection of homes and gardens and other areas that are applicable to exploration licences also apply to production leases. Once again, the compensation provisions state that any landholder must be compensated for any loss or interference as a result of any operations conducted by a licence holder.

I understand that there are legislative changes before the New South Wales parliament at present that again are responding to the types of concerns that have driven the debate on this measure by the Greens in this place. But it comes back to the fundamental point that these decisions—the management of legislation regarding land access undertakings—rightly belong at the state level. They are rightly decisions for state governments, as has been the case for more than 100 years. Constitutionally, as the government has indicated, it is likely that they must be decisions for state governments. So this chamber would find itself, and this parliament would find itself, exposing the Commonwealth government to a High Court battle in which the states, wanting to protect their rights in relation to land access and mining arrangements, would be taking on the Commonwealth should we pass this bill in an amended form as proposed by the Greens. For these reasons, and because of the many concerns we have about how significant this would be in overturning the longstanding practice of Australian law in relation to land management, the coalition again emphasises that it cannot possibly support the Greens amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: Before I call Senator Waters I will just remind the chamber that the question that is before the chair at the moment is that amendment 1 on 7375, moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to. It was remiss of me to not indicate that up-front.

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

Thank you, Chair. We have debated this amendment for one hour now. This is the Greens amendment to give landholders the right to lock the gate against coal seam gas and coal. We will not stand for the opposition filibustering on my amendment any longer. I move:

That the question now be put.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7375 be agreed to.

The Committee divided. [09:49]

(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 7397 concurrently.

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 15), omit "involves", substitute "is a".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (after line 17), after section 24E, insert:

24F Independent review

  (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken by a person or body of:

     (a) the operation of Subdivision FB of Division 1 of Part 3 of the Act; and

     (b) the extent to which that Subdivision has contributed to achieving the objects of the Act.

  (2) The first review must be undertaken within 4 years of the date that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Act 2013 receives the Royal Assent. Subsequent reviews must be undertaken at intervals of not more than 4 years after the date that the previous independent review is tabled in each House of the Parliament.

  (3) The person or body undertaking the independent review must take into account any submissions of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development.

  (4) The person or body undertaking a review must give a report of the review to the Minister.

  (5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives it.

(3) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 31), after item 18, insert:

18A Section 528 (at the end of the definition of coal seam gas development )

  Add ", but does not include exploration, assessment or appraisal pursuant to a petroleum title granted under a law of a State or Territory.".

(4) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 31), after item 18, insert:

18B Section 528 (at the end of the definition of large coal mining development )

  Add ", but does not include exploration, assessment or appraisal pursuant to a minerals exploration licence or permit granted under a law of a State or Territory.".

I thank you, Chair, and I thank the chamber for leave. These amendments are important amendments. Before I get to these amendments, I will reflect for a moment on what transpired in the chamber. We just saw the Australian Greens moving to gag debate on their own amendment. The Greens moved to gag debate on their own significant amendment to environmental laws. It is the most remarkable thing I have seen in this place. The sanctimonious Greens come in here on a regular basis and preach transparency and accountability and have told us countless times how paramount the importance of this chamber is and how significant it is, and railed during the Howard years against any attempt to gag debate by the Howard government. On countless occasions, far more than ever occurred in the Howard years, the Greens have supported the Labor Party to gag debate. But now we see the remarkable situation of the Greens themselves moving the gag motion. And they are not just moving the gag motion on, say, the opposition's consideration or on the legislation as a whole; they start moving the gag motion on their very own amendments.

Senator Waters stood up and noted that we had been debating the amendment for an hour, 60 minutes—wow, whoop-de-do, what a big deal, a whole hour of consideration to something that would overturn a century-plus of state environmental laws and state land planning laws. Well, why on earth would you want to spend more than an hour considering overturning something that has been enshrined in the way this country has operated for more than a century? Why on earth would you need more than 60 minutes to contemplate such a vast and significant change to the way land management laws work in Australia!

Really, the hypocrisy that comes from the Australian Greens on so many levels is quite astounding, but perhaps none more so than such a contemptuous act as this, in terms of the way this chamber operates and the way the Australian people should be treated, and in terms of the significance of the law-making changes that they have proposed in this country. I really do question the sincerity of the Greens when it comes to their sanctimonious comments about having proper debate in this place, and I really do question their sincerity when it comes to their approach to facilitating transparency and openness in government and law-making, if they just want to come in here and simply shut down debate, even on their own substantial amendments.

It is worth noting that the amendments proposed add little, if any, relevance to the bill before the chair. The amendments the Greens have proposed are amendments to introduce a whole new area of responsibility to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, an area of responsibility where the federal minister for the environment would become the gatekeeper and the checker on whether or not agreements had been reached between landowners and mining companies. There is not anything about whether environmental standards are met or whether the water trigger that has been put into this act is being appropriately applied, but a whole different scenario in terms of actual land use agreements.

I am pleased to say that, in speaking to the amendments moved by the opposition—the amendments that relate in particular to definitional issues surrounding coal seam gas development and large coalmining developments—we are going to come back to the legislation before the chamber and actually deal with the specific proposal in the bill before the chamber.

The Senate inquiry into this bill heard numerous concerns about definitional issues in relation to this legislation on a range of fronts. We heard concerns about how it is that a 'significant impact' is defined in the legislation. We know that regulations are being drawn up by the government, and we had some answers to questions about those earlier in the debate. I foreshadow to the government that I will have further questions for them about the significant impact provisions and how it is that they operate. Equally, the committee heard questions and concerns about how it is that a 'water resource' is defined in this legislation or how it will be treated in terms of its definition in this legislation. Of course, there was the not unreasonable question of what a 'large coalmining development' is. How big is big enough to be a large coalmining development? Obviously, that is a particularly vague term in that sense.

In particular, the amendments that I have moved deal with the difference and distinction between exploration or appraisal activities and actual production and development activities. In the previous debate on the Greens' amendment, I highlighted what happens at a state law level in terms of the granting of approvals and the different tests that are applied to exploration and appraisal activities versus those applied to production and development activities. It is quite reasonable that they are distinct. On the one hand, companies go in and assess whether there is a decent deposit there worth looking at in the first place—a decent deposit of coal or a decent amount of gas that can be extracted. What does the ground below the surface actually contain? You do not know that until you do the assessment, appraisal and exploration work. That is such a critical component of what occurs right across Australia to try to ascertain what our minerals and resources potential is under the soil, state by state. It is very important that there be proper processes in place to facilitate that as easily as possible.

In many, many instances—probably in the vast majority of instances—when that work is done, when a hole is drilled to test what the content of the ground beneath the soil is, the company will find that it is not satisfactory and moves on elsewhere. The intrusion—the access to the land—is therefore short term and minimal. The environmental impact on the land is also relatively short term and minimal. But sometimes, of course, deposits are found and it is then worthwhile proceeding to the next stage, the stage of production.

Rightly, state laws recognise that these are two distinct areas. Separate licences are granted for exploration activities and production activities. Different processes for approvals occur for exploration activities and production activities. But a major flaw in the legislation before the Senate today is that in relation to this expansion of powers at the federal level no such distinction has been factored in. A company will face exactly the same federal environmental hurdles to clear in relation to exploration or appraisal activities as they would face in relation to production and development activities. That is a significant flaw in this legislation and has the real capacity to hold up some of the most important work done in Australia, which is that exploration work to identify what and where the resources are.

As I said, the Senate committee took evidence in regard to this matter and heard a number of concerns. Santos submitted to the committee as follows:

Most concerning to Santos is a seemingly unintended consequence of the amendments that 'exploration' and 'appraisal' activities will be captured. …Traditionally the Act has been interpreted to regard a 'development' as referring to a defined project already committed to by the proponent.

Obviously, there is a vast difference between simply exploring whether something is there and actually committing as a company to extract those resources from the ground. The company argued that of course development can only follow after they have a sound understanding of the resource that is there. That is simply logic. If you do not facilitate the exploration, companies will never know what is in the ground and indeed governments and regulators will not know what is in the ground. It is to the benefit not just of industry but also of government and regulators to have a very clear understanding and knowledge of what is contained within the ground when making assessments as to whether or not full production activities should be undertaken.

The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association submitted to the Senate inquiry and said:

The proposed amendment bill utilises the definition of coal seam gas development activity used by the existing Independent Expert Scientific Committee gateway. Coal seam gas development means any activity involving coal seam gas extraction that has, or is likely to have, a significant impact on water resources (including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity). This is a broad definition that is likely to extend to petroleum exploration activities, which involve small amounts of coal seam gas extraction. The inclusion of exploration activities in the scope of activities covered by the amendment will result in situations where exploration cannot proceed. This is despite the fact that it is the act of exploration that informs the assessment of a water resource. This paradox is particularly concerning in remote areas where little or no information already exists.

APPEA submitted that the bill should expressly exclude exploration activities from the definition of coal seam gas development. So we see very clearly there in the submission of APPEA that the bill, as drafted at present, would result in situations in which exploration could not proceed, thereby undermining the capacity of regulators to be informed when assessing what the water resource is that they are seeking to assess. So there is an internal failure in this bill: the government will be less informed because such exploration may not be undertaken.

Dr Dripps, the deputy secretary of the relevant department, informed the committee that:

The way the EPBC Act operates is that it is based on a 'significant impact' on one of the listed matters. So the stage of the activity, whether it is an early exploratory stage or an actual production stage, is not relevant in considering whether or not there is a significant impact.

Well, the opposition believes it is relevant, and we believe it is relevant because it does not just facilitate potential development; it facilitates better understanding and knowledge of the very water resources that the government seeks to be able to assess. By undertaking the exploration activities, we gain, especially in remote areas where there is little existing knowledge of some of those underground water resources, a far better appreciation, as a whole, of what is out there and how the connectedness operates and how it may indeed impact in terms of any future production that is to be undertaken.

That is why the coalition is moving this amendment. We would hope that the government—who, I know, want to see this industry grow but want to see it grow in a safe and sensible way—will recognise that this is a safe and sensible and largely technical amendment. So I would urge the government to support it.

As I flagged, I would also ask the government if, in relation to the 'significant impact' definitions, they can outline just what minimum level of consultation with industry they are committed to, and how those significant impact criteria in particular deal with the issues of exploration. Do those significant impact criteria make it clear that exploration activities are not considered to be of significant impact? If they do, that will be some level of comfort—although, obviously, it would be preferable if the legislation itself made clear, as the coalition moves and proposes, that exploration activities are expressly excluded.

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

I would just like to put on record the Greens' opposition to this amendment moved by the opposition to exclude anything but the production stages of coal seam gas and coalmining. Clearly, as we have heard at length from the experts, the very punching of a hole through aquifers to get to a coal seam is what potentially causes the connectivity which can lead to dropping of the groundwater table or contamination of the groundwater. So I am afraid that, in terms of water, there is little difference between exploration and production in terms of the possible damage to aquifers, and on that basis we will be opposing this amendment.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All of the matters raised by Senator Birmingham were fully considered by the Senate committee and the committee recommended to the Senate that this bill be passed. So we will not be supporting the amendments, and I move:

That the question be put.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Conroy that the motion be now put be agreed to.

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

The question now is that opposition amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 7397 moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.

The Committee divided [10:16]

(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

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

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7376:

(1) Schedule 1, items 20 to 22, page 10 (line 26) to page 12 (line 28), omit the items, substitute:

20 Application

  (1) Except as provided by subitem (2), the amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to an action involving coal seam gas development or large coal mining development that is taken on or after the day this item commences, even if the action began before that time.

  (2) The amendments made by this Schedule do not apply in relation to the taking of an action if, before 10 February 2013:

     (a) the Minister approved the action under Part 9 of the old law; or

     (b) the Minister decided under Division 2 of Part 7 of the old law that the action was not a controlled action; or

     (c) the action was specifically authorised in accordance with section 43A of the old law.

(2) Schedule 1, item 23, page 12 (line 29) to page 13 (line 14), omit subitem (1), substitute:

(1) This item applies if, immediately before the day this item commences, there was in force a decision of the Minister, under Division 2 of Part 7 of the old law, that an action involving coal seam gas development or large coal mining development is a controlled action, regardless of:

  (a) whether the taking of the action has been approved by the Minister under Part 9 of the old law for the purposes of a provision of Part 3 of the old law (unless subsection 20(2) applies to the approval); and

  (b) whether advice has been obtained from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development in relation to the action.

(3) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 1), after item 24, insert:

24A Requirement for assessment of impacts of certain actions

  (1) If, on or after 14 September 2010, the Minister approved the taking of an action involving coal seam gas development or large coal mining development, the Minister must assess the relevant impacts of so much of the action as has been taken before this item commences.

  (2) For the purposes of assessing the relevant impacts, Part 8 of the old law applies as if:

     (a) section 24D or 24E had been a controlling provision for the action; and

     (b) the Minister were required to complete the assessment no later than 12 months after the day this item commences.

  (3) No later than 13 months after the day this item commences, the Minister must publish a report in relation to each action assessed under this item, setting out the relevant impacts of the action on the matter protected by the controlling provision.

By leave, I will also move amendment (1) on sheet 7374 and amendment (1) on sheet 7394 together but the questions will be separately put. I move amendment (1) on sheet 7374:

(1) Page 17 (after line 13), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2—Preventing the Commonwealth from handing to a State or Territory responsibility for approving proposed actions that significantly impact matters protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

1 Paragraph 11(a)

Omit "a bilateral", substitute "an".

2 Division 1 of Part 4

Repeal the Division.

3 Paragraphs 44(c) and (d)

Omit "and approval" (wherever occurring).

4 Subparagraphs 45(2)(a)(iii) and (iv)

Omit "and approval" (wherever occurring).

5 Section 46

Repeal the section.

6 Subsection 47(4)

Omit "but the action must still be approved under Part 9".

7 Subsection 48(3) (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

   Relationship with section 47

8 Subsection 48(3)

Omit "sections 46 and", substitute "section".

9 Subsection 48A(1)

Omit "46 or".

10 Subsection 48A(1)

Omit "(2) or" (wherever occurring).

11 Subsection 48A(1)

Omit "(as appropriate)".

12 Subsection 48A(2)

Repeal the subsection.

13 Subsection 51(1)

Omit "(1)".

14 Subsection 51(2)

Repeal the subsection.

15 Subsection 51A(1)

Omit "(1)".

16 Subsection 51A(2)

Repeal the subsection.

17 Subsection 52(1)

Omit "(1)".

18 Subsection 52(2)

Repeal the subsection.

19 Subsection 53(1)

Omit "(1)".

20 Subsection 53(2)

Repeal the subsection.

21 Subsection 54(1)

Omit "(1)".

22 Subsection 54(2)

Repeal the subsection.

23 Section 55

Omit ", or accredit for the purposes of a bilateral agreement a management arrangement or an authorisation process,".

24 Subsection 59(1) (examples 1 to 3)

Repeal the examples.

25 Section 64

Repeal the section.

26 Section 65A

Repeal the section.

27 Section 66

Omit "(It does not deal with actions that a bilateral agreement declares not to need approval.)".

28 Paragraph 77A(1A)(b)

Omit "relates; or", substitute "relates."

29 Paragraph 77A(1A)(c)

Repeal the paragraph.

30 Subparagraph 78(1)(ba)(i)

Omit "a bilateral agreement and a management arrangement or an authorisation process that is a bilaterally accredited management arrangement or a bilaterally accredited authorisation process for the purposes of the agreement", substitute "an agreement".

31 Subparagraph 78(1)(ba)(ii)

Omit ", or the management arrangement or authorisation process is no longer in force under, or set out in, a law of a State or a self-governing Territory identified in or under the agreement".

32 Subsection 82(2)

Omit "1,".

33 Subsection 82(2)

Omit "a bilateral", substitute "an".

34 Subsection 146(2) (note 2)

Omit ", or make a bilateral agreement declaring,".

35 Section 528 (definition of bilaterally accredited authorisation process )

Repeal the definition.

36 Section 528 (definition of bilaterally accredited management arrangement )

Repeal the definition.

I also move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7394:

(1) Page 17 (after line 13), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2—Further amendments

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

1 After section 12

Insert:

12A Requirement for approval of activities with a significant impact on a National Park

(1) A person must not take an action that:

  (a) has or will have a significant impact on the environment within a National Park; or

  (b) is likely to have a significant impact on the environment within a National Park.

Civil penalty:

  (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units;

  (b) for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an action if:

  (a) an approval of the taking of the action by the person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or

  (b) Part 4 lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or

  (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or

  (d) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process).

(3) A property is a National Parkfor the purpose of this Act if it is:

  (a) an area that is a National Park for the purpose of a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory as at 17 June 2013, or is an area that becomes a National Park, or is added to an existing National Park, on or after that date; or

  (b) an area that is a nature reserve for the purpose of a law of the State of Western Australia as at 17 June 2013, or is an area that becomes a nature reserve, or is added to an existing nature reserve, on or after that date; or

  (c) an area that is declared under the National Parks Act 1975 of the State of Victoria as at 17 June 2013, or is an area that is declared under that Act, or is added to an existing area declared under that Act, on or after that date; or

  (d) an area that is land designated for conservation under Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 of the State of Victoria as at 17 June 2013, or is an area that becomes land designated for conservation under that Act, or is added to an existing area that is land designated for conservation, on or after that date; or

  (e) an area that is a state reserve or a nature reserve under the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 of the State of Tasmania as at 17 June 2013, or is an area that becomes a state reserve or a nature reserve, or is added to an existing state reserve or nature reserve, on or after that date; or

  (f) an area that is a reserve under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975 of the State of South Australia as at 17 June 2013, or is an area that becomes a reserve, or is added to an existing reserve, on or after that date; or

(g) an area that is a wilderness protection area under the Wilderness Protection Act 1992 of the State of South Australia as at 17 June 2013, or is an area that becomes a wilderness protection area, or is added to an existing wilderness protection area, on or after that date; or

  (h) an area that is a park or reserve under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2006 of the Northern Territory as at 17 June 2013, or is an area that becomes a park or reserve, or is added to an existing park or reserve, on or after that date.

2 After section 15A

  Insert:

15AA Offences relating to National Parks

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

  (a) the person takes an action; and

  (b) the action results or will result in a significant impact on the environment of a property; and

  (c) the property is a National Park.

Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.

(1A) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(c).

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if:

  (a) the person takes an action; and

  (b) the action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment of a property; and

  (c) the property is a National Park.

Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.

(2A) Strict liability applies to paragraph (2)(c).

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

(3) An offence against subsection (1) or (2) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term of not more than 7 years, a fine not more than 420 penalty units, or both.

  Note 1: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court fine a body corporate up to 5 times the maximum amount the court could fine a person under this subsection.

  Note 2: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this section may also be guilty of an offence against section 495.

  Note 3: If a person takes an action on land that contravenes this section, a landholder may be guilty of an offence against section 496C.

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to an action if:

  (a) an approval of the taking of the action by the person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or

  (b) Part 4 lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or

  (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or

  (d) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process).

  Note: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

3 Subsection 29(1)

After "or 24E", insert " or section 12A or 15AA".

4 Section 34 (after table item 1A)

Add:

5 After section 34BA

Insert:

34BB Declarations relating to National Parks

(1) The Minister may make a declaration under section 33 relating to a National Park only if:

  (a) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity;

  (b) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under any other relevant international environment convention which aims to protect the natural environment to which Australia is a party; and

  (c) the declaration meets the requirements (if any) prescribed by the regulations.

(2) For the purpose of this Act, the Convention on Biological Diversity means the Convention on Biological Diversity done at Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992.

6 After section 37D

Insert:

37DA Declarations relating to National Parks

The Minister may make a declaration under section 37A relating to a National Park only if:

  (a) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity; and

  (b) the Minister is satisfied that the declaration is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under any other relevant international environment convention which aims to protect the natural environment to which Australia is a party.

7 Subsection 46(1)

After "or 24E", insert " or 12A or 15AA".

8 Subsections 46(2) and (2A)

After "or 24E", insert " or 12A or 15AA".

9 After section 51A

Insert:

51B Agreements relating to National Parks

(1) The Minister may enter into a bilateral agreement containing a provision relating to a National Park only if:

  (a) the Minister is satisfied that the provision is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity;

  (b) the Minister is satisfied that the provision is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under any other relevant international environment convention which aims to protect the natural environment to which Australia is a party; and

  (c) the provision meets the requirements (if any) prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The Minister may accredit a management arrangement or an authorisation process under section 46 for the purposes of a bilateral agreement containing a provision relating to a National Park only if:

  (a) the Minister is satisfied that the management arrangement or authorisation process is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity; and

  (b) the Minister is satisfied that the management arrangement or authorisation process is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under any other relevant international environment convention which aims to protect the natural environment to which Australia is a party.

10 After section 137A

Insert:

137B Requirements for decisions about National Parks

In deciding whether or not to approve, for the purposes of section 12, the taking of an action and what conditions to attach to such an approval, the Minister must not act inconsistently with:

  (a) Australia's obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity; and

  (b) any other relevant international environment convention to which Australia is a party which aims to protect the natural environment.

11 After section 146G

Insert:

146GA Approvals relating to National Parks

If the approval relates to a National Park, the Minister must not act inconsistently with:

  (a) Australia's obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity; and

  (b) any other relevant international environment convention to which Australia is a party which aims to protect the natural environment.

It is my great pleasure to move these final amendments to try to strengthen these new water protections against coal seam gas and coalmining. The first amendment goes to the application of these new protections.

Whilst the Greens are thrilled that almost two years after we moved similar legislation to protect aquifers the government finally has done so themselves, we are concerned that in the interim all the big projects have already been approved. Sadly we know that Minister Burke has not rejected a single coal seam gas or coalmine application that has crossed his desk. I was particularly disappointed that, only several days after approving Gloucester coal seam gas and three big coalmines in New South Wales—Maules Creek, Boggabri and Tarawonga—suddenly the minister announced that he would belatedly move to protect aquifers with this new water trigger bill.

This first amendment goes to the fact that those four projects should be subject to these new water powers and those big companies should now have to look at the impact of water. The federal environment minister should be obliged to ensure that water impacts are able to be managed and, if there is any uncertainty, the minister should have the ability to reject those projects. As I say, given that work has not already commenced, we think this is a safe and sensible approach.

The other effect of this retrospectivity amendment goes to those earlier approved Queensland coal seam gas projects. Within several months of becoming the environment minister, Minister Burke ticked off on the first two big coal seam projects and, several months thereafter, the third big coal seam gas project. Given that the fourth one is yet to be approved, we need the benefit of information about the water impacts of those first big three before the decision on the final fourth one gets made. This amendment would not change the approval status of those big three—given that, unfortunately, it was granted many years ago and work has commenced—but it would ensure that water studies have to be done so that we know what damage is already being done and how much risk those aquifers are already facing before the minister decides whether or not to approve the fourth project, that being Arrow coal seam gas. So that is the genesis of those amendments.

The second tranche of amendments goes to the protections that the Greens think the federal government should keep for nationally important environmental assets. We have seen that this bill was amended in the House to make sure that this new water power cannot be given away to state governments. We absolutely support that; in fact, we were behind that amendment getting up. But what we have now seen is an admittance, a concession, that the state governments do not always do the best job in looking the after the environment. If there is acknowledgement that water is too precious to be trusted solely to the states and that we need federal oversight, then we think it is only fair that World Heritage sites of international significance receive the same attention.

Likewise, all those other elements that are currently protected by the EPBC Act—threatened species, Ramsar wetlands, migratory species, the Great Barrier Reef, and national heritage areas—are of national importance. It is a craven shame that, while we originally saw a Labor government protecting these areas 30 years ago through intervening in the Franklin Dam, we now see a Labor government proposing to give away those federal veto powers to state governments.

I want to set the record straight, because there has been a lot of confusion and rhetoric promulgated by the Business Council and its ilk. We have two stages of environmental approvals—assessment and approval. The Commonwealth has already accredited the state assessment processes, so any duplication that might have existed has already been dealt with and put to bed. There is now no duplication; there is simply no need for the Commonwealth to also issue an approval or a refusal decision. As we know, generally an approval decision gets made. Nonetheless, we still need that important veto power. So it is simply ridiculous to contend that there is duplication going on, which is why it is so crucial that the Commonwealth retain that final power to say no to things like mines in World Heritage areas or to clearing the last vestige of a threatened species habitat that would send a threatened species to extinction.

People need to know that the national environment deserves national protection, and that is certainly what all the polls on these issues are telling us. People want the federal government to be able to protect the environment; it is not a bizarre concept, and it has majority support. So this amendment would delete those parts of the act that allow those final protection approval powers to be simply given away to state governments. This amendment would stop Mr Tony Abbott's coalition, who have committed to using these powers to hand off federal environment approval powers, from doing so—unless, of course, they get control of both houses of parliament and change the laws again, and that is in the hands of the people. The point of this amendment is to make sure that Campbell Newman is not solely in control of Queensland's environment, nor Barry O'Farrell solely in control of New South Wales's environment, nor any of the other state premiers solely in control of national parts of our environment that are often internationally significant. We need that final veto power of the federal government against state governments, who have a history of approving development even though it would damage the environment.

The final amendment goes to protecting our national parks. It is along a similar theme. Unfortunately, we have seen state governments in recent months approving shooting in national parks. Never mind the safety concerns of families wanting to walk in those parks who might actually not want to be shot. Who would have thought they would rather have a picnic than be dodging bullets! We have also seen grazing approved, originally in the alpine region of Victoria, which was then overturned, and now in Queensland. We have had shooting and we have had grazing—and logging has now been approved by the Queensland government, and of course prospecting has just been approved by the Victorian state government, and there are plans to sell off Victoria's national parks.

So I am afraid national parks are under threat from the reckless actions of state governments. When we have less than four per cent of the country covered by national parks, why on earth can't they be off limits to logging, mining, grazing and shooting? Why can't we just protect those areas and properly manage them? It does not seem unreasonable to me.

This amendment would deliver on Minister Burke's commitment of almost two years ago that, sadly, has gone nowhere. Minister Burke originally said he would step in and protect national parks if state governments continued on their destructive agenda. They have done so. They have gotten worse and still the federal government has not acted. So this amendment clearly says: national parks should be given national protection. We urge both sides of the chamber to support it.

The federal environment minister has missed the deadline to act to protect national parks by regulation. If he does so move, we would encourage him to do so, but we would rather he support this amendment here and now, which will deliver lasting protection for national parks. If the minister simply moves to add national parks as a trigger to these laws by regulation, we know those regulations are susceptible to disallowance and we can expect that the opposition, in government, if they gain that honour, will in fact disallow them. The only way to guarantee protection for national parks is to support this amendment. So it is with great pleasure that I commend these amendments to the chamber.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So eager are the Greens to collapse debate on this that they are now moving all of their remaining amendments in one fell swoop, despite the fact that, of course, there is absolutely no linkage between any of these amendments. They cover three completely different issues and areas and, indeed, two of them are completely unrelated to the bill before the chamber. Two of them are using the fact that we have a bill that seeks to amend the EPBC Act to amend it in completely different ways that have nothing to do with water or coal seam gas or large coalmines whatsoever. It is a remarkable approach by the Greens, who are coming in here and wanting to simply push through as much change to Australia's environmental laws as possible, without any assessment or consideration of the impact of those changes but the shortest of possible Senate debates.

After I finish speaking, the government will probably try to gag debate again, because the last two debates on amendments have been gagged—and gagged, indeed, after only the most fleeting of consideration. Most remarkably, the last time around, Senator Conroy stood up, having been asked some specific questions, and completely ignored those questions in gagging the debate.

So I again emphasise to Senator Conroy the specific questions. He could at least, before he gags the debate, do the industry and those interested in these matters the courtesy of answering the questions. The questions were in relation to the significant-impact criteria being developed. Will he outline what the minimum level of consultation on the drafting of those significant impact criteria will be? Exactly what opportunity does he expect industry, stakeholders, landowners, environmental groups and others to have to comment on those significant impact criteria? Exactly how long will they have and when will they have that opportunity? Secondly, having informed the Senate earlier in the debate that, yes, there is a draft and, importantly, that until those criteria are finalised all assessments under the amendments to the EPBC Act will be considered against those draft criteria, will he also inform the Senate how those draft criteria deal with matters of exploration and appraisal? I really hope that Senator Conroy might do the Senate and stakeholders the courtesy of at least answering those two questions; just answer those two questions, at least, when you stand up and before you decide to gag debate yet again on the legislation.

Now, to the three Greens amendments that we have before us: firstly, the amendment regarding the timing of assessment of applications. The Greens essentially are seeking to make this legislation have a greater retrospective effect than it already does. The Greens basically want to ensure that projects that are already well advanced in the assessment phase suddenly find that the parliament has changed the rules on them—that, having already spent time and money and effort in going through and complying with existing laws, proponents and applicants will suddenly have to comply with different laws. Now, the coalition stands resolutely against retrospectivity. And we note that there are already concerns that the bill, even in its existing form, has an unfair and unacceptable level of retrospectivity to it. The Senate inquiry heard evidence from those concerned about the retrospective application of aspects of the existing bill. Mr Hooke from the Minerals Council urged the Senate committee to:

… remove the retrospective application, the trigger for projects not undergoing EPBC Act referral. This is not a good point of law, to have retrospectivity applying in a situation where it creates great uncertainty for projects which may be currently undertaking activities, including ancillary activities. The legislation should clarify the grandfathering exemptions provided in 22(3) and 22(4) to expressly acknowledge that changes to grandfathered projects do not impact on the status of prior environmental authorisations of unchanged components or where changes are immaterial to the significance of or impact on a water resource.

Mr Hooke was not the only one to identify concerns. The Australian Coal Association equally had concerns about the retrospective application of the bill that is before us in its existing form. They submitted:

Industry is also concerned with the retrospective application of the new trigger to projects that are already well advanced in the approvals process. These projects now face further uncertainty and potential delays. There is also the potential for the water trigger to capture established coal developments even where there are no significant changes to their operations. The exemptions should clarify that new provisions apply only to existing projects where there is a major new development proposal.

They are concerned about the level of retrospectivity that exists in the bill as it currently stands. Yet the Greens have identified that they want to increase that level of retrospectivity, that they basically want to take it back and be able to cover pretty much anything that may not already be well and truly under operation. The Greens obviously want to do everything within their power to hold up and stall the types of developments that are being considered. The opposition emphatically rejects those moves by the Greens and emphatically rejects their attempts to increase the retrospective elements of this legislation, whilst expressing our concern at the level of retrospectivity that exists already within the bill before the chamber.

The second of the amendments that the Greens seek to apply is completely unrelated to coal seam gas, completely unrelated to large coal developments and completely unrelated to water resources. It is an amendment that is basically yet another attempt by the Greens, because they have done this on multiple occasions, to try to ensure that we lock into law forever in this country a dual system of state and federal environmental law that maximises the expense, that maximises the duplication, that maximises the bureaucracy, that simply would create an unacceptable situation wherein, now and into the future, no government of any persuasion could ever try to sit down with the states and say, 'Let's actually harmonise the assessments and approvals processes and get a one-stop shop in place.'

Everybody knows it is the coalition's clear policy that has long been stated. It is our policy to have a one-stop shop for environmental assessments and approvals. Much as the government and the Greens and others may accuse the coalition of not having policies, this is a substantial policy and a policy that we have had announced for a long period of time. It is something that we are determined to implement in government. What the Greens' amendment seeks to do is simply stymie, block and make it as hard as possible for the coalition, should we win the election later this year, to implement that policy. As I said, it is amendment that has nothing to do with what the bill before the chamber is about. It is an amendment that is a sheer act of bastardry from the Australian Greens to try to block and stop the coalition from being able to implement our policies should we win a mandate from the Australian people later this year.

Such is the contempt of the Greens for the views of the majority of Australians that they are not willing to let the coalition go to the election with our policies and see whether the people endorse us, elect us to government and endorse our policies in that process. They want to take pre-emptive action before the election to close the door on the coalition's ability to implement those policies. This is obviously a taste and a sign, should we succeed later this year, for just how obstructionist the Greens will be, for just how destructive the Greens will be, for just what lengths the Greens will go to to try to block and harass the coalition in the application of our policies.

We have grave concerns at the approach of the Greens in introducing these amendments. They would lock into law existing duplication, which I assessed and commented on earlier in this debate, and which Deloitte Access Economics have identified as costing around $1.19 billion in excessive duplication of bureaucracy that we have at a state and federal level around environmental approvals. The coalition believes there must be a better way when it comes to environmental approvals. We want to uphold the highest standards, we want to uphold the very important matters of national environmental significance that are contained in the EPBC Act, which we brought into law when we were in government. Our commitment to those standards is in no way under any doubt because those standards were identified in laws that the Howard government passed. But those laws provided for the capacity to say that we should be able to align assessments and approvals processes at a state and federal level and, in doing so, remove the excessive duplication. The Greens amendments would seek to strip out that capacity to align those assessment and approvals processes.

I trust that the government, despite their complete flip-flopping on this important issue of reducing green-tape regulation, will support the coalition in opposing the Greens amendments. I hope the government will show just a scintilla of support for the judgement of the Australian people later this year when it comes to whether or not the coalition should be in a position to implement its policies. I hope the government does that because, of course, it was the government's own policy. Just a year ago the government was proposing to do, through the COAG processes, exactly the same thing. The Prime Minister said, back in 2012 when it was the government's policy:

Today COAG acted on that concern—

Concerns around duplication and costs—

and the Gillard Government and states and territories agreed to fast track arrangements to use state assessment and approval processes by March 2013.

Instead of delivering on that commitment made at the start of 2012—and why would we expect Prime Minister to deliver on a commitment when all she does is routinely break them?—the government, by the end of 2012, had abandoned it completely. They abandoned it so much that already built into this legislation is a limitation on the future operation of one-stop shops insofar as the new water trigger applies. If the Greens got their way, and if the government were reckless enough to support them, we would see a complete blockage on one-stop shops.

Lastly, the Greens propose another remarkable amendment completely unrelated to the bill before the Senate. This amendment would put in place a new section to the EPBC Act relating to national parks. It would add another five pages of legislation relating to how activities in national parks can be governed. This of course is a knee-jerk reaction of the Greens to decisions being made, justifiably, rightly, by state governments. Once again, the Greens want to tear up a century of federalism in this place. The Greens want to tear up the understanding of where responsibility lies in the Commonwealth for different activities and provide a whole new swathe of powers to give the Commonwealth minister capacity to encroach upon the activities of the states and the right of the states to govern their own national parks and to make their own determinations about land use.

These amendments once again have nothing to do with coal seam gas, nothing to do with large coal development and nothing to do with water resources. Nonetheless, the Greens seek, with no consultation, no opportunity for comment by anybody, to at the last minute bolt on to the legislation before the chamber, and simply sneak through, dramatic new changes to our laws. Again, the coalition rejects these efforts of the Greens.

In closing, I urge the government to allow a proper debate on these Greens amendments around national parks, because I know there are colleagues who want to have a contribution. Because the Greens have done these amendments all together, I have only been able to say a couple of words on them. But these are significant changes and they deserve to be properly debated, not gagged. (Time expired)

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of the bill is to enable the Commonwealth environment minister to take into account significant impacts of coal seam gas and large coal-mining developments on a water resource—that is, the bill provides for a water trigger. There are a range of amendments being proposed on a range of issues. The government does not support amendments that would broaden the scope of this bill. The proposed amendments are very broad. The government advice is that, because these amendments are so broad, they carry a high level of constitutional risk. I move:

That the question be now put.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that the question now be put.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Waters, you asked that we divide separately on the three remaining blocks of amendments, which were taken together by leave. I see no need to divide the question as the government and the opposition during the course of the debate have indicated that they will be voting against. So, unless the Greens have a different position on any of the amendments, I intend to put them all as one block.

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

Mr Chairman, I sought leave and was granted leave for the questions to be put separately, and I would like that to maintain. Leave was granted at the time.

The CHAIRMAN: You sought leave to have the three groups of amendments taken together, which was granted by the chamber. Precedent is that, unless there will be a different division on these amendments, they will be put together. It is at the discretion of the chair, and that is the way I rule. Unless you can indicate to me that there will be a different vote on any of the divisions, that is the way I intend to proceed.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I can point out that there is an internal inconsistency in the amendments. Amendment (1) on sheet 7374, which would remove bilateral agreements from consideration, is inconsistent with the fact that amendment (1) on 7394 actually contains provisions that would allow for bilateral agreements to apply. So there is a level of internal inconsistency between them that may create a problem—

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Birmingham, that is a debating point.

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

I think Senator Birmingham has just illustrated why we need a separate vote, and I just suggest that—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Hang on. Excuse me, folks.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator Waters has the call.

Thank you, Chair. I wanted to seek your guidance. When I asked that the amendments be moved together, I did specifically twice say that the vote be put separately, and I understand leave was granted on that basis or I would not have moved them together. So I just ask that we continue on that basis.

The CHAIRMAN: I was not in the chair at the time. Leave was sought to have them all taken together, which was granted. You did indicate, which is why I raised the point prior to putting this motion, that you would like the three motions voted upon separately. Normally that would happen if there were an indication there was going to be different outcomes on different votes. At this stage, the government and the opposition have indicated that they will be opposing all three groups of amendments. So, unless the Greens are going to be voting differently on any of the amendments, I do intend to put them together.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point here, as Senator Waters has said, is that they are three separate matters on which we require three separate resolutions. It is the prerogative of people moving amendments to have them voted on separately, and that has been the request. Are you setting a precedent in this chamber that you will collectivise every amendment in this way? This would be an extraordinary precedent to set. I request that we vote for them separately.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is happy for these matters to be voted on separately, especially given the point that Senator Birmingham just made.

The CHAIRMAN: First and foremost, this is totally at the discretion of the chair—that is the first and foremost point. Secondly, I am following precedent and advice from the Clerk. Thirdly, the only matter for which leave was sought from the chamber was to take the amendments together. Leave cannot be sought as to how we divide and vote on matters concerning the bracket and the way the vote will be taken. So it is my decision that we will take them together. No-one has indicated that we are voting differently on any of the amendments. Senator Waters is on her feet. I will take this as the last point of order on this matter.

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

Thank you for your indulgence, Chair. I sought leave for them to be both moved together and voted on separately and leave was given.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The point is that you cannot seek leave to do the latter part of what you asked to do.

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

Sorry, my apologies, Chair—

Honourable senators interjecting—

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Senators on my left are not assisting this matter! Order on my left! In the time this has taken we could have voted on all three separately.

I seek leave that the three tranches of amendments be voted on separately.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not a matter of leave. You cannot seek that by leave. It is a matter of discretion of the chair. I now put the questions: that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7576, amendment (1) on sheet 7374 and amendment (1) on sheet 7394, moved by Senator Waters by leave together, be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells rung—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Australian Greens just made a threat to you as the presiding officer here.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Macdonald, a point of order must relate to the division, but that can be made a matter at a later time.

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

The question now is that the bill stand as printed.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman, about the behaviour of the Leader of the Australian Greens. When you called that division, the Leader of the Australian Greens, in a very loud voice—I suspect you may not have heard it, Mr Chairman, because of other noise—made a direct reference to you, suggesting bias. Her words were along the lines of, 'This is the sort of biased treatment we can expect in the future.' She then issued a threat against you. I ask you to ask the senator to withdraw those reflections and that threat.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr Chairman: I reject the assertion made by Senator Macdonald. Numerous conversations take place in this chamber. One of them on that side of the chamber, which I heard, included a slur about our leader. If you want to start going tit for tat, we can do that.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Macdonald and Senator Hanson-Young, I did not hear any of the comments you have referred to. You have both made your remarks, so it is now on record. I propose to take no further action.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because of the outrageous gags being applied by the government, I indicate very clearly that the coalition will be opposing the bill standing as printed and will be opposing the reporting of the bill. The government, along with the Greens, have treated this chamber with complete contempt throughout this process.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that the bill stand as printed.

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

): The question now is that the bill be reported.

Bill reported without amendment.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the report be adopted.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion that the report be adopted is a crucial part of the whole debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill. We are reluctant to adopt the report from the committee because there has not been sufficient debate on the bill. I particularly am concerned that I was not given the opportunity of saying a few words on the amendment proposed by the Greens political party which would have had the effect of giving the Commonwealth minister the power to override the Queensland government in the management of its national parks and in particular the decision made by the Queensland government to allow starving cattle into Queensland national parks in an attempt to overcome an animal catastrophe, an animal welfare issue of horrendous proportions.

This is a bill which has incensed every Queenslander, and as a senator representing the state of Queensland I believe I should have had the opportunity of at least debating the bill. Instead, it was guillotined on the motion of the Greens political party. I can remember sitting in this chamber for hour upon hour listing to the Greens political party rail against even the very moderate use of guillotines by the Howard government. For example, the regional forest agreement debate went for some 36 hours, kept going by the leader of the Greens political party simply repeating himself. When the Howard government moved to curtail the debate, after 36 hours of repetition, we then had hours more of the Greens saying how awful it was to curtail a debate after 36 hours.

You and I, Mr Acting Deputy President Furner, as representatives of the state of Queensland, have a vital interest in this amendment dealing with Commonwealth control of state national parks. Were we given the opportunity to discuss it, to put forward the views of our constituents or to put forward the view of the RSPCA in Queensland, who thought it was a good idea? The Greens political party claim to be interested in animal welfare, but they would have 300,000 cattle in Queensland die a horrible death from starvation because they want to prevent them from using the limited grass that is available in some Queensland national parks.

This amendment moved by the Greens has nothing to do with the substantive part of the bill we were discussing—nothing to do with coal seam gas, the protection of water or care for the aquifers; nothing to do with that. But, here, tacked on, in a very tacky way, in the proposed amendments on sheet of 7394 the Greens political party have raised this issue of the declaration of national parks. Had these amendments been carried, they would have given the Commonwealth minister the power to override the Queensland minister and the Queensland government in that area, where a very sensible decision was made to allow starving cattle access to the limited food available in national parks. Yet, on this matter, we were not given the opportunity to say one word. Senator Birmingham had about 15 minutes to traverse a series of complicated amendments. That was all that was allowed. Then we saw the Greens political party move the guillotine, the gag, to stop debate on this most important issue.

However, I do not want to hold up the chamber any further. I understand we have a lot to discuss. I see I have 15 minutes left. I know that my colleague Senator Back would like to say a few words on the same subject and on the proposed amendment to the bill. But I make this point in all good faith. I could say a lot more in the 14 minutes or so I have left to address my other issues, but in consideration of the procedures of the Senate and because my colleague Senator Back wants to say a few words, I am going to sit down before my time is up. But I do hope that the guillotining frenzy of the Labor Party and the Greens will not apply at least for the next 14 minutes so that my colleagues have the opportunity of saying a few words on this very important issue.

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

It is extremely important to understand that in a short period of time the EPBC Act will have a water trigger and that that is supported by the coalition. This belies the story that has been peddled around in many areas that the coalition do not support the water trigger; we do. This matter has been held up for such a long period of time now for a whole range of reasons, but most importantly because the Greens have been frolicking with amendments that never had a snowflake's chance of ever getting up. They dealt with them for divisive purposes. They have never really properly prosecuted the argument. They have not properly lobbied people about them; they never do. The first we ever hear about most of these things is when they appear in the chamber. It has been clearly said throughout the New England area and in so many other areas, and around southern Queensland—peddled by Independents and the Greens—that the coalition do not support the water trigger. In a very short period of time, it will be legislation and it is supported by the coalition. That needs to be clearly put on the record.

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

Briefly, I rise firstly to support the comments of Senator Macdonald, who spoke so eloquently about the starving cattle in North Queensland and other places in Queensland. And I have spoken about this openly and frequently in Queensland and other places. There is no need for that cattle to be there in the first place. The heavily pregnant cows are about to calve. Their calves from last year should be being prepared now for sale and those from two years ago should have long gone. The important point to be made here is that so many of the national parks, which the graziers and the pastoralists requested be opened and whose request the Queensland state government approved—and I do hope Minister Burke will see the value in the matter—were in fact cattle stations. They are rich in buffel grass and species introduced specifically for cattle-grazing purposes. The perverse irony here is that if they are not opened that buffel grass will dry off and burn, and many of the environmental assets in those parks will be destroyed by the burning.

In the few moments allowed to me, I want to make some points. It is interesting that this amendment debate was gagged by the Greens or they joined in support of the gag in gagging their own amendment, something I find remarkable. I want to place on the record the circumstance of Western Australia, as a Western Australian senator in this. Whilst we recognise, as Senator Joyce said, that the coalition will be supporting the water trigger, the point is that these issues are principally confined to the eastern seaboard, particularly Queensland and New South Wales. Western Australia is not commercially prospective for coal seam gas, but we did view these amendments with concern.

In the lead-up to the introduction of the amendments, the Commonwealth established the independent expert scientific committee to review coal seam gas and large coalmining deposits. Western Australia is not a signatory to the national partnership agreement that established the IESC. Western Australia views this as yet another imposition, another layer of regulatory approvals, over existing, comprehensive state regulatory arrangements in Western Australia. I use this opportunity to refute the comments that were made here by another Western Australian Greens senator, Senator Ludlam, in which he condemned Western Australia and its environmental processes.

It is a relief to us in Western Australia that this amendment has gone down. The IESC and the proposed amendments would only have served to increase delays and uncertainty, to encourage a lack of confidence in state processes in Western Australia and ultimately—and most importantly—to undermine the credentials of the state's Environmental Protection Authority. This is an organisation that I have had a long association with in different aspects of my professional career in Western Australia, and I have always found the EPA to be independent, to be fair and to be very, very serious in its approach. Representations that we made in my time as a chief executive officer of a state instrumentality were often rejected by the EPA. Therefore, we see it as a very severe issue that the Commonwealth would have the capacity to walk in and, for no reason, overrule it.

In the case of Western Australia, it is not coal seam gas but shale oil and shale gas that is very much the area of concern. I want to place on record that the WA government has a strong regulatory framework for commercial gas extraction, from deep shale and so-called tight rock formations, especially where hydraulic fracture stimulation—or fracking, as it is known—is involved. Those listening may be interested to know that fracking has safely been used in the Western Australian mining and extractive industries for some 55 years, since 1958, with no—I repeat: no—adverse effects on the environment, on water sources or indeed on the health of the communities in their vicinity.

I again comment on the statements made by Senator Ludlam yesterday in which he called into question the transparency of information regarding fracking chemicals. I say this, and I say it proudly: in Western Australia, we have the strongest chemical disclosure requirements of any Australian jurisdiction; we have rigorous environmental and safety approval processes; and we have international standards for well design and integrity. It is not acceptable for any senator, let alone one from our own state, to stand up and deny that to be the fact. I would urge that the Western Australian standards be scrutinised nationally to establish that what I have said is the case and, if it is the case, let them become the benchmark for other state jurisdictions.

We have a very robust regulatory regime in Western Australia. We have an independent environmental protection authority. It is for that reason Western Australia coalition senators and, I am pleased to see, their Labor colleagues voted down that particular amendment.

I conclude by reflecting on the potential value of the shale oil industry not only for WA but also for the nation generally. It would appear once again that we have amongst the highest levels of shale gas reserves anywhere in the world. We already see that, in the United States of America, shale oil and shale gas in particular are now being extracted and, most importantly, we see a resurgence of manufacturing in the United States as the Americans bring back onshore, to continental USA, much of the manufacturing that they had outsourced to other countries. How wonderful it is, when their manufacturing industries were suffering so severely, with so much criticism that everything was going offshore, that now, because of cheaper energy, they actually have the capacity to bring their manufacturing back onshore.

Of course, we have all spoken in this debate about environmental safety, community safety and health and wellbeing. But I say again: we have the safeguards in place. I look forward to the extraction of shale gas being the next area in which Western Australia will not only advance as a state but also be able to make its contribution to the national economy.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Report adopted.