Senate debates
Friday, 12 June 2020
Motions
New Acland Coal Mine
12:01 pm
Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I, and also on behalf of Senators McDonald, McGrath, Rennick, Canavan and Stoker, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the resources industry contributes 1 in every 8 Queensland jobs, and $4.3 billion in royalties shared across the state of Queensland,
(ii) New Hope Group's expanded Acland mine, in Oakey, is critical for the Queensland economy and especially for jobs in regional Queensland,
(iii) the successful land rehabilitation practices of the New Hope Group have seen mined land returned to productive pasture and agricultural grazing areas, demonstrating that agriculture and mining are not exclusionary,
(iv) New Hope has been working constructively with State and Federal governments on approvals for their Stage 3 mine expansion since 2007,
(v) this expansion will see the mine's life extend until 2031 and increase production from 5.2 million tonnes to 7.5 million tonnes,
(vi) in September 2019, the mine has reduced its staff from 300 to 150, due to 12 years of delays in receiving the necessary approvals, and
(vii) due to the State Government inaction, in the face of continued legal action, the mine is likely to run out of coal in early 2021; and
(b) calls on the Queensland Government to expedite the approvals process for the New Acland coal mine and to not allow its approvals process to be delayed where there is no court order preventing the grant of the approvals and the opponents of the project are engaging in a cycle of never ending "lawfare".
Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Labor supports the coalmining industry and expresses concern over the length of time the Acland mine application has been under consideration. We note the LNP was in government for three years of the time that the Acland mine has been waiting. Labor also notes that the Acland matter is currently before the High Court and no further comment is appropriate at this time.
Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The New Acland Coal Mine has in fact been actively opposed by local farmers, who are rightly terrified about the impacts on their water supply, the productivity of prime farmland and the health of local communities. Some friend of the farmer this government is! The motion accuses these concerned land owners of lawfare, but it ignores the fact that Australia's highest court has agreed there are serious issues to be heard. Of course this government supports extending a coalmine in the climate crisis after the fires that we just had, because they're blinded by the donations from the coal and gas industry—from this coalmine proponent in particular, that's at least $700,000. It's about time they listened to what the community is saying: no new coalmines; protect farmland; and act in the public interest and create real jobs for people in regional areas by investing in renewable energy, tourism and sustainable manufacturing.
Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I want to raise a point of order. I've noticed a couple of times over the last couple of days people have stated that because something is before a court it can't be talked about in this chamber. That is not correct—
Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Patrick, a point of order wasn't asked of me to knock something out. You were raising a point of procedure rather than a point of order.
Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Alright—a point of procedure.
Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It's a matter for debate. This is not the appropriate place for that debate. Nothing has been ruled out of order, so there's no point of order to raise.
Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
You're raising a debate of procedural matter. There are other times to do that, so the matter is being dealt with.
Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question is that motion No. 610 be agreed to.