|
senate vote 2008-11-27#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-10-08 19:47:01
|
Title
Water Amendment Bill 2008 - In Committee - Licences should not be granted where substantial risk- Water Amendment Bill 2008 - In Committee - When licences shouldn't be granted
Description
- The majority voted against an [amendment 5678](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2008-11-27.26.2) introduced by Senator [Bob Brown](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/bob_brown), which means it failed. This amendment would have changed section 255A (see below) so that *"Where a substantial risk is identified licences must not be granted"*.
- This is an environmental protection measure.
- ### Amendment text
- **Senator Brown’s amendment on sheet 5678 to opposition amendment (2) on sheet 5677**
- > *(1) At the end of the amendment, add ‘, substitute:*
- > *(2) Where a substantial risk is identified licences must not be granted.”*
- **Opposition amendment (2) on sheet 5677**
- > *(2) Schedule 2, item 161A, omit subsection 255A(2).*
- **255A Application of water charge rules in Basin States that are not referring States**
- > *(1) If a Basin State is not a referring State, water charge rules apply in the State to a regulated water charge if one or more of the paragraphs in subsection (2) are satisfied.*
- > *(2) This subsection applies if:*
- >> *(a) the person imposing the charge, or making the demand, is a constitutional corporation; or*
- >> *(b) the person on whom the charge is imposed, or from whom the charge is demanded, is a constitutional corporation; or*
- >> *(c) the charge is imposed, or payment of the charge is demanded, in the course of trade and commerce between the States or between a State and a Territory; or*
- >> *(d) the person who imposes, or demands payment of, the charge does so in a Territory; or*
- >> *(e) the charge relates to:*
- >>> *(i) a water resource in a Territory; or*
- >>> *(ii) water service infrastructure in a Territory; or*
- >>> *(iii) tradeable water rights in relation to a water resource in a Territory; or*
- >> *(f) the charge is imposed, or payment of the charge is demanded, using a postal, telegraphic, telephonic or other like service (within the meaning of paragraph 51(v) of the Constitution).*
> *(3) Subsection (2), and the paragraphs of that subsection, do not limit the operation (if any) that the water charge rules validly have apart from this section.*- > *(3) Subsection (2), and the paragraphs of that subsection, do not limit the operation (if any) that the water charge rules validly have apart from this section.*
|
|
senate vote 2008-11-27#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-10-08 19:46:27
|
Title
Water Amendment Bill 2008 — In Committee- Water Amendment Bill 2008 - In Committee - Licences should not be granted where substantial risk
Description
<p class="speaker">Fiona Nash</p><p>I move opposition amendment (2) on sheet 5677:</p><p class="italic">(2)    Schedule 2, item 161A, omit subsection 255A(2).</p>- The majority voted against an [amendment 5678](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2008-11-27.26.2) introduced by Senator [Bob Brown](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/bob_brown), which means it failed. This amendment would have changed section 255A (see below) so that *"Where a substantial risk is identified licences must not be granted"*.
- This is an environmental protection measure.
- ### Amendment text
- **Senator Brown’s amendment on sheet 5678 to opposition amendment (2) on sheet 5677**
- > *(1) At the end of the amendment, add ‘, substitute:*
- > *(2) Where a substantial risk is identified licences must not be granted.”*
- **Opposition amendment (2) on sheet 5677**
- > *(2) Schedule 2, item 161A, omit subsection 255A(2).*
- **255A Application of water charge rules in Basin States that are not referring States**
- > *(1) If a Basin State is not a referring State, water charge rules apply in the State to a regulated water charge if one or more of the paragraphs in subsection (2) are satisfied.*
- > *(2) This subsection applies if:*
- >> *(a) the person imposing the charge, or making the demand, is a constitutional corporation; or*
- >> *(b) the person on whom the charge is imposed, or from whom the charge is demanded, is a constitutional corporation; or*
- >> *(c) the charge is imposed, or payment of the charge is demanded, in the course of trade and commerce between the States or between a State and a Territory; or*
- >> *(d) the person who imposes, or demands payment of, the charge does so in a Territory; or*
- >> *(e) the charge relates to:*
- >>> *(i) a water resource in a Territory; or*
- >>> *(ii) water service infrastructure in a Territory; or*
- >>> *(iii) tradeable water rights in relation to a water resource in a Territory; or*
- >> *(f) the charge is imposed, or payment of the charge is demanded, using a postal, telegraphic, telephonic or other like service (within the meaning of paragraph 51(v) of the Constitution).*
- > *(3) Subsection (2), and the paragraphs of that subsection, do not limit the operation (if any) that the water charge rules validly have apart from this section.*
<p>In doing so, I want to raise a couple of points. It has been quite interesting that over the last few days accusations about playing politics have been made from one side of the chamber across to the other. But I do not think I have seen a more extreme example of that than what Senator Bob Brown has done this morning. The issue of water is very serious. There is no doubt about that. In spite of Senator Brown’s new-found professed love for farmers coming to the fore, it is the very fact that he could turn this into such a political statement—indicating that his Independent friend from New England might be able to solve the problems of the world by himself—that makes it quite simply untrue. There were also comments made about the Nationals and some changes of position. This amendment seeks to ensure that the outcome that Senator Brown so clearly referred to before, about farmers being able to have a study undertaken on the effects of mining on groundwater and surface water systems before mining commences, still stands.</p><p>Senator Brown can use as many words and take up as much time as he wants to. It is entirely his prerogative to grandstand on this issue and to play politics, but that does not help the people of Caroona. It does not help the people right around the Murray-Darling Basin who are extremely concerned about water, which, to the end, is what this debate is all about. This is about the <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R3091">Water Amendment Bill 2008</a> and all the issues related to it. I would suggest to Senator Brown that he might like to stop playing politics with this issue. He knows full well that the substance of the amendment remains. That an independent expert study will take place before any mining commences is what we are putting forward in this amendment today. Senator Brown may well take up a whole lot more time. As the minister and I have been here for some 10 or 11 hours, a bit more time will not make any difference. Take up as much time as you like, Senator Brown. We will stay as long as you want. But it does not matter what you say or what you indicate. The substance of our position remains. Yesterday my Nationals colleagues indicated very clearly that their position to have a study undertaken substantively remains.</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Brown</p><p>The Australian Greens oppose this amendment absolutely. I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5678 to opposition amendment (2) as circulated:</p><p class="italic">(1)   At the end of the amendment, add ‘, substitute:</p><p class="italic">        (2)    Where a substantial risk is identified licences must not be granted.”</p><p>This amendment is to ensure that we are very clear about this issue. Senator Nash said, ‘There will be a study done before mining is undertaken,’ under the previous cave-in amendment of the coalition. That does not change the fact that there is no longer any need for a study to be sensibly done. The bush common sense that she agreed with yesterday is that the study should be undertaken before exploration takes place. The amendment that we now have from Senator Nash means that yesterday’s position—jointly held by the Greens, the Nationals and the Liberals that, where a substantial risk is identified, exploration licences must not be granted—is abolished. When you look at that, together with the amendment that the Nationals have just moved, you get to the point where the amendment from Senator Nash would mean that, where a substantial risk is identified, licences for mining are not altered. You can identify a substantial risk but the mining can go ahead.</p><p>My amendment is simply to accept, as the numbers beat us, that a study does not have to be undertaken before mineral exploration; it now has to be undertaken before mining. My amendment would mean that, where a substantial risk is identified, the mining licence must not be granted. I ask the coalition to look at that carefully. If what Senator Nash says is true then my amendment should be supported. It is consistent with the last amendment that was made. We have lost the fight to ensure that a study is done before exploration is undertaken. It now has to be undertaken, as Senator Nash says, before mining is carried out. My amendment is to ensure that, where a substantial risk is identified in that study, the licence for mining is not granted.</p><p>I see that there are hurried discussions between Senator Nash and Senator Wong. That is fine. But I think this is very important. What I am doing here is ensuring that, where a substantial risk is identified, the licence to go ahead with the mining is not granted. I beseech the coalition to support this amendment. It is entirely consistent with what Senator Nash has been putting to the committee this morning. It is a very important and logical amendment and I would expect that the government would also support this amendment. What is the point of having a study if a substantial risk is identified and it does not make any difference?</p> <p class="speaker">Alan Ferguson</p><p>The question is that Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5678 to amend opposition amendment (2) on sheet 5677 be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Brown</p><p>I would like to hear from Senator Nash as to whether or not the opposition is going to support this amendment to ensure that where a substantial risk is identified the mining licence is not guaranteed.</p> <p class="speaker">Fiona Nash</p><p>I indicate to Senator Brown that we will not be supporting the amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Brown</p><p>That is shocking. And the government should hang its head in shame as well. I note that Senator Wong is laughing about that, but let me—</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p><i>Senator Wong interjecting—</i></p> <p class="speaker">Bob Brown</p><p>Whatever you were laughing about it is inappropriate at this time.</p> <p class="speaker">Alan Ferguson</p><p>Order! Do you want to take a point of order, Senator Wong?</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. That is incorrect, Senator Brown. That was not what I was laughing at and I do not appreciate being verballed in that way.</p> <p class="speaker">Alan Ferguson</p><p>Senator Wong, that is not a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Brown</p><p>You are quite right, Chair; it is not a point of order.</p><p>This is shocking. Here we have a situation where yesterday we had the opposition supporting the requirement that there be an investigation—a scientific study—of the impact on water catchment of mining operations before those operations took place, including exploration. Then, where a substantial risk was identified, the mine would not go ahead. Now we have got the government and the opposition turning down this absolutely pivotal requirement. Where damage to the farmlands in the short term or long term can be identified, and there is a substantial risk of that damage, both the big parties say, ‘Well, we will leave that to the lobbying power of the mining organisations.’ This is a dreadful sell-out of common sense, let alone the farming communities that are getting the wrong end of this outcome.</p><p>Senator Nash may say that I am making a political statement here. Well, I am. I am a politician elected not just to get better outcomes for the people of Australia but to surely levy common sense in situations like this. I ask Senator Nash, or Senator Wong: how can you justify turning down a parliamentary requirement that where substantial risk is identified to farmlands, like those of the Breeza Plain or the Liverpool plains or indeed anywhere in the Murray-Darling Basin, there should not be action following that to protect those farmlands from that identifiable substantial risk? What is the point of doing a study if you then do not act upon it? It is incredible. This is an astonishing turnaround. I understand the excruciating position Senator Nash is in, and I ask her if she would say who it was from the Minerals Council of Australia—was it Mr Mitch Hooke or someone else—who so effectively got to the coalition overnight with this extraordinarily negative outcome.</p> <p class="speaker">Alan Ferguson</p><p>The question is that Senator Brown’s amendment on sheet 5678 to opposition amendment (2) on sheet 5677 be agreed to.</p>
|