|
senate vote 2012-09-10#6
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-01-30 12:28:48
|
Title
Bills — Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012; in Committee- Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012 - In Committee - Staffing resources
Description
<p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>I want to move to the issue of conflict of interest with the committee members. It is a bit unfortunate there seems to be a lack of confidence in the community about the independence of the interim committee. Certainly when I asked in estimates about the background of the interim committee members I received some alarming statistics. Half of the interim committee members in fact had financial interests in the coal seam gas industry and in some cases the bulk of their research funding was being provided by industry. Of course, that is due to the neglect of the government to fund proper research and development in our tertiary institutions, so the fault does not lie with those researchers, but the perception in the public remains that these interim committee members are not in fact independent from industry. I have some amendments, which I will move in due course, that go to this question of conflict and how it is dealt with.</p><p>I want to pick up now on a question that has been raised already but not answered fulsomely, in my view. I understand we need to balance the need for expertise on this committee with the fact that we do not want people who are compromised and have a conflict of interest. I am interested to know how the government intends to balance those competing interests in making the appointments to the final positions on this committee, if the minister could elaborate substantially on his earlier response to opposition questions with respect to that.</p>- The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-10.268.1 Greens amendment] moved by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Larissa_Waters&mpc=Senate&house=senate Larissa Waters].
- The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Committee created by this bill is properly resourced to do its workload. It adds an additional section:
- ''505F Staff assisting Committee
- The staff necessary to assist the Committee are to be persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 who are:
- (a) employed in the Department; and
- (b) made available for the purpose by the Secretary of the Department.''
- Senator Waters argued that "it is crucial that the committee be supported with adequate staff—in my view, public servants—to do [their] work."[1]
- Background to the bill
- The bill establishes an Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development ('the Committee')[2] to provide federal, state and territory governments with scientific advice on coal seam gas and large coal mining developments which may have significant impacts on water resources.[3]
- References
- * [1] Read Senator Waters argument and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2012-09-10.225.1 here]. This particular amendment is referred to as amendment (11).
- * [2] Read more about the Committee [http://www.environment.gov.au/coal-seam-gas-mining/ here].
- * [3] See [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4778 here] for explanatory memoranda and proposed amendments.
<p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>I am advised of the following on the interim committee: members of the interim committee were appointed on the basis of their strong scientific expertise and credentials in understanding the potential impacts of coal seam gas and coalmining on water resources. The government has full confidence in the operations and advice of the interim committee, despite the accusations that they are conflicted. It was the opinion of the Senate committee that members of the IESC should be experts and this may include members who have worked or received funding from mining organisations. It is important to have people who are experts, not people who are learners in this whole area, which when brought together can bring a range of skills to be an effective expert committee. A balance needs to be struck between ensuring you have the industry expertise and managing potential conflicts of interests to ensure the advice is robust, rigorous and independent. That was the experience of the government with the interim committee. I have indicated we are writing to the states on the membership and consulting the states.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>Thanks, Minister. Yes, I heard your answer earlier that you would be seeking nominations in your contact with the states. Can you tell me if there are any criteria that the government will be employing to sort through those nominations once received?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>Besides having expertise, a balance of views, similar to the range of experiences using the interim committee. I am not sure there is much more I can say than that.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>Minister, are there going to be any limits on whether or not members of the final committee will be currently on the payroll of industry? Will there be any limits in that respect? I do understand the need to balance expertise and field expertise. Although it has been suggested by some members of the community, my amendments, which I will move in due course, do not require that members on this final committee have never worked for industry. The intention is that they are not currently employed by or on the payroll of or receiving research funding from industry. Can the minister advise whether there are any such parameters in the government's appointment criteria?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>There are a range of issues we are looking to to ensure that we have the right governance and probity. I am not sure that at this stage we have quite finalised all of those deliberations.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>I want to follow on from Senator Waters's question. There are a lot of allegations about the science that is commissioned by industry, but there is another category to this process which is science commissioned by environment movement groups. If the allegation is that the science commissioned by industry is skewed towards industry and their views, what about the other side of the equation—science commissioned by environment groups who have a philosophy against industry? Surely the allegation must work both ways.</p><p>Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Furner</p><p>The committee is considering the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012. The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>Before we ceased for dinner I was asking Minister Conroy some questions in relation to the amendment around qualification for selection on the panel. As I was saying, Senator Waters had indicated that anyone who had done any work for industry in respect of science must have tainted science.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. That is not at all what I said. I was clearly making the distinction between the appointment of people to the committee who currently are on the payroll of industry and the appointment of folk who had previously worked.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. You are merely debating.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>It clearly was not a point of order. I think we all understood the inferences Senator Waters was making. I sat in silence listening to Senator Waters and it would be nice if she might do the rest of the chamber the same courtesy. I would like to know from the minister about, for example, a scientist who had been working for one of the more unreliable of the environmental groups that oppose coal seam gas because they oppose coal seam gas, someone like Greenpeace, who I note were fined $280,000 just last week for illegal invasion of a CSIRO crop trial, so clear lawbreakers with little respect for the law. Would the same rules have to apply to someone who was currently doing science for an organisation such as Greenpeace as might apply to industry? You cannot have it both ways. If you are saying that somebody who is doing science on behalf of industry is tainted in their work because they are on the payroll of industry, surely for somebody who is on the payroll of an environmental group which is fundamentally opposed to this anyway regardless of the outcome their science is similarly tainted. We have seen some pretty sad examples of this in recent times. In fact, we have even seen environmental groups trotting out scientists who do not have qualifications even in a related field attacking scientists who do to try and besmirch their image. It is a well-worn path for the Greens and environmental groups to undertake these practices. I ask the minister: if it is an issue that someone who is doing science for industry should be disqualified, what about the other side of the equation?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>I am very much enjoying the debate between the two perspectives that are represented by this. My answers to you are exactly the same as they were to, if you like, the polar opposite-style question from Senator Waters. I am not sure I can actually add much to your bank of knowledge from what I have already stated in answer to a similar line of questions but from a different angle.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>I believe the minister's earlier answer, that the government had not yet finalised the criteria for appointment of the panel, might answer Senator Colbeck's question. I repeat my objection to him verballing me. Be that as it may, I would like to move to the substance of some amendments that I will move in due course, and that is how the government proposes to deal with actual or perceived conflicts of interest in appointing the final members of the committee. My understanding is that the combination of the act, the regulations and the policy so far has been that conflicts of interest of the interim committee members have been disclosed in meetings of that committee and such conflicts have been recorded in the minutes. The policy of government, although not reflected in statute anywhere, is for those minutes to be published online. I have two issues about that that I would like the minister's response to. Firstly, if it is indeed the policy of government that those minutes be published online so that all members of the public can see them, why is there not such a clause in the bill to enforce that policy stance?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>I am advised that we will be publishing the advice and we will be publishing the minutes, if it helps by having me say that on the record. The whole point of the committee is greater transparency in this issue. So I have given a commitment on behalf of the government that we will publish the minutes and we will publish the advice.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>Thanks, Minister. Perhaps it might be useful to include that in the bill, given that your side may not always be in government and it may not be a policy that is shared by the other side. So our position is that clearly such parameters should be reflected in the bill. I have an amendment to that effect. The other important point I would like to ask the minister about is the fact that the conflict disclosures made in those meetings, which are minuted, are included in appendices to the minutes which are not available online. If the purpose is, indeed, greater transparency then I ask the minister why the complete minutes, including the appendices wherein those conflicts are disclosed and, presumably, the decision of the meeting as to how they are dealt with—the relevant, and surely the most interesting, parts of the minutes—are not then published online.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>As we indicated, we will be publishing the minutes. I think perhaps there has been a misunderstanding; at the beginning of any meeting it is required to outline the conflicts of interests and they are put in the minutes of the meeting, which will be published. I hope that goes some way to dealing with your concerns, but I think you are wrong in terms of how the information will be publicly available.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>Thank you, Minister. I am simply referring to the meetings that have already happened, for which the minutes are already online. In those minutes questions of conflict are said to be dealt with in appendix A, and appendix A is not included on that website where the minutes are. I am very pleased to hear that you seek to change that for future instances—perhaps you could confirm that that is indeed your intention—but I would also like to know whether you will be retrospectively uploading those aspects of the minutes of existing meetings.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>Hopefully we can advise you of something, but certainly from my understanding from the officers it is not our intention for that information not to be available. Literally, we are online looking into it as you speak.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>Thank you, Minister. I think that would be a good outcome. Again, it reflects the need to have these sorts of procedures reflected in the bill so that they are beyond question for the folk who are implementing these provisions. I am pleased that perhaps this appears to be an oversight and I look forward to the disclosure of those appendices not just to me as a member of this chamber but also on the website so that all members of the public can access them.</p><p>I can see an iPad approaching you rapidly. I will be very pleasantly surprised and pleased if in the two-week interim since I last looked at these minutes the appendices have in fact been uploaded. If that is the case I welcome that, and I would ask that you ensure that that is standard practice for future meetings. Again, I repeat my suggestion that if that is in fact the government's policy it would be wise to reflect that in the provisions of this bill. Certainly, it is a very easy amendment to craft.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>I have found a rogue, stray iPad which has a copy of the minutes of the meeting of 21 June—meeting number 6. Certainly, this one, which is already online, contains one standing item—1.1: conflicts of interest—and a disclosure about a member. So, certainly, it is happening. If there is an issue around the previous five meetings—I think this indicates that it is meeting number 6—I am happy to look into that for you.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|