Environmental Protection (Underground Water Management) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016

As Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, moved the second reading and supported the bill's strengthening of environmental assessment of underground water extraction by mining projects, improved make-good framework for landholders, and transitional arrangements requiring advanced mining projects to obtain an associated water licence.

“I am pleased to bring a bill to the House that restores protections to managing groundwater that were trashed by the previous Newman-Nicholls government.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Did not oppose the Environmental Protection Act and chapter 3 Water Act make-good framework amendments, but strongly opposed the retrospective transitional arrangements that would subject advanced projects like Adani Carmichael and New Acland stage 3 to additional associated water licence assessment, and moved amendments to exempt those projects.

“The LNP in principle does not support retrospective legislation and does not support these transitional arrangements in this bill.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Supported the intent of strengthened environmental assessment and Queensland Heritage Act amendments, but opposed the bill without the LNP amendments because of unacceptable absence of transitional arrangements for New Hope Acland stage 3 and Adani Carmichael projects.

“However, I do not support the bill overall without amendments, particularly and specifically with respect to the provisions in the legislation which I regard as unacceptable. Those provisions relate to the absence of an acceptable transitional arrangements process for New Hope at Acland and the Adani Carmichael project.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Opposed the bill, arguing the amendments will wreck the Oakey community and jeopardise tens of thousands of jobs, particularly the New Acland stage 3 project which has already been through an exhaustive consultation process since 2007.

“They say that they care about economic development in the regions on one hand, but on the other hand we see Minister Lynham, the Minister for Mines, bringing in amendments that will wreck a community and that will take away tens of thousands of jobs in Queensland.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Supported the bill, arguing it addresses concerns about the WROLA Act's unlimited right to take water by mining operators and protects Queensland farmers and graziers, while noting the committee's concerns about advanced projects like New Acland.

“Applying the environmental authority process to new projects and the proposed associated water licence process to existing projects has broad support and is a win for Queensland farmers and graziers as well as rural communities affected by mining operations.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Supported much of the bill's content but would not support the retrospective effect on existing mines and advanced approvals, particularly New Acland and Adani, which he argued will create sovereign risk.

“The LNP and I are very supportive of the issues that are contained in this bill. What I will not support is the retrospectivity that has an effect on existing mines or existing approvals for mines.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Supported the LNP amendments to this bill rather than the government's transitional arrangements, which he argued will duplicate existing processes, spark legal battles and jeopardise thousands of jobs at the Carmichael and Acland projects.

“I now turn to the Environmental Protection (Underground Water Management) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I support the amendments proposed by the member for Hinchinbrook.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Supported the bill's amendments to the make-good framework, arguing they address concerns raised since 2010 including protections against free gas impacts on bores and giving landholders a level playing field.

“The improvements to the make-good framework are fair and are needed to ensure that landholders and the resources industry can continue to coexist.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Expressed concerns particularly about retrospective elements and lack of consultation, while acknowledging some well-intentioned amendments, and supported the LNP's amendments regarding transitional arrangements.

“However, it is the retrospective elements in particular that we are concerned about. Retrospectivity has a great cost, and I do not believe that the minister has provided the assurances to the committee or to this House with regard to what the retrospective aspects of the legislation mean.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Opposed the bill's retrospectivity and argued it will further delay the Adani Carmichael coalmine, damaging regional economies and driving away investment in Central and North Queensland.

“The retrospectivity of the bills is absolutely absurd. People are very worried about what is going on economically and where things are travelling in their local communities.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Opposed the bill, arguing it is important to protect landholder rights but also vital to provide certainty for mining opportunities in Central Queensland communities such as Adani and Acland which have been waiting a long time.

“It is important that we are able to provide some certainty for future mining opportunities in Central Queensland communities—for companies such as Adani, which has been waiting for a long time, and Acland, which has been waiting a long time.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Supported the bill, highlighting three key features: better management of groundwater impacts, strengthened protection for farmers in make-good negotiations, and a separate water licence process for advanced mining projects.

“Unlike the WROLA Act, this bill includes appropriate transitional provisions for the reforms that are being introduced.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Opposed the bill, arguing the transitional arrangements shift the goalposts for businesses that have already met conditions, the consultation was inadequate and there was no regulatory impact statement.

“The unfair transitional arrangements, the potential for regional job losses, the lack of comprehensive consultation and the absence of a RIS mean that the EPOLA bill is fundamentally flawed.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Opposed the bill, arguing it will risk thousands of existing jobs and tens of thousands of new jobs in Queensland by delaying Adani and the New Acland projects.

“Labor has said that it supports the Adani project, yet it brings this bill in at the last moment which will hold the project up for another couple of years.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Supported the bill's improvements to the make-good framework to ensure rural landholders have a fair go when negotiating agreements for bore impairments, while expressing frustration at some mining companies' conduct.

“The reforms in this legislation will ensure that rural landholders are not left out of pocket if they need hydrogeological advice or alternative dispute resolution when negotiating a make-good agreement.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Opposed the bill, arguing it is another attempt by Labor to delay economic development in Queensland and is being driven by a deal with the Greens at the cost of the Acland workers and their families.

“This bill proposes to unnecessarily duplicate and frustrate economic development in Queensland. This bill is another attempt by this Labor government to delay economic development in Queensland.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Opposed the bill as it stands, arguing the New Hope Acland stage 3 project has met the Coordinator-General's criteria but Labor continues to procrastinate on its approval, harming workers around Ipswich and Oakey.

“This bill should be changed. Acland should be approved. A simple amendment could get Acland through so that it can work. It has met the Coordinator-General's criteria.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Supported the bill's strengthening of environmental assessment, improved make-good framework and updates to local government heritage provisions to strike a balance between industry and agriculture.

“In the regions we need both the agriculture industry and mining as well as the jobs that they bring. I commend the bills to the House.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Supported the reforms to chapter 3 of the Water Act while calling for a formal independent review of the make-good provisions, citing problems faced by landholders in her electorate with blown bores and delays.

“I will be supporting the reforms tonight to chapter 3 of the Water Act. However, given the landholder experiences I am seeing in my electorate, there is a need for genuine consultation and a formal independent review of the make-good provisions.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Opposed the retrospective aspects of the bill which will require Acland stage 3 and Adani to go through another process, highlighting concerns from 700 Acland protesters about job security as Oakey already faces housing and contamination problems.

“The problem with this legislation is that under the retrospective aspects of this bill New Hope will need to go through the same evidence once again.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard

Spoke about the need for balance between mining, grazing and agriculture, supporting improvements to make-good arrangements but calling for removal of red tape for existing projects like Adani, and indicated KAP would move amendments.

“While supporting mining developments, we still expect any mining project to follow due process in dealing with impacts of the underground water before the mine is granted access. However, we do not want to force projects that have already been through these rigorous processes back into the courts.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard