Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this morning in this address-in-reply to the Governor-General’s speech on 28 September when the 43rd parliament was formed. Her speech talked about the parliamentary reform of the House of Representatives, including the changes to question time to make it more effective. I certainly welcome these changes and we will see with the passage of time how well they will work but, in fact, in the last parliament I submitted a proposal to the Procedures Committee calling for a restructure of question time. I had received so many complaints from my own constituency who quite understandably thought question time was a complete joke and that much of the behaviour of members of parliament—and we all fit into that category, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not cast aspersions on you in the chair—was embarrassing and certainly not befitting for the titles that we hold in this place.

Until 1989 the average length of question time was 45 minutes and by mid-2008 the average length of question time had doubled to almost 90 minutes. I also proposed in my submission in the last parliament that a limit be put on the time of an answer to a question. Until very recently there had been no restrictions on the length of response to a question and answers gradually became more combative and political. I think that there were many Australians who wondered what we got paid for when they watched question time. I certainly welcome the fact that this new reform has been put into place and that there are restrictions on the length of questions and responses. I think it has allowed us to re-establish some integrity into our parliamentary process, particularly that of question time which becomes a very public face of all of us in this place.

I want to turn to my electorate now and I want to speak about the CSG—as I heard the member for Hunter spoke a little bit about it—and the LNG projects, coal seam methane gas and liquefied natural gas which is converted from coal seam methane gas. Both these projects, which have recently been approved by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, have a significant stake in the landmass across the Surat and Bowen basins, particularly the Surat Basin in my own electorate.

The issues are of concern to many of us, the landholders who hold the title deeds for the above land activities. We do have concerns about the coal seam gas process. This has been ongoing for some years. In fact, in 2008 I put together a mining expo, a ‘meeting of mines’, a meeting of those people in the mining sector and the concerned citizens at the time. Since that time, we have seen a number of farmer groups, citizen groups, local governments and agricultural producers come together because they feel that there is a juggernaut of mining operations that are rapidly developing in my electorate. I am certainly not against mining, but I do believe that we must ensure the legacy of these prime agricultural lands, which, if ever mined, would never be able to be fully rehabilitated to the quality that they have now. I will talk a little bit about food security later.

Since the minister’s approval of these CSG projects, the one-offs I referred to—Santos and British Gas—we have seen tabled in the Senate a number of documents from the Water Group, which raises concerns about the long-term effects of CSG developments and their impact on the Great Artesian Basin. I want to refer to these documents. The first one is the Water Group advice on the EPBC Act referrals, the QGC referral 2008/4399 and the Santos/Petronas referral 2008/4059, and comments on the AP LNG referral 2009/4974. These comments are based on information provided by the proponents up to the close of business on 3 September this year. These are the comments by the Water Group, which were provided to the minister from within his own department prior to making these decisions.

This is the concern I have with the comments that have come from the Water Group—and I know they are in draft form. The comments say:

From all the information provided to date, including that from AP LNG, there is no indication when any of the systems affected by the CSG developments will return to pre-CSG conditions.

What they are referring to is when the underground water aquifers will return to their condition pre-CSG activities. They continue:

QGC—

Queensland Gas—

states that the WCM—

the Walloon Coal Measures—

(this includes the Springbok Sandstone) will not begin to recover until 70 years after CSG production ceases.

Seventy years after! They will only then begin, according to this report, to recover, not fully recover. It says the data also:

… shows that the Springbok, Hutton and Precipice Sandstones will not have recovered after 200 years.

I have to say that this is very alarming stuff. It goes on:

Whilst the residual drawdown is modelled to be quite small, a simple extrapolation for the Hutton Sandstone—

which is a further sandstone aquifer, deeper down than the other ones I just mentioned—

would indicate that recovery will take in the order of 1,000 years.

Interesting also is that:

… Santos has requested that their modelling in the EIS not be used and its new modelling was not provided in time to be included in this assessment …

I wonder why they did not want their modelling that they put in the EIS to be used. Have they found some new data? Is the science not that good? It raises these concerns. This is an alarming comment:

From the AP LNG modelling—

this is modelling that they have looked at and reviewed—

the Gubberamunda Sandstone (the lateral equivalent of the Hooray Sandstone) will not have returned to pre-CSG levels by 3100.

Therefore it can be concluded from the proponents’ modelling that the legacy effects of the CSG developments are considerable, with at least 1,000 years passing before this part of the GAB—

the Great Artesian Basin—

will return to pre-CSG levels.

Those are not my words; they are the words in this report from the Water Group, which was provided to the minister prior to his making those decisions.

Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, as you would be aware, the Great Artesian Basin is the lifeblood of so many towns in western Queensland. When we talk about the Great Artesian Basin we talk about all of the different sandstone formations. It is the lifeblood of the towns, for stock and domestic household use. This report really should be ringing alarm bells in the minister’s office. Whilst he has put on a number of significant restrictions and caps and taken what he would call, I suppose, a cautionary approach to his decisions, I think the minister needs to explain why it is that this has been provided to him in draft form and yet he still has approved these projects with those conditions. I know that my communities out in western Queensland are not convinced. When we read these reports, page after page after page of documents that have recently been tabled in the Senate, more alarm bells will ring.

My communities are not against these projects. In fact, we want to see the new wealth, but we also want to make sure that the wealth is not at the expense of our Great Artesian Basin. Without the Great Artesian Basin, if they do not recover, we will lose some communities out there and, if we lose our underground water, we will lose some towns as well. So we have to make sure it is not mining at the expense of communities and agriculture. That is why I will continue to call for the science, that the ministers both state and federal rely on a peer review by an independent panel of experts. It will not take long. They are out there. But let us have it, Ministers. I do appreciate the significant economic benefit these projects will have on our regional communities across Queensland, but we have to make sure that the Great Artesian Basin is not the victim of new industries coming in and the environmental concerns as well relating to some of the contaminants that have been registered recently in the underground water of western Queensland and up around South Burnett as well. As to the conditions that the minister has proposed, whilst they are welcome, I think he really has to make sure that there is an opportunity for peer review of these documents that we have recently seen tabled in the Senate.

Recently the Queensland government also approved Xstrata’s coalmine at Wandoan, which I am sure you would be well aware of, Madam Deputy Speaker. This mine is predicted to extract some 30 million tonnes of coal per annum over the life of the mine, which is about 30 years. It is estimated that it will be the biggest coalmine in Australia. It is going to bring enormous revenue to both state and federal governments. I understand also, from the briefings I have had, that Xstrata are planning to buy more farmland, both cattle and grain farms, so that they can continue to develop the mine to this capacity over the next 30 years. If they do go ahead and buy this land that will mean Xstrata will be the largest landholder within the Maranoa Regional Council. Xstrata, a mining company based in Switzerland, is the largest landholder in the Maranoa Regional Council. We have to ask ourselves: is this absolutely right? There has to be a better way in relation to dealing with landholders and taking out of production for a significant period of time some of the best cattle country in that part of Queensland.

This is a major concern, I have to say, and I know the public debate will continue to go on, but people are not happy. Unfortunately, the landholders do not have as many rights as the mining companies. If the mining companies go to the land court they will ultimately get access to privately held land—the landholders who pay the rates today. These are families, and we have to make sure there is a better process. I really am concerned about the extent to which these companies want to buy the land. They have the resources, and after 10 years of drought, with the weakened bank account of a farmer, many of them are feeling very much under threat. If the CSG projects—coal seam, methane, gas and mining—in my electorate do come on stream, the CSG alone will generate some $800 million a year and go to the coffers of the Queensland state government. That is all going to end up in George Street. As we all go home to our electorates and see the development in South-East Queensland, we know where the money is going. What I say and what my communities say is that we should be sharing in this in our part of the world. There should be a third of the wealth coming back to the community where the wealth was created.

I looked at this during an overseas study trip 18 months ago. I went to Wyoming in the United States of America where there are agreements between the federal government, which owns the resources, the state of Wyoming and the county council. A third of the tax revenue or royalty revenue goes directly to the county council. They are building hospitals, better roads and sporting facilities with it. The liveability of their communities is being improved. That is the sort of model that we have got to have. The model that I saw in Wyoming in the United States of America should be overlaid in our situation in Queensland because these communities are feeling the juggernaut of the development out there.

I come now to the Warrego Highway, which is an absolute disgrace. These projects are all approved and the development is going ahead, but there has been no money injected into the Warrego Highway and there is no second range crossing. All the additional traffic, including the people going to and from work and the subcontractors, is putting enormous pressure on the Warrego Highway. Prior to the last federal election, we committed some $150 million for this highway. Unfortunately, the government did not commit anything. That really concerns me. They are prepared to take the wealth of the income tax revenue that comes from this, but they are not prepared to invest in this very important road.

I have one point that I am sure the member for Bonner would appreciate. The Clem Jones Tunnel in Queensland is a $3 billion project for five kilometres of road. To put that in context, $1 billion in road funding would build a road from Brisbane via Alice Springs to Perth. I am not against Brisbane getting this sort of development—we see it going on around the south-east corner—but let us see some of this money being directed out into the regional areas and particularly to the Warrego Highway, where these mining projects are going ahead at breakneck speed. That also is a concern.

I am disappointed, though, that the money that former Prime Minister Rudd committed before the 2007 election, some $55 million, has not proceeded rapidly. We have seen the first $5 million or $6 million rolled out now between Roma and Mitchell, but there is some $10 million for passing lanes in the corridor east of Dalby on that section of the Warrego Highway not spent and there is $5 million for some truck stops still not spent. I ask the question of the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport: when in this AusLink term will you spend this money on this highway? I understand that the minister ticked it off, but when will the state government get on with the job, through the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, of rolling out this project? Passing lanes are needed today, not next year or the year after at the end of this program. We need it now, along with the $5 million for the truck stops. We need that money now. It will bring some relief to the highway and the travelling public. It will not be enough, but at least it will be something given it is a commitment of this government. They have still not spent this money.

I would also like to talk about the Landsborough Highway, which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would be well aware of. It runs from Morven right through to Cloncurry. There was no commitment from this government in the last federal election. It is the major arterial route from South-East Queensland, from southern Australia, right through to Darwin. There is no money committed to the Landsborough Highway. It is a critical road. It is also one of the great defence links between southern Australia and South-East Queensland and our defence bases in the Northern Territory. During the last election campaign we committed some $57 million to the Landsborough Highway, with $7 million to begin in 2011. Unfortunately, that is now history because we did not win the election. I am so disappointed that the Labor Party did not listen to the Remote Area Planning and Development Board and the submission they put forward to the Labor Party. The Labor Party did not listen to them. The coalition did; we understand the need for this.

I now go to the Birdsville Track. Only this morning I met with the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Crean, on this issue. The Birdsville Track is south of Birdsville in South Australia. It goes into unincorporated land areas where there are no local governments. It is an important strategic highway that could be further developed. From Cairns to Port Augusta via the inland through Birdsville is some 500 kilometres shorter than going further east through Bourke and Broken Hill. That is the sort of development we want to see. We are seeing money going into places like the Clem Jones Tunnel and ring roads around cities, but in this new paradigm of the parliament—and we have heard the Prime Minister talking about this being a parliament for regional Australia—here is an opportunity to put some money into regional Australia. We need this money for the Birdsville Track. I must admit that Minister Crean gave me, along with Rowan Ramsey, the time to discuss this only this morning. I appreciated his time and I think he could see what we were talking about. We will continue to bring forward a proposition to the minister as well as to the state governments of South Australia and Queensland.

I want to touch quickly on interest rates. I travelled my electorate in the last few weeks before this last sitting fortnight and I have never felt such despair among the small businesses in my community. The latest interest rate rise seems to have just stalled local economies. Small businesses are telling me they have had their worst November trading ever. Here we are pre Christmas, and across my electorate it is probably one of the best seasons we have seen in decades, yet some trading houses are closing their doors while others are telling me that, since that interest rate rise, they have seen the worst trading environment since they have been in business. This really is a major concern to me. I am encouraging people, in the lead-up to Christmas, to shop locally. Please, wherever you are, shop in your local community. By shopping locally, you are supporting your local community. If you are serious about your own communities, buy your Christmas presents and all your Christmas cheer locally; do not look outside your communities, please. It creates jobs in your community. Shop locally as we head for Christmas this year.

Finally, I wanted to quickly say that I will continue to push for optic fibre cable in the Diamantina and Barcoo shires. It is a very important part of what I would hope the minister is listening to in relation to his proposition and the NBN project. We do need this optic fibre cable going into these remote communities. It is about building the nation’s infrastructure and the backhaul, and I just hope that the minister, who met recently with the mayors of Barcoo and Diamantina and the RAPAD Board, understands the need to push this money into outback Queensland. (Time expired)

See this speech in context