Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

That just proves the point entirely that if there is a political imperative and there is a significant risk that the greenhouse gas injected into the site will have an adverse impact then the latter can be overlooked in order to deal with the imperative of the day. And that is my concern. That is why I think the minister, having been informed that there is a significant risk that the greenhouse gas injected will have an adverse impact, ought not to have the discretion to proceed regardless of that significant adverse impact.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 5603 revised:

(4)    Schedule 1, item 169, page 220 (after line 21), after subsection 249CZGAA(1), insert:

     (1A)    A pre-certificate notice that relates to an application for a site closing certificate must also:

             (a)    contain a statement specifying the ongoing liability of the applicant for the site, including (without limiting the matters for which the applicant is to remain liable) liability for the risks specified in subsections 249CZF(2) and (4); and

             (b)    specify the form and amount of an additional security to be lodged by the applicant to be held in perpetuity by the Commonwealth against any long-term need to meet costs arising in respect of monitoring, remediation and repair of the site.

      (1B)    The responsible Commonwealth Minister must seek and have regard to the advice of an expert advisory committee established under section 435A in respect of the amount of any security to be lodged by an applicant under paragraph (1A)(b).

(5)    Schedule 1, item 169, page 220 (lines 22 and 23), omit subsection 249CZGAA(2), substitute:

        (2)    The amount of the security is the sum of the estimate referred to in paragraph (1)(b) and the amount referred to in paragraph (1A)(b).

These amendments go to additional security for future liabilities. The Australian Greens believe that there should be a bond attached to these storage sites, just as we now have for the mining industry. Where clearly there will be costs associated with rehabilitation and risks associated with the venture, companies are required to put up a bond. That bond is kept by the state to make good the damages in the future. I think it is only sensible, particularly since we have no mechanism now for determining what the adverse impacts or the costs might be, that the minister has a mechanism to require the company to post a bond. If the company is so confident that the site will not leak and that there will be no liability into the future then this ought not to be a problem.

After years of dealing with the mining industry, we learnt that the best way of dealing with it was to require that companies post a bond. In that way there is an imperative for the company to be responsible. The bond money is there to address things in the future. Why wouldn’t we do exactly the same thing here? We have learnt from experience that not to require mining companies to do so leaves the community with multimillion-dollar—in some cases billion-dollar—costs.

I refer again to the Tasmanian context, where the Queen and King rivers have been destroyed. There has been massive pollution of those rivers and Macquarie Harbour as a result of mining over many years. When we moved for years for tailings dams they said: ‘No, it will be too expensive. It will not be economically viable for us to continue.’ The company soon leaves, leaving the community with the massive cost of rehabilitation—so massive, in fact, that it is unlikely, in my lifetime, that they will ever clean up those rivers and Macquarie Harbour as a result of the mining at Mount Lyell over a long period. You would not want to go back and do that again, so from my point of view it is essential that we have additional security for future liabilities other than those provided for. The Greens are putting forward that:

     (1A)    A pre-certificate notice that relates to an application for a site closing certificate must also:

             (a)    contain a statement specifying the ongoing liability of the applicant for the site, including (without limiting the matters for which the applicant is to remain liable) liability for the risks specified in subsections 249CZF(2) and (4); and

             (b)    specify the form and amount of an additional security to be lodged by the applicant to be held in perpetuity by the Commonwealth against any long-term need to meet costs arising in respect of monitoring, remediation and repair of the site.

      (1B)    The responsible Commonwealth Minister must seek and have regard to the advice of an expert advisory committee established under section 435A in respect of the amount of any security to be lodged by an applicant under paragraph (1A)(b).

Amendment (5) states that the amount of the security will be the sum of the estimate referred to in the previous paragraphs. So this does not specify the exact amount; it provides a framework for the government to strike an amount for that additional liability. Otherwise, I would like to know who is going to meet the costs in respect of monitoring, remediation and repair of the site. How is the Commonwealth going to pay for the monitoring of the site?