Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

Answer:

(1)   The approval decision for this proposal was made by the delegate of the Minister on 19 April 2012. Whilst the department did not source independent analysis of the social and economic impacts of the proposal, the matters were considered internally based largely upon the Queensland Coordinator-General's findings and the information provided by the proponent.

(2)   Yes, as consistent with section 136 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act1999 (EPBC Act).

  This project was assessed under the bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland relating to environmental assessment.

  The Queensland Coordinator-General's report (the assessment report) was released publicly on 20 January 2012 and supplied to the department on the same day. It provided an analysis of the social and economic impacts of the project. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provided by SunWater Limited contains social and economic analysis and was considered as part of the assessment.

  The EIS provided an analysis of the local community within the Isaac Regional Council area including population size and growth, age and gender profiles, population mobility, employment and income, housing costs and property values. Further to this, the EIS also provided an analysis on the local business community which included skill requirements, impacts on other industries, population, demography, housing and accommodation.

(3)   (a) The key findings of the social and economic assessment in the EIS highlighted that since 2001 the mining sector has experience strong growth within the region and that the agriculture sector's contribution to regional output has decreased over the same period. In the year ending March 2008, the region (which includes the Mackay Tourism Region) has experienced an increase in demand; however tourism is not a significant contributor to total regional output.

  (b) The analysis of workforce skills presented in the EIS only contains information for workforce issues relating to the construction and operation of the Dam and pipeline. There was no detailed analysis of sourcing of workforce for any downstream projects or skills availability to other sectors. This detailed analysis would be considered as part of any future projects referred to the department.

  (c) No, this was not part of the analysis.

  (d) No, this was not part of the analysis.

(4)   There has been no detailed analysis on the points raised in Question 4 (a-d), other than that which was discussed in response to Questions 2 and 3.

  (e) The EIS does provide information on the impacts on the Gross State Product (GSP). The EIS estimates that construction of the project could add over $700 million to GSP. The on-going contribution from the operation of the project will be much smaller but could add some $3.5 million per annum directly to GSP and some $9.5 million per annum in total (direct and indirect effects).

(5)   (a) There has been no detailed analysis of the level of community support for the project. However the EIS development process contained an extensive public consultation process. Public consultation included stakeholders identified based on their proximity to the project site, persons identified as either an affected or interested person, stakeholders with interests in regional issues such as local businesses, natural resource management groups, conservation groups, industry groups as well as state and local government representatives. A Community Liaison Group was also formed for the project to identify and discuss issues associated with the project including community feedback.

  (b) There has been no detailed analysis of the impacts to local community services.

  (c) The analysis in the EIS identifies the key infrastructure impacted by the project as roads infrastructure, as well as supporting the increase in coal exports which impacts Queensland's coal transport infrastructure.

  (d) The key findings for the housing analysis state that the impacts on housing and accommodation may occur through acquisition of properties for the project and the increased demand for accommodation by construction workers. Consultation undertaken for the project identified housing affordability and availability as a key issues for towns in the Bowen Basin. The EIS states that given the housing constraints in the housing availability in the study area, three construction camps will be constructed to house the majority of the construction workers.

  (e) The impacts associated with a significant fly-in, fly-out workforce was not discussed in detail on potential downstream projects. However, the EIS states that it is estimated that 40 per cent of the workforce for the construction and operation of the Dam and pipeline will be employed on a fly-in, fly-out basis, 40 per cent employed from the nearby east coastal areas and up to 20 per cent from the immediate area (Moranbah, Nebo).