Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013

The government has now introduced amendments that will create a new matter of national environmental significance under national environmental law. This amendment will enable the Commonwealth Environment Minister to take into account significant impacts of coal seam gas and large coalmining development on a water resource.

These amendments are the product of a long period of engagement with the community, as well as with members of this parliament who have been strong in their advocacy of this issue.

The challenge we have had up until now is that people quite reasonably expect the Minister for the Environment and Water to take into account, by law, the impacts of coal seam gas and large coal mining on water resources. They want to know that the Environment Minister is considering: if there is an irreversible depletion and contamination of our surface and groundwater resources; the impacts on the way critical water systems operate; and the related effects on our ecosystems.

But, under our current national environment law, the Commonwealth Environment Minister cannot take these concerns into consideration directly, because the Commonwealth does not directly regulate projects that are likely to have an impact on a water resource—either surface water or groundwater. This is because water resources are not currently a matter of national environmental significance.

Under our current laws, the only way the Environment Minister can take these issues into consideration is where there is a connection to an existing matter of national environmental significance.

For example, that connection may be to a threatened species which is legally listed but may be a hundred kilometres away downstream of the project. If there is an impact on that species downstream, only then can the Environment Minister take account the impact the project is having on that water source, to the extent that it affects the listed species.

The Australian government has already taken steps to provide more certainty for regional communities around coal seam gas and large coalmining developments, and the protection of water resources.

Last year we established the independent expert scientific committee under national environment law, to provide independent expert scientific advice to all governments on the water related impacts of coal seam gas and large coalmining.

The independence of the expert committee provides the community with the confidence they need that the scientific work being done has the integrity that people want.

However, when that advice comes back, the Environment Minister can only take that information into account if it is having that flow-on effect to an existing matter of national environmental significance.

Proposed amendments

The amendment does not seek to invoke the Commonwealth in all water decisions. The trigger will not capture small projects such as farm dams. The amendments will create a new matter of national environmental significance for coal seam gas and large coalmining developments which are likely to have a significant impact on a water resource. It will provide the strong legal basis for protection that the community wants.

In addition, the Bill includes an amendment to prevent states and territories from being accredited to make approval decisions in relation to the water trigger.

This is not a broad trigger. The Australian government has already established independent expert scientific committee, which considers coal seam gas and large coalmine developments. This amendment provides the appropriate gateway for federal approval, and should continue to do so.

The amendments also deal with the transition to the new trigger.

There are a number of projects that have already been referred under national environment law which are already undergoing assessment. The government thinks it would be a perverse outcome if every project already in the system was finished without taking account the new matter of national environmental significance.

This is why the amendments provide that, for any project that is already undergoing assessment, provided the Independent Expert Scientific Committee has not yet given its advice and a proposed decision on the project has not yet been made, the new trigger will apply.

This does not mean that the assessment will need to begin again and completely restart for those projects that are captured.

We know that the sort of information that would be needed to make a decision for the new matter of national environmental significance already gets collected in different ways for state approvals, and for the work of the independent expert scientific committee.

The Commonwealth environment department is contacting proponents to advise them of any additional information requirements which may apply, the same way they frequently seek additional information, so that the full impacts of those projects on water resources can be assessed.

Stakeholder engagement

Since the introduction of the amendments into the House of Representatives, the Australian Government has consulted with industry and community stakeholders.

The government will continue to engage industry and stakeholders in the lead-up to, and following the commencement of, the amendments, should they be passed by the Parliament. This will include providing guidance on the application of the new environmental law to their projects, such as the likely information requirements.

Conclusion

Up until now Australia's Environment Minister has not been able to take into account this information, which is already being collected. The information is provided and analysed but does not currently form part of the decision-making process. Under the new trigger, it will.

It means that when an approval is given or an approval decision is made, the community expectation that the Environment Minister has taken into account the impacts on water resources will match up with the legal obligations of environment minister.

At the same time, the Australian government is making sure that the administrative processes for the transition are done in a way that delivers better scrutiny and gives better-quality and more thorough decisions, without needlessly adding to time frames. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013, which the government has just rushed into the Senate chamber. It is noteworthy that the Senate committee report on this bill was only concluded and tabled this morning, but this of course is symptomatic of a government whose policy agenda is overwhelmingly driven by politics rather than by sound public policy, and in this case this legislation firmly fits that trend. This legislation has been driven completely by the politics of the government—in particular, the politics of the government's precarious position in the House of Representatives, where they rely very much on the member for New England and other crossbenchers for support.

Just months ago the government rejected proposals similar to those contained in this legislation, which were essentially to establish a water trigger in the EPBC Act—that is, to add a water trigger to the range of triggers on matters of national environmental importance which exist in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It is not to be an all-encompassing water trigger, mind you. Instead, and this is an unprecedented step, it is a trigger specific to certain industries—in this case, the coal industry and the coal seam gas industry. The government had previously pilloried the idea that a water trigger needed to be added to the EPBC Act. It was not even a factor in the recommendations of the comprehensive Hawke review of the EPBC Act. Yet, all of a sudden, because Mr Windsor walked into the Prime Minister's office and said, 'I demand this be done,' here we are debating this legislation. It is an appalling way to make public policy. It is an appalling way for the government to change its mind and to change the rules and regulations that industry has to comply with.

We already have in this country very extensive and comprehensive environmental planning laws. They operate at the state and federal levels and they provide for the assessment and recognition of all manner of factors, including the impact on water. It is estimated that, on environmental planning, there are around 1,500 state conditions that must be complied with and 300 or so federal conditions that must be complied with. Within these conditions there is ample scope to address issues of water, and that is exactly what occurs already. This bill will add a new layer of regulation and a new level of duplication by which the federal government will find itself assessing things that state governments are already assessing and industry will have to go through and get approvals from the federal government just as they already have to get approvals from state governments. It will add to the cost and time frame of approvals, it will add to the delays and it will add to the risk that industry will simply take its bat and ball and invest elsewhere.

I acknowledge and understand that there are significant community concerns, especially in agricultural environments, about coal seam gas and its impact on water and that there are also community concerns about the proximity to urban centres, in some cases, of coal seam gas developments. That is why, on changes to water, the coalition supported the independent expert scientific panel, which was embraced on bipartisan lines with, I acknowledge, Mr Windsor's encouragement as well. Under such changes, hundreds of millions of dollars were to be invested to make sure that all projects were subject to completely rigorous scrutiny and that the advice resulting from the scrutiny would be provided to both state and federal governments. Ministers, in making their assessments, would have to have taken the advice into account—and, lest they ignored the advice of the independent committee, its findings were to be made public. Woe would betide a minister, whether state or federal, who went against the independent scientific advice in making their determinations.

I acknowledge the community concerns. Such concerns were the reason that this parliament acted to set up the committee with its expert assessment process just last year. Yet now we have legislation which goes further than what was done last year without giving a fair go to what was done last year and to see whether it would have addressed the community concerns and whether it would have worked. At the time last year's measures were proposed, Mr Windsor was pushing his proposal for an environmental water trigger to the EPBC Act—and, at that time, the government rejected the idea. The question for the government to answer in this debate is: what has changed in the many times that the government rejected the proposal for it to now see the proposal as urgent? Of course, what has changed is that Mr Windsor no doubt made acceptance of his proposal a condition of his ongoing support for the government.

There is clear evidence that this legislation was arrived at by a very dubious and questionable process. The department confirmed during a Senate inquiry into the legislation that consultation was not undertaken on the detailed text of the bill prior to its introduction and consideration by parliament. Indeed, any consultation on the general principles of this legislation was minimal at best. Even those who support it, such as the Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices, have said that the legislation came out of a bad process. We had, as I said before, a very comprehensive review—the Hawke review—of the EPBC Act. It did not recommend the change found in this legislation. It recommended a number of other changes, which the government has thus far ignored. The fact that it ignored them is symptomatic of a government which goes out, seeks advice for which it pays taxpayers' money and then completely ignores the advice that it has been provided with and does the opposite or something else entirely. What is the point of undertaking reviews such as the Hawke review and getting a whole lot of advice and then ignoring it and doing something which was not even proposed by the Hawke review? It is quite remarkable.

Equally, the government in the lofty rhetoric of its earlier days, placed great importance on making sure that it did not impose undue regulation on industry. To make sure that there was not undue regulation on industry, the government would be handing down a regulatory impact statement on all new legislation or regulatory reform which could have an impact. Is there a regulatory impact statement for this legislation? No, there is not. The government, despite promising to do so and despite saying that it was essential to make sure that it minimised the level of regulation on the Australian economy and that the regulations were effective, has ignored its own processes once again.

As I stated, there are real concerns about how this reform creates a level of duplication with existing state laws. We should never forget in this place—and sadly in this the states' house it seems to be too often forgotten—that the states have a primary role when it comes to regulating land use and that the states have a primary role when it comes to regulating the exploitation of minerals and resources in those lands. That is how our Constitution was set up and that is how this country has effectively worked from the day of Federation: that the states take the lead in those planning roles. We do not have a planning minister at a federal level; states have planning ministers. They make the relevant decisions here. The resources are owned in essence by the people of those states. They are there for their benefit and their benefit to exploit as is appropriate.

Over the years, the Commonwealth has taken sensible steps to make sure that, where there are matters of national environmental importance, the Commonwealth has a say in regulating those. There were some proud reforms of the Howard government in that regard. They were important reforms that gave the Commonwealth a say in this regard, but that does not change the fundamentals that the states have extensive processes in place. The interesting thing that we saw in the Senate inquiry into this legislation was that, as Senator McKenzie in particular highlighted, all the criticisms seemed to be coming from just one state, and there is perhaps a good question to be asked here: whether the laws of that state are working effectively enough or not—whether they have provided sufficient confidence to their communities in their laws. But that does not mean that we should be coming in and imposing a new level of regulation that applies across all states—and applies right across the Commonwealth—and that will affect those states where there seems to be minimal or no community concern just as much as it affects those where there is very strong concern.

As I have also said, the independent expert scientific committee process is still in its relative infancy. This is still a fairly new process. It is a process that we supported. It is a process that we believe can and should provide greater rigour to assessments at a state level as well as a federal level. If there are legitimate concerns about the impact on water resources, it should ensure that state ministers have to take those into account when they are approving these developments. So, the changes to make sure that those with the power are well informed and well educated on these issues have already been made. The information is now being provided and the information is then made available to the public, as I said before. So why on earth is it now necessary, while this new process is still so young, to apply another different process on top of that? The government has given no justification for that, and that, of course, is because it is such a politically driven process.

There are also grave concerns about the fact that this legislation targets specific industries. This is a whole new world of activity for the EPBC Act, which traditionally has said that there are broad matters of national environmental significance that should be considered, regardless of what industry is proposing to undertake a development. If this legislation passes, we are putting in place a new area of assessment, but only as it relates to the coal industry or the coal seam gas industry, only as it relates to those sectors. Anybody else is still subject to the state laws or to the original areas of the EPBC Act assessment. This targeting of specific industries is again a terribly flawed approach to legislative process in this place. It is a real concern that the government has decided to target these sectors and, beyond the immediacy of those sectors targeted, there are genuine concerns in many places, particularly in the farming sector, that, if one industry group can be targeted with specific environmental laws, what is to say that other industry groups in future cannot be targeted with specific environmental laws? There is genuine concern there about the precedent this bill sets and the distortion in terms of the universality of application of the EPBC Act.

We also heard during the Senate inquiry numerous concerns about the definitions applied to this legislation. The coalition senators have made some requests for the government to think about how it deals with those definitions. First and foremost, there are concerns about whether applications may be required simply to undertake exploration activities—not to undertake production, not to undertake the types of activities that could be highly disruptive to communities or to water resources but simply to undertake exploration activities. As many sectors of industry said during this inquiry, if they cannot do the exploration in the first place, they cannot undertake the thorough assessment to see what the environmental impacts will be. They need to be able to drill test sites in the first place so that they have a comprehensive understanding of the geography and geology of the circumstances they are working in. That is why the government should look very closely at how it defines what activities are captured by this bill. It should be excluding those that relate to exploration activities, and I urge the government to consider doing so. Equally, there were concerns expressed about the breadth of the definition that may apply to a water resource. The New South Wales Irrigators' Council, for example, argued that they believed that it could apply to all water resources. The Minerals Council asked the question: are we talking dry creek beds? Are we talking dams? Are we talking tailing dams? Are we talking water, coal seam gas? What are we talking—surface, groundwater, the lot? What is a large coalmine? What and where do mining related activities fit in the equation?

These questions seem to be left unanswered by this bill. The government should answer these questions clearly and should, ideally, amend its legislation to ensure it clarifies these concerns.

There are also concerns about the retrospectivity aspect of this legislation. This legislation would mean that, even if you are already undergoing an assessment process—even if you are already part of the way through your assessment—you are going to have to meet a new standard. You have already invested your money and you have already started to go through the very expensive and time-consuming process of getting your environmental approvals, but now, halfway through, the rules are going to be changed on you. That is not good enough. If this bill has to pass, it should only apply to new applications and not to those where the process is already underway.

Most remarkable is that during the debate on this legislation in the House of Representatives the government once again completely contradicted their own previous position by adopting at the last minute—while they were yet again in a complete state of turmoil over their leadership—amendments moved by Mr Tony Windsor. Those amendments serve to prevent bilateral approvals processes in this area. The government have previously rightly rejected pushes by the Greens to rule out bilateral approvals processes—processes where the states can be authorised to make approvals on behalf of the Commonwealth, subject to certain criteria. The government have previously ruled out Greens attempts to universally ban bilateral approvals, but they yielded to Mr Windsor's request. Yet again there was no consideration of the impact. They just said, 'For these specific types of activities, we will exclude bilateral approvals.' That flies in the face of what Prime Minister Gillard said in April last year, although we know—particularly on this day, budget day—that we cannot believe anything which was said 12 months ago. But last April she said:

… what we want to work towards here is a streamlined system, so that projects don’t go through two layers of assessment for no real gain.

She was arguing for increased use of bilaterals at that stage. By December, she had changed her mind and had ditched that proposal. Now the government are proposing to outlaw bilaterals in certain circumstances. Talk about a complete about-face! Now they do not even want the legislation to include provision for bilaterals to possibly exist. The coalition will move an amendment to remove the change to the bill inserted by the House of Representatives. I urge the government, in the cold light of day, after having had a couple of months to think about it, to support the coalition's change in that regard. I also urge them to ensure that there is at least some level of consistency of application across the EPBC Act, rather than a complete hotchpotch.

We have many concerns about this legislation. As I said, though, we understand the concerns of the community as well. We hear those concerns and we are not, by opposing this legislation, going to allow the government to politicise this issue. We will work to fix these issues should we succeed later this year. We want to work to ensure that we get community confidence for this important industry, because it is an important industry. It is generating billions of export dollars and thousands of new jobs and is very important to the economic wellbeing of all states of Australia—to securing, in particular, our future gas supplies. (Time expired)

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my opinion, it is well beyond time for us to have a full discussion in this chamber of coal seam gas and coalmines, particularly their effect on our precious and limited water resources—the subject of the Environment Conservation and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013, which is before us today. The Greens support this bill. In fact, we brought a bill quite similar to this one into this place about 18 months ago. We did so off the back of huge scientific concern about the potential for long-term damage to our water resources and off the back of increasing community concern—concern which has only intensified in the intervening 18 months. So I am pleased the government has now reconsidered its former position and has agreed that it is, in fact, incumbent upon the federal government to act in the national interest to protect our precious groundwater and surface water resources from the possibility of massive damage being done to them by coal seam gas and coalmines.

There have been a lot of remarks made by the coalition. Indeed, they have had several positions on this issue; it is difficult to keep up with them. But Senator Birmingham has put on record that they will be supporting this bill. I appreciate that support and I think members of the community will be greatly relieved to feel they are finally being listened to by this parliament. Some of the farming families who have had a strong attachment to their land for generations, and who have a huge dependence on groundwater, have expressed genuine, heartfelt concern for many years. Until now, they have felt abandoned by the other political parties. I think it will be a really lovely day for those folk—knowing that their parliament is finally taking an interest in conserving that precious water resource and protecting it from damage.

I want to put on record, though, that this bill is not a panacea. This bill will simply allow the federal environment minister to consider the impact on water of coal seam gas and coalmining. Whether or not he or she—depending on who the minister is—then decides to act upon those concerns is an entirely different kettle of fish. Today's bill will put in place the process for making a good decision, but it remains a matter of ministerial discretion whether those scientific and community concerns are properly acted upon and whether or not our water resources will actually be protected. I would therefore urge the current Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and whoever the next environment minister is—of whichever colour—to take the advice of the independent expert scientific committee, the advice this bill will now enable the minister to consider. I thought it a little farcical to set up a federal committee and then preclude the minister from listening to it. That seemed a bit ridiculous to me, so I am glad we are correcting that anomaly today.

The need for federal intervention is abundantly clear. We have heard evidence about this from all around the nation and not just one state, as Senator Birmingham seemed to contend. I do not think he attended all the hearings, so perhaps he missed the bits explaining, for example, the real problems in Queensland with coal seam gas. I am disappointed to report that the concern about the potential impact for damage is not confined to New South Wales. We heard from folk at a number of Senate committee hearings about their huge concern.

Anyone watching the Four Corners report of a month or so ago could see that the state processes are not properly dealing with the risks of coal seam gas and coal to our groundwater resources. Can I put on record my admiration for the courage of that wonderful whistleblower, Simone Marsh. I understand she has been on leave without pay because of the stress and anguish she has suffered after blowing the whistle on poor practices, and our heartfelt thanks go out to her. She revealed that after a fairly protracted environmental impact statement process done by the company, as is proper, she was then heavied by senior bureaucrats to issue approvals in sometimes as little as half a day. She was informed by folks in the department she was working for that there would not be government consideration of the water impacts of two of the big coal seam gas projects, QGC and Santos, in the Coordinator-General's report—effectively the summary report upon which the final decision is then made. That makes an absolute mockery of the process and it clearly shows up the highly political nature of these decisions.

Unfortunately we have seen that reflected at the federal level too. Previously the Labor government was not so keen on this idea; in fact, I think I was even laughed at when I first brought legislation to parliament a year and a half ago. Earlier this year Minister Burke ticked off on the big coal seam gas project in Gloucester, ticked off on the coalmine in Maules Creek, ticked off on the coalmine in Boggabri and about a week after that ticked off on the coalmine in Taranganba. About two days after that he suddenly discovered that water was a problem and, gee, he would like to listen to scientific and community concern. That is great, but unfortunately he had just ticked off on some of the largest projects in New South Wales, and the massive projects in Queensland had already been approved—barring the final project, Arrow, which we hope will never see the light of day.

We do welcome this belated action to protect our water but we are conscious that it comes after many concerning approvals have already been issued—and those approvals have been issued despite the scientific evidence warning of irreversible damage to the groundwater table and warning that we do not even understand the scope of the potential for damage; we do not even know enough about the interactions between coal seams, aquifers and the pressure system to know how much damage this industry could be doing. The sheer abandonment of the precautionary principle, the lack of concern for those long-term impacts and this overriding drive for short-term profit to the possible detriment in the long-term of our farming communities and of our very water resources make me crestfallen. It is part of the reason why the community is so disappointed with both sides of politics. Be that as it may, as I have said, the Four Corners program sadly highlighted the flaws in the state process, particularly in Queensland—all the more reason for the federal government to do more and to step in and protect this national resource, our water.

We also heard some very telling evidence in the hearings into this bill in New South Wales about the new you-beaut revised coal seam gas rules which were meant to solve everything. Unfortunately, according to the community and the experts in that state, they have not solved the problem. The example was given that, in dry times, cease-to-pump-water notices can be issued that irrigators and farmers have to comply with but that coal seam gas companies and big mining companies can seek a compliance exemption from. Once again you have two sets of rules—one rule for farming folk and for the average person in the street and a special rule for the fossil fuel companies. This is exactly the sort of behaviour that is yet more proof that the states are not up to the job of properly protecting water and properly acting to regulate this potentially very damaging industry. So, I am relieved that the federal government is finally deciding to list the impact of these industries on water as a matter of national environmental significance. It is long overdue.

Senator Birmingham referred to a poor process in the formulation of this bill. Perhaps he has not been paying attention, but this issue has been bubbling and has been a matter of community and scientific concern for many years. It is belated action that we are seeing from the government; it is not hasty action—far from it. They are finally catching up with community sentiment, and we welcome that. On the point of process, we saw the big mining companies chuck a bit of a hissy fit—they were annoyed that they had not been able to write their own rules, like they normally do, so they pulled out of the Senate inquiry hearings about 24 hours before they were due to proceed. The irony of complaining about not being consulted and then voluntarily withdrawing from a process where they could have shared their views was clearly lost on them. Thankfully it was not lost on other participants in the inquiry.

I want to put on record how the Greens will seek to improve this bill. The bill is a good start and it does bear a very close resemblance to legislation we introduced 18 months ago which, sadly, did not receive support at that time. There are some key areas where we can do better. Given that the debate has moved on and given the acceptance now of the need to act on this issue, I urge senators from both sides of politics to properly consider these amendments and see if they can support them. The first amendment would be particularly attractive to the opposition, given their on-again off-again, on-again off-again, on-again as of last weekend position about protecting landholder rights. Mr Tony Abbott has had a vexed position on this. He seems to be changing his mind quite frequently, but his most recent statement is that actually he does think that landholders should not have their livelihoods disrupted by big coal seam gas companies and big coalmines, and they should be able to say no. We agree, which is why we proposed legislation to allow farmers the right to say no when Tony Abbott first made those remarks. Unfortunately, he has now resiled a little from that and said that, even though he thinks that—it is his personal view—'It's up to the states.' It is out of his hands; he cannot do anything to fix that!

In good news, I have an amendment that would enable him to fix that issue and would enable this parliament to allow the farmers the right to say, 'I don't want to take the risk with my land that has been in my family for generations that the water resources will dry up and my kids won't have anything to farm with. I don't want to take that risk.' It is a very simple amendment. It is clearly constitutional, using the corporations head of power—no need for excuses on that basis. If we get to move those amendments today, or whenever this bill comes back on if we do not get to it today, we will see just what the coalition really think about landholder rights, particularly whether the folk from the Nationals are willing to put their money where their mouth is and act in the interests of those farming communities. I look forward to the opportunity to give a voice to those farmers who feel that they have not had their rights respected—indeed, because they have no rights in this issue. Let us try to give them some.

The second amendment that I will be moving to strengthen this EPBC Act goes to the very projects I mentioned before and that the environment minister, Mr Tony Burke, ticked off on just before announcing this bill. The reason we would like this new bill to apply to those projects is that they have only just been ticked off; they have not commenced work. Clearly, the government had an inkling that this was what they were going to do: within days of those approvals, this bill was announced. Let us make sure that communities in that region, the Namoi region, can actually get the benefit of this protection for their water resources. The amendment goes further, saying, given that we still have some projects in Queensland that have not yet been approved, thank goodness—namely, the Arrow coal seam gas project—let us make those existing three coal seam gas proponents, QGC, Santos and AGL, do those water studies, because they got off scot-free last time. Look at the process that was exposed on Four Corners; the government did not even properly scrutinise water impacts. Let us make them do those studies and put that information on the table so that the federal minister can be properly armed with that information when making future decisions. There is no interruption of their approval processes, no acquisition of rights, no change to their legal status but simply an obligation to now supply that information—to turn their minds to those water impacts and inform our decision-makers of the consequences of future decisions on other projects. So that is a very important amendment that will overcome, I think, the cynicism of the minister's announcement and the timing of the announcement of this bill.

The third of my four amendments goes to the scope of this bill, to the fact that it is not just coal seam gas that is threatening our groundwater and our surface water on the east coast but also shale gas and tight gas, which we have across this country. It seems strange to me that we are contemplating creating two tiers of rights, where east coast folk, where there is coal seam gas, could have their water protected by the minister if he or she makes the right decision, based on the evidence, but folk in the south, west and north would not have that same level of protection from shale gas mining extraction, which uses similar extraction processes and has similar potential impacts on water. Let us make sure that we are not creating a two-tiered system of rights here, and let us make sure that all of those unconventional gas resources can be treated the same and can be scrutinised for their potential to damage our water resources. So I look forward to moving that very sensible amendment to put all unconventional gas resources on a level playing field.

The final amendment I will be moving relates to the amendment to this bill that was made in the House. I am really pleased that Mr Tony Windsor moved the amendment that he did, after many discussions with many folk, including community groups, to make sure that this new power to protect water not be simply given back to the very state governments who, frankly, stuffed it up in the first place. It is a crucial amendment to the environment laws because there is that little section in the act where it says you can hand off your federal approval powers to the states, write yourself completely out of the picture, but the amendment means you cannot do that for water. I think that is really important. But, again, we are creating two classes here. We have a special rule for water, where those powers need to stay where they belong—in federal hands. But all of those other matters of national environmental significance, which are, as the name suggests, nationally significant—and sometimes internationally significant in the case of World Heritage, such as migratory birds, wetlands and threatened species—can be given away to state premiers.

We have seen the environmental legacy of state premiers. The whole genesis of federal involvement in the environmental arena came from the Franklin Dam, as we all know, when Bob Hawke stepped in and said to the states: 'No, it is too important. You cannot simply trash the Franklin River. We're going to take it all the way to the High Court using our constitutional means of doing so,' using the foreign affairs power, 'and protect this river in the national interest.' It would be a great shame if a Labor government, 30 years on, undid that very important reform, which was really the springboard for all of our federal environmental regulation over the last 30 years.

So we have 30 years of environment protection at stake, and the amendment I will be moving is to delete that section, section 46, where it simply says, inoffensively, that you can accredit the states to make your approval decision for you. The effect of that will be that the federal government will always have to tick off on a damaging development in a World Heritage area. It will always have the power to veto anything that is going to have a significant impact on something that is so nationally significant that the government has seen fit to protect it. I think those powers to act in the national interest should stay in national hands. We do not expect the states to act in the national interest; it is not their job. They will always act in their own interest, and that is what they are meant to do. So let us make sure that this national government can act in the interests of all Australians and protect those places that are too precious to lose and those species that are unique to Australia and make them so special to Australia that they are part of our very identity.

This is a really important amendment because we know that the coalition have said on many occasions that they will use that ability. They will give away to state premiers the approval powers that sit now with the federal government. The thought of Premier Campbell Newman in Queensland having even more power to wind back even more laws than he already has—we are up to about 12 environmental protections that he has wound back—and the thought of him having the sole say over our nationally significant environmental icons sends shivers down my spine, and I hope it sends shivers down the spines of at least half of this chamber. We will let you guys off the hook, given that it is your side that is running the states in the main. As a question of process, no matter what colour you are from, we need to make sure that we do not simply have one level of government in sole control. We need the national government to act in the national interest. That is why it is crucial that in the last few weeks of our sittings this Labor government takes the chance to protect its very own legacy—the original intervention of Bob Hawke—which has led to the Commonwealth being able to step up and protect the environment. Let us make sure that those powers can be maintained.

I congratulate the government and I certainly congratulate Mr Tony Windsor on bringing this bill forward; it is long overdue. It will provide the framework to protect water from coal seam gas and coalmines. It will still be up to the minister's discretion whether that eventuates. I urge the minister to listen to the science, the advice of that independent scientific committee, the advice of CSIRO and the advice of the National Water Commission, to take proper decisions and to act employing that precautionary principle that he or she is meant to employ when making those decisions. We do not know if coal seam gas is safe. All indications are that it is going to do immeasurable damage to our aquifers. We know that it leaks like a sieve, so it is no better than coal when it comes to climate impacts. We know that, if Australia is going to continue to be a net food exporter in the coming age of food insecurity, we will need to safeguard the precious farmland that is so unique to us. So I commend this bill and the amendments to the Senate. (Time expired)

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 and commend it to the Senate, particularly in relation to coal seam gas mining and water resources. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, typically known as the EPBC, is Australia's principal national mechanism for environmental protection. Many of Australia's international environmental obligations are discharged very much through the EPBC. These include responsibilities derived from our participation in international agreements and through our custodianship of shared resources. They involve caring for World Heritage sites, looking after wetlands and habitats for migratory birds, ensuring the survival of threatened plant and animal species and regulating nuclear actions, including uranium mining. The EPBC also includes some matters of national significance, such as places of national heritage and the declaration of Commonwealth marine areas, which have expanded substantially under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

The listing of matters in the EPBC is indicative of matters that are of concern to all Australians—not just to local, state and territory communities but to all Australians. So the inclusion of threatened species in the EPBC reflects the fact that biodiversity, particularly iconic species like the Tasmanian devil and the Wollemi pine, is important to all Australians. Similarly, we take pride as a nation in our heritage and in our special places such as the ancient Gondwana rainforests or the Great Barrier Reef. Australians, too, believe in the close and careful regulation of uranium mining and the handling of nuclear material—an issue that has motivated and continues to motivate people across our nation.

The EPBC provides a trigger for projects to be assessed by the federal government. Many major developments fall under the EPBC by virtue of their direct and indirect impact on one of the matters listed in part 3 of the act, such as the effect of development on surrounding habitats in which threatened species may live. However, developments that do not have a demonstrative impact on any of the currently listed projects cannot be assessed by the federal government's environmental authority. The legislative scope of the EPBC does not necessarily grant the minister for the environment discretion to assess any or all developments that may have a substantial impact on the environment or on a matter of national significance that may have emerged. Indeed, when the minister for the environment introduced this bill in the other place, he noted that most Australians would reasonably expect the minister for the environment to take into account, by law, the matters included in this bill.

There is no doubt that when we learn more about the environmental impact of the different processes and operations we should ensure that our legislation reflects new science and our new environmental conscience. We must also ensure that our legislation measures up to the expectations of the Australian people. That is why this bill introduces a new category of matters to the EPBC. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 adds the protection of water resources from coal seam gas development and large-scale coalmining development to the ambit of the EPBC. As it stands, there is no direct protection under national environmental law for groundwater and table resources that keep our land and waterways healthy and our arable lands balanced. Water resources are drawn on extensively by flora and fauna as well as by humans for consumption and agricultural use. As we have seen in other areas of environmental policy, such as in the debate on the Murray-Darling River Basin, the availability, use and health of our water table and waterways resonate right across our country. This is linked to the wellbeing of country communities, which are part of our national story and part of our national food security network.

While the science on coal seam gas extraction is still emerging, there is no doubt that coal seam gas exploration and extraction should be carefully monitored. The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee's recent inquiry into this bill received a raft of submissions from a diverse range of people and organisations on a diverse range of concerns. I will take a moment to highlight why the work of the Senate committee process is so important: it allows that deeper scrutiny of the legislation and it allows those peak organisations and individuals—anyone in the community—to come forward with their concerns, their science and their information as to why they believe the bill should or should not pass this Senate. I have to say that, during this process, I realised that perhaps coal seam gas was not something about which I had a great amount of knowledge. But being part of that committee process allowed me to have a much deeper understanding of why this bill is so important, why the amendments are so important to add water resources to the EPBC when we are talking about coal seam gas and large coalmining developments.

Among the number of concerns that were raised by submitters to that inquiry process was the uncertainty and ambiguity around current science. There were a range of concerns. In 2012 the parliament passed the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill to create a reference panel to provide that expertise to assessment processes and to address some of those concerns. However, the persistent perception of any stakeholder is that some regulatory authorities in states—particularly New South Wales and Queensland, where coal seam gas exploration is most common—have relegated good environmental outcomes and processes to a secondary role in favour of development. That is a very self-interested approach they have taken to address their legislative roles in their own states. I am particularly talking about Premier Barry O'Farrell and Premier Campbell Newman, who are happy to ignore genuine environmental concerns for a quick buck. As the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales submitted:

… it is important to recognise that the states do not necessarily have the national interest at heart when they are assessing these types of proposals. States can often directly benefit from projects that they are assessing, whether it is through royalties on mining and gas resources or through direct income to state-owned agencies that are carrying out projects within their own state.

That is exactly why the member for New England's amendment is so important. It is because of that self-interested attitude of some state governments when it comes to developmental proposals around this issue of coal seam gas in return for dollars in their coffers and poor environmental outcomes. That is why the EPBC is so important and that is why the addition of water resources to it is so important. It is also why, on top of that, the amendment provided by the member for New England is so important.

Further, the Australian Network of Environmental Defender's Offices, ANEDO, also made a number of representations to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, including the recommendation of a broad water trigger in the EPBC to cover other forms of mining. It submitted that:

… drawing on our extensive experience as environmental lawyers, we developed 10 best practice standards for planning and environmental regulation in response to COAG proposal to streamline environmental assessment. We then evaluated relevant laws in each State and Territory against these standards. Based on our analysis, no State or Territory currently has a regulatory regime that reflects ANEDO's 'best practice metric'.

The committee was sympathetic to these concerns, as it was to the significant level of community concern around coal seam gas proposals.

In addition to the environmental and agricultural concerns, there was a uniform concern about the general regulatory approach and the inability of farmers to prevent broad-scale development activity on their own properties. Farmers on their own properties are unable to prevent such broad-scale development. On that basis, I take the point made by Senator Birmingham, who tried to suggest that the opposition has interest and concern when it comes to the environment and, presumably, farmers—those living and working in the agricultural areas of our nation. Yet he then rebutted such a claim by not showing any kind of support for the addition of the water trigger to the act. He did not give any alternative though as to what his solution would be for farmers who have no opportunity to prevent broad-scale development on their own properties. Would Senator Birmingham like the addition of water to all developments? I did not hear him saying that. I would not think he would be referring to that. He did talk about the lack of uniformity of water and that it does not apply to all developments through this amendment, but it is actually focused on coal seam gas developments and large-scale developments of the coalmining industry. He did not provide any alternative and yet at the same time he wanted to appear to be all concerned for and interested in those poor farmers who are affected. All of that, to me, is just gobbledygook and does not make any sense. It does not do anything, as opposed to the bill that is before us today that does do something for those farmers. It goes to the heart of the Australian community's concern when it comes to our water resources that are affected by coal seam gas developments and large-scale coalmining developments. Through its process, the Senate committee found that:

… the rapid and extensive development of coal mining and CSG mining in particular and the great community concern that these activities have raised require that concerns about these activities should now be addressed.

That is exactly what we are doing here today. Indeed, it is important to recognise that the investigation into coal seam gas is substantially a story of powerful interests at a state level avoiding the proper scrutiny that the federal government is able to provide as a result of its expertise and distance from that specific development. That is why the committee and the government are supporting this bill to bring coal seam gas and other coalmining projects under the appropriate environmental scrutiny. The federal government very much has an important role here to act in the national interest. That is why the amendment to this bill is so very important.

In closing, I would like to recognise the efforts of a number of my parliamentary colleagues: those Senate committee members who were part of the inquiry into this bill, those colleagues who were part of the development of this bill in this place and in the other place—particularly Mr Windsor's amendment to ensure that proper assessments of coal seam gas are not overridden by bilateral agreements—and also Senator Waters, who previously presented a bill to the Senate attempting to address some of these concerns. Also, I particularly want to recognise the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, who has been a stalwart defender of the environment, due process and science. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In commencing my contribution to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill, I remind senators of the very proud record the Liberal and National parties have when it comes to the environment in Australia. If you look back, every single piece of practical environmental legislation that actually benefits Australia and benefits our biodiversity is an action of Liberal-National party governments. Can I mention a few of those before I get onto the EPBC Act, which is, again, a creation of the Liberal-National party coalition.

Liberal governments prohibited sand mining on Fraser Island. Liberal governments banned whaling in Australian waters. Liberal governments declared the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The same governments proclaimed the Kakadu, Uluru, Christmas Island and Coral Sea national and maritime parks. Five properties were placed on the World Heritage List under the Fraser government. They included the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu, Willandra Lakes, Lord Howe Island and South West Tasmania. Liberal-National party governments also passed the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act and the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Act.

Our governments regulated the uranium industry in the Northern Territory and enacted major pieces of legislation to control pollution, especially for the protection of the high seas. Coalition governments legislated for the introduction of things which are now taken for granted such as unleaded petrol as a pollution-control measure. Right throughout the history of coalition governments, programs have been introduced for water protection, soil protection and tree promotion around our country. It was a Liberal government that had Australia's first ever environment minister.

We have a very proud record of practical and sensible work for Australia's environment and biodiversity. It is something that you will never, ever hear uttered from the lips of the Greens political party because they loath with a passion anyone from this side of the chamber—particularly in an environmental sense. If you look back through history, you will see that all of the sensible and practical actions taken in Australia for our environment have been the work of coalition governments. Indeed, it was my friend the then Senator Robert Hill, as Minister for the Environment, who introduced the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Nowhere did we hear the Greens or the Labor Party calling for this sort of legislation, but it is something that came through—like the green zones on the Great Barrier Reef. These are major, practical enhancements to Australia's environmental protection and management.

We are proud of what we have done, but we have done it in a sensible way and in a way that did not impinge on Australia's economy, increase our costs of living or decrease our attractiveness for investment—the sort of investment that has kept Australia to the forefront of the world. The difficulty with the legislation that has been introduced by coalition governments is that sometimes other governments get to be in charge of them. Once they are in charge, they can make very stupid decisions that really take us no further but make political points and attract preferences from the Greens political party, keeping the current Labor government—and many other Labor governments—in power.

I heard the previous speaker praising Mr Windsor, as well the Labor Party should because, if it were not for Mr Windsor, Australia would have had a decent government, a proactive government and a sound financially managing government three years ago. But Mr Windsor—through his, I might say, crassness—kept Ms Gillard and this dysfunctional Labor government in power long after they should have been thrown onto the scrap heap of political history—as they will no doubt be later this year.

The bill before us is another example of overkill by the Australian Labor Party at the urgings of Mr Windsor, for his own purposes, and the Greens political party. The coalition will not be opposing it, but we do make the point—yet again—that this legislation simply duplicates the powers that the states already have. The Labor government has spoken a lot about this one-stop shop process of environmental regulating, but again—as with everything the Labor government does—it is all just words. I, like 95 per cent of other Australians, have simply stopped listening to anything this government says.

Today, on what I call 'fantasy Tuesday', when we are preparing for what is very loosely called a budget, again we see that nobody really cares what is going to be said tonight. Nobody cares at all what is said because everybody knows from past performance that, no matter what the Treasurer says tonight, it will not happen. Remember in the last two or three budgets when he promised those surpluses? Do you remember that, Madam Acting Deputy President? His speech last budget night was so exact, so precise, so forceful about the need for a surplus. And not only on budget night, but 500 times since, have the Treasurer and the Prime Minister assured every Australian it was essential for the peace, order and good government of Australia, and for our children and grandchildren, that we must have a surplus. And yet a few weeks ago we eventually heard from the government's own lips what every sane commentator has been saying for 12 months: that there was not going to be a surplus. Of course, the only mystery about tonight's so-called budget is how big the deficit will be. Senator Carr is sitting here. He knows. He has robbed his foreign aid budget to try and reduce the deficit. How could any foreign minister do that! I have not heard the Greens comment too much about that just yet.

Bob Carr (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The aid budget has been increased by 9.6 per cent!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, I see! So you are just taking it away to spend it onshore in trying to deal with a problem you created, Minister—not you personally but your party—with all those illegal arrivals into Australia. So you shift the foreign aid budget from offshore and bring it onshore and spend it in Australia. And what did I hear this morning? I heard that Australia is the third biggest recipient in the world of its own foreign aid budget. Only a Labor Party could do that! And have we heard a murmur from the Greens about this? We hear about how the Greens all want to increase foreign aid. But when they are mates of the Labor Party, which diverts foreign aid from overseas onto Australian shores to look after that hideous problem that Ms Gillard and her crew have brought upon Australia, do we hear anything but a murmur from the Greens political party?

I expect that tonight in the budget there will be no money allocated for the Great Artesian Basin. Senator Waters has gone on for 20 minutes, just before me, telling us how important the underground aquifers are—in particular, the Great Artesian Basin. When I was conservation minister the Howard government spent some $40 million capping and piping and protecting the Great Artesian Basin. I suspect that tonight, because the Labor Party has run out of money—and run out of lenders, I suspect—that program will not be renewed again. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it. Like Senator Carr's foreign aid budget, that will be attacked to try to reduce the extent of the deficit we are facing. And do we hear the Greens political party talk about the Great Artesian Basin? No. But they are pretty big on coal seam gas because they see it as an issue of the day, an issue where they can try to resurrect their dwindling political fortunes. We have all seen how the Greens political party has nosedived in recent elections everywhere. So they look around desperately and say: 'Who can we fool to come onside and support us? Ah, the farmers! Let's pretend we are the farmers' friends.' Well, Senator Waters, if you are the farmers' friends, what are you doing for all those farmers and landholders up in my neck of the woods in Northern Australia who are in desperate straits because of the live cattle ban that you and your Labor Party mates inflicted on them? That action of the Labor government and the Greens, supported by Mr Windsor, has been the single most destructive action of any government in recent times towards our farming community.

And it is not only the northern beef cattle herd that is suffering, it is not only all of those people up there who are losing their homes, their livelihoods, their kids' schooling and, in many cases, their lives because of this stupid decision; it is now descending further down into our country and impacting on the southern beef cattle industry as well. The drought is exacerbating things but it all started with the Labor government's stupid decision on live cattle exports—that time when we insulted our closest neighbour, the Indonesian people, 240 million of them, by cutting off a substantial amount of their food supply without so much as a phone call; they read about it the next morning, as did the rest of us in Australia. Thank you, Senator Carr; what a magnificent action as a foreign minister trying to protect or build our relationship with our closest neighbour!

Bob Carr (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not even in the parliament then!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were not even in the parliament. Thank you, Senator Carr; by saying so, you indicate that, if you had been in the parliament, perhaps you would not have done anything quite as stupid as that. And that is the point I wanted you to make, because it was perhaps the silliest, the most ridiculous, the most stupid decision that this government has ever made—and supported by the Greens political party. But hang on, it is the Greens political party who are now the farmers' friends!

This bill adds to the legislation a ninth matter of national environmental significance. Under the original legislation, introduced by former Senator Hill, the matters of national environmental significance were world heritage sites; national heritage sites; wetlands of international importance—that is, Ramsar wetlands; nationally threatened species and ecological communities; migratory species; Commonwealth marine areas; and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. We are adding to that, now, another matter of national environmental significance: the impacts of coal-seam gas development and large coalmining developments on a water source. Nobody really objects to that—except for the fact that the state parliaments already have that power and have been actively using that power.

What this Labor government initiative does is what Labor governments always do: make more regulation, more red tape and more taxes; increase the cost of living and just make Australia an investment destination that is rapidly dwindling in favour. Whilst the Greens and the Labor Party all like the standard of living that we have in Australia, even they should be able to see that investment in Australia is going elsewhere. It is a bit awful when I have foreign investors telling me that they find Mali a better sovereign risk than the Commonwealth of Australia.

Bob Carr (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is absurd.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it is absurd, Minister, but that is what people are saying. And, Minister, you, more than others, go up to Korea and Japan; I know you are always floating around Korea and Japan. But you have been told by the Japanese, the Koreans and the Chinese exactly what I have been told.

Bob Carr (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not once.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have never been told that once, Minister?

Bob Carr (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not once.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not once! You have never been told that they are putting their investments into Africa and South America rather than into Australia? Here is our Foreign Minister—he claims that that has never been told to him once! Well, gee, Minister, you must live and work in a cocoon, because I am a mere backbencher and, when I go to those places, people—and I do not ask them—come up and tell me; they plead with me. But then I suspect that most in Korea, Japan and China can read the opinion polls, as we can here, and I suspect that, Minister, if you are being truthful in saying that no-one has told you that, they clearly have not told you that because they see you as a complete irrelevance for the next three or four months of your term as Foreign Minister.

The idea of regulating the impacts of coal-seam gas developments and large coalmining development on a water source, as I say, is not a bad one, but it is not a new one. I know that, in my state of Queensland—even, I have to concede, under the former Bligh Labor government this issue was being addressed, however poorly. But, since the Campbell Newman government has come into operation, they have been addressing this issue very precisely and exactly, with all of the science behind it and with care and the sort of management that is needed.

Again, we see the hypocrisy of the Greens political party and the Labor Party. You have only to read what Ms Gillard said when this idea was floated a little while ago. She indicated it was completely unnecessary. She goes back, I might say, to repeat—and I never thought I would say this but, by comparison you have got to—what those great Labor governments of Hawke and Keating did when these issues were addressed. They said, 'Let the states do it. Let's not duplicate the regulation. Let's not make Australia the sort of country where everything is regulated twice and even thrice by different governments.'

So the bill, as I say, addresses a sensible issue, but it is an issue that was already very clearly, precisely and exactly addressed by the various state governments around. And now that you have decent state governments across almost the length and breadth of that part of Australia that counts, you will find that this management and protection of our water resources is very well looked after by the states.

I will be voting for this bill—not that I have any reason for thinking that it is necessary. But it is simply another Labor initiative that duplicates and triplicates regulation in this country.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 is going to be basically waved through. It will be supported. It is interesting that one of its grand architects—because they are concerned about coal and coal-seam gas—that sits behind this is none other than the independent member for New England, Mr Windsor, who sold his place to Werris Creek coal, a subsidiary of Whitehaven, for $4.625 million, which is $2,000 an acre—rather a good price, if you can get it!

In 2010, who was the minister in New South Wales? Let us see if we can remember. That is right! Wasn't it Macdonald? Wasn't Ian Macdonald the minister at that time? What was going on? It was just a very good price—a great price; such a good price that he then went on to spend another $5.9 million buying other places over near Coonamble which are also under coal licences. What a good trick! That is just a great trick.

No matter where you go with his crowd, you end up back at Macdonald and Obeid—not the good Senator Macdonald, but the other, former minister, Macdonald—because Minister Macdonald was the minister in New South Wales when Mr Windsor sold his place for a very good price; for a very good price. We have to remember that they said, 'We believe that we should have the proper environmental protections.' They set up these traps. The traps do not work. But it is a question we rightly want to ask: how do you manage to sell your place for such a good price? How do you manage to get three times what it is worth? How do you manage to do that? How do you manage to get such a good price for your place? I do not know. Do you know? How do you? I would like to sell my place for three times the price. How do I do it? How do you do it these days? It is such a great trick.

Debate interrupted.