Showing posts with label COAG. Show all posts

Tuesday, 1 December 2015

Galilee Basin Alliance demand the right to say 'NO' to mining

Galilee Basin Alliance

23:17 (8 hours ago)

Clip

to bcc: me

Media Release:

Monday, 30 November 2015

GALILEE BASIN DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO SAY ‘NO’ TO MINING

Farmers and landholders in Central Western Queensland are calling on Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg and state ministers to give them the right to say ‘no’ to mining at the next meeting of the COAG Energy Council on Friday 4^th December.

Minister Frydenberg said he'd put mining and land access on the agenda at the meeting.

Denice Campbell from the Galilee Basin Alliance said it was vital this meeting delivers tangible action and gives farmers, landholders and Traditional Owners the power to refuse mining companies access.

“While mining companies ultimately have the right to access someone else’s land and do to it what they will, usually without any consideration for the agricultural industry that is already in place, there will never be justice for ordinary people going about their businesses in this country. This applies equally to Traditional Owners. It is wrong, ordinary people know it is wrong, politicians know it is wrong; they have said so in public forums. Yet nothing continues to be done because the mining companies have powerful allies in all political arenas. This corrupted process needs to end now or there will be huge costs to be faced in the future not unlike the stories and consequences of the “stolen generation”.

“It is time for the buck-passing and bullying to end, and for our governments to legislate to give all landholders and communities a veto over mining that threatens our land, our water and way of life.

“Individuals and communities across Australia have experienced severe distress due to the laws being weighted so heavily in favor of multi-national mining corporations that they can legally force access to land without consent.

“All governments across Australia need to act now to end this special treatment for mining giants and to give us the basic right to a fair go and a real say over whether miners are allowed access”

“The bullying and harassment of landholders and Traditional Owners by mining corporations needs to end now. Governments need to prevent any further harm to rural and regional families“ Ms Campbell said.

We are asking that all governments:

Reach an agreement at COAG to legislate the legal right for landholders and Traditional Owners to say ‘no’ to access by coal and unconventional gas mining companies.
Provide state and territory governments six months to deliver legislative changes to that effect, and if they are not forthcoming, create national legislation using relevant powers.
Immediately commission an inquiry by the ACCC, using powers it already has, to investigate whether the unconventional gas industry have engaged in unconscionable conduct in their dealings with landholders.

Inquiry on Landholders' Right to Refuse gas and coal Bill

The private senator’s bill proposed to make gas or coal mining activities undertaken without prior written authorisation from landholders unlawful and would ban constitutional corporations from engaging in hydraulic fracturing operations (fracking) for coal seam gas, shale gas and tight gas.

In addition to the 95 submissions listed below

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Gas_and_Coal/Submissions

the committee received by email approximately 350 short statements and form letters in support of the bill or that discussed matters beyond the scope of this inquiry. The committee decided not to publish on its website every email and form letter it received. An example of each type of form letter has been published.

==========================================================

Scorecard: Planning bills not up to scratch

November 13, 2015

A new scorecard for Queensland reveals proposed new planning laws would be worse for the Queensland community and the environment than the planning laws in place under the Bligh government in 2012.

The scorecard, prepared by Environmental Defenders Office Qld (EDO Qld) and Queensland Conservation Council (QCC), comes after Deputy Premier and Minister for Planning Jackie Trad tabled the Government’s Planning Bill 2015and two related bills in Queensland Parliament late Thursday.

The LNP Opposition also has draft planning laws that will be up for consideration by parliament at the same time as the Government’s planning bills[1].

EDO Qld solicitor Revel Pointon said the scorecard was designed to help the community make sense of complex planning laws and revealed Queenslanders were not getting the first-class planning framework they deserved.

“We compared both the Government and the Opposition bills to see how they compared to planning laws in place under the Bligh and Newman governments.

“The QCC/EDO Qld scorecard assessed all the planning laws against four key indicators: protection of nature; support for community participation in planning; promotion of accountability and transparency; and whether they provide certainty to the community.

“The scorecard findings reveal the Opposition planning bills would be the worst outcome for Queensland, but disappointingly the current Government’s proposed laws are not much better.

“There are serious accountability and transparency shortfalls in both the Government’s and the Opposition’s proposed new planning and development assessment laws, mainly due to too much flexibility surrounding decision-making that tends to favour developers interests over the community.

“The current Government is clearly better on community involvement in planning and development assessment, in particular proposing to restore rules in the Planning and Environment Court that will protect the community from the threat of massive costs.

“However, the Government’s bills are only marginally ahead of the Opposition Bills on the other three measures.

“We are particularly concerned the government has decided to continue with its single assessment system – SARA – which weakens the role of specialist departments such Department of Environment and Heritage Protection.

“If the Deputy Premier wants planning based on the best science, we need our specialist departments to have a strong decision making role in planning and assessment decisions.

“We need strong, clear planning legislation to protect the environment for the future and to protect the community’s right to have their say on development that affects the places that matter to them,” said QCC planning spokesperson Karen Robinson.

“However both sets of planning laws will further entrench the presumption of development approval by weakening controls on code assessable applications.

“They also reduce the community’s rights to oppose development that does not comply with local plans and planning schemes,” Ms Robinson said.

“We are already seeing rising discontent in the community, particularly in south-east Queensland, as people wake up to find 15 and 20 storey apartment buildings approved where plans allowed just 6 and 12 storey.

“At the same time, scarce parkland and important koala habitat is being removed from protected zones and made available for development.

“People tell us they believe the planning system is broken, yet if the community is hoping any of the proposed new planning laws will fix this they are going to be seriously disappointed.”

[1] The Planning and Development (Planning for Prosperity) Bill 2015 (and two associated bills) were tabled in June as Private Members Bills by Shadow Treasurer Tim Nichols.

151113 Joint Media Release_Bills tabled _FINAL

https://www.qldconservation.org.au/take-action/queenslandplanningbill/

https://www.qldconservation.org.au/2015/11/scorecard-planning-bills-not-up-to-scratch/

==========================================================

Monday, 20 August 2012

Environment data refutes Business Council of Australia demands to ease environment regulations and costs

Back in April 10 this year

the Business Council of Australia

issued a Discussion Paper for the COAG Advisory Forum

The document is posted below for Networkers

to read online or download for themselves.

Those concerned for environmental safeguards need to read this.

Across the eastern seaboard of mainland Australia

the natural world on which we all subsist is under grave threat.

It has been under threat for some time

because of humans going hell for leather.

Now, it seems, that the three Liberal National Party governments

of Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland

are going hell for leather as well.

Business is placing demands on all governments,

including the Australian Government.

The demands of business are in the document below.

However, some economists are striking back

at business arguments at the behest of

a group of environmental organisations.

That response is also posted below the BCA document.

Please read.

Please make up your own minds, Networkers.

Please comment.

Monday, 14 June 2010

Water privatisation : The Australian story : selling a birthright for a mess of pottage

Wondering what Ian McNeice is doing in a wig
in a post on water privatisation?
Please go here for your amusement.
It was posted here.
Scroll down to find out the source and the reason.
~~~

If Networkers want to get a grasp on Australia's water history then, alongside keeping up with the broad range of current issues, there is a need to develop a firm basis in history. I discovered this for myself when I discovered the wonderful Joe Powell. I live in Victoria and discovered Watering the Garden State: Water, Land and Community in Victoria 1834-1988. Now it is about the Victorian story but this story has great impact on Australia's national water story because of the involvement of Alfred Deakin and because of the Murray Darling Basin and its development.

Having said that and taken Networkers way back in the settler history of Australia, let us go back to the dark ages of 1994. This was when Paul Keating of living memory was Prime Minister. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) was a mere two years old.

While we of the lower orders who are not closely involved in decision-making for the nation were sound asleep, COAG met and made some decisions. The COAG decisions on water were far reaching and, if any of us of the lower orders noticed, we (moi included) probably nodded in agreement and went about our business. Let's revisit what they said in their official communique of 25 February, 1994.

Water Resource Policy

The Council considered a report from the Working Group on Water Resource Policy, chaired by Sir Eric Neal, outlining a strategic framework for the efficient and sustainable reform of the Australian water industry. The report had been commissioned by the Council at its June 1993 meeting.

The report noted that, while progress is being made on a number of fronts to reform the water industry and to minimise unsustainable natural resource use, there currently exists within the water industry:

approaches to charging that often result in commercial and industrial users of water services, in particular, paying more than the costs of service provision;
major asset refurbishment needs in rural areas for which, in general, adequate financial provision has not been made;
impediments to irrigation water being transferred from low value broad-acre agriculture to higher value uses in horticulture, crop production and dairying;
service delivery inefficiencies; and
a lack of clear definition concerning the role and responsibilities of a number of institutions involved in the industry.

The report also noted that there is a number of issues and deficiencies involving water and the wider natural resource base that require the attention of governments. These include widespread natural resource degradation which has an impact on the quality and/or quantity of the nation’s water resources.

The Council endorsed the strategic framework proposed by the Working Group and agreed to its implementation. Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania agreed to the broad principles but had concerns on the detail of the recommendations. The framework embraces pricing reform based on the principles of consumption-based pricing and full-cost recovery, the reduction or elimination of cross-subsidies and making subsidies transparent. The framework also involves the clarification of property rights, the allocation of water to the environment, the adoption of trading arrangements in water, institutional reform and public consultation and participation.

Implementation of the strategic framework is expected to result in a restructuring of water tariffs and reduced or eliminated cross-subsidies for metropolitan and town water services with the impact on domestic consumers of water services being offset by cost reductions achieved by more efficient, customer-driven, service provision.

In the case of rural water services, the framework is intended to generate the financial resources to maintain supply systems should users desire this and through a system of tradeable entitlements to allow water to flow to higher value uses subject to social, physical and environmental constraints. Where they have not already done so, States are to give priority to formally determining allocations or entitlements to water, including allocations for the environment.

Environmental requirements are to be determined on the best scientific information available and will have regard to the inter-temporal and interspatial water needs required to maintain the health and viability of river systems and groundwater basins. The Council also agreed where significant future irrigation activity or dam construction is contemplated, that in addition to economic evaluations, assessments will be undertaken to ensure that the environmental requirements of river systems can be adequately met.

Because the changes flowing from the framework are extensive and far reaching in their implications, the Council considered that a five to seven year implementation period will be required. Part of this process will involve governments consulting the community on aspects of the framework. The speed and extent of water industry reform and the adjustment process will be dependent on the availability of financial resources to facilitate structural adjustment and asset refurbishment. The detailed decisions of the Council in relation to water resource policy are at Attachment A.

The Council has asked the Working Group on Water Resource Policy to prepare a report for its first meeting in 1995 on progress in implementing the framework with further reports to be prepared annually on progress over the succeeding four years.

Networkers, we might not have known what COAG was up to - but it did. It had the blessing of the ACCC. The intention was - and it was carried out and has its impact on us all and on the land and environment of this nation up to this very day - to:

Unbundle land and water
Commodify water - made possible by the separation of land and water
Trade in water - once the water is unbundled from land; packaged in neat entitlements; then the stock exchange that is the water trading market can be opened for business and plunder.

I cannot prove that there was aforethought that the major international privateers such as Suez and Veolia would enter the fray in Australia - but I reckon, if COAG had not deliberately planned for this, there was a fair idea that it would happen.

The rest is history.

I think there is a question or questions we need to ask our politicians (of all political persuasions) of then up until now.

Did you foresee Australia's current water crisis developing/.occurring?
If not, why not? Too busy, disinterested, couldn't be bothered?
If so, why did you set the ground work for the vultures (i.e. Suez, Veolia, et al) to benefit and profiteer from our dried and drying bones and take our heritage from us.