All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change Division
senate vote 2014-09-22#1

Edited by mackay

on 2014-10-09 14:32:13

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.37.3) that [schedule 5](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0) "stand as printed" (i.e. that schedule 5 remain unchanged). Schedule 5 contained environmental provisions, including the repeal of [section 255AA](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/s255aa.html) of the [Water Act 2007](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/), which "requires an independent study to be undertaken before the grant of mining licences on floodplains in the [Murray-Darling system](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin)".(Read more about Schedule 5 and this particular provision in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067). )
  • This motion was put in response to an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2) introduced by Greens Senator [Larissa Waters](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/larissa_waters), which called for schedule 5 to be opposed. Senator Waters explained that with this schedule, the government is proposing "to allow companies to proceed with mining of gold, silver, copper—a whole host of mines that can have subsidence impacts—without doing the independent study on groundwater that existing section 255AA of the Water Act requires them to do."(Read Senator Waters' full explanation of her amendment [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2). )
  • _Background to the bill_
  • The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5199) was introduced to "reduce regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector"(Read more about the purpose of the bill in the [explanatory memorandum](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5199_ems_904dc708-fca5-4a50-a145-ed1a264af56e%22).) and to repeal redundant provisions that are either duplications or have ceased to have effect. The provisions of the bill that make material changes have been identified and discussed in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067).
  • The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.37.3) that [schedule 5](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0) "stand as printed" (i.e. that schedule 5 remain unchanged). Schedule 5 contained environmental provisions, including the repeal of [section 255AA](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/s255aa.html) of the [Water Act 2007](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/), which "requires an independent study to be undertaken before the grant of mining licences on floodplains in the [Murray-Darling system](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin)". (Read more about Schedule 5 and this particular provision in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067).)
  • This motion was put in response to an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2) introduced by Greens Senator [Larissa Waters](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/larissa_waters), which called for schedule 5 to be opposed. Senator Waters explained that with this schedule, the government is proposing "to allow companies to proceed with mining of gold, silver, copper—a whole host of mines that can have subsidence impacts—without doing the independent study on groundwater that existing section 255AA of the Water Act requires them to do" (see Senator Waters' full explanation [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2)).
  • _Background to the bill_
  • The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5199) was introduced to "reduce regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector" (see the [explanatory memorandum](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5199_ems_904dc708-fca5-4a50-a145-ed1a264af56e%22)) and to repeal redundant provisions that are either duplications or have ceased to have effect. The provisions of the bill that make material changes have been identified and discussed in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067).
senate vote 2014-09-22#1

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:22:31

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.37.3 motion] that [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0 schedule 5] "stand as printed" (i.e. that schedule 5 remain unchanged). Schedule 5 contained environmental provisions, including the repeal of [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/s255aa.html section 255AA] of the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/ Water Act 2007], which "requires an independent study to be undertaken before the grant of mining licences on floodplains in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin Murray-Darling system]".(Read more about Schedule 5 and this particular provision in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067 bills digest]. )
  • This motion was put in response to an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 amendment] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/larissa_waters Larissa Waters], which called for schedule 5 to be opposed. Senator Waters explained that with this schedule, the government is proposing "to allow companies to proceed with mining of gold, silver, copper—a whole host of mines that can have subsidence impacts—without doing the independent study on groundwater that existing section 255AA of the Water Act requires them to do."(Read Senator Waters' full explanation of her amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 here]. )
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5199 bill] was introduced to "reduce regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector"(Read more about the purpose of the bill in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5199_ems_904dc708-fca5-4a50-a145-ed1a264af56e%22 explanatory memorandum].) and to repeal redundant provisions that are either duplications or have ceased to have effect. The provisions of the bill that make material changes have been identified and discussed in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067 bills digest].
  • The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.37.3) that [schedule 5](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0) "stand as printed" (i.e. that schedule 5 remain unchanged). Schedule 5 contained environmental provisions, including the repeal of [section 255AA](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/s255aa.html) of the [Water Act 2007](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/), which "requires an independent study to be undertaken before the grant of mining licences on floodplains in the [Murray-Darling system](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin)".(Read more about Schedule 5 and this particular provision in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067). )
  • This motion was put in response to an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2) introduced by Greens Senator [Larissa Waters](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/larissa_waters), which called for schedule 5 to be opposed. Senator Waters explained that with this schedule, the government is proposing "to allow companies to proceed with mining of gold, silver, copper—a whole host of mines that can have subsidence impacts—without doing the independent study on groundwater that existing section 255AA of the Water Act requires them to do."(Read Senator Waters' full explanation of her amendment [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2). )
  • _Background to the bill_
  • The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5199) was introduced to "reduce regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector"(Read more about the purpose of the bill in the [explanatory memorandum](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5199_ems_904dc708-fca5-4a50-a145-ed1a264af56e%22).) and to repeal redundant provisions that are either duplications or have ceased to have effect. The provisions of the bill that make material changes have been identified and discussed in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067).
senate vote 2014-09-22#1

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:17:02

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.37.3 motion] that [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0 schedule 5] "stand as printed" (i.e. that schedule 5 remain unchanged). Schedule 5 contained environmental provisions, including the repeal of [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/s255aa.html section 255AA] of the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/ Water Act 2007], which "requires an independent study to be undertaken before the grant of mining licences on floodplains in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin Murray-Darling system]".[1]
  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.37.3 motion] that [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0 schedule 5] "stand as printed" (i.e. that schedule 5 remain unchanged). Schedule 5 contained environmental provisions, including the repeal of [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/s255aa.html section 255AA] of the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/ Water Act 2007], which "requires an independent study to be undertaken before the grant of mining licences on floodplains in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin Murray-Darling system]".(Read more about Schedule 5 and this particular provision in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067 bills digest]. )
  • This motion was put in response to an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 amendment] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/larissa_waters Larissa Waters], which called for schedule 5 to be opposed. Senator Waters explained that with this schedule, the government is proposing "to allow companies to proceed with mining of gold, silver, copper—a whole host of mines that can have subsidence impacts—without doing the independent study on groundwater that existing section 255AA of the Water Act requires them to do."[2]
  • This motion was put in response to an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 amendment] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/larissa_waters Larissa Waters], which called for schedule 5 to be opposed. Senator Waters explained that with this schedule, the government is proposing "to allow companies to proceed with mining of gold, silver, copper—a whole host of mines that can have subsidence impacts—without doing the independent study on groundwater that existing section 255AA of the Water Act requires them to do."(Read Senator Waters' full explanation of her amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 here]. )
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5199 bill] was introduced to "reduce regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector"[3] and to repeal redundant provisions that are either duplications or have ceased to have effect. The provisions of the bill that make material changes have been identified and discussed in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067 bills digest].
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5199 bill] was introduced to "reduce regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector"(Read more about the purpose of the bill in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5199_ems_904dc708-fca5-4a50-a145-ed1a264af56e%22 explanatory memorandum].) and to repeal redundant provisions that are either duplications or have ceased to have effect. The provisions of the bill that make material changes have been identified and discussed in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067 bills digest].
  • ''References''
  • * [1] Read more about Schedule 5 and this particular provision in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067 bills digest].
  • * [2] Read Senator Waters' full explanation of her amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 here].
  • * [3] Read more about the purpose of the bill in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5199_ems_904dc708-fca5-4a50-a145-ed1a264af56e%22 explanatory memorandum].
senate vote 2014-09-22#1

Edited by mackay

on 2014-10-01 08:57:15

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 motion] that [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0 schedule 5] "stand as printed" (i.e. that schedule 5 remain unchanged). Schedule 5 contained environmental provisions, including the repeal of [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/s255aa.html section 255AA] of the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/ Water Act 2007], which "requires an independent study to be undertaken before the grant of mining licences on floodplains in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin Murray-Darling system]".[1]
  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.37.3 motion] that [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0 schedule 5] "stand as printed" (i.e. that schedule 5 remain unchanged). Schedule 5 contained environmental provisions, including the repeal of [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/s255aa.html section 255AA] of the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/ Water Act 2007], which "requires an independent study to be undertaken before the grant of mining licences on floodplains in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin Murray-Darling system]".[1]
  • This motion was put in response to an amendment introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/larissa_waters Larissa Waters], which called for schedule 5 to be opposed. Senator Waters explained that with this schedule, the government is proposing "to allow companies to proceed with mining of gold, silver, copper—a whole host of mines that can have subsidence impacts—without doing the independent study on groundwater that existing section 255AA of the Water Act requires them to do."[2]
  • This motion was put in response to an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 amendment] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/larissa_waters Larissa Waters], which called for schedule 5 to be opposed. Senator Waters explained that with this schedule, the government is proposing "to allow companies to proceed with mining of gold, silver, copper—a whole host of mines that can have subsidence impacts—without doing the independent study on groundwater that existing section 255AA of the Water Act requires them to do."[2]
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5199 bill] was introduced to "reduce regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector"[3] and to repeal redundant provisions that are either duplications or have ceased to have effect. The provisions of the bill that make material changes have been identified and discussed in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067 bills digest].
  • ''References''
  • * [1] Read more about Schedule 5 and this particular provision in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067 bills digest].
  • * [2] Read Senator Waters' full explanation of her amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 here].
  • * [3] Read more about the purpose of the bill in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5199_ems_904dc708-fca5-4a50-a145-ed1a264af56e%22 explanatory memorandum].
senate vote 2014-09-22#1

Edited by mackay

on 2014-10-01 08:55:02

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 motion] that [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0 schedule 5] "stand as printed" (i.e. that schedule 5 remain unchanged). Schedule 5 contained environmental provisions, including the repeal of [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/s255aa.html section 255AA] of the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/ Water Act 2007] which "requires an independent study to be undertaken before the grant of mining licences on floodplains in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin Murray-Darling system]".[1]
  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 motion] that [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0 schedule 5] "stand as printed" (i.e. that schedule 5 remain unchanged). Schedule 5 contained environmental provisions, including the repeal of [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/s255aa.html section 255AA] of the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/ Water Act 2007], which "requires an independent study to be undertaken before the grant of mining licences on floodplains in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin Murray-Darling system]".[1]
  • This motion was put in response to an amendment introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/larissa_waters Larissa Waters], which called for schedule 5 to be opposed. Senator Waters explained that with this schedule, the government is proposing "to allow companies to proceed with mining of gold, silver, copper—a whole host of mines that can have subsidence impacts—without doing the independent study on groundwater that existing section 255AA of the Water Act requires them to do."[2]
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5199 bill] was introduced to "reduce regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector"[3] and to repeal redundant provisions that are either duplications or have ceased to have effect. The provisions of the bill that make material changes have been identified and discussed in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067 bills digest].
  • ''References''
  • * [1] Read more about Schedule 5 and this particular provision in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067 bills digest].
  • * [2] Read Senator Waters' full explanation of her amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 here].
  • * [3] Read more about the purpose of the bill in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5199_ems_904dc708-fca5-4a50-a145-ed1a264af56e%22 explanatory memorandum].
senate vote 2014-09-22#1

Edited by mackay

on 2014-10-01 08:54:27

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 motion] that schedule 5[1] "stand as printed" (i.e. that schedule 5 remain unchanged). Schedule 5 contained environmental provisions, including the repeal of [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/s255aa.html section 255AA] of the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/ Water Act 2007] which "requires an independent study to be undertaken before the grant of mining licences on floodplains in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin Murray-Darling system]".[2]
  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 motion] that [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5199_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0 schedule 5] "stand as printed" (i.e. that schedule 5 remain unchanged). Schedule 5 contained environmental provisions, including the repeal of [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/s255aa.html section 255AA] of the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/ Water Act 2007] which "requires an independent study to be undertaken before the grant of mining licences on floodplains in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin Murray-Darling system]".[1]
  • This motion was put in response to an amendment introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/larissa_waters Larissa Waters], which called for schedule 5 to be opposed. Senator Waters explained that with this schedule, the government is proposing "to allow companies to proceed with mining of gold, silver, copper—a whole host of mines that can have subsidence impacts—without doing the independent study on groundwater that existing section 255AA of the Water Act requires them to do."[3]
  • This motion was put in response to an amendment introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/larissa_waters Larissa Waters], which called for schedule 5 to be opposed. Senator Waters explained that with this schedule, the government is proposing "to allow companies to proceed with mining of gold, silver, copper—a whole host of mines that can have subsidence impacts—without doing the independent study on groundwater that existing section 255AA of the Water Act requires them to do."[2]
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5199 bill] was introduced to "reduce regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector"[4] and to repeal redundant provisions that are either duplications or have ceased to have effect. The provisions of the bill that make material changes have been identified and discussed in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067 bills digest].
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5199 bill] was introduced to "reduce regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector"[3] and to repeal redundant provisions that are either duplications or have ceased to have effect. The provisions of the bill that make material changes have been identified and discussed in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067 bills digest].
  • ''References''
  • * [1] You can read schedule 5 as it was during first reading and as passed by both houses [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5199 here], under the subheading 'Text of bill'.
  • * [2] Read more about Schedule 5 and this particular provision in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067 bills digest].
  • * [3] Read Senator Waters' full explanation of her amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 here].
  • * [4] Read more about the purpose of the bill in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5199_ems_904dc708-fca5-4a50-a145-ed1a264af56e%22 explanatory memorandum].
  • * [1] Read more about Schedule 5 and this particular provision in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067 bills digest].
  • * [2] Read Senator Waters' full explanation of her amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 here].
  • * [3] Read more about the purpose of the bill in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5199_ems_904dc708-fca5-4a50-a145-ed1a264af56e%22 explanatory memorandum].
senate vote 2014-09-22#1

Edited by mackay

on 2014-10-01 08:52:11

Title

  • Bills — Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014; in Committee
  • Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 - in Committee - Independent study before grant of mining licences

Description

  • <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p>
  • <p>by leave&#8212;I move the amendments circulated in my name on sheet No. 7548 together:</p>
  • <p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column headed "Provision(s)"), omit "5", substitute "4".</p>
  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 motion] that schedule 5[1] "stand as printed" (i.e. that schedule 5 remain unchanged). Schedule 5 contained environmental provisions, including the repeal of [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/s255aa.html section 255AA] of the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wa200783/ Water Act 2007] which "requires an independent study to be undertaken before the grant of mining licences on floodplains in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin Murray-Darling system]".[2]
  • This motion was put in response to an amendment introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/larissa_waters Larissa Waters], which called for schedule 5 to be opposed. Senator Waters explained that with this schedule, the government is proposing "to allow companies to proceed with mining of gold, silver, copper—a whole host of mines that can have subsidence impacts—without doing the independent study on groundwater that existing section 255AA of the Water Act requires them to do."[3]
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5199 bill] was introduced to "reduce regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector"[4] and to repeal redundant provisions that are either duplications or have ceased to have effect. The provisions of the bill that make material changes have been identified and discussed in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067 bills digest].
  • ''References''
  • * [1] You can read schedule 5 as it was during first reading and as passed by both houses [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5199 here], under the subheading 'Text of bill'.
  • * [2] Read more about Schedule 5 and this particular provision in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd067 bills digest].
  • * [3] Read Senator Waters' full explanation of her amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-22.19.2 here].
  • * [4] Read more about the purpose of the bill in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5199_ems_904dc708-fca5-4a50-a145-ed1a264af56e%22 explanatory memorandum].
  • <p class="italic">(2) Schedule 5, page 54 (line 1) to page 67 (line 4), to be opposed.</p>
  • <p>We move these amendments for all of the reasons that my colleague Senator Rhiannon and I have articulated. What is being proposed is to remove protections for groundwater from subsidence mining in the Murray-Darling Basin. This is very serious matter and these are mining operations that are not covered by other laws that regulate the water impacts from large coalmining and coal seam gas projects, including in the Murray-Darling Basin. What the government is proposing to do, by repealing the protections for water from subsidence mining, is to allow companies to proceed with mining of gold, silver, copper&#8212;a whole host of mines that can have subsidence impacts&#8212;without doing the independent study on groundwater that existing section 255AA of the Water Act requires them to do.</p>
  • <p>We have already discussed how originally we had sought in this place to strengthen that section even further&#8212;to say that, if those groundwater impacts were identified in such an independent study, the mining exploration licence should not be granted. Unfortunately, we received very little support in this place for operationalising that groundwater protection. Nonetheless, existing section 255AA does remain on our law books and we think that it should stay there. We have already talked about the adverse changes to the ozone-depleting substances regime that will weaken protection for the atmosphere from ozone-depleting substances and also about the effect of removing the environmental provisions in the Sea Installations Act which cover protections against hotels, artificial reefs, pontoons and the like.</p>
  • <p>It is clear that we need these environmental protections to remain on our law books. We do not oppose any other part of the bill but the amendments I have moved simply retain those three environmental protections in our laws. The minister claimed that the Water Act protections are redundant because they are duplicative of EPBC Act protections under the water trigger. I have articulated how they in fact cover different operations. Since we are in committee, can the minister articulate how it is the government can still contend that there is duplication when they are clearly covering different mining operations?</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p>
  • <p>As I understand the situation, the Water Act currently requires an independent study to be undertaken. Since 2008, there have been only three studies conducted and those three studies were projects that were also required to be assessed under the national environmental law the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation act 1999. The introduction of the water trigger and establishment of the independent scientific committee on coal-seam gas has made that particular section of the Water Act redundant and the Water Act provisions provide no additional environmental protection. What they do provide yet again is that duplicative situation where there is no need for it. I simply confirm that the government is not about reducing standards; it is about removing a redundant regulation and cleaning up the statute books while protecting our environment. That is what our amendments seek to achieve that is why I commended the bill to the Senate.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p>
  • <p>The provisions are clearly not redundant when they capture gold mining, silver mining, lead mining and zinc mining in the Murray-Darling basement; whereas the water trigger you refer to only applies to large coalmines and coal-seam gas. Again I seek a coherent explanation of how there is any possible duplication when it is completely different mining that is being addressed by the Water Act as opposed to the water trigger?</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p>
  • <p>My advice is that this removal will ensure that the standard to be applied will be the EPBC Act. At the moment we have two pieces of legislation covering the same situation, on my advice, and the EPBC Act regime seems somewhat more transparent than that under the Water Act. Since 2008, in the last six years or so, under the Water Act it has been used once every two years in circumstances where it also required an assessment under the EPBC Act. It is these things which cost developers to get mines ready for production, which makes exploration and the opening of mines in Australia regrettably more expensive without any genuine extra environmental protection. When the developers look around the world they do not only have to look at Australia; there are opportunities right around the world for these developments. If we impose extra green tape, extra burdens, which, when you step back and ask how this protects the environment and then find it does not really, in those circumstances we say let us get rid of one layer and have the consistency of the EPBC Act applying across the board. That is what we are recommending to the Senate.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p>
  • <p>To belabour the point, I am afraid the government is going to find it a little difficult to justify their positioning here when it is perfectly clear that we have only had the water trigger on the law books for about 18 months, yet these Water Act provisions have been used three times in the last six years. Clearly without them there would not have been those independent water studies. Yes, we now have the water trigger, but it only applies to large coal mines and coal-seam gas. Is the minister suggesting that the water trigger should be expanded so that it includes the mining activities that the Water Act section you are seeking to repeal currently covers? I would welcome that. Can the minister clarify: will you now expand the water trigger so that it can cover gold mining, silver mining, lead mining, zinc mining and any other subsidence mining currently protected under the Water Act and required to have had an independent study done into its ground water impacts?</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p>
  • <p>There is nothing further I would seek to add to the debate. The positions are clear. We understand where the Greens come from on these matters but I think the explanation I have given to the senator stands. I can understand the Greens, from their position, would not find any change acceptable to them. I accept that. That is the way they approach these matters but, with great respect, we believe there is the appropriate protection here in relation to the provisions of the EPBC Act which cover a multitude of possibilities and eventualities.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p>
  • <p>So it is appropriate protection to not examine independently the impacts of gold, silver, lead and zinc mining on ground water? That is appropriate protection for the groundwater systems of our most important Murray-Darling Basin system? At least you have belled the cat, Minister. At least it is perfectly clear that you are now seeking to remove protection for our precious groundwater in the Murray-Darling from subsidence impacts from gold, silver, lead to and zinc mining. You have clarified that you think it is an appropriate level of protection to simply have the water trigger on our books. It is interesting how, if you find it so appropriate, you are actually wanting to get rid of that water trigger and give it away to state governments to administer. You say the standards will not drop but you have legislation before this place that says those same standards do not need to be codified in those same state laws that will now perform the function of what used to be your job.</p>
  • <p>The rhetoric is just disintegrating before our very eyes. Not only with this proposed repeal are you reducing protection for groundwater in the Murray-Darling from subsidence mining where it is not coal seam gas or large coalmines, but you are also trying to trumpet the water trigger which you are trying to get rid of your responsibility for and give to state governments.</p>
  • <p>Again, I find it very confusing that you are maintaining that there is some kind of duplication here when, clearly, it is different industries that are being covered and when your government is doing all it can to get rid of its responsibilities to protect water under federal laws. I seek a decent explanation as to how you can still contend that this is duplication.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p>
  • <p>I also want to question the minister in relation to this same aspect. Before I do that, can I just congratulate the government on the bill before us that reduces again red tape in accordance with the commitment that the coalition made prior to the election. Already there has been one series of abolition of red and green tape, which has been particularly beneficial to Australia and will save industry a lot of money. Of course it is not just saving industry; it actually creates wealth and jobs for Australians.</p>
  • <p>One of the crises that is fast confronting the nation is the unemployment issue and we have to, as a parliament, do everything possible to encourage investment because that encourages new jobs into Australia. If you took any notice of the Greens political party&#8212;and, fortuitously, not many people do&#8212;we would have very, very high unemployment in this country, because the Greens are intent on stopping any productive activity in Australia. We have seen that in the forests. We have seen it in the fishing industry. We have seen it in many other industries, and the Greens bear a big responsibility for the high unemployment that we have in Australia and which has, regrettably, continued.</p>
  • <p>The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is a very, very strong piece of legislation. It gives the government power to look at and control anything that impacts on the environment. Senator Waters has been mentioning&#8212;I know she said the Barrier Reef but she is certainly talking about the Murray-Darling Basin system. The EPBC Act gives the government very, very strong powers to do most of the things that need to be done to protect our environment. As Senator Abetz has previously indicated, the EPBC Act provides adequate protection to those provisions of the Water Act that are being repealed by this omnibus bill.</p>
  • <p>I might say the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is perhaps the strongest piece of environment legislation ever introduced into this parliament and was again introduced by a Liberal minister for the environment. I have often said in this chamber: every significant piece of environmental legislation that has actually done something to protect the very special and unique natural assets that we have in this country, has been introduced by Liberal governments over the years.</p>
  • <p>You will never, ever get the Greens political party acknowledging that, because they have an undying, philosophical hatred against anyone in this chamber who is not from the Labor Party or the Greens. I would love to hear the Greens get up and say, 'What a great job Senator Robert Hill did in introducing that legislation. What a great job Harold Holt did when he introduced the first environment minister into the federal parliament. What a great job Malcolm Fraser did when he moved to protect the Great Barrier Reef and Fraser Island'. But you will never hear the Greens acknowledging any of that, because it just does not suit their political rhetoric.</p>
  • <p>Again, every time the Greens speak, unfortunately, there is a denigration of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia's greatest natural asset&#8212;a natural asset that has been well managed and well protected by successive governments over a long period of time and an asset that significantly contributes to employment in this country in the tourism industry and otherwise.</p>
  • <p>The Great Barrier Reef&#8212;the lagoon, not the reef&#8212;is a ship's transport and it brings bauxite from Weipa around to Gladstone where thousands of our fellow Australians are employed in an industry, which, if the Greens had their way, would be in China, creating jobs for the Chinese rather than for Australians.</p>
  • <p>I want to use those preliminary remarks to, again ask: is there anything these provisions could possibly do that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act would not be able to do under one of the various provisions of that very stringent and strong piece of environmental legislation introduced by a former Liberal government?</p>
  • <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>