Call goes out to put Gulaptis last on the March 2015 state election ballot paper

The candidates may be acting coy five weeks out from the NSW state election but voters may be beginning to force the pace, if this open letter published in the Clarence Valley Review is any indication:

This open letter to Member for Clarence, Chris Gulaptis, was sent on behalf of all community Groups Against Gas within the Clarence electorate.

Mr Gulaptis,

Do you honestly think a few slick Gas Plan ads will woo us outraged voters back? Nationals’ entire track record indicates your real plan is to ignore our concerns and roll gas mining out across the North Coast.

Even your most loyal voters were shocked when Dart’s massive North Coast licence was renewed just before Christmas. Our shock turned to outrage when we realised that the 25% of Dart’s original leasehold that it had to forfeit, included Ballina. What a sly attempt, at the expense of our long-term future, to lure back voters left hanging by Don Page’s retirement!

That shameful action came hot on the heels of the retirement of your Minister for Resources and Energy, after allegations of corruption by ICAC. Then, just one year after Nationals passed a bill making ‘Public Interest’ legal grounds to refuse or limit gas licences, your party back-flipped and cancelled it!

And now, just weeks before the elections, you refuse to answer four simple questions about your own commitment to protect us voters from the dangers of gas mining.

Every other Clarence candidate answered with honesty and integrity, but you arrogantly responded with your own four questions! Well Mr Gulaptis, let’s see if the answers speak for themselves:

You ask:

1. Which State Government issued the petroleum exploration licences in NSW?
Try as you may to shift the blame back to when CSG was thought safe, but it was Nationals who renewed licences in NSW, even after you knew the real risks. Other parties will implement Gas Bans, not just plans.

2. Which State Government suspended Metgasco’s license in the Northern Rivers?
Not yours! Even after widespread protests from rural communities, plus Police warning the Premier that breaking Bentley blockade could result in local deaths, he only suspended drilling at that site, not the Licence covering the much greater lease! And now, because ‘Public Interest’ no longer counts, the Supreme Court may award Metgasco millions from our taxes!

3. Which Federal Government approved the CSG mine at Gloucester?
Your party has disbanded its own exclusion zoning to trash Gloucester AND your Gas Plan is to push through Narrabri and Camden as well!
4.Which State Government has reduced the CSG footprint across the Northern Rivers and NSW? Not yours! In fact, last month you actually renewed the largest licence in the Northern Rivers!

Many once-loyal Nationals voters have had enough lies! They know gas mining will destroy their precious bores, their family’s health and their kids’ future unless they act now. Gas will be the decider when they lodge their vote. Gas will come way ahead of loyalty to people they no longer trust. Almost 90% percent have said they want gas bans. They don’t want toxic plans…and they will be heard!

When they see four candidates on the lower house voting form, they will know to vote Gasfield Free they simply need to number every box and put ‘Gulaptis’ last!

Lynette Eggins (Clarence Alliance Against Gas), Leonie Blain (Knitting Nannas Against Gas Grafton Loop), David Irving (Yamba Group Against Gas), Deb Whitley (Pillar Valley Group Against Gas), Tony Belton, Annie Dorian (Iluka Group Against Gas), Jeniffer Lewis (Mid-Clarence Group Against Gas), Dr Eric van Beurden (Richmond Valley Group Against Gas)

You had one job........

A sharp-eyed reader pointed North Coast Voices in the direction of one of NSW Nationals MP for Clarence Chris Gulaptis' 2014 newsletters.

Mr. Gulaptis is not so important to parliament or his party that he wouldn't have had ample time available to approve this newsletter and, one wonders why he let these three sentences pass on to publication.

[Chris Gulaptis Clarence Valley Newsletter, 30 June 2014]

Did Gulaptis really mean to say that the National Party and its Liberal Party partner had prevaricated and failed to fund this second bridge for sixteen years?

Surely he was intending to have a dig at the former NSW Labor Government instead?

Does he also mean to say that he alone convinced the NSW Government to fund this new bridge?

Can he have forgotten that his own party in Opposition had promised Grafton this bridge in 2005, seven years before he stood for election? This pledge was repeated again in 2011 when in government and, seventeen months before the surprise by-election which saw Gulaptis elected, the then Member for Clarence told parliament that; Planning is well on the way: at present, possible sites are being considered. Indeed the NSW Dept. of Planning & Environment as well as Roads & Maritime Services have been progressing the second crossing for years.

NSW Premier Baird, Energy & Resources Minister Roberts and local MPs Gulaptis, George and Page are spinning the Northern Rivers a dishonest unconventional gas tale

This is the advertisement which appeared in local newspapers this month spinning the pro-coal seam gas line that the NSW Baird Government and National Party MPs in North Coast electorates would like us to believe.

The NSW Gas Plan is the government’s new strategic framework to protect our water and environment while delivering vital gas supplies for the state.

Our water resources are protected through the most comprehensive regulatory controls for the gas industry in the nation.

The NSW government has introduced important protections, including an Aquifer Interference Policy, code of practice for well integrity and fracture stimulation and banned the use of harmful volatile organic compounds, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX chemicals), and evaporation ponds.

The NSW Gas Plan is the next step. It outlines the path to achieving a world class system to protect our water, environment, critical agricultural land and communities.

The NSW government has adopted all the recommendations by the independent NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer, Professor Mary O’Kane, to ensure the new regulatory framework for the gas industry is based on science and is world’s best practice.

This new science-based regulatory framework adopts a strong compliance and enforcement regime, enhanced environmental monitoring, improved protections and benefits for landholders and communities.

The NSW Gas Plan introduces a new strategic release framework, which is a system that puts the government back in control of the release of title areas for exploration. 

This will allow the government to identify the most appropriate areas for exploration through a careful examination of economic, environmental and social factors with community consultation conducted up-front. 

Exploration for gas will be done on our terms.

The Environment Protection Authority, Office of Coal Seam Gas and the NSW Office of Water all monitor and supervise gas operations to ensure companies comply with the high engineering and environmental standards which now apply in NSW.

The independent Environment Protection Authority (EPA) will be proactive and fearless in its new role as the lead regulator for compliance and enforcement of conditions of approval for gas activities.

A project to provide baseline information about the state’s groundwater has been started by the government. The Groundwater Baseline Project is mapping and gathering data on the water used by agriculture, industry and mining.

This will ensure we have the critical data to ensure the use of our water is sustainable and available for future generations, while ensuring any changes to our water supplies are detected early.

The first areas to be analysed are the Gunnedah, Gloucester and Clarence Moreton basins. More information on these and other water projects are available from water.nsw.gov.au 

The NSW Gas Plan signals a new era for the gas industry and NSW. 

The government’s new science based regulatory framework protects our precious water and environment, ensures communities have a voice and we have a world-class regime to secure vital gas supplies for the state’s manufacturers, businesses and households that rely on gas every day.

For more information, please visit gasplan.nsw.gov.au

This is the reality for the Northern Rivers – under the NSW Gas Plan coal seam gas exploration tenements cover most of its land mass and span all its major river systems.

NSW Government Trade & Investment: Energy & Resources mapping as of 8 January 2015
Click on map to enlarge

The state government’s pro-coal seam gas advertisement states that; This new science-based regulatory framework adopts a strong compliance and enforcement regime, enhanced environmental monitoring, improved protections and benefits for landholders and communities. Actually there is no new science-based regulatory framework in place. This is something the Baird Government says it will start to put in place at an as yet unspecified time, which may possibly be in the second half of 2015.

It asserts Exploration for gas will be done on our terms as though this is a new and innovative stance. Mineral and petroleum mining within the state has always been done on the government of the day’s terms. The government’s right to decide is found in the NSW Constitution and state legislation, particularly the Mining Act 1992.

It goes on to say that the NSW government has adopted all the recommendations by the independent NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer. In fact the current NSW Gas Plan clearly shows it has not. 

In particular it has not fully explained the rationale/need for CSG extraction beyond a cursory attempt to talk about non-existent gas shortages and, the advertisement avoids that issue entirely.

The Baird Government’s gas plan certainly doesn’t fully encompass this recommendation in the NSW Chief Scientist’s September 2014 Final Report of the Independent Review of Coal Seam Gas Activities in NSW:

Recommendation 3

That Government investigate as a priority a range of practical measures for implementation (or extension of current measures) to allow affected communities to have strengthened protections and benefits including fair and appropriate:

• land access arrangements, including land valuation and compensation for landholders

• compensation for other local residents impacted (above threshold levels) by extraction activities

• funding (derived from the fees and levies paid by CSG companies) for local councils to enable them to fund, in a transparent manner, infrastructure and repairs required as a consequence of the CSG industry.

Nor is there any adequate mention of this:

Recommendation 4

That the full cost to Government of the regulation and support of the CSG industry be covered by the fees, levies, royalties and taxes paid by industry, and an annual statement be made by Government on this matter as part of the Budget process.

In fact where the gas plan briefly speaks of royalties, it does so in terms of ensuring that these are favourable to the advancement of the commercial interests of mining companies.

As for the recommended appropriate and proportionate penalties for non-compliance, apart from one 21-word 'motherhood' sentiment, the concept of penalties is missing in action.

The Liberal-Nationals broadly-worded Gas Plan also appears to deliberately avoid this statement contained in the Chief Scientist’s Independent Review:

There is a need to understand better the nature of risk of pollution or other potential short- or long-term environmental damage from CSG and related operations, and the capacity and cost of mitigation and/or remediation and whether there are adequate financial mechanisms in place to deal with these issues. This requires an investigation of insurance and environmental risk coverage, security deposits, and the possibility of establishing an environmental rehabilitation fund. Doing this is essential to ensure that

the costs and impacts from this industry are not a burden for the community.

A promise of community consultation conducted up-front is found in the advertisement, but the Gas Plan itself is silent about how and when this will occur in any instance.

The one thing I can say with certainty about the Baird Government’s intentions towards the Northern Rivers region is that its Gas Plan is nothing more than a document without force of law. It is a public statement of intent vaguely promising a fair go, which was obviously written with the March 2015 state election in mind.

* The Daily Examiner image courtesy of Yuraygir Coast and Range Alliance

Someone's not happy with the NSW Baird Government and their local National Party MP Chris Gulaptis - Part 2

Letter to the Editor in The Daily Examiner, 9 December 2014:

Gas or hot air?

Does Chris Gulaptis know what his government is doing when it comes to managing the state's unconventional gas resources?

Late last month, in his newsletter, Chris Gulaptis MP stated, 'The NSW Government is cancelling all CSG exploration licence applications... It is also buying back existing licences'.

Then, a week later, the Government approved Dart Energy's application to renew its licence for a further six year period. The licensed area for this exploration includes much of the Richmond Range, significant parts of the Richmond Valley around Coraki and Bungawalbin, and part of the Clarence lowlands around Tabbimoble.

As required under law, the government reduced the area of this renewed licence but chose to remove areas such as Byron Bay, Ballina and Lennox Head. This was presumably motivated by the fact that these lie in the Ballina electorate, which is considered vulnerable in next year's state election.

Voters in the Clarence electorate deserve more.

We should not be taken for fools who will tolerate gas exploration and the risk it poses to our water, land, air and climate.

Until all licences are cancelled, the future of our region's clean and green image remains at risk.

JANET CAVANAUGH

Whiporie.

1,500 Essential Energy jobs on the chopping block and reliable power supply at risk on NSW North Coast

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) released a draft revenue determination for the NSW electricity distributor, Essential Energy, for the five year period through to June 2019.

The Draft Essential Energy distribution determination 2015–16 to 2018–19 affects many residential and business customers on the NSW North Coast

                                                                             

According to Essential Energy on 27 November 2014:

The AER draft determinations released today would mean, if implemented:

• Immediate job reductions of 4,600 employees (38%) across NSW (Ausgrid 2,400, Endeavour Energy

700 and Essential Energy 1,500).

• An inability to place 750 apprentices, currently in training, when they graduate to trade over the

next four years.

• A likely reduction of $460m in vegetation management programs over the next four years.

• Deterioration in the time taken for electricity networks to restore electricity supply to communities

after major storm events.

AER apparently also expects Essential Energy to increase efficiency savings by exposing customers to more frequent brownouts and blackouts during peak demand periods [AER Draft Determination Overview, p26].

The number of hot days are increasing on the NSW North Coast and, maximum daily temperatures in Grafton during the first six days of December 2014 were between 29°C and 33.5°C, Lismore’s maximum daily temperature for the same period ranged between 26.5°C and 30.8°C, Casino’s maximums reached 28.9°C and 35.3°C, while Kyogle’s  maximums fluctuating between 31.8°C to 35.3°C.

When one combines this heat in the first six days of an Australian summer with the aging population demographic of the region, it does not take a genius to see that any increase in power outages carries a risk to the health and wellbeing of older residents as well as infants and the ill.

Battling heat with no power for fan or air conditioner due to what should be an avoidable power outage may mean that nursing mothers and the frail aged will find little comfort in the fact that that AER expects residential electricity bills to decrease next financial year under its plan.

The NSW Nationals MP for Clarence response on 3 December in the Clarence Valley Review was weak to say the least:

Member for Clarence Chris Gulaptis said that “every consumer would welcome a drop in electricity prices to households and small businesses”, but opposed the idea of further job cuts at EE.
“What we [the Nationals] don’t agree with is the impact on regional communities, with any job losses,” he said.
“That’s why we opposed the sale of poles and wires in the first place – and that’s why the Nationals fought to secure EE remaining in government hands.

But then, this is a politician who has conveniently forgotten that earlier this year he voted for the second phase of privatisation of the state’s electricity infrastructure:

Nationals MP for Clarence Chris Gulaptis has voted with his party to back the State Government's proposed sell-off of electricity infrastructure.

[The Daily Examiner, 13 June 2014]

Someone's not happy with the NSW Baird Government or their local National Party MP Chris Gulaptis

Letter to the Editor in The Daily Examiner 29 November 2014:

Lost faith in MP

I thank Chris Gulaptis for starting and then presenting the flying fox/fruit bat petition to Parliament.

Unfortunately, as soon as I read that Chris was surprised the Coalition had enacted policy so quickly, a red flag went up. It would seem Chris was not involved in this policy that he was responsible for and would surely be a knowledgeable contributor.

The second red flag went up when I read it was being passed over to the council to act upon. That was the death knell for something to happen at Maclean soon and possibly will never happen, especially after reading CVC would not try anything if it was going to cost CVC money.

Chris has made a big stand here and, as his predecessors have done, has failed abysmally.

I don't consider the fruit bat failure to be enough to change my vote but Mr Baird stated last night that if the Coalition won in 2015 it had a mandate to "sell" the poles and wires of our publicly owned electricity companies. That is a politically fatal statement. There was nothing said about leasing 49%, he said "a mandate to sell".

That, combined with the Coalition's pathetic Ammunition Bill and their lack of action to stop fracking for CSG near productive farmland and water aquifers, I find myself looking for an alternative to Chris in 2015.

C Gosling

Coutts Crossing

In which Labor's Walt Secord and The Greens' Jeremy Buckingham nail NSW Nationals' hypocrisy in relation to coal seam and other unconventional gas exploration and mining in the state

The NSW Legislative Council Hansard recorded a seconding reading debate on the Petroleum (Onshore) Amendment (NSW Gas Plan) Bill 2014 which began at 12.50am and ended just before 2am on 19 November 2014.

Here are excerpts from that debate:

The Hon. WALT SECORD  [1.24 a.m.]: As the shadow Minister for the North Coast I speak on the Petroleum (Onshore) Amendment (NSW Gas Plan) Bill 2014. My observations on the bill will centre on North Coast issues. On Thursday 13 November at 10.05 a.m., without warning, the Liberal-Nationals Government introduced this bill in the Legislative Assembly. For a start, the title of the bill is a complete and absolute deception. The bill does not abolish current coal seam gas [CSG] and unconventional gas production licences currently in operation and it does not protect the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales. Furthermore, the Liberal-Nationals Government has put on the table the possibility of reopening the special area of the Sydney water catchment for CSG operations. 

If the purpose of the bill's title is to convey the Government's intention at law, then the bill should have been called the "Unlock the gate and roll out the red carpet for Metgasco on the North Coast after March 2015 bill". That is because that is the intention of this bill. It will allow CSG and unconventional gas exploration to return on steroids on the North Coast after the March 2015 State election. The bill provides no guarantee to the communities of New South Wales, particularly those on the Northern Rivers, that have made their views abundantly clear. But that is no surprise. The Liberal-Nationals Government has already flagged that it will back big corporations over the people of New South Wales every time.

That is why Labor will be moving a number of amendments to the bill to bring it into line with Labor's policy, announced by Opposition leader John Robertson on 29 October. Our amendments will ban coal seam gas from the special areas of Sydney water catchment and from the Northern Rivers, encompassing the local government areas of Ballina shire, Byron shire, Kyogle shire, Lismore city, Tweed shire, Richmond Valley and Clarence Valley……

If the Liberals and The Nationals were interested in responding to community concerns they would have proceeded with a second reading speech by the Minister and then adjourned the bill, allowing the Opposition and crossbenchers to consider it. But their motivation is simple. If the North Coast community had time to consider the bill they would find it lacking in any detail and teeth, and they would see that it was an attempt to dupe them. But what is even more shameful is that not a single member of The Nationals spoke on the bill. I say that again: not a single Nationals member of Parliament spoke on the bill. That is a big betrayal of their electorates—not a word from the member for Tweed, not a word from the member for Ballina, not a word from the member for Lismore, and not a word from the member for Clarence. And out of left field, on 14 November the member for Tamworth popped up in his local media and said he wants to protect the Liverpool Plains. After months of absolute silence, he enters the fray. It was like a scene out of Muriel's Wedding: "Deidre Chambers, what are you doing here? What a coincidence!" It is no wonder that the local community have dubbed The Nationals "Team Metgasco"……        

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [1.03 a.m.]: I contribute to debate on the Petroleum (Onshore) Amendment (NSW Gas Plan) Bill 2014. What a long and winding road it has been to get to this wafer-thin bill. After nearly five years of policy development, promises, posturing and touting their wares across the countryside the Government came up with a Petroleum (Onshore) Amendment (NSW Gas Plan) Bill that is nothing of the sort. There is no gas plan in this bill; there is no response to the Chief Scientist in this bill. This bill is a thin veneer of the Government's plan to sneak coal seam gas through the next election and launch it onto the countryside. This is more spin, more carpet-bagging, from a government that the people of New South Wales do not trust. 

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Take your koala suit off.

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: It did not take long to get a rise out of you. The Strategic Regional Land Use plan failed, the Aquifer Interference Policy failed, and the people of New South Wales do not believe a single word those opposite say on this issue. Not even the Government's backbenchers, parliamentary Secretaries or Ministers believe a single word Minister Gay says.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order: The member should direct his comments through the Chair and should stop pointing at people across the table. He should take a moment to take a deep breath, relax and be calm.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! The Minister was referring to relevancy. There is no point of order.

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: We are debating the Petroleum (Onshore) Amendment (NSW Gas Plan) Bill. Where did this bill start? It started with the Hon. Chris Hartcher introducing an onshore petroleum bill back in May 2013. Do members remember him introducing that bill and saying ad nauseam, "These are the toughest rules in Australia"? He went on to say, "These are the toughest rules in the world". What a joke that is! We heard announcement after announcement after announcement and that bill, which passed the Legislative Assembly on 28 May 2013, then disappeared; it was pulled off the Notice Paper on 10 September this year. It died an inglorious death; slowly and quietly culled—euthanased—because it was an absolutely pathetic bill that did nothing to placate the people of New South Wales who have concerns about coal seam gas.

The Hon. Steve Whan said this bill is not very broad. I have seen needles with more breadth and depth than this bill. Talk about pinpoint legislation—it is pathetic. The Government is expunging a handful of titles—and it very nearly could not bring itself to do that—when the people of New South Wales wanted substantive action in this area. They wanted, as the Government promised, areas ruled out of coal seam gas activity. We got some very sensible recommendations from the Chief Scientist that should be applied to extractive industries across the State.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We're going to do the whole lot.

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: No you're not. There were dozens of pages in the Chief Scientist's report—I read them—and the Bret Walker report, but did their recommendations turn up in the gas plan? No they did not. Some key things are missing from the gas plan. One of the most important things missing is the recommendations of Bret Walker, SC: The rights of farmers, the rights of communities, to be empowered in arbitration and land access. It says in the Government's response to the review in the most Yes Minister type language I have ever seen:

On 15 April 2014, the NSW Government commissioned Mr Bret Walker SC to undertake an independent review of the land access arbitration processes relating to exploration under the Mining Act 1992 and the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991.

The Walker Report … made 31 recommendations to improve the arbitration land access framework. The NSW government has endorsed all the recommendations in the Walker Report relating to the current arbitration framework and committed to a process of implementation commencing immediately where possible."

The Government is committed to a process of implementation commencing immediately, where possible. What an absolute joke! This Government is a farce. No-one trusts this Government and no-one believes this Government. The gas plan is an absolute joke. It is just a blueprint to turn a beautiful State into a toxic gas field. No-one believes this Government.

Do Government members know who does not believe this Government, in particular? The Minister for Mental Health, and the Assistant Minister for Health and member for Wollondilly, Jai Rowell, Gareth Ward, Lee Evans, Mark Speakman, Mark Coure, Stuart Ayres, Chris Patterson, Brian Doyle, Russell Matheson, Rosa Sage, Barry O'Farrell, Don Page, Kevin Anderson, Thomas George, Chris Gulaptis and whoever the Coalition has running as a candidate in Ballina. They all rushed out within 24 to 48 hours of the announcement to state on the public record, "We're banning it. We're banning it." They knew what the community's interpretation of the NSW Gas Plan was. 

It is a carpetbagging exercise by snake oil salesmen who have come into New South Wales communities to sell them a story that New South Wales is running out of gas and this State must have coal seam gas. How many Holdens does New South Wales produce and how many mangoes? Are we completely self-sufficient concerning mangoes? Do we have to have a mangoes industry? We are a federation, a commonwealth, and this issue should be dealt with at the Council of Australian Governments [COAG], not through some carpetbagging exercise by the New South Wales Government. In the context of the most outrageous, erroneous and egregious untruths, I will refer to the Minister's second reading speech, which states:

For example, we appointed a New South Wales Land and Water Commissioner to provide independent advice to the community about exploration activities.

When referring to the framework for community engagement, the Minister stated:

We have also established the Gloucester Dialogue, chaired by the Land and Water Commissioner. The Gloucester Dialogue brings together community, industry and local and State governments to explore issues surrounding the exploration and extraction of coal seam gas in the Gloucester Basin.

This is this the first time in New South Wales this type of dialogue has occurred. Through the dialogue there is regular contact between senior departmental officers and Gloucester Shire Council. Any topic is up for discussion. A community liaison officer from my department operates out of the council chambers two to three days a week. The tenth dialogue meeting was held last Thursday. I commend the Gloucester Shire Council, particularly the mayor, Councillor John Rosenbaum …

Through the dialogue the community has access to all materials relevant to licensing decisions and approvals about AGL's Gloucester gas project.

That is unadulterated rubbish from the Minister because in that very week the man who had the idea for the Gloucester Dialogue, Aled Hoggett—a former councillor of the Gloucester Shire Council—resigned from the Gloucester Dialogue. He did that in the very week when the Minister was spruiking it as the way forward for engagement and the way to sell the Government's gas plan. Aled Hoggett stated in his letter of resignation, "The dialogue was initiated at my suggestion in February this year."…..

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Thank you, Madam Deputy-President. "The dialogue was initiated at my suggestion in February this year", Mr Aled Hoggett stated in his letter of resignation from the Gloucester Dialogue to which the Minister referred in his second reading speech. "I hope that Mr Roberts' current assertions would become reality, that we could find a new path to coexistence between coal and gas projects in local communities. Instead I resigned my position on the dialogue early this month. In my opinion, the dialogue has failed and has become an overbearing monologue directed at our tiny and underresourced council. It is being managed to satisfy the requirements for consultation while delivering no such thing. More fundamentally, the dialogue cannot address three major problems in the New South Wales planning system that undermine coexistence between rural communities and the coal and gas industries. The first problem is that the New South Wales planning system disempowers local communities."

Mr Hoggett went on. He resigned from the committee that was his idea and that the Government enshrined in the heart of the Government's NSW Gas Plan because it is a farce—like the rest of the Government's plan. The gas plan is based on a false assumption around economics and on a belief that the Government can say just anything to the community and get away with it. I will read onto the record what Mr Jai Rowell declared in the Wollondilly Advertiser to his community in relation to the announcement of the gas plan: "'It ain't happening, it's over, we won', Wollondilly MP Jai Rowell declared last week", after the gas plan was released. Yet the gas plan refers to the very fact that the AGL gas development in Camden will remain an integral part, in the Government's opinion, of gas delivery in New South Wales. That completely contradicts what Mr Jai Rowell said—"It ain't happening, it's over, we won"; there will be no coal seam gas in Wollondilly. The community is not stupid.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: It is in Camden. It is not in Wollondilly, mate.

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I acknowledge the interjection. The expansion plans of AGL are clearly into the Camden electorate. The member for Camden knows it. The community knows it and they are not being sold a pup on that one. Another very important element of the recommendations made by the Chief Scientist and Engineer that did not make it into the Government's NSW Gas Plan. It should serve as a warning to all people in New South Wales that the Chief Scientist and Engineer concluded her report with these words:

There are no guarantees
· All industries have risks and, like any other, it is inevitable that the CSG industry will have some unintended consequences, including as the result of accidents, human error, and natural disasters. Industry, Government and the community need to work together to plan adequately to mitigate such risks, and be prepared to respond to problems if they occur.

They are wise words by any measure in regard to risk management. How did the Chief Scientist and Engineer suggest that those risks be managed? By Recommendation 9, which states:

Recommendation 9
That Government consider a robust and comprehensive policy of appropriate insurance and environmental risk coverage of the CSG industry to ensure financial protection short and long term. Government should examine the potential adoption of a three-layered policy of security deposits, enhanced insurance coverage, and an environmental rehabilitation fund.
That is a very sensible recommendation. It is something that I would recommend in relation to any extractive industry, in all industries and most undertakings…..

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Clearly, there is enormous concern in the community. Does the recommendation to which I have referred turn up in the gas plan bill? No. What we have from this Government is a suggestion that all this will be done after the election—just like after the 2011 State election the Government had strategic regional land use plans that covered the State and protected areas, such as water catchments—"no ifs, no buts, a guarantee". Where did that go? It went the way of the premiership of the Hon. Barry O'Farrell. Those promises were not kept and people will hold this Government to account on its word. People do not believe for one instant that this promise from the Government will be kept. That is clear from the words of Mr Kevin Anderson who, straightaway after the announcement of the gas plan, rushed out to say that he wants the Liverpool Plains to be protected. Other members on the North Coast have said that they want those areas protected. I join them in saying that those areas should be protected. This coal seam gas industry is unnecessary. As the Chief Scientist said, it has major issues in terms of risk.

The Government may argue that it did not have time to do this. Why has it not implemented the recommendations of the Bret Walker review? I would like to hear from the Minister in his reply why the recommendations have not been implemented. There is a massive configuration in the community about land access and arbitration. The Government commissioned one of the best legal minds in the nation to deal with the issue, and he made fantastic recommendations about how to deal with it. The recommendations are widely supported by the environment movement, people in social justice, the legal fraternity and all sides of politics. Yet the Government has not moved. That shows that the Government is not serious and cannot be trusted on the recommendations of the Chief Scientist; otherwise some of the low-hanging fruit in the recommendations would have turned up in this wafer-thin petroleum bill. All the bill does is set out to cancel or expunge—

Mr Scot MacDonald: Finally we can talk about the bill.

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I will cover the whole bill in my remaining two minutes. The Government will expunge a number of petroleum title applications, which simply could have been rejected. Will the Government cancel the petroleum exploration licences [PELS] that are up for renewal? As promised, will it protect areas such as water catchments? No, it will not. With this bill, the Government thinks it can erect a thin veil and hide behind it and sneak through to the next election. However, the electors of Lismore, Ballina, Tamworth and Barwon do not want to be guinea pigs in the Government's toxic coal seam gas experiment. They understand that we are a country rich in natural resources. Former Federal Labor and Coalition governments have signed up to a massive export of LNG without proper socio-economic analysis. 

There is a parliamentary inquiry into gas supply and demand. I look forward to that inquiry. We have seen some of the submissions to the lower House inquiry from companies such as Jemena, which say there is no gas supply crisis, there is lots of gas in Bass Strait from conventional sources and all it needs to do is build a pipeline. There are other suggestions for pipelines, et cetera. The Greens are not opposed to fossil fuels…..

NSW North Coast Nationals issue a misleading media release on the future of the gas industry in the region

Australia’s oil and gas industry welcomes the NSW Government’s recognition that the state is facing an avoidable energy security problem and that policy must change to encourage supply. [Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association, media release,13 November 2014]

NSW National Party MPs Thomas George, Don Page, Chris Gulaptis and Geoff Provest issued this media release on 13 November 2014, misleadingly titled NEW POLICY PROVIDES FRAMEWORK FOR A GASFIELD FREE NORTHERN RIVERS.

New Policy Provides Framework for a Gasfield Free Northern Rivers

Unfortunately the Baird Coalition Government’s policy does not guarantee any such framework; almost all of the Northern Rivers is still vulnerable and parts of the region could still become designated gasfields and existing exploration and/or production licences could still be progressed by mining companies currently operating on the state's north coast.

This NSW Dept. of Energy and Resources map gives the lie to the George, Gulaptis, Provest and Page claim that we are on a Coalition road to a Gasfield Free Northern Rivers:

Petroleum (coal seam gas) exploration licences remain from the NSW-Qld border down into the Clarence Valley.

Of the 16 petroleum title applications which are being expunged by the Baird Government, only two are on the North Coast.

Application Identifier, Application Number, and Application Date:

PELA 130 16 December 2009 (1 block about 51 km SW of Lismore held by Metgasco Limited)

PELA 135 31 March 2011

PELA 137 12 March 2012

PELA 144 28 November 2012

PELA 146 22 February 2013

PELA 147 22 February 2013

PELA 148 27 February 2013

PELA 150 11 November 2013

PELA 151 11 November 2013

PELA 152 11 November 2013

PSPAPP 48 15 December 2009 (1 block about 41 km SW of Lismore held by Clarence Moreton Resources Pty Limited)

PSPAPP 54 21 November 2011

PSPAPP 56 22 February 2012

PSPAPP 57 22 February 2012

PSPAPP 62 21 June 2013

PSPAPP 63 6 December 2013

The Northern Star 14 November 2014:

Gasfield Free Northern Rivers co-ordinator Elly Bird said the announcement provided no protection for the Northern Rivers and did not acknowledge the community opposition to the industry.

"It's also very misleading of the NSW Government to say they have accepted all 16 recommendations of the Chief Scientist, when they've done no such thing," Ms Bird said.

Bentley farmer Meg Nielson said the community would stand up and protect their land until the licences were cancelled.

"Our community wholeheartedly rejects the industrialisation of our landscapes, and landholders across the Northern Rivers remain united in their complete rejection of unconventional gas extraction. We are bitterly disappointed that the government is still not listening to us," she said.

I suggest that Northern Rivers residents take the time to read the actual Liberal-Nationals policy document here and, ask questions of Resources Minister Anthony Roberts before casting their vote in the March 2015 state election.

Deputy-Premier Troy Grant introduces himself to the NSW North Coast in exactly the wrong way

If there was an issue so big that it is recognised by both government and industry as being close to the hearts of a great many residents and electors living on the NSW North Coast, it is community opposition to coal seam and tight gas exploration and potential production.

So what did the Nationals do on one of Troy Grant’s early visits as Nationals leader and deputy premier of the state – they start a donnybrook that will have people shaking their heads and saying; Told you the Nats were for all for 1,000 well strong gasfields in our paddocks.

Grant needs to keep better control of his troops if he wants the Nationals to hold regional seats in the March 2015 state election and, he needs to recognise that commercial gasfields will ruin the North Coast's clean green image which underpins local economies.

Echo Netdaily 27 October 2014:

Tweed mayor Gary Bagnall has launched a scathing attack on state MP Geoff Provest and deputy premier Troy Grant, accusing the two National Party politicians of trying to gag him over his stand against coal-seam gas (CSG) mining.

The defiant dummy-spit came on the eve of a media event organised by the two MPs yesterday at which they announced funding for a new tourism sign on the highway at the Queensland border.

Despite being snubbed for what he wanted to say, the Tweed mayor went along to the highway-edge announcement.

The row erupted on Friday when Mr Provest emailed council general manager Troy Green to tell him to trash a draft press release on the funding announcement because the mayor had made comments he didn’t like.

Cr Bagnall, who was elected mayor just last month, said his comments for the draft release had welcomed the funding for the sign, adding that Tweed council had taken the initiative to promote tourism by installing new signs ‘explaining the indigenous meaning of some village names, and that the shire also had plans for Gasfield Free signs’.

But Mr Provest saw red when he read the draft and fired off an email to council to say he found the mayor’s comments ‘totally inappropriate’.

‘Commenting about the gas field free signs just shows a lack of integrity and professionalism,’ Mr Provest said, accusing Cr Bagnall of taking an ‘opportunity to have little digs at the state government’.

The Tweed MP then told council it would ‘not be required to make any official comment’.

Cr Bagnall told Echonetdaily he was furious at being ‘snubbed and told to shut up’, saying new deputy premier Mr Grant was a staunch supporter of CSG and would not have liked ‘any mention of CSG”.

‘But I won’t be silenced,’ the mayor said….

Cr Bagnall said Mr Grant was on the record as describing those opposing CSG exploration as ‘scaremongering’.

He said he would always stand up for Tweed residents’ opposition to CSG and unconventional gas exploration.

“The deputy premier is the second most powerful elected NSW politician, but he does not have a right to tell me what to think or say,’ Cr Bagnall said.

‘I stand with our community and oppose harmful coal seam gas mining and I will never be silenced by CSG supporters like the Nationals’ deputy premier or Geoff Provest,’ the mayor said….

Why is the NSW Baird Government removing surgical facilities from the new $80 million Byron Central Hospital?

In September 2014 it was reported that the early works contract for the new $80 million Byron Central Hospital had been awarded and, that main works construction on the greenfields site was to begin in 2015.

On 16 October 2014 the Echo Netdaily reported on the possible privatisation of surgical services within this hospital:

The NSW Parliament is today set to debate controversial government plans to privatise the proposed Byron Central Hospital after a move by the Labor opposition yesterday to force the coalition to release all documents related to the development.

It comes as a residents group revealed the Ewingsdale landowner of the surrounding land where plans are being pushed through for almost 200 dwellings, a nursing home and shopping centre is the daughter of one of Australia’s richest beef barons who has been buying up prime farmland nearby.

Byron Shire Council last week narrowly approved pushing the so-called ‘seniors’ development through to its development application (DA) stage, outraging local resident groups who say it should have been deferred for more time to consider the contentious plan which contravened the shire’s new Local Environment Plan (LEP).

But comments by Ballina MP Don Page, following the council decision, that he wanted the private sector to provide surgical services at the hospital has sparked the move in parliament to try and throw light on the hospital plans and the push for privately-run services.

Labor’s shadow health minister Walt Secord says his call for papers, known as a Standing Order 52, in the NSW Legislative Council yesterday will be debated this week.

‘It’s an extraordinary step, but this is about finding out the National Party plans for Byron Central Hospital’, Mr Secord told Echonetdaily.

He said Mr Page’s comments to the ABC in favour of a privately-run service followed an announcement by state health minister Jillian Skinner last month that the central hospital’s project team was ‘undertaking a market sounding process to determine whether there is interest from private providers to deliver surgical services at the facility’.

Read the rest of the article here.

The aforementioned debate did take place and Greens MLC Jan Barham from the Northern Rivers spoke up for the people of Byron Bay Shire and revealed what government members were obfuscating that day -  that surgical facilities had been entirely removed from the architectural plans for this hospital.

NSW Legislative Council Hansard [Proof Copy] 16 October 2014:

Ms JAN BARHAM [10.55 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Walt Secord. I urge members to have a history lesson on this matter because both sides have misrepresented the situation. As to Byron Central Hospital, I spent 10 years attending meetings and dealing with the processes conducted under the former Government for its delivery, only to be thwarted time and time again. For example, a Central Coast hospital was proposed and it was suggested that Byron would lose its two hospitals and get one large hospital in Ballina. I apologise to the Minister for Ageing, who outlined the Government's position, but he is incorrect. The previous process was always followed carefully and stringently, with wide consultation on delivery of the supply plan for the new Byron Central Hospital.

Until February 2014, architectural plans that were shown to community members—who had served for more than 20 years on committees discussing the delivery of a new hospital—included surgery services. The services plan that was completed in 2002 and put out for public consultation included surgery.

The idea of removing surgery services from the hospital, as proposed in the current planning process, is abhorrent to the local community. People feel that promises have been broken and they deserve answers. Members may note that I have put questions on the Notice Paper about these issues. I recently attended a forum at which design plans for the hospital were released, and committee members were shocked to see that the previous architectural plans had been changed to remove surgery services. It was the first they had heard of it. There has been a lack of consultation and notification about this process. People who have the community's interests at heart and who have voluntarily given so much time and energy to local health issues and to this project, were shocked. That night they expressed their displeasure about what was occurring. [my red bolding]

The Government is unwilling to tell the community why surgery services have been dropped or what process is being undertaken to ensure that Byron shire retains those important services. A new proposal should be developed and presented in a manner that conforms with normal processes so the public can access it conveniently. The process must be transparent. There has been misinformation but the important issues are service delivery and good public health services—about which I have put a question on notice. Tourism is also an important consideration. Unfortunately, visitors who engage in dangerous and adventurous activities often use local health services and facilities. I welcome this important motion but I caution members to recognise, observe and acknowledge the history of this matter. The Byron shire community have put in a lot of effort to ensure they get a hospital that meets their needs. I look forward to these issues being considered and resolved.

On a vote in the Lower House the motion passed and the Baird Government is now obliged to supply to Parliament all documents, including but not limited to ministerial briefing notes, email correspondence, financial documents, memos, file notes, meeting papers and meeting minutes relating to the new Byron Central Hospital and Maitland Hospital.

These documents should be interesting to say the least, as one local resident in a submission to the NSW Minister for Planning & Environment in September 2014 outlined how planned surgical services were whittled away before being removed from the building design:

As a member of Byron Bay Hospital Aux, I have been interested in the planning process for the new Byron Shire Central Hospital since the first consultants were engaged by the Dept to consult with the local community, so probably for over 20 years. Along every step of this process I have attended numerous public meetings as well as meetings of the planning committee and was always assured that there would be no downgrading of the services available at the Byron Bay or Mullumbimby Hospitals until the new Hospital was built and we would keep all the current services available at both Hospitals and indeed add to these services, when the new hospital was built. I was astounded to see that the plans currently on exhibition make no mention of operating theatres or day surgery. The initial proposal incorporated two "state of the art" operating theatres. This later became theatres for day surgery procedures and now we have non{e} at all!. As Byron Bay Hospital has facilities for day surgery and has had some form of theatre since it's inception, I find it totally unacceptable that the new Central Hospital has none at all and I say this whilst being well aware that the Area Health Board is looking for expressions of interest for a private provider to build operating theatres on the site, for them to buy back services from. I wish to strongly object to the fact that there is not allowance for operating theatres in these plans. These plans must include provision for at least day surgery in the event that no private provider is found, otherwise the people of the Byron Shire have been duped by the Health Department. This Hospital underwent a very lengthy and painful community consultation, there was much ill feeling in both communities over the loss of both hospitals. The community only agreed to the one Central Hospital provided there was no loss of services. They would not agree to what is now proposed in these plans. 

Once again the North Coast Nationals appear to have blindly endorsed a flawed health services plan for the Northern Rivers region.