One in ten NSW voters who switched to Coalition last election now in doubt?

Something to think about........

The Sydney Morning Herald 16 March 2015:

The latest Fairfax/Ipsos NSW poll revealed close to one in 10 voters who supported the Coalition at the 2011 state election intend to change their vote on March 28 due to the performance of the Abbott government.

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.

Baird Government pays the price for corruption within its ranks

Image from ABC News 26 October 2014

NSW Labor claimed victory in both the by-election for Newcastle (Crakanthorp) and by-election for Charlestown (Harrison) about two hours after polls closed on Saturday night.

The NSW Electoral Commission recorded that Tim Crakanthorp had received 36.95% of first preference votes as at 12.59 pm and Jodi Harrison 49.39% of first preference votes as at 2.01 pm on Sunday 26 October 2014.

Both seats had been without a sitting member since NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption investigations revealed that the then NSW Liberal MP for Charlestown Andrew Cornwell and then NSW Liberal MP for Newcastle were involved in receipt and use of irregular and/or unlawful political donations.

Operation Spicer and Credo hearings saw a total of thirteen Liberal Party federal, state and local government politicians either resign, move to the cross benches and/or stand aside from parliamentary positions until investigations findings are published.

Knowing that defeat in these by-elections was inevitable the Baird Coalition Government chose not to contest the seats.

However, in a little over five months’ time in March 2013, the NSW Liberal-National Coalition is expected to have candidates stand in these seats at the state general election.

So Crakanthorp and Harrison have only a short time to make their mark on Hunter region voters before they have to fight to keep their newly-won seats in the NSW Legislative Assembly.

Clarence Valley locals say no to coal seam gas

Clarence Valley Councillor Margaret McKenna........

http://www.nbnnews.com.au/index.php/2014/10/07/grafton-locals-say-no-to-csg/

NSW Deputy Premier Stoner calls Bentley protesters "professional bludgers"

I’m sure that members of NSW Northern Coast farming communities and concerned local residents will be impressed by how Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner and presumably most of his National Party MPs are characterizing the region’s commitment to a gasfield-free Northern Rivers.

As for Stoner’s desire to go head-to-head, along with the police riot squad, with the estimated 2,000 protestors who regularly gathered at Metgasco’s Bentley drilling site, all I can say is that I’m sure this attitude is going to lose the Nationals quite a few votes at the 28 March 2015 state election.

Despite his past support for the gas industry, Nationals MP for Page Chris Gulaptis bustled out to inform his state electorate that:

"As much as some conservatives may like to ... label them as long-haired and braided protesters - and there were some of those people - there were also ordinary everyday people who do work and who do live on the land and do have genuine concerns," he said.

"I'm glad that confrontation (between police and protesters) didn't take place. It wouldn't have been good for anyone. "Clearly there's something fundamentally wrong when so many people object to an activity."

The Land 16 June 2014:

Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner told the NSW National Party annual conference last Friday he spoke with Premier Mike Baird, telling him he was concerned about the "bullying and harassment" protesters engaged in at Bentley.

"We were prepared to go head to head with the protesters to preserve Metgasco's rights," Mr Stoner told the state conference.

He said among the protesters existed a core of "extreme anarchists" who had outstanding warrants against them from other states.

"It breaks my heart that it (the decision to suspend Metgasco's licence) was seen by some as the professional bludgers having a win," Mr Stoner said.

Mr Roberts said previously that Metgasco’s licence was suspended due to concerns that the company had not adequately consulted with the community.

The Office of Coal Seam Gas (OCSG) advised him the community had expressed fundamental concerns about the way in which Metgasco had characterised its activities, Mr Roberts said.

“On 13 May, 2014, the director of OCSG and the NSW Land and Water Commissioner held a meeting with local landholders, at which matters of consultation between the community and Metgasco were raised.”

That political buffoon masquerading as the NSW Nationals MP for Clarence strikes again

Photo from ABC North Coast NSW

THEN

Member for Clarence Chris Gulaptis will take his implacable opposition to the sale of electricity poles and wires to a party room meeting on the issue ahead of the June 17 State budget. [The Daily Examiner, 6 June 2014]

NOW

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]

Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council did what the O'Farrell and Baird Governments were averse to doing - it stopped the proposed Wallarah 2 longwall coal mine in its tracks

Early in 2014 the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council took Wyong Coal Pty Ltd (First Respondent), Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (Second Respondent),Planning Assessment Commission NSW (Third Respondent) and  NSW Aboriginal Land Council (Fourth Respondent) to the NSW Land & Environment Court.

The judgment does not appear to have been published yet.

However, The Daily Telegraph reported on 13 June 2014:

THE controversial Wallarah 2 coal mine, which ICAC target Nick Di Girolamo lobbied for on behalf of Korean mining company Kores, has been put on hold and may never go ahead after a Land and Environment Court decision.

The decision was a win for the local Aboriginal Land Council, which had fought the mine on its land.

Planning Minister Pru Goward made clear last night she would not intervene in the matter, releasing a statement saying: “I have considered the judgment and I accept the decision of the court.”….

The proposed Wallarah 2 longwall coal mine put forward by the Korean-owned mining company Kores Australia Pty Ltd and, its joint venture partners Catherine Hill Resources Pty Ltd, Kyungdong Australia Pty Ltd, SK Networks Resources Australia (Wyong) Pty Ltd, SK Networks Resources Pty Ltd and progressed by Wyong Coal Pty Ltd (T/A Wyong Areas Coal Joint Venture), had already failed basic environmental and risk management standards as the 4 June 2014 NSW Planning and Assessment Commission Final Report summary indicates:

In considering the merits of the project as a whole the Commission has found that the benefits claimed for the project by the Proponent (and largely adopted in the Department’s PreliminaryAssessment Report) are not credible. The reasons are set out in detail in the Commission’s report.

The Commission essentially had two options: reject the claims and recommend that a new economic assessment be undertaken (and that it be reviewed independently); or revise the claims to a level consistent with the Commission’s findings and recommend that the revised level be utilised in any further assessment of the project…..

The potential impacts of the project have been examined in detail in this review. They can be divided broadly into those associated with subsidence (i.e. potential impacts on water supply, stream morphology, groundwater, flooding, biodiversity, built infrastructure, etc.), those associated with the proposed surface facilities (i.e. noise impacts, air impacts, water balance, etc.) and a miscellaneous group including rail transport, land development, etc.

The principal findings and recommendations of this review can be summarised as follows:

(i) Whilst there is inevitable uncertainty concerning the subsidence predictions, they

provide a basis for assessment of the potential subsidence-related impacts of the

project. There is ample scope to revise the predictions based on site-specific experience and a rigorous adaptive management regime can be imposed to ensure impacts and consequences remain within the performance criteria in any consent.

The Commission has recommended two formal reviews be undertaken: one after the

first 5 longwalls and another after the next 4. This will cover the major environmental issues likely to be encountered during this project. The Commission has also recommended that each Extraction Plan be based on subsidence predictions that have been revised utilising site-specific experience and that these revised subsidence predictions are consistent with achieving the performance criteria in the consent during mining of the longwall in question.

(ii) As presented, the project predicts risk of reduced availability of water for the Central Coast Water Supply (CCWS) in some years if the subsidence impacts on the catchment coincide with adverse climatic conditions. The maximum predicted impact on catchment yield is 300 ML/y.

The Commission has recommended that there be no net impact on potential catchment yield from the mining operation and that the maximum predicted impact should be offset by return of suitably treated water to the catchment side of the CCWS system for the period during which subsidence may impact on the Project Area catchments.

(iii) The project presents an array of water supply risks to landowners in the Project Area. The Commission has recommended a number of conditions to ensure that potential impacts are properly investigated and that landowners receive prompt compensatory supply in the event of problems.

(iv) The project will have impacts on the morphology of streams within the Project Area. These impacts are predicted to be no greater than ‘minor consequences’, unless a flood event happens to coincide with a period of particular vulnerability for a section of stream undergoing subsidence changes.

The Commission considers that, as the impacts are likely to lie within expectations for normal variation for the Project Area streams, the performance criteria should be set at ‘minor consequences’, with a requirement to return impacted streams to an equivalent or better condition than their pre-subsidence condition.

(v) The project will have some impact on flood levels and behaviour. With one exception these are considered to be manageable with standard approaches. The exception is increased delays for emergency access to some properties in major floods.

The Commission has recommended that individual emergency access and evacuation plans be prepared in consultation with the owners for each of these at-risk properties as well as Wyong Shire Council.

(vi) The project will undermine or potentially cause subsidence impacts to a substantial number of residences (some 245) and an array of other public and private infrastructure. For most of these structures the subsidence impacts are predicted to be small, the strategies for managing the subsidence impacts are well developed and, within the statutory concept of the Mine Subsidence Districts and statutory compensation scheme, are well understood.

The Commission has recommended some improvements to the performance criteria for built infrastructure and that some other types of infrastructure need to be included in the relevant provisions.

(vii) Impacts from the surface facilities on noise and air quality are expected to be both minor and manageable. Where necessary, recommendations have been included to address the residual impacts.

(viii) Potential biodiversity and aquatic ecology impacts have been reduced by removal of the eleven western longwalls under the steeper terrain in the Jilliby SCA that were included in the previous version of this project. The Commission is satisfied that the draft consent conditions attached to the Department’s PAR deal adequately with impacts on biodiversity and aquatic ecology.

Turning to the merits of the project as a whole, the Commission considers that, if the recommendations concerning improved strategies to avoid, mitigate or manage the predicted impacts of the project are adopted, then there is merit in allowing the project to proceed. However,if the recommendations are either not adopted, or adopted only in part, then the Commission’s position would probably change in favour of a precautionary approach. This particularly applies to water-related impacts.

The Commission considers that commissioning a new economic assessment designed to increase the estimated benefits so as to create a new assessment playing field cannot substitute for reducing or managing the impacts as recommended. In this context it is worth noting that the courts have consistently held that the public interest is a much broader concept than the economic value of a mining project, particularly when this value is calculated using methodologies that cannot properly estimate the costs associated with non-market impacts. The Act specifically requires a consent authority to consider the public interest in s.79C(e).

In which Greens MLC Jeremy Buckingham informs the NSW Parliament and Metgasco Limited's CEO Peter Henderson writes yet another letter

The political duel continues in ‘The people of the Northern Rivers and political allies versus Coal seam and tight gas exploration company Metgasco Limited and political allies’.

Excerpts from NSW Legislative Council Hansard 15 May 2014:

1838.  Mr Buckingham to move—

1.             That this House notes that:

(a)        the Driller Logs and Well Completion Reports from Metgasco detail numerous alarming failures and environmental damage due to routine poor practice and the inherently risky nature of gas drilling operations,

(b)        at Bowerbird E02 well Metgasco drilled into a river bed with high water flows and the well caved in. It was subsequently abandoned,

(c)        at Corella E01 well the casing stuck and explosive cutters were required to remove the casing, the well was then abandoned,

(d)        at Corella E03 the well caved in due to water inflow at 220 metres,

(e)        following the drilling of Corella P11 Metgasco said: “We were not aware of this shale at 3m from the base, nothing was reported by the geologists from their samples, or from the experts”,

(f)        at Corella P13 380m of drilling string and the 33m borehole assembly were abandoned in the well,

(g)        Corella E17 while flaring at 18psi they noticed the annular was leaking and had to abandon the test,

(h)        at Corella P18 a drill pipe became stuck in the hole and they were unable to clear the blockage,

(i)         at Riflebird E03 the hole collapsed from 16m, there were breakdowns, pipes got stuck and a 6m HQ barrel was left in the hole,

(j)         at Riflebird E5 Metgasco said: “This site is a terrible bloody mess. The pits are still a mess” before the well collapsed at 96m,

(k)        at Riflebird E14 Metgasco’s mud log states that “gas detector not functioning but hydrocarbons can be smelled in the shaker area”,

(l)         at Wayan 01 the top bonnet seals leaked oil in the annular,

(m)      at Cedar Point 1 and NCASI-1R methane was found in the mud and there were well integrity issues,

(n)        the Kingfisher Well  has not been cleaned up properly following 19 drill pipes being ejected into the air due to rising well pressure and loss of casing integrity,

(o)        NSW Trade and Investment have said that Metgasco fracked this well despite knowing it lacked integrity,

(p)        at SCASI-1 gas bubbling was observed in the hole and they had water losses, and

(q)        at SCASI 09 the driller had a seizure.

2.         That this House calls on the Government to immediately cancel all Petroleum Exploration and Production activity in New South Wales pending a thorough investigation of these routine and alarming failures during drilling.

(Notice given 15 May 2014—expires Notice Paper No. 218)

1728. Mr Buckingham to move—

1. That this House notes that:

(a) a recent report by the Australia Institute has discredited coal seam gas industry claims that it is a significant employer,

(b) the report states that: “While the gas industry is relentless in its claims about job creation, the simple fact is that it is a relatively small employer”,

(c) despite inflated industry claims that they created 100,000 jobs in 2012, the actual number reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics is that 9,372 jobs were created in the entire oil and gas industry in that year,

(d) in August 2013, the entire oil and gas industry only employed 0.2 per cent of the Australian workforce, and

(e) this is less than two-thirds of the workforce of hardware retail company Bunnings Warehouse.

2. That this House calls on the Department of Planning to ensure that the economic modelling associated with planning applications is accurate.

(Notice given 18 March 2014—expires Notice Paper No. 207)

Excerpts from coal seam and tight gas exploration company Metgasco Limited’s media release/statement to the Australian Stock Exchange of 29 May 2014:

Metgasco is aware of a number of statements, including some made in the NSW Parliament, that are incorrect and misleading.   Metgasco has written to all Members of the NSW State Parliament refuting these claims and setting out our views relating to the suspension of approval to drill the Rosella E01 exploration well at Bentley…..

Metgasco is aware of a recent letter which seeks to accuse us of unacceptable drilling practices on a number of our wells. The information source for these accusations appears to be well completion reports which can be obtained through the government. We note that these reports are reviewed by government inspectors who have expressed no concern about them. In our opinion, the accusations show that the author has little understanding of the drilling industry or geology. He has misconstrued comments in the well completion reports, taken them out of context and at other times selectively quoted comments. His analysis, which we believe is incorrect and uninformed, could be used in an attempt to damn all oil and gas drilling, the routine drilling required to support coal and mining industries and even the hundreds of thousands of water bores drilled throughout Australia to support agriculture, industry and domestic needs…..  

NSW Police & coal seam gas miner Metgasco Limited's response to the Glenugie protest revisited - judgment transcript

Excerpt from Magistrate Heilpern’s October 2013 judgment in Police v Rankin; Police v Roberts [2013] NSWLC 25 which decided prosecutions were permanently stayed:

Collateral Purpose

82 The defence contend at paragraphs 15 to 21 of their submissions that the prosecution has been instituted for a collateral purpose. They submit that a question arises as to whether the prosecutions are being pursued for a political aim, given the high profile issue of CSG in the community. The defence further submit that the prosecution may be as a result of embarrassment by "Sydney" over the visiting specialist unit police and their failure to comply with LEPRA.

83 It is correct that the courts will not usually look behind the reason for a prosecutorial discretion. However, this is an exception to that situation. The applicants have 'fair and square' laid out their concerns relating to these matters in their submissions. Two solicitors have prepared lengthy affidavits replete with attachments to support this application. The response from the prosecution is to simply point out that there is no evidence beyond mere conjecture. To an extent that is true - there is no smoking gun that proves political interference or specialist squad intervention. However, nor have the police chosen to dispel these suggestions with any evidence, or any alternative scenario that does not involve collateral purpose. The informant has not filed any evidence to explain why the new charges have been laid, and had they, any cross-examination may have shed light on this issue. There is nothing in submissions which dispel the applicants' contentions. In particular, there is nothing from the informant to explain why his superiors determined to withdraw the charges, and he then instructed another prosecutor to run a different matter.

84 In my view, the burden on the applicant relating to a collateral purpose may be shown by inference. In this case I find myself asking "what could possibly be the reason for continuing on with such an 'innocuous' charge in these circumstances?" Whilst suspicion is not enough, what else is the court to conclude when the prosecution offers no other alternative to the issues raised by the applicants? Why else would the police risk a costs order against them in the original matters which were withdrawn (which could run into the many tens of thousands of dollars), drive a prosecutor up from Sydney to run the matters, arrange police witnesses to travel from Sydney all for an 'innocuous' minor traffic matter.

85 The defence is correct that the CSG issue is political, to say the least. The arrests in this case are just one set of many, and the defendants who have come before me are generally over 50 years, well educated with a fair smattering of farmers and professionals. It is in that context that the realistic suspicion of political interference arises.

86 My mind has wavered on this issue. There is suspicion, and there is a lack of any other rational purpose. However, I have formed the conclusion that I am not satisfied to the requisite degree that the prosecution in the fresh matters has been launched for a collateral purpose. Accordingly, I do not take into account the matters raised by the applicants on this issue.

Full transcript can be found here.

Police Association appears to believe the that the NSW Police Commissioner's response to the Bentley Blockade is not carefully planned

Coal seam gas/tight gas miner Metgasco Limited's little helpers at  http://pansw.org.au/node/1942:

Circular No. 19 Operation Stapler (Bentley Gas Project)

7th May 2014
Circular No. 19

Operation Stapler (Bentley Gas Project)

Under normal circumstances an operation of this magnitude would require a considerable period of careful planning. Unfortunately, the planning for this operation is constrained by a far shorter timeframe.

Your Association has been meeting with the Northern Region Commander and his staff to ensure the Industrial and WHS conditions of our members are met. This is a work in progress and we are continuing to consult with the NSWPF.

Members should be aware of the following entitlements as per our Award Crown Employees (Police Officers- 2013) Award.

Accommodation:

Where available, members are entitled to be accommodated in three star/three diamond accommodation. The Association has been advised that this standard of accommodation has been sourced in Ballina, Lismore and Casino .If you are not accommodated in at least 3 star accommodation on this operation, please advise your Association ASAP.

Meals:
When members are required to perform duty at a temporary work location, you are entitled to be compensated for expenses incurred for meals and incidentals. The Association has been advised that you will be supplied suitable meals during shift and be paid a meal claim for off duty meals. If the meals supplied are not suitable or if you are not paid your meal or incidental claim, please advise your Association.
Breakfast: $22.30 Lunch: $ 25.45 Dinner: $43.85 Incidentals per 24 hours: $18.20

Hours of Duty:
Members are entitled to two rest days in seven or four rest days in fourteen. If you are not provided with this, you are entitled to the cancelled rest day penalty.
Members who work more than seven “b” shifts in a 21 day period are entitled to the excess “b” shift penalty.

The Association has been advised that members will be working eight hours shifts with travelling time and overtime. These shifts will be morning, afternoon or night shifts. We have been advised that members will work the same type of shift when deployed to minimise fatigue and rostering issues. The normal length of deployment is seven days in the field with travel either side. Please advise your supervisor if fatigue is an issue.

Facilities:
The NSWPF has obligation under WH&S to provide certain facilities even at temporary work locations.This includes facilities for decontamination, toilets, stand down areas, shelter, and appropriate uniform and personal protective equipment. The Association has been advised that these facilities have been sourced. Any WH&S issues should be raised with your supervisor in the first instance. If unresolved, please contact your Association.

Association Contacts
Your Association will have two Organisers at the Operation. They will be in attendance for the induction. Mobile numbers of the Organisers will be supplied at the induction. Branch Officials are asked to make themselves know to the Organisers as a point of reference in the field.

First Response and other duties:
The number required to be deployed on this operation may affect the capability of LAC to meet First Response Agreement. Please advise your local branch officials of any breach use the First Response Non Compliance Form available at our website or by calling the office to notify the Association of all first response breaches.

You can contact the Association on 9265 6777 or though the DOI outside normal business hours. Email: info.centre@pansw.org.au
 

Scott Weber

President