Tagged: "Agriculture"

Regional development image

Tags:

Finance Minister flounders on funding of Local Land Services

Posted on 10 May 2013

MEDIA RELEASE - 10 May 2013

The Greens NSW spokesperson on agriculture Jeremy Buckingham raised his concern that the O’Farrell Government was floundering on the detail of the Local Land Services (LLS), and called on the government to commit to maintaining funding in real terms for all services being taken into the LLS model.  Regional development image

Finance Minister Pearce was unable to give an answer when asked about funding of LLS in Parliamentary Question Time. (See transcript below)

“The Finance Minister, Greg Pearce is asleep at the wheel and could not answer a basic question about funding of Local Land Services,” said Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham.

“This is the largest reform to governance structures for agriculture and natural resource management in living memory, and the Finance Minister does not seem to even be aware of its existence,”

“The Greens want a commitment from the government that the current funding for LHAPs, CMAs and extension services under DPI will be maintained, or increased, in real terms under the LLS model being pushed by the government.

“The city Liberals don’t have a clue about funding for rural services, but this is an important issue for farmers and country communities that rely on services and infrastructure provided by the bodies being brought under the new LLS,” he said.

Contact: Max Phillips – 9230 2202 or 0419 444 916

Hansard Transcript or watch video

LOCAL LAND SERVICES – 8 May 2013

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Government make a commitment to the farmers of New South Wales that the proposed Local Land Services will not be a slash and burn exercise and that current funding and services will be maintained in real terms?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Does anyone have a clue what that question was about?

The Hon. Steve Whan: Yes, I have. Would you like me to explain it to you?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yes, I would actually.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: It is about funding. Make a commitment.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: He says it is about funding. Funding what? There are no cuts to farmers. As usual the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham is off with his North Korean controllers.

The Hon. Luke Foley: Michael Kirby is going to sort them.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: That is right. I am pleased. I recognise the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition. The Hon. Michael Kirby will do a fair bit to sort out The Greens, and they need it. They really need to have a receiver and manager or, perhaps even better, a liquidator appointed to The Greens.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order: It is relevance. We are a minute into the Minister’s answer and he has not mentioned anything that I raised in my question. I ask you to make sure the Minister’s answer is relevant to the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. Does the Minister have anything to add?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I simply say that if anybody can think of anything relevant to say in answer to that question I would be grateful for the help.

 

Comments Off

Tags:

Greg Pearce flounders in Question Time – 8 May 2013

Posted on 09 May 2013

Comments Off

Shenhua coal mine a make or break test for Strategic Regional Land Use Policy

Tags: , ,

Shenhua coal mine a make or break test for Strategic Regional Land Use Policy

Posted on 07 March 2013

Media Release

7 March 2013Shenhua

The Greens NSW spokesperson on mining Jeremy Buckingham today said the assessment of the Shenhua Watermark coal mine proposed for the highly productive Liverpool Plains area would be a make or break test of the O’Farrell Government’s Strategic Regional Land Use Policy, and if the mine is approved it would represent a policy failure. The Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed coal mine has been put on public exhibition until the Friday 26 April 2013.

“Everybody knows that the black soils of the Liverpool Plains and the underlying aquifers are far too precious to put at risk. It’s just commonsense that digging a huge open cut coal mine in the middle of a critical food and fibre producing area is a bad idea,” said Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham.

“Newly minted National Party MP Richard Torbay broke ranks with his National Party colleagues when he recently called for a ‘halt to mining and gas extraction on the Liverpool Plains’.

“Torbay’s comments have apparently infuriated other National Party MPs, including Leader, Andrew Stoner, the Member for Dubbo, Troy Grant, and Member for Barwon, Kevin Humphries.

“The government says that the Shenhua Watermark project will undergo “unprecedented scrutiny“, but the real question is whether the policy actually has the power to protect productive agricultural land by stopping a bad mine in the wrong area.

“The Strategic Regional Land Use Policy failed to rule out critical areas from mining or gas, instead implementing a gateway process in which the gate can not be shut. We will now see whether the policy has the teeth the government has promised.

“The Greens believe that food security and the long-term sustainable prosperity of the Liverpool Plains region should not be compromised for a Chinese state-owned coal mine leading to a few years of mine related development.

“Coal mining on the Liverpool Plains does not have a social licence. If the Strategic Regional Land Use Policy fails to reject this project, then I’m sure the community will step in to protect their land and water through locking their gates and implementing community blockades.”

Contact: Max Phillips – 9230 2202 or 0419 444 916

 

Comments Off

Andrew Stoner not fit to lead Nationals

Tags: , , , ,

Andrew Stoner not fit to lead Nationals

Posted on 09 October 2012

MEDIA RELEASE

9 October 2012

The Greens NSW spokesperson said today that Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner was not fit to lead the National Party and should resign after a dismal performance at Budget Estimates Committee hearings today where he did not know the number one agricultural commodity in NSW, had no knowledge of his government’s support for the biggest water buyback in Australian history and re-wrote the history of the Nationals’ position on mining and agriculture.

“It’s unbelievable that the leader of the National Party would not know what the number one agricultural commodity was in NSW, but Mr Stoner had to “take a stab in the dark”, guessing wheat,” said Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham.

When asked about the proposed Nimmie Caira water buy back on the Murrumbidgee River, the biggest in Australian history, the Leader of the Nationals admitted he did not know anything about it, despite it being supported by his government.

When asked about the Nationals election commitment that ‘agricultural land and other sensitive areas exist in NSW where mining and coal seam gas extraction should not occur’ Mr Stoner claimed the Nationals election commitment was for ‘coexistence’ of mining and agriculture.

Mr Stoner could not explain how government’s land use ‘gateway’ process functioned asserting that mining and gas development could be ‘stopped’, despite the policy explicitly stating that a gateway certificate or conditional gateway certificate must be issued.

Mr Stoner revealed that he had met with officials from Chinese coal giant Shenhua in China (Liverpool Plains coal mine proposal) and steel maker POSCO (Southern Highlands coal mine proposal) in South Korea.  Mr Stoner also said landholders that were locking their gate “may be a case of cutting off their noses to spite their face”.

Jeremy Buckingham said: “Andrew Stoner is too busy meeting with foreign coal companies and dining out at high end restaurants to know what should be the bare basics for any leader of the National Party.

“Mr Stoner is clearly not up to the job and should make way for someone who actually knows and cares about country NSW,” he said.

Contact: Max Phillips – 9230 2202  or  0419 444 916

Comments Off

Tags: , , , ,

730 NSW – Gateway to coal seam gas 21 September 2012 – ABC TV

Posted on 25 September 2012

Comments Off

Tags: , , ,

National Party betraying Country NSW 21 September 2012

Posted on 21 September 2012

Comments Off

Tags: , , , ,

Responsible Mining (Protecting Land, Water and Communities) Bill 2012

Posted on 24 August 2012

Jeremy Buckingham, the NSW Greens spokesperson on Mining and Agriculture will introduce legislation to introduce clear no-go zones for mineral and gas exploration, mining and gas production.

The Greens Responsible Mining (Protecting Land, Water and Communities) Bill is a response to the demands of the NSW public to bring to an end the failed adaptive management and co-existence strategies of successive Governments that have seen mining and coal seam gas encroach on our agricultural lands, communities, and environment.

The challenge to secure agricultural land and water supplies to ensure we can continue to produce enough high quality food for the Australian and global population requires a clear segregation policy, a precautionary approach to extractive industries that prioritises the protection of food producing land and water.

The Responsible Mining Bill offers a clear alternative to the O’Farrell Government’s Strategic Regional Land Use Policy which ignores the Liberal and National Party’s own election commitment by failing to implement protections for those places where mining and other extractive industries simply should not occur.

The Responsible Mining (Protecting Land, Water and Communities) Bill 2012 will implement the following initiatives:

• Introduce no-go zones where mining and gas and other extractive industries will not be permitted. These areas include:

  • Urban areas;
  • National Parks, Nature Reserves, State Conservation Areas and other reserves managed by the Office of Environment and Heritage;
  • State Forests and Travelling Stock Routes;
  • Productive agricultural areas; and
  • Drinking water catchments, rivers and productive ground water sources.
  • Empower local councils to make the final decision about mining and gas developments.

Rationale

NSW is currently suffering a death by a thousand cuts when it comes to mineral and gas exploration, mining and gas production. Many developments on their own may not have catastrophic impacts but the cumulative effect of project expansions, new green field developments and the layering of coal seam gas development next to coal mine has shown the ability if left unchecked for these industries to dominate landscapes, communities and the environment.

Today approximately 30% of the state is covered by petroleum exploration licences. Even more land is covered by mineral exploration and many applications for new exploration licences are currently before the Government.

The Government proudly projects a massive expansion in mining over the next decade and has proclaimed its intentions to develop a coal seam gas industry in this state.

The NSW community feels under siege by mining and gas exploration and development. At the moment in NSW there is not a single place a person can move to where they can be guaranteed not to be subject to mineral exploration or mining or gas development.

The Government and industry assertion that mining and other landuses can co-existence have proven false as the impact of producing coal seam gas in the United States and Queensland, where this industry is far more advanced, have become more widely known. In NSW the encroachment of coal mines on villages like Camberwell and the loss of agricultural land more widely in the Hunter Valley further weakens the co-existence argument. Putting in place a network of mining and gas no-go zones is the only way we can ensure our land, water and communities are protected.

What is responsible mining?

Mining and other extractive industries access finite, non-renewable resources. While we need many of these resources to support our communities and economy, the extraction and processing has a significant impact on other life dependent resources including food producing land, clean water, clean air, a safe and healthy environment in which to live, and a stable climate.

Responsible Mining is a model to manage these finite resources as demand for both mineral resources and other natural resources increases. A Responsible Mining approach looks to conserve mineral resources for the long-term benefit of the public while minimising the negative impacts and protecting those natural resources we rely on for survival like water, air and food producing land.

In 2005 a range of non-government organisations developed a discussion paper titled A Framework for Responsible Mining . The lead chapter was titled: Deciding whether mining is an appropriate landuse. The arguments for the importance of no-go zones are clearly outlined in this paper and no-go zones are seen as a critical step to address the negative impacts of mining on communities.

While a complete framework for responsible mining would deal with issues as diverse as where mining could occur, managing health impacts, environmental protection, a fair local return from mining profits, creating local employment and training opportunities, respecting indigenous land tenure and sustainable mineral use and recycling, this legislation deals specifically with No-Go Zones as a way of addressing the immediate landuse conflict in NSW.
The Responsible Mining (Protecting Land, Water and Communities) Bill in detail

This bill sets out a range of no-go zones or areas that will now be off-limits to mining and gas exploration and production.

1. Urban Areas  
Currently mining and coal seam gas exploration and development is occurring close to and under residential communities. In Sydney, AGL’s Camden Gas project is slated for expansion into the Camden and Campbelltown local government areas, parts of Sydney Southwest growth corridor.

International, Queensland and local experience has demonstrated that subsidence, air quality and health impacts, well explosions and polluted waterways are likely impacts from mining and gas development.
These risks are completely unacceptable in and around urban areas whether residential or where people work in non-mining industrial and business areas.

2. National Parks, State Conservation Areas and other parks in the NSW reserves system.
Mining and extractive industries are already prohibited in National Parks in NSW but not in state conservation areas (SCA) and other reserve types. In fact the key difference between a National Park and these other areas is that mining is allowed.

Although there are around 800 parks and nature reserves managed by the Office of Environment and Heritage as part of its reserve System, only 199 are national parks with the highest level of protection. These other areas are identified in the reserve system for their natural assets and often the presence of endangered ecological communities and threatened species.

If an area is gazetted as a reserve for environmental and recreational purposes whether a National Park or a Nature Reserve it should be protected from mining which is clearly an incompatible use when considered against the environmental and social objectives of these reserves.
3. Productive agricultural land
The Government’s Strategic Regional Land Use Policy deals exclusively with what is termed ‘strategic’ agricultural land or the ‘best of the best’. The draft plans for the New England North West and Hunter show that massive areas of productive agricultural land is left out of the plans and would be subject to mining and coal seam gas proposals. Clearly the ‘best of the best’ definition means that many farmers in NSW who are growing important food for the Australian community would continue to be exposed to the risk of mining and gas development on their land.

Australia produces high quality food for local and international consumers but is increasingly constrained by water availability and loss of productive land because of urban and industrial encroachment. We simply can’t afford to lose more productive agricultural land to irresponsible development.

While it is generally accepted that National Parks and conservation areas should be protected from mining and extractive industries, there has been a slower realisation that there is a need to preserve our food growing areas. We need to protect productive agricultural land in ‘food reserves’.

The best definitions for productive land exist in the NSW Agriculture, Agricultural Land Classification publication. Protected land under the Responsible Mining Bill plans to included class 1, 2, and 3 land and specialist use land with a 5km buffer around those areas.
4. State Forests and Travelling stock routes
Travelling stock routes and state forests are natural resources that have been put aside for the specific purposes to support grazing and stock management and in the case of state forests, a viable native forest industry for wood products. Often these areas are also important reserves for endangered ecological communities.

To continue to diminish these natural assets by allowing exploration, mining and coal seam gas development will result in a long-term or possibly permanent loss of this land for those purposes.

The Responsible Mining Bill would ensure if land is identified as a travelling stock route or state forest that it be maintained for this purpose for the long-term benefit of future generations and not be opened up for mining or gas development.

5. Special catchment zones and highly productive aquifers
Currently there is coal seam gas exploration and long wall mining occurring within Sydney’s drinking water catchment and there continues to be exploration licences in operation across many critical catchment areas. Pilot production for coal seam gas has recently been approved at Fullerton Cove near Newcastle close to the Tomago Sands Aquifer that is used to supplement drinking water supplies for the Newcastle community.

The protection of water quality for domestic use, stock and irrigation and the health of our river systems is not something that can be risk managed. An aquifer cannot be fixed and a river once polluted is almost impossible to clean.
In response to a question in parliament in 2011 the NSW Government acknowledged that historic antimony mining on the Dorrigo Plateau had deposited a plume of material containing heavy metals in the river system over a length of approximately 200 kilometres and that the plume would continue to release elevated levels of heavy metals for millennia .

Clearly a precautionary approach is the only management technique available when it comes to protecting our water systems.The Responsible Mining Bill would not allow exploration, mining or gas production within 2km of river systems, productive aquifers and drinking water catchments.
A community right to say no
An important aspect of the Responsible Mining Bill is a provision to allow the community to make the ultimate decision about whether or not their village, town or region becomes a mining or gas precinct.

The failure of the mining and gas industries to demonstrate that they can co-exist with other industries means that without the assurance of a veto, local communities and the long-term sustainable industries that support them, particularly agriculture and tourism will continue to be sacrificed.

The Institute for Sustainable Futures in its 2009 Mineral Futures Discussion Paper noted that “a major discrepancy exists in the power of local communities to influence regional futures planning and decision-making relative to global corporations and governments”.

This discrepancy has been illustrated numerous times as communities are encroached upon by mines approved originally as ’boutique’ operations which over time have expanded to the point of forcing out other industries and turning some towns into a little more than a mine service centre.
The Responsible Mining Bill would enable local councils to veto mining and gas activities through Local Environment Plans. The community can decide what mix of industries they want and where these industries can go.
It removes the right of a State or Federal Government to over-rule a council’s decision about where extractive industries can and cannot occur but retains the responsibility with the State Government to ensure development occurs with suitable environmental and planning conditions.
Next Steps
Jeremy Buckingham will spend the next three months touring NSW talking with mining affected communities, the mining industry, and local councils about the Responsible Mining Bill and taking on board community ideas to ensure the legislation can best deliver on community expectations.
It is expected the bill would come before Parliament for debate in the first half of 2013 but with enough community support The Greens would move to bring the bill on for urgent debate in the Legislative Council.
It is disappointing that after 18 months the O’Farrell Government seem no further down the track to protect land, water, health and communities from the impacts of mining and coal seam gas. The era of mining companies being given open access to NSW to profit from public resources at the expense of other industries, the environment, and community health needs to end.
The Greens Responsible Mining Bill offers a real way forward to achieving that.

Questions and Answers

Q. Does this bill allow coal and gas mining?
A. This legislation does not specifically prohibit coal and gas mining but would restrict all types of mining in protected areas to ensure land, water and communities are not scarified by irresponsible mining.
The Greens remain opposed to new coal and coal seam gas development and support a phase-out plan for existing operations.
Q. Can the State Government over-ride a community decision to veto mining or gas development in a certain area?
A. Under current legislation local councils do not have the ability to veto mining or gas development. The Responsible Mining Bill would create certain no-go zones but local council’s could then also exclude mining in other areas through their Local Environment Plan. The State and Federal Governments would not be able to over-rule these decisions.
Q. Won’t this legislation cost jobs by constraining the mining industry?
A. This bill will not stop any existing extractive industries so it will not cost current jobs. It will prohibit some projects already in the planning system so those future jobs will not be available. However by protecting land currently used for agriculture or supporting tourism or other industries, jobs in those long term and sustainable industries will be protected and grow as investment uncertainty for these industries is removed.
Q. If council’s are given veto rights won’t mining industries just try to take over councils?
A. The mining industry seems to have disproportionate influence over state and federal governments. The public feels excluded from these decisions because state and federal parliament seem so far away. By bringing these decisions back to local council the community can take responsibility for their own future and ensure they elect council representatives that reflect their hopes for that future.
The recent ban on corporate donations to political parties in NSW means that mining companies cannot fund the political campaigns of council candidates. This offers significant protection from the mining industry trying to gain disproportionate influence over future councils.

Comments Off

Minister says were irrelevant

Tags:

Greens are pro-farmer and want their votes

Posted on 11 July 2012

Media Release 

11 July 2012

Greens NSW spokesperson on agriculture dismissed today’s National Party attack on the Greens being ‘anti-farmer, anti-family and against free enterprise’ as absolute rubbish, and said that the Greens were representing the interests of many farmers and wanted their number one vote.

“The Greens love and respect Australian farmers, and are heavily engaged in a campaign to protect productive agricultural land and country communities from the threat of coal seam gas and coal mining,” said Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham.

“Farmers play a crucial role in our society, growing the food we eat and the fibre we wear. The Greens want to ensure a long-term sustainable farming sector, enjoying a healthy and productive environment, and a fair marketplace for their produce.

“On 1 May, it was the Greens, farmers and community groups such as the CWA that marched together on Macquarie Street for the ‘protect our land and water’ rally.  It was the National MPs that stood by nervously on the State Parliament balcony.

“In fact, it is the National Party who is in bed with the big mining companies, with former leader John Anderson acting as chairman of Eastern Star Gas, and another former leader Mark Vaile on the board for Nathan TInkler’s coal mine at Maules Creek.

“The Greens are not after National Party preferences, we want the number one vote of country people,” he said.

Contact: Max Phillips 0419 444 916

Comments Off

Greens move to withdraw exemption for public authorities on weed control

Tags: ,

Greens move to withdraw exemption for public authorities on weed control

Posted on 03 April 2012

MEDIA RELEASE – 3 April 2012

The Greens NSW spokesperson on rural land Jeremy Buckingham will move an amendment to the Noxious Weeds Amendment Bill 2012, to require more action from public authorities to deal with weeds and hold public authorities to the same expectations as private landholders.

The two amendments would:

1) Remove the exemption for public authorities that they comply with weed control orders only “to the extent necessary to prevent weeds from spreading to adjoining land”.

2) Require government agencies to report annually on weed control measures.

“This amendment ensures that state government agencies are responsible and liable for properly dealing with weed issues on the extensive lands they control,” said Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham.

“The government should not have a system that applies a greater burden on private land holders, but dodges its own responsibility to deal with weed infestations on adjoining public land.

“It can be very frustrating for farmers and private land holders to do the right thing and deal properly with weeds at considerable cost, only to have weeds spread back onto their land from lands under public control.

“If the O’Farrell Government is serious about dealing with noxious weeds in NSW, it should remove this exemption for government agencies such as the RTA, National Parks, Forests NSW, Crown Lands and others, and require annual reporting of weed control measures.

According to the Local Government & Shires Association, weeds cost NSW over $1.2 billion in lost production and control costs every year.

“If the Government was serious about minimising future cost impacts of weed management in NSW it would be working towards implementing a ‘white’ list or permitted list approach like they have at the Commonwealth level and in Western Australia.

“The Greens are disappointed the Government has not implemented its own recommendations from the statutory review into the noxious weeds act to start community consultation on a permitted list system. That should start now”, Mr Buckingham said.

Contact: Max Phillips – 9230 2202  or  0419 444 916

 

Comments (1)

Sign our petitions – Moratorium on Coal Seam Gas…

no-gas-on-our-farms

Jeremy’s Frack Finding Tour of the USA 2012…

Jeremy’s photos

Drilling derrick

Jeremy’s first speech