Sympathy for Greg Hunt

I am starting to feel sorry for the Honourable Greg Hunt.

Kathleen Noonan wrote an article in the Courier Mail on the weekend about Bimblebox Nature Reserve and Waratah Coal’s China First mine.  

The Galilee Coal project has already been approved by the Qld State Government's Coordinator General, subject to a review by the Federal Government to consider "matters of national environment significance" and perhaps some impacts on water. Ms Noonan encourages those who are a little uncomfortable with any of that 'due process'', to email greg.hunt.mp@environment.gov.au.  

The former Labor Government introduced the water trigger, an amendment to the EPBC Act - the EPBC Amendment Bill 2013 – passed the Parliament on 19 June 2013. The water trigger allows the impacts of proposed large coal mining developments on water resources to be comprehensively assessed at a national level.

Previous Environment Ministers have actively administered the Federal Government's responsibilities to consider matters of national environment significance but it appears Greg Hunt will soon hand those responsibilities back to State Governments.

I also note there are 1 million women putting pressure on Greg Hunt to attend the United Nations Climate Summit in Warsaw this week.

Greg may be a little busy with the Australian Government's new Cleaner Environment Plan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Hon Greg Hunt
Minister for the Environment

Dear Mr Hunt,

Congratulations on your re-election to the House of Representatives and your appointment as Minister for the Environment.  It is also great to have someone with your background responsible for the climate portfolio.

It must be disappointing for you, that you are not representing the Australian people at the United Nations Climate negotiations in Warsaw, Poland this week.

It must also be frustrating to be in the spotlight for the Qld Government's approval of the Galilee Coal project. I realise that you now have limited responsibilities for administration of matters of National environmental significance.  I understand the State Governments want to be "one stop shops" for Environmental approvals.

I am grateful that the impacts of the Galilee Coal development on water resources is to be comprehensively assessed at a national level.

I wish you all the best with the implementation of the Cleaner Environment Plan.

Your's sincerely,

Rowan Barber

Great Barrier Reef & the Ports Plan

Draft Ports Plan

Many of Qld’s major trading ports are near or adjacent to important environmental values including the Great Barrier Reef.

The Qld Government is attempting to address the United Nations’ Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s (UNESCO) concerns.

UNESCO raised concerns about the level of development along the Qld coast and its impact on the World Heritage site, including water quality and the loss of coral.

UNESCO recommends that the Australian and Qld Governments restrict port development outside the long-established major port areas within or adjoining the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

Qld Government’s response includes:

• Establishing a scientific panel to monitor Gladstone Harbour as part of a $4m Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership,
• Committing $35m each year for reef protection and improved water quality,
• Releasing a draft Queensland Ports Strategy that clearly states their intention to limit port development to existing areas.

The aim of the draft Qld Ports Strategy is managing and improving the efficiency and environmental management of the state’s port network over the next decade.

The strategic objectives of the draft Qld Ports Strategy include:

•     providing certainty and direction for future port planning,
•     supporting environmental protection, in particular for the Great Barrier Reef,
•     supporting improvements in the management and productivity of ports and the ports network,
•     enhancing supply chain connections,

facilitating the strategic use of ports.

The key actions are:

• ·     establishment of Priority Port Development Areas (PPDAs),
• ·     prohibition of capital dredging for the development of deep water port facilities outside of PPDAs (for ten years),
• ·     guidance for leading practice master planning for Qld ports.

Along Qld’s 6,973 km coastline, there are 20 ports including 15 trading ports, two community ports, and three gazetted non-trading ports. The PPDAs are proposed for the ports of Brisbane, Mackay/Hay Point (two separate zones), Gladstone, Townsville and Abbot Point.

The Qld Government proposes legislation to be in place by next year to deliver on these commitments. Ports would have to prepare master plans and outline how they will meet Qld and federal environment assessment standards.

The Qld Ports Strategy attempts to align with the National Ports Strategy and relevant international, national, state and local legislation and policy for the responsible and efficient operation of ports. Alignment with the National Ports Strategy is of particular importance as it is designed to improve port and freight infrastructure productivity and attract greater private sector investment. The National Ports Strategy calls for integrated plans across ports.

The Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) used to provide an overarching mechanism for protecting the World Heritage values from inappropriate development, including actions taken inside or outside which could impact on its heritage values.  The Federal Government is in the process of handing over these responsibilities to the State Governments.

Development proposals were required to undergo rigorous environmental impact assessment processes, often including public consultation, after which the Federal Minister may decide, to approve, reject or approve under conditions designed to mitigate any significant impacts.  This may be replaced by a one-stop-shop for Environmental approvals at State level.

A recent amendment to the EPBC Act did make the GBR Marine Park an additional 'trigger' for a matter of National Environmental Significance which provided additional protection for the values within the GBR.

Coal is still the predominant commodity export representing 63 per cent of volumes followed by bauxite at 15 per cent and petroleum products 6 per cent.

The remaining 16 per cent is shared by metals and minerals, general cargo, agriculture and other products.

The draft Qld Ports Strategy has been informed by the results of consultation on the draft Great Barrier Reef Ports Strategy

The main themes of public consultation on the Great Barrier Reef Ports Strategy included:

• ·       support for the concentration of development to within existing port limits
• ·       recognition of the important role of ports in facilitating the growth of economies
• ·       concern for the Great Barrier Reef and threatened species
• ·       support for improving port planning and master planning
• ·       support for strengthening protection of land and corridors near ports
• ·       support for improving environmental management consistently across ports
• ·       support for strategic alignment in planning activities across jurisdictions, particularly with the National    Ports Strategy.

These key themes and issues raised during the consultation process on the draft Great Barrier Reef Ports Strategy are outlined in the Great Barrier Reef Ports Strategy - Summary of Consultation Responses Report.

The draft Qld Ports Strategy will be open for public comment until 13 December 2013. For more information and to complete an online survey to have your say visit: www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/qps

One stop shop for Environmental Approvals

Environment Ministers sign a Draft MOU

The Queensland and Federal Governments have signed a Draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) giving the state more powers to conduct environmental assessments and approvals for major projects.

In March 2013, a senate committee (under the former Labor Government) confirmed the Federal Department of Environment was backing away from handing over responsibilities for biodiversity approvals to the States.

The Draft MOU (which has not been publically released) addresses ''the key principles of maintaining environmental standards, streamlining processes, the removal of duplication and the offer of federal staff to be embedded with the state if required''.

The Draft MOU is being review by Prime Minister Tony Abbott for approval and the changes will need to be passed through Federal Parliament and the Senate. The aim is to achieve a one-stop shop to reduce red tape and provide certainty to business while maintaining the rigorous federal environmental standards.

This would include:

·           Creation of a single approvals process for environmental assessment and approvals under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act via the state system, as part of long-term agreements with each state and territory.

·           Development of the ability and incentive for local government to be part of the one-stop-shop single assessment process.

·           Creation of a single lodgement and documentation process. The single documentation and assessment process could also be expanded to make a single entry point and one-stop-shop for all government approvals across portfolios.

State Environment Minister Andrew Powell says there will be less duplication and quicker decisions - but Commonwealth oversight will not disappear.

Some of the things proposed include embedding Commonwealth officers into the Qld Co-ordinator General's Department.

Approval Processes for Coal and Mineral Exploration

There have been recent changes to the approvals process for coal and mineral exploration allowing for earlier engagement and faster approvals.

Minister for Natural Resources and Mines Andrew Cripps said the new process had the potential to halve the time taken for companies to be granted exploration permits, while maintaining rigorous environmental, native title and land access assessments.

Mining companies no longer need to wait until an exploration permit is granted before engaging with landholders about their proposed exploration activities.

Exploration activities still cannot begin in an area prior to a permit being granted.

Applications to explore will still be subject to the same stringent assessment process to ensure they meet strict environmental, technical and commercial viability, community interest, native title and land access requirements.

A granted exploration permit is not a right to mine, and the Queensland Resources Council estimates that approximately only one in every 200 granted exploration permits ever goes on to become a mine.

Under the new process:

·       companies will now be formally advised within 90 days of lodgement whether their proposed exploration works program for a project has been approved or rejected.

·       For successful applications not subject to native title, once a work program has been approved and an environmental authority has been issued, a permit can be granted after annual rent has been paid.

·       For applications subject to native title, it means companies can start required native title processes and engage landholders about conduct and compensation arrangements a lot sooner.

·       These permit applications can then be finalised within 30 days of the native title process being concluded.

More information about exploration in Qld is available at www.dnrm.qld.gov.au or at www.mines.industry.qld.gov.au

Fees for Petroleum and Gas

In another example of the Qld Government’s approach to regulation and fees: The Qld Government will amend the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Regulation 2004.

Key changes include:

·       Replacement of the requirement for industry to report quarterly with a new annual reporting requirement

·       A capping mechanism for upstream operators to ensure revenue collected from some fee categories is not in excess of the calculated costs to conduct compliance activities

·       Amending the Category 10 fee to three-tiers and applied based on the size of the LPG delivery network. Small and medium sized operators will have a flat fee relative to their size and larger operators will remain at a fee per unit basis with a maximum charge retained

·       Abolition of the Category 9 fee category for the LPG delivery network

·       Removal of the fee for biogas users and exemptions for some biogas producers

More information is available at: www.mines.industry.qld.gov.au/safety-and-health/petroleum-gas-safety-health-fee.htm

EHP's Regulation Strategy

EHP’s Regulation Strategy

Back in February 2013, the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection announced fundamental changes to the way it manages and regulates the risks to Qld’s environment and heritage places.

I believe it is prudent to understand how the current regulatory strategy has changed from past practices of the former Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM).

From the Budget Papers released in June 2013 it would appear that EHP now has less financial and human resources for regulation management than DERM did (apart from an injection of funds for Coal Seam Gas regulation).

Part of the rationale for the change in strategy includes:

·       speed up the time it takes for clients to get an approval,

·       increase the number of inspections of high-risk activities, and

·       make sure EHP are taking strong enforcement action where needed.

I have noticed a trend towards a lot less regulation and so-called “light handed regulation”, however what regulation remains is being enforced with vigour.

A selection of the department’s enforcement actions are summarised in prosecution bulletins outlining the facts and outcomes of finalised prosecutions.

The department’s annual compliance plan informs the Qld community of EHP’s planned compliance activities for the coming year.

The department monitors and reports on EHP’s compliance activities as part of its annual compliance plan program through a mid-year report and an end-of year report. The mid-year report  provides an update on the progress achieved in meeting the targets outlined in the annual compliance plan during the first and second quarters of the reporting period (July to December).

I have yet to see he end-of-year report which details all activities undertaken during the reporting period (July to June) and the outcomes of the compliance projects undertaken.

The reports provide information on the number of incidents and complaints the department has responded to as well as the enforcement actions taken during the reporting period.

EHP has also put together a short presentation about the changes to the way it manages and regulates environmental risks and how they will affect you as their client.

Since February 2013 there has been a new focus on the environmental outcomes a client must achieve.

For example, if one is required to ensure that no pollutants are released into the air, or that wastewater released to a river must meet certain quality standards, EHP will no longer assess whether a client can meet those outcomes, or how they propose to achieve them.  The responsibility now sits with you as EHP’s client.

This will now be the responsibility of the client and not the role of the department.

EHP still provide some guidance and examples on acceptable ways of managing environmental risks, but the decision on how those risks will be managed will sit with the client.

So when EHP grant a licence, the department will impose conditions that set out outcomes that the client must achieve.

EHP no longer impose conditions that tell the client how to achieve those outcomes.

For example, the department may impose a condition that contaminated stormwater must not leave a site, but it will not impose conditions that set out the design of the stormwater system needed to achieve this. The responsibility now sits with you as EHP’s client.

If you as an EHP client cannot meet the outcomes set by the department, one may face enforcement action.

Another major change, one may have noticed is be more frequent site inspections to ensure clients are complying with your licence conditions.

If one can demonstrate that one is consistently meeting the department’s requirements, EHP will inspect them less often.

I recommend one preempt EHP inspections and conduct in-house “pre-audit” inspections and provide EHP with a report.  If one is not meeting licence conditions, EHP is much more likely to carry out more frequent inspections until one lifts one’s performance to a better level.

EHP’s Clients who fail to comply with their licence, may face strong action to ensure the problem is fixed quickly.

EHP has already started making these changes to how we work to better regulate business and industry. Since February 2013 one may have noticed faster turnaround times for licences, fewer conditions, more site inspections, and tougher enforcement action.

For more information on these changes, please read the department’s regulatory strategy now available on the EHP website.

Wandoan Coal

Glencore Xstrata has officially shelved the $7b Wandoan thermal coal project in Qld amid a slump in the coal price, over-supply “and other challenges in the global coal market”.

Back in August 2011, the Mining giant was taken to the Land Court by the community based activist organisation – Friends of the Earth.  Glencore Xstrata was asked to defend the greenhouse impacts of its proposed Wandoan coal mine.  A variety of experts gave evidence concerning the impacts of Wandoan Coal mine on Qld's environment & the global climate. 

release of mine water into the Fitzroy

Legacy Mine Water Program

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) is responsible for regulating and monitoring mines water releases into receiving environments and works collaboratively with other government agencies in managing, monitoring and mitigating mines releases during times of extreme weather events.

The Economic Development Act 2012  was passed by the Qld Parliament on 29 November 2012 to enable the State Government to approve the release of water from mines with only 24 hours notice.  The Qld Government will extend the Legacy Mine Water program to other coal mines in the Fitzroy River Basin in the next wet season, through changes to the coal mines environmental authorities.

Under a Temporary Emissions License, companies no longer have to test their mine water for contaminants before they release.

Central Queensland coal mines still have an estimated 250 gigalitres of excess water as a result of the recent wet seasons.

The Qld Government is committed to working with industry to address the legacy mine water issue, as an important step to delivering a long-term improvement in Fitzroy basin water quality.

Abbott would close the Clean Energy Finance Corp

Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC).

In the wake of the federal budget reply, I have observed that an incoming Coalition government would probably shut down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC).

The CEFC is currently a legislated $10 billion fund, established by the Federal Government, dedicated to investing in clean energy.

Under its enabling legislation, its investment activities will be funded through a special appropriation of $2 billion to a special account every year for five years, commencing from 1 July 2013.

The CEFC's investment objectives are to catalyse and leverage an increased flow of funds for the commercialisation and deployment of Australian-based renewable energy, low emissions and energy efficiency technologies, thus preparing and positioning the Australian economy and industry for a carbon constrained world.

The CEFC leverages public and private sector capital and skills to meet public policy outcomes.

By working with private sector co-financiers, the CEFC aims to both leverage the total amount of funding available and to enhance the expertise and capacity of the financial sector to fund clean energy.

The CEFC will invest in organisations and projects using 'clean energy technologies' as well as manufacturing businesses that focus on producing the inputs required.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012 excludes investment in technology for carbon capture and storage, nuclear technology or nuclear power.

The CEFC has been set up to make its investment decisions independently, based on rigorous commercial assessments.

The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, said he would save up to $400 million by scrapping the CEFC scheme.

I wonder how much less industry would implement low emission technologies without the $10 billion seed investment funding that the CEFC framework could provide at a cost to the Government of less than $400 million.

The plan for the CEFC was to invest in organisations and projects using ‘clean energy technologies’ as well as manufacturing businesses that focus on producing the inputs required.

I suspect that the axing of the CEFC will undermine efforts to build a competitive low carbon economy.

This move has the potential to destabilise and deter significant market based investment in technology and infrastructure in the power generation sector and threaten Australia’s transition to a less carbon-dependent and more sustainable economy.

The loss of the CEFC is likely to destabilise clean-energy investment, severely limit new long-term projects and leave Australia’s economy exposed to future emissions restraints in a carbon-constrained global market.”

Mr Hunt recently mentioned that only three sectors of the current ‘departmental’ arrangements will remain:

·     National Greenhouse Energy and Reporting Scheme (NGER)

·     Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI)

·     Clean Energy Regulator (CER)

So the likes of the Climate Change Authority (CCA) other parts of the old Department of Climate Change and Eneryg Efficiency and possibly the Energy Efficiency Opportunities (EEO) will be absorbed under other departments. 

Mr Hunt also indicated that simplification and lowering of measurement costs was also a high priority.  NGERs will be the reporting systems and other duplicate, state and also EEO would be simplified.

Water Resources, CSG and Coal

The Federal Government is implementing more environmental protection for water resources impacted by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.

Amendments will be made to Australia’s national environment law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 that will require federal assessment and approval of coal seam gas and large coal mining developments which have a significant impact on a water resource.

The Independent Expert Scientific Committee (IESC) established by the Federal Government last year will continue to provide advice for coal seam gas and large coal mining projects which may require federal assessment, including assessments of impacts on water resources.