E&OE….
Topics: Shenhua Watermark mine approval, Labor’s plans to bring back a carbon tax
ALAN JONES:
Minister Hunt's on the line, Greg Hunt good morning.
GREG HUNT:
Good morning Alan.
ALAN JONES:
Can I just raise a couple of things from this Independent Expert Scientific Committee report which they've compiled, and for the benefit of my listeners can I say in response to many questions asked by this man Greg Hunt, and raised by the community as well.
GREG HUNT:
Correct, I forwarded to them a set of questions both from myself and from the community. In fact legally I didn't have to do that, but my moral duty, my deep duty was to get additional facts and to give the community the additional chance for further information.
ALAN JONES:
Right, so if I just quote from the report so that there's no subjectivity here. The Committee says – its words, and I've read all of this stuff – quote – there are information gaps which need to be addressed, it says, if the proposed project is approved additional monitoring and finer scale ground water modelling should be undertaken.
So we don't know the answers to questions about what this mine would do to groundwater. The report says – in relation to conclusions drawn with regard to the assessment of impacts to groundwater dependent ecosystems there remains an unassessed risk. How the hell can we be expected to approve something where there is an unassessed risk?
GREG HUNT:
Well in fact that isn't approved that component, that requires additional monitoring, additional assessment and an additional water management plan, that's a condition that I have put in place. But let me step back for 30 seconds and point out what I agree with and then where there may be a difference. Firstly I agree absolutely; total discretion under the New South Wales system as to whether or not they put this project inland in New South Wales, whether they proceed with it, who gets it.
That was done some years ago, and then it was advanced by the current government, and it was also advanced at the Federal level by Tony Burke who could have rejected it outright at the start, but in fact took it to the next stage. At the Commonwealth level I now deal with what's stage 15 of 17, and as you say, that has to be subject to legal, departmental, and scientific assessment.
So let's go straight to that scientific assessment. What you've just referred to, that is dealt with specifically. I have adopted each and every recommendation of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee, a body set up by the previous government, specifically condition 5E deals with what you have set out in relation to groundwater. So what we have here is…
ALAN JONES:
But, sorry to interrupt you, sorry, I want to interrupt Greg because we're always short of time.
GREG HUNT:
… is the State's approval.
ALAN JONES:
Yeah I know but, I know but, the report says – I'm not talking Alan Jones lingo, I've read this thing – Baird hasn't read it, Tony Abbott hasn't read it – there's an unassessed risk. The report then makes it clear it doesn't have a quote, a targeted monitoring program which it asked for in 2013. It says it doesn't have finer scale numerical groundwater modelling. It doesn't have identification – these are its words – and assessment of the potential impacts to water dependent ecosystems. It doesn't have an assessment of local scale cumulative impacts. It doesn't have the assessment of long term impacts associated with the final land form.
And the report says quote – the potential impacts to water dependent ecosystems as a result of the predicted hydrological impacts – that's mining – remain uncertain, remain uncertain due to insufficient survey effort. Little information has been provided that clearly identifies ecological assets that are dependent on surface water and groundwater systems, their current condition, how these assets may be impacted by both the proposed project and any cumulative impacts. They don't have the information. How the hell are we approving this before saying to these people if you want approval you're going to have to give us this information?
GREG HUNT:
Well if you were correct I would agree with you absolutely…
ALAN JONES:
Well that's its words.
GREG HUNT:
… here's what I will respond with. Firstly the fundamental conclusion, not just of one report but of six scientific reports was that the groundwater modelling is robust, and I'm quoting directly here, and can be relied upon to predict impacts on groundwater resources. What they have said is the fundamental modelling is correct…
ALAN JONES:
Well I haven't read those words, I haven't read those words. I'm quoting words from here, I haven't read those words because you asked a question, you asked a question…
GREG HUNT:
(Inaudible) paragraphs 1A and 1C of the IESC report…
ALAN JONES:
Well hang on you asked this question, you asked this question, is the independent- you asked this question, this is your question – is the Independent Scientific Committee satisfied – this is the Minister's question – that the proposed surface water and groundwater monitoring programs – your words Greg – are robust – this is your question – and any potential impacts on water resources, and water related assets, will be detected. I repeat this is Greg Hunt's question, the Minister to the Expert Committee.
GREG HUNT:
Absolutely because I damn well wanted to know the answers (inaudible)…
ALAN JONES:
Yeah hang on righto, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, this is what you said – is the Committee satisfied the proposed surface water and groundwater monitoring programs are robust and any potential impacts on water resources and water related assets will be detected. Answer by the committee: no. No. The proposed monitoring program has not changed from that used to obtain baseline information and it is not considered sufficient. That's what the report says.
GREG HUNT:
And now let me respond. Two things: firstly their overview is that the groundwater modelling predictions in the documentation are sufficiently robust to draw conclusion, fundamental paragraph 1A in their responses backed up in 1C – then they say because I want to know if there was additional work required…
ALAN JONES:
Excuse me have you got your hand over the phone or something?
GREG HUNT:
Sorry I apologise. Then they say – because I asked them – is there additional work? And there were additional elements, and so we have set out, and I have set out extensive conditions of three fundamental things that have to happen before there could be a…
ALAN JONES:
But they should have to give these things before you give approval.
GREG HUNT:
… final approval. So what we have here is a conditional approval. These things can proceed but unless you have a water management plan which includes exactly what you have set out in relation to groundwater, exactly a water management plan and some water verification report and…
ALAN JONES:
But hang on Greg it says you asked the committee, you asked the committee; has the revised information – you asked them – has the revised information provided by the proponent addressed all of the committee's advice, issued on 27 May 2013. The committee said then we want information, answer no. No. Not all matters have been addressed at this stage and you've given approval. Now look we've got to go to the news. I'm just wondering if you're not too busy could I come back after the news?
GREG HUNT:
Actually I'd be delighted.
ALAN JONES:
Righto. Okay we'll go to the news. We're talking to the Minister Greg Hunt, half past seven.
Intermission
ALAN JONES:
It’s twenty minutes to eight. We are running a poll here because I want to find out what the people think. Now admittedly it’s limited because there isn’t the opportunity for you to phone your concerns, but I’ll give you that tomorrow. You just go to 2GB.com at the moment, at the top of the page – do you support the Shenhua open cut coal mine on the Liverpool Plains? So far almost 3,000 have registered on the internet, and 96 per cent say no. The Government is in massive trouble here, and this is really a eureka moment, the public have had a gutful of this mining conquest of agriculture.
Greg Hunt is back on the line. Minister, can I just raise with you again, my language, so that’s why I’m out of this here. You ask the question – are there additional measurements and commitments required to monitor, mitigate and manage impacts resulting from changes to surface or groundwater resources? Are there additional measurements and commitments? The answer? Yes and the scientific report spells these out.
And then there’s the question of triggers. Now the very fact that there are triggers means there are risks. So the scientific report says if triggers and limits are exceeded, management responses for surface water and groundwater should be clearly stated with an enforceable adaptive management framework. But none of there- none of this is here. We don’t know what they’re going to do if they exceed, if they get into strife. These things aren’t here.
Now surely you should be saying well we’re not prepared to approve this until all these questions are answered. You know, you’ve asked the question, are the proposed management responses to groundwater alluvium – that’s water – interception adequate? Now there are two aspects of water here, one is – without getting complicated – one is consumer approach to water, that is, if you’re running out of water or there’s a problem with the water you turn the tap off.
This is intercepted water, when you’re dealing with a mine you can’t turn the water off. And the report says, the experts, quote – the adequacy to these measures can’t be determined. As of this stage, management responses have not been stated explicitly. Shouldn’t we be saying to these people, I’m sorry, I want answers so that the Scientific Committee can evaluate the answers?
GREG HUNT:
Well if you let me speak I will give you answers. Alright, so here’s where we’re at. You are exactly right. This isn’t an approval, this is a conditional approval. And there are two big things here. Firstly, the presentation that somehow this is on the black soil plain, we don’t get to choose where, but fortunately that is a myth. It is not on the black soil plains (inaudible)…
ALAN JONES:
Now Greg, wait- wait- whoa, whoa, Greg. Greg. Greg. Greg. I’ve got to interrupt, I’m sorry…
GREG HUNT:
…on the water management…
ALAN JONES:
No, no, Greg, stop. That is not true, that is not true. The reason it is not on black soil plains, and you know this for a fact, Hartcher changed the definition of flood plains. He changed the definition to accommodate Shenhua, and so this land is now regarded as not flood plain. But for you and me…
GREG HUNT:
No, it’s not a question of the flood plain…
ALAN JONES:
He changed- it’s the same thing. Flood plain is black soil plain.
GREG HUNT:
…it is actually physically …
ALAN JONES:
Flood plain is black soil plain.
GREG HUNT:
… different plain, and it’s a geological formation, the black soil plain…
ALAN JONES:
Greg, I’m sorry, but you are wrong. I know you went up there for five minutes before the election. You are wrong. You are completely wrong on this. He changed…
GREG HUNT:
We will have to disagree because it’s not just…
ALAN JONES:
Well let me ask you this point.
GREG HUNT:
…a geological formation…
ALAN JONES:
Okay, let me ask you this question.
GREG HUNT:
…it’s a legal condition, and it’s enshrined in…
ALAN JONES:
Why…
GREG HUNT:
… (inaudible) what we have determined. Now…
ALAN JONES:
Why …
GREG HUNT:
… if we also (inaudible) water …
ALAN JONES:
Why- well hang on, hang on, Greg, answer this question. Answer this question. Why did Hartcher change the definition of what is a flood plain, different from that in the Water Act, in order to give Shenhua an exemption. Why?
GREG HUNT:
Well that’s something you’ll have ask him but I can tell you because I have been with experts over months…
ALAN JONES:
Got your hand over the phone, Greg, Greg, I can’t hear you.
GREG HUNT:
… (inaudible) that it was …
ALAN JONES:
Take your hand off the phone.
GREG HUNT:
… a geological formation, it is prohibited by law and so this idea that in some way the magnificent black soil country is touched and affected is false, is wrong and is prohibited by law. Now to the water questions you raise, because you do raise very important ones. Firstly, we have accepted all of the advice of the Independent Expert Committee.
Secondly, you specifically asked about this idea of a conditional approval – that’s actually what’s being done here. Unless the water management plan with exactly that information that you referred to in relation to groundwater – for example I could give you the point that that there, condition 5E – nothing proceeds unless that additional information is provided. I will do something today however that I have never done before, that I’m not required under law to do, but I will make it a public commitment; when we get this water management plan back I will refer it to the Independent Expert Scientific Committee and if they are not satisfied I won’t even approve that.
And that’s something which is above and beyond, to the best of my knowledge, anything that has happened in Australian environmental history. Would I prefer to be having to make these decisions? Probably not. But under the law stage 15 of 17, it comes to me, and I have to make it on the science.
ALAN JONES:
Let me just ask this. Let me ask you this – you’ve just said here a conditional approval.
GREG HUNT:
That’s what it is.
ALAN JONES:
Now I know it’s not your responsibility how these matters are reported. Can you recall anywhere, in any media story about this over the last fortnight that this has been described as a conditional approval? Even the Premier of New South Wales addressing the farmers this week talked about the approval of the scientists, the experts have said it should go ahead. He didn’t know about a conditional approval because he hasn’t read the stuff.
And he can’t, he can’t agree with it, because there are the questions – are the proposed management responses to increasing salinity levels adequate – this is the question that was asked – if not, are there additional measures and commitments required to mitigate and manage the impacts? Now salinity, salt, is a frightening thing in the world of agriculture. Answer – the adequacy of these measures can’t be determined at this stage as proposed management responses will have to be included in a water management plan. So we don’t know. But they’ve got…
GREG HUNT:
Again, that has been specifically set out as items to be addressed in the conditions that we have. So you do ask a really good point – has there been much reporting about the fact that this is a conditional approval? Not as much as I would have liked. If that has come out in today’s interview I think that that is a very important part of public confidence, and I – that’s why I like to come on and to have these debates. I appreciate the fact that it’s been, as you say, querulous not aggressive, and this is how good journalism and good information should work.
ALAN JONES:
Can I just ask you about modelling? Because everywhere we’re told that its world class modelling, conditions are world class and these world class conditions have been imposed on Shenhua. Can I ask you about the Whitehaven mine at Werris Creek? The modelling there predicted there would be negligible impact on the aquifers, only a ten centimetre drop – ten centimetres is tiny – what are we finding now? A fifteen metre drop in the water level, an average of four metres across the whole area, people actually in Werris Creek have lost water. A four metre drop in the aquifers.
There is now as I speak to you today 16 metres of water in their pit at the moment. The mine has had to stop operating. The aquifers have been interfered with. The water flows into this giant bathtub are 16 metres deep and they can’t mine. The modelling was world class. How do the public expect – can be expected to accept these world class conditions when they see both here, and elsewhere, the modelling having failed.
GREG HUNT:
Now this is a mine which involves some of the property I believe sold by Tony Windsor for coal mining.
ALAN JONES:
Correct, correct.
GREG HUNT:
Okay. Now I’ve heard different competing claims. I have asked for information and I do want to assess that, and I will be assessing that. The second thing though is in this case what we have is – that was a decision of a previous government, the Labor Government – what we have is tougher conditions, water management plans which have to be approved, and a stop work trigger, as well as much earlier trigger.
So things which were stronger, tougher than anything that’s ever been before because when it gets to this point in the Federal scheme where we are stage 15 of 17 only, you’ve got to make the decisions based on the science, the law, and the departmental advice. All of them line up. However what I’ve done is gone a lot further than anyone ever before, and we’ve put in place as I say the conditions that we have to have every one of the IESC questions not just asked, but answered before it proceeds and today I’m making the point that I will refer those answers back to the IESC, and I won’t proceed or approve the final plan unless and until the IESC is fully satisfied.
ALAN JONES:
Alright, two questions because we can’t cover everything, I want to ask you just two questions before you go…
GREG HUNT:
We were going to cover electricity taxes and Bill Shorten’s carbon tax briefly as well.
ALAN JONES:
Yes, well I would – well three questions then. Just two quick ones here – I hope they’re quick. To keep it simple there are going to be five explosions a week for the next thirty years – so we blow up the ridges.
Do you understand in layman’s terms pub talk, that these ridges are part of an interlocking structure which hold the flood plains together? The aquifers are not a separate structure from the ridges. So if you blow the ridges up you can’t guarantee that there won’t be damage to the aquifers and there are no guarantees in this report.
GREG HUNT:
Well I absolutely have done as much analysis and as I say commissioned not just one or two, three or four, or even five but six assessments and every one of those assessments – every one of those assessments has come to a different conclusion to the one you’ve presented and I respect your views but I also have to respect the views of the experts in this space and they have considered that the groundwater draw down is likely to be less than 1 in 1000 parts…
ALAN JONES:
They were wrong in Whitehaven weren’t they?
GREG HUNT:
… and they are incredibly strong in those assessments.
ALAN JONES:
They were wrong at Whitehaven.
GREG HUNT:
You may have a different conclusion.
ALAN JONES:
Yeah but they were wrong at Whitehaven. I’m only going on the record Greg I’m only going on the record, White-
GREG HUNT:
(Inaudible) stronger, clearer than would possibly…
ALAN JONES:
Yeah I’m only going on the record. There is Whitehaven, I’ve got the runs on the board, it was wrong. All the modelling was wrong. Just a final thing- second to carbon tax right, rehabilitation. Rehabilitation. Now I don’t whether you’ve flown in a helicopter over the Hunter Valley – it’s like a crater of the moon. This mine is going down 300 – 300 metres. I mean you could bury all of Sydney and some in this hole in the ground. Now the cost of rehabilitation will run into billions of dollars.
We don’t know that these mines will remain viable in fact I would venture to say the private sector would never touch this mine up here because the price of thermal coal doesn’t justify this investment but it’s owned by the Chinese Government. But many coal companies around the world are going broke. Isn’t it reasonable to ask as part of the quote, unquote conditions that this mob put up a cash bond which would be a down payment for fixing the billions of dollars worth of damage that would be done to the land and will require rehabilitation?
GREG HUNT:
So there has to be, as one of the conditions, a rehabilitation plan. Secondly, in the end they are working over the course of the life of three pits. Two of those will be completely rehabilitated, one will be…
ALAN JONES:
Well who’s going to find the money for that? Who’s going to find the money for that?
GREG HUNT:
And that has to be something that they demonstrate along the way…
ALAN JONES:
That’s only their word for it. I don’t trust them. I don’t trust them. I don’t trust them. Put the money on the table to show but Greg put the money…
GREG HUNT:
…that rehabilitation plan is a fundamental legal precondition….
ALAN JONES:
But say to them, say to them, say to them put your money on the table so that we can see that the money is there to rehabilitate.
GREG HUNT:
Now that one I’m sorry to say is a New South Wales (inaudible) so you’ll have to ask New South Wales.
ALAN JONES:
Yes I know I will be and I will be asking that. Now just before we go the carbon tax and Bill Shorten.
GREG HUNT:
Okay. So what's happened is two things. One, the carbon tax is as we have always said coming back with a specific electricity tax component. So before we started you were talking about electricity prices being out of control. Well we’ve reduced them by the largest amount in Australian history, but it is still a huge pressure on your listeners and Australians.
Bill Shorten wants to drive it up. The second thing is he's denying this is their plan but there's the shadow cabinet being reported in Fairfax today saying we won't water this plan down at all, this is what we'll be taking to the election. So not only are they going to hurt people with higher electricity prices, they don't have the guts to be honest about it.
ALAN JONES:
Well they're trying to grab the votes from the Greens, they're worried about the defection of people from the Labor Party to the Greens and so they're more concerned about getting the Greens vote than they are about the wellbeing of Australians. Thank you for your time.
GREG HUNT:
Thanks Alan.
ALAN JONES:
This is a massive, a massive issue. Do you understand what these polls are saying? It’s political dynamite.
GREG HUNT:
I absolutely understand the community sentiment and my response has to be, I can only deal under the law with what’s there. I have the strongest possible advice. Stronger conditions than ever and we’ve gone a step further today with you.
ALAN JONES:
Yeah okay thank you for that I’ve read that stuff too and under no circumstances could I say yes to this crowd and we know a little bit about them and what they’re about. But thank you for your time, the Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt.
(ENDS)