Politicians in power alter physically as an election draws nearer: you start to see the whites of their eyes.
That physical phenomenon is on display in NSW among Parliament’s 19 National MPs as they prepare to face their electorates on March 28 next year.
They are being spooked by three initials: CSG, or coal seam gas, and its associated terror of “fracking”.
Troy Grant, the Nationals’ new leader and a former police inspector from Dubbo, described CSG as the “most polarising” issue facing the government.
He’s right. In city, regional and rural electorates you can find roadside signs declaring “This is a CSG free zone”, “No fracking” or “Shut the Gate”, the slogan of the organisation opposed to exploring and mining underground gas.
In a pre-election strike, the Coalition’s joint party met this week to approve a new set of rules governing the NSW gas industry. If it was designed to settle the nerves of National MPs and the anxieties of voters, it has failed dismally.
For anti-CSG activists there is a ban on all coal seam activity in the Sydney water catchment basin and all national parks. Cheers.
In the next breath, gas companies are given the opportunity to pay compensation to landholders for entering their properties. Boos.
The new policy — the third this year — cancelled 16 pending licence applications and continued the freeze on applications for new licences. But after the March election, what’s to say the moratorium won’t be lifted and new licences granted across the state?
Premier Mike Baird gave the game away a few days ago when he said with typical boyish enthusiasm: “Do we want coal seam gas? Absolutely we do.”
Upper House Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham told Crikey: “The latest NSW gas plan is a document to get panicked National MPs through the election, but ultimately is a blueprint to roll out coal seam gas.”
John Robertson’s Labor opposition is maintaining a policy of permanent criticism of the Coalition’s fumbling, but offers no clear policy alternative.
This is understandable. The last Labor Government (1995-2011) sold exploration and mining licences to everyone who arrived with a chequebook and the Coalition has been attempting to unravel the mess since it took office.
While Barry O’Farrell was premier, Nationals leader Andrew Stoner was deputy premier and Chris Hartcher was minister for resources and energy, the controversial industry was being stage-managed.
But all three have quit their jobs and the politically toxic sale of CSG has been handed over to the new boys on the block: Premier Baird, Deputy Premier Grant and Resources and Energy Minister Anthony Roberts . Their focus is exclusively on winning the state election and not on creating a long-term, environmentally safe gas industry.
A deeply wounding parting shot on CSG was delivered by retiring Ballina MP Don Page in his farewell speech: “I can confidently say the great majority of people in my electorate, including me, do not see coal seam gas exploration and mining as compatible with the character of the electorate of Ballina.
“I have also taken the view that CSG mining and exploration should not proceed if there is any environmental damage to land or water as a result, and I will always hold that view.”
Page, the grandson of Sir Earle Page, a founder of the Country Party and Australia’s 11th Prime Minister, was local government minister in the O’Farrell government and bound by Cabinet solidarity.
By giving voice to his deep-rooted objections to the CSG industry, Page has exposed the deep divisions in his party’s ranks.
Parliament’s sitting Nationals MPs, who underpin Coalition stability, were supposed to be calmed by the latest version of the NSW gas plan. Their eyes should have narrowed, but they haven’t.
If the CSG industry was required to give a bank guarantee to the value of the worst damage they could cause over 30 years to farms, fisheries, tourism and domestic water then the industry would to a large degree self regulate. There would also be a whole lot less CSG managed a whole lot better. Bonds are part of each States and the Commonwealth’s Mining Act’s. Esso introduced them in Bass Strait when the Victorian government was forced to underwrite any damages from exploration for carbon sequestration using seismic testing
Finally some decent journalism on the topic after some of Crikeys patronising and city-centric articles on the subject.
“…retiring Ballina MP Don Page in his farewell speech: “I can confidently say the great majority of people in my electorate, including me, do not see coal seam gas exploration and mining as compatible with the character of the electorate of Ballina”
The irony of Don Page, the not so cooincidental member for Page* stating the obvious,after years of gutlessly playing Liberal poodle and ignoring a majority rejection of CSG and even the grandmas, The Knitting Nannas, camped outside the dunces office.
Grandma says good riddance Don! Apparently she has the last laugh and I have a knitted sweater.
Good points Wombat – the CSG companies will obtain the financial benefits, they therefore should bear the risk. And after all the commonsense principle of risk is that it should be borne by those best placed to manage it – and that puts the CSG companies absolutely in the frame.
> CSG companies will obtain the financial benefits, they therefore should bear the risk.
There are some difficulties with that. Even if your well is next door to a CSG operation, you are quite unlikely to have the CSG operation admit fault.
Further, the vast quantities of salty water brought to the surface have long distance effects and long time effects on ground water levels.
And sooner or later the salt now on the surface is going to makes its way to the ocean, via the water courses and via the groundwater, depending on whether the salt storages leak or are flooded as sooner or later they will.
In all areas of the state there needs to be engagement with all parties and a trade-off between advantages and disadvantages made for that particular area. Every area will have a different set of principles and priorities. Those corporations that do it well, will get their social licence and those who fail to take into account all stakeholders – not just the ones who agree with them… won’t.
Backdoor deals won’t cut it in the 21st century. Here are some of the issues in the trade-off:
1.We need the gas but will we get the benefit of it e.g. Is it all planned for export at export prices or is there an allocation for domestic consumption? (Needs to be part of the negotiation)
2.We need the local revenue to give our region an infrastructure facelift but will it be at the cost of a poisoned water table or river? (What safeguards and punitive damages are set in place?)
3.We want to encourage enterprise but will our beautiful countryside be destroyed as a result?(What is the environmental plan attached to the project)
4.We are a rural community with rural values but should we take the money and run? (Are we losing our human values to the promise of a quick buck and an eager executive branch to appease business?)
5.These are the issues that need to be debated. It is a battle for what we as human beings want to become. Is Sydney to be a mega city on the edge of a crater the size of NSW half full of haul loaders, dump trucks and spillage and tailings?
6.We don’t need weekly ICAC hearings because some numbnuts pollie has done a sweetheart deal yet another dodgy operator. Blog that!