Just wanted to paste here what Dr Phelps (Liberal MLC) said in the reading of this bill. He puts out the factx and all the lies that the greens make. Yet noone who spoke after him challenged him on anything he said. Its a long read, but well worth it.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [10.25 a.m.]: Recently I had the good fortune to be in Ballina at Splendour in the Grass, a fine music festival. I was a guest of Guardian Australia. I send a shout out to Adam Brereton, who kindly invited me to address a forum on coal seam gas—you can guess how that went. That was preceded by the new movie Frackman, which features a cameo appearance by our very own Jeremy Buckingham, but more on that movie a little later. What stunned me was the question and answer session that followed the talk on coal seam gas. The level of ignorance and The Greens indoctrination prevalent in the crowd astounded even me.
Concerns were raised about benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes [BTEX] chemicals, despite the fact that BTEX chemicals are banned in New South Wales for hydraulic fracturing operations. There was concern about gas pad mappings and the use of Queensland-style gas pad-mapping arrangements, conveniently ignoring the fact that the Walloon structures in southern Queensland are entirely different from the sorts of coal seam arrangements in New South Wales, where we do not need the chequerboard approach due to the nature of structures in New South Wales allowing for lateral drilling and thus a significant minimisation of gas pads.
There were claims that fracking was taking place at 3,000 metres, which is completely untrue and presupposes that people have seen the movie Gasland and assume that hydraulic fracturing of shale and coal are the same thing, which they most certainly are not. There was also an ignorance of the sorts of pressures and techniques used for shale and coal. We know full well how embarrassed the green movement was when it notoriously put in a submission to the first parliamentary committee into coal seam gas, having just replaced the word "shale" with "coal seam" in a United States study. Those responsible then had to make a very embarrassing retraction when the technical data proved to be invalid in relation to coal seam gas drilling in Australia. They had seen Gasland and extrapolated data without knowing the difference which resulted in embarrassment, simply because they lacked the tactical capacity or, alternatively, they never cared about the technical issues but were just after political scoring.
People at the forum called for an independent assessment of coal seam gas in New South Wales, apparently ignorant of the fact that the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer had already undertaken an independent assessment of coal seam gas in New South Wales. They complained about the lack of a produced water plan, but they seemed to completely ignore the fact that every coal seam gas operation in New South Wales is required to have a produced water plan. There was a failure to differentiate between water extracted from coal seams and potable water from higher alluvial deposits—as if coal seam gas is stealing water and somehow depriving people or cattle of the use of that water. If they had known anything about coal seam gas operations they would have known that in the majority of cases the water extracted simply is not potable for either humans or cattle. That is why we have produced water plans. They seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that we have baseline bore monitoring for coal seam gas operations across the State.
This is the big lie which every one of them believes and which is propounded by the green movement time and again; that is, that there is aquifer cross-contamination. We have evidence to prove that that is a lie. We have had coal seam gas mining operations in Australia for 20 years and there is not one instance of proven aquifer cross-contamination. After 20 years of mining there is not one piece of evidence to demonstrate aquifer cross-contamination. That is hardly surprising when one looks at the structures used on boring operations. There is a steel pipe covered by concrete and then another steel pipe, which is a sure-fire way of avoiding cross-contamination. It is even safer than what has been done with artesian bores on farming land for the past 175 years.
Bores in the Great Artesian Basin go many hundreds of feet lower than the lowest coal seam gas mining operations in Australia. They also penetrate higher level alluvial sandstone, which forms sweat-water bores for drinking. The Greens ignore the fact that for 170 years cattle have been drinking lower quality artesian bore water than has been produced by coal seam gas operations in Australia. That is the key point and it disproves the big lie environmentalists always spread. They always say that coal seam gas operations will poison artesian bores. Of course, they cannot adduce any evidence to support that. Every time a hydrology expert appeared before the two coal seam gas inquiries I asked whether they could name a single instance where aquifer cross-contamination had occurred in the 20 years that coal seam gas mining has been undertaken in Australia. Not one of those hydrologists could cite an example.
This ignorance has been fostered by misinformation from green extremists. That is the nature of the contemporary green movement in Australia and in many other places in the western world. It is a pyramid structure. At the base is the vast majority of people who would be described as ordinary, concerned citizens. They are sincere but ill-informed people who are pulled along by emotion and who know little about the technical aspects of coal seam gas extraction. They believe what they hear in good faith, but at the same time they must rely upon the often tainted evidence of so-called green experts. That is the broad base of the modern environmental movement. The middle group are fewer in number and I would call them the lunatics or the activists. They are people who would have a tubal ligation rather than bring another filthy human into the world. They see humanity as a scourge and dream of a great plague that will wipe out 90 per cent of humanity. In lieu of this natural population reduction—
The Hon. Adam Searle: Point of order: The member is pushing the bounds of acceptable parliamentary language. A lot of latitude is given to members during second reading debates, but the language the member is using is, in my respectful submission, outside what is acceptable in this place.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: The comments I have cited about tubal ligation were made by the head of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA]. The reference to the scourge of humanity is taken from James Delingpole's book Watermelons, in which he quotes senior leaders of the British green movement. These are not made-up examples; they are evidenced by the historical record.
The Hon. Adam Searle: To the point of order: Yet none of those matters are under discussion here.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The standing orders and the conventions are quite clear. There is no point of order.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Thank you, Mr President. I was referring to the middle group in the pyramid—the extremists, the activists. They support alternative energy not in spite of its inefficiency but precisely because of its inefficiency. They seek a lower standard of living for all humanity; they want humanity to make a smaller footprint on the world; they want to force us back into a neo-primitive state where we are all subsistence producers and consumers. I turn now to the leadership of the green movement. They are the people who see the environmental movement as a means of achieving socialist control, of course with them in charge. They are the broad-brush Marxists who controlled the peace movement in the 1930s, 1950s and 1960s and the anti-nuclear movement in the 1970s and 1980s and who now have a common cause with The Greens to destroy capitalism. What would replace capitalism?
The PRESIDENT: Order! I warn people in the public gallery that if they cannot observe the debate in silence they will be removed.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: That is the motivation. We have a pyramid structure that creates disinformation. We have the Stalinists, the sociopaths, the suckers, the Marxists, the misanthropists and the misguided. Farmers have an absolutely legitimate concern about infringement of their land. But the solution is not banning an entire industry; it is the recognition of property rights. When I suggested that at the forum at Splendour in the Grass, Dayne Pratzky—commonly known as "Frackman"—said, "No, you can't give farmers property rights to the subsoil because they will sell out to greed. They will allow coal seam gas miners to come onto their land. If you give farmers the right to monetise the resources under their land they will take advantage of that."
So it is not that people are not concerned about property rights for farmers—and I acknowledge that that is a legitimate concern—it is that people want to be able to say to their neighbours, "You are not allowed to do what I don't want you to do". The movie Frackman, which was shown at Splendour in the Grass, is seductive propaganda. It was partially paid for by New South Wales taxpayers through the Film Finance Corporation. However, even Mr Brereton from The Guardian described is as a "polemic". Mr Pratzky lived on a lifestyle block with his dogs and had no apparent employment. I must say that he did have quite obnoxious dealings with the coal seam gas company. The company's representatives were rude and aggressive. As a result, he became Frackman, complete with his very own superhero outfit. I have no problem with people who enjoy Cosplay, although I draw the line at furries. Mr Pratzky had a mission in life, a goal and a raison d'être and he wanted respect, acknowledgement and acclaim. He was even the subject of a documentary. In this way, this nice man, who has a legitimate concern about property rights, became obsessed and twisted. Just how twisted is seen in one poignant moment in the film.
At one stage he broke into a coal seam gas site to get some water from a holding tank. It was a Boy's Own Paper adventure and great viewing. He sent the sample he gathered for analysis, but unfortunately it was simply water. The footage of him when he saw the test results was telling; he was absolutely crestfallen. It should have been full of toxins and chemicals. After all, that was the reason for his existence. I ask members to ponder what reasonable person would seek a bad outcome. What farmer would say, "I am in tears because my water supply is not poisoned; it is not filled with toxins and chemicals."? Unfortunately that did not fit with the narrative of the anti-scientific hysteria whipped up by opportunistic environmental extremists. The Leader of the Opposition said that Labor will support coal seam gas [CSG] mining if it is proven to be safe. I would like to relate an exchange between the Hon. Greg Donnelly and the Mayor of Lismore. The Hon. Greg Donnelly said:
I am trying to understand whether there are any circumstances in your view whereby your respective councils would accept coal seam gas mining? Can I just give you an example? Some of the submissions talk about the concerns and say maybe, if the mining was proven safe, but other elements of the submission talk about things that have nothing to do with safety but which reflect opposition. So my question is: Really and truly is there any preparedness at all by any of the councils to support coal seam gas mining?
The Mayor of Lismore replied:
Frankly, no … and because we are looking very much towards renewable energy, now to be mining another finite resource seems to be glancing backwards.
Let me get this absolutely clear. The Hon. Greg Donnelly asked, "If it is proven to be safe, would you support it?" And the answer was, "No." All this talk from environmental extremists about the need for additional investigation and research is a stalling exercise. It is the same sort of tactic that the green movement has used time and again to prevent legitimate activities from taking place. They say they want more research and more surety, when all along they believe, "Even if we could get a 100 per cent guarantee, we are still going to oppose it tooth and nail." That is not science; that is a cult.
Farmers across New South Wales should be very aware of what is at stake. Farmers know better than anyone the truth in the old adage, if you lay down with dogs you are likely to get fleas. Coal seam gas is undeniably a nuisance, but the green movement represents an existential threat to commercial farming in Australia. Who can forget the time Greenpeace activists broke into the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [CSIRO] building and proceeded to kill the genetically modified [GM] crops that were being tested in complete safety? Who can forget The Greens opposition to herbicides, pesticides and chemical fertilisers or their vigorous support for the retention and extension of native vegetation laws, the prioritising of environmental flows over water for farming and the expansion of national parks to between 19 per cent and 27 per cent of the land area of this State?
Some CSG companies are arrogant and stupid, Arrow being the perfect example. But some, like Santos and AGL, are exemplary. The simple fact of the matter is that while CSG might be an inconvenience to farmers, the farmers' unholy alliance with the green movement—the extreme environmental movement—in this State represents an existential threat to farming in Australia at anything above purely subsistence levels. This bill is a political scam. The Australian Labor Party should remember what the "M" in the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU] stands for. Once upon a time the Labor Party was the party of workers. Now it appears to be the party of non-workers. I will not go into what Kim Beazley senior said about the Labor Party, but I am sure Labor members opposite are perfectly aware of that.
New South Wales has a gas plan. In New South Wales we have the toughest environmental standards in relation to the CSG industry of any State in Australia. The belief that we do not is simply not borne out by circumstances. The Government commissioned the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer to look at this industry as a whole. She has produced reports and the Government is acting on recommendations from those reports. This is arguably the best regulated CSG industry not only in Australia but in the world. The level of regulation is so great that the CSG industry is not very supportive of it.
The Government has found the Goldilocks level: the environmental movement thinks it is too loose; the industry thinks it is too tight. This is sensible development across New South Wales, and it should be continued. Thanks to this Government we have reached a happy compromise between environmental concerns and the need to provide this State with a reliable source of natural gas into the future. Let us remember this one point: New South Wales at the current time produces only 5 per cent of its own domestic requirement. If we implement a sensible plan for the future, we can produce 50 per cent of our domestic requirement in New South Wales. The gas plan which has been introduced by this Government represents an historic breakthrough in terms of environmental protection and industry development. It should be supported and this bill should be seen for the political stunt that it is.
MEL Price at posting:
7.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)