Posts

Transcript

[SEN. ROBERTS] Let’s clear up some recent confusion about One Nation’s position on Acland mine continuing to operate and to reinstate three hundred vital local jobs and 2300 indirect regional jobs. We’ve criticised how a third party representative of Acland approached One Nation in the past.

Pauline reminded everyone of this recently and now that Acland has been willing to give us facts and data and the courts have fixed an injustice I’m pleased to support the mine. Affordable energy and export income is good for our country and Acland will be good for the local area.

I support the decision of the Court of Appeal and the four judges. I support Acland’s Stage 3. Let’s have a look at the timeline of the extension of the operating mine. The Bligh govt gazetted the Stage 3 extension in 2007, thirteen years ago. There was some local opposition.

The project then went to the Land Court where the adjudicator, whose official title is Member, rejected the mine’s application in 2016. One Nation accepted that decision. It then went on appeal to the Supreme Court, where Acland was successful. After that it went to on to the Court of Appeal which included the highly respected Justice Sofronoff and two other judges. Acland won that.

The Court of Appeal, our highest court in Queensland, ruled that the decision by the Land Court Member was affected by “apprehended bias” and was unsound. That means one Land Court Member showing apprehended bias ruled against the mine and hundreds of jobs AND four Supreme court Judges overruled him.

The courts have corrected an injustice within their own system.

[INTERVIEWER] What about the current appeal?

[SEN. ROBERTS] This decision is now on appeal to the High Court thanks to the Labor government continuing to give taxpayer money to The Environmental Defenders Office to interrupt development and jobs.

The Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development issued three advices in relation to Acland’s impact on groundwater over 2014, 2015 and 2016. The 2014 and 2015 reports criticised Acland. It’s 2016 report was positive and said that all matters raised had been addressed.

This report won Acland Federal environmental approval.We want to encourage businesses who are told they have a problem and fix it. This is what Acland did and got sign off from an independent, statutory scientific body that the courts said had access to the same information as any objector.

[INTERVIEWER] What about the evidence given in the Land Court?

[SEN. ROBERTS] Several witnesses on both sides gave evidence that had the appearance of being first-hand but was later shown to be based on hearsay. The Land Court Member in the first decision made no criticism of the objectors who gave such evidence yet was highly critical of one of Acland’s witnesses who did exactly the same [1].

The Land Court Member said that Acland had deliberately distorted the facts and eroded the confidence of the court. The Court of Appeal found that there was no basis to impute this [2]. The Court of Appeal found that at a certain point the Land Court Member was, quote: “animated by an extreme and irrational animus against Acland” [3].

Essentially, he the Member, had taken a negative attitude towards Acland. The court of appeal said at times the Member was combative, argumentative and sarcastic to Acland [4]. In the Supreme Court, it was found that there was no evidence to support the claim that Acland had engaged in pressure tactics [5].

The Court of Appeal found there was no basis for the Land Court Member’s conclusion that Acland had sought to portray objectors as bigoted individuals who were only interested in spreading misinformation [6]. The Land Court Member himself concluded that some of the objectors were ready to make assertions without evidence, make submissions that were scandalous and unsupported by any evidence and as to one witness, having an anti-Acland fixation that overflowed into her evidence [6].

The Court of Appeal found that the Land Court Member’s imputation that Acland had tried to hide relevant information in relation to groundwater impacts was “irrational” [7]. While the original Land Court Member’s decision rejected Acland, it’s obvious that was not sound.

[INTERVIEWER] There was a comment that Acland tried to influence a One Nation candidate?

[SEN. ROBERTS] There was an accusation, since retracted, that our local, grassroots candidate had been wined and dined by the mine. None of these are true. I want to acknowledge Alan Jones’ strength of character in correcting and apologising for the assertion about that candidate. I thank him for that.

[INTERVIEWER] What has led to your support for Acland?

[SEN. ROBERTS] I visited Acland 3 weeks ago and worked through my extensive checklist of things I think needed to be considered.

These include: Safety & health; Water underground; water overland; water usage & supply; land use rights; constitution; aboriginal land (none at Acland); rural land quality & use; farm produce type; environment – air quality, vibrations, reclamation, noise, past performance; town services & rates; jobs and local/regional economy; infrastructure impacts; social impact; bank support; owner’s flexibility and consideration of others’ needs; government fiscal responsibility/debt;

Acland meets all of them. In fact, Acland has extensively changed its mining plan at high cost to itself to meet locals’ needs. I listened to a small group of opponents to Acland.I listened to the local community, business owners and farmers who strongly support this project.

Coal is good for this country and Acland will be good for the local area. I support the decision of the Court of Appeal and the four judges. I support Acland.Let’s get government green tape, red tape and blue tape out of the way, and get shovels in the ground and dump trucks on the road.

In a state with $100 billion of debt thanks to the Liberal-Labor duopoly we need export income and affordable domestic energy for our economic recovery and to secure our state’s future.

References

  1. Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inc v New Acland Coal Pty Ltd & Ors [2019] QCA 184, [82].
  2. Ibid [70].
  3. Ibid [73].
  4. Ibid [74].
  5. Ibid [81].
  6. Ibid [85].
  7. Ibid [90].

In 2011 the Gillard Government banned live cattle exports costing farming hundreds of millions of dollars.

Recently the Federal Court ruled that the ban was invalid and the government should pay compensation to farmers.

Today the Liberal and Nationals tried to introduce a motion claiming that they support the live cattle industry.

Well, I decided to see how firm their commitment was to farmers by introducing an amendment to their motion.

Take a listen and see what happened ……..

Transcript

Hi, I’m in Parliament House, Canberra. And I just wanted to bring you up to date with something that’s happened today. It goes back to the Gillard government’s capricious ban on live cattle exporting that hurt, devastated cattle industry right around the country.

Back, well, almost 10 years ago, 2011, I think it was. Anyway, it was recently ruled by the federal court to have been invalid. And compensation is to be paid to farmers around the country. Which is wonderful news.

So, the Nationals, led by Senator Canavan, it seems, decided to put a motion in the parliament, into the Senate today. And the motion said, “That the Senate “notes the federal government’s commitment and support “for the live animal export trade.”

So, we thought, okay, before that motion gets up, we’ll add an amendment. And our amendment says, “And calls on the government “to rule out appealing the federal courts decision “that Labor’s 2011 suspension of live cattle exports “was invalid.”

In other words, we want to make sure that the government does not appeal it. And so, as soon as I stood to move that amendment, it was denied. I was denied the formality of moving that. And Senator Cormann did that. he’s the leader of the government in the Senate.

He did that. And he said, the reason was because this amendment had only arrived with him and other senators in just minutes before. Well, the reality, the truth is that it was in the Senate chambers on every desk an hour and a quarter before. An hour and a quarter.

Plenty of time to consider it. So, what I noticed was, as soon as I sat down, Senator Canavan jumped to his feet, and said that he wanted to make a short statement. And that short statement said that he was talking with the government about not appealing.

So what we’ve done is we’ve forced them to recognise that they should not appeal. But we’ve had Senator Cormann contradict the truth. And we’ve had Senator Canavan apparently reacting to this. So that’s yet another way we get things done in parliament, even when they tell us to shut up.

I spoke in favour of the creation of the Office Of An Inspector-General of live cattle exports.

The purpose is to provide certainty that the welfare of the animals is being respected while at the same time ensuring the commercial viability of the cattle export trade.

Animal welfare is crucial to farmers because farmers care for their animals.

That’s why farmers have poured tens of millions of dollars into educating people who handle their cattle overseas. I was following, in the speaking
order, a vet who said that core to the farming business in cattle and sheep is weight and that farm animals lose weight under stress. It is in the farmer’s financial interest and their own moral and ethical interests to look after animals.

That’s why farmers care for animals.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland in Australia, I want to speak in favour of this bill. Yet while I speak in favour of this bill, I want to explain two core contradictions that this bill highlights. First though, Madam Acting Deputy President, an overview. This bill provides for the creation of an Office of the Inspector General of Live Cattle Exports. The purpose is to provide certainty that the welfare of the animals is being respected, while at the same time ensuring the commercial viability of the export cattle trade.

Firstly though, animal welfare is crucial to farmers because farmers care for their animals. That’s why farmers have poured tens of millions of dollars into educating people who handle their cattle overseas. I’m following in the speaking order, a vet who’s just said that the core to the farming business in cattle and sheep is weighed and farm animals under stress lose weight. It is in the farmers’ financial interests and their own moral and ethical interests to look after animals. That’s why farmers care for animals. That’s why farmers have poured tens of millions of dollars into educating foreigners on how to handle cattle, Australian cattle overseas.

I can think of people like Bryce Camm that I’ve met in Central Queensland and in Darling Downs – bright, experienced, knowledgeable, committed. He points out things like export competitors, sophistication of farming these days. This is not just a simple matter of putting a few cattle on a boat, it is a very scientific business. Thinking of Linda Hewitt in Central Queensland – energetic, savvy, dedicated, and knowledgeable again, and similarly concerned about government interaction or interference in the business.

So Madam Acting Deputy President this bill is importantly not just about farm products, farm animals, it is about confidence in the cattle industry. Because with confidence graziers invest. With confidence graziers employ. With confidence graziers earn export earnings right across our country and that benefit comes through in the wealth of our nation Madam Acting Deputy President.

Some background facts. The live cattle trade generates $1.2 billion in export earnings, with $620 million being returned to the local economy. This employment is critical to local economies from TI in the north to Thargomindah in the south-west, from Cooktown in the north to Cunnamulla in the south-west. This employment is critical to local economies and in particular the Northern Territory and the northern parts of Western Australia and Queensland. Yet it’s important right across the country, not just in the Territory as Senator McMahon has just talked about her own state, but right across the country because the flow-on effects, as I’ll discuss in a minute.

But in the Kimberley for example, 700 local Aboriginals are provided with jobs by live cattle exports. Even the ABC noted that this job is “All these blokes know.” The live cattle export allows Australia to breed tropical, heat-resistant breeds of cattle in Northern Australia to be exported to Asia where they are generally grown-on locally. A lot of countries to which are live cattle and sheep are exported do not have refrigeration and people need to buy their food daily. And that means we’re looking after a need of theirs in their country. So this means the live cattle trade helps our economy, but it also helps economies right across Asia and the Middle East. It helps them with employment and also with domestic herd quality. It helps these countries overseas to help themselves.

Madam Acting deputy President, the graziers and employees like these Aboriginal stockmen loved these cattle. They respect these cattle because their income comes from the cattle and because they are living creatures as well. The demonization of the live cattle trade is an insult to good and decent and caring people. There is another perspective here that I want to add. As chair of the Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers, I learned firsthand of the damage the banks and receivers do to so many cattle and so many rural producers. Yet I learned of more. I learned of government tipping farmers over the edge due to government interference in the Murray-Darling Basin, stealing a farmer’s property rights, the live cattle export ban, that flowed right across our country. It didn’t just affect the north. It affected the old cattle producers right around the country.

Prime Minister Gillard’s knee-jerk reaction, her capricious reaction in cancelling the live cattle trade after footage of foreign workers abusing our livestock emerged, caused terrible losses in the industry. These are now the subject of a $600 million class action lawsuit. Gillard’s reaction, Prime Minister Gillard’s reaction was to the ABC’s fabrications and sensationalism. It’s a pity that our farmers aren’t media savvy, because they would have been countering this a long time ago.

Yet farmers around this country are waking up. One thing that farmers won’t do though, unlike the Greens and the activists, the farmers will never tell lies. They’re using facts. And I want to commend their dedicated families, the communities that were cleaned out by the banks as a result of government facades. And now we’re entering even more dangerous territory because when a drought hits, it is often necessary to export cattle in this manner to save them from being put down. That option must available to farmers. This is, live cattle export is actually an animal welfare benefit. So One Nation are committed to ensuring live cattle and sheep and all animals are treated with the same respect overseas as they are treated in Australia and that’s why we support this bill. Farmers livelihoods, as I’ve said, requires care of animals. Yet the Green ideology says the reverse. I’ll discuss that further later this afternoon.

I got further now though because we are committed to ensuring not only farm animals but farmers and all Australians are treated with respect. So let’s consider the Liberal-Labour legacy that’s devastating agriculture. Here are just some of the things that I can list. The stealing of farmers’ property rights in 1996 under a Liberal government done with a deal with the Borbidge National Party government in Queensland. The Liberal federal government and the Borbidge state government. That was done as a result of the UN Kyoto Protocol. It was based on no data that the UN produced and it was based upon later implementation through the Labour party in the state of Queensland, a Liberal-Labour duopoly.

The lack of investment in water infrastructure is crippling our industry. We can see that now everywhere. A prominent Liberal, who I won’t mention, for whom I have some respect, was asked by a friend of mine just last week, “Why didn’t the Liberals invest in building dams 10 years ago?” And the answer was staggering. “Because we didn’t need them 10 years ago’,” was the answer. What rubbish. We need investment now to protect the future. Talking with a farmer in southern Queensland, who was talking in turn with a Chinese buyer in Japan, that’s how the international connections work. He was being told by the Chinaman that the problem with the Australian agricultural product is a lack of consistency. Not quality because our quality is better than anywhere else in the world. It’s the consistency of delivery, and this drought now stands as a beacon for that. So we need investment in water infrastructure, we need proper allocation of water.

Then we think about and some of the allocation has been affected by the UN’s Rio de Janeiro Declaration, which was based not on data, which has been implemented by the Labour government, followed by Liberal governments, and that was 1992 onwards.

Then we have energy policies, we have a drought and as I’ve said many times we have farmers in central and southern Queensland and north Queensland not planting fodder in a drought because they can’t afford the water prices. We’ve got cane farmers similarly worried about their energy prices affecting their farming, and the energy that’s crippling our country, the energy prices that are crippling our country are due to the UN’s Kyoto Protocol, the UN’s Rio de Janeiro Declaration, and the UN’s Paris Agreement – all based on no data, all due to the UN, and all implemented by both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party.

And now we have an insane government action in Queensland where the state Labour government is putting in severe penalties and restrictions based, again not on data, but on UN Protocols and on a consensus statement. Not science, a consensus statement. We’ll have get a cup of tea or a few beers and come up with a consensus statement.

Then we talk about the fishing that’s being decimated. Fishing industry decimated right around our country following UN Kyoto Protocol, following Rio de Janeiro Declaration in 1992 from the UN again.

Forestry, the same, no data to back it up, but now the Queensland Labour government wants to smash the forestry industry in south-east Queensland.

And then they’re just the specifics that are hurting agriculture in my state. And then we look at tax, we look at economic mismanagement, budget cycles now becoming ways of getting favours. And as a result, we see rural and regional Queensland being smashed. It’s not foreigners doing this, it is decades of the Liberal-Labour duopoly government.

Madam Acting Deputy President, we need real action, management and vision for the farmers of Australia. As I said, from TI to Thargomindah, from Cooktown to Cunnamulla, rural areas need the support of these restrictions, these artificial government imposed restrictions removed. Thank you, Madame Acting Deputy President.

The Federal Government’s COVID-19 stimulus packages must address how Australia can be more self-reliant in food production, and calls for a guarantee of water for farmers to plant essential crops this month.

Senator Roberts said, “COVID-19 has changed our world forever as nations like Vietnam ban exporting their home-grown rice to us, and now more than ever, we need government to prioritise food production in Australia because our basic food security is threatened.”

“Nations are now prudently keeping their own food for themselves while stupid government policies mean we are dependent on the importation of food staples that we can grow here in Australia.”

While recent rains across the Murray Darling Basin have been welcomed, farmers need the certainty of a water allocation during the season to have the confidence to plant crops.

“When harvested, not only would this winter crop create a regional monetary stimulus but would also protect us from new food shortages caused by countries’ COVID-19 export restrictions,” stated Senator Roberts.

Absurdly, Australia already relies on importing cereals like wheat and rice and now COVID-19 trade restrictions means even durum wheat used for pasta has become impossible to source.

“It is in Australia’s national interest to prioritise water to farmers to improve our farming productive capacity, that has been damaged by successive Liberal and Labor governments who have given our competitive advantage away to overseas,” added Senator Roberts.

Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian farmers have received zero general security water allocations for irrigation in the last 3 years. The Murray Darling Basin Authority has chosen instead to water forests unnecessarily and send irrigation water out to sea in South Australia.

“I call on our Governments to guarantee the release of 1000gl of water for irrigation, to give our farmers confidence to plant a full winter cereal crop.” “The COVID-19 crisis has given yet another reason to reset the Murray Darling Basin plan, with a focus on sensible environmental practices and on growing and protecting the productive capacity of regional Australia,” declared Senator Roberts.

200404-COVID-19-Stimulus-Package-must-include-water-for-farmers