Showing posts with label NSW government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NSW government. Show all posts

Thursday 26 January 2017

Administrative Appeals Tribunal asked to rule on Humane Society International FOI request


Humane Society International v Department of the Environment and Energy

Our client, Humane Society International (HSI), is seeking access to documents held by the Australian Department of the Environment and Energy on the adequacy of NSW’s biodiversity offsets policy for major projects ('the Policy').
HSI argues that the public has a right to know why the Australian Government believes, despite evidence to the contrary, that the NSW Policy meets national standards. On behalf of HSI, we are asking the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to find that it is in the public interest to release the documents under Freedom of Information laws. 
Background
Biodiversity offsets have become standard practice in the approval and assessment of major developments in Australia, even though there is little evidence that offset schemes achieve their intended purpose of protecting threatened species from extinction.
Biodiversity offsets allow developers such as mining companies to buy/manage land, or pay money into a fund, to compensate for the clearing of forests and areas containing threatened plants and animals.
Community groups such as HSI are concerned that the method for calculating biodiversity offsets in NSW, contained in the NSW Policy, does not properly protect the environment – including the plants and animals on the national list of threatened species and ecological communities.
The Australian Government, which is responsible for the national list of threatened species – and has international obligations to protect and conserve biodiversity in Australia – has stated that the NSW Policy meets national standards of environmental protection. However, analysis by EDOs of Australia shows clearly that the NSW policy provides weaker environmental protection than required under national environment policies.
With the Australian Government delegating more and more development approval powers to the states and territories under its ‘one stop shop’ policy, community groups fear that there will be fewer protections for our nationally threatened species and ecological communities.
HSI is therefore seeking access to documents detailing the Australian Government’s analysis of the NSW Policy. Access to this information is vital for the public to have confidence that important environmental protections are not being eroded.
Links


To stay in touch with news on this case and our other cases, sign up to our weekly eBulletin.


Help defend the environment
With your support, we can continue to help community groups like 4nature defend the environment. Please 
make a donation today.

Tuesday 24 January 2017

Evans Head Residents for Sustainable Development warn that NSW North Coast in for a "right rogering" as Baird's proposed changes to NSW coastal planning legislation come into effect


Echo NetDaily, 19 January 2017:
The NSW coast is in for a ‘right rogering’ should the state government have its way and implement new coastal plans and policies, according to Dr Richard Gates from the Evans Head Residents for Sustainable Development group.
Dr  Gates said the new planning instruments would suit big developers and give lots of discretionary legislative ‘wiggle room’ for local and state governments to do as they please with the coast.
‘If this stuff goes through you can expect a bulldozer in your backyard anytime soon and high density development,’ he said.
‘We are on our way to a new Gold Coast. I have already seen plans for major developments which are being held back until the new legislation goes through.’
Consultation on the draft Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) and draft maps of the coastal management areas that make up the coastal zone closes on 20 January 2017 (for more detail see: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/CoastalReform ).
The community has an opportunity to have its say at: coastal@planning.nsw.gov.au
The new Coastal Management Act 2016, which is contingent on the mapping and other coastal planning instruments, was passed by Parliament on 31 May 2016 and will become operational following consultation on the draft Coastal Management SEPP government sources claim.
The new suite of instruments tears up former  NSW Coastal Policy and replaces three State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) with one.
Dr Gates said the problem was that the environmental maps on which the new instruments were based were not complete, do not exist, or are based on material that was defective when it was used back in the 1980s.

Wednesday 18 January 2017

Lessons That The NSW Government Never Learns: these marine deaths were entirely predictable and avoidable


Green Sea Turtle

ABC News
, 17 January 2017:

The latest report on the New South Wales shark netting program revealed 133 target sharks [27 found dead] were caught along with 615 non-target marine animals off beaches between Wollongong and Newcastle.
Almost half of the animals caught perished in the netting.
The report revealed 90 threatened or protected species were caught in the nets during the 2015-16 season.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 January 2017:

The Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program Annual Performance Report, covering 51 beaches off Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong, says there were 748 "marine life interactions" with the nets during the period.
This is significantly higher than the 189 recorded during the 2014-15 season.

Echo NetDaily, 17 January 2017:

A Bottlenose Dolphin and a Green Sea Turtle were among 12 animals killed by newly installed shark nets along the north coast in the first month of their operation.
Of the 43 animals caught in the nets, just one white shark and a bull shark were caught, with the bull shark among 12 animals that died.
The net at Lennox Head killed a Australian Cownose Ray, a Longtail Tuna, two Hammerhead Sharks and a Bottlenose Dolphin.
No deaths were recorded at Sharpes and Shelley beaches in Ballina, although Lighthouse Beach accounted for two dead Hammerhead sharks, an Australian Cownose Ray and a Bull Shark.
At Evans Head the net killed two Australian Cownose Rays and a Green Turtle.
The North Coast Shark Net Trial report covers the period 8 December 2016 to 7 January 2017

NSW Dept. of Primary Industries, NSW North Coast Shark Meshing Trial Report: 8 Dec2016 – 7 Jan 2017

Sunday 20 November 2016

This is just not good enough, Premier Baird!


This lack of prior consultation with indigenous Native Title holders or registered claimants happens too often at state and local government level in NSW to be considered instances of accidental oversight.

It certainly does not show the NSW Government in a good light when it ignores both federal and state legislation and/or regulations requiring such consultation.

Click on image to enlarge

Friday 18 November 2016

Even before that environmental vandal NSW Premier Mike Baird further weakens state environmental law large scale land clearing is increasing


ABC News, 14 November 2016:
In a country with one of the highest land clearing rates in the world, laws making it easier for farmers to clear native vegetation from their properties are expected to be passed in New South Wales within days.
Earlier this month, a leading scientist advising the Baird Government on the proposed changes quit in protest.
Professor Hugh Possingham warned that rather than protecting biodiversity, the laws would allow a doubling of broad-scale clearing that would put some native animals at risk of extinction.
The current laws are supposed to prevent that kind of clearing without permits.
But a Lateline investigation shows the State Government's environmental watchdog has dropped investigations into illegal clearing, after direct political intervention…..
The shocking 2014 murder of environment officer Glen Turner by farmer Ian Turnbull highlighted the ongoing battle being waged in the bush, where huge economic pressure for higher returns clashes with the need to conserve native vegetation.
Australia now has the 5th highest rate of land clearing in the world.
In 2015, a study by NSW Parks and Wildlife found that 60,000 hectares was being cleared per year in the state — a four-fold increase on previous State Government figures……
For two years until end of 2015, the Priestleys collected evidence of alleged illegal clearing and sent it to the State Government watchdog, the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).
Last year, without explanation, the OEH halted its investigation.
"I'm completely devastated," Claire Priestley said.
"I've grown up on that land, I've been out there my whole life. It's devastating to see that a large conglomerate can come into this community, it seems like they have a special privilege to just clear what they want."
Mr Priestley has photographed what he claims is the aftermath of broadscale land clearing, including images of several bulldozers and piles of smouldering native vegetation.
"You can virtually clear the size of the moon and get away with it but you can be in trouble for trespass by taking photos."
Approvals for native clearing are required to be on a public register.
The NSW Environmental Defenders Office recently searched for any approvals given to the Harris business to clear land on its properties west of Walgett.
"We have searched those registers. They're complex registers. You navigate through them by GPS coordinates," EDO chief solicitor Sue Higginson told Lateline.
"With the resources we've had available to us we have searched those registers and we have not turned up any approval for the native vegetation clearing that the Priestleys have witnessed on the Harris properties."
Lateline can also reveal that the Office of Environment and Heritage dropped an investigation into alleged illegal clearing by 12 farmers in the nearby Wee Waa area due to what it believed was the risk of a "catastrophic consequence" if environment officers entered farmers' properties.
The decision to suspend the Wee Waa investigation was the result of an email sent in May 2015 by Nationals state MP Kevin Humphries, urging the investigation be dropped because it was "too explosive" and "not warranted".
Mr Humphries, the Member for Barwon, warned that farmers were looking to blockade any attempt for an on-site visit by OEH and if the visits went ahead it would be "the start of something that will escalate very quickly between farmers from around the state and the authorities".
Despite Mr Humphries' email, there is no evidence that the farmers were planning to blockade OEH inspectors.
Mr Humphries denies the email perverted the course of justice…..
Former station manager Bill Keene has accused the OEH of being unwilling to stop big players in Australia's agricultural industry.
"No doubt they're monitoring it, they're just not doing anything. They're all noise," he said.
For 28 years Mr Keene managed Brewon station, now owned by P & J Harris & Sons.
He was invited by the OEH to be a witness in an investigation of the Harris company's alleged illegal clearing before the Priestleys complained to the agency.
Mr Keene claims he provided information of illegal clearing on Brewon station to the OEH based on satellite imagery of the property.
He left the area a decade ago but he has reviewed recent aerial footage of the Brewon station obtained by Lateline which he compared to a 2013 Google map.
"I've seen from one end to the other and I know the country inside out. All this country to the west has all been cleared and sown under wheat.
"There's been a massive expansion of clearing and to the best of my knowledge it's been done without permission."
"It's all wheat now. That country's fragile out there and I don't see why people should blatantly illegally clear things like the TSRs [trade stock routes].
"They're there for a reason, they're Crown land. They don't own them so why can they try and squeeze an extra few bags of wheat or whatever?"
Tony Graham, the manager who succeeded Bill Keene on Brewon, said the previous station owners would have loved the opportunity to farm more country.
"We did contact the relevant authorities to try and get that done but no permits were ever issued and under no circumstances was I aware we'd be able to do that.
"That's the reason why the Native Vegetation Act was put in place, just for the protection of that native vegetation."
When the Harris business bought the property in 2010, Mr Graham was told his service was no longer required.
A year later, the Office of Environment and Heritage asked him if he too would be a witness against the business.
"I was given some aerial maps, satellite imagery pre-2010 and post-2010.
"I was asked which country we had set aside for farming and for grazing and it was pretty obvious from those aerial images that it was chalk and cheese as to what had occurred to the country post my time as manager of Brewon.
"Just on those aerials in excess of 5 to 8,000 acres that we certainly didn't have anything to do with, country that I believe had been cleared."
After two years of consultations, Bill Keene and Tony Graham were told the Harris investigation would not go to prosecution.
Tony Graham: "I was very upset. I was very angry given the time myself and another of the previous managers put into it."
The Harris Business repeatedly declined interview requests, referring Lateline to its lawyers.
It denies all allegations of illegal land clearing.
It dismisses Chris and Claire Priestley as bitter losers, accuses the family of waging a vicious hate campaign, and highlights the fact the siblings' mother apologised for earlier defamatory statements, which she also retracted.

Tuesday 16 August 2016

In today's political climate is there hope that the free-for-all that is NSW water rights will be curbed?


The Daily Examiner, 8 August 2016, p.16:

VOICES FOR THE EARTH

The water division of the NSW Department of Primary Industry (DPI) is currently undertaking a review of rural landowners' harvestable water rights - the percentage of their property's water run-off they are allowed to take.

Currently landowners bordering permanent water courses are entitled to pump sufficient water for domestic use and livestock without a licence. However, should they wish to take additional water for irrigation or any other reason, a licence is required.

Rural landowners are also entitled to harvestable rights (HR) which, in NSW coastal areas, is 10% of run-off from their properties, an amount determined through complex calculations based on average rainfall. They are also allowed, without formal approval, to construct a dam, or dams, big enough to store that entitlement on smaller upper catchment gullies, known as first and second order streams.

With the increase in the development of intensive horticulture in the region, comes the need for guaranteed water supplies, which invariably includes the construction of large dams, which are then used to irrigate the orchards. However, those dams are continually collecting run-off well in excess of the 10% allowance.

However, when questioned about this seeming anomaly, DPI Water explains: "The harvestable rights relate to dam capacity not to actual usage so there is potential to capture and use more water than the actual dam capacity in an irrigation year."

It gets worse. The laws also allow landowners to build, again without the need for approvals, any number of 'off-stream' storages, i.e. dams that do not collect run-off, into which water can be pumped from the HR dam.

Irrigators have jumped at the opportunity presented by the review, and are lobbying for increased allowances and relaxation of current laws to allow HR dams to be built on the larger, often permanent flowing, third order streams.

Clearly a review is long overdue, and there needs to be strict regulation of the distribution of this precious commodity, which must include compliance monitoring that ensures fairness for all users, particularly the environment.

John Edwards
Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition

Sunday 14 August 2016

Once again the NSW Baird Government fails to protect local communities and the public interest


Newcastle Herald Sun, 9 August 2016:

A KOREAN mining company prosecuted for using false photographs to support a Bylong Valley mine application has “got away with lying” after the NSW Government dropped a prosecution under the Mining Act, Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham said.

Mr Buckingham condemned the government for allowing resources giant KEPCO and consultant Worley Parsons to agree to an “enforceable undertaking”, rather than face prosecution and a possible $110,000 fine.

The companies were charged after Bylong man Craig Shaw said photos of his property provided by KEPCO to support drilling sites showed flat paddocks rather than the actual rocky, steep terrain.

“Minister (Anthony) Roberts has essentially let this company get away with a lie and undermined the Mining Act,” Mr Buckingham said.
“This sets a terrible precedent for compliance and enforcement of the Mining Act and has undermined any deterrence effect. The government had already approved this drilling project and it was only diligent landholders who picked up the deception in the application.
“At a time where the Baird government is ramping up penalties against people protesting mining, they are letting mining companies off the hook for outright deception. Minister Roberts needs to explain this double standard.”

Mr Shaw said he was extremely disappointed with the decision that allowed the department to avoid a prosecution. He was also disappointed with how the matter was handled after he raised the complaint, saying he was not formally advised of the decision to accept an enforceable undertaking, despite assisting the department with its investigation.

“These companies have been let off the hook. They have deliberately broken the law, but they will not be punished. KEPCO are free to continue with their plans to turn the spectacular and unique Bylong Valley into a mining complex,” Mr Shaw said.

Lock the Gate Hunter coordinator Steve Phillips said the decision was “a shameful abdication of duty by the NSW Government, but why would KEPCO feel the need to tell the truth when there is no punishment for lying?”

Friday 17 June 2016

Mike Seccombe on NSW Premier "Teflon Mike" Baird


Journalist Mike Seccombe writing in The Saturday Paper on 11 June 2016:

People tagged him “Teflon”, because nothing stuck to Mike Baird.

Called to leadership in inauspicious circumstances two years ago, he was clean, shiny and charismatic. And also bold. He determined to privatise the state’s electricity distribution system. Many other governments had foundered on the issue, but Baird took it to last year’s election and still won a thumping majority.

He was one of those rare politicians who transcended his party. He became not just a state premier but also a national political role model to many. When the federal Coalition government was going badly under Tony Abbott’s leadership, Mike Baird was most often cited as the alternative ideal.

And no wonder. For almost two years he was by far the most popular political leader in the nation.

But no more. According to the most recent Morgan poll of national leaders, Baird has been bested for the first time since he became premier of New South Wales…..

Baird is not under imminent threat, but he is “Teflon Mike” no more.

These days he is more commonly described as “Casino Mike”, a reference to his government’s endlessly obliging approach to James Packer’s plan for the giant development at Barangaroo. Since it was originally, controversially approved under former premier Barry O’Farrell, the development has grown 100 metres in height and its floor space has more than doubled in size.

It has not escaped the critics’ attention that the Packer family are among the biggest donors to Baird’s party. Nor that the state’s controversial lockout laws, intended to stop late-night, alcohol-fuelled assaults, do not apply to the very violent precinct around the city’s existing casino, The Star, and also excise Barangaroo.

But there is a lot more to his decline than that, as was evidenced a couple of weeks ago when thousands of protesters descended on central Sydney. They came with a smorgasbord of issues, ranging from the local – the route of contentious WestConnex motorway, the axing of scores of ancient fig trees to facilitate construction of a light rail project – to the general – the sacking of 42 local councils across the state, draconian police powers and anti-protest laws, cuts to school and TAFE funding and the government’s extensive privatisation agenda.

Quite suddenly, an awful lot of things are sticking to Baird. The punters are increasingly questioning his motives and the insiders are questioning his political judgement.

In February, when the federal government was floundering about seeking a tax reform agenda, there was no stronger advocate of an increased GST than Baird.

“I am convinced our political leaders and our community are ready to take the right, hard decisions for our future,” he said…..

It’s not just that Andrews read the wind better. It’s that the GST business served to underline something about Baird that people were already starting to realise: this “moderate” Liberal is actually very hardline on matters economic. The former investment banker is a deep neoliberal.

The government’s record of privatisation tells the story, says the Greens’ David Shoebridge.

“He’s sold the big ticket items: electricity generation, electricity transmission, ports. And now they’re looking around for things people would have thought immune.”

It is quite a list. Care services to 50,000 elderly and disabled residents living in their homes have been privatised. Three hundred inner-city housing commission properties have been sold for some $500 million, to fund the building of new accommodation miles away in the outer suburbs of the Illawarra and Blue Mountains.

And, most recently, the state’s land titles service has been privatised.

“The land titles system delivers about $60 million to the state each year. It’s a profit centre for government, but it seems any profit centre, any service they can identify they are ideologically committed to selling,” Shoebridge says.

“It puts a corruption risk at the heart of land titles in NSW.”

Of course, such criticism is unsurprising from a political opponent, particularly from the Greens. But it is echoed by the Law Society of NSW.

The sale should not proceed, said society president Gary Ulman, out of concern about “adequate protection of sensitive data, the continued implementation of best practice anti-fraud measures”.

The Baird government’s determination to guard the interests of the private sector is nowhere more obvious than in its approach to those who protest against coal and coal seam gas developments.

Legislation passed in March increased tenfold the fines faced by protesters to $5500 and provided for jail for up to seven years for “unlawful aggravated entry” to mine sites. The new laws also gave police new search and seizure powers and allowed them greater latitude under “move on powers” to break up demonstrations.

“This changed laws in place since 1901,” the chief executive and principal solicitor with the state’s Environmental Defenders Office, Sue Higginson, says.

“They have turned them into laws that privilege a particular component of society, the business community.”

The new anti-protest laws, in force from this week, are but one aspect of the progressive erosion of civil liberties under this government, Shoebridge says. 

“They have criminalised protest. So many police powers have been extended, so much court oversight has been removed that we have the machinery in place for a police state… A police officer can prohibit you from going to a club, to your church or mosque, your political meeting.”

Shoebridge’s critique might sound extreme were it not for the fact that the legal community – the Law Society and Bar Association – concur.

In a statement in April, the president of the NSW Bar Association, Noel Hutley, described the serious crime prevention orders legislation as “an unprecedented attack on individual freedoms and the rule of law”. 

“The bill creates broad new powers which can be used to interfere in the liberty and privacy of persons and to restrict their freedom of movement, expression, communication and assembly,” he said. “The powers are not subject to necessary legal constraints or appropriate and adequate judicial oversight and in many cases basic rules of evidence are circumvented.”
His detailed critique was utterly swingeing. His reflection on the attitude of the government to civil liberties was damning.

This is a government not averse to applying blunt force to opponents. The saga of local council amalgamations provides another example.

Leaving aside the matter of whether amalgamating small councils into bigger ones is desirable – though there has been strong community resistance – it is the way the government went about it that is troubling.

They simply sacked them and installed in their place administrators who will run the councils until September next year. The administrators are in many cases the same people who advised amalgamation or political fellow travellers of the government – former conservative politicians or party apparatchiks…..

The giant accounting firm KPMG was employed as an independent arbiter of the financial benefits of the mergers. Documents have since surfaced suggesting the firm was not independent at all, but was engaged specifically to make the case for amalgamations.

The Land and Environment Court has ordered the government to provide documents about the role KPMG played in implementing the council amalgamation agenda.

Baird faces a long succession of legal actions.

Then there is the environment, where further changes are imminent under legislation due for introduction in the spring session of parliament.

“We’re talking about wholesale changes to an entire suite of environmental laws,” Sue Higginson says. “We’re talking about simply throwing out some of the global leading-edge laws dating back to the Carr government. Our view is that this is a catastrophic step backwards.”

The new laws, she says, open the way for broad-scale land clearing by rural landholders.

Jeff Angel, of the Total Environment Centre, takes up the story: “It allows clearing for almost any purpose, with minimal consent and monitoring. It’s appalling.

“Frankly, the more we look at it, the more it looks like [the laws introduced by the former Campbell Newman government in] Queensland.”……

Read the full article here.


Wednesday 2 March 2016

Think you're paying too much for your domestic gas supply in Australia? You're right!


Who is too blame for the situation set out below?

It is not just the rapacious gas industry we should be  pointing a finger at – it’s also the pro-mining Abbott & Turnbull federal governments and successive state governments which have failed to rein in these environmental and social vandals.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 February 2016:

After all the heartache, trenchant opposition from local communities and a towering $1.8 billion in write-downs, AGL has jettisoned its coal seam gas program. Santos will likely to follow suit and walk away from its controversial Pilliga project.

It makes no sense after all. Like Gloucester, Pilliga gas is high-cost to produce and environmentally high-risk to extract.

Unsurprisingly, the exit of AGL has lent fresh oxygen to the spurious "gas shortage" argument run by the gas lobby. Memo to APPEA, the public relations machine of the oil and gas industry: NSW has always "imported" its gas from interstate. That is why they have things called pipes.

It was scaremongering from this very same lobby, and from AGL, spruiking their "gas supply cliff" thesis two years ago, which helped producers to whisk through 17 per cent retail price rises at the cusp of the biggest crash in global oil and gas prices in decades.

Ironically, AGL's Gloucester project would have provided only a little over 1 per cent of NSW supply anyway. It was all for nothing.

Nonetheless, and notwithstanding the present global gas glut, APPEA chief Malcolm Roberts has been hinting at price rises.

That NSW, he said, could soon be "100 per cent reliant" on other states was "a risky proposition in a tightening energy market".

In fact, the withdrawal of AGL reflects a far more profound issue; that is, the gross destruction of our national wealth which has arisen thanks to the failure of successive governments to stand up to special interest groups such as the gas lobby. We have been nationally hoodwinked, conned, played for fools.

The $1.8 billion which AGL just fracked away, may seem a large figure yet it is nothing compared with the real cost of Australia's myopic energy policy, if you could call it an energy policy at all (it blithely ignores the revolution of renewable energy).

The Gas Cartel has managed to convince the Australian public that when global gas prices are high we should pay global prices and when global prices are low we should pay 60 per cent more than the global price.

Yes you read that correctly. Australian industry is currently paying 60 per cent more than the global price for gas when Australia is the world's second largest exporter of gas and will soon be the largest…..

Australia produces gas as cheaply as anyone in the world from our globally competitive offshore gas fields. Where we are uncompetitive is in the high-cost east coast onshore CSG fields. To try to make the globally uncompetitive CSG industry profitable the gas cartel is keeping domestic prices artificially high by controlling supply.

It is, says analyst Bruce Robertson, "classic cartel behaviour" and "the relevant authorities stand by and allow this illegal activity to continue without lifting a finger".

"Our industry is moving offshore to secure cheaper sources of energy and our domestic consumers are being milked.  If you consume gas in Australia you are paying too much."

Effectively, the Australian domestic gas consumer is subsidising the unprofitable coal seam gas industry….. [my red bolding]

Tuesday 28 April 2015

Coal seam & tight gas miner Metgasco Limited puts a dollar price on walking away from its NSW North Coast exploration leases


Metgasco chief executive Peter Henderson said they would be seeking compensation for the year-long suspension of the drilling licence and all associated losses of the suspension, which could run as high as $15 million.
Mr Henderson said Metgasco would require a further $110m if the company was forced to exit its operations in the state’s north.
[The Australian, 27 April 2015]

One hundred and ten million dollars is a small price to pay to protect an existing NSW North Coast* regional economy which annually contributes an estimated $20.6 billion plus to the Gross State Product (GSP) or 15% of the total NSW GSP.

In 2012-13 the Northern Rivers** (where Metgasco has its exploration leases) contributed $13.6 billion in Gross Regional Product (GRP) to the North Coast regional economy, in large part via its tourism, agribusiness-forestry, manufacturing and commercial fishing sectors.


* Local Government Areas: Ballina, Bellingen, Byron, Clarence Valley, Coffs Harbour, Gloucester, Great Lakes, Greater Taree, Kempsey, Kyogle, Lismore, Nambucca, Port Macquarie-Hastings, Richmond Valley, Tweed.

** Local Government Areas: Ballina, Byron, Clarence Valley, Kyogle, Lismore, Richmond Valley, Tweed.

Monday 27 April 2015

Coal seam and tight gas miner Metgasco Limited sets out on a deliberate collision course with Northern Rivers communities yet again


Coal seam and tight gas miner Metgasco Limited sets out on a deliberate collision course with Northern Rivers communities yet again and, just as before, it intends to drag the NSW Government and police along for the ride.

The Sydney Morning Herald 24 April 2015:

Energy company Metgasco says it will need police to escort gas drilling equipment onto its site on the NSW north coast following a court victory overturning a suspension imposed on it by the state government.
Chief executive Peter Henderson said protesters would return to the site at Bentley once the company seeks to start drilling in about three months' time.
"When we drill now we know there are going to be protesters and we will need police in there to uphold our rights," he said.
"Otherwise NSW will be the state of anarchy."….. [my red bolding]

The Northern Star 24 April 2015:

PROTESTERS will continue to fight Metgasco at Bentley even if the State Government passes legislation banning protests at drilling sites, Ian Gaillard says.
Mr Gaillard, of Gasfield Free Northern Rivers, said locals would not allow Metgasco to start drilling at Bentley and called on the State Government to revoke all gas licences…..

Clarence MP Chris Gulaptis has also expressed his unhappiness with the decision.
"I am extremely disappointed with the decision of the NSW Supreme Court to quash the decision of the NSW Government to suspend Metgasco's drilling licence at Bentley," Mr Gulaptis said.
"I will be urging the Minister to seek every opportunity to appeal this decision because I believe it is wrong."….

Federal Member for Page Kevin Hogan says it would be "foolish" for Metgasco to consider returning to the region, adding the legal avenues over their licence suspension are far from exhausted.
Mr Hogan said he had been in touch with state colleagues who were already in talks with Resources and Energy Minister Anthony Roberts about grounds for an appeal. He said he was "extremely disappointed" by the news.
"We do not want CSG in the Northern Rivers and we need to do everything we can to make sure that is what happens.
"This isn't over, while they may be feel happy with the decision today, I don't think it's over legally and it's certainly not over as far as them coming back into our community to do what they want to do."
Mr Hogan added it would be "quite foolish" for Metgasco to consider returning to Bentley in the near future.
"I think this community has shown very strongly that they do not want coal-seam gas in this region," he said.
"While they have won this court case, there are still legal options for the state government to take, and the first one would be an appeal.
"I think the suspension should remain until that appeal is heard."


 Lismore City Mayor Jenny Dowell on Twitter:


Excerpt from NSW Greens media release 24 April 2015:

Greens Member for Ballina Tamara Smith said, “Despite the court victory, Metgasco should heed the clear message from the community that they want a gas field free Northern Rivers.  Metgasco should pack up and leave. “If Metgasco try to drill again, the community will resist and I will be standing with them.

The Knitting Nannas Against Gas (KNAG) on Facebook, 25 April 2015:

Excerpt from an editorial in The Northern Star, 25 April 2015:

If past history is anything to go by, protesters will likely be setting up camp at Bentley in the very near future.
So are we back to square one on this issue? Or has the government's election results on the Northern Rivers taught them any lessons?
Considering the government trumpeted its buy back of CSG licences during the last election campaign, perhaps they should extend it to the licence that covers Bentley.
Otherwise we are in for more of the same.
Another blockade at Bentley and the government forced to make the difficult decision of sending hundreds of police officers north, at taxpayers' expense, to remove thousands of protesters.
The NSW Supreme Court has delivered a sharp rebuke to the government which is going to cost them a lot of money.
But the circumstances that led them to the suspension still remain.

Comments published in The Northern Star on 25 April 2015:

Lynne Stebbing: There is going to be trouble!
Hugh Nicholson: This decision only relates to the way the government went about suspending Metgasco's license.
It has nothing to do with the reason for the suspension - namely Metgasco's failure to consult with the community. Go away Metgasco.

From Land Water Future tweet on 24 April 2015:


UPDATE

The Northern Star 27 April 2015:

Bentley landowners Meg and Peter Nielsen believe that if energy company Metgasco returns to the region public resistance will be even stronger than it was at last year's blockade.
"It will be on for young and old," Mr Nielsen declared.
"Our resolve will never turn. Metgasco would be absolutely foolish to try it again."
But the couple believes the NSW Government will "see common sense" before it comes to that.

Monday 30 March 2015

Essential Energy, Ausgrid & TasNetwork fined $20,000 each for unexpected loss of electricity supply to customers known to require life support systems


On top of government-owned Essential Energy’s fight with local governments over proposed increases in public lighting costs to councils across New South Wales which could see public lighting bills rise in the Northern Rivers by up to 73 per cent in 2015-16 and, unease over the company’s plans with regard to its Nymboida water licence, comes news that supply interruptions are not being managed well.

Australian Energy Regulator media release, 23 March 2015:

NSW and Tasmanian electricity distributors pay $60,000 in penalties regarding their life support obligations

Three electricity distribution businesses, Essential Energy, Ausgrid, and TasNetworks, have paid penalties of $20,000 each, following the issuing of infringement notices by the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) in relation to incidents in which customers known to require life support equipment unexpectedly lost electricity supply.

“The unexpected loss of supply can have serious, potentially fatal, consequences for customers who require life support equipment, making compliance with life support obligations by energy distribution businesses a priority area for the Australian Energy Regulator,” AER Chair Paula Conboy said.

“The AER will continue to closely monitor compliance with the life support rules and take appropriate enforcement action where businesses fail to comply with these important obligations,” Ms Conboy said.
Essential Energy, Ausgrid, and TasNetworks reported these incidents to the AER pursuant to their reporting obligations under the National Energy Retail Law and National Energy Retail Rules (the Retail Law and Retail Rules).

The payment of a penalty specified in an infringement notice is not an admission of a contravention of the Retail Rules. The AER can issue an infringement notice where it has reason to believe a business has contravened a civil penalty provision of the Retail Law and Rules.

Background

Essential Energy, Ausgrid and TasNetworks are electricity distribution businesses that supply customers in New South Wales (Essential Energy & Ausgrid) and Tasmania (TasNetworks). Under the Retail Law and Rules, life support customers in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania, and South Australia have a range of protections.

The Retail Law and Rules set out key protections and obligations for energy customers and the retail and distribution businesses they buy their energy from. The AER monitors and enforces compliance with the Retail Law and the Rules. The Rules require particular protections for customers registered as requiring any of the following life support equipment:

* an oxygen concentrator;
* an intermittent peritoneal dialysis machine;
* a kidney dialysis machine;
* a chronic positive airways pressure respirator;
* crigler najjar syndrome phototherapy equipment;
* a ventilator for life support;
* in relation to a particular customer - any other equipment that a registered medical practitioner certifies is required for a person residing at the customer’s premises for life support.

Customers who are reliant on life support equipment should contact their retailer and distributor. Premises registered with life support equipment are subject to a range of protections under the Retail Law and Rules, including strict controls on de-energising life support customers, requirements that distributors provide notice of planned interruptions to energy supply and information to assist customers to prepare a plan of action in case of an unplanned interruption.

To be eligible for these protections, customers must provide their energy retailer or distributor with confirmation from a registered medical practitioner that a person residing at the customer’s premises requires medical life equipment.

Related documents: 
Contact details: 
ACCC Media1300 138 917