Speech at the Unity Action Symposium, Chinchilla, February 28 2015 by PRA chairman Dale Stiller
The topic of this talk is ‘Strength in Diversity’ which is a
look at the core principles common to the different organisations or groups, how
an united approach of diverse groups can
help present a strong image and effect change against how the coal seam gas industry is
currently allowed to operate.
Let us start with the most important point, something I want
you to keep in mind as this talk progresses. No matter what organisation you
have thrown your hat in with it is not the organisation that is most important
but the people it helps to support.
As soon as a society
allows a minority or even an individual to be collateral damage for the likes
of an economic benefit or even what appears to be a worthy cause then it is
operating on an ethically deficient basis.
The coal seam gas industry has been given priority for
almost unrestricted development at considerable haste at the cost of landowners
and the productivity of agricultural lands.
Some mining companies are also not operating as good corporate citizens. Also needed for these new resource projects is
the necessary infrastructure and the government corporation Powerlink
delivering high voltage transmission lines was the worst of all to deal with
Each organisation has found it difficult to find acceptable
outcomes for individuals who at no fault of their own are victims of circumstances
supported by a bloody minded attitude of governments who are failing to govern
for all.
A simple workable low cost solution is available to solve Bill
& Lyn Dahlheimer’s
understandable desire to retire before they are frail & elderly but it has
been ignored. Kylie Haeusler is discarded as collateral damage
fallen between the legislative cracks; the Chinchilla Jenkyn
& Nothdurft
families and others have an amenity of life that poor you wouldn’t wish it on
your worst enemy. A Georgetown cattleman
had a fence erected across his access road by a small gold mining outfit in
October 2013. It is still there and causing massive financial difficulties. A
Central Queensland woman is offered compensation only a sixth of the properties
true worth by a new coal mine. Both of these last two cases were forced to go
to court at huge cost to the landowner.
People have been placed in a situation of disadvantage.
The system is not only failing, it has been designed to work against
landowners. I talk to many people like this and as the chair of an organisation
set up to help people I often feel inadequate. The best thing I can and anyone
can to help someone else is to listen and to stand by them offering moral
support as
together you seek a solution .
************
As individuals we are often inadequate in one aspect or the
other. We each have some skills and as we come together in groups and
organisations we complement each other’s skills
Even in the different groups we have our own strengths &
weaknesses. For part of this presentation I will talk about some of the recent
history of PRA not with the aim of promotion for what I will say will include
weaknesses, but with the aim of illustration to support the topic of this
presentation, ‘Strength in Diversity’.
Today is called the Unity Action Symposium, with the call to
Unite for the future. This could be seen as a call to unite into one single
super group. After all the pooling of a greater number of people will draw
together a greater amount of talent and isn’t it the case that politics is a
numbers game and politicians are always looking at numbers of voters who may
vote for or against them?
I will return and give you my view on this later.
***************
Before I get too far I must inform you that you have been
warned that you should not listen to me as these words by a prominent figure in
December 2010 indicate:
“The PRA example is exactly what we must avoid in addressing the CSG
issues.”
I’m sure this audience will take seriously the words of the
now former Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure
and Planning, Jeff Seeney.
This attack came completely out of the blue in an opinion
piece published in the Queensland Country Life in December 2010. Remember that
the LNP were in opposition at the time, not gaining office until early 2012.
PRA had not addressed any comment to the opposition, in fact PRA at far as I
know had no recent contact all with Mr Seeney. PRA had been with increasing
persistency bringing to the then governments attention and to the general
public what landowners were being subjected to in what appeared to be a blind
rush to roll out this new industry, Coal Seam Gas. People were being
disadvantaged.
Mr Seeney wrote:
“it is clearly absurd to suggest a reality check of the CSG industry's
operation over the past 10 years is an appalling idea”
And
“In regard to the CSG issues we can build a creditable case on
demonstratable facts and verifiable mainstream science that will withstand any
reality check”
The then PRA chairman, Ron Bahnisch, asked for and was
granted a right of reply and so in the next week’s publication Ron wrote with
these words directed at Mr Seeney:
“Let’s see him “build a credible case on demonstrable facts and
verifiable main stream science that will withstand any reality check” in the
CSG mining industry.
Labor minister Robertson is much closer to the unfortunate reality by
claiming to proceed with the oxymoronic “adaptive precautionary principle”.
There lies the nub and the core of the dilemma. Neither position is
obtainable or sustainable.”
Ron later in his opinion article wrote about CSG:
“The risks of coal seam gas extraction are real, otherwise there would
be no need for the complex regulatory controls that have been imposed.
The major problem is that if damage occurs, it will be almost
impossible to remedy, and that remedy will depend on the government of the day
- no matter what colour”
These two opinion articles and the comments published at the
Rural Press farmonline web site together make for an interesting case study
from which many points could be extracted for example Ron writes about the
effectiveness of small interest groups to bring about government legislative
change.
Mr Seeney correctly stated that
“PRA was formed in response to the shameful injustices of the
Vegetation Management Act and the new organisation received a lot of early
support from landholders.”
By his opinion article it appeared that he did not want PRA
to bring its focus on the shameful injustices being perpetrated upon
landholders, at the time in 2010 the Bligh Labor government and what was to
come in 2012 the following Newman LNP government, by allowing the unrestricted
access to the resource to multinational coal seam gas companies.
*******************
I have shown an unflattering light on Mr Seeney of the LNP
in this talk but I will now also give condemnation to the contempt shown to
landowners and primary producers by the Beattie/ Bligh Labor governments over a
20 year period. Bear with me as I am laying this groundwork to bring across
later in this talk the points that are directed to the title, “Strength in
Diversity’. Understanding this 20 year period of recent Queensland political
history is important to understanding the response to the coal seam gas
industry.
From this time comes the at times awkward tension that
exists between some of groups who now find themselves on parallel paths
advocating against CSG injustice.
It was in this time that the highly commendable work of past
departments of agriculture was gutted, agency staff either reemployed or made
redundant and extension work largely abandoned. It may be in the best
intentions that Agforce the agricultural sector’s peak body took on government
contracts to disseminate information. The government got what it wanted the
money funded the facilitation of policy unpopular with farmers; it was a lot
cheaper than properly funding the department and they got a tamer peak body. It
may be for the best of intentions but in accepting a funding stream beyond
anything dream possible before, it became hard to yell too hard when latched
onto the teat. This became so evident in the wake of the Newman government
passing the appalling Mineral & Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act
that in an unprecedented move the Queensland Country Life editorial questioned
the “deafening silence”
on the part of Agforce.
I sincerely hope that such silence is a thing of the past.
It was from this time that trust was destroyed between the
agricultural sector and government and the cooperation & innovation between
farmers and the agriculture department was lost to a department of Natural
Resources and mines later to become the super department of DERM where staff
were directed to dictate policy, coerce and prosecute.
People not aware of this past have speculated to why
Queensland farmers capitulated in the face of the CSG onslaught. Amongst other
reasons it is because they felt abandoned by anyone in government to look after
their interests and the peak body was providing “education” to how to adapt to
the living with the CSG machine. Most of
the landowners who signed contracts with a CSG company did not do so because
they were happy with the industry as the likes of APPEA falsely propagate but
because of seeing no other possibility than to get the best deal that they could
which was often inadequate.
What was motivating Mr Seeney from the opposition benches in
December 2010 to write this opinion article to which online commenters were
“mystified”, “puzzled” and asked “what point are you making”. The future revealed a Newman LNP government
making legislative change at the same break neck speed that the Bligh Labor
government set loose the CSG monster. All of the various groups trying to
ensure a better future for landowners disadvantaged by CSG were buried in
submission writing. Not only were resource base legislation introduced or
amended but also Planning Acts and also the Water Act blatantly moulded to best
suit the unrestricted progress of resource projects.
****************
I am keen to obtain & read a book reviewed in July 2013
by an online friend, retired newspaper editor, John Mikkelsen. The book review is called ‘Mining captures
politics’
and John writes:
“GOVERNMENTS change but the politics surrounding mining and resource
developments don’t, according to the author of a controversial new book about
to be launched in Gladstone. ‘Road to Exploitation’ subtitled ‘Political
Capture by Mining in Queensland’ follows years of pains-taking research.
“The book authenticates not only landholders’ concerns about coal and
CSG's unacceptable impacts upon their strategic cropping land and aquifers, but
also concerns about damage to Gladstone Harbour's ecology through examples of
sweetheart deals entered into by Cabinet that bound the government's regulatory
and administrative agencies to policies of minimum compliance, lack of
regulatory enforcement, false benchmarking of the science and eventually, abandonment
of co-existence with behind the scenes resignation of unavoidable impacts.
“The book's contents and documentation justify the title and
demonstrate this principle: Capture executive government in Queensland and the
regulatory and administrative processes are captured as well”.”
*****************
It was in 2010 that Basin Sustainability Alliance
was formed and so was Lock the Gate; so why weren’t these two organisations
given the blow torch as well.
The following is a series of assumptions on my part but I am
assuming that BSA may not have come onto Mr Seeney’s radar as yet, which may
have been a mistake as BSA was to lay a good foundation in its first year under
its ‘Not at any cost’ motto. More recently
under David Hamilton’s leadership BSA was to refine the technique of polite but
firm correspondence with political leaders; patient probing investigation
accumulating knowledge and maintaining a highly credible appearance. In all of
these things BSA does better than any other landowner advocate group that
focuses on CSG.
I’m assuming that it may have been thought that any
influence of the newly fledged Lock the Gate could be negated because of one of
its founding members, Drew Hutton,
who had a high profile as a former leader of the Queensland Greens party and
association with various environmental causes. But Drew had a political savvy
lacking in any rural based advocacy group leadership and importantly
metropolitan media contacts. To get a rural based story into the metropolitan
media was and remains difficult. Lock to the Gate is a simple message to sell
that has appeal to an urban audience and a lot more people got to know about
CSG, the potential impacts and the disadvantage placed upon landowners.
PRA came under attack in December 2010 because it could not
be pigeon holed as an environmental group and also it had a very successful
track record of legal action against DERM with 12 wins out of 13 court cases.
To be clear PRA isn’t anti- environment rather pro supporting disadvantaged
landowners. Repeating what I said earlier; as soon as a society allows a
minority or even an individual to be collateral damage for the likes of an
economic benefit or even what appears to be a worthy cause then it is operating
on ethically deficient basis. PRA
advocated on behalf of people using the two pillars of science and specialist
legal opinion. PRA also has a maxim that if the government or the majority of
the population wanted something that caused disadvantage to landowners - then pay for it.
*********************
Over the last 12 months there been a concerted effort to
polarise the debate about coal seam gas. Directed largely at the urban
population, resource advocacy groups APPEA & Queensland Resources Council
together with Newman government ministers have taken pains to promote the
concept that only radical greenies were against coal seam gas. Landowners
especially those disadvantaged were carefully not mentioned. Remember the
defence of the indefensible M&ER Common Provisions Act in September last
year with government ministers repeating that “only radical greenies” had a
problem with the new Act.
Andrew Cripps the Minister for Natural Resource & Mines sounded
more and more ludicrous as time went on especially this exchange recorded for
prosperity in Hansard:
“Mr Cripps: Some of the objections put forward by the member for South
Brisbane, the member for Bundamba and repeated by the member for Stafford and
some members of the crossbench I am really frustrated with because they
consistently repeated a falsehood that has been perpetuated, as I said on a
number of occasions during my second reading contribution, by green activist
groups and by certain legal firms and they are just as much to blame for
perpetuating the myth.
Ms Trad: So AgForce is to blame for perpetuating a myth?
Mr CRIPPS: They are perpetuating a myth. I am happy to go on record
that it is not just AgForce, but Cotton Australia and the Queensland Farmers
Federation are perpetuating a myth.
Ms Trad: Well done, Minister. Congratulations. “
Earlier when the Common Provisions bill was before the
Parliamentary Committee there was only one hearing date appearing on the
committee’s web page and no landowner or rural advocacy groups had been
invited; however the Environmental Defenders Office had been. Agforce, Basin Sustainability
Alliance, Cotton Australia, Shine Lawyers, EDO Qld and Qld Farmers Federation
met prior to the hearing and produced an 8 point communique
for EDO to table at the hearing on behalf of all these organisations.
This united approach resulted in 3 more hearing being
scheduled and also a very interesting response from Michael Roache of QRC who
sent emails to each rural advocacy group who took part. By kind
permission of David Hamilton to whom it was sent and also the current BSA president
Lyn Nicholson I can reveal that Roache appeared to be quite worried by this
joint approach and stated a preference of deal with each organisation
individually. Micheal Roache wrote in part:
“it was hard not to feel an element of ambush in EDO tabling such a
"consensus document". I would
have hoped that each of you would have felt comfortable approaching QRC with
any concerns and would urge you to do so in the future.”
It’s an astonishing plead to return to the good old days of
resource companies dividing and conquering. This is the case where the divide
or diversity of advocacy organisations coming together on core principles
proved to be powerful.
Last month a researcher from the Melbourne University,
Steven Burge, was intervening landowners and others in the Surat basin about
CSG. I asked for Stevens’s permission to use this quote of his in this talk as
it shows the advantage of having a diverse range of voices speaking out about
CSG.
“The reason that first gave me a very good indication that something
was amiss with the development of the CSG industry was that it wasn’t just one
section being vocal about it. If it was only groups who have in the past
championed environmental causes being active it could be taken as nothing out
of the ordinary. But there was a whole spectrum of different community sectors
speaking out, some of which are normally seen as quite conservative and
reluctant activists.”
***************
Small local community groups are important that brings
together the community of local landowners for moral support. Some groups even
demand that resource or infrastructure project proponents negotiate with the
group as a whole in the initial stages so that a base standard is met and that
impacts to the community as a whole are minimised. This is a powerful tool, one
the resource companies do not like, who much prefer the age old tactic of divide
and conquer. Our hosts today, the Hopeland Community group
has taken it a step further to stage this symposium to disseminate information
to the wider community. Jenny York from
the Woodduck group
spoke
earlier, there are Cameby Hall group people here today and there are examples
further afield.
The greatest role for a small community group is to offer
local moral support and associate with a larger organisation for resourcing and
advocacy to government.
**************
People are not all the same and different people group
together because of common interests and values. Some of these values to the
peripheral of core principles in objection to current CSG activity don’t make
it possible for the formation of a super organisation. That is not a weakness,
it is just life. Weakness would be the denial of the obvious. We need to focus
on what we agree on while recognising the important differences.
We can be united in a core belief and real strength comes
from recognising other differences with honesty, respect and civility.
Finally I will repeat my first and most important point. No
matter what organisation you have thrown your hat in with it is not the
organisation that is most important but the people it helps to support.
Thank you
A steady hand & a discerning mind is needed. I see
others in frustration shift to the thinking of the means justifies the end; it
never does. One needs to be discerning about environmental groups who appear
(& largely are) on the same page about CSG, but inevitably other agendas
are crept in and promoted. There is also the increasing tiresome chatter of the
eco-pessimist that from all developments the worst calamity is automatic.
