Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak to a series of amendments that the Greens will move, firstly amendment (2) on revised sheet 7442.

The reason we will move that amendment is that this bill has two parts that passed the House of Representatives. The first part of the bill would seek to allow the environment minister to ignore conservation advice. In other words, this bill was originally drafted to allow the environment minister to ignore scientific advice about the impacts on threatened species of the very project that the environment minister was being asked to approve or refuse. The sheer nonsense of that amendment and the embarrassment that the environment minister should have felt to move that amendment to our laws unfortunately did not stop him from doing so.

In the House, the bill was amended and the ability of the environment minister to ignore science was time-limited. They said, 'Well, we won't let you ignore science forevermore. But from 31 December 2013 and prior it was fine if you ignored science then.' The Greens hold the strong view that you should never ignore science, and the audacity of the environment minister himself, being the person to move this amendment to the act to allow him to ignore science and to allow him to take decisions that fly in the face of advice about threatened species conservation, unfortunately speaks to the true attitude of this government to the environment.

So that is exactly why the Greens are moving today to delete that whole part of the amending bill. We do not think that the environment minister should be able to ignore science. We have conservation advisers for a reason, and that reason is to ensure that threatened species are indeed protected by our federal environmental laws from impacts that are likely to have a significant impact upon them. I am really pleased that in the course of discussions with the folk in this room that I believe the Greens will have the support of the entire chamber to say that, 'Actually, science is kind of important and threatened species actually do deserve to have our proper consideration when the minister is making a decision about whether to approve development that might damage them.'

With that said, I move amendment (2) on revised sheet 7442:

Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 26), to be opposed.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government accepts the amendment proposed by the Greens that Senator Waters just spoke to. We do not necessarily accept all the arguments that Senator Waters has made in that regard. We do believe that it would be preferable were those amendments to have been made, but the government is determined—and Mr Hunt in particular is determined—to ensure that the turtle and dugong protection that the government has pursued and was committed to at the election is delivered upon. We understand that arrangements have been struck with the Australian Greens that will enable those protections to be delivered upon, and we do not want to jeopardise our policy commitment and the serious intention the government has to deliver up on that promise in relation to turtles and dugongs by having it complicated by other matters within this bill.

I thank Senator Waters for her cooperation in working through issues with the government in terms of some of the amendments that were there, and indicate, as I said, the government's acceptance of this amendment from the Greens.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I now want to move to a substantive amendment which relates to increasing the penalties and increasing the protection for threatened species across the board.

This government has sought to introduce increased protection just for turtles and dugongs. We will have some more to say about that, but if the argument is that the penalties for turtles and dugongs are inadequate then surely that argument would logically extend to all of the penalties for the take of threatened species being indeed inadequate. And so we will move this amendment, the purpose of which is to say, 'Well, clearly, protection for threatened species is inadequate and does need to be increased.' This amendment would increase the penalties for the unlawful take of threatened species across the board, so that we are not just cherry picking and saying that turtles and dugongs deserve additional protection but no other threatened species do. I think that is a nonsensical approach and so we will move to say that all species deserve increased protection.

But I want to take the opportunity to mention a few other points in this regard. Unfortunately, there have been massive staff cuts by this government to the environment department. I am concerned that the existing penalties for threatened species, including turtles and dugongs, do not have the personnel to be able to be enforced. The environment department has lost hundreds of staff. Already its budget is shrinking, and shrinking and shrinking. Unfortunately, our environmental laws are simply not being enforced. So we will move an amendment to say, 'Let's increase the penalties, but you have to enforce the laws that you have or they simply do not do anything on the ground.' So I make the point that if the government is actually serious about increasing the penalties for some species but, sadly, not serious about increasing them for all species then you have to increase the enforcement staff and you actually have to get serious about not slashing the people who are responsible for implementing these laws.

I want to speak to the impact of the focus on turtles and dugongs, because it has been quite a controversial issue. A lot of Indigenous communities in the Great Barrier Reef have been really laudable in taking voluntarily measures to stop hunting turtles and dugongs in a cruel manner—and we commend those communities for that approach. Indeed, the best approach to this management issue is to work with communities and make sure that the take of turtle and dugong that occurs in accordance with native title rights and customs does so in a manner that is at a sustainable level, that is in accordance with traditional custom and is not for commercial trade, and that, most importantly, is done humanely.

Like anyone else who saw the footage of some of the spearings of turtles, which were not conducted in a humane manner, I found it abhorrent. That is the reason why the Greens are supporting the increase in penalties for turtles and dugongs, but we still are of the firm view that you need to work with communities, and this kind of punitive approach, particularly when there are limited enforcement staff to actually make sure the rules are complied with, will not be the most effective way of stopping the cruel treatment of turtles and dugongs. We appreciate the need to address this issue. We think that the chosen way of going about it is not the most effective one, but it is important that we take steps to address the problem.

If the government is so concerned about turtles and dugongs, why on earth is it letting the biggest ever dredging and offshore dumping program that the Great Barrier Reef has ever seen roll out in this beautiful world heritage area? We know that the water quality impacts of dredging of the seabed and the dumping of that seabed, either in the water or closely onshore—as Minister Hunt is now saying he will require, though we are yet to see any change of law in that regard—are devastating to seagrass, and we know that seagrass is both the food source and the habitat for turtles and dugongs.

If the government is genuinely concerned about the health of turtle and dugong populations in the Great Barrier Reef, why on earth are you letting this massive dredging and dumping program roll out? It is because of your support for the fossil fuel sector. We know that. It is because you do not think that climate change is real, you want to send more coal ships through the Great Barrier Reef, you want to make the climate worse. We get that. But if you have at least got a concern about turtles and dugongs, think about the impact on seagrass from all of that sediment smothering the seagrass and stopping it growing, stopping that food source, stopping that breeding ground.

With that said, I seek leave to move amendments (1) to (19) and (21) to (26) on sheet 7473.

Leave granted.

I move amendments (1) to (19) and (21) to (26) on sheet 7473 together:

(1) Schedule 2, heading, page 4 (lines 1 and 2), omit "turtles and dugong", substitute "listed species and communities".

(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 4 (lines 6 to 13), omit the item, substitute:

1 Subsection 196(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years or 3,000 penalty units, or both.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 197. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(3) Schedule 2, item 3, page 4 (lines 16 to 21), omit the item, substitute:

3 Subsection 196A(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   1,500 penalty units.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 197. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(4) Schedule 2, item 5, page 4 (line 24) to page 5 (line 3), omit the item, substitute:

5 Subsection 196B(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years or 3,000 penalty units, or both.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 197. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(5) Schedule 2, item 7, page 5 (lines 6 to 11), omit the item, substitute:

7 Subsection 196C(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   1,500 penalty units.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 197. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(6) Schedule 2, item 9, page 5 (lines 14 to 21), omit the item, substitute:

9 Subsection 196D(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years or 3,000 penalty units, or both.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 197. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(7) Schedule 2, item 11, page 5 (lines 24 to 29), omit the item, substitute:

11 Subsection 196E(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   1,500 penalty units.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 197. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(8) Schedule 2, items 13 to 15, page 6 (line 3) to page 7 (line 3), omit the items, substitute:

15 Subsection 211(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years or 3,000 penalty units, or both.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 212. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(9) Schedule 2, item 17, page 7 (lines 6 to 11), omit the item, substitute:

17 Subsection 211A(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   1,500 penalty units.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 212. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(10) Schedule 2, item 19, page 7 (lines 14 to 21), omit the item, substitute:

19 Subsection 211B(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years or 3,000 penalty units, or both.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 212. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(11) Schedule 2, item 21, page 7 (lines 24 to 29), omit the item, substitute:

21 Subsection 211C(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   1,500 penalty units.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 212. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(12) Schedule 2, item 23, page 8 (lines 3 to 10), omit the item, substitute:

23 Subsection 211D(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years or 3,000 penalty units, or both.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 212. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(13) Schedule 2, item 25, page 8 (lines 13 to 18), omit the item, substitute:

25 Subsection 211E(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   1,500 penalty units.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 212. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(14) Schedule 2, items 27 to 29, page 8 (line 21) to page 9 (line 19), omit the items, substitute:

29 Subsection 254(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years or 3,000 penalty units, or both.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 255. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(15) Schedule 2, item 31, page 9 (lines 22 to 27), omit the item, substitute:

31 Subsection 254A(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   1,500 penalty units.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 255. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(16) Schedule 2, item 33, page 10 (lines 1 to 8), omit the item, substitute:

33 Subsection 254B(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years or 3,000 penalty units, or both.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 255. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(17) Schedule 2, item 35, page 10 (lines 11 to 16), omit the item, substitute:

35 Subsection 254C(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   1,500 penalty units.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 255. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(18) Schedule 2, item 37, page 10 (lines 19 to 26), omit the item, substitute:

37 Subsection 254D(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years or 3,000 penalty units, or both.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 255. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(19) Schedule 2, item 39, page 11 (lines 1 to 6), omit the item, substitute:

39 Subsection 254E(1) (notes 1 and 2)

  Repeal the notes, substitute:

Penalty:   1,500 penalty units.

Note: This section does not apply in the circumstances described in section 255. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to those circumstances. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(21) Schedule 2, item 45, page 12 (line 13), omit "turtle or dugong", substitute "listed species".

(22) Schedule 2, item 45, page 12 (lines 18 to 22), omit paragraphs 38BA(3A)(c) and (d), substitute:

  (d) the animal is a member of:

     (i) a listed marine species; or

     (ii) a listed migratory species; or

     (iii) a listed threatened ecological community; or

     (iv) a listed threatened species;

(23) Schedule 2, item 46, page 12 (line 30), omit, "(c)".

(24) Schedule 2, item 51, page 13 (lines 19 to 22), omit paragraph 38GA(9)(b), substitute:

  (b) the animal is a member of:

     (i) a listed marine species; or

     (ii) a listed migratory species; or

     (iii) a listed threatened ecological community; or

     (iv) a listed threatened species;

(25) Schedule 2, item 51, page 13 (line 30), before "species", insert "protected".

(26) Schedule 2, item 53, page 14 (lines 12 to 15), omit paragraph 38GB(6)(c), substitute:

  (c) the animal is a member of:

     (i) a listed marine species; or

     (ii) a listed migratory species; or

     (iii) a listed threatened ecological community; or

     (iv) a listed threatened species;

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very briefly, the government will not be supporting these amendments. This policy about tripling penalties in relation to turtles and dugongs is one we took to the election. We have been very transparent about that. It is our belief that that is appropriate. It has followed extensive community consultation by Mr Hunt, by the member for Leichhardt, Mr Entsch, and by other members of the government and, indeed, through other quarters such as the Department of the Environment's Indigenous Consultative Committee.

We have made sure that we have worked hard to get broad support for this. To do so to other species would necessitate further public consultation, and that is why we do not believe that the amendments proposed by Senator Waters at this time are appropriate. We do believe that what is on the table will provide and boost a strong deterrent for the poaching or harming of turtles and dugongs. In relation to compliance, I would at least highlight the government's $2 million commitment to the Specialised Indigenous Ranger program which will improve traditional management and compliance. We will be launching it shortly as a program that sits alongside the work of the Australian Crime Commission in investigating penalties and ensuring that we have appropriate activities in place to stop the illegal harvesting of turtles or dugongs.

Finally, in relation to the points that Senator Waters made about the dredge disposal ban, I can tell her that drafting of that legislation is occurring at present, that its completion is expected very soon and that consultation on that draft legislation is imminent. This will be a step that the previous government certainly did not take and will enshrine in Australian law a dredge disposal ban in relation to those activities around the Great Barrier Reef.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the opportunity to indicate to the chamber that I will not be seeking to move amendment (20) on sheet 7473; nor I will be seeking to move amendments (1), (3) and (4) on sheet 7442 revised.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7458 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 1 (lines 18 to 20), omit the clause, substitute:

2 Commencement

  (1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.

Note:    This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally enacted. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this Act.

  (2) Any information in column 3 of the table is not part of this Act. Information may be inserted in this column, or information in it may be edited, in any published version of this Act.

(2) Page 14 (after line 23), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3—Hydraulic fracturing

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

1 Subdivision FB of Division 1 of Part 3 (heading)

  After "coal seam gas development", insert ", hydraulic fracturing development".

2 After subparagraphs 24D(1)(a)(i), (2)(a)(i) and (3)(a)(i) and 24E(1)(a)(i), (2)(a)(i) and (3)(a)(i)

  Insert:

     (ia) hydraulic fracturing development; or

3 Subsection 130(4A)

  After "Coal Seam Gas", insert ", Hydraulic Fracturing".

4 Section 131AB (heading)

  After "Coal Seam Gas", insert ", Hydraulic Fracturing".

5 After subparagraph 131AB(1)(a)(i)

  Insert:

     (ia) hydraulic fracturing development; or

6 Subsection 131AB(2)

  After "Coal Seam Gas", insert ", Hydraulic Fracturing".

7 Paragraph 136(2)(fa)

  After "Coal Seam Gas", insert ", Hydraulic Fracturing".

8 Subparagraph 304(1)(a)(viia)

  After "coal seam gas development", insert ", hydraulic fracturing development".

9 Paragraph 305(1)(ga)

  After "coal seam gas development", insert ", hydraulic fracturing development".

10 Subparagraphs 305(1A)(b)(via) and (c)(viia)

  After "coal seam gas development", insert ", hydraulic fracturing development".

11 Paragraph 305(2)(ea)

  After "coal seam gas development", insert ", hydraulic fracturing development".

12 Subparagraphs 306(1)(a)(viia) and (b)(viia) and (2)(a)(viia) and (b)(viia)

  After "coal seam gas development", insert ", hydraulic fracturing development".

13 Division 2B of Part 19 (heading)

  After "Coal Seam Gas", insert ", Hydraulic Fracturing".

14 Subsection 505C(1)

  After "Coal Seam Gas", insert ", Hydraulic Fracturing".

15 Paragraphs 505D(1)(a) and (b)

  After "coal seam gas developments", insert ", hydraulic fracturing developments".

16 Subparagraph 505D(1)(c)(i)

  After "coal seam gas development", insert ", hydraulic fracturing development".

17 Subparagraphs 505D(1)(d)(i) and (ii)

  After "coal seam gas developments", insert ", hydraulic fracturing developments".

18 Paragraph 505D(1)(e)

  After "coal seam gas developments", insert ", hydraulic fracturing developments".

19 Paragraphs 505D(1)(f) and (g)

  After "coal seam gas development", insert ", hydraulic fracturing development".

20 Paragraph 506(d)

  After "Coal Seam Gas", insert ", Hydraulic Fracturing".

21 Section 528 (definition of " bioregional assessment " )

  After "coal seam gas development", insert ", hydraulic fracturing development".

22 Section 528

  Insert:

  hydraulic fracturing development means any activity involving hydraulic fracturing that has, or is likely to have, a significant impact on water resources (including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity):

  (a) in its own right; or

  (b) when considered with other developments, whether past, present or reasonably foreseeable developments.

23 Section 528 (definition of Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development )

  Repeal the definition.

I indicated in broad terms what this amendment was about in my brief second reading contribution. Effectively, it is to ensure that the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development, passed by the previous parliament, and the associated advice and reporting requirements also apply to hydraulic fracking. These are views expressed to me by my South Australian constituents from the Limestone Coast Protection Alliance committee, including people such as Dr Catherine Pye, who is a medical doctor; Dr Clive Carlyle, who is an adviser and a member of the committee; Dennis Vice, who is a winegrower from the Coonawarra; and Tony Beck, from the committee as well, who is a farmer involved in livestock and who has been involved in Landcare for many years. These are people who have a genuine concern about the impact of hydraulic fracking.

It is important that what I see as an anomaly, as an undue restriction in the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development, be extended to hydraulic fracking, because the impact on a watertable and the impact on prime agricultural land could very well be the same. This is not 'stop development'; this is not 'stop fracking'. But it provides for the rigour and for independent scientific advice to be applied and exercised in such cases. Not to do so, I think, would be anomalous in the context of what the CSG legislation—for want of a better word, that independent committee—was about.

If this particular amendment is not passed—and I would be grateful, in order to avoid a division, to hear the views of the government and the opposition in respect of this—the issue will not go away. If you damage a watertable, and if there is not adequate benchmarking and adequate assessment and scientific evaluation, the potential impact on prime agricultural land can be very significant. So I would like to get an indication from the government and the opposition of whether they support this, and, if not, whether they would support a robust Senate inquiry into this issue as to whether the independent scientific panel should look hydraulic fracking.

I am very grateful for the support of the Australian Greens. Senator Waters has had a pre-eminent leadership role on this issue of fracking and its impact on prime agricultural land. I am very grateful for her leadership on this.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just make a very brief contribution to indicate that the Australian Greens will be supporting the amendments moved by Senator Xenophon. Significant impacts on a water resource from coal seam gas or large coalmining currently trigger the need for federal environmental approval. The effect of this amendment would be to expand the water trigger such that any hydraulic fracturing activity which was going to have a significant impact on a water resource would also require the environment minister to consider whether an approval was required under the EPBC Act. In plain English, this amendment would ensure that any shale fracking meets federal approval if it is going to damage a groundwater or a surface water system.

I am really pleased to have Senator Xenophon's support on this issue. We Greens have been raising concerns about unconventional gas, including shale gas and coal seam gas, for as long as I have been in this parliament. We have moved countless bills which have sadly not received support from any of the big parties. I am grateful for the support of the Independents and the small parties on this issue. I can assure the government and the opposition, if I may speak for the crossbench on this issue, that we will not give up on protecting farmland, the climate and our groundwater given that those things are absolutely crucial in this driest inhabited continent on the planet. Food security is only going to become a bigger issue as climate change rolls out. So I indicate our support for these amendments.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just briefly, the government does not support the proposed amendments from Senator Xenophon. Firstly, I would highlight that these amendments are bringing a whole different aspect of environmental regulation and legislation before the Senate than what is at the heart of this bill, which is the protection of turtles and dugongs.

More generally, I would acknowledge that this amendment would broaden the scope of the water trigger, as Senator Xenophon and Senator Waters have acknowledged. However, the National Partnership Agreement on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coalmining Development was reached and agreed between the Commonwealth, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia in March 2012. It is an agreement that achieved support across a number of jurisdictions and sets in place a cooperative arrangement for regulation of coal seam gas and large coalmining. It was notably limited to these kinds of mining activities as part of striking that agreement.

The inclusion of the water trigger and the establishment of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coalmining Development under the EPBC Act is based upon that agreement between the states and the Commonwealth. This means the water trigger is limited to CSG and large coalmining activities, as I said before. The Commonwealth does not believe that there has been a demonstrated need—nor has there been consultation with or agreement from the states party to that agreement—to expand the legislation and the water trigger to other kinds of fracking.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said that I would not proceed with a division if I could get some indication from the opposition as to their position on these amendments.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will not be supporting these amendments.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that the opposition in government set up an independent expert panel, which I think was a very good move—and I note that people now on the government side such as Senator Heffernan had a very important role in that—can the opposition indicate why it would not support this amendment, because I think the principles are effectively the same. Hydraulic fracking can have an impact on the water table and can have an impact on prime agricultural land. My supplementary question is whether the opposition would at least be inclined to support an inquiry into hydraulic fracking so that the concerns of the Limestone Coast Protection Alliance in South Australia and of many other communities around the country can be heeded.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor recognises the contribution of natural gas from coal, shale and tight formations to the Australian economy and the importance of robust environmental regulation to ensure that these resources are extracted and exported in a sustainable way. But Labor does not support the amendments of Senator Xenophon to include all hydraulic fracturing in this field. That is because in 2012 the then Labor government signed the National Partnership Agreement on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coalmining Development with Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria.

Following that, Labor established the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coalmining Development to provide scientific advice to decision makers on the impact that these developments may have on Australia's water resources. That initiative was supported with $150 million of Commonwealth funding. The IESC advice and the water trigger amendment to the EPBC Act were in in keeping with the scope of that national partnership agreement. We did this to establish best practice in regulation of sensitive fracking activities and fracking activities that were near water resources, such as aquifers, which are much closer to the surface than many forms of shale and tight gas that require fracking. While Labor do not support these amendments, we do believe that there is room to review the existing national partnership agreement in partnership with the states to consider other tight gas developments.

Dio Wang (WA, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I visited the Liverpool Plains last week in the company of the former member for New England, Mr Tony Windsor. As everyone in this chamber probably knows, when he was in the parliament Mr Tony Windsor played a very crucial role in making sure the water trigger was built into the EPBC Act. I think, when it comes to water resources, we have to be really, really careful. We cannot really hand it over to a state, because underground water flows. The Queensland government, for example, may approve a project which may or may not have an impact on underground water, but, when the water flows to New South Wales, it could be a different issue. If the water is actually contaminated, some of the farmers will cop it in New South Wales. So I think a federal level approval is a crucial safeguard to make sure that our precious water resources are well looked after.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.