Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

In relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012, the opposition is delighted to provide its support, although we wish to make one significant amendment. Let me begin by putting this bill in context before examining the bill, the committee and the issues in relation to water and farmers' rights over their own land.

The starting point is that there are two great issues in relation to coal seam gas. The first, the subject of this bill, is an environmental issue in relation to the protection of our water resources against the sorts of outcomes which we have seen from bad practices in some of the West Coast and Central West areas of the United States, the sorts of practices which may inadvertently lead to the depletion of aquifers or the poisoning of certain subterranean water bodies. That is a deep, real, legitimate, prime concern. We do not play dice with our underground water resources, our aquifers, the resources of the Murray-Darling Basin or the Great Artesian Basin; we simply do not take risks on that front. I will come back to that later.

What this bill does not do—and I think it is very important to acknowledge this—is address the issue of farmers' access to and control over their own land. One of the most significant issues surrounding coal seam gas is that farmers feel they are losing control of their land. Of course there has been a royalties regime, of course there has been a right of access in contemporary Australian history in relation to minerals and other forms of energy, but there is a new challenge. This House would be derelict in its duty if it did not acknowledge the issue that coal-seam gas poses for farmers and their land.

This bill does not deal with this issue, although my own view is that the right thing, the decent thing, the honourable thing would be for the gas companies to unilaterally agree on a moratorium on exploration or exploitation of resources unless there is consent from the landholder. That is a personal view and something that should be decided on at the level of each state, because the states have control over the land. It is not something which the federal parliament can or should be doing, because we fundamentally believe in the rights of state governments to control their critical resources. But similarly, we think that responsible companies can and should make that agreement. Not everybody will be in accord with this view, but I have personally spoken with many of the players in the industry, the vast majority of whom have indicated strong in-principle support for this notion of a voluntary moratorium unless there is consent. Let's consider these resources, but let's recognise that the best way to deal with legitimate community and individual anxiety is to recognise that control, and the best people to do that are the key players in key companies who need to agree across the board that they will adopt a moratorium unless there is voluntarily given consent for either exploration or exploitation. That is the general principle.

Given the presence in the chamber of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, I repeat that it is my view and not a formal policy position that perhaps could be achieved on a bipartisan basis—that is, an agreement with the key exploration and exploitation companies in relation to coal seam gas where they impose upon themselves a voluntary moratorium on exploitation or exploration on individual plots of land unless there is consent. I respectfully say to Minister Burke that there is a strong readiness across the gas community to adopt this standard. I do not hold out that it is universal, but I do believe that good leadership can help bring this about by including the premiers of New South Wales and Queensland and leaders at the Commonwealth level. We would be happy to play our part. We do not seek to impose this standard, but we do think that there is a window of opportunity to bring it to pass. I note that many of the critical players in the industry have recognised the legitimate community concern about farmers' land rights and they are looking at this standard. Perhaps over the coming months a voluntary agreement can be brought to pass.

I turn to the bill which establishes the independent expert scientific committee on coal seam gas and large coalmining development. We agree with the purpose, because it is about providing adequate information as a precursor to understanding the impacts of coal seam gas on water resources. In order to do that, it establishes a scientific committee. In particular the key functions of the committee are, firstly, to advise on research priorities and, secondly, to advise on bioregional assessments, of which we are supportive, in areas of high potential impact from coal seam gas and to provide advice to the Commonwealth environment minister on priority assessment areas. Thirdly, to advise on research and bioregional assessments commissioned by the minister. Fourthly, to publish options on improving the consistency of research in this area. And, fifthly, to provide the Commonwealth minister and the relevant state or territory ministers with expert scientific advice on particular coal seam gas or large coalmining proposals that may have a significant impact on water resources. It also has a more general plenary power to advise as and when circumstances arise.

The background to this is relatively clear. The technology to extract the gas from coal seams has been in existence for a long period. It has been through a transformative process over the last 15 years and the economics have changed in such a way that we now have a legitimate chance of providing significant revenue for Australia, revenue for rural communities and an additional competitively priced form of energy, whether it is for domestic use or export production. The industry is growing substantially. In Queensland alone the expectation, on the best available advice we have, is for 18,000 jobs and around $850 million in royalties per year. At a federal government level there is also income and company tax. But none of this is acceptable if it comes at the price of destruction of our fundamental water resources. Water is king—let us be absolutely clear on that. The standard we set is that we will not play dice with, risk or put on the table the safety or sanctity of our aquifers, the Great Artesian Basin or our subterranean water resources. That is a principle on which I believe there is clear bipartisan agreement.

To deal with this the committee is established as a precursor to other critical developments. It is a step toward providing comprehensive mapping of all of those areas which are likely to be the subject of consideration. Against that background, we are supportive of the bill; but we do have one proposed amendment. We are not going to hold a gun to the head of the government on this—we are dealing in good faith; but we ask the government to consider our amendment and approve it. The amendment will be moved by the member for Groom, Ian Macfarlane, who has a close personal connection with this issue not just as a Queenslander but as somebody who represents an area of Australia, in and around Toowoomba and the Darling Downs, which may well be subject to significant further proposals. It is his deep personal concern (a) about water resources and (b) about the rights of individual farmers which has led to that.

The bill currently states that each member of the committee except the chair is to be appointed on the basis that they possess scientific qualifications that the minister considers relevant to the performance of the committee's functions including but not limited to ecology, geology, hydrology, hydrogeology, natural resource management and health. Our proposal, to be moved by the member for Groom, is that the committee's fundamental reason for being is to advise on scientific issues and therefore the bill should require that a majority of the members have advanced qualifications and expertise in the three key fields of geology, hydrogeology or hydrology. It is not a fundamental change. It is about providing more grunt and credibility to this committee. My request is that the government accept this proposal. We are willing to talk about any variations. This is not an ambit claim; it is a legitimate proposal for improvement. We are committed to the notion of protecting water resources as a fundamental and, therefore, this can make a contribution.

Then there is the question of access to the land, which was the subject of my earlier points. Farmers' rights are as critical as protection of aquifers, subterranean water and Great Artesian Basin resources. While this bill is not about farmers' rights, it is about the establishment of a committee to provide scientific advice. We believe that we need to work with the farming community, and I personally believe that the standard of voluntary consent should be what the industry settles upon for exploration and exploitation of these resources. That is a personal view—but I think there is an opportunity for the minister. We have met with coal seam gas companies and other companies considering entering this field and put it squarely to them that this is the standard which we think should be adopted. At this time there is a window of opportunity and I would commend that to the government and to the minister at the table. Having said that, this is a good bill. It is a good step forward. We commend it to the House and we are delighted to support it.

See this speech in context