Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I speak in support of this Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012 because I think it is good legislation.

In recent years we have seen considerable investment and development of coal seam and shale gas both in Australia and around the world. It is also becoming clear that Australia has huge reserves of underground gases, including both coal seam and shale gas. On current estimates, it is estimated that there are sufficient reserves in Australia to provide for all of our energy needs for about the next 120 years. It is therefore expected and not unusual to see the level of investment we are currently seeing in gas deposits around Australia. We can expect to see exploration increase in the years ahead and we are already seeing that occur. What is also known is that large quantities of gases are located along the eastern coast of Australia under some of the nation's most fertile agricultural land and in proximity to important underground water storage areas.

What is also known from mining developments already underway is that there are real risks to the environment as a result of these activities. Environmental impacts and damage have consequences for the rest of the community and, in particular, for our farmers whose livelihood is very much dependent on the health of the land and of the water that sustains them. That is why this legislation, which establishes an expert scientific committee to provide advice on coal seam gas and large coal mining operations, is both necessary and timely.

Mining activities are mostly governed by state and territory governments. Federal government interest in mining arises from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and it is from that EPBC Act that the committee was established.

The federal government is also establishing a national partnership agreement with the states and territories. Those states and territories which are signatories to the partnership agreement will also have access to the committee's expertise. I note that Queensland and New South Wales have already signed that agreement. I also note that this legislation has been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport. Not surprisingly, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, AMEC, in its submission to the Senate committee, opposed this legislation. AMEC believes that jurisdiction for mining activities rests with the states and territories and that is where it should remain.

My concern with the existing process is this: the states are all but struggling to balance their budgets. The temptation to approve mining projects without adequate environmental impact considerations should be of concern to all fair-minded Australians. The mining companies know that it is easier to get approvals if they only have to deal with the state and territory governments—and for that matter if they only have to deal with one level of government.

It was a similar situation in the USA where, I understand, concerns relating to mining activities and approval processes caused the USA federal government and, in particular, their environment protection authority to act in the national interest. In the USA, each of the individual states also previously had control over the approval process relating to mining and exploration activities.

One of the main concerns relating to coal seam gas extraction is both the large volumes of water used and the possibility of contaminating underground water sources. Underground water supplies currently provide substantial quantities of water to our farmers. If that water is contaminated, farmers' livelihoods are at serious risk. We heard a lot about this in the course of the inquiry into the Murray-Darling Basin that was chaired by the member for New England, who spoke on this bill only a few moments ago. We heard from farmers in that region about their concerns relating to the impact on their water supplies as a result of the extensive mining exploration and activities that have been undertaken in recent times.

Similarly, the restrictions on farmers' draw of water in drought years is difficult to justify when substantial volumes of water are used without restriction by miners. Again, this is a matter that was brought to the committee's attention in the course of that inquiry. It seems that if there were going to be restrictions placed on the extraction of water by farmers then the same restrictions should apply across the board to all those who draw water from underground.

As has been the case in the USA, contamination of underground water supplies may not become evident until some years later, by which time it may be all too late. An additional concern arises when the fracking process, referred to again by the previous speaker, is used to release gas from a coal seam or a sedimentary layer. Fracking often relies on the use of a range of chemicals ranging from harmless through to highly toxic. It is the use of those chemicals that has raised community concerns about the fracking process right across the world. The CSIRO has carried out extensive research into coal seam gas and the fracking process. The CSIRO's research and knowledge in this area will no doubt be beneficial to the expert panel and to the mining industry. We heard from the CSIRO a few weeks ago in this place. The CSIRO provided a presentation to members of this House specifically on the fracking process, and it was indeed a very enlightening presentation. I have to say that, whilst I still have concerns about the process, it was reassuring to know that with the right conditions, many of the risks can be either averted or minimised. Those conditions will obviously vary from one location to another, depending on the soil types. And that is exactly why and where we need to rely on expert advice, because it is not necessarily the same situation in all places. It is understanding those differences that makes a difference in the risks that we might otherwise take and again why it is so important to have an independent expert panel of people to look at the applications that are made.

The question in respect of those conditions then arises: what should those conditions be? It is my view that an independent expert scientific committee is an important step in ensuring that those right conditions are in fact imposed. I suspect that in the past it has not simply been a case of conditions not being imposed for any other reason than that they were simply not known. The risks were not known and the expertise was simply not there to impose the conditions. I understand that, in some of the more recent approvals of these applications, the approvals have been granted in conjunction with anywhere between 1,200 and 1,500 conditions. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It simply means that there has been a level of scrutiny applied to the application process that is absolutely appropriate and ought to be in place before the approval is granted.

Another matter I wish to touch on concerns underground water supplies and why an independent panel of experts will be of great benefit in ensuring those underground water supplies are not in any way contaminated. I refer to the possibility of storing water underground during times of heavy rain. We saw that again in the last couple of years of above average inflows into the Murray-Darling system, and yet there has been nowhere to store the excess water as it has come down the Murray. It is a bit of a shame because we all know that in years to come we are likely to go into another drought but we have not been able to store the water in the good times.

One of the ways of storing that water is underground. We know that above-ground storage can be controversial and the building of new dams is inevitably met with some resistance. But storing water underground not only is a real possibility but is less likely to be at all controversial. In April this year a workshop of leading groundwater experts convened by the National Centre for Groundwater Research discussed this topic and concluded that large volumes of water could be stored underground. Those same experts identified the eastern Australian areas, where much of the gas stores are located, as possible sites for future underground water storage.

I will repeat that, because it is a critical point. The very areas that we have have identified as possible sites for gas being stored are the areas that have been identified as areas where we could store water underground. I know the process is being and has been successfully used by the city of Salisbury and other places in the world, including in the US where in Orange County it is reported that around 300 gigalitres a year is being stored. That is more than all the water requirements of the city of Adelaide, where I come from, in a normal year. Underground water may not be visible, but it has been critical to sustaining communities across Australia. Good management of those underground water supplies is dependent on experts in this field.

I would like to finish where I started, by saying that this legislation is good legislation and it is timely legislation in view of the level of interest being shown in exploration activities around Australia. We know we have the mineral resources there. We know we have gases there and we know it is an area of activity that will only grow. It is in everybody's interest, it is in the national interest, to ensure that those activities are managed in the best interests of the nation and that can only come about if we have experts making the decisions, and not politicians who will possibly make them for other reasons.

See this speech in context