Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Hansard source

I take pleasure in joining the debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Export Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012. The bill establishes an independent scientific expert committee, and its roles will be to provide scientific advice to governments on relevant coal seam gas and large coalmining projects and commission and fund water resource assessments for priority regions.

As the member for Makin has said, this is an important piece of legislation. Although much of the focus on the issue of coal seam gas has come about through conflict and competing land-use pressures in states such as Queensland and New South Wales, this debate is also particularly relevant to Victoria, both today and into the future. There are some active licence applications for exploration in Victoria and in particular in the seat of Gippsland, where the debate over coal seam gas is certainly emerging as a significant issue. The development of this scientific committee has the potential to add some scientific rigour and some objectivity to a discussion that unfortunately at this stage has been hijacked to a large extent by emotional and some unsubstantiated rhetoric, primarily through the extreme Greens movement in Victoria. I do not think they are being very helpful at all in terms of their participation in this discussion in Victoria. In fact I would suggest they have not been very helpful in participating in a debate anywhere in Australia, but certainly in Victoria the emotional and subjective language which is being used and the divisive nature of their campaigns have not been of any benefit at all to the broader Gippsland community. If I were to stand here tonight and present my position more broadly, it would be one of cautious optimism about the potential economic opportunities associated with coal seam gas development in the Gippsland region. It is also tempered by a desire to hasten slowly and be sure that we get the processes right and respect the interests of the other stakeholders more generally. I obviously include in that broad statement the landowners themselves and the other important land uses such as agricultural production, particularly when we are talking about Gippsland. I think this legislation before the House is an important step forward, and it may help to resolve some of those issues that I have just touched on already in relation to Victoria.

The committee, importantly, once it is formed, will be in a position to advise on research priorities. It will also be able to advise on bioregional assessments in areas of high potential impact and coal seam gas and/or the large coalmining developments and provide advice to the Commonwealth environment minister on priority assessment areas. The committee will also be able to advise on research and bioregional assessments commissioned by the Commonwealth environment minister as a result of the committee's advice and also publish options on improving the consistency of research in this area and information on developing leading standards in the protection of water resources from the impacts of coal seam gas and large coalmining developments. I think that is a very important point. I have noticed many other speakers have already touched on that particular issue of making sure that in any standards or any requirements we place on the industry we recognise the absolute paramount importance of water resources and making sure we protect those water resources from the impacts of coal seam gas and large coalmining developments.

It is fair to say that that has been a very contentious issue in Gippsland already in relation to offshore operations associated with the oil and gas industry and the operations of the Latrobe Valley coalfields. The impact on water aquifers in the Gippsland Basin as a result of those activities has been the subject of much debate, and it continues to be of great debate and great importance to the people of Gippsland. So I think this legislation and the formation of the expert scientific committee gives us some heart, if you like, that the research work is going to be done and will inform the future decisions that are made by governments in relation to these major mining developments.

The committee will also be in a position to provide the environment minister and the relevant state or territory minister with expert scientific advice on coal seam gas and large coalmining development proposals that may have a significant impact on world resources. I emphasise that point because it refers directly to the fact that the committee will have a role in relation to the state and territory ministers as well, which, I think, is obviously going to be a critical part of the rollout of any further developments in Victoria.

This issue has exercised a great deal of discussion within the National Party itself. It is fair to say that if you follow the media coverage you will see a lot of discussion amongst National Party MPs and other regionally based MPs in relation to how we get the benefits of the coal seam gas industry without compromising a key constituency of the National Party—our farmers and landholders. It has caused a great deal of discussion, it is fair to say. It is something that we have kicked around within our own party room but also amongst our broader constituency in our own individual seats.

From our discussions, we have a fairly clear idea of where we believe the development of this industry should progress. Our approach to the coal seam gas resources is probably based on five key principles. Without wishing to dumb down the debate, I would suggest that there are five key principles we refer to. One of those is that no coal seam gas development should proceed where it poses a significant impact to the quality of groundwater or surface water systems.

Another of our principles is to recognise that prime agricultural land is an increasingly important natural asset and must be protected from activities that destroy its capacity to deliver food security not only for our nation but also more broadly for the world. We recognise there is going to be a huge food task and Australia is going to play a part in that, and we recognise that prime agricultural land—although, having put the term 'prime agricultural land' out there, we do acknowledge it is very hard to define what prime agricultural land is—is becoming a scarcity. Quality agricultural land is an issue for us. Making sure that we can allow for continued food security not just for Australia but more broadly throughout the world is one of the key principles that the National Party MPs in discussing this issue have settled on.

We recognise also that there is some conflict between coal seam gas developments and existing residential areas. We believe that people who have bought their own home with a reasonable expectation of being away from mining operations deserve some level of protection from those operations, and they should not end up with coal seam gas operations on their doorstep.

We also believe that landowners themselves are entitled to appropriate pecuniary returns from any coal seam gas which is sourced by reason of access to their land. This is a difficult issue, and I acknowledge that. There is some debate on this particular point, because individual wells may produce at a higher rate than others—so how do you set a level of return for a landowner for something which under our existing legislation they do not own? Nevertheless, we believe it is an important point that landowners who are adversely affected or who provide reasonable access to their land as part of these developments should be properly remunerated in some form.

We also believe—and this is a sticking point, I guess, for all regional MPs; I am sure that it is not just those from the National Party but also those opposite from regional seats and our Liberal colleagues who have this same view—that the regions which already deliver such an extraordinary amount of wealth to our nation deserve to have a return from the operation, whether it be coal seam gas or any other activities. I note one member opposite nodding in agreement. I will not, for the sake of her future prospects in the Labor Party, acknowledge who that is. I think all regional MPs have a particular passion about ensuring that there is a direct return to the communities who generate so much of this wealth. I have seen this in my own electorate of Gippsland.

If I were to be critical in any way of the oil and gas industry's development in my community—and it is only, in comparison to the broader benefits, a minor criticism—I would say that for over 40 years the oil and gas operations have been in Bass Strait but I still have towns in my electorate which do not have natural gas. Quite frankly, the people in my community find that quite bizarre. You can look out at Bass Strait and see 16 oil rigs from the hills at Lakes Entrance, and you do not have natural gas in your own town. There are many towns in Gippsland in that situation. We would like to see some of the development, opportunities and infrastructure that can flow back into regional communities flow back into the communities that delivered that wealth for our nation in the first place.

The previous speakers have done a very good job in addressing the benefits of unconventional natural gas, but they are worth repeating. Natural gas is a very flexible source of energy. Its high energy content and ease of pipeline transport hold advantages over competing energy sources. It is the cleanest burning of the fossil fuels and, when used for power generation, natural gas emits significantly less carbon dioxide, mercury, sulphur and nitrogen oxide than coal, which is obviously another important fuel in the Gippsland electorate. It provides greater energy security for the Australian nation.

We have abundant and accessible natural gas resources. Our challenge here, and I followed the discussion across both sides of the chamber, is not to be saying 'no', it is to know when to say 'yes' and what appropriate precautions and safeguards to put in place. I have been heartened by the constructive nature of the debate on both sides of the House. It is not necessarily having a shot at the industry, but the industry needs to stand up a bit and take some of the blame for this particular issue. It has lost the confidence of the Australian people in the extraction of coal seam gas.

The industry has an important role to play in itself now to rebuild that confidence. I believe this legislation will help. We are putting requirements in place that will set a very high standard of scientific rigour but the industry itself has to stand up to the plate and build confidence in its future. In order to build support for gas development in areas like Gippsland—and other parts of Australia—the industry has a responsibility to help the public understand more about those developments.

That may be difficult in some regards. Some of the communities we are talking about may have no historic background in terms of oil and gas development, unlike the Gippsland area which has been familiar with oil and gas development over the past 40 years. There are other parts of Australia which have suddenly been exposed to this type of development, never having seen it in the past. The pace of the development has taken some communities by surprise and perhaps the industry has not brought communities along with them. That has been a concern for many regional areas.

The other aspect that makes it a little difficult for the industry is that the industry itself is a very diverse group. You might have small companies with 20 or so employees; you might have independent oil and gas companies right through to international majors that have expanded participation through acquisitions. It is a very difficult industry to get your head around and to set standards where every participant in the industry meets those standards. I have had experiences in my electorate where some cowboys—if I can call them that—have not been well received. They have come along and done some exploration work and left a mess behind for the landholder to clean up afterwards, and that has disappointed landholders in my region in the past. Then you have other industry participants who are outstanding, who are very good at discussing their particular plans for exploration, for example, and work very well with the landholders.

I put the challenge out there to the industry that they have a role to play in building community confidence. Not just the government here with legislation before the House but also the industry more broadly. They have a role to play in ensuring that they bring the community with them and recognise the importance of negotiating with all stakeholders. It probably comes down to showing some good faith with the communities they want to work in and explaining to them what the benefits are going to be and what the long-term impacts might be, and let the community have that information before they make these decisions. We are talking about informed decision making. I believe the development of scientific advice in this legislation will inform that process very well.

The experience in Gippsland over 40 years with Esso and its joint venture partners has been a very positive one. It has been a mutually beneficial relationship where Esso has managed to source a lot of its staff from our community and has built an enormous reservoir of goodwill within the local community. Companies like that are going to need to draw on that reservoir of goodwill—without wishing to prolong the metaphor of the oil and gas sector—and start explaining what they hope to do in the future if they hope to participate in the coal seam gas developments in my community. The bottom line, and it has been mentioned by several speakers today, is that protecting water is important to everyone, and industry has a role to play in making sure that those impacts are properly communicated and understood.

A debate which is well informed, which is based on the science and in which the community is brought along with the industry is one that can be very constructive and can lend itself to some good long-term outcomes. This is not just for my seat of Gippsland but also for the Australian nation more broadly. Natural gas development does have great potential in regional communities. There is no question that we will have to make sure we utilise a variety of energy sources in the future to secure our nation's energy security.

I refer to the minister's second reading speech, where he stressed the need for that independent scientific advice and the need for the states to sign up and be part of this process. In his concluding remarks, he said, 'These arrangements will provide Australians with greater confidence that projects will be subjected to the most rigorous and objective scientific assessment.' That is the level of rigour the people of Australia expect, and I acknowledge that the people of Gippsland demand that of this government.

See this speech in context