John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Hansard source

As I was saying yesterday evening, when I was abruptly terminated, the committee has the ability to publish options on improving the consistency of research in the area and information on developing leading standards in the protection of water resources from the impacts of coal seam gas and large coalmining developments. This is probably the big issue in being able to protect the aquifers, and at the same time allowing agriculture to continue doing what it does very well and the gas to be extracted. The committee provides the environment minister and relevant state or territory ministers with expert scientific advice on coal seam gas and large coalmining development proposals that may have a significant impact on water resources, and it provides other advice in whatever circumstances.

The background of it all is that while the technology to extract gas from coal seams has been long in existence, it has only been in the last decade and a half or so that development has actually occurred in our country of Australia. Currently, around 90 per cent of Queensland gas is supplied from CSG operations, and it represents approximately 10 per cent of Australia's total gas production. The industry is in the process of growing; in Queensland alone it is expected to deliver 18,000 jobs and around $850 million in royalties per year.

The federal government will also benefit from a substantial increase in income and in company taxes. There has been considerable public debate, as there would be, around CSG operations and the environmental impact, with groundwater resources being a key concern. But issues relating to water table preservation and the protection and integrity of aquifers need to be addressed. That is the prime issue. The establishment of the committee would add independent expert input into the debate. The coalition believes the committee is a positive step towards improving public confidence in the environmental integrity of the industry.

There is one proposed amendment to the bill. The bill 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. The coalition proposes that, as the committee's fundamental reason for being is to advise on scientific issues relating to water associated with CSM and coalmining, the bill should require a majority of the members to have advanced qualifications and expertise in the key fields of geology, hydrology or hydrogeology. That is a very important issue.

While this bill is about the establishment of a committee to provide scientific advice to governments on relevant coal seam gas and large coalmining projects, access to land by CSG operators is a very significant issue to the farmers on that land. In addition, there is a significant concern that farmers are not receiving fair compensation for access to their land and a share of any profits. Obviously farmers must get compensation for surface interference and everything that goes with it, but this is very different to ordinary mining, where the company tends to buy at a very good price the land the mine is actually on and buys a buffer zone around it. Ordinary mining tends to resolve itself, but coal seam is different because they do not buy the land. They are probably there for 15 years, or maybe 20, so they are not going to buy it. So the interference is permanent. It is there for 15 years or so. It is very real.

There are three priorities which we need to balance. One is the water. We have to get it right. We have to make sure that coal seam gas is not going to have a major impact on our water resources and destroy the environmental and practical values of our productive capacity. We know there is still much about our underground water that we do not know, so we have to not make hasty decisions that we will regret. We need to look at the impact on farmers and farming land. On the water, I have spoken to the drillers—not the exploration companies. I mean the people whose livelihood revolves around their ability to drill and pass that information back to their employer. The drillers believe they actually can preserve the aquifers by their knowledge and their actions, and we certainly need that to be the case. Many of the farmers who are outspoken in the media just want the coal industry to stop; they just do not want it to happen. Yet in widespread consultation with farmers it is apparent that many are happy to accommodate the coal seam gas industry as long as their interests are not compromised and they are compensated. I believe they need to get a share in the profits.

The third and final issue is that Australia has ongoing energy needs which must be met and that coal seam gas, if handled properly, can help reduce our emissions, amongst other things, but at the same time we are talking about agricultural land that cannot be replaced. They are not making any more of it. They are making a lot more people, and agricultural land needs to be here forever.

None of these issues is easy, and good policy to address them will take time and continue to be refined, but we are abrogating our responsibilities if we just say no or yes because it is too hard to actually solve the issues. Hopefully this committee is a step in the right direction and can lead to a robust policy outcome, but it will not actually solve the issue. At the end Australia needs both farmers and exploration, but farmers must have their water protected and they must have a say in how that happens.

See this speech in context