Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I listened with interest as the shadow minister for climate action, environment and heritage delivered a compelling and thoughtful speech on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012 last Wednesday. With even greater interest I watched the reaction to the address by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, who was at the table. The minister nodded with seriousness. He appeared as if he cared about and agreed with what the shadow minister said. It is a serious matter. There is bipartisan acceptance of the establishment of this coal seam gas committee. There is an amendment to this bill calling for members of the committee, except the chair, to be appointed on the basis that they have scientific qualifications that the minister deems appropriate to the performance of the committee's functions. This is a sound proposal.

I have previously seen Minister Tony Burke give a performance similar to last Wednesday's. I saw him listen and nod in the machinery shed of Benerembah farmer John Bonetti on 22 October 2010, just eight days after as many as 7,000 worried Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area residents—men, women and schoolchildren too—turned out at the first big Murray-Darling Basin Authority meeting at the Yoogali Club, Griffith. I saw him do the same, as well as taking copious notes, at the MDBA community meeting at the same venue on 15 December 2011 after the unacceptable draft plan had been announced on 28 November. This time, 12,000 people turned up, including the MDBA chairman, Craig Knowles, and the opposition leader. The reception the minister and the MDBA received was vastly different to that afforded Tony Abbott.

The MDBA obviously did not take heed of what was said that day, as only yesterday the states learned that the authority is pressing ahead with its intention to strip 2,750 gigalitres of productive surface water from our farmers. That is a big number. It is an especially high figure for farmers affected by both the basin plan and the contentious coal seam gas issue. But we probably already could and should have guessed that the revised draft basin plan number would be 2,750 gigalitres, equivalent to five Sydney Harbours. We should have figured it out when the Treasurer, who does not know the first thing about either farming or agribusiness and, worse, does not care, announced in his 8 May budget that $941 million of Murray-Darling Basin infrastructure money had been deferred to 2015-16. We should have realised it when money for buybacks was still very much left on the table.

The unacceptable 8 October 2010 basin guide, which became the unacceptable draft, has now morphed into the unacceptable revised draft which has been put to the states. I hope New South Wales and Victoria reject it out of hand for the disgrace that it is and for the contempt it has shown regional people who have put down tools, closed the doors of their businesses and stopped their tractors to attend community information meetings. New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries Katrina Hodgkinson has already rightly labelled the revised draft an insult to all.

The Independent member for New England yesterday queried the 12,000 attendance at that 15 December water rally at Griffith; he could not believe so many turned up. But that was the figure quoted by the local newspaper, the Area News, as well as the Daily Telegraphand the Land and the Mayor of Griffith, Councillor Mike Neville. Given that Griffith's population is 22,000, excluding the villages around the city, that is a remarkable turnout. That so many shut their shops, left their farms and went to show their support says a lot for the passion of this community and their need to have water security into the future.

The minister, who sat in this chamber last Wednesday nodding in agreement with our shadow minister about this legislation, will have the final say on the basin plan. Let us hope that, for the farmers' sake, for the nation's sake and for his sake, he makes the correct decision in the interests of our ability to feed ourselves and others into the future.

There are many in rural areas of northern New South Wales and Queensland who are just as committed to a balanced outcome in the coal seam gas issue. They, too, have turned up in large numbers at various meetings, including one in front of the New South Wales parliament on 1 May this year. Concerns about coal seam gas led members of the Country Women's Association to join thousands of protesters at the rally. NSW CWA President Elaine Armstrong from Oura near Wagga Wagga in my Riverina electorate, said the issues surrounding coal seam gas mining were so important that they had inspired the group to march on Sydney for the first time in its 90-year history.

This bill also has an important water component, one which must be put as the highest priority in any consideration about any coal development for the long-term sustainability of prime agricultural land and the environment. The independent expert scientific committee's role will be to provide scientific advice to governments on relevant coal seam gas and large coalmining projects and to commission and fund water resource assessments for priority regions.

In recent years there has been much public debate around coal seam gas operations and the effect they have on the environment, with groundwater resources being a chief concern. The federal coalition's position is a balanced approach for a coal seam gas industry, which has taken off with support by state authorities, whilst acknowledging that it is imperative to ensure Australian food security and fair rights for landholders. Issues pertaining to watertable preservation and the protection and integrity of aquifers must be addressed.

The environment and water minister has appointed an interim committee to give advice on coal seam gas and large coalmining awaiting its formal establishment by this bill. One sincerely hopes the committee does a far better job than the highly paid members of the independent authority who failed to achieve a Murray-Darling Basin Plan with a triple bottom line. Ask anyone in Griffith, Coleambally, Leeton, Deniliquin or Shepparton today what they think of the MDBA and I am sure you will get an angry response.

The government has allocated $150 million to resource the activities of this coal seam gas committee. An additional $50 million has been reserved for allocation to states by the committee as inducements to implement its recommendations. The committee has wide-reaching powers, as you would expect. These include: advising on research goals; advising on bioregional assessments in areas of high potential risk from coal seam gas and/or large coalmining projects and giving advice to the federal environment minister on priority assessment areas; advising on research and bioregional assessments commissioned by the minister subsequent to the committee's advice; publishing options on bettering the researching in this issue; and information on developing the very best protection of water resources from the effects of coal seam gas and large coalmining developments; providing the minister and the relevant state or territory counterpart with expert scientific advice on coal seam gas and large coalmining project proposals which may have a high and lasting impact on water resources; and providing other advice deemed appropriate and necessary.

The Land's Canberra correspondent Colin Bettles recently wrote an excellent series of articles detailing how Australia could learn from the coal seam gas experience in the United States of America. In the past 15 years thousands of coal seam gas wells have been drilled in the Powder River Basin, home to the US's biggest coal deposits, in southeast Montana and northeast Wyoming. As Bettles reported, for local ranchers it meant a share in rich royalties—if some interruptions to their agricultural operations. But now gas prices have tanked, mining companies are backing off and landowners are left with the legacy.

One of the telling quotes in Bettles' series came from Wyoming farmer Ed Schwartz, whose message for Australian farmers was:

… to get a tight water surface use agreement in place, before any mining activity starts.

“Make sure they reclaim the land, make sure they put up a sufficient bond to protect the water wells and don’t let them dump this water on the ground because if it’s salty like the water is here, it will kill the soil rather than improve it,” he said.

His son Troy said:

… the time it would take to repair the damage to critical land and water assets on his family ranch, caused by coalbed methane mining over the past decade, could take several lifetimes of his children and their grandkids—even with no more salt water running over it.

For many in Australia's coal seam gas regions, the horse has already well and truly bolted. However, this committee, if it undertakes the desired role, will certainly have an important part to play in ensuring environmental concerns are satisfactorily met on future developments. Given the amount of exploration and investment, the committee will—should—indeed be busy.

The economic benefits of the coal seam gas industry are now being realised across Queensland. The industry just gets bigger and bigger, and there is genuine and understandable concern about groundwater systems and surface water systems. We just heard from the shadow minister for agriculture, food security, fisheries and forestry, who made some pertinent points about the growth and value of coal seam gas in Queensland, and about our limited understanding of underground water systems.

Coal seam gas development requires a comprehensive policy approach which addresses the environmental, community and economic impacts of the industry. A measured, rational and balanced approach to the industry and its management is needed and is vital. Managed correctly, with proper safeguards in place, coal seam gas has the potential to revitalise parts of regional Australia. I know my colleague here, the member for Maranoa, is well aware of that, because it has brought great benefits and investment to his region and it delivered a new economic boom. Poorly managed it could become an environmental and social nightmare for the Commonwealth—certainly for the people who live in affected areas—and for the nation's future and that of our Great Artesian Basin. No coal seam gas development should proceed where it poses a real and lasting threat to the quality of groundwater or surface water systems. It must be crystal clear that no coal seam gas development should take place unless it is proven safe for the environment. Prime agricultural land is an increasingly important natural asset. It must be preserved and protected from activities which destroy its capacity to deliver food security not only for Australia but for a hungrier world, particularly in this Asia-Pacific region, for generations to come. Australia can play a key part in feeding the world as Asia booms.

Global food security is sure to be among the top issues most likely to lead to serious international conflicts over the next decade. There is a widening gulf between world food supply and demand. Worldwide demand for food will escalate dramatically in the coming years as the world population hurtles towards and beyond nine billion while limited resources of arable land and fresh water will become even more meagre.

The Prime Minister said in a groundbreaking speech to the Global Foundation Summit in Melbourne on 3 May that 'Australia must be ready to act as the food bowl of Asia' into the future and that we need to 'strengthen irrigation'. To do what the Prime Minister rightly says we need to do as a nation and supporter of Asia and the Pacific Rim, we must not enforce a man-made drought on our farmers through poor water policy decisions and we must get the issue of coal seam gas right.

Coal seam gas development must not be allowed to occur close to existing residential areas. People who have bought a home—their biggest lifetime investment—with a reasonable expectation of being away from mining operations must not have their lives turned upside down by coal seam gas operations springing up on their doorstep. Landowners are entitled to satisfactory pecuniary returns sourced by reason of access to their land. Remuneration for landowners should not be restricted to compensation. The regions which deliver much of the wealth from coal seam gas developments deserve to see a fair share of generated revenues reinvested in their communities.

There is an opportunity to grow our nation and encourage a lasting legacy from finite coal seam gas developments. The environment must be protected, as must the economic development imperatives of regional Australia and the legitimate rights of landowners. Unless regional communities are engaged as partners and have something meaningful to gain from the development of the coal seam gas industry, they will not support it, let alone on their land. Why would they? Without winning widespread support from regional communities, coal seam gas development will not proceed.

The need to earn a social licence is a reality with which the coal seam gas industry and governments must come to terms. State governments have primary responsibility for the approval and supervision of the coal seam gas industry, and the role and efforts of state governments in dealing with this issue are recognised. However, the stakes are so high for regional Australia that federal leadership is mandatory—something the Gillard government has lacked in so many areas, not just coal seam gas.

For regional Australians, it is acknowledged that coal seam gas presents both opportunities and threats. We must ensure the benefits of this emerging boom take into consideration the environment. That means finding a fair and necessary balance between the needs of mining companies, landowners and communities. Meeting those needs and spreading the benefits will smooth the way to underwrite support for the industry and guarantee it delivers regional Australia and, through it, the nation a lasting legacy far beyond the 35-year life of a coal seam gas well.

See this speech in context