Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I support this Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012. I do no support it for plain-English reasons. I support it for making a substantial contribution to better outcomes in natural resource management—productive land protection and establishing science at the centre of planning processes for land use.

I acknowledge Minister Burke in the chair and the work that he has done, along with the member for New England, in getting this bill before the House. This is one of the key agreements to come out of a pretty brutal debate around mineral resource rent taxes and their worth or otherwise. Three agreements between me, the member for New England and government came out of those negotiations. This was one of them, alongside the establishment of a cabinet food, soil and water committee. It considers, through the GST distribution review, mining royalties and how they relate to and talk to tax reform generally and looks at the relationship between the Commonwealth and the state. We are still waiting for the supplementary papers from the GST distribution committee to see progress on that one.

Of the three agreements, this one is the first. This one is very important and talks to the heart of many communities. They are very vocal at the moment and are deeply concerned. They have fears, real or perceived, about the energy gold rush and its impact, both short and long term, on communities as a consequence of that. In my local electorate I have one particular community, the Gloucester Basin, which is being challenged by both coal seam gas and large-scale mining. Mining has been in Gloucester for some time on a relatively small scale. Gloucester has mainly been a farming community. It is a community that is at the head of the Manning River. It has about 300 tributaries in and around the beautiful Gloucester Basin that is at the bottom of the Barrington Range and the Barrington Tops. For environmental, lifestyle and food production reasons many people choose Gloucester as their home. They are deeply challenged, therefore, by proposals with regard to coal seam gas in the area. In the last couple of years, 110 wells have been proposed, with more to come. Of greater concern is a large-scale coalmine, 1½ kilometres from the centre of town. For local council planning purposes, the location of this particular mine is, on local council papers, for local environmental planning purposes. So there is a clash between state government land use planning of extracting a resource if it is there as the basic principle of state based land use planning and a council planning document that says, 'We're going to have a bit of development here, but here is an environmentally protected area.' The situation with completely opposite outcomes proposed by the council and the state is unsatisfactory and has the community deeply concerned.

The Gloucester community probably has about 2½ thousand people in it and nearly half the community turned out on a very cold evening to express their concerns about the New South Wales 'strategic' land use planning changes. A very strong view was expressed that even the new changes under the new government are completely missing the point and are really just embedding the problems that were experienced under the old regime in New South Wales, where, at the heart of planning was the view, as I said before, that if there is a resource it is the obligation of the Crown to extract it. For many communities, that is not what is at the heart of community and, for the long-term economic interests of Australia, that is not sensible nor strategic policy. Many are now seeing that with an expected nine billion people by 2050 there are threats around the world with regard to food security but for Australia enormous opportunities in food production. Whilst there is a recognition of this energy gold rush of the moment, the long-term story for Australia will, quite rightly, see a very strong rebirth of agriculture as an important contribution to the region around us and an important contribution to our standard of living through national economic outcomes. So we cannot 'cook' those productive lands to achieve a short-term benefit and do ourselves damage in the long term—that is the broad principle and starting point.

That is not to deny that there may be locations where mining expansion, coal seam gas, may have a place, but that is where the Commonwealth kicks in, that is where this particular bill kicks in, in making sure that those decisions are not made by vested interests, not made by political interests and not made by a state government of any political persuasion that has the mentality of, 'If there's a resource, we must extract it.' It is all about science, the best possible science we can find, and making decisions with regard to impacts on some pretty sensitive regions, not only the water but also the landscape and also—I am pleased about what we will see over time—issues of public health. All these things need to be taken into real and material consideration in making decisions about how we deal with this very sensitive clash between productive lands and the rush for energy.

I am very pleased that we are now seeing an independent scientific expert panel being put at the heart of decision making. I am also pleased to see the very sensible engagement with the states, and a key part of this is the development of national partnership agreements with the state. As we all know, from a Commonwealth perspective, land use and land use planning has predominantly been state based. They are effectively the owners of the land but the underlying principle of extracted oil costs, regardless of the long-term benefits of potentially not extracting in particular locations, is one that was not being heard. I think, therefore, the role of the Commonwealth in coordinating and enticing state governments to consider food security, water security and the protection of productive lands alongside considerations around energy and the extractive industries is an important step forward.

I am not sure whether we are there yet with all the states but we are pretty close. I am pleased that New South Wales have signed up. I do not see their logic at all, and I suspect they would not be seeing their logic in hindsight, in signing up to what is a pretty simple but effective approach to putting science at the heart of this process yet, within 24 hours, trying to release some other strategic land use planning process that they themselves have tried to establish and control, which, if you have seen any of the protests out the front of the New South Wales parliament, you will know has caused enormous community uproar.

My message to New South Wales once this bill is passed is to keep it simple: just use this. Make this the heart of your policy and the way out of the position you have put yourself in in trying to be, in my view, too clever by half. The protests that I and others have attended outside the New South Wales parliament were extraordinary. To see a coming together of farmers and environmentalists—a whole range of representatives of community interests—expressing deep concern at the loss of community as a consequence of getting this wrong should be a very loud and instructive message for us all. There is a way through and it is this bill. It is making sure that not only New South Wales but all states work very closely in cooperation and in collaboration with what is being attempted at a Commonwealth level. To have the Country Women's Association standing outside the New South Wales parliament for the first time ever in its 90-odd year history should say it all—that New South Wales has got it wrong. This bill has got it right. It is a difficult issue. It is one that has to navigate a path of cooperation through conflict and I congratulate the drafters in pretty well striking the balance.

I would also like to thank the many local organisations in my area who have been involved—the likes of the Manning Alliance, the Manning Clean Water Action Group, the Barrington-Gloucester-Stroud Preservation Alliance, the Gloucester Residents in Partnership and the Camden Haven Anti-fracking Group. It is arguably even more important to acknowledge the many individuals who are not aligned with any particular organisation, who have had signs up on their fences, who have been emailing—the very ordinary ones who do not want to protest and who do not normally want to engage in politics. These very ordinary people have done an extraordinary job in making sure this message is heard loud and clear around the country and have made it a priority issue on the agenda of all parliaments.

This bill reflects the concerns of farmers, homeowners, environmentalists, landholders and many others and, hopefully, now starts to get some sensible public policy. It should not act in isolation. I think public policy has a lot of things to consider deeply. For example, food security and the sort of strategy Australia takes—whether we should chase the idea of trying to feed all or start to shake the top end market of the Asia-Pacific and become a specialist in food security. There are opportunities in our strategy, but we need to think about it a lot.

Likewise, I do not think we have nailed water security and the issues around water yet. The Murray-Darling Basin issue is still up in the air. There are still issues being put up by the National Water Commission which are falling on deaf ears in government. There is more work to be done. The issue of soil protection is one that has not had its place on the public policy landscape as much as it could—probably because soil is a pretty, pardon the pun, dirty topic—but it needs its place. Our loss of topsoils globally is an issue of our time. It is an issue that this parliament needs to start taking seriously and needs to start contributing to not only domestically, but also internationally as we grapple with the loss of topsoil around the world. If science is to be believed and is to be trusted, this is an issue for the next hundred years if we do not deal with it. It is right before us; it is a complementary issue to water and food security.

I am pleased we have got to this point. Now it is about locking all the states into the national partnership agreement and getting these bioregional assessments up and running. Now it is about securing the place of the independent science at the heart of any development processes from here. And now it is about really trying to get the states—in my case New South Wales—to see the worth of this, to use it for their own benefit and to make this the heart of public policy on this difficult but important issue for the states, including New South Wales, moving forward. I congratulate the minister at the table, Minister Burke, and hopefully now we can get some sensible direction on some challenging policy.

See this speech in context