Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Hansard source

I want to thank those members who have contributed to this debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill. I can confirm to the member for New England that in relation to the issues he raised during question time I commenced a process, on returning to my office, to get more information on the direct interaction and to make sure that the New South Wales principles sufficiently meet the expectations of the Commonwealth. And I am not sure if it has been communicated to the office of the member for New England yet, but I have also instructed that a briefing be made available for the member this week so that officials are able to directly update him and also answer questions back and forth. I do respect the long-term interest he has in making sure we get the science right on this issue and making sure that the state governments meet the expectations that we would hope.

I should also flag for the benefit of members that, if we are successful in having the House disagree with the amendments that are before us, then the next thing I would do after that vote is move some alternative amendments that deal with the issue of salinity. I know some members have been questioning whether or not that will occur, and I want to leave all members of the House in no doubt that it will.

Effectively, there have been a number of occasions now when I have been encouraged to make decisions without having, completed and in front of me, the best-quality scientific information that I would want. I am grateful for the work the member for New England has done to make sure that, in relation to the impact on underground water of coal seam gas and large-scale coalmines, scientific work is now being done, well in advance of individual applications coming forward. It provides a much better base for decision making. When people ask, 'Is it a toothless tiger?' I would say: knowledge never is. This is about making sure we get the knowledge and we get the information.

I was in a similar situation when the Queensland government in the Alpha dispute wanted me to make decisions without full surveys and without my taking into consideration all the information I needed to be able to make a proper environmental decision. While as late as yesterday the Deputy Premier was whingeing about delays, I make no apology for making sure that we get the information before we make the decisions. The debate we dealt with on the supertrawler last week was no different. If the answer to significant questions is simply, 'Well, we haven't studied that bit of it yet,' then I want a better answer before we hit time in order to be able to make a decision.

I commend these amendments to the chamber. Hopefully with the amendments that follow we can meet some of the concerns that are out there in communities without embarking on the pathway of deeply questionable policy that somehow possessed unexpectedly a few members of the coalition in the Senate.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the amendments set out in the schedule circulated to honourable members be made in place of the Senate amendments which have just been disagreed to.

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 29), after "water resources", insert ", including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity".

(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 17), after "water resources", insert ", including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity".

(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 23), after "water resources", insert ", including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity".

(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (line 2), after "water resources", insert ", including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity".

(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (line 5), after "water resources", insert ", including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity".

(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (line 9), after "water resources", insert ", including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity".

(7) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (line 13), after "development", insert ", including from any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity".

(8) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (line 17), after "resources", insert ", including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity".

(9) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (line 15), after "area", insert ", including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity".

(10) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (line 20), after "water resources", insert "(including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity)".

(11) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 8), after "resources", insert "(including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity)".

The amendments I am proposing now clarify a few things. First of all, they clarify that I must obtain advice from the committee when I believe a coal seam gas or large coalmining development will have a significant impact on water resources, including but not limited to the impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity.

Salt production and consequent salinity impacts are major issues in considering coal seam gas and large-scale coalmining proposals. Salt and related salinity impacts may arise from co-produced water during coal seam gas development, including aquifer interactions and groundwater and surface water diversions from large coalmining developments. They are therefore relevant considerations in working out whether these developments will have a significant impact on water resources. The amendments make it clear that the coal seam gas Committee will have to consider the impact of salt production and/or salinity.

I have to say, I do not view these amendments as producing anything significantly different to what we already had. I am not sure how you can take into account the impact on a water resource without taking into account the impacts on salinity. It would be a strange study of a water resource that managed to ignore the issue of salinity, but I am told that this will help us with Senators! So I am moving it.

See this speech in context