Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be agreed to.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

        Schedule 2, Part 2, page 295 (after line 34), after item 161, insert:

161A  After section 255

Insert:

255C Mitigation of unintended diversions

                 Prior to exploration licences being granted for subsidence mining operations on alluvial floodplains that have underlying groundwater systems forming part of the Murray-Darling system inflows, an independent study must be undertaken into the impacts of such mining on those systems.

The amendment that I am moving to the Water Amendment Bill 2008 is to mitigate unintended diversions. This issue has been around for quite some time and many members would remember from the last parliament that the then Minister for Environment and Water Resources, Malcolm Turnbull, agreed to fund a study into the offsite impacts of longwall mining activities on groundwater systems and the interconnectivity of those systems with the river systems. At the time, Mr Turnbull and then Prime Minister John Howard stated on a number of occasions when under questioning in this House that there was a lack of knowledge about the connectivity issues of groundwater and the way in which it would impact on the Murray-Darling system. The issue needs to be resolved, because the bill that we have before the House at the moment, which amends the Water Act, is putting in place a structure related to basin plans and the various cap activities on the ends of catchments. To be able to do that successfully, we really need to understand those relationships that are happening in the groundwater systems. It is very clear that we do not.

This issue has come about in my electorate because of the exploration licence that was granted at the state government level to the company BHP to explore quite a large area of the Liverpool Plains, which is an alluvial floodplain on a portion of the Namoi Valley catchment. The Namoi Valley not only is one of the most productive areas of Australia but also forms part of the Murray-Darling system. It not only has river systems involved in it but also has very extensive groundwater systems. Those groundwater systems, we believe, are interconnected; the degree of interconnectivity is unknown. The way in which those systems relate to the river systems is also largely unknown, but it is understood that there is a relationship between the two. BHP were granted a licence by the New South Wales state government to explore for coal, and they are currently doing that. A Chinese company, Shenhua, has recently been granted another licence to explore for coal. I think it cost something like $360 million for the granting of the licence. To my knowledge that has not been paid yet, and hopefully that is a good sign, but the fact is that the state government is granting licences on these alluvial floodplains when it really has no idea what impact longwall mining would have on those particular areas if those licences went ahead.

Under a state based planning process, as long as the area that is impacted by the mining activity is remediated, that is all that is required. What concerns a lot of people in that area—and should concern the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Minister for Climate Change and Water and this parliament—is, if we are trying to come to grips with the Murray-Darling system, what offsite impacts there could be if longwall mining did occur and there was a breach in the hydraulic nature of those systems. No-one knows the answer to that. That is why we need an independent study to determine the relationships between the groundwater systems themselves and between the groundwater systems and the river system.

I particularly congratulate Mr Tim Duddy, who is currently blockading BHP on a property on the Breza Plain. The landholders there have formed themselves into a group and are very serious about this issue. Senator Wong is well aware of this issue and has been asked on a number of occasions to look closely at it. The state government has put in place a facilitator, Pam Allan, whom you would remember, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz, from your days in state parliament. (Extension of time granted) She is to look at the issue of whether there is a need for an independent study.

I believe that it is in the interest of the coal industry that an independent study take place, because it is pointless to grant exploration licences if the companies will not be able to mine on those areas of land. It is in the interest of everybody that those licences not be granted on these alluvial floodplains, where not only will subsidence occur but there could be impacts on those groundwater systems in the Murray-Darling system. I call very strongly for an independent study.

Part of the evidence base in relation to my call for a study is the National Water Commission, and I would advise the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts to look at the website of the National Water Commission today, because I believe this would still be on that website—it was there yesterday. Under the heading ‘Groundwater-surface water connectivity and water reform’ it says:

Groundwater and surface water resources are intimately linked. Although we are still unclear as to the extent of these interconnections, they have important implications for management of both ground and surface water resources. It is critical that we build the knowledge and capacity needed to jointly manage these resources

The National Water Initiative recognises the connectivity between surface and groundwater resources and requires connected systems to be managed as a single resource.

In 2007, in its first biennial assessment of progress in implementation of the National Water Initiative, the National Water Commission found:

… limited recognition in water plans of the connectivity between surface water and groundwater resources. States have arrangements in place to manage groundwater, although they do not yet amount to sophisticated, integrated management. This is largely due to the complexity of the hydrology and a lack of knowledge of linkages and impacts.

The commission concluded, and this report is available on their website today:

Significantly more effort needs to go into building knowledge of groundwater resources and the capacity to manage them.

If that is not a clear indication of the lack of knowledge on this particular issue, I do not know what is.

After I spoke on this amendment in the House yesterday I was contacted by members of Senator Wong’s staff. They told me not to be too concerned about the passage of this amendment because the bill, and the original bill that we are amending, actually allows for a study to take place. I looked at the legalese of what it actually says, and the words used are ‘may’ and ‘can’. The authority may or can, and the minister may or can, implement a particular study if in fact there is seen to be a diverting of water from one system to another, a polluting of water or a whole range of other issues. The fact is that it does not say ‘will’.

The purpose of this amendment is to protect these very productive lands. I know the same sort of issue is starting to evolve in the Darling Downs, in the seat of Maranoa, where there are very similar concerns. There is an extraordinary lack of knowledge. I know the minister will probably stand up in a minute and say, ‘This is a state based issue.’ That is what he did when I asked him a question about this issue about a month ago. Minister, the state based planning process is flawed. It looks at the localised impact—(Time expired)

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the amendment moved by the member for New England and I will offer some comments by way of reply. I note also that he has had the opportunity to have some discussion, as we have now learnt, with staff from Senator Wong’s office. I think the first thing to say to the member is that the basin plan in relation to water resources is a comprehensive one and it does cover surface and groundwater use. It does not have the gap in coverage that the honourable member has referred to. I refer the honourable member to sections 22(3)(d) and 22(3)(k), which in fact set out the aspects of the mandatory content for the basin plan in relation to managing interception activities which would have a significant impact on the basin’s water resources, including provisions in relation to harnessing scientific knowledge, which I know goes to the heart of the member’s concerns, so to inform those considerations. In particular, section 22(7) requires water access rights to be held for specific kinds of interception activities and also requiring assessment of the potential impact of such interception activities on water resources in the area prior to approval under state law. The terms ‘may’ and ‘can’ are entirely appropriate designations of ministerial authority in that sense.

The second thing to say to the honourable member is that the independent expertise that the authority will exercise is responsible for the considerations that are contained in this amendment to this bill. So this is what the authority will primarily be concerning itself with. In relation to the matter that the member specifically raises—that is, the issuing of mining licences—it is the case that it is a state issue, and it is unclear as to what obligations a Commonwealth mandated independent study would place on this state process.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Katter interjecting

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And on that basis the government does not support the amendment given the comprehensive nature of the mandatory content of the basin plan already provided. I thank the member for New England for his contribution and for bringing this important issue to our attention.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to respond to what the minister has just said, and he may be able to outline in some greater depth some of the relationships that he just established. He referred to the way in which the original Water Act, the act that we are amending, actually allows for an independent study of this nature to take place. But he would be well aware of section 22(7) of the act. It says that this can go as far—that this ‘may’ require. Right throughout the amendment bill that we are debating today and the act itself there are these constant references to ‘can’ and ‘may’.

The point I was making earlier is that that does not mean that they will in fact carry out a study. The fact is that you yourself, Minister, again said that the mining licence arrangements are a state issue. Minister, you spent quite some time in your speech talking about the blame game in terms of the Murray-Darling system and the history of what has happened. A lot of the tragedies in the Murray-Darling system have occurred because of exactly that principle—one state was doing something and another state was doing something else.

This whole amendment bill is about bringing a process together that has an impact across the four states. I do not have any argument with that, but how can you bring a process together when, as you have said in your own words, the state will determine where the licences are? The member for Kennedy was right; the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act does allow the Commonwealth minister to override the states in relation to some of these issues, but how can you override something if you have no knowledge of the potential impact of it? We have this absurd arrangement where the National Water Commission, I think it is, is carrying out a survey of the impacts of mining on groundwater systems essentially in reverse—waiting for an impact to occur and then saying, ‘If we do that again, we had better change the rules.’ That is a farcical way to look at this. These are highly valuable lands. What is the point of this legislation if it is not about preserving our environment?

Here we have an unknown risk—there is a lot of talk of risk assessment in the amendment bill—to the environment. How can you determine a cap on the system when you do not know how much is coming from the groundwater systems into the system? If someone knows what that amount of water is, they should say. We do not understand those systems. I chaired a committee in 2000 on this very valley, and the lack of knowledge was outstanding. Determining the interconnectivity between groundwater zones side by side was almost guesswork. We do not understand those systems. The Commonwealth does have a role. It makes a farce of this bill if, in fact, because of the relationship between the states and the Commonwealth, a state can actually go ahead and, because of its lack of knowledge, do whatever it likes in relation to mining, thus destroying the very initiatives that you, Minister Garrett, and Minister Wong are trying to put in place for the preservation of the environment.

You also refer, Minister, to the issuance of mining licences, which is a state issue. Irrigation licences are a state issue as well. I would like you to comment on this if you would. Are you saying that the state will have jurisdiction over the issuance of irrigation licences as well within the context of the four-state agreement? I do not think you are, but you cannot have it both ways and say that one is on one side of the fence and the other one is on the other side. We are going to castrate the irrigation industry through a process but allow big business to move across the food-producing areas. I ask you to answer those questions. I believe the coalition will be supporting this legislation and I thank them for that. I intend to take this further and talk to the crossbenchers in the Senate to see whether this amendment can be relayed in the Senate. (Time expired)

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Windsor’s) be agreed to.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Water Amendment Bill 2008. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (8) together.

Leave granted.

I move amendments (1) to (8):

(1)    Schedule 2, page 273 (after line 7), after item 59, insert:

59A At the end of section 41

Add “together with any document prepared under paragraph 43(11)(a) or 43A(6)(d)”.

(2)    Schedule 2, page 273, after proposed item 59A, insert:

59B Paragraph 43(11)(b)

Repeal the paragraph.

(3)    Schedule 2, page 275 (after line 29), after item 63, insert:

63A At the end of section 45

Add “together with any document prepared under paragraph 47(11)(a) or 47A(5)(d)”.

(4)    Schedule 2, page 275, after proposed item 63A, insert:

63B Paragraph 47(11)(b)

Repeal the paragraph.

(5)    Schedule 2, item 77, page 279 (after line 27), after subsection 74A(2), insert:

     (2A)    The Minister is taken, on the commencement of this section, to have made a determination under subsection (1) that New South Wales is a State to which this section applies.

(6)    Schedule 2, item 93, page 282 (line 26), after “the Commonwealth”, insert “(including any agency of the Commonwealth)”.

(7)    Schedule 2, item 93, page 282 (line 27), after “the Commonwealth”, insert “(including any agency of the Commonwealth)”.

(8)    Schedule 2, item 93, page 282 (line 30), omit “the Authority”, substitute “the Commonwealth (including any agency of the Commonwealth)”.

The Commonwealth is moving amendments relating to three distinct matters, the first involving an amendment to recognise New South Wales as a state applying the National Water Initiative risk assignment framework. In the IGA, on the mechanism for this referral of power, the government committed to recognising in the Water Amendment Bill 2008 any state that enacts legislation to adopt the National Water Initiative risk assignment framework as modified by the Murray-Darling Basin IGA. On 24 September 2008 the New South Wales parliament passed amendments to its Water Management Act 2000 to adopt the National Water Initiative risk assignment as modified by the Murray-Darling Basin IGA. The Commonwealth is therefore moving an amendment to the Water Amendment Bill to recognise New South Wales as a state which applies the National Water Initiative risk assignment framework.

The second matter involves amendments to schedule 2, item 93 of the bill to clarify that water access rights and interests held by the Commonwealth for the purposes of the Living Murray initiative are not part of the Commonwealth Environment Water Holder holdings and therefore do not fall under the management of the CEWH. Presently the bill only separates Murray-Darling Basin Authority rights and interests from the Commonwealth Environment Water Holder holdings. However, the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts also holds some water access rights and interests for the purpose of the Living Murray initiative, and an amendment is therefore required to separate these rights and interests from those of the CEWH.

The third matter involves clarifying the process for consideration and adoption of the Basin Plan. Currently the provisions of the existing Water Act 2007 and the bill, read together, would require the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to give the minister a document summarising public submissions and explaining resulting changes to the proposed Basin Plan and a copy of the Basin Plan for adoption before the ministerial council is required to consider the plan. The proposed amendment would ensure that the authority is not required to provide this documentation and a copy of the Basin Plan for adoption to the minister until all consultation processes, including with the ministerial council, are complete.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We accept, and have no problems with, the eight amendments to the Water Amendment Bill 2008 laid down by the government here. We thank the government for the notification, and we agree that the amendments are consequential to actions taken within New South Wales by the New South Wales parliament. I would, however, pose one question for the minister: will the government be setting out an express, clear and absolute timetable in relation to water savings from infrastructure investments so that we can see an actual intended annual saving in terms of megalitres and gigalitres which will come from the deployment of the funding for water infrastructure savings? Will there be such a table and, if so, when will it be published?

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government’s approach to dealing with the matters that are raised by the honourable member has been laid out clearly both in the second reading speech and in the Water Amendment Bill 2008, which amends the original act, and I think that the member will find that information contained therein.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.