Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Minister, what is the government doing to improve the protection of underground water in mining and coal seam methane gas projects?

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

I want to thank the member for Hunter for the question. He is someone who has a significant resources industry within his electorate and is a strong supporter of jobs but also wants to make sure that we get the balance right.

The coal seam gas discussions that have been happening throughout the community and indeed throughout the parliament as well have brought very much to our attention the issues and the complexity of dealing with underground water. In the extraction of coal seam gas, large amounts of water are removed from aquifers. In circumstances where those aquifers do not have connection to the rest of the underground water, there is not necessarily a problem, but in circumstances where there is connectivity there can be very significant outcomes not only for environmental assets but also for agriculture.

There is a need for any scientific assessment of this to be part of environmental approvals, as has been the case at a federal level. There is also a need for that scientific assessment to be independent, and completely independent, of the other funding resources. People have often questioned whether or not, for something as significant as the water table, we should have a situation where the companies, for example, are the sole providers of the scientific research. That is why the government announced today that the standards we have been applying will actually be able to be applied nationally now through an independent expert scientific committee. It will be able to look at coal seam gas, it will be able to look at large-scale coalmining developments and it will, importantly, in doing so, be able to look at the protection of our water resources.

It is critical to remember that the federal approvals which have been given, which call for things like reinjection and which call for principles like re-pressurisation, are only able to apply to the extent that we activate Matters of National Environmental Significance. A number of members have pointed to this as a significant limitation. This is a well-resourced committee with $150 million behind it to be able to make sure that the science is understood on the connectivity between these aquifers and the rest of underground water. It not only will look at that to the extent that we have national environmental powers but will be able to look at water issues generally.

We then need to make sure that the states are willing to incorporate the work of this committee into their own environmental approvals. A national partnership agreement will be pursued with the states, with $50 million on the table for incentive payments to make sure that the states are willing to incorporate the best-quality scientific information made available through this committee into their own environmental approvals. By doing it this way, we manage to avoid the significant red-tape challenges that would be there by having a unilateral federal takeover of state approvals, so you do not get the extra layers of red tape but you do get the best-quality science. You do get the best-quality protection of underground water. You do make sure that the interests of the environment and the interests of agriculture are properly taken into account through working with the states and making sure that we have the best possible quality scientific information, made by a committee that is well-resourced and operating entirely independently of the mining companies themselves.