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

In relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012, the opposition is delighted to provide its support, although we wish to make one significant amendment. Let me begin by putting this bill in context before examining the bill, the committee and the issues in relation to water and farmers' rights over their own land.

The starting point is that there are two great issues in relation to coal seam gas. The first, the subject of this bill, is an environmental issue in relation to the protection of our water resources against the sorts of outcomes which we have seen from bad practices in some of the West Coast and Central West areas of the United States, the sorts of practices which may inadvertently lead to the depletion of aquifers or the poisoning of certain subterranean water bodies. That is a deep, real, legitimate, prime concern. We do not play dice with our underground water resources, our aquifers, the resources of the Murray-Darling Basin or the Great Artesian Basin; we simply do not take risks on that front. I will come back to that later.

What this bill does not do—and I think it is very important to acknowledge this—is address the issue of farmers' access to and control over their own land. One of the most significant issues surrounding coal seam gas is that farmers feel they are losing control of their land. Of course there has been a royalties regime, of course there has been a right of access in contemporary Australian history in relation to minerals and other forms of energy, but there is a new challenge. This House would be derelict in its duty if it did not acknowledge the issue that coal-seam gas poses for farmers and their land.

This bill does not deal with this issue, although my own view is that the right thing, the decent thing, the honourable thing would be for the gas companies to unilaterally agree on a moratorium on exploration or exploitation of resources unless there is consent from the landholder. That is a personal view and something that should be decided on at the level of each state, because the states have control over the land. It is not something which the federal parliament can or should be doing, because we fundamentally believe in the rights of state governments to control their critical resources. But similarly, we think that responsible companies can and should make that agreement. Not everybody will be in accord with this view, but I have personally spoken with many of the players in the industry, the vast majority of whom have indicated strong in-principle support for this notion of a voluntary moratorium unless there is consent. Let's consider these resources, but let's recognise that the best way to deal with legitimate community and individual anxiety is to recognise that control, and the best people to do that are the key players in key companies who need to agree across the board that they will adopt a moratorium unless there is voluntarily given consent for either exploration or exploitation. That is the general principle.

Given the presence in the chamber of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, I repeat that it is my view and not a formal policy position that perhaps could be achieved on a bipartisan basis—that is, an agreement with the key exploration and exploitation companies in relation to coal seam gas where they impose upon themselves a voluntary moratorium on exploitation or exploration on individual plots of land unless there is consent. I respectfully say to Minister Burke that there is a strong readiness across the gas community to adopt this standard. I do not hold out that it is universal, but I do believe that good leadership can help bring this about by including the premiers of New South Wales and Queensland and leaders at the Commonwealth level. We would be happy to play our part. We do not seek to impose this standard, but we do think that there is a window of opportunity to bring it to pass. I note that many of the critical players in the industry have recognised the legitimate community concern about farmers' land rights and they are looking at this standard. Perhaps over the coming months a voluntary agreement can be brought to pass.

I turn to the bill which establishes the independent expert scientific committee on coal seam gas and large coalmining development. We agree with the purpose, because it is about providing adequate information as a precursor to understanding the impacts of coal seam gas on water resources. In order to do that, it establishes a scientific committee. In particular the key functions of the committee are, firstly, to advise on research priorities and, secondly, to advise on bioregional assessments, of which we are supportive, in areas of high potential impact from coal seam gas and to provide advice to the Commonwealth environment minister on priority assessment areas. Thirdly, to advise on research and bioregional assessments commissioned by the minister. Fourthly, to publish options on improving the consistency of research in this area. And, fifthly, to provide the Commonwealth minister and the relevant state or territory ministers with expert scientific advice on particular coal seam gas or large coalmining proposals that may have a significant impact on water resources. It also has a more general plenary power to advise as and when circumstances arise.

The background to this is relatively clear. The technology to extract the gas from coal seams has been in existence for a long period. It has been through a transformative process over the last 15 years and the economics have changed in such a way that we now have a legitimate chance of providing significant revenue for Australia, revenue for rural communities and an additional competitively priced form of energy, whether it is for domestic use or export production. The industry is growing substantially. In Queensland alone the expectation, on the best available advice we have, is for 18,000 jobs and around $850 million in royalties per year. At a federal government level there is also income and company tax. But none of this is acceptable if it comes at the price of destruction of our fundamental water resources. Water is king—let us be absolutely clear on that. The standard we set is that we will not play dice with, risk or put on the table the safety or sanctity of our aquifers, the Great Artesian Basin or our subterranean water resources. That is a principle on which I believe there is clear bipartisan agreement.

To deal with this the committee is established as a precursor to other critical developments. It is a step toward providing comprehensive mapping of all of those areas which are likely to be the subject of consideration. Against that background, we are supportive of the bill; but we do have one proposed amendment. We are not going to hold a gun to the head of the government on this—we are dealing in good faith; but we ask the government to consider our amendment and approve it. The amendment will be moved by the member for Groom, Ian Macfarlane, who has a close personal connection with this issue not just as a Queenslander but as somebody who represents an area of Australia, in and around Toowoomba and the Darling Downs, which may well be subject to significant further proposals. It is his deep personal concern (a) about water resources and (b) about the rights of individual farmers which has led to that.

The bill currently states that each member of the committee except the chair is to be appointed on the basis that they possess scientific qualifications that the minister considers relevant to the performance of the committee's functions including but not limited to ecology, geology, hydrology, hydrogeology, natural resource management and health. Our proposal, to be moved by the member for Groom, is that the committee's fundamental reason for being is to advise on scientific issues and therefore the bill should require that a majority of the members have advanced qualifications and expertise in the three key fields of geology, hydrogeology or hydrology. It is not a fundamental change. It is about providing more grunt and credibility to this committee. My request is that the government accept this proposal. We are willing to talk about any variations. This is not an ambit claim; it is a legitimate proposal for improvement. We are committed to the notion of protecting water resources as a fundamental and, therefore, this can make a contribution.

Then there is the question of access to the land, which was the subject of my earlier points. Farmers' rights are as critical as protection of aquifers, subterranean water and Great Artesian Basin resources. While this bill is not about farmers' rights, it is about the establishment of a committee to provide scientific advice. We believe that we need to work with the farming community, and I personally believe that the standard of voluntary consent should be what the industry settles upon for exploration and exploitation of these resources. That is a personal view—but I think there is an opportunity for the minister. We have met with coal seam gas companies and other companies considering entering this field and put it squarely to them that this is the standard which we think should be adopted. At this time there is a window of opportunity and I would commend that to the government and to the minister at the table. Having said that, this is a good bill. It is a good step forward. We commend it to the House and we are delighted to support it.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of this piece of legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012.

My community, Ipswich, was built on coalmining. At one stage we had about 30 coalmines in Ipswich. Ipswich has also been the scene of some of the worst tragedies in Queensland with many deaths as result of the coalmining industry, including at Box Flat in the early 1970s where many men were killed. If you look at the crest of Ipswich you will see 'Be confident when doing right' in Latin, but you will also see symbols of the coalmining industry. Coalmining has been a particularly important industry in Ipswich. Thousands of men, and some women as well, have worked in the industry, which is developing Ipswich and providing funds and employment for the local community. If you go to the heritage centre at Redbank Plains you will see the wonderful work done by the CFMEU to restore and remember Ipswich's coalmining history.

There is still coalmining in the Ipswich and West Moreton region. There are two active New Hope coalmines near Rosewood, a rural township near Ipswich; Jeebropilly is one and New Oakleigh the other. They provide employment. When I first became a federal member there was some talk that all coalmines in Ipswich would be closed but in fact there has been an expansion of coalmining in the Ipswich and West Moreton region.

If you look at any of the newspapers from around South-East Queensland—like the Fassifern Guardian, the Kilcoy Sentinel or the Gatton Staror the Toowoomba Chronicle in places like the Scenic Rim area, the Lockyer Valley, the rural parts of Ipswich, the Brisbane valley, the Kilcoy shire, or the Toowoomba and Darling Downs areas—you will see letters to the editor, press releases from politicians, and comments made by councillors and chambers of commerce. This is a very big issue. Coalmining and the coal seam gas industry is a controversial issue. I do not always agree with the member for Flinders, but his comment in relation to water is accurate. It is extremely important that we make sure we have a good, adequate and clean water supply not just for industry and agriculture but also for the consumers—the men and women, the mums and dads—in these rural areas like Boonah, Gatton, Fernvale and Lowood, and major provincial cities in Queensland, like Toowoomba and Ipswich.

In the last state election in Queensland we heard a lot of controversial statements and claims. We saw the new LNP government and the now Premier make a play for every side of the street on this particular issue, saying one thing to farmers and another to industry. When the Prime Minister was in Ipswich some time ago this issue was raised with her, and it is certainly an issue that has been raised with me. There is great controversy around mining explorations and mining licences in and around Ipswich and Ebenezer, as well as Mount Mort, Mount Walker and other areas. I am aware of this as a local member, I am aware of this from my childhood and I am aware of this from my time working and living in Ipswich.

This legislation goes towards addressing some of the community's concerns in relation to coal seam gas and large coalmining developments. To put it in its context, the community concerns could be expressed like this: there was talk some months ago around the upper part of the Brisbane Valley, where there are 900 people on the electoral roll in the rural township of Toogoolawah. In fact, about a quarter of the township came out one very cold and bitter night to talk about coalmining, the possibility of coalmining in the Brisbane Valley and its proximity to the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams. They expressed strong community concern and objection. I notice the Somerset Regional Council has also expressed its objection to large coalmining developments in and around the Brisbane Valley. Certainly, with its emphasis on tourism and agriculture, and its proximity to the water supply for Brisbane and Ipswich, large coalmining developments are not appropriate in the Brisbane Valley region.

We have listened to what communities have said in South-East Queensland and elsewhere, and we are looking at introducing a new science based framework to provide some certainty for these communities, protecting the long-term health of our water supplies, making sure that the best scientific analysis and evidence can be given, and advice offered, to governments. I applaud the Prime Minister for announcing in November 2011 that the new independent expert scientific committee will be established in relation to these issues. This will take some of the heat out of the issue—not all of it, of course, but some of it—and will make sure that people can rely on expert advice. They are concerned about the impact on water resources. They are concerned about what might happen in their region to biodiversity, conservation, the environment and protected species. They are concerned about all of these issues.

This bill creates a new division under part 19 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, establishing a new statutory committee with responsibility for: research; advice on bioregional assessments, and on the impact of coal seam gas and large coalmining developments; advice on research and development commissioned by the minister for the environment following consideration of that committee's advice; and providing advice in a number of other areas as well. It provides for information on the comparability and consistency of research. We often have the coal seam gas industry commissioning expert advice and evidence, which is then contradicted by other people.

This is about best practice. It is about making sure that we have listened to community concerns. It is about providing, by legislation, the creation of a new committee which will give that advice, making sure that the minister, while being accountable, open and transparent and while listening to local communities, has the best independent expert scientific advice on hand for coal seam gas and large coalmining developments. I think that will in some way assuage the concerns of people in the Ipswich and West Moreton regions. I know it will continue to be an issue. I know some farmers are supportive of these developments while others have tremendous hostility. We have seen a strange marriage of political alliance between the likes of Alan Jones and Bob Katter, and we have seen the Greens also involved in these things.

We want to make sure that we can take the heat out of these issues. We want to make sure that the government makes good decisions, and that councils and state governments make good decisions, in relation to planning and development. We want to make sure that the kinds of decisions we make take into consideration the environment, the flora and fauna, the potential economic development of the industries and the employment opportunities. We also want to make sure that these decisions maintain the viability of these communities and the viability of an agricultural industry which, to Queensland, is particularly important. I am aware of this from living in Ipswich and I am aware of this from being a federal member.

I commend the legislation to the House and I support it.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on this bill, the substance of which has a significance well beyond this parliament. The bill in question, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012, is one that formalises the plan to establish an independent expert scientific committee on coal seam gas and large coalmining development. As previous speakers have said, there is a level of community concern in relation to these developments, and I will come back to that in more detail.

The role of this committee 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. The committee can advise on research priorities and bioregional assessment in areas of high potential impact, advise on research and bioregional assessment commissioned by the Commonwealth environment minister as a result of the committee's advice, publish options on improving the consistency of research in this area and publish information on developing leading standards in the protection of water resources from the impacts of coal seam gas and large coal developments. Also, the committee can provide the environment minister and relevant state or territory ministers with expert scientific advice on coal seam gas and large coalmining developments that may have a significant impact on water resources and can also provide advice outside the scope under certain circumstances.

The coal seam gas industry both in Queensland and in New South Wales has been the subject of a lengthy debate in recent years, some of which has been guided by a genuine desire to balance the specifics of the burgeoning industry with the interests of pre-existing industries, most importantly and most commonly agriculture. Unfortunately, some of the debate has been has not been quite so well intentioned and in some cases has been downright misleading and dishonest. The result is that many people who are not directly involved in the CSG industry have only ever heard the negatives about the industry. They do not hear about the jobs that CSG and coal are creating. They do not hear about the regional communities these industries are sustaining.

I grew up in a regional community, and it is interesting that in my 14 years in politics, Bruce Scott, the member for Maranoa has been closing in on my boundaries because of a population drift in his electorate. We are now seeing that actually go the other way; his electorate, for the first time in many years, is growing. That is a direct result of the development of the coal seam in the area.

We do not hear from the critics of these industries about the export revenue that the coal and coal seam industries are providing. All we hear are claims of division, about farmers who are steamrolled by ruthless mining companies hell-bent on making a profit no matter what the cost. I grew up in this region, I live in this region and I see both sides. I was a farmer for longer than I have been a politician. I can assure you that, yes, there are areas of conflict and, yes, there are areas of difference. But in the main there is a resolve in the community to reach a point where these two industries, the agricultural industry and the mining and resource industry, can actually coexist. The reason is they have a shared interest not only in the long-term sustainability of the land—in terms of allowing, where it is possible, resource extraction; they also, more importantly, have a shared interest that that land continues to produce agricultural wealth for our nation.

We see that cooperation between the rural industry—and farmers in particular—and the resource industry take place outside the spotlight. As I have noted elsewhere, this issue has been subjected to some of the most disingenuous manipulation that I have ever seen in my many years as a farmer, my fewer years as an agri-politician or my recent years as a politician. I know this area and this industry well. Agriculture is still running deep in my blood and it is in my soul that we do everything we can to ensure that that industry and its people have a future. But at the same time we owe these people, and more particularly their children, the opportunities that may exist in having these industries coexist.

One of the pleasing things I see as a result of the so called coal seam boom is that parents are now seeing the opportunity for their children to travel away to university to gain degrees, to become trades people and then to return to their home district and have a future there amongst the family and friends they grew up with. Those ties always run deep. I had the opportunity a few weekends ago to go back to my home district. There is nothing like mixing with the people you grew up with. Perhaps you do not know them as closely as you used to but there is a feeling of belonging. My district virtually has expired. There are now more people from my district living in Toowoomba than living in the district I grew up in. The one thing that will save districts like Boondooma from that sort of near extinction where the school closes and the community is almost in an idle is if the agricultural industry and the resource industry can coexist and come up with an agreement where the long-term future of agriculture is protected and the opportunities provided by the resource sector are optimised.

The regulations surrounding the CSG industry and the coal industry fall primarily in the jurisdiction of our state governments—in these cases, primarily in New South Wales and Queensland. There has, however, always been an element of federal regulation as far as the EPBC Act applies, and recent developments mean there is added pressure on the federal government to expand its oversight role. The coalition believes that anything that further ensures the integrity of the industry and can address the issues of public confidence is a good thing. So we believe there is a role for this assessment panel and for the expertise it brings to this area. We are a little bit cautious that this process may bring an added level of red tape and convolution but we are prepared to give it a shot on the basis that we see the merit in it. We need to work with the state governments, which are at the moment trying to balance the interests of mining and agriculture and ensure that the states' prime farming land is safeguarded for the long-term future. Both states are taking their responsibilities seriously and I think we can have faith in the processes both Queensland and New South Wales governments are putting in place.

I do expect, however, that the Greens-driven protest movement will continue. The Greens have capitalised on the campaigning opportunities of stirring up anti-CSG and anticoalmining sentiment, and there are legitimate concerns within the farming communities about the long-term impacts of these industries. These concerns need to be and hopefully will be addressed by this committee. We have seen, though, that at times federal red tape with the environment minister basically ties projects up. We have a recent example where the Queensland government has approved the expansion of bauxite mining on Cape York but that whole process has been tied down by the federal minister's unwillingness to make a decision when he has been fed an absolute bucketload of misinformation by the Greens. He wants to go back through that information, and I could bet that that information is going to prove to be untrue. It is a good example of how the green movement uses these sorts of genuine processes to slow everything down to a point where they try and destroy development.

The legitimate concerns of the farmers, who are the custodians of productive farming land for generations to come, need to be addressed. And the incorrect claims that are made by those who have no interest in sustainable development also need to be addressed and proven incorrect or correct, one way or the other. That is not to say that there are not parts of rural industry that will be deemed off limits. Both the coalition leader and I have said quite clearly that, while it is beyond our immediate power, the preservation of prime agricultural land is of top priority and that the owners of that land should have the right to say no to development on their land. As such, some land will be deemed off limits, but that is a good thing in terms of maintaining productivity in the long-term interests of Australia.

This committee gives us a good opportunity to balance the interests of mining and farming sectors, to the benefit of both, and to ensure the harmonisation of the state system so that stakeholders know exactly where they stand. To this end, the coalition supports this bill and provides in principle support for the establishment of the committee, subject to an amendment which I will outline during the detailed reading stage.

While the potential economic benefits of these industries are clear, with around 90 per cent of Queensland's gas supplies already coming from CSG operations and with the industry expected to deliver 18,000 jobs and around $850 million in royalties per year in Queensland alone, there is a very significant concern that we get this system to work properly and in a way which not only allows those jobs and that return to the state to take place but also ensures the protection of ground and surface water systems. The establishment of this committee will add, in our opinion, independent expert input to the debate about coal seam gas extraction and export and about coalmine development and the export of coal. The committee is a positive step towards improving public confidence in the environmental integrity of these two industries in particular, and the coalition will not stand in its way.

The coalition sees the benefit in this. There is a requirement that we in parliament ensure that public confidence in the processes is maintained and that, where it can be, it is improved. There is a vast amount of information available in relation to coal seam development and underground water in particular that needs to be collated, verified and put in a form that can be used both for assessing applications to explore and develop but also for disseminating to those farmers who have concerns. They are the custodians of this land for generations to come and they need to have confidence that the information they are getting is correct and can be relied on.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to voice my support for the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seem Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012. This does not happen too often but I would like to commend the member for Groom for his relentlessly sensible comments on this legislation. As a former mining minister and as someone who has always been passionate about both farming and mining, he understands the intersection between these two, at times competing, interests. I hope his voice of reason is the voice that rules those opposite. I can remember not that long ago when the Leader of the Opposition made the commitment to Alan Jones that he would 'lock the gate'—which is actually a change in the property rights of landholders, a change from the idea of the Crown owning minerals. I know the Leader of the Opposition did retreat a little bit from that. Alan Jones has a particular vested interest on this issue because his home town is now a coalmine and he is quite upset about it. In fact, we have such an unholy alliance on this issue: Alan Jones, the Greens and Bob Katter all together on the same ticket. That shows you how bizarre this can be. But that Alan Jones interview when the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warringah, said that, yes, it would be okay on occasions to lock the gate, showed that—come the moment, come the right goading from someone like Alan Jones—he will say anything and do anything if he thinks it will win him a vote.

Nevertheless, I come with a bit of authority on mining, having worked for two mining ministers and for the Queensland Resources Council. The council has seen incredible change in the coal seam gas developments over the last 10 years, from a state government policy from Peter Beattie that some say was developed literally on the back of a napkin. There has been an incredible change in the companies providing energy in Queensland and the companies providing jobs and revenue for the state of Queensland. Obviously there are no coal seam gas developments in my electorate of Moreton, but many of my constituents are very concerned about this issue. Some are very enthusiastic about the legislation we are discussing tonight, because they are concerned about the impacts on farming communities. There are others who do a lot of business with mining and coal seam gas developments, companies such as Hastings Deering, Komatsu and the Bradken foundry, which is one of the world's best makers of specialised mining equipment. This is important legislation and the benefits of coal seam gas and coal mining development are undeniable with job opportunities of up to 18,000 jobs for Queensland and revenue of up to $850 million for Queensland that will help much of Australia, Queensland especially, and some communities particularly.

Debate interrupted.