Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012. This bill establishes the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development. The committee's role will be to provide scientific advice to governments on relevant coal seam gas and large scale coal seam mining projects and to fund water resource assessment for priority regions.

Coal seam gas exploration and coalmining are big issues in my electorate. Over the last couple of years we have seen development of coal mines in quite a few areas of my electorate and, in recent times, exploration for coal seam gas. One of the great problems that we have, particularly with coal seam gas, is a lack of independent information as to what actually lies beneath the surface, and as to what effect the gas extraction will have on those resources. While this bill does not actually propose a change to the environmental laws through the EPBC Act, it will set up the committee and, hopefully, start to garner some of the information that is desperately needed in this debate.

While this bill affects the whole of Australia—we are in a federal parliament—it is particularly relevant to my electorate because, while coal seam gas exploration and extraction has been undertaken in Queensland for some years, it is a relatively new industry to the Parkes electorate. Unfortunately, for various reasons, the debate has become quite heated and has polarised many of the communities in my electorate. One of the reasons that there is so much heat in this debate and that communities are so divided is, I think, largely due to a lack of information or, probably, the peddling of incorrect information.

I believe that the long-term role of the area that I represent will be in agricultural production. I believe that the farmers in my electorate will have the ability to be feeding the world in 1,000 or 2,000 years time, just as the farmers of the Ganges, of the Nile and of other ancient civilisations have done. That has got to be the underlying premise that underpins everything we do. The other great issue that we as a nation, and as a world, confront is our finite energy resources. The coal seam gas reserves under northern New South Wales are enormous. Ultimately, we cannot ignore that resource or what it would mean for the economy of this country, or what it could mean to the people in that area.

Unfortunately—and this committee, I hope, will overcome what I am to speak of next—the nature of the location of these gas reserves and the landscape above them is extremely variable. I went up into Central Queensland the week before last to see for myself. I went into the electorate of Maranoa to have a firsthand look at this industry and where it is developing in Queensland. I saw the full spectrum of what the positives and negatives are. In some places in western Queensland, I saw where there seems to be a co-existence between the two industries, between grazing and gas, and it seems to be working quite well.

On the other side, on the Darling Downs, there were laser levelled irrigation fields and much more intensive agriculture, which was set up there because of huge amounts of underground water. I had grave concerns about what was being proposed in that area. In one property I went to, the distance between the irrigation aquifer and the coal seam was only five metres. There were great concerns there—things like the fact that gas pipes have a weight limit over them, as it was told to me, of 10 tonnes. A lot of agricultural machinery now weighs more than that; a cotton-picker, for example, weighs 30 tonnes. There is a whole range of issues there. We need to be sure exactly what is under there and we need to be sure that it will not have a long-term impact. As previous speakers have said, a lot of these access issues are in the hands of the state government. I acknowledge that the New South Wales government is endeavouring to deal with this issue. They have put out a draft proposal, and it has been met with a lot of discussion and quite some criticism. But it is a starting point. They were starting from having no policy at all and having to deal with petroleum exploration licences that were handed out willy-nilly by the previous government. I am quite hopeful that, as they take on board the criticism of their draft and deal with stakeholders, they may come up with a policy that is suitable. Undoubtedly there are some areas where gas and agriculture cannot coexist. But I believe there are other areas where they can coexist, provided it can be guaranteed that it will not have a negative effect on aquifers.

It seems to me from my trip to Queensland that there are three basic issues in the cycle of dealing with coal seam gas. One is the exploration stage—and that is the issue we are dealing with now in Narrabri, Moree, Tooraweenah and Coonabarabran. One of the concerns is that the landholders realise that the exploration company is not the company that will ultimately do the drilling and extract the gas. There is a concern that there will not be a continuation of an arrangement between two parties and that the information will be sold on to another company that may extract gas. So I believe that there needs to be an agreement on the exploration side of it that does not lead to any expectation that the landholder needs to be involved in the next stage.

With the implementation stage, the construction stage, one of the things I have noticed is that it can be incredibly disruptive, particularly if the contractors that are doing this work do not understand the nature of the agriculture business and are not respectful of the rights of the landholder and his or her management practices on their property. I think there needs to be considerable compensation in the construction phase, which can take quite a few years. And the final stage is the extraction phase. Once the well is in place—and the wells are not on a huge area—presumably the compressor stations would be suitably located on areas that are not prime agricultural land.

But this bill is not to cover those issues. This bill is just to give information that will help sort this process out to either stop this industry in its tracks, where that needs to be done, or to help give greater understanding of how it might coexist, depending on what the case may be.

The other issue is that we are looking at environmental laws. A couple of years ago the member for New England was to introduce an amendment to the EPBC Act. One of my concerns is that the federal government is responsible for water—and that is obviously where that legislation would fit in with water—but, because of the variability of landscape and the variability of the resource underneath, it is going to be incredibly difficult to put in environmental laws that will protect what needs to be protected but allow enough flexibility to take into account the different circumstances in different locations.

Traditionally, environmental laws have not been a friend of farmers. My concern is that, in an effort to solve one problem, we may create another one. I do have an issue with excluding certain areas because, looking into the future, if the scientific evidence comes in that coal seam gas mining can go ahead in certain areas, if the process has been refined so it is not as intrusive and if there is a regular, reliable and suitable amount of compensation to the farmers, I do not think we would be thought highly of if we had excluded certain areas from taking part in an industry that may have been of some benefit to them.

But the real issue is that, regardless of what income may be garnered for farmers, for the country or for gas itself, if it is going to have a long-term negative environmental effect then it needs to be stopped and cannot go ahead. But if it is shown that it is not going to destroy the aquifers and it is not going to affect the productivity of the land, and if there is agreement with the farmer, there needs to be a suitable return.

One of the things I saw on my visits to Queensland the week before last was that there are a lot of people making a lot of money out of the resource industry and some of the deals that have been offered to farmers have been incredibly poor. I am speaking generally here. Some companies have a better record than others, and we saw that from speaking to individuals there, and some farmers who were quite prepared to be involved in the industry were also quite disappointed in some of the problems that arose during the process even though they were quite keen to be involved in it.

This is a red-hot issue across Australia and it is a red-hot issue in my electorate. I am pleased to support this bill. An amendment to be put in by the coalition does not substantially change this bill. We do need independent information, because one of the issues now is that a lot of information is in the hands of resource companies and—without casting any aspersions on that—that level of independence of information is very important. The lack of that information is also glaringly obvious.

It will be interesting to see the Namoi water study, which does cover part of my electorate and maybe part of the member for New England's electorate. It is probably one of the first genuine attempts to get a clear picture of the interconnectedness of our underground aquifers. That report should be out very soon and there will be a lot of interest in what that report shows. But we do have a long way to go. We do need that information, we do need to protect our environment and we do need to protect our farmers' rights. As a nation, we do have a responsibility to harness whatever resources we can in a sustainable fashion.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I come from a coalmining region, the Illawarra and the Southern Highlands. Whether it is the Medway mines or along the escarpment, we have been mining coal in this region for most of the last century. Because of the nature of the chemistry of the mines, and the fact that a lot of the mines involve old workings, they are very gassy. As a consequence of all of this, they have also been extracting methane from the mines in my district for a very long time. For the most part it has just been sent up into the atmosphere or flared; although, more recently over the last decade, BHP—one of the operators of the mines just north of my electorate—has started to use the methane which it extracts from its mines up in Appin to feed into the local energy and electricity grid.

We know that coal seam gas is methane. It is now part of our mainstream energy supply. That is particularly the case in eastern Australia. It accounts for 30 per cent of the domestic gas production of the eastern states and it is a key component of the reticulated gas supply throughout the east coast of Australia. Australia's ability to meet the future east coast gas demand will critically depend on the extent to which coal seam gas and the industry are allowed to develop in a sustainable way. That means we need to understand the impacts of this rapidly expanding industry on our environment, and on our precious water supplies in particular.

In many areas, including parts of my electorate, coal seam gas mining is incredibly controversial. In the Illawarra and Southern Highlands a number of groups have formed to express their deep concern about the impact of coal seam gas and its impact on the environment, particularly the water tables in and around my electorate. There is absolutely no question that the rapid growth has divided local communities. The concern is about whether we know enough about the long-term impacts on our water supplies and, as the previous speakers have said, on the competing land-use priorities and what that means for our food supply and food security. The Illawarra and Southern Highlands regions form a vital part of the Sydney water catchment area so it is not surprising that communities in these areas are raising these concerns.

However, balanced against these legitimate community concerns—and I provide my support to these concerns—is the knowledge that, as an advanced economy, we are energy hungry. The government understands these concerns and is working with the states and territories to ensure that current and potential coal seam gas projects are developed in a sustainable way and in a way which manages competing land-use strategies. To that end, the Commonwealth is assisting in the formulation of a national harmonised regulatory framework for the coal seam gas industry which will address key community concerns including: water management and monitoring, well integrity and aquifer protection, and the monitoring of hydraulic fracturing and chemical use.

As part of the government's need to better understand the implications of this industry, the bill before the House today will see the establishment of an independent expert scientific committee. This committee will help government develop policy to ensure we can preserve the long-term health, quality and viability of our water supply and water resources, while supporting the sustainable development of coal seam gas and coalmining industries.

Current gaps in scientific knowledge about the direct and cumulative impacts of coal seam gas and coalmining on water resources contribute to the legitimate community concern. In part this is a factor of the rapid growth in production of coal seam gas in Australia that has taken place over the last 15 years. In 1995 the commercial production of coal seam gas was zero, but by 2003 production was at 40 petajoules. By 2006 production had doubled to 80 petajoules, and in 2009 it had more than doubled again to 195 petajoules. This shows that the sudden expansion of coal seam gas extraction is due to new Australian technology and growing demand, particularly from China for cleaner fossil fuels. Coal seam gas and coal can bring huge opportunities, both in investment and job creation, but to do so community confidence must be maintained in these developments.

On 21 November 2011, the Prime Minister announced the government would establish a new independent expert scientific committee that will provide scientific advice to governments in relation to relevant coal seam gas and large coalmining projects that are likely to have significant impacts on water resources. The regulation of coal seam gas and coalmining industries is primarily a responsibility of the state and territory governments who are also responsible for making decisions in relation to the licensing of mining and extractive industries. However, the Commonwealth does have a role in regulating coal seam gas and coalmining proposals where those proposed projects could have a significant impact on matters protected by the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This includes matters of national environmental significance, actions involving the Commonwealth and actions taken on, or impacting on, Commonwealth land.

Because coal seam gas mining is principally a state and territory issue, and recognising that national coordination is critical, a National Partnership Agreement on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining development was established through negotiations with relevant state and territory governments. The national partnership agreement commits the Australian government and the relevant state and territory governments to take into account the advice of the independent expert scientific committee in their regulatory decisions. Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia have signed this agreement with the Australian government, and negotiations are continuing with Victoria and the Northern Territory. Following that, an interim independent expert scientific committee was put in place and will continue until it hands over to the independent expert scientific committee being established through this bill when it passes into legislation.

The interim committee has determined six priority themes for research and knowledge acquisition. These themes are: a risk assessment framework to enable the bioregional assessments; knowledge projects and foundational science to better understand the impacts; capacity building—both infrastructure and people—to better enable research to be done; data strategy and infrastructure to coordinate the information being accumulated; collaboration between major research agencies and institutions by fostering capacity and capability to ensure effective outcomes and processes; and, finally, basin scale modelling which would provide data to support the understanding of risks and foundational research, including engaging with industry and state governments to enable currently collected data to be used effectively.

This bill establishes in law the independent expert scientific committee. It commits the Australian government to investment in public-good scientific research on the actual and potential impacts of coal seam gas and large coalmining activities on water resources, including bioregional assessments of areas with commercially viable coal seam gas and coal reserves. The provisions of this bill will assist all of those who have some concerns about this industry by providing accurate information. The absence of accurate information has, unfortunately, coloured the debate that exists within many communities around coal seam gas and coal seam gas activities.

A celebrated documentary that was broadcast on ABC television over the last 12 months about the use of particular chemicals in the coal seam gas industry in the United States, for example, fuelled considerable concern amongst many communities within my own electorate. What was less known is that many of the chemicals—in fact, the majority of the chemicals that were used in the coal seam gas industry in the United States, where regulation is scant and cowboy activities in that industry were voracious—and many of the activities were banned from use in any of the states where coal seam gas mines are being developed in Australia. It is this lack of knowledge of how the industry works and how the chemicals within the industry work which has led to a great deal of community concern, and it is my fervent hope that the establishment of this expert committee, the development of research and the promulgation of the research will go some way to stemming that concern.

What it will not stem is the legitimate concerns of many communities, including those in my area, about the impact of coal seam gas on the water table, aquifers and our water supply and security. I know this is of deep concern to many within the farming community. It is equally of deep concern for those who have a concern about biosecurity and our environment.

For these reasons, the work that is being done through the COAG process, the commitment of the Commonwealth to work with states and territories around nationally consistent standards for the development and conduct of coal seam gas mines, particularly in mines where there is a sensitivity to water supply and where they are competing with land use for farming and other agricultural industries, is absolutely critical. The community is rightly concerned—and has a right to be concerned—about our future water resources. Once you damage an aquifer, it is almost impossible to rectify that damage. That said, I am confident that, with the best will in the world, with responsible activities on behalf of the mining industry, the body of research can be developed to ensure that this activity can be conducted in some areas, but not all areas, where prospecting is occurring, and that coal seam gas can continue to be an important contributor to our energy security in this country. As I have already said, it currently contributes around 30 per cent of the gas supply in eastern Australia, and in south-east Queensland the figure is probably closer to 60 per cent. So it is no small matter that we are debating in the House today.

It is my hope that the Commonwealth, working cooperatively with the state and territory governments, will be in a position to put in place the right sort of regulation to ensure that the industry can proceed in a responsible way—in a way that protects our environment and protects land use, which should be protected for agricultural and other purposes, and which does not create the sort of damage to our water tables and aquifers that is feared by many, which has been proved to occur in other countries—and that we can continue to have long-term energy security in this country, including the contribution to that energy security that is represented by the gas industry in this country.

I commend the legislation to the House.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012. In Queensland the coal seam gas industry has seemingly exploded overnight and currently represents around 90 per cent of all gas used in Queensland. It is an industry that is continuing to grow substantially. In Queensland we can expect to see some 18,000 jobs come from the coal seam gas sector and potentially $850 million in revenue each year.

Despite the rapid expansion of this industry there is contention surrounding the environmental impacts of coal seam gas mining and how these might be best managed for all stakeholders. The mining industry and the farming community have a long history of working together in Australia, which has allowed both sectors to prosper. Yet despite this, extensive public debate has surrounded the growth of coal seam gas mining and large coal mining and parts of the community hold grave and often legitimate concerns about what impacts this mining might have on our environment, particularly on our water resources and our prime agricultural land. There are very real environmental impacts resulting from these types of mining. In the past, we have seen problems with aquifers, including the drawdown and the depressurisation of aquifers. The integrity of aquifers needs to be investigated, but this is a manageable issue. Less manageable is the risk of subsidence of the surface land. The process by which coal seam gas is extracted requires an extensive amount of water, and the by-product of this is about 1.8 million tonnes of salt each year.

But of all the concerns raised by the community, water contamination is one of the most frequently raised. Whole bodies of water have the potential to be contaminated, becoming unviable for use, either for general consumption or for farming. It does not take a scientific expert to understand what implications this can have for a family that loses its livelihood, for a farming community that loses its purpose or for a country that loses its ability to support itself with produce. Three types of water contamination can occur. The first occurs through an injection of chemicals during the fracking process, the second is from naturally occurring chemicals in coal seams leaching into the water supply, and the third is through the removal of quantities of water from aquifers or coal seams.

Water contamination is a real threat, but it is one that can be avoided, and it is one that this bill seeks to address. The primary purpose of this bill is to establish an Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development. This committee will be an independent voice in the highly charged decision-making process about mining applications. This committee aims to make a positive step towards improving public confidence in the environmental integrity of the industry—confidence that is needed.

The role of this expert scientific committee will be to provide detailed scientific advice on coal seam gas and large coal mining projects that come before the committee as well as to commission and fund water resource assessments for priority regions. This advice will be provided to federal, state and territory governments that are signatories to a national partnership agreement. These signatories, which include my own state of Queensland, will be required to seek the advice of the committee when considering applications before them for coal seam gas and large coal mining developments when they have a significant impact on water resources.

The scope of the committee will be specific, although in certain circumstances there will be the opportunity to provide advice outside this scope. The committee will be tasked with providing advice on applications in the areas of high potential impact from coal seam gas or large coal mining developments. The committee will then provide this advice to the environment minister. The committee will also provide expert scientific advice on mining proposals that may have a significant impact on water resources, and this advice will be provided to the relevant government minister—whether they be a state, federal or territory minister.

Research is a key priority for this industry. With extensive confusion and a lack of knowledge surrounding the process of mining, more information is urgently required to inform future application decisions and the public debate. Research findings will further increase the quality of the advice that the committee is able to provide to stakeholders. For this reason, the committee will provide advice on research priorities for this sector that will steer the direction of research into areas that will contribute most value to scientific expertise. In line with this, the committee will also hold the power to publish information about improving the consistency of research in this sector.

While I support the goals this bill seeks to achieve, I do not believe it will truly provide the quality of information that is the authors' hope. Expert knowledge is desperately required in the decision-making process. But what determines an expert? Does a school science teacher qualify if he has studied geology? Under this bill, he just may. But understanding the environmental implications of coal seam gas mining and large coal mining in different environmental landscapes is a specific field of knowledge, and the consequences for failing to understand these environmental implications are far too great to risk misinformed advice. The advice that the committee provides needs to be of the highest standard, with great scientific accuracy—advice that can only be provided by individuals who are advanced experts in fields of study related to these processes.

This bill also does not limit the scope of scientific fields that members of the committee could have. For a committee that is providing advice on extremely specialised cases, it follows that the scientific backgrounds should be equally specialised. Geology, hydrogeology and hydrology are relevant to and focussed on the implications of coal seam gas mining and large coal mining. It is logical and sensible then that the committee members should have expertise in these fields. Information gleaned from other fields may be superfluous and only confuse and complicate the committee's advice. It is for this reason that the coalition has proposed an amendment to the bill. The amendment suggests that in order for this committee to fulfil its purpose, both to provide public confidence in the application decision-making processes for these mining applications and to provide specialised expert advice, the bill should require a majority of the members not just to have qualifications in the relevant fields, but to have advanced qualifications and expertise specifically in the fields of geology, hydrogeology or hydrology. This amendment will create greater transparency and accountability for the committee as it goes about its work, inspiring confidence from the public and from stakeholders that its advice is scientifically accurate. It seems that those opposite believe that the difference this amendment makes is trivial. I can assure you it is not trivial. This committee is being established to tackle development applications with serious implications for both the environment and the economy. The purpose of this committee is to provide expert scientific advice about the environmental implications of mining applications. The subject matter is specialised and has enormous community importance. Any environmental deterioration or implications as a result of coal seam gas mining or large-scale coal mining will have long-term consequences for farming and the goods farmed on this land as well as for regional communities and for our ability to be able to support our country with produce in the future.

So the difference that the proposed amendment requires is in no way trivial. I believe—and, I venture to say, so too would many other Australians believe—that maintaining the integrity of our environment, including our water resources, is highly critical. I for one want to have confidence that the people installed on this committee are the best in their fields with the most up-to-date, relevant information at hand and that they have the experience to back it up. I want to know that our farming land will be maintained for generations of future Australians to support our growing population into the future, and I want to know that the people making the decisions on this issue are the best in their field and are able to make the best decisions possible.

My home state of Queensland faces many challenges both now and into the future in the way it manages its natural resources. As a state we are rich in energy and resources, and these resources have come to play an important role in Queensland's economy. But, as I have said in this place before, our country will face challenges into the future, including the challenges of restructuring our economy post the current mining boom. As a nation we must meet these challenges from a position of strength. We must take advantage of the opportunities we have now without becoming solely dependent on our energy resources to provide for our future.

These advantages include coal seam gas mining and large-scale coal mining. While these resources have a part to play in our economy and the ability to generate wealth, we cannot approach mining these resources with rose-coloured glasses. It will cloud our ability to make decisions on a case-by-case basis according to the environmental implications of projects. We cannot continue in the same direction that Queensland's economy was heading in under the stewardship of the Bligh Labor government—that is, an increasing dependence on the wealth created from mining of our resources.

The coalition does support the expansion of coal seam gas where it is in harmony with the rights of landholders and where it is not a present risk to the protection of prime agricultural land—that is, when we can be certain that there will be no adverse environmental impacts on agricultural land. It is for this reason that this committee will play an important role.

I take this opportunity to give my congratulations to the new member for Pumicestone and my state colleague, Ms Lisa France, who was recently appointed Queensland's Assistant Minister for Natural Resources and Mines. I look forward to working with the member for Pumicestone in her capacity as both a local member and an assistant minister on the important issues I have just spoken about: preparing for Queensland's future, taking advantage of the current mining boom and preparing our state and our nation for a post-mining boom economy.

In conclusion I say that it is important that pragmatism prevail in this debate. Ultimately, if there is a significant economic advantage to be had as a nation—advantage that does not have an adverse effect on the environment—then we must take hold of that opportunity. When in certain circumstances adverse effects arise that have the potential to affect our prime agricultural land, an appropriate check and balance must be put in place to ensure that such effects are not felt. This pragmatic response is exactly what the coalition seeks to make. I commend our amendments to the House.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise today to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012 currently being debated by the House. As you are all well aware, the bill will formally establish the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Developments. The committee is a positive step forwards in improving public confidence in the environmental integrity of the industry, and the coalition will not stand in the way. The committee will provide scientific advice to government on relevant coal seam gas and large coal mining projects as well as commission and fund water resource assessments for prospective regions.

However, Deputy Speaker Georganas, I ask you today: would you want your home or your land or your future and that of your family invaded by a mining company with no regard for how it will impact your livelihood? I absolutely associate myself with the comments made earlier by the member for Groom, Ian Macfarlane, calling for the employment of committee members with industry specific and technical qualifications, including geology, hydrogeology and hydrology. As the committee's fundamental reason for existence is to provide advice on scientific issues relating to water associated with coal seam gas and coal mining, affected landholders need greater certainty that appropriate regulations will be put in place and provide them with the confidence to believe that the industry is sustainable and reliable.

On behalf of my constituents of Wright, I am concerned about the environmental integrity of the coal seam gas industries that will be undertaking these developments. While I am not opposed to mining—in fact I support mining in the Surat Basin, the Galilee Basin and in Western Australia—I am making every attempt to bring my mind to the importance of greater economic commercialism between the landholders and the coal seam gas developers.

As some of you may know, coal seam gas is accessed via wells drilled down into and in some cases along the coal seams. Large quantities of underground water are removed to release the gas. The process is sometimes sped up using the controversial Hydraulic fracking method, meaning that a mixture of sand, chemicals and water is injected underground at high pressure to shatter the coal seam and rock. My electorate of Wright encompasses numerous agricultural industries, including horticulture, dairy, cattle and cereal crop production and is often referred to as the food and fibre basin of Australia. The farmers affected by these coal seam gas developments care for the environment—they know the importance of protecting it for future generations and, furthermore, they want to protect it because it is in their blood. Of utmost concern to the people of my electorate is the protection of the watertable. We cannot afford to risk our water supply as it is vital to our livelihood and, most importantly, to the food and fibre production of our farms. Farmers are concerned that if water were contaminated by coal seam gas developments there would be no way to prove contamination had occurred unless immediate scientific research were undertaken.

Failure by coal seam gas and mining developers to engage with the communities in which they are to operate has added to the increased level of concern among landholders. The Queensland Water Commission last week released the draft Underground water impact report, which has found that 85 bores were expected to be affected by coal seam gas developments within three years and 528 bores in the long term. These were among some 21,000 private bores in the Surat Basin in western Queensland, and the report is one of the first independent assessments of coal seam gas activity.

The delivery of reports such as this demonstrates the need for independent scientific assessment of coal seam gas developments because of the information they provide. Furthermore, the employment and advice of expert hydrologists and geologists is paramount in giving a scientific understanding to government and landholders of the long-term effects of coal seam gas mining and coalmining developments. We need to ensure that we know, if the risks are too great, what other options are available, because our food basin is simply too valuable.

We have been assured that the committee will produce scientific knowledge that will provide greater certainty to regional communities around the coal seam gas and large coalmining developments. I question the interpretation of what 'certainty' means. To whom will it deliver certainty? To the constituents being affected by coal seam gas mining and other large coalmining developments? To the local landholder whose land has been invaded? Or is the government referring to greater certainty for the coal seam gas companies who will be making millions at the cost of our growers and rural businesses who are the primary targets of these developments? I am talking about those Australian farmers who put food on our table, often with little or no thanks.

According to the government, the establishment of this committee will provide local communities and other stakeholders with scientific information that will build confidence in government assessment processes. I hold serious doubts that the government is sincere in its commitment to providing accurate scientific information on how coal seam gas and large coalmining developments will impact upon affected regions. I am sure that many of my constituents in Wright will be more than willing to highlight their concerns, not for the sake of saying so but because it affects them and their families directly.

I also raise the significant concerns of my constituents about the difficulties they will face with land access and about the lack of appropriate compensation. The rights of development companies over the rights of landowners is an ever-growing concern with coal seam gas mining and large coalmining developments. I am referring to land which is precious to our farmers and the Australian community, who would rather not see their food supply destroyed. There may be some landowners who are willing to have work undertaken on their property and receive payment for that, and circumstances such as this are acceptable because they are on a cooperative and transparent basis. However, the integrity of our underground watertable must be paramount and upheld, thus not affecting the neighbouring commercial farming practices. The affected communities need to be assured that the coal seam gas mining will not harm the environment and that the co-existence issues between landholders and mining companies are open and transparent.

If a mining company was to walk into your apartment on the 22nd floor and move into your third bedroom and start drilling, you would be appalled. So I ask you: why is it acceptable for mining companies to have legal access to prospective development sites?

As a final point, I draw attention to the issue of landholders not receiving fair compensation. As I have said before, protection of farmland is paramount and the region is not interested in tapping into the economic benefits of coal seam gas mining. However, compensation means affected landholders can make accurate and informed decisions about their future. Furthermore it will provide opportunities for the local community, where the money can be spent.

Australia has some of the most beautiful, iconic farming land, and I make particular reference to the seat of Wright. I believe that there seems to be an overall willingness in my electorate to protect that farming land. I take this opportunity to welcome the Queensland state government's election commitment to make sure that vital cropping land, such as in the Scenic Rim shire, is protected. I look forward to working with the committee to ensure that we shift away from accepting the 'unknowns' and replace them with 'knowns'.

I also take this opportunity to inform the House of why iconic farming land is targeted for exploration and drilling. To use an analogy, the mining or the gas exploration companies are picking the low-lying fruit. You can see this if you juxtapose two positions. If the mining companies were going into country west of my electorate where it is heavily timbered, there would be the cost of clearing that vegetation and the cost of machinery and fuel to get into those sorts of remote areas. As well as the cost of clearing virgin scrub, there would be the time delays imposed by the state government—the green tape—and there would be the cost of pushing in access roads and of running in power, which I assume would all be part of the due diligence process. On the other hand, iconic farming land is mostly flat with very easy access, normally by bitumen roads, it is always cleared of vegetation and it is mostly in close proximity to power used in irrigation. So, when making an argument about compensation, if the costs associated with extraction of coal seam gas in less favourable areas were to be amortised across the operation, those compensation costs should be shared with the farmer.

I do stress the point that protection of our watertable must be paramount. The integrity of the watertable must be maintained. If a compensation agreement is raised between a farmer and a gas exploration company where fracking is undertaken, it would be unwise for one farmer to exploit compensation payments and have the integrity of the watertable damaged to the disadvantage of neighbouring farmers. That circumstance would not have my support. I support the amendment so that the committee has the relevant skill set covering hydrology and geology.

Whilst I have in the Scenic Rim a very vocal community about their position on protection of the Scenic Rim, there are other sectors of my electorate—the Lockyer Valley and Gatton—that do not have the protection that was offered by the state government. The amendments we are putting forward will hopefully go to protecting the underground watertable for the businesses there, because we will have accurate data based on science to use in making assessments as to whether there should or should not be investment in coal seam gas in those areas. The watertable must be monitored prior to drilling and then after drilling, and the information on any impacts must be shared with the public and the landholders and must be independent, as opposed to being, as I believe it is at the moment, under the auspices of the mining companies.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012. What this bill seeks to do is to establish an expert scientific committee to provide specific scientific advice to federal, state and territory governments on coal seam gas and large coalmining developments where they may have significant impacts on water.

I speak on this bill because I actually do not know any of the answers to the questions my constituents put to me. My constituents in the electorate of Paterson and surrounding areas quite regularly come to me and raise a number of issues—in particular, about chemical and hydraulic fracking. I am not a geologist; nor am I a hydrologist. I actually do not understand these impacts, and I cannot answer on them. I am actually quite glad that this government will spend $150 million establishing a scientific committee. But I do ask that that scientific committee has a broad and deep range of people who are not just biased in a single direction, as we saw in much of the climate change debate where it was quite regularly said to us, 'The overwhelming opinion of this scientific committee is this.'

I would prefer that this committee was established on expertise and had a broad range of opinions. Perhaps that is why I am actually encouraged by the motion that has been foreshadowed by the member for Groom, Ian Macfarlane, where he wants to insert that the minister must also ensure that the majority of members possess scientific qualifications and expertise in one or more of the following areas: geology, hydrology, hydrogeology and ecology. This is critically important. The last thing that I would like to see is this government establish a committee that just basically produces a snowball effect.

I also refer to some of the great work being done by Senator Bill Heffernan, who chaired an inquiry into the management of the Murray-Darling Basin, including the impacts of coal seam mining. The inquiry covered areas including:

In my electorate, next to the impact of the carbon tax this is perhaps one of the most strongly discussed and debated issues there are. There are issues primarily because people feel that their land rights are being infringed. There are issues because people have concerns over our prime agricultural land being consumed for mining and coal seam gas, and about the longer-term food security for our nation—indeed, not only for our nation, given the amount of agricultural product that we export and the increasing number of mouths to feed, particularly in Australia and to the north of us.

People also come to me concerned about the stretch up the Bucketts Way, all the way from the Pacific Highway down near Limeburners Creek up through Allworth and Stroud to the watershed, Craven, and then further on to what used to be in my electorate around through Gloucester and the Barrington Tops, which is now in the member for Lyne's seat, where companies are now implementing test drilling for coal seam gas. A number of leases and exploration licences were handed out by the former state Labor government just immediately prior to the election. The community is up in arms. I can understand that, and I share their concerns. In fact, I have been to a couple of meetings with the Lock the Gate group and listened to their concerns.

As I said right at the beginning of this speech, I do not have the answers for them, because I actually do not understand all of the arguments or have the quality research. It is easy to find the research which is pro fracking. We have already seen instances in our area where the mining has occurred. There is probably no stronger supporter of the mining industry in Australia for the jobs and the economic benefit it brings, but whenever the community has genuine concerns then I have to raise those on their behalf. And I have concerns because I do not have enough knowledge about the impacts on our aquifers.

There is a saying: there are no second chances at first impressions. If the homework and the scientific research is not done and the answers are not known before we go down this path and, perhaps, either upset the flow of the subcutaneous aquifers or indeed pollute them, there could be long-term effects that could never be redressed. There are no second chances at first impressions, so we must get it right if we are to go down this path.

The other thing that concerns me is that there seems to be a massive acceleration of the need to get the coal seam gas out of the ground. It is almost an at all costs approach and that is being driven by the economic fortunes of rising companies rather than the need to supply demand for our gas. We need to tread very carefully on this. My primary concern is the wellbeing of my constituents and of the environment in which we live. Steps taken without proper and adequate research based on full independent analysis only increase my concerns. I have seen documentaries that have shown that, through chemical fracking, there has been pollution of the subcutaneous aquifers which has then gone into the dams. We have to acknowledge that Australia is a relatively dry nation—but somehow, in a lot of areas, we seem to farm it as though it is a wet nation. We rely on our water storage for our dams and our agricultural industry, whether that is growing food or producing beef or lamb. Our communities are very finely and sensitively balanced. At times it is not the most ecologically viable business to be in but these people who farm our lands are absolutely passionate about what they do. They are passionate about their farms, their communities and the environment in which they live.

Quite often we hear various focus groups attacking farmers for not being environmentalists. In my dealings with the farmers in our communities I find that they are some of the strongest environmentalists that I know. They understand that if we do not treat our land well then it will not produce for the future—whether it is rotating crops, making sure they plant the right crops to give longevity to the land and make it sustainable, making sure they are not over-irrigating, making sure they are not overfertilising, or adhering to good runoff practices which can affect the water supply to others downstream.

So I say to this government: as you establish this committee, pay heed to the wise words of the member for Groom, Mr Macfarlane, who has put forward in an amendment suggestions about people to include, which will be debated a bit later on. The second thing I say to you, as you establish this committee, is: make sure that it is not a biased community with a predetermined outcome in their findings. Most importantly, in working with the state, territory and local governments, make sure that you take the community on the journey with you so that they have a full understanding of the process and the science if this coal seam gas is to be extracted in their communities. So far all I have seen is division in my community. People feel that they are not informed and that their land rights to property they own are being set aside for the sake of someone who holds an exploration licence or a licence to extract on their property. There are a number of these coal seam gas basins or deposits throughout Australia and I do not think there needs to be any rush to extract coal seam gas from them in areas which are prime agricultural areas or where there is heavy residential or farm style build-up. There are plenty of areas which are broadscape from which the gas can be extracted.

I hope that the government acknowledges the contribution of all members of this House and their concerns on behalf of their constituents; and I hope that the coalition can work with the government to achieve an outcome that, in the long term, supports and benefits our community and the industry alike. I commend this bill to the House and I will be supporting the amendment foreshadowed by my colleague the member for Groom.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012. The potential for coal seam gas extraction, particularly in eastern Australia, is enormous. Already the estimate is there is more gas contained within the rocks of Queensland and New South Wales than there is under the sea off the North West Shelf of Western Australia.

Unfortunately, along the way, coal seam gas extraction has become a highly controversial issue. It is estimated there will be something like 40,000 coal seam gas wells within Australia and the estimates suggest that coal seam gas wells could extract anywhere from 125 to 300 gigalitres of water from the ground each year to facilitate that extraction. That, of course, is one of the key issues that communities are concerned about. The modelling suggests the industry could produce 31 million tonnes of waste salt over the next 30 years—and in anyone's terms that is a big pile of salt!

On the benefit side, Queensland stands to extract up to $850 million a year in royalties from the industry and New South Wales somewhat less, but still a significant amount of money. There is great potential for new industries to be established from the new desalinated water sources, so there is plenty of upside. It is estimated that Australia has 200 years supply of gas and great potential to discover more than that. What this means for all Australians is that this industry is going to be developed one way or another. It is our job and our chore to make sure it is developed properly and that the side effects are minimal.

One could well ask why a member from South Australia would be so interested in this industry, which is idiosyncratic in that it is basically confined to Queensland and New South Wales. But I see many correlations in the establishment of this committee to oversee and provide scientific advice to state governments and to my electorate. My electorate, which covers 92 per cent of South Australia, has enormous interest at the moment in its resources. With respect to those correlations I talked about, for a start, South Australia is home to over 50 per cent of the installed capacity of wind generators in Australia. You might ask what wind generators have to do with coal seam gas. They are an intrusion on people's properties. They operate on arrangements the wind farm generators make with the holders of the property, to pay them a rental each year for allowing the company to operate their wind farms on the landholder's property. They have become quite controversial for a number of reasons, including low-level noise. But those arrangements that those operators make are very similar to the arrangements made with farmers who are going to have coal seam gas extracted on their property.

Another correlation is the possible interference with underground aquifers. As I say, I represent a lot of the state but I live on Eyre Peninsula. It is a significant region within itself. Until very recently it was unconnected to the River Murray. The Eyre Peninsula region uses about nine gigalitres of water a year. As I said, until recently all that water came from underground aquifers predominantly at the bottom end of the peninsula. Over the years we have managed to destroy or certainly disable a number of aquifers that previously supplied the peninsula. Residents of Eyre Peninsula are very sensitive about the fact that we may interfere or overpump the current aquifers, because there really are no second options. Currently, a number of companies are very interested in digging up iron ore from within the area that is the home of the aquifers. That has a great correlation to the coal seam gas industry. People are concerned about what this will do to their underground water supplies, not so much from contamination but more to the dewatering process itself. Will it depressurise the basin? How interconnected are the basins? Does the water from one area run to the next? Those are hydrology issues that also affect the coal seam gas industry.

One other great interface I see, as these industries develop around South Australia, is the interaction between mining and agriculture. This will be the big issue of the first half of the 21st century for the development of our resources. It is not so bad when minerals are found on so-called pastoral country where they do not make much of a footprint—and we are talking about lower production country—but where it actually intersects with farming country there are always bound to be different points of view.

Currently, Rex Minerals are developing large copper resources on the Yorke Peninsula. Yorke Peninsula has some of the best agricultural land within the state. We recognise there are billions of dollars at stake here, but we also understand why farmers and local communities are very concerned about the way that their land may be alienated, perhaps permanently.

In another area, over on Eyre Peninsula, once again around Warramboo, a large company, Iron Road, is looking at mining significant iron ore deposits, with exactly the same outcomes. We are we likely to see acid leach uranium mining across quite a number of farming areas. That would be very similar in nature to the outcome with coal seam gas extraction. I see a lot of similarities.

Any work the expert committee may do in relation to coal seam gas may well provide, at least, a pathway for us in South Australia to learn from their methods and how we manage the challenges we face. The committee will have the power to investigate and give impartial advice to relevant bodies and, as I say, in most cases this will be the states themselves, because there is one thing that we do realise—and this follows the government's moves on the mining tax—that the resources do in fact belong to the states.

I should dwell a little bit on the water issue because I think this is the biggest issue and the biggest concern about coal seam gas. As our understanding in Australia of aquifers is still far from perfect, we do not really understand how fast the water moves from one area of an aquifer to another and how they are interconnected. For instance, many scientists around the coal seam gas industry are telling us there are no leakages between aquifers. But, in some ways, we will not know until we try. That is why it is very important to have independent monitoring in place. Many of the proposed areas that will be exposed to coal seam gas extraction are actually the recharge of the Great Australian Basin and that is very important water resource for the state of South Australia.

Much of the outback of South Australia relies entirely on the resources of the Great Australian Basin. While we are aware that the miners—and I will call them 'miners' for the purpose of the extraction of coal seam gas—are not targeting those aquifers that are the Great Australian Basin, in fact, they have to drill through them and there is the possibility of leakage. We are talking about thousands of kilometres away, but depressurisation in the basin at any point is likely to have, at least, some effect.

This is not a new industry worldwide, but it is a new industry for Australia. That is why the establishment of this body, at least in the interim period, will have a good outcome. Because there is potential to effect a far larger footprint than just the locality where the extraction of the coal seam gas takes place, there are bound to be some errors in the establishment of this industry and it is important that we learn very quickly about any mistakes that may be made. If an area is depressurising, then not only do we want to know what is going on in that particular area but we want to know what the lessons are for other areas.

I have had a number of very good briefings in this area, as I am sure almost every member in this place has had. But it does not matter how often we sit through a briefing, there is much we do not know about this issue. That is why it is particularly important that the bona fides of this committee are beyond reproach. That is why the member for Groom has foreshadowed amendments to the effect that we believe the very scientific rigour of this committee should be beyond question and that it should be solely focused on scientific outcomes and should not be swayed by other interests. It is for other people—for other bodies, for parliaments—to make decisions about what we do with that scientific information; but it is important that we get the facts.

Another issue—and I touched on it briefly when I was talking about mining in South Australia—is the right of landholders to be compensated for the industry's operating on their properties. One of the things I am not sure the mining industry has got right is the code of silence that operates around contracts with landholders to mine on their properties. It is far from a transparent process. Typically what happens is that, if a mining company wants to mine a landholder's property, they do individual deals with the owner, with his neighbour and other neighbours around him and sign confidentiality clauses when they sign the deals. This leads to in-community tension. The fact that a neighbour may achieve a better price than you is not necessarily a good outcome in fostering trust. There are people who feel as though they cracked too early and that they could have got more out of the mining company or whatever.

I have spoken to many mining companies and said, 'I think you should err on the side of generosity,' because, in the overall scheme of establishing a mine, the compensation paid to the landholder is little. I am a landholder, and I have always known that really we only control the top couple of feet of the soil and that the people of the state are the owners of the minerals or whatever wealth is within that land. So I presume that, if there are billions of dollars sitting below my farm and my farm is worth, say, a few million, in the long term I am going to lose the argument.

Because the relative compensation is low, I would like to see the mining industry adopt a code of conduct that would say, for instance, 'If we want to take over your property, we are prepared to give you, as a baseline, three times its current trading value.' If deals were like that—in the open—and everyone understood them, I think you would find farmers opening the gate rather than standing at the gate on the barricades. The same would apply to exploration. If you lived on a very nice property but found that you could buy a property three times the size or three times the value—higher rainfall country or whatever—with whatever payout, that would help you get over the pain. I think that, if we had that sort of open negotiation process where people actually understood what the bottom line was before they opened the gate for the miners, we would see a much more welcoming attitude from farmers. I do not see any great moves in South Australia for the South Australian government to establish that arrangement, but I promote it as I travel around my electorate and talk to mining companies.

As I near the end of my time for this contribution, I go back to this committee and its role. Largely, it is about Queensland and New South Wales. But, as I have said, the interface between agriculture and mining is an Australia-wide phenomenon, and it is going to occupy a lot of our time over the next few years. I reiterate my support for the amendments the member for Groom has already foreshadowed to make sure this committee is rigorous, robust, independent, scientifically based and presents the facts to the decision makers.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too wish to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012. I applaud the notion of introducing an independent expert scientific committee. We should have had such a committee looking at coal seam gas and large coal mining developments quite some time ago. The foreshadowed amendment to this bill coming from the coalition is that each member of the committee, except the chair, be appointed on the basis that they possess scientific qualifications that are relevant to this issue, including ecology, geology, hydrology, hydrogeology, natural resource management and health. This is just plain common sense.

Quite self-evidently, coal seam gas extraction is a very new industry. There was zero production in 1995—a very short time ago. Today, there seems to be a gas rush. When we were doing the inquiry as the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia in May 2011 we were in fact looking at the impacts of the guide to the Murray-Darling Basin plan, and we were so often asked by Queensland and northern New South Wales submitters to consider the impacts of coal seam gas exploration and mining on the groundwater systems and the agribusiness viability in those parts of the country. The submitters were very concerned about the environmental impacts of CSG, including the contamination of aquifers through leeching of wastewater, changes in aquifer pressure and potential destruction of aquifers, contamination of the land, reduction to surface flows of interconnected systems and the intensive use of basin water by coal seam gas operations. We took a lot of evidence about all of those matters.

There seemed to be, in particular, a concern that the coal seam gas rush was proceeding with very limited research and understanding of the long-term or even short-term consequences. There was some reference to what had happened in the United States, but often this was related to shale rather than to coal seam gas extraction. But, quite clearly, there have been horror stories in the USA about risks to health, damage to aquifers, surface water pollution and the like. So we need to learn from other countries, and this independent expert scientific committee will be one step towards making sure that we do not allow our country to become another in the long list of mining disasters.

Today there are more than 4,000 kilometres of gas transmission pipelines related to the coal seam gas industry. In Queensland the number of coal seam gas wells has increased from just 10 per year in the early 1990s to over 735 in 2008-09. So this is a massively increasing industry. The coal basin of Queensland and New South Wales covers extensive areas of eastern Queensland and northern New South Wales, but unfortunately those same areas coincide with some of our richest soils and some of our highest producing agricultural lands. They also coincide with the Great Artesian Basin, in many areas, and other major aquifers. Coal seam gas can help to lower greenhouse gas emissions—if the gas is, for example, methane and it is replacing the burning of coal or oil—but there are other gases associated with the coal seams which are not so wonderful. We have to make sure that what we are doing is going to improve our situation in the long run. Of course, water is a by-product of the gas extraction and the quality of this water varies from place to place, but too often it needs treatment if it is not to become a contaminant in storage ponds that lie awaiting evaporation or seepage into the landscape. Problems in the USA with water extracted from shale gas production have now led the Queensland government to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1994 to limit the construction of these evaporative storages on the surface. That is a good move, but there are already many in existence and I am concerned about their leakage and seepage, not to mention the impact on the landscape values.

There are also concerns about the use of the so-called fracking fluids. The Australian industry claims that fracking fluids used in Australia are safe and do not contain carcinogens such as the BTEX group that led to the disasters in the United States. New South Wales and Queensland have now banned the use of BTEX in coal seam gas extraction in their states, and the chemicals used in fracking fluids are required to be listed in the national chemical inventory. However most of these chemicals have not been assessed by the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme. This is a problem. Those various chemicals need to be assessed urgently. That is why this expert committee is very much needed. The committee will need to look at the human health issues, the water issues and the issues associated with hydrology and geology, but it will also need to look at issues related to our food production in Australia and how we can ensure that we do not have a short-term gas rush at the long-term expense of our own national food security.

I am most concerned that, at a time when we are identifying a growing global demand for high-value food production, and the Australian Prime Minister recently identified as one of her goals taking advantage of the growing market very close to us in nearby regions for foods, we have virtually no protection for our fertile soils and water supplies from mining. We are a geologically ancient, eroded and leached continent. Our groundwater systems, such as the Great Artesian Basin, are ancient: they are hundreds of thousands of years old. We still do not know about their recharge rates, and we have many bores from the earliest days left uncapped with the water flowing free. Therefore there are substantial drops in the pressure or the groundwater levels in a lot of those aquifers are already well advanced. We need national land protection guidelines that coincide with the publishing of Australia's first national food plan. We have to address issues of encroaching urbanisation, forestry and mining on what are some of our best-producing, most valuable food growing regions. The latest Murray-Darling Basin proposal was released just yesterday—and more of it today .That proposal identifies that there will be further restriction of the water available for irrigated agriculture. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has assessed that across the basin its plan will lead to only one per cent reduction in productivity. But in areas of, for example, intensive dairying or other food production, it is understood that the impacts, in terms of reduced productivity, will be similar to what is now called the 'millennium drought'. We therefore have many threats to food security and food production in Australia. We are already a net importer of processed food in this country. We have very little understanding of the levels of investment of foreign businesses—or, indeed, national companies—when it comes to parts of our food value chains or indeed the land and its productive base. We do not know at this point, for example, how much of our current food producing enterprise is in the hands of foreign nationals and what the implications of this are for our own future innovation, research and development opportunities and, indeed, our food security itself.

When you add those dilemmas together—the lack of a national policy in relation to protecting our agribusiness and our agricultural lands, the fact that we do not have an abundance of fertile soils, the fact that water is one of our most scarce resources limiting agricultural development—and the coal seam gas rush, where those explorations do coincide with some of our best agricultural land, then you realise that we are a nation that needs to do some heavy-duty new thinking.

The committee that is being proposed is, as I said at the beginning, an important additional safeguard; but in itself it will not be sufficient. We need regulation and legislation to protect our agricultural resources, including our water resources, our soils and our biodiversity. This amendment from the coalition will add to the value of this expert scientific committee if it is adopted in due course.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012 establishes the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development, and its role will be to provide scientific evidence to governments on relevant coal seam gas and large coal mining projects and to commission and fund water resource assessments for priority regions.

The committee can advise on research priorities, bioregional assessments in areas of high potential impact from coal seam gas and/or large coal mining developments and provide advice to the Commonwealth environment minister on priority assessment areas. It will also be able to advise on research and bioregional assessments commissioned by the Commonwealth environment minister as a result of the committee's own advice. It will publish options for improving the consistency of research in this area and information on developing leading standards in the protection of water resources.

Debate interrupted.