Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for . Will the minister update the House on negotiations between the federal government and the New South Wales government on using the best quality science to assess coal-seam gas proposals? How does this compare with what is happening in other states? Is the minister concerned about the New South Wales government's approach?

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

I thank the member for Page for raising this important issue in parliament today. For a long time the member for Page, together with the member for Richmond, has raised concerns on behalf of communities in northern New South Wales about the impact of coal seam gas. Members of this House need to understand that what is happening in New South Wales is quite different from what is happening in other states. In states like Queensland there are exclusion zones around the settled areas, preventing the serious loss of groundwater through coal seam gas exploration and extraction from having an impact on urban areas. When I dealt with the proposals in Queensland, advice came back about concerns about subsidence, where land height significantly drops after water has been extracted. In terms of environmental impact on endangered species or something like that, the impact is minimal, but if you are talking about a settled the area where ground subsidence occurs under people's homes, under schools and under roads, the impact is far more serious.

In New South Wales, instead of it being only in areas well away from settled areas, there are proposals not only in New England which have had a lot of publicity but also on the far north coast of New South Wales, in the Hunter, in the Illawarra and in Western Sydney. So the government, in putting forward the national partnership agreement, has put forward the money for the states to make sure that, for their processes, independently paid for science has to be locked into informing their planning decisions.

Mr Matheson interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member for Macarthur will leave the chamber under standing order 94A.

The member for Macarthur then left the chamber.

Queensland has signed up to that, Victoria has signed up to that, South Australia has signed up to that, but New South Wales asked for a protocol that is different from every other state to make sure that not every proposal is going to be caught.

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Herbert can also leave the chamber under standing order 94A. There are standing orders!

The member for Herbert then left the chamber.

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

I table a letter I sent yesterday to Premier Barry O'Farrell. It is simply not good enough to have a situation where one state is wanting to make sure that the scientific checks are not done for them. There are some issues which currently do not fall within the ambit of federal legal powers but make a massive difference to the community. The member for Lyne is another who has been raising issues to do with his community. Member after member in different parts of New South Wales have been raising these issues. They fall within the jurisdiction of state responsibility but they are a massive issue. The federal government has put down the money to make sure the scientific work can be done. For some reason—and you can all work out your own conclusions as to why—Barry O'Farrell does not want that information to inform planning decisions in New South Wales.