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

I plan to be very brief because we do have a very important event attached to the apology coming up very, very soon, but it is necessary for me to speak on this bill. I am very keen to speak on this bill and any amendments, because I am the member for Hunter and this initiative, which has been brought forward by the minister for the environment, is very relevant to my electorate.

I have a particular dislike for regulation. Overdone, it has the potential to strangle business and constrain our economy. But regulation, whether we like it or not, is a necessary evil. It maintains civil society, protects us from the excesses of the market and addresses market failure. The real challenge is to get the balance right. I have seen many unnecessary regulations from government at every level and of all political persuasions. Most people could readily cite an example of a stupid regulation and the waste of resources involved in enforcing that regulation. If you were looking for obvious people to ask, I suggest you turn to anyone who runs a small business.

Even though I would prefer that the Commonwealth had not found it necessary to intervene in this area, I do not put this particular initiative in the category of bad regulation. I would put this in the category of necessary intervention. I do so because, even though it involves an overlap with the various state governments, it also addresses the shortcomings of those state government planning processes. It also has great potential to restore some confidence in those planning processes which are so important in many communities, but very, very important in communities like the ones I represent because they have seen the excesses of development. Coal mining has brought wonderful and great wealth to the Hunter, but it has also brought environment problems, capacity constraints and other issues. Some of those environmental questions will live with us for a long, long time to come. I remain a very, very strong supporter of the coal mining industry. But we must ensure we get the balance right and are not in any way threatened in our water tables, for example, and the sustainable industries that strive as a result of the availability of clean and unpolluted water.

Coal seam gas is a wonderful resource for this country. It addresses our looming gas shortage. People will maybe come to understand that when they realise the price effect of shortages in gas and, ultimately, the effect of not being able to access gas. But again, just like coal mining, we cannot allow gas to come on line if there is a threat to our natural environment. I do not promote zero tolerance, by the way. We have never applied zero tolerance to any industry. We would not have too many industries proceeding if they presented any form of environmental problem. Again, there is an important balance. I believe this initiative gets the balance right. It brings the science into the arrangement. I welcome the investment by the minister in the scientific panel—some $230 million. It is a great initiative. It will restore confidence in planning approvals and processes, so I welcome the intervention.

I took the opportunity to inspect one of AGL's projects in a small village called Broke in my electorate. The gas drilling is taking place outside the village. Where they are exploring, they are using the extracted water to irrigate a vineyard which they have purchased, just to demonstrate some of the benefits. The water-saving is, I think, 20 per cent. They take the water out, dilute it with both rainwater and water from the Hunter River, let it settle and use the water to irrigate their vines. It is a pretty impressive example of how good the industry can be—providing gas supply, wealth and jobs, and water-saving comes with it. If we get it right it can be a wonderful thing for the Hunter Valley, bringing similar wealth as coalmining without anything like the footprint that open-cut coalmining brings, for example. But we have to get the balance right and I think this initiative strikes the right balance.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013. As someone who recognises the importance of the coal seam gas industry to Australia, I say that we need to continue to demonstrate that Australia employs world's best practice regulatory standards. The proposed amendment to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 will ensure that the impact of new coal seam gas projects and new large coalmines on water resources is assessed under the EPBC Act. The key to this is independent scientific advice underpinning any environmental assessment. The amendment requiring Commonwealth assessment of new coal seam gas projects and new coalmines ensures the advice of the scientific committee must be considered in environmental approvals, even when there is no such statutory requirement under state law.

In essence, the amendments are all part of the government's commitment to best practice regulation when it comes to our energy resources. This includes the action of the Australian government, working through the Standing Council on Energy and Resources, in developing a national harmonised framework to regulate core areas of coal seam gas operations and a multiple land-use framework. Industry is committed to best practice, despite the view of some in this House. These frameworks recognise that operations must coexist with other activities, like farming, and will provide communities and industry with the tools to achieve such coexistence.

Preliminary advice from SCER has indicated that Australia's regulatory regimes already accommodate best practice standards, but this is a process of continuous improvement, as is the nature of environmental and Indigenous regulation in Australia. I saw this firsthand a couple of weeks ago when I visited the coal seam gas corridor in Queensland. I spoke to the workers involved in the industry, such as those on a drilling rig with experienced workers from overseas as part of the team. When you think about the industry at the moment and the loss of 9,000 coal industry jobs over the last 12 months, Queensland is exceptionally important. As a result of a $55 million investment in the coal seam methane industry in Queensland, we now have 25,000 jobs cushioning the loss of 7,000 jobs in the coalmining industry over the last 12 to 15 months. With coal prices as they are at the moment, I do not rule out further mothballing and closure of coalmines in Australia, with further job losses.

Unlike Queensland, New South Wales does not have that cushion. New South Wales has lost 3,000 jobs in the same period—2,000 jobs in the last four months—because of the collapse of metallurgical and thermal coal prices. Our objective is to make sure that we have best practice and ensure that it is based on scientific considerations. We need to end the senseless debate aimed at demonising industries that create wealth, opportunity and jobs for Australia and, in doing so, create a huge potential stream of export earnings for Australia. The state of Queensland today is a prime example of the importance of this industry. Without the industry in Queensland at the moment, the Queensland government would be most challenged in employment, especially in regional communities. People who have concerns with this industry need to spend a little bit of time in those regional communities and actually discuss the benefits of the industry with local communities. The workers themselves accept that best practice should apply.

When I spoke to the workers in Central Queensland a fortnight ago and to the workers on the drilling rig, who are international workers training Australians, giving them expertise for the future, they clearly indicated that in terms of world's best practice our training and qualifications are the best, and in terms of environmental considerations our standards are best practice in the world. Regarding suggestions that these workers are not receiving decent earnings in Australia, highly experienced workers from Canada clearly indicated that the wages they are earning in Australia are twice the wages they could earn in North America at the moment.

I seek to bring these benefits to the attention of the House because, clearly, we must get environmental considerations right in the same way as we must get Indigenous considerations right. Projects that do not meet those standards will be knocked back. Projects that do meet those standards must be allowed to go ahead without being demonised. There is a very important reason why we need to turn our attention to this issue: because of a fight to bring gas projects into operation in New South Wales and Queensland in recent times, we are staring at a potential shortage of gas in Australia, which is going to have a huge impact on potential prices for ordinary consumers, let alone the industry. I raise these issues to remind the House that we have to front up to our responsibilities environmentally and from an Indigenous perspective but also from an economic perspective, at national, state and local levels. The time has come for all of us to get on with having an established framework, back off from the senseless campaigns without foundation, and concentrate on scientific outcomes, investment and jobs for all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.

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

I thank members for their contributions and commend the bill to the House.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On some very recent and quality advice from the clerks on my second reading amendment, I would like to withdraw that amendment out of concern that, depending on the behaviour of the House, it may actually kill the bill. I would certainly hope that the other place deals with the sentiments contained within it. Neither I nor the member for Denison at any stage would want to see the passage of this legislation disrupted.

Amendment—by leave—withdrawn.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.