Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I refer to some of the comments made by Senator Joyce in terms of his trip to the United States. Clearly that is an issue with which policymakers have struggled. The issue of compensation to landholders is fundamental. It was just two years ago that an American documentary film, Gasland, written and directed by Josh Fox, focused on the implications of slick-water fracking. Whilst that was related to something geologically quite different from what occurs here in Australia, it is analogous to the sorts of issues that face communities, including communities feeling disempowered, the impact on water, the impact on prime agricultural land, issues of compensation and fairness, and also the difficulty that the US congress has had in dealing with this in an effective way. These are issues that will not go away. We are actually getting to a tipping point with these issues, and part of that tipping point is this piece of legislation, which I think goes some way but not far enough in dealing with these fundamental issues.

At the heart of this bill is a proposal to create an Independent Expert Scientific Committee, with the acronym IESC, to give advice on coal seam gas and large coalmining developments. The IESC has a role to provide scientific advice to the Commonwealth and state and territory governments on coal seam gas and larger coalmining developments when they have a significant impact on water resources. The bill also requires the Commonwealth environment minister to consider the advice of the IESC when it is predicted to have an adverse effect on a matter of national environmental significance. This new body will consist of at least five but not more than eight members. These members, with the notable exception of the chair, are required to possess qualifications relevant to the task at hand, namely ecology, hydrology, geology, hydrogeology, natural resource management and health. It will also be able to collect, analyse and publish scientific information in relation to the impacts of coal seam gas—and I welcome the step towards greater accountability and transparency in relation to this.

Over the next 20 years, it is estimated that there will be 40,000 coal seam gas wells in Australia. Conservative estimates suggest coal seam gas wells could suck 300 gigalitres, or 300 billion litres, of water from the ground each year. There is no question that there are a number of factors to consider when it comes to the approval and monitoring of coal seam gas developments. I welcome the establishment of the IESC to provide independent scientific advice on the implications that such developments may have on water resources. But there is a question of the effectiveness of this legislation. I can indicate my broad support for a number of the Greens amendments in relation to ensuring that the system is transparent and robust and that it has the teeth that it needs to be truly effective in monitoring these developments. That is why I think it is important, if we have a framework of legislation, to make sure that we give it the necessary powers and tools for enforcement so that it actually works.

There are some parallels here, I think, to what has occurred in my home state of South Australia in the uphill battle it has had in securing a sustainable water supply for both urban and agricultural use. South Australia is in the unenviable position of being located at the bottom of the Murray-Darling Basin and, for decades, has battled through drought and upstream overallocation. Perhaps most cruelly, South Australian irrigators capped their water usage back in the late 1960s to protect the health of the river but now can access hardly any of a $5.8 billion federal fund for water-saving efficiency measures because they are already too efficient to qualify. When you consider that South Australia uses just eight per cent of all the water in the Murray-Darling Basin system yet stands to lose the most from a plan unless it is properly structured and takes into account early adoption of water efficiency measures, it is worth drawing a parallel with what is happening here. If we had listened to objective, robust, independent scientific advice, I do not think we would be in the mess we are in now in the Murray-Darling Basin and, in particular, South Australia would not be as vulnerable as it is now.

There is no question that we need a plan for the Murray-Darling Basin, but you need not look any further than the difficulty that the federal government has had in trying to implement its plan to realise that foresight is a gift that eludes many. Again, if we had looked at the facts—if we looked at the science and at the environmental, social and economic impacts much earlier—I do not think we would have got into this position, where it is so difficult to reform the basin because there are so many vested interests that have become entrenched. That is the concern I have in relation to coal seam gas. So what occurs in the Murray-Darling Basin should serve as a timely reminder to both state and federal governments that we need to think ahead and act now to preserve our natural environment and the health and livelihood of those who depend on it.

While I support this bill in its second reading stage, I believe it needs to be improved. I think this needs to be the first tranche of many more amendments that we need to tackle this. The issues that were raised by Senator Joyce in terms of compensation are important. I have concerns with coal seam gas mining, and I know that many in this place share these concerns. I note the work that Senator Waters has done on this issue on behalf of the Australian Greens. I note the work that Senator Heffernan, Liberal senator from New South Wales, has done in chairing the inquiry and the commendable work that he has done. I note the concerns expressed by Senator Joyce and his Nationals colleagues in relation to coal seam gas and I note the work that the Independent member for New England, Tony Windsor, has done in relation to this. You know that something big is happening when Senator Joyce gets up to praise Tony Windsor, and you know that this is something that transcends ideology and partisan or political divide. And, of course, the government needs to be commended for introducing this piece of legislation in response to those concerns and actually taking some action on this.

The issue of coal seam gas mining is far from straightforward. Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Alan Randall, wrote this in the Sydney Morning Herald on 20 August last year, and it is worth commenting on:

… large-scale development comes with an extensive catalogue of potential environmental impacts: a voracious demand for water, especially groundwater, treatment and disposal of contaminated waste water, disturbance and fragmentation of land surface, increased seismic activity, contamination from drilling and hydro-fracturing fluids, land subsidence, potentially irreparable damage and destruction of aquifers, and the liberation of methane and carbon dioxide … into the atmosphere.

That gives you a snapshot of the real challenges that we face with coal seam gas. It is a serious concern. There is so much about coal seam gas that we simply do not know, and it is our responsibility to take as many precautionary steps as we can to prevent environmental disaster for future generations. The precautionary principle should apply here.

The impact of water extraction on groundwater will be significant, particularly on the Great Artesian Basin and the overlying sub-artesian aquifers. There are also concerns about the chemicals which are used to mine coal seam methane and naturally occurring contaminants released from the coal seam during mining—which, according to Dr Helen Redmond from Doctors for the Environment, could harm human health, including increasing the risk of cancer. While the appointment of an independent scientific panel that can assess a coal seam gas or coal mining development's impact on water resources is a welcome step, I believe that as members of parliament we should be going further to protect communities given the potential health risks.

The minister has said that this bill will provide 'more certainty for regional communities around coal seam gas and large coal mining developments, jobs and investment, and the protection of water resources.' But once the resources have been mined out of the ground and the mining company has packed up its operations, what of the landholders? What of the legacy of that? They will be the ones trying to grow crops or feed cattle well after the resources have been dug up.

We must also consider the importance of agriculture in Australia and the need to ensure that Australia's food bowl is able to thrive for centuries to come. I note that Senator Joyce said in his contribution that one of the key issues at the APEC summit in Vladivostok has been food security. We cannot underestimate that, and I think we have been mugs as a nation in not having forward planning and a long term vision in terms of food security. Australia has approximately 398 million hectares of agricultural land and, sadly, a very small portion of that is considered 'quality' land—about two per cent. Do we really want to risk this country's food security by allowing mining to occur on farming land that has serious potential consequences with regard to groundwater contamination?

I think Senator Cameron has been very critical of economist Henry Ergas in the past, and probably still is—that is part of a robust debate in terms of a contest of ideas—but I do not think Mr Ergas could be considered to be a bleeding heart on a range of issues. I think that Senator Feeney is probably agreeing with me. We seem to have unanimity in terms of Mr Ergas. I think what Mr Ergas—as an economist who has taken an almost clinical view of this—has said is worth repeating. He said:

... the objective should not be to maximise the size of the coal-seam methane industry, but to make the best use of our resources. And if using resources for one purpose clashes with their use in another, then the benefits from the first must be balanced against the costs to the second. There is therefore nothing efficient about greater gas extraction if its value is less than the harm it imposes on farmers and rural communities.

That is something that I think we should all take heed of. I think Mr Ergas, as an economist, has summed it up very well.

While I support this bill at its second reading stage, I believe that as a parliament we must go further to ensure that we do not wander blindly into a future environmental and public health disaster. Our food security ought to be a paramount consideration. That is why it is important that we do everything we can to strengthen this bill even further.