Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Of course, there are some exceptions. I might mention Senator Bill Heffernan, who is opposed to coal seam gas for all of the same reasons the Greens are.

We have an information gap about CSG in particular, and I have already cited concerns of learned bodies like the National Water Commission and the CSIRO, so it is great that this committee will lead a research program, albeit mostly at the behest of the minister, with only a handful of matters that the committee can of its own volition investigate. But without the ability of the federal minister to actually act on that advice and protect our water resources, I am afraid this bill is simply green wash. The government wanted to get the MRRT through and thought it would be nice to look like it was doing something on coal seam gas; but this is such a small step forward and, sadly, falls so far short of what our land, water and communities deserve. I hope that the government and the opposition seriously consider the amendments that I will be moving to this bill when we come to the committee stage and also reconsider their position on my water bill.

I want to touch a little on the substance of those amendments now. The first is a moratorium on any more coal seam gas approvals until the committee does the scientific work that it is being set up to do. Surely, anything less makes a mockery of the work program of the committee? There seems little point in undertaking research unless it will actually inform decisions on whether new coal mines and coal seam gas mines should go ahead. I understand from the responses to questions I asked during Senate estimates that the research program of this new panel is likely to take about five years to complete; yet, in the meantime, the federal and state governments are proposing to roll ahead with assessing and approving these developments before that science is in.

This is of particular concern when it comes to CSG, where we consider the greatest risks and uncertainties lie. My amendment proposes a five-year moratorium on coal seam gas to give the committee time to complete its full research program before any more coal seam gas approvals are issued—to make sure its work can count. The government foolishly keeps issuing approvals before we have the full scientific picture before us. We need that five-year moratorium while that science is being done. Mr Bandt, the Greens member for Melbourne, proposed this amendment when the bill was in the lower house but, sadly, it was not supported. Once again, all of the old parties voted it down and backed the big miners over the community and the environment. It is of great concern that the old parties continue to ignore the legitimate concerns of the community and water experts like the CSIRO and the National Water Commission.

The Greens are not alone here; rather, we are speaking for the many Australian communities that have spoken out so strongly against coal seam gas, with a recent poll indicating that 68 per cent of people wanted a moratorium on coal seam gas until it has been proven safe. So I look forward to representative democracy working and hope that the will of the majority of people will be reflected in this chamber when it comes to a vote on that amendment.

I will also move amendments to improve the transparency and independence of this committee, firstly to ensure that all advice from the expert panel is published online at the time that it is presented to the state or federal government decision maker. This gives the public a chance to see that expert advice and to urge decision makers to take evidence based decisions and thus improve the quality of decisions made. We believe the community has a right to know what our decision makers know about the risks posed by major coal and CSG projects when making approval decisions.

The second tranche of amendments goes to conflict of interest of the committee members, which is of utmost importance in a committee that is entitled 'independent'. Genuine independence, as well as the appearance of independence, is crucial both to community confidence in this new committee and to its provision of unbiased advice. Currently the act, the regulations and the bill require that members of the committee disclose any potential conflict of interest at a meeting. Minutes are taken and under a policy decision, not a statutory one, they are published online. But the conflict disclosures are in the appendices of the minutes, which are not online. This amendment is needed so that the public can have the opportunity to scrutinise such conflicts and check whether they are being properly managed. We believe the community has a right to know whether the expert panel's advice is free from any undue influence.

I would urge the government when appointing members to this new committee to consider carefully the balance between field expertise by not appointing people who are currently on the payroll of the mining and CSG industry. Some members of the interim committee have received substantial research funding from the industry. While they would not have to do this if the government properly funded research development in our tertiary institutions, such links do undermine public confidence in the independence of advice provided to government by that committee.

I have some other amendments which enhance the independence of the committee both from industry and from government, including providing that committee members have security of tenure for a minimum of three years and that they have adequate support to do their job properly and allowing the committee, importantly, to conduct research and investigations of their own volition, not just when directed by government.

The last tranche of my amendments is about the health impacts of coalmining and coal seam gas. Many communities are already experiencing health impacts from large coalmines and the air pollution that they generate. Many Australians, including the medical bodies that gave evidence to the Senate inquiry into this bill, have significant concerns about the potential health impacts associated with coal seam gas mining. In the lower house, amendments were proposed to explicitly list areas of expertise that should be represented on the committee and these included geologists, hydrologists and ecologists, but no human health experts. It is imperative that the health impacts of coal seam gas are considered by this committee, given the chemical cocktails that are pumped into coal seams in fracking fluids and the naturally occurring carcinogenic BTEX—that is, benzene, toluene, ethylene and xylene—that can be mobilised by that fracking process and that could end up in drinking water if connections between aquifers are made. We believe that it is simply an oversight not to have the health experts on the scientific panel, and that oversight clearly needs to be corrected. So we look forward to the support from both sides of the chamber to ensure that this committee can consider the important health impacts of coal and coal seam gas mining.

In conclusion, I hope that the Senate concerns itself much more with coal seam gas in the years to come and in the more immediate future with the amendments that I have proposed. I want to note for any listeners or avid readers of Hansard that I am disappointed that the government, on my last check, has not provided any speakers to support this bill, bar the obligatory opening and closing speakers. I note also that, at last count, there are only a handful of Liberals who are speaking on it too. I think communities concerned about coal and coal seam gas will be disappointed that the two old parties are not taking this issue seriously enough to speak on this bill and, in doing so, to reflect upon the impact of coal seam gas on their constituents. I dearly hope that this does not signify a continuation of a situation where only the Greens are prepared to stand up for rural communities to protect our precious farmland and water from the voracious coal and coal seam gas industries. We would really like some company.