Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I apologise for my smile as I rise to speak after Senator Waters's outline on the lack of—and I would like Hansard to record this in capital letters and bold, please—the OLD PARTIES. I am a senator in one of the oldest parties in this place. It has a very long, strong and proud tradition of standing up for regional Victorians. I think if the senator looked at the speakers list for this bill she would see that we are in the majority, not the Greens.

I rise 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. The bill amends the EPBC Act to establish an independent expert scientific committee on coal seam gas and large coalmining development as a statutory authority. The authority would be responsible for providing federal, state and territory governments with scientific advice on coal seam gas and large coalmining developments which may have significant impacts on water resources.

The bill necessitates the federal environment minister to seek and consider advice from the independent expert scientific committee on any coal seam gas or significant coalmining project that might adversely affect surface water, groundwater, a water course, lake, wetland or aquifer. There are concerns, particularly in Queensland and New South Wales—and I might say increasingly in Victoria—where coal seam gas development has escalated and jurisdictional laws have been found wanting, bearing in mind this is a state issue. The Nationals seek to address this by ensuring the natural inequity in power between farmer and miner is rebalanced, with a fair return for access. Additionally, following concerns raised internationally of the potential for water contamination by the processes involved in mining coal seam gas, Australians need to have confidence that mining will not cause damage downstream.

The independent expert scientific committee stems from the National Partnership Agreement on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development. Victoria became a signatory to this agreement on 5 June 2012 and, in signing the agreement, federal and state governments acknowledged a critical need to strengthen the science that underpins the regulation of these industries and committed to ensuring independent expert advice on all relevant project proposals will be available to local communities, government and industry.

Through provisions of this bill, specifically section 505C, the independent expert scientific committee will have five to eight members, each of whom will possess scientific qualifications—not human health, but a range that is specific to the task at hand being assessing the impact of mining on water assets—and who will be appointed in a part-time capacity by the federal environment minister. The terms and conditions of their appointment will be consistent with other statutory entities established under the EPBC Act. A sensible coalition amendment in the House of Representatives will ensure, as the committee's fundamental purpose is to advise on scientific issues relating to water and coal seam activity, that a majority of the members will have advanced qualifications and expertise in the key fields of geology or hydrology.

Section 505D of the bill prescribes a time line for the committee's primary role of advising on projects that could significantly impact water resources as being within two months of a request. A second key function of the committee is to advise the federal environment minister regarding bioregional assessments prior to and post their commission. The independent expert scientific committee would also be required to collect, analyse and disseminate scientific information, advise on research priorities and make information on leading practice standards accessible to the public.

I could not be more supportive of the notion of using credible science as the basis for decision making. It is something this government should strive to undertake with more regularity. Science and innovation are critical to the future of our nation, giving rise to solutions that will improve and enhance our way of life. But science can be politicised, which is why a combination of scientific fields and disciplines suggest debate on protecting water resources during the exploration and extraction of coal seam gas. The precious resource of water needs to be protected, and we have learnt from past errors in assuming that all will be well for the environment during mining. But miners and mining have changed; legislation has assisted in that and this is another of the building blocks.

The issue of water tables becoming contaminated is a serious issue because there is a lack of evidence, as Senator Waters mentioned in her contribution, and this body will contribute to assisting in filling in the gaps and improving our knowledge around what the impacts are and where.

Coal seam gas, which is an end-use product, is identical to natural gas, and is being promoted as a cost-effective energy supply with lower greenhouse gas emissions than coal. Coal seam gas developments are proposed in areas where coal deposits are not commercially viable or are technically impossible to mine by conventional methods. Gas, usually methane, is extracted by drilling a well into the coal seam and taking out the water, which depressurises it and releases the gas to the surface. This technique is usually seen at depths of 200 to 1,000 metres. Some wells need hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, to free the coal seam gas. This involves pumping large volumes of water mixed with sand and sometimes chemicals into the stream under high pressure, which fractures the coal seam and allows the gas to flow. This technique is used in a small number of cases—about eight per cent in Queensland's black coal seams. Due to the nature of Victoria's extensive brown coal resource, fracking is unlikely to be required to free the coal seam gas. Regardless, the Victorian coalition government has acted to allay community fears by announcing a moratorium on fracking approvals, effective as at 24 August 2012.

Exploration of coal seam gas commenced in Australia in 1976 and the first commercial operation started 16 years ago in 1996. Australia may have coal seam gas reserves of up to 40 billion barrels of oil in energy equivalent terms—enough to meet our country's energy needs for 40 years. Demand for natural gas in my home state of Victoria is expected to double by 2030. With this in mind, it is expected that the industry will grow substantially over the coming decades. Coal seam gas, if managed appropriately, has the potential to deliver an economic boom that could revitalise parts of regional Australia. As a party committed to the regions, the Nationals are keen to ensure that this does not come at the cost of food production, the environment or local livability—something the Greens might like to consider with their proposals for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan: food production, the environment and local livability.

Recognising that the coal seam gas industry requires a comprehensive policy approach that responds to the environmental, social and economic impacts of its development, the Nationals were key in setting up the Senate's inquiry into coal seam gas last year. I commend my colleagues, particularly Senator Nash, who will be speaking to this bill later, for their efforts in that regard. The Nationals have also outlined a blueprint for coal seam gas development in Australia, with five core principles that articulate our concerns—coal seam gas development, if it goes ahead, must not damage aquifers or water quality; coal seam gas development should not be able to compromise farmland; concerns about proposed coal seam gas development near residential areas should be considered; landholders should be compensated and given a return from the development of their land; and the regions deserve their fair share of the revenues from coal seam gas developments in their communities.

There are some concerns about coal seam gas mining and the potential damage to water assets: namely, that dewatering coal seams could depressurise adjacent aquifers used for domestic and agricultural water, causing bores to decline in quality or to fail; that chemicals used in the fracking process might contaminate aquifers; the risk of cross-contamination if coal seams and other aquifers connect; and the lack of information on the cumulative impacts of multiple coal seam gas developments need to be taken into account. My home state has strict regulations in place—considered the best in the nation—and the state is working to ensure landholders rights, agricultural land, the environment and the water table are further protected. Victoria governs coal seam gas exploration in order to protect our environment and to protect the rights of landholders and local communities. For example, chemicals used in the hydraulic fracking process in other jurisdictions are unlikely to pass the Victorian government's stringent requirements set out for the protection of our groundwater. Late last month, the Victorian coalition government announced a total ban on the use of BTEX chemicals such as benzene and toluene in any mining activity.

Last month's reform also saw the Victorian coalition government place a hold on issuing new coal seam gas exploration licences and a commitment to using environmental impact statements at the exploration stage to improve management in mixed land-use areas. I commend the state government for their efforts in safeguarding the interests of Victorian communities. In my state, gas has been safely and successfully extracted both onshore and offshore for more than four decades. The production of coal seam gas is still some way off but a small number of exploration licences have been issued in Gippsland, the Otways and Bacchus Marsh.

The independent expert scientific committee will be an additional, much welcomed resource to assist the Victorian government to make sound decisions regarding coal seam gas and large coalmining developments on behalf of Victorian communities and to learn from the experiences of other states, as state environment ministers can also request advice of this body.

The Senate referred this bill to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, of which I am a member, for inquiry in March and report in June. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the organisations and individuals who provided submissions, as well as my fellow committee members for their contributions throughout that particular inquiry—and Senator Waters made a very valuable contribution throughout the inquiry. The Environment and Communications Legislation Committee found that there was broad support for environmental decision making based on scientific evidence. The absence of a clear definition of a term used throughout the bill, 'significant impact', was raised in numerous submissions to the committee. The committee has noted that the department intends to produce public information clarifying the definition once a body of evidence is sufficiently established.

During the inquiry a number of entities raised concerns about duplicating federal and state processes in assessing water resource impacts. Industry, businesses and the communities reliant upon them are already choking on burdensome red and green tape. Labor promised when elected that they would introduce one in, one out—meaning that new regulations would be matched by repealing others. Instead, since 2007, more than 18,000 regulations have been added by the Rudd-Gillard government and only 86 have been repealed.

The NFF, the National Farmers Federation, in their submission to the committee noted that community concern often stemmed from a lack of credible information that the community can obtain. This body—when it is set up—will have a key role in actually disseminating the information around the issues of coal seam gas and water tables. Regrettably and incorrigibly green groups are quick to fill this void with misinformation that sometimes only feeds the angst—as we are currently seeing in Gippsland, in the southern end of my state. This web of mistruth is perpetuated by some, with the Australian Greens wrongly claiming in their additional comments to the inquiry report that Australian farmers have no rights in relation to coal seam gas activity on their land. This is simply false. It is unhelpful behaviour. In fact, just last month in my home state, the Victorian Farmers Federation stated that 'Victorian farmers have the strongest land rights in Australia when it comes to dealing with mining ventures'—although I acknowledge the New South Wales Farmers Association and the VFF both say that farmers should have a right to refuse coal seam gas mining on their properties. Given the Nationals core principles around these issues, we seek to strengthen landholders' rights, particularly around these issues.

The Greens want a five-year moratorium on coal seam gas, but they neglect to acknowledge that much of the scientific data we seek is actually gathered through the exploration and mining phases under rigorous environmental regulation. While industry and government would do well to strengthen communication with communities connected to the exploration licences and mining activity, the information proposed to be available via the independent expert scientific committee will certainly assist in this regard—providing confidence, as decisions will be based on science and not politics or persuasion. The coalition welcomes the independent expert scientific committee as a positive step forward towards improving public confidence in the environmental integrity of the coal seam gas industry and the role that this body will play in developing research. Obviously, from our perspective, there is still a long way to go in this regard, and I welcome the Victorian government's decision.