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

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023 [No. 2]. As an environmental lawyer, I feel very strongly about this issue and I'm speaking in strong support of this bill that my colleague Senator Hanson-Young has brought to the chamber today. I must say it's somewhat reminiscent of a decade ago, when we were here having precisely this same debate. If you'll indulge me, I'll give a little history lesson.

The EPBC Act was brought in by the Howard government. That probably tells you all you need to know about whether it actually protects the environment. Sadly, all indicators are that our environment is in terminal decline, and these laws are part of the problem. They never had a water trigger when they were introduced. They still don't have a climate trigger. They still allow the minister to tick off on any damage he or she likes. There is no fetter on ministerial discretion to approve projects, even if they would send a species to extinction or completely trash a World Heritage area. There is no preclusion on what the minister is allowed to tick off on. There is no protection for critical habitat, no consideration of cumulative impacts. Honestly, these laws are absolutely terrible. When they were first introduced, passed and took effect, in 1999, they were really bad, and they have remained substandard ever since.

In 2011, when I was in this place and Independent member Mr Tony Windsor MP was in the other place, when the coal seam gas companies were first trying to get their claws into our aquifers and to pollute our climate for their own private profit, Mr Windsor and the then Greens leader, Bob Brown, and I got together and had a chat about how our environmental laws really should consider water impacts and how, with these massive coal seam gas projects and large coalmines rapaciously spreading across the country with no regard for damage to groundwater, aquifers and surface water and certainly no regard for the climate, there needed to be some federal oversight of that impact on water.

Mr Windsor introduced a bill into the House, and I introduced a bill into this place, in November 2011 that said that, yes, the federal government should consider the water impacts of coal seam gas and large coalmines. We knew at the time, and we know even more now, the serious threat that unconventional gas, including coal seam gas, presents to aquifers. They punch holes through aquifers to get to coal seams to extract the gas. They say they've sealed these holes, but actually, in a Senate inquiry that I participated in at the very start of my term, in July 2011, we heard about leaking gas from some of these pipelines. We heard really damaging evidence that suggested that the sealant on these aquifer punctures actually doesn't last and that, essentially, the risk of contamination of aquifers was very real. So there was not only the leaking of gas but also the cross-contamination with fracking fluids in aquifers—essentially the threat to poison our water supply.

That's why the Greens and Mr Windsor at the time moved to add water to our environmental laws, because it's not such a great idea to poison your water supply, is it? It's not such a great idea for agricultural productivity or for nature or for continued existence. Of course, the big parties in this place opposed that. They didn't want a water trigger. They didn't think it was their responsibility. They thought that the states were doing a you-beaut job. No worries, mate. Go back to sleep. Thankfully, 18 months later, the then Labor government changed their mind and introduced the water trigger. The Greens supported that and said: 'Great. Sorry it took you 18 months. You could have just agreed when we first proposed it, but thanks for coming to the party.' But, at the time, it didn't include unconventional gas. They left out shale gas and tight gas. That meant that WA, where they don't have coal seam gas but have shale gas, was completely unprotected and that these voracious companies, many of which are trying to savage the Canning Basin in the north of WA, didn't have to think about the water impacts of their gas extraction activities. Likewise, in the Northern Territory, which, of course, is now being savaged by Tamboran Resources and others that want to frack the Beetaloo basin, no, they didn't deserve to have their water protected. It was a very east-coast-centric approach that was taken in 2013 by the then Labor government.

The Greens moved amendments. I checked last night; it was on 17 June 2013 that the Greens moved amendments to add shale and tight gas to the water trigger to protect water in WA and the Northern Territory, because there is no scientific difference in the threat and the damage to aquifers from coal seam gas and shale and tight gas extraction. All unconventional gas extraction has the same risk to aquifers—and, I might add, it has the same risk to the climate, and that, unfortunately, is still a festering sore that has not been fixed in our environmental laws. They still don't require consideration of climate impacts. The Greens will continue to push for that, and we have a private members' bill to do that too. We've been pushing for that for many a year now.

Fast forward 10 years. Ten years on and the Labor government have committed to protecting groundwater and aquifers from the impacts of tight gas and shale gas extraction, but where is the legislation? They said it would be here by the end of the year. It's not here. It's been 10 years since the Greens first moved to extend the water trigger to cover all forms of unconventional gas extraction. After 10 years, you finally promised to do it, but you still haven't done it. We're here today, saying: 'Here's the bill. It's a very short bill. It's very easy drafting. It's a very simple concept.' It says that you should have protection for all aquifers from unconventional gas extraction, not just protection from coal seam gas but from tight and shale gas as well—from all forms of unconventional gas. We are reminding the Labor Party that this is their policy and they've said they'll do this. Well, here's your opportunity. We've done the work for you. It didn't take much. We did it 10 years ago. We're doing it again today.

We're urging this chamber to think seriously about getting on with protecting these aquifers, because we know the Beetaloo is on the brink of moving from exploration to production, and Tamboran Resources, who already have a very chequered history in how they've dealt not only with First Nations mobs up there but also with operations so far. I believe they've already been pinged for spraying toxic wastewater all over the site—and, when I say 'pinged', I mean it, because there were barely any consequences at all. These licences are about to transition from just exploration to production. At the very minute, the water trigger won't be able to impact that. The federal government won't be able to say: 'Hang on. We're really worried about these aquifers. We're hearing the concern from the scientific community. We're hearing the concern from First Nations owners. We'll at least take a look at this.' At the moment, they can't. The law doesn't allow them to do that. So this is a fix that the Beetaloo needs. This is a fix that First Nations communities need. This is the fix that our environment needs to have a halfway decent water trigger that actually properly considers the full impacts.

You have to be very patient in this job, I'm learning. It took us 10 years to get the national anticorruption body established. Again, you folk all laughed at us when we first proposed that in 2009. Now, in 2023, we have the independent National Anti-Corruption Commission, and that's great, but, boy, it took a while, didn't it? Here we are, 10 years on from proposing that the water trigger be expanded to unconventional gas, and we're still arguing the same thing and the two big parties still haven't done it. Despite one big party now having committed to doing it, they haven't yet followed through. We're very patient people, but I'm afraid we are running out of time.

This won't fix everything. As I said at the outset of my speech, this doesn't actually stop new coal or gas. It merely says that the minister for the environment has to consider the impacts on water resources from unconventional gas extraction. The minister is still entirely able to consider those impacts and say: 'Well, actually, I don't care. I'm going to tick off on this anyway because my big party just got big donations from the fossil fuel companies. My big party just got taken on a private plane trip by Tamboran Resources.' Our laws are that broken. This is the smallest of fixes. It enables the federal environment minister, whoever it might be at any point, to do the right thing for our water resources, for First Nations community and for the environment, not for the big gas companies. Whether the minister chooses to use those powers will be up to them, and we'd love to fix that too. But this would simply enable the minister to think about the impacts on water resources before ticking off on yet another fossil fuel project. We've already seen this environmental minister tick off on five new coalmines since taking office. I thought we'd had a change of government, and I'd hoped we'd have a change of climate policy, but the fossil fuel approvals have not slowed down, the climate impacts are still not required to be considered under our federal environment laws, and the water impacts can be ignored unless you're coal seam gas. If you're shale or tight gas then the law says: 'We don't care. Go right ahead. Be our guest. Here, have some more donations. Carry right on.' So this bill would enable protection for those WA and Northern Territory aquifers, and it would deliver on the Labor Party's belated promise to do this. We're still waiting, and the proverbial and literal Christmas is coming.

I want to come back to the fact that this will not stop unconventional gas extraction if the minister doesn't want it to stop. In fact, what the Greens would like to see, what the science dictates and what the International Energy Agency is saying is that we can't afford any new coal or gas. These laws would permit the environment minister to still tick off on new gas, even if there are going to be dastardly impacts on aquifers—which, likely, there will be. Actually, what we'd really like to see is a ban on new coal and gas, and we have separate private member's legislation to achieve that. It's what the science says. It's what the community wants. It's certainly what our aquifers and our climate deserve. But this bill—10 years after we first suggested this—would simply provide the same protection to aquifers in the west and in the Northern Territory as those on the east coast have had for some time now.

It doesn't fix the fact that First Nations communities don't have free, prior and informed consent over these projects. My colleagues Senator Cox and Senator Hanson-Young have been working really closely with traditional owners in the Beetaloo basin, who are desperately worried about the impacts on their land, on their culture and on their continued enjoyment of an area of which they've been caretakers for millennia. This bill doesn't give First Nations communities the right to say no. Again, we have a separate private member's bill to do that. Again, I introduced that in 2011. Twelve years ago we said that communities should have the right to say no to coal seam gas, coal and unconventional gas on their land. Our farming communities are precious. First Nations communities deserve the right to say no to projects that going to stuff up their land and water, poison the drinking water and potentially lower the groundwater level table from this gas fracking.

This bill is one part of the puzzle. The Labor Party say they want to do it, but time is ticking, folks. Here's a bill. It's a very simple bill. It doesn't fix all of the problems with unconventional gas extraction, and it still leaves a gaping hole in our environmental laws where there is no climate trigger, which we'd like to fix. It still leaves the environment minister with the ability to approve new coal and gas, which we'd like to fix. It doesn't help communities to say no to coal or gas, which, again, we'd like to fix. We've got other private members' bills that fix all of that. This bill simply says that the water trigger should not be blind to the needs of WA or the Northern Territory. I commend this bill to the chamber.