Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Landholders' Right to Refuse (Coal Seam Gas) Bill 2011. This is a bill which has been brought forward by Senator Larissa Waters on behalf of the Greens and I am delighted to stand here today supporting it. It is a bill which requires coal seam gas corporations to gain the written authorisation of farmers to enter their land to conduct coal seam gas activities. It provides that authorisation must contain independent advice about all the risks to food security and groundwater and also makes it clear that the farmer can refuse to sign. It provides that any corporation entering land without the permission of the farmer would incur a daily $55,000 fine, risk prosecution and be subject to the farmer's right to seek an injunction from the Federal Court which the corporation must pay for.

The bill applies to all land that has produced food at any time in the 10 years prior to the first proposed coal seam gas activity on the land, from commercial primary production through to urban vegetable gardens. The bill does not alter the ownership of the minerals and gas which remain vested in the states. The bill does not affect the ability of the federal and state governments to compulsorily acquire the land in order to access the resources, with appropriate compensation.

This goes absolutely to the heart of one of the most significant debates of this century: the issue of food security. The Greens have been very clear about this for some time. We are facing a global food insecurity crisis. With climate change accelerating, we are seeing extreme weather events around the world occurring with such frequency that the loss of agricultural production is impacting on the ability of countries to feed their own populations and to engage in trade. For example, we have had extreme weather events in Australia, Russia and the United States at similar times affecting the global grain harvest. Mr Putin banned the export of grain from Russia. That led to massive increases in the price of bread in the Middle East, and that was one of the main triggers of the riots in Tunisia that sparked the Arab Spring.

We are going to be facing this issue throughout this century and one of the critical things we as a parliament must do is protect agricultural land for agriculture. It is essential that we do that because Australia needs to maximise the amount of food it grows not only for itself but also for global circulation because that is going to be a major contribution not only to keeping people alive but also to global security. Where you have food scarcity leading to famine, it leads to displacement of people and riots like we had through the Middle East and as we currently have in Africa. It is essential that we move in now and say that Australia must protect its food-producing land for food production.

The Greens have a very long history on this. In particular, this is how I began my political career, because I worked on behalf of the farmers in the Wesley Vale district, where my parents had a dairy farm, to oppose the North Broken Hill pulp mill proposal for a massive industrial development in the heart of first-class agricultural land in north-west Tasmania. It would have polluted Bass Strait to the detriment of the fisheries and it would have spread a toxic cloud around the farmlands which form best front country on the north-west coast with early seasonal crops. The farmers stood very strongly. The first sticker I ever produced said 'Save our soil, sea and sand, protect the land'. That is still a heartfelt responsibility I and the Greens have for the production of food. If you are going to maintain food security, both maximising food production in Australia and for export, you have to enable farmers to stay on the land. There are two sets of issues. One is the sustainability of food production and maintaining sustainable systems for food production and the other is a set of policies that will enable farmers to stay on the land. What we have here is absolutely at the heart of this: the conflict between what the mining and the gas companies want. They do not care about whether farmers stay on the land. All they care about is maximising their profits from the extraction of coal seam gas. That is all they care about. We now have the most appalling situation where 40,000 coal seam gas wells are expected to be rolled out across Queensland in the next few years and there is rapid expansion planned for New South Wales and Victoria as well. So now is the time for robust protection for our landholders and of course for the environment.

One of the very big unknowns with coal seam gas is the long-term consequences for our aquifers and our river systems. Already, a very substantial petition from the Myall Lakes has been submitted to the hearings and in that submission they say: 'It is a Ramsar ecosystem. It is protected for its significance.' Yet there is no protection if coal seam gas gets its way. There will be contamination of the river system that flows into those lakes and that will undermine the capacity for long-term sustainability. And we know full well that there has been no assessment of the impact of this kind of activity on the Great Artesian Basin. Nobody knows, not even the Coordinator-General in Queensland, who is the person in that state with the authority to approve and condition these particular licences for coal seam gas. So if the Queensland government and Queensland's own Coordinator-General cannot tell people what the long-term impacts are, how can a farmer have any confidence that at the end of the day they are not going to have their groundwater contaminated and the groundwater lowered because of the huge volumes of water required for this activity, or about the long-term impact on the Great Artesian Basin?

This is a reckless experiment by coal and gas companies to maximise their profits at the expense of farmers. Can the Wentworth Group answer the question: what will the impact be on the Great Artesian Basin? No, they cannot. Can the CSIRO? In their most recent report, they said they had serious concerns about long-term impacts. The National Water Commission have said that they are very concerned about long-term impacts. So that is what has been said by those bodies who look after water and the serious environmental issues in our desert continent.

If you are going to have food security and food production, if you are going to maintain ecosystems into the future, you have to protect your river systems. You have to protect your groundwater. You have to protect the Great Artesian Basin. None of those things are protected. There is no precautionary principle being engaged here. Governments are simply turning a blind eye. What is this parliament going to do? When it was put to the Leader of the Opposition on radio that landholders must have the last word surely on when anyone can enter their property, Mr Abbott, said:

... there is an old saying—an Englishman's home is his castle.

He went on to say:

... the thing is if, if you don't want something to happen on your land, you ought to have a right to say no.

I agree with Mr Abbott: you ought to have the right to say no. He went on:

... okay, under certain circumstances the Government ought to be able to resume your land but it has to be done at a fair price.

Yes, and that is about compulsory acquisition and this bill has nothing to do with compulsorily acquiring land. This bill says that a farmer has the right to say no, that they do not want coal seam gas activities on their property.

I have heard the government say, 'We've always had the situation where the minerals underneath the ground are collectively owned by the people and therefore not the preserve of the farmer at the surface.' This is an entirely different industry to all the things that have gone before in terms of extraction. This is a situation where not only are they coming on the land and disrupting the activities on the land, and adversely impacting the person carrying on agricultural activities but they are jeopardising the long-term capacity of the land to produce food because of the contamination of groundwater, the lowering of the groundwater, and the potential long-term impacts on the Great Artesian Basin. So if ever there was an argument for a farmer to say no, it is now.

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition. So what happened? I think he must not have remembered to write it down, because within days the opposition spokesperson was manoeuvring to clarify what his leader said. Mr Macfarlane had to clarify this issue and back off absolutely. Where are the Nationals on this? The National Party tell farmers they are out there protecting their interests. But all they are doing is talking to farmers about getting fair compensation. Compensation is fair if a farmer says, 'Okay, I am prepared to have coal seam gas.' It is appropriate then that there are appropriate levels of compensation. But that is a cop-out from the fundamental point: should a landholder have a right to say, 'No, you cannot come onto my property and you may not drill wells on my property for coal seam gas'? That is the point of this legislation and that is the challenge for the parliament here. It is very straightforward. Anyone who goes out to rural Queensland will be able to see the adverse impacts. Talk to the community groups—and I have cited the one from the Myall Lakes in New South Wales—and you will find people are putting in submissions all over the place. There is ample evidence of the adverse impacts.

It is now time to make decisions. It is no longer appropriate for people to say: 'It is not obvious yet. We are not sure about the long-term impacts. We'll just proceed regardless.' We should not be proceeding regardless because the question is: are you putting the profits of mining and gas companies ahead of the capacity of farmers to stay on the land and produce food, and to stay on the land and produce food sustainably by maintaining access to uncontaminated water?

We all know that water becomes contaminated where there is fracking involved. Of the chemicals used in fracking, only six of around 60 chemicals that are used have even been assessed, so nobody actually knows what the long-term impact of these activities is going to be.

Yes, the New South Wales government panicked in the face of community uproar, especially as this has reached the suburbs of Sydney. I understand St Peters has become an area of exploration and people in the suburbs are now saying: 'For goodness sake! What is going on here? You are giving these companies the right to dig up suburbia as well as to dig all over the rural and regional areas.' But in New South Wales the moratorium is only against fracking; it is not against the ongoing rolling out of coal seam gas across New South Wales.

If the coalition and the government have a vision for Australia as being a quarry for miners—dig it up, cut it down, ship it away; dig it up, cut it down, pump out the gas as well—then let me put on the record that that means we will seriously reduce the capacity of this country to produce food and, furthermore, we will see more farmers driven off their land.

I note the submission from Doctors for the Environment Australia to the inquiry of the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee into the management of the Murray-Darling Basin. They made a strong case that we are already seeing high rates of mental illness in rural and regional Australia because of the stresses associated with trying to stay on the land, with collapsing commodity prices and with the high dollar acting against them. Farmers are already under pressure as a result of extreme weather events like the drought we suffered through the Murray-Darling Basin and of course the floods that occurred more recently.

People in rural and regional Australia want to get on with the job of producing food and do not want to be harassed by companies they do not want on their land. That is the question here: when are we going to stand up and say, 'We are going to support farmers because we prioritise food security, ecologically sustainable agriculture and the right of farmers and farming communities to influence their own destiny'? Or are we going to say that the destiny of rural and regional Australia is in the hands of mining and gas companies—many of which are owned outside Australia and many of whose profits leave Australia—and leave rural communities absolutely devastated and destroyed by this industry. That is what we are actually seeing right now.

I am very interested in what the coalition is going to say, because in spite of Mr Macfarlane trying to reposition the coalition there is nothing clearer than what the Leader of the Opposition had to say originally—before he wrote it down. I do not know whether he has written down his backdown on this particular issue, but it is clear that the opposition no longer supports the right of a farmer in Australia to say no to coal seam gas exploration and drilling wells on their land. Well, the Greens do say no and the Greens are putting it to this parliament and inviting everyone in the parliament to either join us and say no or go out and tell people in rural and regional Australia why they should not have the right to say no.

I will conclude my remarks with a discussion of climate change. People are arguing you need coal seam gas in order to attack the accelerating impact of climate change. Let me get this straight: there is a lot of emerging evidence to say that coal seam gas, because it is methane, has a much, much greater impact on global warming in the short term than carbon dioxide has. What you are going to do if you accelerate the mining of coal seam gas is put a blast of methane to the atmosphere in the short term and actually make the situation worse in the short term than it otherwise would have been. The short term matters, because global emissions have to peak and come down. The scientists agree that the date for that should have been 2015 but, because we are not going to meet 2015, they have now said it should be at least by 2020. We are not going to get global emissions to peak and come down by 2020 if we engage in this massive expansion of coal seam gas across the planet. We are seeing an acceleration of climate change, as I pointed out in here only a week ago, with record loss of Arctic ice. Once you lose that, of course, you get massive emissions to the atmosphere after the ice has melted, with impacts on the tundra et cetera.

This is something Australia needs to take seriously. We need to have a strategic plan for food production in Australia in light of these issues, and that is why I am co-hosting a bill this afternoon, with Senator Xenophon, about protecting agricultural land in relation to foreign ownership. Not only are we seeing the loss of food production through extreme weather events; we are now seeing other countries moving in and buying up large tracts of agricultural land around the world to feed their own people—not to put into the trade but to feed their own people when other countries opt not to export. There has been a massive land grab around the world and it is happening with agricultural land in this country as well. Already 30 per cent of water licences in Western Australia are foreign owned or partially foreign owned, and 40 per cent of the Northern Territory's land area is already partially or fully foreign owned. Those things should be a matter of concern to this parliament.

If you are serious about sustainability, if you are serious about food security, if you are serious about keeping farmers on the land and taking the pressure and stress away from them then you will support this bill giving them the right to say no, they do not want coal seam gas explorers and their wells on their properties. There should be a very firm commitment from this parliament on push-back, or else this parliament will be giving a wink and a nod to this generation of profiteers to jeopardise the Great Artesian Basin. (Time expired)

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this debate, which I have a strong interest in. The Landholders' Right to Refuse (Coal Seam Gas) Bill 2011 seeks to provide farmers with the opportunity to say no to coal seam gas mining on their properties without written consent. It would exercise powers to apply penalties on any constitutional corporation if it undertook any activity to explore or produce coal seam gas on food-producing land without the prior written authorisation of everyone who has an ownership interest in that land.

To date, mining and urban expansion has not threatened Australia's food security. Australia is food secure. We are sheltered from direct concerns about food shortages because we have a world-class agricultural sector and our farmers produce far more food than we consume. On 15 August 2011, the Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism, Martin Ferguson, told ABC NewsRadio that 'it is constitutionally the states' responsibility, in association with the territories, to manage the development of our resources'. He also said that 'it would be inappropriate for the Commonwealth to start undermining the constitutional capacity of the states for short-term political gain'. Therefore we will not be supporting this bill.

Mineral resources belong to the Australian people. This bill would give veto rights to landholders and preventing access would mean that those assets belonged to the landowner—in other words, privatisation. This undermines the ownership of resources by the state government on behalf of the people. The Australian government believes that landholders and mining companies are able to work together and this position is shared by the National Farmers Federation. Vice-President and Chair of the NFF Mining and Coal Seam Gas Taskforce, Duncan Fraser, said:

Our position, and that of our members, is not about preventing mining and CSG exploration or extraction–but rather ensuring that agriculture, CSG and mining can coexist, so as to guarantee the long-term sustainability of our food and fibre production.

According to the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, APPEA, agriculture and gas industries have already coexisted for many years—we have seen gas extracted in Roma for half a century.

In my state of Queensland coal seam gas is prominent, with more than 90 per cent of the state's gas supply being CSG. CSG also constitutes one-third of eastern Australia's gas supplies. It powers a number of domestic electricity generation projects throughout Queensland, including the Origin Energy operated Darling Downs power station and the Braemar 2 power station. APPEA says that the CSG industry supports more than 5,000 jobs and expects this to boom to 18,000 jobs. They say the Queensland industry injects $850 million into the Queensland government through taxes, which means more funding for vital infrastructure.

CSG's continuous growth outran the global financial crisis, kept Australians in jobs and supplemented the fiscal and economic position of Australia. In 1997, the total output of the coal seam gas industry in Queensland was 3,652 petajoules. By the end of the 2009-2010 financial year, this figure had climbed to 27,992 petajoules, representing growth of more than 750 per cent over the past 13 years.

The international market, particularly the Asia-Pacific region, has experienced increased demand for liquefied natural gas. Coal seam gas will be fed through over 4,000 kilometres of already constructed pipeline and liquefied to produce LNG. The expected explosive demand for LNG will continue to encourage production of coal seam gas. In October last year, Treasurer Wayne Swan and resources minister Martin Ferguson welcomed an announcement by BG Group that it would invest US $15 billion to develop its coal seam gas and LNG operations to export gas from Gladstone. This funding will go towards construction and expansion of a 540-kilometre gas pipeline. It is estimated that the project will increase gross state product by up to $32 billion between 2010 and 2021 and add about $4 billion in value to our exports each year. The project also means 5,000 jobs and 1,000 prominent positions.

CSG is significant in both Queensland and New South Wales, with APPEA suggesting that these two states can produce and power a city of five million—just over what the population of Queensland is—for 1,000 years. APPEA also says that more than 1,400 land access agreements between landholders and the industry had been signed and that 'every single aspect of taking CSG to LNG for export has been examined through the public environmental impact assessment process. Both state and federal government environmental approvals have been granted, with conditions to further safeguard aquifers, landholders and the environment'.

Lock the Gate Alliance Inc, in which former Greens candidate Drew Hutton is involved, state on their website:

Coal seam gas (CSG) is a fossil fuel—a dirty energy source that adds to greenhouse pollution.

According to APPEA, electricity generated using gas produces up to 70 per cent less in greenhouse gas emissions than some existing coal generation technology, meaning coal seam gas has a significant role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Gas is an important fuel for the transition to a low-carbon economy. LNG can produce the same amount of energy as coal with significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions. According to a study conducted by WorleyParsons, the greenhouse gas intensity of LNG over its life cycle is approximately 50 per cent lower than that of coal. The development of the CSG to LNG industry is providing the opportunity to develop the massive CSG resources of Queensland economically and to bring forward the development of CSG reserves in other states.

Lock the Gate put forward a submission to the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport into the management of the Murray-Darling Basin. In a statement dated 21 September 2011, APPEA Chief Executive Belinda Robinson said that Lock the Gate's submission included content which was copied and pasted from a United States study, with the words 'coal seam gas' substituted for the words 'shale gas'. Ms Robinson said:

The study that this group has drawn its material from actually makes no mention of coal seam gas or the Australian industry.

APPEA stated in a media release on 18 August 2011 that some people have insinuated that greenhouse gas emissions of CSG are worse than those of natural gas. APPEA refutes this. It said that any leakage from CSG is monitored and the emissions are lower by up to 70 per cent from gas-fired electricity. It said:

Since the passage of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 every major gas company in Australia—CSG or otherwise—has been legally required to monitor, measure or estimate, and report all emissions associated with its operations to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency; including fugitive emissions and emissions associated with venting, combustion, and flaring. No emissions are undisclosed.

In July, I launched the Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance, GISERA, in Brisbane on behalf of Minister Kim Carr. The launch was at a marvellous new structure where the old Boggo Road jail used to be. To see the construction alone you would more or less comply with the belief that this is an environmentally friendly building so no doubt the release was prominent and it was appropriate to do so in a building that houses CSIRO and groups of other scientists that are paving the way and certainly making steps as to the way that we look at our environment and move to a sustainable greenhouse and protected environment for our future. The Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance is a partnership that was founded by the CSIRO and Australia Pacific LNG Pty Ltd, who have invested $4 million and $10 million respectively to investigate the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of the natural gas industry over the next five years.

I had the opportunity to question some of the people involved in this launch and get some reasonable feedback about the appropriateness of this sort of injection into this particular area. As I indicated earlier, it is not a new area and it has been happening in my home state of Queensland for many decades. The alliance is to establish research, to establish fair consultation with and feedback from people in particular areas where this mining is happening to make sure concerns are allayed. The alliance will help fill the knowledge gaps of this vast energy resource and it is a chance to increase the evidence based understanding of what we are dealing with. Regulators, developers, land owners and the broader community will have a common basis to negotiate approaches which balance both the challenges and the opportunities.

I can really appreciate there being some confusion out there from the public and also some members of parliament about the effects of coal seam gas. It was not that long ago, while on a plane trip down from Brisbane, that the member for Wright and I were discussing this particular area. I think at that particular stage that member, being a member of the National Party, had some views and some concerns about the effect on farmers and about compensation and I think we were having a reasonable discussion. I think most of those issues have now been dismissed and I am sure that those people on the opposition side from the Nationals understand the value of this particular area for the industry and also for farmers in general.

Issues which will be explored by GISERA include groundwater and surface water, biodiversity, land management, the marine environment and also the socioeconomic impacts. The research will enable us to predict the consequences of decisions. It means we can assess how certain courses of action will affect the economy, the environment and the community. The results of these findings will be made available for the public. I think that is appropriate to make sure that the public is fully aware of any likely concern that is raised as a result of the research that the CSIRO and the partnership with GISERA will certainly establish and which will be available to the public.

In October last year the Queensland government's new laws in relation to land access came into effect. A document released by the Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation states:

The new land access laws are vital to achieving a balanced approach to private land access and compensation. They recognise and clarify the Government's expectations and rights of tenement ... authority holders and land holders relating to how resource activities must be undertaken on private land.

DEEDI states the key features of this legislation as:

... a requirement that all resource authority holders must comply with a single Land Access Code; an entry notice requirement for 'preliminary activities', for example, those that will have no or only a minor impact on landholders; a requirement that a conduct and compensation agreement be negotiated before a resource authority holder comes onto a landholder's property to undertake 'advanced activities', for example, those likely to have a significant impact on a landholder's business or land use; a graduated process for negotiation and resolving disputes about agreements which ensures matters are only referred to the Land Court as a last resort; stronger compliance and enforcement powers for government agencies where breaches of the Land Access Code occur.

As you can see, Mr Acting Deputy President, there is a series of steps already to work through a process to identify any concern landholders might have as a result of coal seam gas exploration on their particular land, a process that has been implemented by the Queensland Labor government to assure people that they have no concerns over risk as to what might be occurring on their particular space on the land.

In April this year the state government announced that gas and petroleum companies must provide 10 business days notice to landholders of any drilling, fracking or certain exploration taking place as well as 10 business days notice of work completion. The Queensland Minister for Employment, Skills and Mining, Stirling Hinchliffe, said:

These new laws are designed to make sure landholders know exactly what is happening on their land and when it is happening. They apply to all activities including hydraulic fracturing used in producing Coal Seam Gas, drilling, completing or abandoning a well or bore as well as seismic and other surveys associated with exploration or production. This will also help the government monitor the use of chemicals in the extraction of Coal Seam Gas in Queensland.

Just last week the Bligh government announced that it would expand its AgForward Coal Seam Gas Landholder Support Initiative into the Galilee and Bowen basins, which is an area I know quite well through my travels in the state of Queensland. It is a beautiful part of Far North Queensland. The $1.4 million injection is to assist landholders by providing them with the education and tools to properly negotiate with mining companies. The state Minister for Agriculture, Food and Regional Economies Tim Mulherin said:

We want landholders to have the knowledge and the information they need to negotiate the best agreement possible with CSG companies. Landholders and CSG companies will be working together for years to come, so it is important that the relationship is based on a firm foundation.

The minister said that this program had already been rolled out in the Surat region with four pilot sessions and 32 FarmShed workshops where the training is delivered to the 875 people taking part. The funding injection means another 20 workshops in the Galilee and Bowen basins can take place. These training sessions will assist landholders in being able to successfully negotiate with a coal seam gas company before exploration or production takes place. Minister Mulherin said:

The aim of delivering mutually acceptable agreements is to minimise disruption to the landholder's enterprise, wherever possible, and to set out appropriate arrangements for land access and financial compensation. This is a key step in establishing a successful coexistence of the coal seam gas industry and the agriculture sector.

The state government has also introduced a strategic cropping land policy framework. This aims to produce a balance between protecting prime agricultural land while allowing for the development of the CSG industry. The Queensland Premier has also announced that CSG and mining activities will not be permitted within two kilometres of population centres over 1,000 people. These announcements from the state government prove that it is committed to ensuring that Queensland landholders are protected as well as enabling our mining industry to survive.

Investment decisions in Queensland's CSG to LNG industry taken since October 2010 total more than $45 billion. This industry will create jobs, particularly in regional communities, boost the economy at both a state and federal level and deliver billions in government revenue. It will lift Australia's export income and provide states and the Commonwealth government with a significant source of royalty and PRRT revenue. As a cleaner alternative to coal-fired power LNG is an essential part of the global solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provides many jobs and opportunities in regional Australia. APPEA states that the CSG land-use footprint is much smaller than other energy sources and the land can be returned to its original use.

I took the opportunity some weeks ago, when APPEA was in the building, to have a presentation done by them and saw the before-and-after slides of what the effects of land management are as a result of them using this particular mining on properties. Virtually the end result is negligible. There is little or no impact on the particular land, certainly as seen from the photographs that were supplied. I made the point earlier that, in my travels to Roma on numerous occasions over the years, I have seen that firsthand.

The state government already has effective legislation in place ensuring protection for our landholders. They have introduced training programs so that landholders can effectively negotiate with coal seam gas companies before entering into agreements. They have introduced legislation to protect prime agricultural land under a strategic cropping land framework while allowing the gas industry to continue. We believe the right way forward is for the gas industry and landholders to effectively work together for the benefit of everyone. (Time expired)

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not a great surprise that, when we look at an area where there has been some concern expressed, particularly in rural and regional areas of Australia, about an area of public policy such as the use of prime agricultural land with people expressing concerns about what is unfolding in some parts of our country, the Australian Greens are there to rush forward with a solution. The solutions are quick and easy in areas which have defied wiser, more sober heads. In those areas the Greens seem to be able to come up with solutions relatively quickly. The question of being able to address an issue as complex as this with a simple solution, I might say a simplistic solution, is one that the Senate deserves to give closer attention to than is presented by the opportunity of this bill.

This bill represents far too ready a solution to a problem which is, in fact, a complex one, which deserves case-by-case consideration in many instances and is one which state governments are generally grappling with with varying degrees of success. We need to remind ourselves that this is, indeed, a state responsibility. The use of land is a primary responsibility of our states and territories, and for the Greens to enter into this space in this way with a simplistic solution again calls into question their commitment, a commitment that has been restated many times in this place, that they have a strong regard for the rights of states and territories to legislate within their own areas of responsibility. This was exhibited only a few weeks ago in this very place, but I will come back to that issue in a moment.

The coalition does not see any merit in this bill. As I said, this is an issue for state governments, who have accountability to their electors to issue licences for exploration and the subsequent exploitation of resources. The fact is that resource companies cannot enter a landowner's property to exploit the minerals and resources on that property without a negotiated or, in the worst case, a Land Court arbitrated agreement with that landowner.

The coalition, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, has made it perfectly clear that within that framework the federal opposition's view is that prime agricultural land must be protected. We will work with state governments to ensure that that objective is reached. There is clear evidence in Queensland that many landholders are able to come together sensibly to reach mutually satisfactory arrangements for the future use of their land and that the coexistence of agricultural and resource industry activities is not only possible but is also, in fact, the norm. Both the Premier of New South Wales, Barry O'Farrell, and the man who I think is widely expected to be the next Premier of Queensland, Campbell Newman, have addressed this issue very directly. They are both fully seized of the importance of protecting prime agricultural land and have committed to the objective of ensuring that there is a strong and direct response to the concerns raised by landholders about their land being properly used and its present owners being properly consulted about the way in which that occurs.

I had the opportunity a few months ago to visit the electorate of Flynn in Central Queensland—the electorate of Mr Ken O'Dowd, the LNP member, who is fully apprised of the concerns of local landowners about how their land is used and how prime agricultural land may be at risk. It is through representations such as his that the LNP in Queensland has come to address this issue directly. I will speak about that in a moment. At the federal level the coalition supports the expansion of the coal seam gas industry where that is in harmony with the rights of landholders and the protection of prime agricultural land for food production.

I emphasise again that we are not talking about a one or the other response—we are not saying we either exploit the resources or we exploit the land for its food production capability. It is possible to deliver a balanced approach, acknowledging the importance of the mining industry to Australia's future economic sustainability while also acknowledging that Australia has a tremendous asset in its agricultural land. The quality of farm products in Australia is enormously important to Australia's reputation as an exporter, and it is critical that we acknowledge and respect the rights of farmers.

The federal opposition supports the work of its state colleagues in delivering a more balanced approach than the approach offered by state Labor governments in recent years. In fact, it needs to be acknowledged very directly that the characterisation of this debate as an all-out war between farmers and miners grossly understates the extent of cooperation which has been occurring for a long time in regional and rural Australia. Mining companies by and large are well apprised of the values of the communities in which they work. They seek to add value as much as possible to those communities—there are exceptions, of course—and it is important that the potential for agreement making in these areas be enhanced by creating opportunities for those agreements without blanket decisions being imposed on parties by legislation introduced in the federal parliament.

The mining industry and the farming community have worked together in Australia in many areas and both sectors are prospering as a result. There are long-established systems in place which allow miners and farmers to negotiate land access, and there are very few cases where disagreements end up in court.

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

Not anymore.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will have your opportunity, Senator, to put an alternative point of view. We know how well embedded the Greens are in rural Australia, how popular they are there and how many people vote for them in those parts of Australia. I am sure you have very good connections that tell you what is going on there—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Humphries, please address your remarks through the chair.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The Liberal Party and the National Party have a much better understanding of what goes on in rural and regional Australia. We have worked in those communities, we have represented those communities, for decades. We understand the pressures they are under and we are working at both the federal level and the state and territory level to solve these problems in a realistic fashion. I suspect there are many communities around Australia that will not thank the Greens for rushing forward to advise them on how they can solve their problems when the Greens have, as a party, very little connection with those parts of Australia—except when it comes to marching into the local forest to chain themselves to trees to prevent logging or to protest in some other way about activities going on in a rural industry of some sort or another.

As I said, there are numerous examples of farmers and mining companies working cooperatively and negotiating mutually beneficial outcomes. The development of the coal seam gas industry in Queensland is not some kind of rampant uncontrolled exercise which is resulting in the destruction of rural communities; it is a process which is highly regulated. In Queensland the industry is subject to more than 1,500 state and territory conditions. In fact, the coal seam gas industry is more regulated than the uranium mining industry. Coal seam gas companies operating in Queensland, and I include among those Queensland Gas Co. and Santos, have in fact shown that they are willing to work with local communities and to carry out the process of exploring and exploiting mineral and gas deposits in good faith. By way of an example, all of the Queensland Gas Co.'s work on private properties in Queensland has been done with the express permission of landholders. That might not be a fact that suits the case put forward by the Greens, but it is true. In fact, Queensland Gas Co. prefers voluntary agreements and now has more than 800 agreements following negotiations on land access with about 1,000 landholders across the state.

The coalition believe that there are some sections of productive land that are of such significance that they should be given additional safeguards. We acknowledge that is sometimes a necessary step to take, but we also acknowledge that, under our federal arrangements, state governments are responsible for both land use and mining. Therefore, we believe it is a matter for each state government to determine which areas are considered prime agricultural land and for each state to put in place protective measures where appropriate in consultation with farmers, rural communities and resource companies. We urge those parties to deal effectively with the issue of the protection of prime agricultural land and to do so as a matter of urgency.

I think it is fair to say that this is an area in which activity is happening in the right direction. We can see, not just in Queensland but also in New South Wales, that state governments are apprised of the need to take steps that make it clearer what are the respective responsibilities and rights of parties on both sides of this debate. The O'Farrell government in New South Wales have certainly taken steps to balance the needs of mining and agriculture in that state. The government there have put in place a moratorium and there are strategic land-use plans to identify and protect productive farmland. Those plans involve communities in local decision making, ensure a sustainable and healthy mining industry and encourage industry best practice. Obviously the O'Farrell government's arrangements have not been in place for very long and I think it is quite unreasonable for the Greens to march forward and attempt to overturn the balance that has been struck there by virtue of the legislation that is before the Senate today. I might also add that the O'Farrell government are developing at the present time a system of stringent groundwater regulation. They are reviewing fracking standards and they are reviewing access arrangements. So this is very much a matter under close consideration by governments such as that.

I mentioned before that the Liberal National Party in Queensland had also taken steps to show that it is addressing this issue, even though it is not yet in government. It has published a discussion paper that notes the importance of gas to the Queensland economy but does raise a number of issues that have not been addressed by the Bligh Labor government, including the depletion of underground water, the issue of land access, the location of coal seam gas infrastructure close to dwellings and the increasing pressure on inadequate existing regional infrastructure. I think that, with steps such as that, the LNP is well placed to provide for the people of Queensland a much better, more balanced approach than has been achieved by the knee-jerk reaction of the Bligh government to this problem.

It is also necessary to put on the record that the Senate itself has a committee that is currently looking at the management of the Murray-Darling Basin, including the impact of mining coal seam gas. The Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee, chaired by Senator Heffernan, will report on 30 November. Waiting might not be in the genes of the Greens, but it would be a good idea in this case to do so. I note that committee will examine:

The economic, social and environmental impacts of mining coal seam gas on:

I have been in this place long enough to be lectured plenty of times by the Greens about the need to pay close attention to what committees in this place do and to listen to what the committees are saying before making decisions, yet on this occasion it does not appear as if the Greens are prepared to follow their own advice.

I also take exception to the characterisation by the Greens of coal seam gas itself. At various stages some Greens have referred to it as dirty energy, when in fact coal seam gas is significantly cleaner in terms of greenhouse emissions than many other alternative fossil fuels. I note Senator Furner referred to it being 70 per cent less productive of emissions than other forms of fossil fuels and I have no reason to doubt that is the case.

With this legislation the Greens portray themselves once again as a beast that is strangely torn between adhering to the best science and being the 21st century's version of the Luddites. On areas such as global warming, they are prepared to trot out scientists ad nauseam to tell us how we need to change our ways and to improve our performance as a carbon-producing society. In areas like exploitation of natural resources and genetic modification of food the Greens seem to shy away from the best application of science. They seem to think that it is their preserve to pick and choose what science they believe and what science they do not. It is possible to use technology to exploit coal seam gas in this country in a way which balances the needs of both mining and farming users of that land. For the Greens to characterise this in other ways is just dishonest.

I also cannot help but mention that once again we see the Greens shifting and changing on the question of the rights of states and territories. I think the last piece of legislation the Greens presented to this Senate, only a few weeks ago, was legislation to prevent federal governments from disallowing the laws of territory parliaments. Today, we have been presented with legislation which effectively tells state and territory governments how they deal with their most important single area of responsibility—the use of their land. State and territory governments probably have no more important responsibility than managing the land mass of those states and territories. That is their responsibility and they have a longstanding constitutional responsibility for dealing with mining leases and with agricultural issues. Everything contained in this bill effectively cuts across responsibilities of state and territory governments.

But that does not bother the Greens because the Greens do not have those sorts of concerns about being a supporter of one group one day and being a supporter of the enemies of that group the next day. They are perfectly capable of doing that. Senator, as you spend more time in this place, I think you will need to develop a better sense of what a mish-mash the Greens are with their policies and their causes. The fact is that the Greens are, above all, a populist party. They detect some concern about this issue and so they decide that they have a solution. They rush forward into the Senate with a solution to issues which are complex and which deserve careful, sober consideration almost on a case-by-case basis. The Senate therefore should soundly reject this half-baked proposal from the Greens today and allow other processes to deal with these complex but important issues.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak to the Landholders' Right to Refuse (Coal Seam Gas) Bill 2011 and I warmly congratulate Senator Larissa Waters on her initiative. The Greens bill will achieve a goal for which the Greens have campaigned for many years, and that has been clearly set out by Senator Waters. We are working with many farmers, environmentalists and the wider public to ensure that coal seam gas companies gain consent from farmers prior to entering their properties to carry out exploration activities for coal seam gas and to get a number of protections in place. We clearly need balance in how the mining industry operates in this country.

As I think all senators would be aware, more and more communities are becoming deeply troubled about the activities of the coal seam gas industry. In New South Wales, the industry's hunger for new coal seam gas exploration areas has seen a push into both prime agricultural land and even Sydney suburbs. Landholders must have the right to say no and must be able to make informed choices about whether or not they want to risk the exploration of their land. For decades, Labor and the coalition parties when in government have failed to bring balance to how the mining industry operates. The Greens position, as we have already heard in this debate, is often distorted by others. In no way are we talking about shutting down the mining industry. It is about bringing balance, and that is what Senator Waters' bill will achieve if it is passed.

I will deal with some of the misinformation that has already been put forward in this debate. We have had speakers from Labor and the coalition parties and already we see a whole series of arguments trotted out, put forward so that these parties can avoid doing the right thing by farming communities and the wider environment. One of the popular arguments—and I saw this when I was in the New South Wales parliament—is buck-passing between the federal and state governments. Here we have federal senators saying we should leave this up to the states.

The states are doing a bad job—I will come to that in detail—and that is very clear to see. Groundwater and food security clearly need to be national issues. This legislation provides the means for us to achieve the important protection that is needed. This bill is not a replacement for state regulation. It provides an additional tier of protection, and that is the essence of this argument that the senators from Labor and the coalition need to recognise before they come forward with their dishonest arguments.

Another area that needs to be addressed concerns climate change. We need independent Australian coal seam studies to determine the climate change implications. The government should not take the industry's word for it because at the moment the studies that have been trotted out are from industry. Another point where we see distortion in the arguments from the other parties is that this bill does not alter the ownership of the minerals and gas, which remain vested in the states. The bill does not affect the ability of the federal and state governments to compulsorily acquire the land with appropriate compensation. So I ask senators who are coming in on this debate to be accurate about the information that they put forward and not throw up smokescreens to try to justify why their party is not going to support this important legislation.

As I mentioned, this is a huge issue in New South Wales. Communities have become more informed and, as their awareness increases, their concerns certainly are growing. In New South Wales, the public opposition to coal seam gas mining, and particularly to the controversial method of fracking with its associated toxicity, has built to such a strong point that we are seeing wide collaboration between farming communities, environmentalists and urban communities. There is a recognition that the economic and health impacts are just not worth the risk. I understand that many people who are actively working in this campaign do support a total ban on coal seam gas mining in New South Wales. Local government is not embracing coal seam gas proposals. Motions supporting a moratorium have been passed by many affected councils. They have been left with little choice but to oppose this activity because they are not properly informed about the immediate risks of long-term impacts either by the government or the industry. Just yesterday the first day of a New South Wales state parliamentary inquiry was held at Alstonville. The Sydney Morning Herald describes the passionate opposition that was displayed there:

Passionate opposition to the industry's growth in the region united doctors, cattle farmers, activists, town residents and organic produce growers.

That is an interesting description from the Sydney Morning Herald and it certainly sums up my own experience working in rural New South Wales as the awareness about this problem has grown.

What we are seeing here too, and it was again reflected at yesterday's hearing, is this point I just mentioned about the growing concern amongst local councils. Richmond Valley, Kyogle, Liverpool City and Tweed Shire councils all gave evidence at the inquiry. It was only the Richmond Valley which has seen any benefit in the coal seam gas production. All those other councils are standing with the majority of people in their communities and representing them effectively, raising their concerns. Let us remember the area that they cover. They cover an area where I know many of my colleagues in this place come from. It is a beautiful, rich area where we see beef and dairy cattle, sugarcane, nuts and coffee. It is such a rich area with those beautiful, fertile soils, which is all at risk if the hundreds, indeed thousands, of proposed well-heads go ahead. I congratulate those councils for the stand they have taken.

It is incredible that the New South Wales government, and indeed the government speakers in this debate, defend the right of mining companies to exploit our natural resources yet they will not defend border security for farmers who are trying to protect the long-term viability of their groundwater from mining damage. Groundwater cannot be separated from food security. In May this year the New South Wales Greens MP and mining spokesperson Jeremy Buckingham introduced a coal seam gas moratorium bill into the New South Wales parliament that will place a 12-month moratorium on the coal seam gas industry in the state and prohibit coal seam gas mining in its entirety in the Sydney metropolitan area. The moratorium would provide adequate time for an independent inquiry into the economic, social and environmental impacts. The call for a moratorium is justified because the industry has not demonstrated that it can operate safely. That is where I put it to my colleagues from the coalition parties and Labor that what they should be getting behind is a moratorium. That is a responsible position when there is so much concern in the community and the safety impacts are so serious.

Senator Waters' legislation before the Senate will be a test for the coalition and the federal government on where they stand on food security and the longevity of our rural communities. I want to repeat that: this is a test for these parties. I have seen this play out in New South Wales, and I will go through that in some detail because it was informative how the other parties responded. Despite what Senator Humphries said about the Greens rushing into this and offering simplistic solutions, I and my colleagues have been working with rural communities for many years. It was on the back of our work with farmers in Liverpool Plains, in the area of Gloucester and in the upper Hunter that I introduced a bill into the New South Wales parliament to stop mining on prime agricultural land and to ensure that the water resources are protected.

How the campaign was built up to ensure the legislation was passed is most informative. First off we did not get any support from the coalition or the Labor Party. The farmers rallied. They campaigned hard and then the National Party said that they would support the legislation. The Liberals came on board. The New South Wales Farmers Association spoke at a rally attended by about 300 farmers from many parts of New South Wales who bused in for the day. They brought their produce. It was one of the most moving days I had in state parliament with the produce all lined up at the parliamentary gates and the farmers protesting and then they came into the gallery. So we got the coalition on board. For the first time they broke ranks with the mining industry. Some of the comments of the farmers were interesting, and I understand this is why the Nationals changed their position. They said, 'How come the Greens are moving this bill? Why didn't the Nationals, who have been in the parliament much longer, put forward this legislation?' Unfortunately the bill was defeated by one vote, on the combined vote of the Labor government with the Shooters Party and Reverend Fred Nile from the Christian Democrats. But it was informative in terms of the attitude from the other parties and the public pressure which pushed the Nationals to vote the right way.

In 2008 Senator Bob Brown, together with Tony Windsor, the member for New England, built on this campaign when they called on the federal National Party to amend the Water Act to protect the farmers of the Liverpool Plains from mining threats. At the time the Greens in New South Wales also called for our bill to be reintroduced by the Nationals and to include a moratorium on coal seam gas mining and exploration on prime agricultural land. This work with communities from Gloucester, from the upper Hunter and from the Liverpool Plains has been rolling out for many years in the community and the Greens have taken this work into parliament. I am pleased that my colleague in the New South Wales parliament Jeremy Buckingham has taken up this important work for the Greens with such gusto.

I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to some of the communities that I worked with in the early days of this campaign. I recently met Rosemary Nankivell again at the coal seam gas inquiry committee hearing in Narrabri, where she gave expert testimony on the impacts of coal seam gas in her region. Rosemary is one of the people who have put this issue on the map. She was instrumental in getting one of the first stories into the Sydney Morning Herald. It was when it was very hard to get coverage of this issue. Rosemary was a strong voice for the community. She invited me to a packed community meeting she organised to object to the coal seam gas exploration works being carried out by Santos. This was quite a few years ago. Rosemary was part of the Caroona Coal Action Group, which has done so much excellent community based work in that region to oppose coal exploration by BHP Billiton and China's Shenhua, as well as coal seam gas mining by Santos.

In July 2009 there was a meeting at Mullaley on the Liverpool Plains to call for an end to coal seam gas exploration and extraction on the best food-producing land in the Gunnedah Basin. Mining for coal seam gas, as we know, should have no place in the fertile food-producing lands in this area. Back then we gave an opportunity to the government to quarantine the area from both exploration and drilling. We were arguing that, in the context of climate change and ongoing drought, the profits of the big gas companies should not be allowed to take precedence over the protection of critical water supplies that feed our prime agricultural lands.

My colleague Senator Christine Milne has laid out very clearly the climate change impacts of this industry and how serious they are. There are also many local environmental impacts in various areas. This is particularly so in the Pilliga area in western New South Wales, where Eastern Star Gas has started extracting gas in an area known as the Pilliga Scrub in what is called a pilot project. The company Santos has taken over from Easter Star Gas.

I congratulate the locals there, particularly Tony Pickard and his many colleagues, other local farmers and the various environment groups: the Northern Inland Council for the Environment, the Wilderness Society and the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales. They produced a report titled Under the radar, which I commend strongly. They have identified that the activities being undertaken by Eastern Star Gas in the Pilliga Forest are being done without seeking federal assessment on matters of national environmental significance. The report has found that coal seam gas operations in this area have cleared more than 150 hectares and fragmented 1,700 hectares of bushland. They have drilled 92 coal seam gas wells, constructed more than 56 kilometres of pipeline and operated 35 production wells without seeking approval under the federal EPBC Act. These activities have occurred in habitat for federally listed threatened species, such as the south-eastern long-eared bat. Pepe Clarke, the CEO of the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, has said:

Under Commonwealth legislation, any potential impacts on nationally-threatened species must be referred to the environment department for approval. Eastern Star Gas has been flying under the radar to avoid this process in the Pilliga.

I have visited this area with local farmer Tony Pickard and many of his colleagues. I was alarmed at what is called a pilot project, at how extensive the damage occurring in this area is. The measures put in place by Eastern Star Gas to avoid or mitigate impacts are totally inadequate for preventing such impacts, and their effectiveness is uncertain and not scientifically established. A visit to this area quickly establishes that. You see leaking pipes, unprotected areas where gas is coming out and an industry that looks very dodgy from all angles.

Farmers deserve the right to refuse entry to their land where they are concerned about the long-term risks posed to their land and water resources. I am aware that some farmers have been very badly treated by mining companies, and it is vital that this problem be addressed. It is another reminder of the failure of the National Party to stand up for their constituency. Urban communities also deserve the right to say no to coal seam gas operations that are moving into the suburbs.

The movement against the unbridled expansion of the coal seam gas industry in New South Wales is very broad based; it is extremely diverse and includes farmers, environmentalists, inner city people and retirees on the coast. People are coming together from very diverse sections of the public. From the comments made by speakers from the Labor and coalition parties there is every indication they will join forces to prevent this bill from becoming law. But we can assure you that the movement will bring some sanity to this to protect farming land, to bring in environmental protections and to ensure that another fossil fuel industry that will add to greenhouse gas emissions will not open up. Just last Sunday more than 1,000 people walked down the centre of King Street, Newtown, one of the busiest thoroughfares in Sydney, to express their opposition to this industry. It is quite unique for people in Sydney to develop that understanding about the mining industry. Again, it shows the fantastic work the farming community has done to alert people across this state and across this country.

In New South Wales alone there are currently 100 wells, with proposals to move to 1,500. That is what is on the books. The opposition is considerable and it will build. People feel deeply concerned about it. I call on senators to look into their own hearts for what they will allow to happen to the communities they come from if they do not take a stance. It is not about being against the mining industry; it is about being in balance with how our society works: where we take our energy from, how we ensure we have food security for future generations and how we protect the water resources that are so essential to food security.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset it is a very useful thing to identify the purpose of the Landholders' Right to Refuse (Coal Seam Gas) Bill 2011, which I will now do. The bill seeks to make the recovery of coal seam gas unlawful on food-producing land without the prior written authorisation of all who have any legal interest in that land. From that definition, which is contained in the explanatory memorandum to the bill, I believe, necessarily, that the bill needs to be considered in the context of two other bills either currently before the chamber or about to be introduced into the chamber: firstly, the government's clean energy package of bills and, secondly, the government's proposed Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill. Both of those sets of bills, as I understand it, are strongly supported by the proponents and advocates of this bill for good, sound and cogent reasons. Their reasons have been well articulated and well established on the public record. Indeed, in passing on rates in respect of the mineral resources rent tax, the Greens have publicly identified that they seek to increase the rent tax imposed by the Commonwealth for access to minerals below the ground. The context of those two sets of bills, therefore, and their relevancy and connection to this bill are important. I will return to that issue later in my remarks.

Let us now consider a range of matters or propositions contained in the bill before the chair. Firstly, the bill exercises Commonwealth power to apply penalties on any constitutional corporation if it, the constitutional corporation, undertakes any activity to explore or produce coal seam gas on food-producing land without the prior written authorisation of everyone who has an ownership interest in that land. Let us think about that critically important proposition. The bill defines 'coal seam gas mining activity' and 'food-producing land' extraordinarily widely. Coal seam gas mining activity is defined as any activity undertaken for exploration—we should note that—or production of coal seam gas. Let us stop here.

Exploration is the first phase of exploration of a mineral or mineral-like deposit. It is the stage only where a potential deposit is identified. Issues like the scope, breadth or depth of the deposit come later. Issues of content come later. Issues relating to value come later. Issues relating to purity come later. Issues relating to commerciality come later. Issues relating to access come later, and issues relating to cost and accessibility must come much later in the process of development.

But the process of raising capital in incremental amounts as potential deposits are valued and revalued is vital to all stages but particularly the exploration stage. Essentially, miners raise debt or equity by selling future rights to producers from a site during all phases of development, including post exploration. Yet this bill would stop such a process from the beginning because it requires the written authorisation of everyone who has an ownership interest in the land. It is the most perfect vehicle ever devised to prevent the proving up of likely deposits of coal seam gas.

Let us now turn to the second unlikely phrase used in the bill—that of 'food-producing land'. At the outset I observed that such a phrase is also extraordinarily wide in application. What does 'food-producing land' mean? It is clearly not just arable land, fertile land, developed land, marginal land, grazing land, crop-growing land or irrigated land. If it were, it would be so defined in the bill. No, I suggest it is arguably and clearly intended to mean any land capable of producing food. Let us think about that for a moment. Let us think about technology and science. Let us think about the ingenuity of humankind. Let us think about desert land recovered across Australia and around the world for wheat production. Frankly, there is not any land anywhere in Australia that, with the correct application of science, technology, finance and endeavour, is not capable of producing food.

Let us go back to the post-war years—post the First World War and post the Second World War—and look at land areas that have been sequentially developed in this country. I refer in particular to the river lands of South Australia and Victoria, to the marginal wheat belt territories in the south of Western Australia, to the Ord River lands in Western Australia and to the rich, fruit growing areas of Carnarvon in the north-west of Western Australia. All of those land areas over time have been developed and exploited with a combination of those matters—technology, science, finance and human endeavour. The bill, in that context, seeks to prohibit any coal seam gas activity from the beginning of exploration in any land anywhere in Australia which is or has been capable of producing food. Again, in that context, food is not defined.

In stopping that process, the bill expressly identifies at the outset how that end is to be achieved. The bill, if enacted, would not transfer the ownership of coal seam gas deposits from the Crown; it would transfer control of those resources and probably also any coal deposits requiring the draining of methane from the Crown to the holders of surface rights on food-producing land. Such a change would enable the owners of any surface rights to extract economic rents in exchange for authorising exploration and production of gas of which they have no ownership, thus depriving the community of its right to maximise its return from assets commonly held. Let us break up that proposition into its parts so that it is clearly understood. Firstly, ownership of minerals for hundreds of years has vested in the Crown. Secondly, the Crown has received income via taxation or royalties or excise for permitting lawful exploitation. Thirdly, the Crown uses that revenue for the everyday purpose of government. Fourthly, because mineral rights were vested in the Crown, the value of exploration is never included in the price of land. Fifthly, and finally, the bill proposes to pass that value, that unpriced value, to the current and temporary owner of the land without payment of any consideration—truly a most remarkable proposition. But it gets even worse.

The government has had a clear position on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill for at least the last 15 or 18 months. The government's position is to increase royalties on major companies who seek to develop mineral deposits around Australia. There has been criticism of that position from the opposition. They are opposed to it. There has also been criticism of that position from the Greens party—not that we are doing it, but they say that our rate, our levy, is manifestly inadequate and should be increased. Senator Brown has repeatedly said that he and his party will move amendments in this chamber to the MRRT Bill when it is introduced to increase the rate. So, for every other mineral, the Greens want to increase the take to the Commonwealth for the purpose of everyday government, but with the bill before the house the Greens want to transfer that benefit to the current titleholders, however temporary, without payment of any consideration at all. Such a transfer of wealth or potential wealth is totally unprecedented, totally unwarranted, unfair and totally devoid of any equity at all.

Senator Waters interjecting—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bishop, ignore the interjections and address your remarks through the chair, please.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will indeed, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will say it again. Such a transfer of wealth is unprecedented, totally unwarranted, unfair and devoid of even a scintilla of equity at all.

Earlier I referred to the authorisation process contained in the bill. The bill requires that such authorisation must include details of an independent assessment of the current and future risks associated with the proposed coal seam gas mining activity on or affecting the food-producing land and any associated groundwater systems. It is unclear whether this assessment would mean an environmental impact statement, an EIS. If so, it clearly would impose a significant impost on landholders. What does this mean? It means this: the bill is seeking to deal with environmental issues by privatising assets owned by the community and setting up a further but protracted environmental process which will not produce improved environmental outcomes, since the existing Commonwealth EPBC Act and state environmental processes will continue to apply.

In that context, let me turn to the work that has been done on the package of clean energy bills for the last nine months. We all know there has been nine months of exhausting committee work. We know that the Greens accepted an invitation from the government to provide the deputy chair to that committee. We know also that it has concluded its deliberations and that its policy recommendations have been examined and accepted by government. We now know that the work of that committee on the clean energy bills has been referred to a parliamentary committee for some six, seven or eight days of exhaustive examination. We know and we hope that that package of bills will be passed in this chamber prior to Christmas. And we know that that package of bills is about carbon reduction, carbon abatement and a clean energy future.

In that context, the carbon pricing package contains more than $10 billion to promote renewable energy, but early emissions reductions are expected to be driven by the carbon price forming a switch from coal-fired electricity generation to gas-fired generation, which of course has significantly lower emissions. There have been numerous repeated and respected scientific inquiries and findings from universities all around the world that say that the output of carbon emissions from the gas production and gas use process in manufacturing energy is something in the order of 50 to 70 per cent below that of coal. So efforts by the Greens in this bill to prevent the development of gas in this country are totally inconsistent with the transition to a lower carbon future. It is manifestly clear that gas-fired electricity generation is more reliable than renewables at present. The coal seam methane industry is a stunning example, a great example, of our success as a nation and a government at state and Commonwealth level in attracting investment. Three years ago this industry was not even thought about. Now, we have got a $45 billion investment. If the Greens want to reduce CO2 emissions, they must understand that gas is going to make a huge contribution to that because it is clean energy, it is plentiful, it is cost-effective and it is reliable.

I might be tempted to say what the opposition would say of this bill. They might say it is green extremism. They might say it is absurd bureaucratic process. They might say it is a misuse of policy to achieve an adverse predetermined outcome. But I do not say those things. The opposition might say them in due course, but I do not say them. What I do say of this bill is that it is an example of poor thinking, confused thinking, woolly thinking and silly thinking. It seeks to achieve sound environmental outcomes by absurd bureaucratic processes.

As I said at the outset, the bill effectively provides an absolute veto of coal seam gas activities by the owners of food-producing land, which is broadly defined in the bill. The bill seeks to overturn state laws which seek to properly balance—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: could I just point out to the chamber the incorrectness of some of the logic in this debate. Santos has already agreed—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. You cannot take frivolous points of order. Senator Bishop, please continue.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. The bill seeks to overturn state laws which seek to properly balance the competing interests of the owners of surface rights to land as granted by a particular state with the rights granted by the same state to explore for and produce coal seam gas. It does this by ensuring that, at a minimum, surface owners are fully compensated for any economic loss or inconvenience as determined through a proper process. Such a change in this bill would enable the owners of any surface right to extract economic rents in exchange for authorising exploration for and production of gas of which they have no ownership, never had any ownership and never wanted any ownership, thus depriving the wider community—all of us—of its right to maximise its return from assets commonly held. This has been the case since European settlement of this continent in the 18th century and it has been the case in right of the Crown since the 12th century in Great Britain. This bill seeks to overturn that right of common ownership, common value and common return to the government—to the people—by the Crown through the provision of common services.

The excuse for overturning these long-established state systems is concern about the alleged environmental impacts of coal seam gas projects. But the bill itself does not do one thing for the environment. It simply transfers control of assets owned by us—or by us through the state—to owners of any interest no matter how remote in terms of surface rights. The bill proposes no change to environmental regulation, because it does not need to. Where matters of national economic significance are involved, the EPBC Act comes into play, as it did with all current Queensland CSG projects—projects which the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Mr Burke, on behalf of this government—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's all lies.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan, come to order.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All these CSG projects are fully subject to state environmental regulation. In any event, the bill, if passed, would undermine efforts by the Australian government to assist the states to develop a harmonised, regulatory and best practice framework for CSG activity work currently being undertaken cooperatively by all interested jurisdictions, including the New South Wales government—Senator Heffernan's own colleagues down the road. That the bill is a crude political exercise is shown by the fact that it will not affect arrangements with respect to petroleum not found in coal seam or minerals not found in association with gas, even when there might be analogous environmental or regulatory issues. Again, as I said at the outset, the bill is so broadly drafted that any competent person could drive a bull and dray through it. (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are so many things that the previous speaker, Senator Bishop, said on the Landholders' Right To Refuse (Coal Seam Gas) Bill that I would like to deal with—I could spend the rest of my time on them—but let me start with the Greens. The Greens, who apparently want to put themselves up as the champions of coal seam gas by reason of the protection of property rights, are the same Greens who were quite at one with divesting the landholder of their rights for the ownership of the trees and the vegetation on their place. They never put up a bill to hand that property right back to the farmers. They never cared about that—shutting down the land by basically divesting the person of their vegetation rights. They are also the same Greens that want to take 7,600 gigalitres out of the Murray-Darling Basin to shut it down. They never put up a bill saying they do not believe in shutting down the Murray-Darling Basin. They are quite happy to do that. So they will take the vegetation rights off you, they will take irrigation rights off you, they will absolutely tie you up like Franz Kafka in red tape up and down the Great Barrier Reef with environmental regulations, and then we are supposed to believe them when they come in here to talk about their views on coal seam gas and the property rights of farmers. We know exactly what they are doing: they are creating a wedge. That is their right, but they should be upfront about it.

There are so many people back where I live who would love the opportunity to speak in this chamber about something that is so pertinent to their lives. Yes, their issues must be addressed, but let us start at the beginning. We have an inquiry that is afoot. The extension of the terms of that inquiry—my name was put to it on the website because you were attacking the National Party—were put up by the National Party. You now sit on that inquiry with the National Party to try to bring about a resolution. That committee will report in mid-November. Senator Heffernan, who is in here; is chairing it. We in the National Party have been driving this agenda. We are happy that we have taken it. But we will want to collect the votes around this chamber to come up with a constructive outcome. There are four issues that need to be dealt with. First and foremost, we must make sure that the aquifers are protected and not destroyed. We acknowledge that there are serious questions as to whether anyone knows what is going on. Prime agricultural land must be protected. Tony Abbott has stated that, and I am happy he has done so. That is movement we have never got from Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard or anybody else, but now we have—from Tony Abbott. We have moved the agenda for the protection of prime agricultural land, and it was essential we did so. I would say that the people east of the Condamine are precisely on prime agricultural land. Anna Bligh moved for the buffer zone around residential areas, yes, but wasn't it funny that that happened after we got this inquiry afoot? We do not want people's quiet enjoyment being disturbed by the intrusion into their lives of a problem that they did not buy when they bought their house. That issue has to be addressed. If you tick the boxes—not destroying the aquifers, not destroying prime agricultural land, not destroying the quiet enjoyment of a residential estate—then there must be a proper pecuniary return delivered to the farmer. Currently they are getting less then 75c for every $1,000 that is earned by the miner.

It is very important to go through the history here, because some of the things that were said by Senator Bishop, although well meaning, were just not correct. He went right back and talked about what happened in 1200. Magna Carta was actually 1215, without trying to sound too eccentric. If we go right back to that, we find that the Latin maxim at that point in time was cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos: you owned from the heavens above to the infernal regions. In the 16th century, that was changed—the crown took from them gold and silver, fair enough. But there is still the contention that these rights have been displaced for hundreds of years; Bill Shorten, Craig Emerson and other people have said it, but they are just incorrect. Certainly the Crown in Australia had prospecting rights—it still does, and it should—but it did not have extracting rights; those had to be negotiated with the landholder. Over time, by reason of national crises, those rights have been taken from the farmer. A very good dissertation on that was given by Neville Wran in his second reading speech on the New South Wales Coal Acquisition Bill of 1981. Queensland's Petroleum Act of 1915 says:

… it is hereby declared that petroleum on or below the surface of all land in Queensland, whether alienated in fee simple or not so alienated from the Crown, and if so alienated whensoever alienated, is and always has been the property of the Crown.

This is where in 1915 the Queensland government took those assets, the coal and the oil, from the farmer by reason of the First World War. It could see the calamity unfolding in Europe and wanted to ensure the security of their hydrocarbon material. The war finished, but the asset was never handed back. That legislation is obviously imbalanced, because all the rights—the presumption of ownership rights—that were held by the farmer were taken from the farmer, but there was no legislation to compensate in any way or to give any form of security right to the farmer. In South Australia, similar legislation was introduced in 1971. In the territories it was 1953. There were other, related, acts during the 1930s—I think 1935 or 1938, although 1938 may have been New Zealand. In New South Wales the final removal of this asset that was owned by the farmer happened in 1981. So it is not correct to say that farmers never had this asset; they did. It is an asset which historically they owned and that was extracted from their land. That is why frustration and absolute anger are permeating through farmers. They are finding that someone has a superior right of ownership because of a transaction they have never been a party to, involving people they have never met, in a room they have never been to. In Western Australia—Colin Barnett stated this the other day—people still have the right of veto on freehold land. I note that the majority of Western Australia is leasehold land, but this is where you see the imbalance.

The other problem is that the states are compromised. The states are the second-biggest beneficiary from mining, after the miners. The landholder sits there with no parity in the bargaining process. This is why we are conducting the inquiry. We need to be able to collect the numbers in such a way as to bring some sort of outcome. The Greens jump in with a little wedge bill once other people have done the hard work—they always do it. They put it in the middle of the process and then say, 'We provided a solution but you wouldn't take it.' No, because you have to go through the process. We are taking this extremely seriously. I think Senator Heffernan is taking it very seriously, Senator Shaun Edwards is taking it very seriously and no doubt the Greens are taking it very seriously. But, if you are serious on this, there has to be consistency on other things such as handing back to farmers their vegetation rights, making sure you do not compromise the irrigation rights of farmers, making sure you do not tie up farmers with environmental laws that completely ipso facto remove their sovereign right of ownership. You have to be consistent on this, and we will hold the Greens to it.

This is absolutely a core issue. The core of my involvement in the National Party is property rights—it is one of the key issues. What is the point of going to work and working for something if you find out later on that you do not actually own it? What is the point of going through the privations, of going without, if someone has a superior right of ownership to you? I have to declare my interest. I bought a place when I came into parliament. I sold my accountancy practice, got a little bit of money and jammed it into a property. I grew up on the land and I like the land. I will be going down there next week to do the cattle work. About six months ago my neighbour Bruce McConaghy rang up and said, 'Eastern Star Gas is here, and they're going to do exploratory work on your place.' So there it is: I declare my interest. But it is like saying that someone who is thrown in the sea has an interest in swimming. I have an interest in making sure we get this right, and I think the people who live around me are absolutely focused on making sure there is a bit of mustard on my tail, because it makes me work very hard for a just outcome.

There is this idea that people can go to court over this. That is a load of rubbish. This is how it works: if a person comes on to my place in Queensland, he has to negotiate an access agreement with me. He has 50 days to do that. If, after 50 days, we have not negotiated an access agreement, he might just say, 'I like to go where I want, whenever I want, and I want to put a gravel road in to get there, and I want bore heads here, here and here.' If we cannot come to an agreement within 50 days because I say, 'Mate, I think you're absolutely destroying the whole complexion of my place,' then we go to the land court. However, once we go to the land court he is right; he can start work. And he gives me—the farmer—maybe $400 or $500 to deal with that. That is all I would get to try to deal with a mining company that has multiple billions of dollars worth of backing.

The disparity in the bargaining positions of the landowners and the companies is absurd. This is something that people from the Labor Party, who understand Work Choices, should understand. The disparity in the bargaining positions is outrageous. We have to try to make sure we help those who are weak against those who are strong and get a sense of equivalence. I know you people agree with that. So this is absurd.

The next part, of course, is that he—and I say 'he' because they are generally blokes—can pay what he wants. The companies can pay you what they want. You might say: 'You've completely compromised my asset here. I can't get on to my cultivation. Basically the place I purchased is not my own anymore, and nobody wants to buy it off me.' It is a case of 'Is that a drilling rig on your place, or are you just happy to see me?' Nobody wants your place once they see that you have a coal seam gas factory, basically, situated on the area where years ago you had your barley crop or your wheat crop.

They can pay you anything they want. In some instances we have heard of people getting a slab of beer as payment. Some of these wells are earning $1 million a day. And the company says: 'But we gave you $1,500 a year. You're so much better off now.' Then they put a confidentiality agreement on it so you cannot talk to anybody. You cannot talk to your fellow workers and find out what they are being paid. No, you are not allowed to do that.

I know that in the Labor Party there will be some essence—some little seed down in your soul—that would say: 'I don't think I agree with that sort of concept of how you bargain. I think there should be transparency in collective bargaining against a stronger party.' You have to be philosophically consistent and work out how you are going to deal with this issue. The committee is afoot, and we will want to see exactly how you participate in that process.

And then there is this argument that somehow private ownership is anathema to the progression of commerce. I did not think it was. I thought private ownership was something we actually believed in. I thought we believed in the right of the individual to be commensurate with their capacity not only to improve their own position but to improve the position of the community around them. Not only do I think that, but apparently so does Henry Ergas, who said, in relation to coal seam gas, in his Catallaxy Files:

Shifting the rights to farmers will not affect the extent of development; rather, it will affect who gains the rents from development.

I do not think they have had any problems in Texas, as far as development goes. They might have had problems environmentally; I acknowledge the visual interjections of other senators. But you cannot say Texas has stayed behind as far as mineral development goes. It is privately owned. They are doing all right. I do not want Texas in Baradine.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Wild West!

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want that. But we have to debunk the argument that we can believe in private ownership and commerce but not believe in the rights of farmers to be greater masters of their destiny. We acknowledge the financial predicament Australia has got itself into with debt—both the debt of the states, who are going to be $250 billion in gross debt by 2014-15, and the position we are in federally, with $205 billion in gross debt. We know that means that if we do not have mining we do not have money, and if we do not have money we have a big, big problem. But this cannot come at the expense of the fundamental injustice we are now seeing in so many areas. If we ignore this issue, it will not go away.

The Armstrongs and the Brimblecombes, the people around Cecil Plains and the multigenerational farmers from down in the Lockyer, up into the Downs and out west are an extremely collegiate group. They are and will continue to be on the phone to one another, surveying the horizon and saying, 'Are we going to get a form of justice, and who is going to give us that justice?' They will be having discussions with people in northern New South Wales—with whom, as I have explained, I have some involvement. These people will then be talking to the people on the coast and to people everywhere else. They are our shareholders. The voters are our shareholders. They are the most important people to us. They are the people we are here to serve. We are their servants first and foremost, before allegiances to any other group, party, body or corporation. So there is that expectation. There is a Senate inquiry on foot. My belief is that that Senate inquiry will report and, from that, we will have the capacity to try and start to move this agenda. We must acknowledge that for the vast majority of this issue you must follow the money: who makes the money out of the royalties? It is the states. So the vast majority of the ownership of this problem rests with the states. That is not saying for one moment that we do not also have a role in this, because as far as the shareholder—the individual, the Australian citizen, the farmer—goes we are the closest thing they are ever going to get to an independent party, because the states are the second-biggest earners after the mining companies. But we cannot just quietly walk away from this. Likewise, we cannot have these sundry pieces of legislation that are slipped in prior to the conclusion of a process that is on foot, which is to bring about some sort of resolution, which has moved the agenda from the middle pages to the front pages and which has been at the forefront of keeping pressure on state Labor governments, such as in Queensland, to now bring about a two-kilometre buffer. These are the issues which have been brought about by the actions thus far, but it has not yet finished.

First of all, this issue has been brought up by Senator Waters. I have to say she is doing most of the work on this, although she is not going to get a chance to speak today. If they are consistent, we will see them working in an effective manner towards resolutions at the end of the inquiry. We will also see, in later times, when we bring up other things that may happen—when we reinstall the vegetation rights and so hand back farmers another asset that was stolen from them in the middle of the night without any compensation—we will get the same sort of emphatic support that they apparently have for the coal seam gas issue. And, when they later on tell us that we are going to lose 7,600 gigs from the Murray-Darling Basin, obviously that will change now—because they are worried about farmers now, so they will obviously change their views on that as well; otherwise, someone might just get a sniff of hypocrisy from a party that believes in stealing your trees, shutting down the Murray-Darling Basin, shutting down the live cattle trade, tying up legislation in caveats and imposts—but apparently does believe in coal-seam gas— (Time expired)

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise in support of the Landholders' Right to Refuse (Coal Seam Gas) Bill 2011 today. I support the bill because it is good policy, it is prudent policy and it also happens to be popular with the vast majority of the Australian community. The bill gives farmers the right to refuse a miner permission to extract coal seam gas on their properties. As it stands, farmers who grow the food we eat, and export food, do not have this right. When it comes to facing down the miners who want to move in, dig up their properties and extract what is underneath, farmers hardly have any rights at all. We do think that they should have the right to preserve the lands under their care from a potentially devastating industry. It is true that the minerals under their properties are public property. This bill does not change that fact. It does not seek to create a precedent.

In our mad scramble to exploit the supposed riches of coal seam gas, we are taking some very dangerous risks with one of our country's most precious resources: this nation's farmlands. If things are left to the mining industry, the methane under our farmlands will be extracted and sold as quickly as possible. Preserving our most fertile land for the future will be less than an afterthought. Given what we know about the risks of coal seam gas extraction, this is reckless and premature. This bill does nothing more than add a note of caution to the debate.

In terms of our food production, this bill is aimed at protecting agricultural land and our environment; in particular it is aimed at preserving our best quality farming land. Farming is important in terms of Australia's economy, but it is also important in terms of the Australian tradition. Despite this being a highly urbanised country, our farmers rightly hold a special place in the Australian consciousness. This nation was built on the back of our farmers and our agricultural resources. Agriculture remains an important sector of the economy and an important part of our national identity. We are extremely lucky in this country to have access to such a bounty of high-quality fresh food. Over 90 per cent of what we eat is grown here. We have food security. Food security has had a bit of press recently, and we do take it for granted, but it is becoming an issue of increasing urgency. Only a tiny proportion of this country is made up of high-quality farmland. We do not have any farmland to spare, so no populist campaign of dam-building is going to change that. Therefore, our best land should not be foolishly used for short-term gain.

Unlike what Senator Bishop was suggesting, this bill only applies to land that has been used in the last 10 years for producing food that Australians eat and that we export to the rest of the world. With the UN now projecting that global food production needs to rise by about 70 per cent by the middle of next century, safeguarding food-producing land should be one of our highest priorities. Coal seam gas extraction uses billions of litres of water, it competes with agriculture for this precious resource and we have not had the debate that says that mining should win out in this current argument.

Mining is, of course, very important for our country and for our economic prosperity. We are not an anti-mining party. We understand that the world needs our resources and that Australia can provide them. But the Greens are the party of long-term thinking. You can only dig up minerals or extract gas once. What happens then? What does the future look like?

This is particularly important when it comes to the coal seam gas industry. Once we have extracted and sold the gas, once the miners have left our properties, what does the land look like? Is it still fit for growing food?

We have not done a complete analysis of the risks associated with this industry. Let me name a few here. Of course, there is the significant risk of groundwater contamination. We know that some coal seams connect with the watertable. We know that the associated water that is produced as a by-product is often polluted with some dangerous chemicals, some of which I will refer to shortly. We know that this by-product often lies in evaporation ponds and risks leaking into rivers and becoming part of our potable water supply. We know that there are some real concerns about whether this industry is in fact helping us to make the transition away from high-emissions industries, particularly when one considers the potent nature of methane as a greenhouse gas, and that the footprint of this industry has been largely understated when we take a full life cycle analysis into account. We know that there are problems with leakage with compression for export. We need more independent analysis. We need to see Australian studies on this industry, independent of industry propaganda.

And coal seam gas is unnecessary. We do not need it now, especially from prime agricultural land. We know that there are alternative sources of energy.

As a medical professional, I want to spend a moment or two to focus on the health impacts of this industry. Most people would, of course, be very protective against any industry that might cause the potential health impacts associated with the mining of coal seam gas. We do not know enough about what those impacts are at the moment. We know that only four of the 60 fracking chemicals have been assessed as safe by NICNAS, the national chemicals regulator, but we know that there is very good reason to think that some of those chemicals will have very serious health impacts.

When we look at the hundreds of different chemicals used in the extraction process, in particular there has been some focus on the BTEX group of chemicals: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes. These are the same products that are found in cigarette smoke. They are the same products that are found in exhaust pollution from motor vehicles. We know that they cause a range of health impacts. We know that some of them are potent carcinogens. We know that they affect a number of the body's systems, including our nervous system and circulatory system. So there are some real concerns about the impacts of the chemicals used in this process.

We know that these chemicals leave a lasting legacy. They have the potential to contaminate billions of litres of water through the process. I am really concerned that we do not have enough information to be able to say that this industry is safe and that we can safeguard against the potential health impacts on the Australian community. The potential for these chemicals to get into drinking and irrigation water supplies is significant, and we simply do not understand their impact on human health.

We need in this instance to use the precautionary principle. Until the toxicity profiles of all of these chemicals—in particular, the BTEX group of chemicals—are clearly understood, why on earth would we take a chance with one of our most precious resources, our groundwater?

Of course, there is a risk that the chemicals from the coal seams themselves—that is, the chemicals that lie dormant within these seams—will in fact be brought to the surface and into the water supply and our food chain. We know that there are a number of volatile organic compounds that exist within these coal seams and that they have the potential to cause cancer and other teratogenic effects. We also know that the underground channels by which a coal seam might link to an aquifer are complex. We need to make sure that we get more evidence and that we have a greater understanding of the impacts of these chemicals and their use before we jump headlong into the coal seam gas gold rush.

Given the potential for damage to human health, we think that one of the things that has been lacking in this debate has been the involvement of the public health community and public health experts as part of this process. I refer to publications in the Medical Journal of Australia which indicate some of the concerns expressed by the medical community when it comes to coal seam gas. It is important that, when we plan for proposals such as this, no proposal should go ahead without a complete consideration of the public health ramifications of this industry, and none should operate without strict and rigorous monitoring of the full impacts of the industry. Prevention is much, much more sensible than cure. Let us apply that principle not just to our health system but to this debate around coal seam gas mining.

I would like to say a few things about my home state of Victoria. While this debate has largely focused on the states of Queensland and New South Wales, Victoria is now the next target in the coal seam gas battle. In Victoria over 30 applications have been received for exploration for coal seam gas mining, and a number of these are exclusively for coal seam gas. It is of great concern to me and to many Victorians.

We in Victoria have some of the nation's most productive farmland. For example, Victoria produces two-thirds of this country's milk. We have a dairy industry that is worth approximately $2 billion in exports. The Victorian public is now very, very alarmed by the coal seam gas gold rush.

It is clear that in my own local community in the region of Colac and south of Colac there is growing anxiety about an exploration permit that has been granted now to ECI International. At a community meeting that was held in the town of Forrest last Friday, in the wonderful Otway Ranges, my own place of residence, we saw almost 100 residents attend a community meeting who were particularly concerned about the impact of coal seam gas mining on groundwater.

We have seen issues in other areas such as the Ovens and King valleys, which were very strongly opposed to the possibility of coal seam gas exploration licences. In fact, the city of Wangaratta also expressed that view. An exploration licence for an area near the town of Warrnambool was withdrawn after significant community opposition.

We know that that story is consistent with what is happening right across the country. A Galaxy poll indicated that 68 per cent of Australians do support a moratorium on coal seam gas until the full health and environmental impacts are understood. We know that is how the Australian community feels. In fact this bill does not even go that far. All it says is that farmers should have a say. Disappointingly, this was not reflected by the other parties, who voted down the Greens motion for a moratorium on coal seam gas just last week. Their position is out of step with that of the majority of the Australian community.

The passage of Senator Waters' bill is nothing more than a nod to caution and good sense. It does not ban coal seam gas mining. It simply taps on the brakes and says: 'Look, we don't know enough about this industry, its impact on agriculture and its impact on human health. Let's make sure we get a much fuller picture around what those impacts are before we rush headlong into this industry.' I proudly stand here in support of the bill. I think that, if we do not support it, we do risk damaging human health and we do risk long-term damage to our groundwater and to our farmland. For those reasons I very proudly stand here in support of this bill.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition supports the expansion of the coal seam gas industry, in harmony with the rights of landholders and the protection of prime agricultural land for food production. Issues related to land use are, of course, primarily a matter for the states. It is important that we take a balanced approach that acknowledges the importance of the mining industry to Australia's economic future while protecting prime agricultural land and respecting the rights of farmers.

The coalition supports the work done by our state colleagues in delivering a more balanced approach than that currently being offered by state Labor governments. The mining industry and the farming community have a long history of working together in Australia, which has allowed both sectors to prosper. There are long-established systems in place that allow miners and farmers to negotiate land access and very few cases end up in court. There are numerous examples of farmers and mining companies who have been working cooperatively and who have negotiated mutually beneficial outcomes.

It is also important to note that the development of the coal seam gas industry in Queensland is subject to more than 1,500 state and federal conditions, making it more regulated than the uranium industry. The coal seam gas companies operating in Queensland, such as the Queensland Gas Co. and Santos, have shown they are willing to carry out the process in good faith. By way of example, all the Queensland Gas Co. work on private properties has been done with the express permission of landholders. The Queensland Gas Co. prefers voluntary agreements and now has more than 800 agreements, following negotiations on land access with about 1,000 landholders.

The coalition believes there are some sections of productive land that are of such significance that they should be given additional safeguards. Under the Constitution, it is state governments that are responsible for land use and mining. Therefore, in our view, it is a matter for each state government to determine which areas are considered prime agricultural land and for each state to put in place protective measures where appropriate in consultation with farmers, rural communities and resources companies. We urge those resources companies to deal effectively with the issue of protection of prime agricultural land. That is of course a matter that state governments need to continue to pursue as a matter of priority.

Positive steps have been taken, for example, by the O'Farrell government in New South Wales to balance the needs of mining and agriculture. The O'Farrell government has put in place a moratorium and strategic land use plans which will identify and protect productive farmland, involve communities in local decision making, ensure a sustainable and healthy mining industry and encourage industry best practice. The O'Farrell government is also developing a stringent groundwater regulation, reviewing fracking standards and reviewing access arrangements. The Liberal-National Party in Queensland has shown how seriously it takes the issue of safeguarding prime agricultural land with the publication of a discussion paper noting the importance of gas to the Queensland economy and raising a number of issues that have not been addressed by the Bligh Labor government. These include the depletion of underground water, land access, the location of coal seam gas infrastructure close to dwellings and the increased pressure on inadequate existing regional infrastructure.

The Senate Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee, chaired by my colleague Senator Heffernan, is currently inquiring into the management of the Murray-Darling Basin, including the impact of mining coal seam gas, and will report on 30 November 2011. That committee is examining the economic, social and environmental impacts of mining coal seam gas on the sustainability of water aquifers and future water licensing arrangements; the property rights and values of landholders; the sustainability of prime agricultural land and Australia's food task; the social and economic benefits or otherwise for regional towns; the effective management of relationships between mining and other interests; and various other matters.

The federal coalition will continue to work with the coalition in New South Wales, with the LNP in Queensland and with other state parties to ensure the rights of farmers are always respected in this context. Mr President, I seek your guidance as to whether I can continue my remarks now or whether I need to seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Time for the debate has expired.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—We have a general agreement in the Senate that private members' time, because it is short, will be organised so that the primary piece of legislation being brought on each week for discussion will be brought to a vote. What we have just seen is that fail to happen.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you saying that I am not allowed to speak?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am. Senator Cormann, you are interjecting against the standing orders. I am saying you should organise, within the ambit of a commitment from your side as well as everybody else's, to have an orderly arrangement whereby a vote is taken in private members' time. What you are otherwise saying, Senator Cormann, is that you do not want opposition bills coming to a vote in the chamber. If that is your position, that is new. Let us know about it. The same goes for the government.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My position is that, if want to speak, I should be allowed to speak.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your position is that you do not want any action, Senator Cormann. It is obvious from the contribution you were giving why that is the case. I am just saying to the government and the opposition that this is a breach of spirit by both sides and it ought to be brought back into order. Otherwise private members' time goes back to being of no significance—government bills get through; private members' bills do not get through. That is not proper in this place.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was no agreement that this particular piece of legislation would come to a vote today. There are on occasion informal arrangements reached between the parties, but there was not one with this particular piece of legislation. Senator Cormann is only part-way through his contribution. On the circulated speakers list there is still Senator Xenophon and Senator Williams to speak. So I do not see what has happened today as being in any way controversial or out of the ordinary. It is a piece of legislation that is being appropriately debated.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have to concur on this occasion with the comments made by Senator Fifield. There has been no agreement by the parties to take this particular piece of legislation to a vote. As we know, on past occasions in private senators' time, some bills have been taken to a vote. But there was no agreement. It has been discussed numerous times at whips meetings. It has also been discussed on occasion by the Procedure Committee, where there was also no agreement reached. The government's view is that each piece of legislation that comes to this chamber should be treated with respect and, as Senator Fifield noted, there are other speakers on the list. So we believe the process this morning has been in accordance with generally agreed principles in the Senate.