Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate the continuing remarks of Senator Birmingham in the second reading debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012.

Leave granted.

The speech , in continuation, read as follows:

However, I note there were some recommendations directed to the Commonwealth government and it concerns me that nearly three years later a response from the government remains outstanding. I take this opportunity to urge the government to finalise and table its response to this committee's recommendations, and those of any other committees inquiring into issues of coal seam gas but to which it has not yet responded, and also identify what, if any, action was taken as a response.

Coalition support

The coalition supports this bill before us today, and the establishment of this committee, given it explicitly provides for independent expert input to the debate and into particular developments. This input should all help improve public confidence in the environmental safeguards we afford our critical and precious water resources as well as the environmental approval processes surrounding the coal seam gas industry and ultimately the industry itself.

This can only be a good thing, provided the input is provided in an appropriately timely fashion as we would hope will be the case. It will also assist, particularly state governments, balance the interests—or better provide for the co-existence of –the agricultural and mining industries.

I note and welcome adoption in the other place of a coalition amendment that we believe improves the bill, and the credibility of the committee, through the minister ensuring that a majority of the members possess qualifications and expertise in one or more of the areas of geology, hydrology, hydro-geology and ecology.

Given that amendment, and for the reasons I have outlined, the coalition supports this bill.

What this bill does not address, and which remain to be addressed, are legitimate concerns particularly among farming communities about the long-term impacts of coal seam gas developments and a landowners right to say 'no' to development on their land.

As I say, these important issues and concerns remain to be addressed.

But this bill is a positive step forward in terms of environmental protections and greater public confidence in those protections.

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

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012. While the Greens will be supporting this bill because it does take us some small way towards addressing the huge problems with coal seam gas and large coal mines, we think it is far too little too late. The Greens have long raised the well-founded concerns of the Australian community about the risks coal seam gas and coal mining pose to our groundwater resources, to our climate, to our good-quality agricultural land, to our regional communities across Australia and to our environment, particularly the Great Barrier Reef—with massive dredging for export.

The coal seam gas and coal mining industries are rapidly expanding across Australia's rich farming regions, which we have in short supply, particularly in my home state of Queensland. They are just eating up the landscape, and we are seeing the industrialisation of rural Australia. Our good-quality food-producing land and its ability to feed us and the world—because we remain net food exporters and should continue to be—and the groundwater that the productivity of that land often depends on, are so precious they should be off limits to big mines and to coal seam gas.

That is the Greens' position, which I have raised many times in this chamber. We are backed by expert bodies like the CSIRO and the National Water Commission, who still do not know what the long-term and cumulative threats posed by these industries are, particularly to our water resources and the climate but also more broadly to our environment and communities. This is despite claims from APIA last week that CSIRO had backed coal seam gas and said it was safe for groundwater. Of course, CSIRO came out and said, 'No way; that's not what we said at all. We still don't know what the long-term risks are.' Yet approvals have been issued by both state and federal governments without the understanding of those long-term impacts.

Vale the precautionary principle—it has been sacrificed for short-term private profits, some small amount of royalties and the promise of jobs, which never eventuate in the orders of magnitude promised by the big miners or which are simply fly-in fly-out or drive-in drive-out workers who drive up the cost of living for locals and destroy families.

We just do not know if CSG is safe for our land and water when we lack the information about its long-term impacts, and when the government has done little of its own research—the Namoi catchment study being one welcome exception to that—and simply relies on the so-called evidence of the miners themselves. But look at the scoreboard. Urban and rural Australians worried about our land, our water, our climate and the Reef have been shocked by the recent rash of disasters associated with the expanding coal seam gas industry. There has been gas bubbling up through the Condamine River bed, close to CSG mining operations, in recent months; there was contamination of the Springbok aquifer in Queensland in 2009—a very worrying occurrence; there was the release of CSG polluted wastewater during the 2011 floods; there was a gas well blow-out and drilling fluid leak near Chinchilla; and of course there was the recent spill disaster in the New South Wales Pilliga Forest.

Much more needs to be done to reign in the unbridled acceleration of these fossil fuel industries. The Greens generally support this bill, but it needs to be given teeth, and much more needs to be done to investigate and properly regulate this industry before any more approvals are hastily granted. The Greens will continue to push for far better oversight and management of these industries, for the future of Australian communities and for our generations to come.

Despite the lack of information about the long-term impacts of coal seam gas, Australian farmers still have no right to say no to coal seam gas mining on their land. I have introduced a bill to allow farmers to choose if they want CSG on their property, given the huge uncertainties about its long-term risks to their land. It was originally Tony Abbott's idea—but, unfortunately, the next day he changed his mind. What a tragic shame.

A couple of weeks ago, the latest community in the Darling Downs in Queensland faced the invasion of their land from coal seam gas. Cecil Plains, with some of the best soil in the Downs, was being invaded by Arrow Energy's exploratory drill rigs, the fourth of the big CSG miners with megaprojects in Queensland. That community was going to blockade. Thankfully the company have now deferred their plans, but for how long we do not know. The blockading is pretty unusual in rural communities, just like the Country Women's Association, who recently protested for the first time in their 90-year history against coal seam gas. This threat to people's farmland and the security and cleanliness of their water supply is really mobilising people. Farmers on the rich Cecil Plains, many of whom are generational family farmers, are the latest in a long list of communities who are banding together, protesting and blockading against the cowboy, bullying and divisive tactics of CSG companies to force their way onto their farmland. That forcing is completely legal. The farmers cannot say no; they cannot refuse entry. My bill to give them that right is desperately needed. I want to take this opportunity to commend and pay tribute to the Lock The Gate Alliance—both the organisation and its members—and all of the farmers and city folk too who have banded together against the might of coal and coal seam gas giants. More power to their arms.

I have twice moved in this place for a moratorium on coal seam gas until we understand more about the risks of this industry. Sadly, the two big parties sided with the big miners and ignored the community. When I moved a motion reflecting the first few paragraphs of the Nationals' own policy on coal seam gas, they did not come into the chamber to vote and back their own policy, which had wisely called for land and water to be safe.

I have also proposed a nationwide Senate inquiry into coal seam gas to get the whole picture of the true environmental, coastal, economic and social impacts of coal seam gas across the whole country. We looked at CSG in the Murray-Darling inquiry. I had the pleasure of sitting in on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for that inquiry, but CSG is going to go everywhere—of course, it is shale gas in WA—and we did not get the chance to properly consider the marine impacts of exporting most of that gas and the port expansions that entails, let alone the pressure on household gas prices from limiting domestic supply.

Lastly, the Greens have been calling for independent Australian studies of the life cycle carbon emissions of coal seam gas. There are none currently, so there is no proof that this so-called transition fuel is any more climate friendly than coal. Let's be clear: now is not the time to be opening up yet another fossil fuel industry. That is why the Greens have been calling for independent Australian studies into the life cycle carbon emissions of coal seam gas and better monitoring of fugitive emissions from leaking gas wells and pipes.

We welcome this bill as a first step towards better protecting our water resources from the risks posed by large coalmining and coal seam gas. The bill, which sets up an independent scientific expert panel to advise on the risks associated with coal seam gas and coal mining projects, recognises that there are serious gaps in the science about the potential threats posed by these industries. We acknowledge the significant reform that Mr Windsor has achieved in securing the government's commitment to this bill and recognise that this is an issue of utmost importance to his region, but it is shared by so many rural communities across eastern Australia. This bill is an improvement on the current state of affairs, where major mining developments are being considered for approval in our prime natural and agricultural areas without being underpinned by adequate and independent science about the risks evolved, but it is toothless. This bill does sets up under our federal environmental laws a committee which can advise governments, but only state governments can act on the advice and even then, under the funding agreement that they get 50 grand for, they only have to consider the advice of this committee.

As a former environmental lawyer, I have seen the weakness of mere consideration. Decision makers can consider information and then totally disagree with it or disregard it. What recourse does the federal government have if state governments choose private profit over the wellbeing of our groundwater-dependent communities, industries or the environment? The answer appears to be: none at all. Unlike other issues regulated by the federal environment act, the federal minister will not be able to call in a project and review the decision because the federal minister has very limited remit to consider water issues.

That brings me to the key problem that we have with this bill: the fact that there is no point in setting up an advisory body on water issues when the minister has no power to act on water impacts under our environmental laws as they currently stand. As people may know, our federal environmental laws are like a silo, so the federal minister can consider only the impacts that are listed in one of those silos, like threatened species, World Heritage areas, Ramsar wetlands and a few others.

Water is not on that list, and water—its depletion and its contamination—is the key problem that communities and the Greens have with coal seam gas. So, while the federal minister has this great expert panel, he or she will only be able to consider its advice in really quite narrow circumstances, where, for example, national threatened species will be impacted. That is fine where there is a groundwater-dependent threatened species, as there is in Queensland, which was why the minister could impose conditions on water for the big three Queensland CSG projects in the first place, but there will not always be groundwater-dependent threatened species on that threatened species list that will allow the federal minister to properly consider the water impacts of mines and coal seam gas.

The minister needs powers to consider water in and of itself. Without that, despite the existence of this new committee, the federal minister will not be able to stop projects where the science indicates that there are broad risks to our communities, our water systems and the environment from these proposals. Those responsibilities will stay with the state governments. Given the states's track record, we think it is high time that the federal government stepped in to manage the major risks posed by these industries to our ground and surface water. To this end, I have introduced a separate bill to protect water from coal seam gas mining which would add the impacts of mining on water to our environmental laws as a matter of national environmental significance.

We will continue to push for the federal government to step up and we hope to secure support for this bill in the Senate in coming months. But the Senate inquiry into that bill recommended that it not be passed, which, unfortunately, shows me that the government and the opposition are really not interested in the federal government playing a proper role to regulate coal seam gas or to refuse it, let alone condition it to try and protect land and water.

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

Excuse me: I am.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012. The bill amends the EPBC Act to establish an independent expert scientific committee on coal seam gas and large coalmining development as a statutory authority. The authority would be responsible for providing federal, state and territory governments with scientific advice on coal seam gas and large coalmining developments which may have significant impacts on water resources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to participate in this debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012—after my colleague Senator McKenzie, from rural Victoria. Like Senator McKenzie, I could not help but laugh when I heard Senator Waters, from Brisbane—the capital city of Queensland—lament the speakers list on this bill and claim that it was the Greens that look after rural and regional Australia. If it were not so tragic, that sort of statement would be funny. Most people who live in rural and regional Australia understand how debilitating the Greens and their policies are for rural and regional Australia.

But I will return to the speakers on today's list. Senator Waters was lamenting that there were not many Labor speakers—and she is right about that—and not many coalition speakers. The speakers on the list before me are Senator Waters, from Brisbane; Senator McKenzie, from rural Victoria, in Bendigo; and myself from rural Queensland, where I live in Ayr, a sugar-growing area. Regrettably, there is not a lot of gas around the lower Burdekin, but I travel widely in rural and regional Queensland.

Then we have Senator Williams from Inverell in New South Wales, in an area where this is very important. We then have Senator Nash from Young out in Western New South Wales, again where the coal seam gas is very important. We have Senator Joyce from St George in rural Queensland, again an area where this is important. Senator Heffernan is from Junee in Western Queensland, again an area where this is a real issue—

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

Rural New South Wales.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, rural New South Wales. Senator Heffernan, how can I possibly accuse you of being a Queenslander, although I know you are a great supporter of things rural and regional and particularly North Queensland and Northern Australia? There we have the speakers list. Senator Waters has the hide to say that the coalition is not interested in this. Enjoy your time in the city of Brisbane, Senator Waters. Those of us who actually live and work in rural and regional Queensland, Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia do really care about rural and regional Australia. It is interesting that I mentioned that list. It is quite interesting to see that there are so many senators on this side of the chamber who live and work in rural Australia. When you look at the other side of the chamber, at the Labor Party and the Greens, very few of them live and work outside of the capital cities of their particular states.

As has been indicated by Senator Richard Colbeck, leading on behalf of the coalition, the coalition will be supporting this bill. The history of this, I understand, is that Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor, in trying to grab back a little bit of favour from their electorates—it would be a futile exercise to do that—proposed the scientific committee and, as part of one or another deal they did with the Independents and Greens—we have lost track of them all—the Labor Party have done this deal to bring this bill forward. We support it with an amendment to ensure that, if it is going to be a scientific committee, it would have a preponderance of scientists.

I just highlight to the Senate that this is a another game of catch-up by the Independents I referred to, the Greens and the Labor Party on an issue that is of particular importance to those of us who live in rural and regional Australia. When I say catch-up, I alert the Senate to the fact that the Queensland government has, as one of its first activities, one of his first actions following the landslide election earlier this year, set up the GasFields Commission. The state government established that GasFields Commission to manage the coexistence between rural landowners, regional communities and the coal seam gas industry. The Queensland GasFields commission is based in Toowoomba. It is formed as a statutory body under legislation that has gone through the Queensland parliament. As part of the Newman LNP government's commitment to give local communities more direct say on the prudent development of the coal seam gas liquefied natural gas industry. That commission has been established. I am delighted to see that it is chaired by a very significant Australian, Mr John Cotter, a former chairperson of the Surat Basin Coal Seam Gas Engagement Group and also a very distinguished past president of AgForce, the major rural lobby in Queensland. John Cotter is a person I have known for a long period of time. With someone of that calibre leading the GasFields Commission, you can be assured that it will work honestly, openly and accountability and will deliver on the goods that it is required to do.

In addition to that, I will tell you who is on the Queensland GasFields Commission board. It includes, as well as Mr Cotter, Mr Don Stiller, a landowner and former mayor of Taroom. Taroom is a shire right in the centre of the coal seam gas assets in Queensland. It also has on the board Mr Ian Hayllor, a cotton farmer and irrigator, who has a long involvement in managing coexistence through his role as Chair of the Basin Sustainability Alliance. There is also Councillor Ray Brown, Mayor of the Western Downs Regional Council, and Mr Rick Wilkinson, the Chief Operating Officer of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association. You have Professor Steven Raine, who is well known as a leading academic and soil scientist from the University of Southern Queensland, a great university based in Toowoomba and, of course, very much involved in issues relating to coal seam gas. As well the board comprises Mr Shane Charles, the CEO of the Toowoomba and Surat Basin Enterprise, who has had more than 20 years experience as a lawyer. This bill is from the Labor Party and the New South Wales Independents—and forgive me, New South Wales Senator, for maligning your estate by referring to those two as New South Welshmen—who are trying to catch up to what the Campbell Newman Liberal National Party government has already done in Queensland.

The role of the GasFields Commission in Queensland is to assess the potential for coexistence. It has power to be provided with information from government agencies within specified time frames, including information provided to government agencies by other parties. It has power to compel landowners, companies and other parties involved with or impacted by the onshore gas industry to provide information relevant to the purpose and functions of the commission and the ability to specify time frames. It has power to publish and communicate information. It has the ability to seek external advice. It has the ability to convene advisory panels and reference groups as required, including convening the Gasfields Community Leaders Council, which is an interesting innovation. The commission also has power to review regulatory frameworks and legislation. As I say, its role is to advise government. It has a dispute resolution capacity. It has an ability to identify, develop and recommend leading practice relating to matters relevant to the commission's purpose. It has other powers and responsibilities to make good recommendations to the government. That is a good indication of what the federal government should have done three or four years ago, not when pushed by one of the two so-called Independent members who prop up the dysfunctional government before us. As always with the Labor Party, they are good on rhetoric and good at trying to play catch-up and follow other people's leads but always a bit slow and a bit dysfunctional in how they work.

I hope that when they consider appointments they do not just go to the normal old group of leftie scientists that you see hanging around the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. I hope when they are looking for a chairman they get someone better than Professor Flannery, whom, you might recall, they appointed to the Climate Commission. This is the guy who warned everybody about six-metre tide rises so that everyone living along a waterway got really scared about the future of their home, then he slipped down and bought a property right on a big river in the north of New South Wales. I hope that the Labor Party, if they are going to appoint people to this commission, actually appoint people who are independent and are experts on this issue and not just, as I say, run-of-the-mill Labor Party branch members or Greens supporters just to give them another sinecure, as the government are so adept at doing.

About 90 per cent of Queensland gas is supplied from coal seam gas operations, and it represents approximately 10 per cent of Australia's gas production. So it is an industry that is particularly important to my home state. In Queensland alone, coal seam gas development is expected to deliver some 18,000 jobs and about $850 million per year in royalties. That is particularly significant for Queensland. I heard former Premier Bligh on the radio last night radio rewriting history in one of these soft interviews by the ALP—sorry, the ABC; excuse me for confusing the ABC and ALP. In that interview, Ms Bligh told us about all the jobs she created in Queensland, because she had made an election promise to do that. She is partly right; she did create a lot of jobs—mostly part-time jobs in the public service. It has been left to the new government to look through the waste of resources and find where public servants were appointed for no other reason than the promise Ms Bligh made that she would create new jobs—so she created them in the public service.

The coal seam gas industry will deliver 18,000 real jobs to Queensland, and this is why the industry is so important and that is why the Queensland government were first off the mark in appointing the Gasfields Commission. As well, the coal seam gas industry will deliver about $850 million each year in royalties to Queensland. That is very important for Queensland. From the days of Joh Bjelke-Petersen and subsequently, Queensland has had the best financial records of any state government around. But under 20 years of Labor, Queensland now has a debt which is bigger than the federal government debt under Hawke and Keating. The Costello commission of audit—which comprised not only the well-known Peter Costello but also the Vice-Chancellor of James Cook University in Townsville, my home town—indicated that the Queensland government was looking at a massive blow-out in its debt position, upwards of $100 billion. And as a result, Queensland lost its long held triple-A credit rating. For ages Queensland had a sound set of books; bring in the Labor Party and the triple-A credit rating was lost and it was downgraded to double-A. Things were destined to get worse, despite Ms Bligh and the former Labor government selling off anything they could get their hands on—like Queensland Rail, after promising they would not do that. They sold the family jewels, so to speak, but we still have this huge debt. This $850 million in royalties from coal seam gas will help the Queensland government coffers and help the government go ahead and create real jobs, real employment, real progress and real activity in my state.

It is very important that this independent expert scientific committee, being set up belatedly by the federal government, does make a contribution and works very closely with the Gasfields Commission of Queensland. It is always very important to say that farmers deserve to be able to farm their lands. They deserve to be treated fairly and equitably in any mining operation. That can be done. It is not rocket science to do that. The coal seam gas industry, the farming community and the towns and communities that make their living out of both farming and mining, including coal seam gas extraction, have to work together. It can be done. It will be done by the Newman government in Queensland because that is a government which can do things—I emphasise 'can do things'—

Senator Furner interjecting—

Here we have one of the few Labor party senators from Queensland who is game to put up their head. He says they are sacking people. They are sacking the sort of people that his party simply put into jobs to honour a promise from Ms Bligh that she would create new jobs in Queensland. As I said before, she did. She just created a few more public service jobs that did absolutely nothing. I have to say that I am, as are most Queenslanders, very grateful to Campbell Newman for getting some sense back into the management of our state. We do need front-line public servants. You have all seen the leaks about the Queensland budget that is coming up. There will be investment in front-line services, not in backroom boys who get there by backroom deals with a Labor Party who has been in power in Queensland for over 20 years, give or take 18 months in the middle, and who had entrenched a system in the bureaucracy that had to change, that will change—and I am delighted that Campbell Newman, the Premier of Queensland, is doing that.

As I said: good luck to Campbell Newman and the GasFields Commission that he set up long before the federal Labor Party got round to doing anything about it. This commission has already got runs on the board. It has started its work. It is well on its way. If the scientific committee that we are setting up today by this legislation is a genuine one, if it is independent and if it is expert, then I know that it will be able to work very closely with the GasFields Commission in ensuring that our rural lands are protected, that our food production is protected and that our farmers and landowners are treated fairly but, at the same time, we have an industry that provides 18,000 jobs and $850 million worth of royalties to my state of Queensland each year. On that basis, I support this bill with the amendment proposed.

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

I also rise to talk on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012. This bill could be in danger of becoming a bill that you use when you want to be seen to be something but doing nothing—it could be. It has the potential to do that. I just point out to the minister's adviser that two government ministers have told me privately that the one thing the federal government knows about coal seam gas—listen carefully—is that they do not want to own the problem. 'Bill, you must understand we don't want to own the problem. Let the states own the problem.' It is a serious problem. I have to say that that is fair enough. If this bill, as the Greens have pointed out, is used as political cover to get everyone past the next election, including the coalition, good luck to you all. But if it is used, as Senator Macdonald has pointed out, to effectively dissect the problem, analyse where it is going to take us and do something about it, it will be a good thing.

Sure, I chaired the coal seam gas inquiry. There has been a lot of thunder and lightning since then. No-one has been able to shoot down the inquiry of the Senate, of which Senator Nash was a member. When Anna Bligh rang me about it, I said, 'Anna, you haven't read the inquiry's findings, but you will find that the government also signed up to the unanimous report.' In fact, she had not even read her own advice, the Queensland advice, which said, 'Do not proceed till you've done certain things.' But, because they had two of the large miners already approved before they got the advice, they gave approval to the third large miner—without naming them, but everyone knows who they are—to go ahead with mining based not on the new science, which said, 'Beware of this,' but on the fact that the other two miners had got their approval. It was a political decision.

So I ask the chamber and I will ask John Cotter, who I know well—he is a good bloke, and I will be putting some weight on him—to make sure this is not a bullshit process, because the debate has been. Yes, Madam Acting Deputy President, you are wondering about that. Do you want me to withdraw it?

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

I think so.

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

Righto. It is a wooden-headed process.

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

Thank you.

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

But there are a few simple questions that this committee has to answer. As we all know—but I will say this for those who do not know—coal seam gas has reserves of, probably, 490 TCF, which is trillion cubic feet in the old language, which converts to about 480 PJ—petajoules. That is, according to Minister Ferguson, roughly two centuries of supplies of gas. Anyone that was on the committee is tuned into the argument about protecting farming land, but a lot of the banking thinkers in parliament are not tuned into it because of the huge amounts of money involved and the royalties et cetera. But I hope this committee gives consideration to where we are going to be in 100 years, because, believe it or not, there is potentially as much gas out in Central Australia as there is in all the prime farming areas. The only problem is that the miners do not want to get it because it is more expensive to get it to the coast, because the bulk of this gas is destined for export.

Santos have won the lottery amongst the miners. Santos have a lot of the gas tied up in Central Australia. They say, and the New South Wales government says, and Barry O'Farrell has said—and thank God he took a bit of my advice—that, if you are driving in a fog, you turn your lights on and slow down. To his credit, he is trying to do that. But Santos are holding the cards for New South Wales, because they have plenty of unexploited gas reserves. At the present time, with the exploited gas reserves, New South Wales has four years of supply left, and no doubt Santos will be trying to get the best commercial deal for themselves with New South Wales in rewriting the contracts, because they have plenty of supplies left out there.

We took some information in the inquiry, and I hope this new committee listens, and I wish I were on this new committee; that is a message to the government. We discovered that it takes about 300 to 400 years to rebalance some of the aquifers that are being extracted now. So when APPEA—who, to their great credit, I debated the other night in the concert hall in Angel Place in Sydney, and they lost; there were over 800 people there—put out a thing the other day which said everything is jake, the CSIRO had to correct them, but the gas industry did not accept the correction. They said, 'We note your comments.' That is the danger for this committee—I hope the Senate is listening—because that is the industry being told by Australia's most eminent scientists that what they put out in a press release was wrong, yet the industry did not take the correction. They just said, 'We note your comments,' which is bloody absurd.

Can I just say that no-one in this debate has been able to explain to me—I hope this new committee do, and it will be wonderful if they do, because it will probably shut the industry down under the present arrangements—what they are going to do with the annual production of 700,000 tonnes of granulated salt. Granulated salt stores uncompressed—that is, coarse granulated salt, and bear in mind that I do not have any notes, Wacka—at 806 kilograms per cubic metre. So with the 700,000 tonnes, because it stacks at 32 degrees, if you stack it 10 metres high then it is going to be 32 metres wide and 5½ kilometres long. That is the annual salt extraction under the present proposed extraction rates of coal seam gas. Twenty million tonnes of salt for the known life of the known tenements for which there is no useful purpose, no safe storage. It is the most toxic substance for agriculture. When we asked them, 'What are you going to do with this salt?' they said, 'We're going to store it in an approved storage.' What is an approved storage? They did not know. Yet the Queensland government, in their rush, because they are broke, as is New South Wales, to get the money said, 'Go ahead. We'll figure that out later.' No known safe storage; no known commercial purpose. We on the committee—and I hope this new committee takes the advice—say that this salt should not be stored in the Murray-Darling Basin, in an agricultural area. Go figure out the cost of fixing that. When the CSIRO says—they have said this to the Senate committee—that some of it will take, depending on the aquifer, 300 to 400 years to rebalance the aquifer, I hope this new committee does not just say, 'We note that.' To get to the contamination of the water is another issue.

In the United States they have been locked up in the courts for 20 years arguing about this. Bakersfield is suing a miner for $2 billion because the miner has permanently contaminated the water supply, and yet we are saying, 'We'll keep going'—because the industry is keeping on going—and part of the politics and all the garbage behind the wooden headed people is that we need the gas. Santos has more gas than they know what to do with if they want to exploit it in South Australia. We absolutely do not know the connectivity with the aquifers. We do know—we took evidence on the Walloon Springbok aquifer being contaminated—that several bores out in paddocks were dewatered.

What was the Queensland government's attitude to this? Bear in mind that John Cotter has to deal with this. They said, 'We're not going to take a precautionary principle approach to this. We're going to take a make-good principle, so that after the damage is done we'll come along and repair it.' As I said to them, 'All right, I've got 500 cows at the back of Longreach or somewhere, at Roma, on a bore, and it has disappeared.' The reason these things disappear, to put it into language that people can understand, is: two big fat blokes are leaning against a thin fibro wall; one walks away from the wall and the other bloke falls through the wall. But, while they were both leaning against the wall, the wall stayed in place. That is exactly what is happening under the ground. We have low geological fault lines and Mother Nature has balanced the pressures. It is like putting a prick in a balloon—once you depressure one you alter the behaviour of the aquifer. That is what is happening. The CSIRO does not know the answer. They have told us that. We do not know the answer. What the Queensland government has said—and I presume others will say this in due course, and maybe even the Victorian government will say this, because they think the attraction of the royalties and the gas is more important than where Mother Earth is going to be in 100 or 200 years—is, 'We'll fix all that up later.'

In the United States there is shale gas. Senator Nash, the committee wants to look at the shale gas industry. By the way, at the Olympic Dam site they were going to have to dewater an aquifer in the process of getting to the new uranium resource base down there. In the United States some of the wells are 80 years old and, like some of the buildings in Darling Point in Sydney, the salt gets at them and they fall apart. The concrete rusts. Over in the United States they are locked up in the courts as to who is legally responsible. The Queensland government has taken a decision whereby the legal responsibility of a miner ceases when they seal the well—and the problem may not occur for another 50 years! So, Wacka, your grandkids will have to deal with that. These are problems that this committee—and I will be on them like nobody's business—has got to solve, because we do not have an answer to this stuff.

It is a great trick to buy your science—and that is what the coal seam gas industry has been doing. Good luck to them. If they can solve these problems then I am happy to have the industry. Let us take Origin Energy. At the present time there are about 40,000 wells in Queensland, and two of Origin's tenements are going to produce in their life four million tonnes of granulated salt. So we are talking about a stack that is not 32 metres wide but 70-odd metres wide, 10 metres high and 25 kilometres long. That is just from one licence holder's known tenements. I note that in the debate with the mining club—and, by the way, the mining club sent out an email saying, 'Let's stack Recital Hall, out at Angel Place, with mining people,' which they did not succeed in doing and we succeeded in winning the debate—they did not want to talk about salt. Rick Wilkinson did not want to talk about salt. He did not want to talk about contamination of the aquifers, because the industry does not know the answer. Yet we are saying: 'She'll be right, mate. She'll be right on the night.' So the industry has bought the science.

A lot of the science going on at the universities is now paid for by industry. In the case of agriculture, it is paid for by Monsanto and other people who exploit research. They are putting in the money. And, sure, they are giving out footy jumpers to various towns—you know, 'We're great for the town.' Go to Roma: the rent was $220 or $240 for a three-bedroom home; it is now $850. So, if you are working at a service station, you cannot afford to rent a home. What we need to do is to make sure that this committee is smart enough to understand when it is being had with science. Achieving independent science is very difficult if the government does not put up the money for it. Industry is smart enough to know this. It is like having a good tax accountant: if the tax law changes you get a good accountant to manage your affairs to get around the new law.

Here is a press release from my good friend Martin Ferguson—I think he is a cousin of mine—which says that there are 390 trillion cubic feet—10 times the size of Gorgon—of known possible reserves in Australia. So we have got a good reserve. We have enough reserves in Central Australia not to have to go into the farming land. I have to say that, to his credit, James Balderstone said to the committee: 'We won't go where we're not invited.' Not too many have done that. Also there will be—and there should be—no-go zones, because, as everyone has heard me say for some years now, the global food task is going to be far more important than the global energy task. By 2050, barring a human catastrophe, there will be nine billion people on the planet and 50 per cent of those people will be poor for water. It is estimated that one billion people will be unable to feed themselves—all science has some vagary in it. Also, two-thirds of the world's population will be living in Asia, with 30 per cent of the productive land of Asia having gone out of production, and the food task doubling. If you think the present situation with people coming across from Indonesia is a problem, there will be six billion people on the planet who will possibly be displaced. That is a much bigger problem than the global energy task.

I want to raise one other issue, which is a change in the law in Queensland. An amendment bill went through parliament last week, without any apparent consultation with peak landholder groups, which will see hundreds of Queensland farmers unable to claim compensation for the impacts of coal seam gas and other petroleum development on their business and lifestyle. Guess what?

In a change via the Mines Legislation (Streamlining) Amendment Bill that was considered minor by the present government, the definition of the occupier of the land was altered in the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004. The change effectively means that farmers who operate their business through family trusts, companies or partnerships without formal leasing agreements in place may find themselves ineligible for compensation. This is a sleight of hand by the government: 'Come to the footy box with us. Here's a glass of wine.' The amended wording of this act now effectively means that only the occupiers are those with registered leases. So if a share farmer gets his crop ruined for some reason, he cannot claim compensation under the act. Now that is another one for Mr Cotter to deal with.

I will come to the detail of that in due course because I am running out of time, but these are the outrageous things that go on behind the scenes. I have to say I am pretty distressed about the fact that the government would be so cunning as to do something like that. Whose side are they on? Sure, more people live in the western suburbs than all of rural Australia, and in New South Wales all but 12 per cent of people live in Sydney, Wollongong and Newcastle and they all think the food is in Coles, Woolies and ALDI. We have got to think about where it is going to be by 2070 with 12 billion people on the planet, barring a human catastrophe, and China having to feed half of its population from someone else's resource—which is why I have to hurry up to 1S3 and have a discussion about foreign investment, which is all about the changing world, the redefinition of sovereignty and sovereign wealth funds. I think even China, the central government, is getting the message that we do not want them to be able to come out here under the old foreign takeovers act, which it is—and the Foreign Investment Review Board aims up that and, to his credit, Brian Wilson recognises it—and treat whatever they acquire here as the homeland back home.

But back to this: it has been a great pleasure to be able to address the Senate. I would like to put John Cotter and this committee on notice that we do not want a political fix that gets everyone past the next election. We do not want the federal government to say, 'We don't own the problem. This is a way of getting around it.' This committee can only give advice; it cannot compel anyone. They can tell them to go to hell like the gas industry told the CSIRO to go to hell. I would like to be on it but, failing that, I will be watching it. Thanks.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the previous speakers, my colleagues Senator Macdonald and Senator Heffernan: Senator Heffernan for highlighting—and of course Senator McKenzie; my apologies for that, thank you, Senator Macdonald—the importance of the protection of the long-term environment. Being in this place is all about managing our nation for future generations. I say that when I look back on what our previous generations did in this country: establishing the land; establishing our exports; the shearers getting our first industry off the ground for our first exports; and what our predecessors did to preserve Australia for us. It is our obligation to see that we preserve Australia for future generations, not just for 20, 30 or 40 years; let us look down the road at 400 or 500 years time and how we are going to see Australia. This is what we need to protect.

The coalition will not be opposing this legislation. I was quite alarmed at a public meeting in Gloucester several months ago where the member for Lyne, Mr Oakeshott, said, 'This legislation will overrule the state's legislation.' That is wrong. We know that is not going to be the case, and Mr Oakeshott perhaps should not tell porky pies at public meetings like that or anywhere else. But to say that this would overrule the state legislation is simply wrong. We know the Constitution. We know who is responsible for land. Of course it is the Crown, the state. We also know that, until 1981, oil, coal seam gas and coal under the ground was the right of the property owner in New South Wales. But, of course, the then Neville Wran Labor government took those rights off the farmers. Back in 1915 in Queensland and I think in 1971 in South Australia those property rights were removed from the farmers.

There is no question that we live in a world of energy. We are not going to see farmers go back to the Clydesdale horse or the single-furrow mouldboard plough and go out and farm their couple of acres. The world would not be fed if we went back to those days. We need energy, but we need to make sure that we protect our land. I believe that the greatest asset Australia has is the topsoil, the farm soil, the important six inches of soil on top of our farming land that has to grow our nation's food—not only for us but also for the millions of people around the world who rely on Australia to feed them. As Senator Heffernan said, with a projection of more than nine billion people on this planet by 2050, more and more the world will rely on Australia to feed those people. If we do not, people will starve—and desperate people lead to desperate situations.

I just want to comment on a point that Senator Macdonald made in relation to Queensland looking for royalties et cetera. I was thinking only the other night that back in 1996, when Mr Howard and his team were elected to government in Australia, we had a population of around 19 million and the debt was $96 billion. We are now seeing Queensland with a debt of around $70 billion—going to $85 billion by 2015 or 2016 and talking $100 billion before 2020. That is not 19 million people; that is about 4½ million people. Queensland is effectively bankrupt. It has had its credit rating downgraded, as Senator Macdonald said, and it is paying high interest rates. Now, of course, the Newman government has to make hard and unpopular decisions to try to save Queensland from going bankrupt. But that is typical once you have had years of a Labor government; everyone knows that the cheque account is left empty—not only empty but way, way down into the red.

After many decades of balanced budgets and being debt free, Queensland grew into a great state—with tourism, primary industries, the expansion of rural power right out to the western areas of the state and the bitumen roads. A great state was built during the sixties, seventies and eighties, but sadly we now see the financial mess that Queensland is in now. And, hence, we come back to this very important legislation that we are talking about. Senator Heffernan made the point that we cannot rush this and spoke about Premier Barry O'Farrell in New South Wales saying, 'When in a fog put your headlights on.' What a good analogy! If we rush this and we destroy our environment for future generations, they will look back at us and say, 'Why did you pollute our underground water? Why did you bring all that salt out and why is it being washed around the place now?'

I want to refer to New South Wales, being a senator from New South Wales. It was a New South Wales Labor government that went out willy-nilly issuing exploration licenses, huge licenses everywhere. For example, we had Shenhua in the Liverpool Plains—that magnificent farming country where the country there is so flat. Mother Nature has built it so flat that if one of the large dams there is full of water and there is some wind, it will go for hundreds of metres along the farmland. That is how flat the land is. There are huge supplies of water under that ground. If you planted the Liverpool Plains country down into vegetables—and Senator Nash would have more idea than I would, having been on a committee—you would be able to feed millions and millions of people. It is great country, with great soil, and a lot of the area has a tremendous amount of water underneath it. That cannot be damaged. There is no point going into 20 or 30 years of extracting energy to destroy farming country for thousands of years. Remember when I started this speech I said it is about the future—not just 20 or 30 years, but hundreds of years to come. That is what we need to protect.

I pay credit to the New South Wales government, who have not issued an exploration licence or a mining licence and have banned many of the chemicals in the fracking process that can cause damage. I will quote from one of Minister Chris Hartcher's media releases, which says:

Minister for Resources and Energy, Chris Hartcher today released a draft Code of Practice for CSG explorers and new Community Consultation Guidelines as part of a suite of tough controls regulating the industry under the NSW Government’s Strategic Lands package.

It is still coming out; it has been put on ice. They have slowed down because they realise the dangers this could cause to farmland and the danger for future generations. The media release further says:

The draft Code will be released for public comment for a period of eight weeks to allow the community and stakeholders to have a say.

I notice that the President of the NSW Farmers Association, Ms Fiona Simson, says that the NSW Farmers Association are not against mining but they are adamant about protecting their farmland, and so they should be. I often think that in this country we take the supply of food for granted. I remember back in 1995—and I remember the time well because that is when my father passed away—when a parish priest, Father Joe Adriano, came to Inverell and one night we sat next to a creek fishing. He is from the Philippines. He said to me, 'John, you are so lucky in Australia.' I said, 'Why is that, Father Joe? He said, 'You walk into your supermarkets and your supermarket shelves are full of food. You walk into the butcher shop and there is meat everywhere. In the Philippines many of the shelves are empty; they simply do not stock the food.' That is what this legislation is about: a scientific study, $150 million, I believe, to see that we do not mess this up, so that our supermarket shelves, our butcher shops and our fruit and vegetable shops are full of food, that we do not leave our country in a desperate state.

Senator Heffernan and his committee have done an enormous amount of work on this, and their inquiry is continuing. I am very pleased that it is in the hands of Senator Heffernan. He has a huge amount of knowledge of this issue. It is about protecting the environment for the long term, not destroying it for short-term gain. It must be protected for thousands of years to come. The legislation establishes an independent expert scientific committee on coal seam gas and large coalmining development. It will advise on research priorities and bioregional assessments in areas of high potential impact from coal seam gas and/or large coalmining developments, and provide the environment minister and state and territory ministers with expert scientific advice on developments that have a significant impact on water resources. States only have to take into account the advice; they do not need to act. It will not change existing exploration or extraction licences; indeed nothing will change due to this legislation.

We need to protect prime agricultural land. We need to provide farmers with a real return not just compensation and we need to make real investments in regional Australia. The Independents have received no assurance on any of these matters when doing this deal with the Gillard-Green-Independent alliance government that is supposedly running this country.

This matter of course has been debated strongly at National Party gatherings. At our federal council in August last year, the Nationals adopted a coal seam gas policy. We are saying that, if properly managed, coal seam gas has the potential to revitalise parts of regional Australia, delivering a new economic boom; if poorly managed, it could become an environmental and social disaster. That is what the balance of this is, and I think Senator Heffernan made it quite clear: poorly managed it could become an environmental and social disaster.

I have seen the economic benefits of this. In July last year, I took my wife away for a week's holiday to Queensland. We got advice from Senator Macdonald: 'Because of the floods et cetera, we need to get behind Queensland. If you are going on a holiday, go to Queensland.' We had seven days off—two days driving up to Airlie Beach, three days at Airlie Beach and two days driving home. In seven days off, we had four days on the road, which was good because my wife and I have always lived in rural Australia and we wanted to look at the cattle, the pasture feed and the crops et cetera. When got to Injune, it was dark and there were kangaroos about so we thought we would check into a motel for the night. Senator Macdonald is laughing and I know why. We could not get a motel room in Injune. Luckily, they work closely with the motels in Roma and there was one motel room left there. So we went down and stayed the night at the Budget Motel in Roma, where there are great proprietors and we had a lovely meal at the restaurant. I said to the manager, 'Are you full all the time?' He said, 'Basically.' It is a boom for hotels, motels and restaurants. This is the wealth it is bringing into some of these regional communities. When you go to other towns that do not have a big industry like that you wonder how the businesses are surviving. Retail sales are down and retailers are doing it really tough.

So it does bring economic benefits, but I come back to the point about managing the environment. That is the critical issue here. This scientific committee will, hopefully, have a huge input into the protection of our farmland and the balance needed. There is worry about what is being proposed. There have been huge protests and outbursts, and certainly people have stated their side of the argument on the Liverpool Plains, that magnificent part of the country. I have visited areas in Queensland where these measures have also been proposed. Landowners are very concerned and so they should be. We are lucky enough to live in this country. Regardless of how long we live, the land will stay afterwards. When we pass away the land will not disappear; it will be here for good, hopefully. Managing that land is of vital importance.

I want to discuss the five points that emerged from the National Party Federal Council last August. First, no coal seam gas development can be granted if it damages aquifers or water quality. That is absolutely essential. As Senator Heffernan has pointed out, if we destroy that aquifer we can destroy the irrigation ability of that productive land for thousands of years to come—not only hundreds but thousands of years. Second, coal seam gas development must not compromise prime agricultural land. We must protect our ability to deliver food security, not only for our nation but, as I said earlier, for a hungrier world for generations to come. Third, coal seam gas development should not occur close to residential areas. Those who have reasonable expectation of a quiet life around their homes should be able to enjoy it. Fourth, payments to landowners should not be limited to compensation. They deserve a proper return on the development of resources that occurs on their land. Fifth, the regions that deliver much of the wealth from coal seam gas deserve a fair share of the revenues to be reinvested in their communities. In other words, if wealth is created in a regional area, some of the tax collected by this place should go back there to help their infrastructure and give them a fair share. That is where the wealth cake of this nation is produced, basically: in rural and regional areas, whether it be agriculture, mining or whatever. Of course, there is also a lot of regional tourism and, in many areas, education.

The big concern to me is the damage to underground aquifers and the pollution caused when fluids are drawn from the ground to get the gas running. They are the two big concerns and we have to consider how we deal with them. As I said, if we destroy our environment, generations and generations to come will say: 'What did they do back then in those early years of the 21st century? Why didn't they care about the future? Why did they leave us in this mess?' That is what we cannot allow to happen. It is about protecting our environment for future generations, especially our farmlands.

The New South Wales farmers have played a vital role communicating with the New South Wales government. It is essentially a state issue under the Constitution. This scientific committee may be of great assistance. Before we do anything wrong, let us make sure we get this right and learn more about the difficult issues that will emerge. No doubt the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee will learn as they go along in this inquiry towards delivering their recommendations, because this will be an ongoing issue. One inquiry may conclude; then another will start up when another problem comes along. This is about getting the management right. As I said, future generations will be unforgiving if we make a mess of this. We hope the legislation coming through, along with scientific knowledge, research and learning, will assist in ensuring that process is done properly. But it is going to be a tough ask. As I said, it was quite amazing when the member for Lyne stated that this scientific committee can overrule the states. That is wrong; that is not correct. The states have control and we need to support them in every way we can. We need to ensure that the states do their job correctly through all sorts of state bodies to see that the environment, especially our farms, is protected for many generations to come.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make remarks on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012. In doing so I have to echo some of your comments, Madam Acting Deputy President McKenzie, and comments of Senator Ian Macdonald about our mirth on hearing comments of Greens Senator Waters about the Greens being the only ones representing the regional communities. I do not want to verbal Senator Waters, so this is not exact, but she gave the impression that the Greens were the only ones representing the regional communities. This gave rise to a certain ironic degree of mirth. I know Senator Waters is genuine in her intent, but for the Greens to say they are in any way, shape or form the champions of regional Australia is absolutely ridiculous. It is so far off the mark I do not know where to start.

Firstly, let us take the carbon tax. The Greens support a carbon tax, probably one that is much tougher than the one we have at the moment. What is that going to do? It is going to hit regional communities harder than anywhere else. Farmers are at the bottom of the food chain. All of the extra costs on electricity, transport, fuel and fertiliser are going to land with the farmer and there is nowhere to pass those costs on. Secondly, the Greens want a higher target for the Murray-Darling Basin water extraction. They want to take more water from regional communities. How that is going to help regional communities or prove that the Greens are the champions of regional communities is completely beyond me. The Greens were instrumental in the government making the decision to shut down the live export trade—indeed, they want it shut down all together. The list goes on. They want to end logging in native forests and we know the impact that would have on regional communities. For Senator Waters to say that the Greens are the only party championing regional communities is absolutely laughable. I ask the Australian people to have a look at exactly what the Greens stand for and exactly what they have in their policies, including things like death duties, and not just take on face value comments by Greens in this chamber that they are the champions of regional communities, because they clearly are not.

The issue at hand today is coal seam gas. I have to say that the Nationals over a year ago pushed very hard to get a Senate inquiry into coal seam gas. I also acknowledge the very real concerns of the chair of the committee, Senator Bill Heffernan. While Senator Heffernan and I might not always see eye to eye, he certainly has a great deal of knowledge and I have a great deal of respect for the way he is doing his job as chair of that committee, as he well knows. I know Senator Macdonald has also had some real concerns about coal seam gas. The committee very thoroughly looked at the whole issue of coal seam gas. We ended up with 24 recommendations that, after some very intensive work, we believed will go some way to addressing this issue.

What becomes immediately apparent, and I think this is the key for everyone, is there is a range of things but the key issue is the impact of coal seam gas mining on aquifers. We all agree that mining where it is appropriate does have some benefit for regional communities, and I think most people acknowledge that. What we have to do, though, is make sure that mining is undertaken where it is appropriate. I know that Senator Joyce would agree with me on precisely this point, that where appropriate it should go forward. It is where it is not appropriate, it is where the impact is going to be negative, that we have to be absolutely sure that we have the policy framework right to make sure that those regional communities are not harmed in any way, shape or form.

The potential impact on the aquifer is huge. Senator Heffernan was absolutely right when he said there are so many unanswered questions. There is such a lack of detail in so many areas. The CSIRO indeed, as Senator Heffernan said, could not answer many of our questions. It becomes absolutely clear that the work needs to be done. The coalition will absolutely be supporting this piece of legislation. We will support government and Independent legislation where it is good, where it aligns with our policy. We often hear—don't we, Senator Joyce—that we are maligned for the fact that we are saying no and speaking against government policy. If the Labor government did not continue to give us such bad policy, we would not have to say no. It is as simple as that. This is one occasion where we are certainly supporting this piece of legislation, because it is a good step forward in terms of the oversight.

The potential impact on the aquifer is not something that you can change down the track by throwing money at it. That is apples and oranges. If there is irreversible damage done to aquifers you cannot fix them by throwing a bucket of money at them. You simply cannot do it. That is why it is so key that we get it absolutely right. While I recognise that this is predominantly a state issue, there is obvious capacity for Commonwealth involvement as this goes forward.

I commend the New South Wales state government, particularly the Nationals, for putting some focus on this and for trying to find a way forward that is going to make sure we get the right outcomes. It was the state Labor government that made such a mess of this and did not do one thing to try and address the concerns that were being raised by the community. To their credit, the New South Wales state government has. I also place on record my commendation for the Central Council Natural Resources and Energy Policy Committee that put in an excellent submission to the draft strategic regional land use plan, again showing the Nationals' very real concern and understanding of this issue, the impact that bad decisions have had and the impact that not making the right decisions going forward will have.

On this side of the chamber the coalition is very pleased that the government is taking this issue seriously. A year ago no-one was really talking about this. No-one was really saying anything about it. I have to say that I am very proud of the fact that it was the Nationals that pushed so hard to start having this issue addressed. My colleagues have done a tremendous job in making sure that we do address the issue, because it has to be done. I am a farmer; I live in the middle of New South Wales; I have been to the Liverpool Plains that Senator Williams was so eloquently describing before, and there are serious issues up there. They do not want to get it wrong. I completely understand that, because it is an issue of potentially impacting our prime agricultural land, our food producing land. There is no doubt that food security is going to be one of the key issues for this nation in decades to come. There is absolutely no way around that. Anybody who has any sort of foresight into where we are going as a nation and how we are going to plan knows that we have to take food security as a key priority as we go forward over the coming decades.

Tied into that is that we have to make sure that our policy around coal seam gas mining is absolutely right and does not have any negative impact on the food producing land, otherwise we are going to potentially compromise our food security into the future. Every time I say that, somebody jumps up and down and says, 'We export more than 60 per cent of what we produce. It's not going to be an issue, and food security's fine,' and I absolutely agree today, now, but that sort of short-term thinking is not going to place us as a nation where we need to be in 30, 40 or 50 years time. The decisions we make now about our prime agricultural land and how it is operated and how we make sure we remove any threats are vitally important to how we are going to be standing in food security in 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years down the track for our next generations.

We hear a lot of discussion around the carbon tax debate, around global warming and around the next generations. It is absolutely vital for future generations that we get this right, because we cannot reverse it. If we have a negative impact on the aquifers, if our aquifers are stuffed because bad policy allowed that to happen, we cannot fix it with a bucketload of money. It is absolutely impossible, and that is why we are being so vigilant on this side of the chamber about making sure we get it right.

There are a whole range of areas we need to cover. My colleague Senator Williams raised before, as did my very good colleague sitting behind me here, Senator McKenzie, the fact that the Nationals nearly a year ago now had their principles out in place about how we saw the future for coal seam gas, and we were absolutely focused on making sure we got this right in terms of the principles.

Obviously, no coal seam gas development should occur where there is going to be a potential impact on the aquifers that I have discussed. We need to make sure that we protect our prime agricultural land. We need to make sure that people in residential areas are not untowardly impacted by the development of coal seam gas. They have gone there for 'quiet enjoyment' of the area—I think that is the phrase Senator Joyce uses so eloquently; and I am sure he will be discussing this as well. It is about people's right to have that.

It is also about regions being able to benefit from any of this development. We need to be very clear that regional communities in the future do deserve a return; they do deserve to be the beneficiaries of expansion and of the growth of the nation. Far too often we see regional communities being left behind. We see this divide that still exists between city and country. John Anderson gave a speech—I think it was way back in about 2001—called 'Two Nations', discussing bridging the divide between city and country. I do not know that we have actually progressed far since then.

When we look at this whole picture of coal seam gas development, where are the opportunities for the regions? Where is the potential benefit for those regions as a result of development in this area? We are certainly not saying: 'Shut the industry down'. Of course we are not; that would be simplistic and stupid, and we are not saying that. What we are saying is: it has to be where it is appropriate and all of these things have to be taken into account.

We need to see a return for landholders. This industry has really been like a horse getting out of a stable and bolting before anybody realised what was going on, particularly when we look to Queensland and the amount of coal seam gas development there has been there. With respect to the pecuniary interest of the landholder, it has been so ad hoc to date, when the coal seam gas development is on their land. So much of it has been in secret, as we found through the Senate inquiry. There has not been transparency. There has been no template, if you like, for how this should happen. As a result of that, Senator Joyce and I made some additional comments, when we reported on the coal seam gas inquiry, saying that there should be a default position that the titleholder of the land should be entitled to one per cent of the gross income from the wellhead on the property.

For all intents and purposes, that was to get some structure into this, to get some process, so that landholders knew a base from which they could work. It was so they would know there would be something underpinning the arrangements and the discussions with somebody developing or a company developing coal seam gas on their land. It certainly seemed just fair that as a starting point we at least have a discussion around what is appropriate and not just leave it to nebulous discussion around the issue between companies and landholders.

I can absolutely understand why landholders get so—I will not say 'emotional' because it is not just emotion; they are actually basing this on fact and how they see the future of their regions—intense and so strident in their views about the coal seam gas development and indeed in their local regions. Quite often, even where the coal seam gas development proposal might not even be on their land but is next door, those landholders do not look to get any benefit from a company that is looking to develop on that land and yet they still may well be very much impacted.

Some time ago I was in the Liverpool Plains, and I thank Judi Sheedy, Xavier Martin and others there who were very clear in painting the picture of how they saw the impact on their land and on their community from the development of coal seam gas. And I come back to the issue of 'where appropriate'. If it is not appropriate, it simply should not be going ahead.

Senator Heffernan was absolutely right when he said that there are still so many unanswered questions. This committee will hopefully go some way to eking out the information that we need and some of the answers that we need, so that we can be absolutely certain that there is going to be no negative impact on this land and on these communities from coal seam gas mining. We certainly do not have all the answers here today and we certainly support the government in the committee that they have put together. It is a step forward, but we have to be absolutely vigilant. I think Senator Heffernan may have used the word 'vigilant', or he may have used another more colourful word—expert in colour and movement that he is. But he is absolutely right: we have to be vigilant about how we now go forward.

As I have said before, if we make mistakes, there is so often no path to rectify. I think we are all in agreement that we have to get it right. We absolutely have to get it right. There is no room for hit and miss. There is no room for, 'Oh, well, maybe it will be okay,' or 'Perhaps that will be alright.' There is no room for that at all. It has to be underpinned on science—and herein lies one of the reasons that the coalition is supporting this bill. We are supporting this because it is an independent expert scientific committee.

I do note that the coalition moved in the other place an amendment around the issue of the qualifications for those on the committee. We wanted it to be much more specific and to include but not be limited to those with qualifications relating to ecology, geology, hydrology, hydrogeology, natural resource management and health. That is just sensible. We felt that there needed to be a lot more rigour around the appointment and the qualifications that those members of the committee would have. It made sense to get that right so that this committee can appropriately do the work. I understand the concerns around the lack of enforceability, but it is indeed at least a step forward.

We on this side of the chamber know that this issue is absolutely core to regional communities—absolutely core. While some might say that not enough has been done, I can certainly guarantee those people that we will be doing absolutely everything we can to make sure that there is no negative impact on those landholders and those communities. The Nationals are absolutely mindful that we have to get this right. We absolutely have to get this right. We will not brook anything that is going to create a negative impact for those regional communities, that is going to have a negative impact on those aquifers or that is going to have a negative impact on that prime agricultural land. That is core—that is what we do, and we will continue to do it and we will continue to make sure that we get the best outcomes that we possibly can for those people who live in rural and regional communities.

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

I rise today to add my comments to those of my colleagues Senator Nash, Senator Williams and Senator McKenzie. I think it is also important at this juncture to acknowledge others who, although at times I might fight absolutely virulently against, have had a part in this too. I would like to commend the work on this issue that Tony Windsor has done. I think it is important that an issue such as coal seam gas rise above a partisan political position and become something that represents a joint concern.

I also acknowledge the concerns that are held by the Greens, and I also commend the Labor Party for their approval of this appropriation so that we can try to get somewhere and move forward with this—that tortured term 'moving forward'!

Just in the last fortnight, I have spent some time at the University of Southern Queensland with Professor Jan Thomas and Professor Steven Raine, discussing precisely how to do a greater investigation of some of the quandaries around coal seam gas. We have had a period where a portion of the Condamine River has basically been expressing gas. Gas has been bubbling up, almost champagne-like, and people are starting to ask where this comes from and what is causing this. We also had an old well that caught on fire. To be honest, I do not think it would be a coal seam gas well; it was probably more of a research well, and that also raises concerns.

The concerns that everybody has, of course, surround the fact that, when we get to this issue of 'make good', you cannot actually make good. If you get this wrong, that is it. In a town like mine, St George, our water supply that we use for domestic use comes from underground; it is bore water. If you compromise that in some way then we do not have a water supply in town. We have river water that is used on gardens, but the water supply for the town is bore water. The water supply for stock use, which supports the cattle industry, is bore water. You have all the intricacies that are there with something that is so complicated. You cannot compromise it or you will destroy it.

To give you an example, we are finding that some of the water that they have been bringing up in test samples —they can test the last time it saw light; I do not understand it, but there is an isotope that signifies how long it has been away from light—has been away from sunlight for 10 million years. That means you are borrowing from a resource that was put in place 10 million years ago. That is an interesting sort of bank account to be reaching into. Obviously you are borrowing from a weather event of 10 million years ago. This means you have to be absolutely focused on the fact that the resource you are using is an extremely precious one. Water runs downhill. If you take water from the bottom of an aquifer, quite obviously things are going to percolate and permeate down. Whether that happens overnight or over hundreds of years I do not know; that is for research to find out.

So I hope that in this appropriation funds are moved to a university that is proximate to that area—that is, the University of Southern Queensland, which is in the middle of that area—and has the capacity to deal with issues such as this and that, in so doing, people are able to go out into the field that is literally at their back door. I know that the farmers east of the Condamine River have a facility that is not down in Brisbane, partially sponsored by the mining companies. There is one in Brisbane, but the mining companies are among the people that support it, which might call into question the independence. I am sure they wouldn't not be independent, but it could possibly call into question how it is perceived in regard to their independence. I think it is very important to have one that is unambiguously independent—that is, it is fully funded by the government—and is in situ in the area, which is the Darling Downs. That would be the University of Southern Queensland. So I recommend that the government look at utilising the facilities that are present at the University of Southern Queensland, because they are on board with this and are fully aware of it. If we want to try to dispel some of the fears that are there then the best place to do it is one that is in the backyard of the people who hold—and rightly hold—the greatest fears around the uncertainties of coal seam gas.

We acknowledge that the coal seam gas industry is going to continue, and I suppose that is where there is a difference between us and other political parties. We are not calling for a moratorium on coal seam gas, because of the vast investment that is already in place. We do say that there are areas of prime agricultural land where coal seam gas should not be. Prime agricultural land is seen in its most evident form once you get east of the Condamine River, Haystack Plains, Jimbour Plains and Breeza Plains. These areas are unambiguous. They are a very small portion of the Australian agricultural footprint but they are quite obviously prime agricultural lands. If you want to look at the economic advantage of it—I find the process of that argument rather insidious—then you have to look at the forward cash flow of these assets over thousands of years, because that is how long they will be here for. As assets, they go for tens of thousands of years, and if you compromise those assets you cannot get them back.

Prime agricultural land is the most vital asset. To be honest, if we need another Harbour Bridge we can build one. If we need another Opera House then, if we really want to, we can build one. If we need another Stock Exchange, we can set one up. But, if we need another section of prime agricultural land, we cannot get it. The only prime agricultural land that is present on the planet is what is here now—that is it. So it is the most precious of resources; it is the most limited of resources. Even if you want to compare it with gold, there is a vast capacity for a greater production of gold. All you have to do is go deeper and increase your refining techniques so that there are greater mechanisms to go to 0.5 grams per tonne. There is more gold out there. It is deeper and more remote but, as a resource, it is present. The only thing that determines whether people are willing to get that resource is price. If the price of gold goes up then vastly more resource becomes viable to mine it. But it does not matter where the price goes with prime agricultural land: it is a totally and utterly limited quantity. Therefore, it should be absolutely at the forefront of what we believe is important.

I heard that one of the biggest issues discussed at the start of the APEC conference was food security. In Australia we say: 'Oh, food security is a myth. We don't have to worry about it. It's not really important. It's not an issue for us.' Well, it is. It is an issue for us because it is an issue for the globe. If it is an issue for the globe, it is an issue for us. Therefore, we have to see things through the prism of whether they are a threat to food security. Are they also a threat to Australian food security? And is Australia doing its diligent most to make sure that it protects its food-producing asset? We need to make sure that, no matter what aspersions may be cast our way, we are basically given latitude to have the same sense of parochial protection for our farming assets that every other place in the world has for theirs. The blessing that Australia has is that we have never had a period of privation, except for the time shortly after European settlement when people starved. But other countries have had privation and, therefore, they see the food security issue as front-and-centre important.

The next point is quiet enjoyment, which Senator Nash spoke about. Quiet enjoyment, of course, comes from leasing contracts. When you rent or lease a house, people must allow you the quiet enjoyment of your residence. It is something that we also want to make sure continues in this area. It is another issue that I think some of this $150 million can be used to look at. There are social and economic effects and the tolerances involved there in how close mining can go to suburban areas. We know full well that currently there are coal seam gas exploration licences for the centre of Sydney held by Dart Energy. How insane is that? How is that going to work in Annandale? It works well politically for us because it has given us a great new vessel of people who are just as angry as some of the people in regional Australia are, and we need to get them on side. Unfortunately, the ridiculous granting of exploration licences in the Sydney Basin has done precisely that. There are also exploration licences on the north coast. If someone says, 'Where is coal seam gas?' then the answer is, 'It is where coal is.' Where is coal? It is in a vast section of Australia. We know it is in South Australia. The industry has not started there but it is on its way. It is everywhere you go. That is why it is so important to get this right. We are not talking about the Water Act, which is what this appropriation is about. We are talking about quiet enjoyment. We are talking about the protection of prime agricultural land. We must look at the return that goes back to the landholder and to the area.

In a meeting once more on coal seam gas that we had last Friday just to show you how much moment this issue has, all the mayors from the Paroo, the Bulloo, Maranoa, Balonne, my area, Dalby, Toowoomba and Stanthorpe got together. They could bring up any issue they wanted. We had federal ministers and state ministers there. Guess what issue they brought up? It was coal seam gas—right there. That was it. Coal seam gas was issue No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and then other issues. Why? Because we acknowledge the wealth that is coming and going to come from this resource. APPEA states that about $80 billion will flow to the state governments but about $260 billion by tax revenue will flow to the federal government coffers and the increase to the size of the Australian economy will be in excess of half a trillion dollars. That gives you an understanding of just how massive this industry is.

What we are looking at in our area is: what is actually coming back to us? If you look at the Warrego Highway as an example of a highway for which the traffic is a great benefaction to the wealth of our nation that is literally going to bring in hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue, hundreds of billions of dollars to the growth of our economy, and ask, 'What sort of investment is being made in this infrastructure?' It is an abomination. It is literally turning into something that would suit a road in Central Africa but not a major arterial road to one of our greatest resource provinces in Australia. The reason why it is falling to pieces is the traffic on it. The traffic is absolutely overwhelming. If you go down James Street in Toowoomba, it is quite scary at times. The number of trucks that are going through there as you turn right across the oncoming traffic is really something to behold, not one semi but multiple. We are talking thousands of movements a day going through a major town. You cannot do that. We have got to make sure that this investment goes back to the Toowoomba bypass. We really need a four-lane highway to Dalby, because that is the amount of traffic that is on the road. If people say, 'That's ridiculous', then we should say: 'Look at the money you are getting out of the joint. Don't you think that it warrants some sort of investment back into the area?'

I want to do a comparative analysis to assuage any belief because it always gets thrown: as soon as you ask for money, it is morally justified if it happens in an urban environment; do it in a regional area and, apparently, it becomes pork barrelling. Let us look at a comparative analysis of other areas, other parts of the world. Fortunately, I was invited to the United States about a month or so ago and I looked at the investment in a comparative way in Texas to what is happening in our area. The East Texas gasfields, which are the source of the wealth—I know they talk about West Texas barrels of crude but the East Texas oilfields is where the wealth of Texas came from—is an area that goes between Houston, San Antonio and Dallas-Fort Worth and has a population similar to Australia's and an economy that is bigger than ours. It was built on the wealth of six billion barrels of oil equivalent of resource. With all these places—there is 14 inches of rain in areas, so it is not that it is not a great agricultural sector; there is intensive livestock which utilises the providence of other areas—a massive amount of wealth has been reinvested into that area from the wealth that came from that area. They did that and also the University of Texas—one of the top 50 universities in the world; better than any of our universities, unfortunately—on six billion barrels of oil. The investment is on multiple layers and goes to the benefit of the United States of America and, most specifically, to the benefit of the people who live in the area where the resource comes from.

If we look at what the resource worth is of the Surat Basin, that is three billion barrels of oil equivalent—with the Bowen Basin it makes five billion barrels of oil equivalent. So you have got five billion barrels of oil equivalent as opposed to six billion barrels of oil equivalent which built up the wealth in Texas. So these people have every right to say: 'What's coming back to us? What wealth is flowing back to us? What wealth is flowing back into these regions?' Do not tell us about a new freeway in Brisbane or a new electric railway line in Sydney. Show us on the roads; show us in the hospitals. For the first time at Dalby we have had in excess of $1 billion worth of expected housing development. The wealth has to start flowing back for the development of the infrastructure because that is an overwhelming goal, I think, across all parties. We have visionary people either side of the chamber and we want to develop new areas. We want to see the providence of a nation not just in the expansion of the status quo but in the development of new areas—that can be Dalby, Kununurra or Alpha—things that show that we are taking the next step and we are going to be better placed. These are the things that we need to do.

We can look at the population centres of what this wealth supports, just to show the expansion. In 1872 there were 1,000 people in Dallas Fort Worth, like Weipa, except Weipa is bigger. It was a small town. The population of Dallas Fort Worth now is 6.2 million. It goes to show what happens when you have the objects of government basically investing where they make their money and reinvesting back in those areas. What they have delivered is an economy that would be slightly smaller than California's but bigger than Australia's. That is the sort of thing that we can do as a nation if we want to.

Quite obviously the landowners are getting absolutely ripped off in Australia about this. It was an asset that they formerly owned. Let's get this on the record. Hydrocarbon materials were vested in the landholder. Oil, gas, coal was vested in the landholder. It was excised from the landholder in Queensland in 1915 with the Petroleum Act to protect us from the Kaiser. We beat the Kaiser but they never gave the asset back, so it was stolen. When you take something without paying for it, it is stolen. In 1953 it was taken from the territories. In 1971 it was excised from South Australia. They only finished excising it off the states in 1983 in New South Wales. So this was an asset of the landholder. The whole principle of why I do not believe in socialism is that socialism says that you can take an asset off an individual vested in the state without payment. I do not believe in that. It is most definitely on the landholder's land—there is no doubt about that. In the United States, the landholder gets up to 25 per cent of the gross at the wellhead. In Australia they are sometimes getting a case of beer or $240. In some instances it is 1,500 bucks and they think they are killing the pig. A fraction of a fraction of one per cent is going back to the landholder in Australia and it should be more.

I read today—it was in one of the papers; it was completely misrepresented—that someone said some landholders are getting $400,000 a month. That is rubbish. There is no landholder in Australia getting $400,000 a month from coal seam gas. The evidence that we got from the Senate inquiry, which was chaired by Senator Heffernan and the terms of reference were written by me for the investigation into coal seam gas, showed that people were not getting that. There are multiple levels we have to look at: a better return to the landholder, vastly greater investigation into the effects of what is happening in the aquifers, protection of prime agricultural land and the maintenance of the quiet enjoyment of people. This is something that I hope we all support across the chamber. It is good to show this on an issue that is important, from the Labor Party's side to the National Party's side to the Liberal Party side to the Greens, and I commend the work of the Independents in the other place. Hopefully we can bring about a better outcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012. My congratulations to those who crafted such a snappy title! The debate we have had over this bill since it was introduced into parliament on 22 March 2012 is a clear indication of the importance members and senators attach to the issues surrounding coal seam gas and coalmining. It is a reflection of the interest and concern shown by many Australians in the wider community. It is important to note that this bill was referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, which then recommended that it be passed.

The government has become aware of the widespread opposition to coal seam gas and coalmining expressed at many meetings, demonstrations and even marches up and down the country. However, it believes much of this concern stems from a lack of available hard scientific data on the effect of these types of developments on Australia's land and water resources. We believe this bill will address these concerns by establishing an independent statutory committee to provide scientific advice to relevant governments on coal seam gas and large coalmining developments when they are likely to have a significant impact on water resources. The independent expert scientific committee, which will come into being under this legislation, will advise the minister on research priorities that address critical gaps in our scientific understanding. It will scope and oversee research commissioned by the minister in line with those priorities. When requested, it will provide further evidence to inform regulatory decisions made by federal, state and territory governments.

An interim scientific committee was appointed by the minister in January 2012, and it has commenced work on the first five bioregional assessments in regions facing significant levels of coal seam gas and coalmining development, including the Galilee, Gunnedah, Gloucester and Clarence-Moreton basins. The interim committee has played a valuable role in providing the government with independent expert scientific advice on a number of projects, including approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It is now expected that the interim committee will hand over its work to the new committee during the short and seamless transition period in September.

There is a clear mandate for the committee to operate in a very transparent way, with all of its advice on specific development projects as well as the outcomes of any research commissioned and bioregional assessments being published on its website. Above all, this will be an expert scientific committee. Members will be appointed on the basis of their relevant scientific qualifications or other expertise, such as experience in relevant disciplines. The committee has been provided with $150 million to progress its activities. These include support for bioregional assessments and investments in projects that will provide information on the impact of coal seam gas and large coalmining developments on water resources. The work of the committee will be supported by a national partnership agreement between the Australian government and relevant state and territory governments where coal seam gas and large coalmining developments take place or are likely to take place. So far Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria have signed up to the agreement.

Providing a rigorous science basis to underpin approvals is a paramount objective of this government. The committee will play a vital role in this, as it will ensure that independent scientific evidence is available to all governments when they consider applications for these types of developments. It will provide local communities and other stakeholders with accessible and reliable information that will build and engender greater confidence in government approval processes for coal seam gas and large coalmining developments.

I foreshadow that the government will move amendments during the committee stage to clarify that the bill will not commence retrospectively on 1 July 2012 and to resolve requirements regarding the qualifications and expertise of members. The effect of these amendments will be to remove retrospectivity from the commencement of the provisions and to allow the responsible minister to recognise qualifications and relevant experience in appointing members of the committee. I thank senators for their contribution to this important debate and commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.