Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act. I do so for a very strong reason. I listened to the contribution by the honourable member for Gippsland. He said, among other things, that industry had lost the confidence of the community. I was thinking that I agree with him and they are comments I have made before on the public record, particularly as it relates to coal seam gas mining.

In my area this is a big issue. It is a contentious issue. It is an issue of community debate and the whole community is seized by it. It is one of those issues that has brought together a wide range of people right across our community. You have the farmers out with people who, although certainly environmental activists, would not normally be together. There are a lot of people across that spectrum. It has united everybody. In speaking of support for the bill I will tell a bit of a story that gives the experience of my area, and my experience and my advocacy on this bill or the provisions within the bill—what the bill will actually do. When it started, like a lot of issues, we thought, 'Great; we will have more gas. It is clean.' That is what we thought in our local area. There is one valley in my area where a particular coal seam gas mining company had come to seek exploration licences. People were quite excited, thinking: 'This will be good for the region. This will be good for economic development and it is clean—it is gas.' That was the thinking and I was supporting Richmond Valley Council and really wanting something good to happen for them in that area.

Then people started to ask questions about the impact that would have on water. I will separate it from the land issue, because that is a separate issue—although they are all related when you are looking at coal seam gas mining or any mining. People started to ask questions about the water, and we could not get any clear answers from the mining companies themselves on what the data was, what the scientific evidence was, what studies there were et cetera. To some extent, maybe it is too new, but it has happened in other places. They were the questions that started to be asked, and I also asked: 'What about the impact on the water, on the quality and on the aquifers and what about the depression that occurs?' I asked about a whole range of things and I could not get any answers. So I started to feel some degree of concern in that area.

Then I started to do some research and had a look at the impact it may have on water. I was drawn to the National Water Commission's position statement of 2010, the Coal seam gas and water challenge. I cannot read the whole statement—it is a two-page statement, so I cannot read it in—but I just want to quote some paragraphs from that statement that alerted me that we have a problem with regard to the water. It talked about potential risks to sustainable water management. But, before it did that, it talked about current projections and it indicated:

… the Australian CSG industry could extract in the order of 7,500 gigalitres of co-produced water from groundwater systems over the next 25 years … In comparison, the current total extraction from the Great Artesian Basin is approximately 540 gigalitres per year.

Of itself, that may not be a problem, but it certainly alerted me to a problem—understanding a little bit about water and hydrology. The statement went on to say:

•   Extracting large volumes of low-quality water will impact on connected surface and groundwater systems, some of which may already be fully or overallocated, including the Great Artesian Basin and Murray-Darling Basin.

•   Impacts on other water users and the environment may occur due to the dramatic depressurisation of the coal seam, including:

- changes in pressures of adjacent aquifers with consequential changes in water availability

- reductions in surface water flows in connected systems

- land subsidence over large areas, affecting surface water systems, ecosystems, irrigation and grazing lands.

•   The production of large volumes of treated waste water, if released to surface water systems, could alter natural flow patterns and have significant impacts on water quality, and river and wetland health. There is an associated risk that, if the water is overly treated, 'clean water' pollution of naturally turbid systems may occur.

'Clean water' as it is called, has a particular definition, and it is not 'clean water' as we think in sort of lay thinking.

It also talked about the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking—as it is commonly called. Further on it said:

•   The reinjection of treated waste water into other aquifers has the potential to change the beneficial use characteristics of those aquifers.

That is just a little bit of what is contained within the statement. But that was enough to convince me that there were some problems around water and that before we said, 'Yes, this is a great thing; we can do this here,' we needed to know exactly what impacts it was going to have on the water in our area.

The other issue that came up was about land. Farmers were concerned that mining companies could go on to their land, they thought, basically unfettered. People said, 'We want the federal government to deal with this and stop it.' A lot of people often say that because they think that the federal government, whoever it is, has the power to do and stop a lot of things. This area comes within state and territory jurisdictions. I have said in this place before that in New South Wales there are about three acts that are particular to mining and about seven that would be implicated within environmental conditions and other standards. That is in the New South Wales jurisdiction. I do not know the other jurisdictions quite so well.

So one of the first things I had to do was look at whether there was anything that we could do at a federal level, apart from speaking out, having a view or looking at it, and I started the conversations with the respective ministers. I noted at the time that the minister for resources talked about the mining companies vis a vis this issue but having to do some work to keep or maintain their social licence. It was really clear that that work had not been done in that area—and that was one of the things that I said. Also, in talking with the local community I said that I would raise the issue at a federal level but that it was a state issue and had to be raised at that level—and it has been.

I spoke in the House last week—I think in the adjournment debate—about how 7,000 people marched in Lismore—in my home town, in my electorate—in opposition to coal seam gas mining. So the horse has already bolted, and the coal seam gas mining companies have lost their social licence—and I think they would have to do a lot of work to get it back with this particular issue. However, I asked the minister to please explore, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—which I see has limited applicability in relation to mining, even though you can end up with a whole lot of conditions attached, but particularly to these issues with coal seam gas mining—whether the act could apply in some way or whether or not there is some action we can take so that we have some oversight. I knew that would have to be done with the states and territories. We could not just change the act and say, 'We're going to look at water', which generally comes under state and territory jurisdictions, so there would have to be some sort of conversations around that.

I also had discussions with the honourable member for New England. We share electorate boundaries, so some of the issues that come up are issues in common, and we had conversations about this particular issue. I was exploring whether there was something that could be done. It is not easy, but this amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act shows great initiative on the part of the government in coming up with this framework and model whereby we can actually get, for the first time, some scientific data that tells us about the direct impacts of coal seam gas mining in particular areas regarding water resources. From memory, I think 'water resources' is defined in the bill in the same way as it is in the Water Act 2007. That is one of the big issues that we need to have evidence on.

I note that the bill creates a new division under part 19 of the EPBC Act to establish an independent statutory committee, and then it goes on to talk about what its responsibilities are, such as to advise on research priorities and on bioregional assessments in areas of high potential impact. I thought they were going to cause bioregional assessments to be done, but it says 'advise on' as well. I suppose it would be 'advise on', if they cause them to be done. Then it says, 'advise on research and bioregional assessments commissioned by the Commonwealth minister for the environment following consideration of the committee’s advice.' One of the questions I have been asked is: when they provide that advice, at what point will that be published for the public? That is one of the things people are asking me, and I am not sure on that, but the minister might address that in his speech in reply. The bill also says, 'provide advice outside this scope in certain circumstances.' Obviously that is one of the things that it would do.

I also note that the bill amends section 506 of the EPBC Act to add the committee to the list of committees that that particular division applies to, and it has the effect of protecting committee members' independence. There is some comment about the broad fields that people would be drawn from to be experts to sit on this committee—hydrology, ecology and a whole range of areas, with some scientific background. It is sad in a way, but there is a mistrust in the community at large about experts and what is independent and what is not. I have faith in the scientific data that can be gleaned from this, but the people who sit on this committee will be free from the coal seam gas mining interests. They will primarily be people who are not in that industry but know that industry and are experts in their own areas. These are some of the issues that I have had raised with me by people in my electorate, and I said that I would raise them when speaking to the bill.

I note in closing that the National Water Commission updated its position statement on coal seam gas in April this year, and they said a number of things. They produced the paper titled Onshore co-produced water: extent and managementa good paper, worth reading for those who are interested and engaged in this issue. They also said:

… the Commission encourages the industry to continue to release actual co-produced water data in an accessible format over the entire CSG life cycle … along with other baseline groundwater monitoring data, as an essential element of broader and more transparent reporting.

Then they said:

The principles articulated in the Position Statement remain a robust framework for the implementation of regulatory arrangements for managing the water impacts of CSG development.

In my area, people have said that they do not want coal seam gas mining, full stop. That is a matter that has to be dealt with at state level. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context