Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are two issues that I would like to raise this afternoon that relate to my electorate. They are both based on the water issue. I raised a question in question time today with the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in relation to the proposed BHP Billiton mine on the Liverpool Plains. There is believed to be a coal resource there of about 500 million tonnes. That is an extraordinary amount of coal. One of the difficulties that are being encountered both by BHP and very much by the landholders involved is that that particular area of land, the Liverpool Plains, is some of the best country in the world for agricultural productivity. It has beautiful, black, self-mulching soils interspersed with some red gravel ridges. The other outstanding feature of that country is that there are enormous amounts of groundwater to be found in certain parts of that particular region. A dispute is developing between those who own the land and those who have access to the groundwater about the impact that a longwall mine and a surface mine could have on the groundwater resources.

I particularly bring this to the attention of the parliament because of the ongoing debate about the Murray-Darling scheme and the interconnectivity between groundwater and surface water. I have heard the Prime Minister and the minister talk on a number of occasions about the uncertainty. If you talk to a scientist, you will hear that the interconnectivity between groundwater and surface water is still a grey area. In fact, only a few months ago Senator Heffernan made the point about the possible impacts on the allocation of water further down the track as more scientific evidence comes to bear.

I am not opposed to coalmining. There is a coalmine next door to where I live that I have a very good relationship with. They do a very good job. My concern as a farmer and also as a member of the region—which goes across two electorates at the moment—is that mining should not take place in this particular area until all of the environmental aspects are ascertained. At the moment, the science on the interconnectivity of the various groundwater zones—I think there are something like two dozen of them in the Namoi Valley—is not well known. The other issue that the minister raises from time to time is that of the interconnectivity between groundwater—because there is not just one mass of groundwater; there are a number of interconnected zones—and surface water. In that circumstance, you have the possibility of a major mine exploring in a groundwater area.

I have asked the Prime Minister and the minister on a number of occasions over the last six to nine months—including when the minister was a parliamentary secretary—to look at the planning processes that are in place at the New South Wales level. I do not believe that the way in which this has been hived off to the New South Wales government through their various planning arrangements takes into account the potential impact of devastation. If something does go wrong with the groundwater resource, what does that actually mean? I do not mean just for the local area—that is what the planning process will look at. What would the offsite impacts be of groundwater flows being potentially interrupted by a mine?

This is the only mine that is doing that in the Murray-Darling Basin. In the homework I have done I have not found any evidence anywhere in the world that suggests that mining can take place in an area of such significance in terms of the groundwater that is there. So there is a very real risk, in my view. The Commonwealth government is moving to take over the administration of water. If we are serious about getting the allocation of water in place for the future then we really must understand what is happening with the water underground. I have called on the government to put in place an independent assessment of the possible off-site impacts of coalmining in heavy water-bearing gravels and to use this particular mine as an example. There is no doubt that right along the Namoi Valley these sorts of issues are going to be raised in the future. If we are serious about having a Murray-Darling system that incorporates the four states then we really do need to come to grips with what is actually happening with that interconnectivity that I spoke of earlier.

The other issue I want to mention today is related to water as well—and, again, I raised this question in parliament last week. It is the issue of an enlargement of Chaffey Dam, which is the major water supply for Tamworth city and the Peel River irrigators. This dam has been down as low as 15 per cent of storage. It is up over 20 per cent at the moment, so it is a fairly delicate situation. The proposal that has been put together over the last five years is that an upgrade take place at the time when a safety upgrade is required. The state government will fund that. I think it is something like $14 million to do the safety upgrade. The state government—which, as the minister rightly pointed out last week, is mainly responsible for this particular enlargement proposal—has agreed to part-fund an enlargement whilst the safety upgrade takes place because of the obvious economic benefits of doing both together. The local council has agreed to part-fund this. The irrigators, who will be part-beneficiaries in terms of security—there will be no more water allocated to them; their licences will not be increased but their security of water will be improved—have agreed to part-fund it. And the Commonwealth has been asked for $6½ million as a contribution towards that particular arrangement. So we are talking about a $29 million enlargement and safety upgrade and the Commonwealth has been asked for $6½ million.

The Commonwealth has had this information for quite some time now, and I raised this question with the minister last week in question time. I did not raise the issue of money at all, because to me the money is irrelevant in this. What we need is either an okay or any objection from the Commonwealth. The question I put to the minister last week was: given that the state, the local government and the local irrigators have approved the process of a $29.1 million upgrade and safety enhancement, does the Commonwealth through any of its federal policy initiatives as they currently stand have any objection to the proposal going ahead? The minister went into a bit of a flurry and said that it was the first he had heard of it and all these sorts of things. That is fair enough; that is politics. But since that occurred the minister has been reported in the local media as saying, ‘He should have asked me for the money,’ and, ‘The Deputy Prime Minister is looking at this particular issue as we speak.’ I would have thought that money would be irrelevant to something if there were going to be environmental objections to this particular proposal. I ask the minister again: given that we can find the money—and I have written him a personal note on this; we do not need the Commonwealth’s money because we can get the money from somewhere else—would the Commonwealth have an objection if we went out and raised the $6½ million to complete the enlargement and enhancement of the dam? That is the question that needs to be answered. I have had many people in my electorate say: ‘Don’t get involved in this. We’ll raise the money. This is too important for our community long term. Find out whether the Commonwealth will be a deal breaker on this particular issue. If they are not’—which I would hope they would not be—‘then we can proceed.’ The state government has said that it is okay to go. The locals have said that it is okay to go. Everybody is okay to go. All we need is to know whether there is any possible objection from the minister—because he has three or four copies of this particular document. If there is no objection then we will go out and raise the money, and proceed with the state government’s approval. So I would ask the minister: could he please clarify the position as a matter of urgency because, as I said, Tamworth city is very low on water. (Time expired)