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

I present the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Mining, Petroleum and Water Resources) Bill 2011 and the explanatory memorandum.

I think that most members in the chamber are fully aware of the debate that is occurring in parts of regional Australia between the extractive industries and the agricultural sector, and particularly where there is a collision point, in a sense, where agriculture and water intersect with the ambitions of some of the extractive activities that are being processed by state governments.

This has been particularly evident in Queensland and parts of New South Wales. One of the flashpoints is in my electorate, the electorate of New England—the area of the Liverpool Plains. I give recognition to Mr Tim Duddy, who has worked very hard in assisting with this legislation and who has worked extremely hard with many others in the Caroona Coal Action Group and other activities to highlight the potential significance of some of these extractive activities on our water resources. I would also thank the member for Lyne for his supporting and seconding this bill.

We want this bill to be taken seriously in the chamber; it is a serious issue and it does deserve serious consideration. I think we would be the last to say that this particular bill solves all the problems, but I think it gives a platform and a flight path to an issue that state governments are wrestling with and that the Commonwealth government is wrestling with, particularly given the fact that the Commonwealth and the states have come to agreement in relation to the Murray Darling Basin arrangements and that there is an earnest and honest attempt to overcome some of the issues of the Murray Darling Basin over the last hundred years that governments have not been able to correctly arrest. I think it is very important that, if we are embarking on a solution to the water issues within the Murray-Darling system, we look at the way in which the extractive activities can impact not only on the sites of those activities but also on the water resources which are part of the Murray-Darling system. Whether that occurs on the Liverpool Plains in my electorate, in parts of Queensland, on the flood plains below Moree—some of the most productive lands in Australia are in those three areas—or in other parts of Australia, I think it is time that we had a national approach to some of these activities and the impacts, particularly the potential off-site impacts, that these activities may well have on our water resources.

The state laws have simply not kept up with the environmental pressures these new developments pose, and there is a need for a nationally consistent standard to allow certainty for gas and coal companies at the same time as it protects Australia's limited water resources. If we are serious about food security, we need to protect these water resources, and equally, if as a nation we are serious about protecting the unique environment that depends on our water resources, it is time for a nationally consistent standard.

The bill captures current exploration developments and requires corporations to notify the Commonwealth if the company thinks its activity will have a significant impact on the water quality or structural integrity of water resources. The bill gives great detail to defining mining and gas actions and defining water resources and places the onus on the company to apply for a permit to proceed with its plans. Essentially, what this bill does is allow an extra trigger for the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conversation Act to be enacted at the Commonwealth level. Currently, threatened species—both flora and fauna—and some international agreements and heritage listing applications do trigger the EPBC Act. This bill would allow our valuable water resources, in certain cases, to trigger the Commonwealth's participation in the environmental protection and biodiversity conservation area, particularly where these extractive industries impact on our water—that is to say, in a similar fashion to some of the activities that are out there now where the Commonwealth becomes involved through threatened species. The Commonwealth does not become involved in every mining or coal seam gas application—that is the states' prerogative currently—but the bill would allow an additional trigger, where our valuable water resources are threatened, for the Commonwealth to play a role.

The bill requires that a constitutional corporation—the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency—must not take a mining action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the water quality, structural integrity or hydraulic balance of the water resource. One example of the sort of thing that I am talking about and that the bill addresses is the Namoi Catchment Water Study, which has been partly funded by the Commonwealth to the extent of $1½ million. There are other studies that are currently underway. The Namoi Catchment Management Authority, for instance, has a spatial planning process that it is working on at the moment to overlay the various activities and resources on some of these areas. There are also suggestions from the Minerals Council of Australia that we need some form of bioregional assessment of regions before extractive activities, exploration licences or mining or coal seam gas production take place.

So I think there is a general consensus out there that this issue has not been correctly addressed and that we do need a better approach than the one that we have. The state-based process that is currently there is more about a localised impact within the mining area where mining or coal seam gas production is to be undertaken; it does not correctly take into account the potential off-site impacts on groundwater resources and the relationship that those resources may have with other groundwater systems or, effectively, with surface water systems. That is the point that I made earlier in relation to the Murray-Darling system.

The bill allows a delegation to be granted to the states to authorise these activities through a disallowable Commonwealth instrument. I expect, as I mentioned earlier, that the approach of the Namoi catchment study, the Namoi Catchment Management Authority spatial risk assessment and modelling study and some of the sensitive agricultural land studies that some of the states are carrying out at the moment could all be part of this process. The bill will, in fact, facilitate these discussions.

The states should not fear this. This is a genuine attempt to deal with a genuine issue that is the states' prerogative at the moment. The Commonwealth, through this very same act—the EPBC Act—had to apply 300 conditions on a coal seam gas application in Queensland, essentially something that is a state responsibility. The state, I believe, had applied 1,200 conditions to the same development. To have 1,500 conditions applied to an extractive activity says to me that this current arrangement with the state legislation, the way it relates to the Commonwealth and the way the Commonwealth relates back to the state through water security et cetera—particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin, as I mentioned earlier—is not working effectively.

We need to put a handbrake on this for the moment—to slow the process down and develop a process that does actually work in terms of the integrity of the water resources. The extractive activities will be there for a relatively short time in the history of the landscape in Australia; we must make sure that those activities take place only where there is a risk assessment process that delivers a real outcome that people can have confidence in. The community do not have confidence in the state-based arrangements that are currently in place, and I think we need the national government to take a lead in this debate at this time and make sure that our water resources that are potentially under threat are fully taken into account. This is not about being anti mining or pro mining or anti coal seam gas or pro coal seam gas; it is about the integrity of a process that will lead to better decisions by the mining and extractive industry companies, the agricultural endeavours that are currently on some of these landscapes, the state and Commonwealth governments and the relationship that all of those players have in relation to our very valuable water resources.

Bill read a first time.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.