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

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5663:

(1)    Schedule 2, page 318 (after line 8), after item 161, insert:

161A  After section 255

Insert:

255A Mitigation of unintended diversions

        (1)    Prior to exploration licences being granted for subsidence mining operations on floodplains that have underlying groundwater systems forming part of the Murray-Darling system inflows, an independent expert study must be undertaken to determine the impacts of the proposed mining operations on the connectivity of groundwater systems, surface water and ground water flows and water quality.

        (2)    Where a substantial risk is identified exploration licences must not be granted.

This is an amendment which I would really label the ‘Tony Windsor amendment’, because the honourable member for New England is largely responsible for the fact that my attention was drawn to the disagreement between farmers in the Namoi Valley and the huge coal exploration company BHP Billiton about the potential for damage to be done to the water catchment of one of the most productive food lands in Australia, certainly in the Murray-Darling Basin, and in the world.

Last month Mr Windsor and I visited Tim Duddy and the other farmers and saw firsthand the concern that they have about the prospect of mining under these crop lands, disrupting the all-important water flow systems. We must remember that the water flowing underground in catchments is very directly connected with the water on the ground and that the whole aquatic system is crucial to the productivity of farmlands not just in the Namoi Valley but in the whole of the Murray-Darling and, indeed, everywhere in the world.

The problem here is that the mining operation is being conducted without there being an adequate and independent study of the potential impact as it cuts right across the aquifers underground, the impact of concern being that on the region directly affected and on the whole of the catchment downstream. It is a very crucial matter. We know from practices elsewhere in the world that undermining regions has led not only to collapses in the ground above but to mighty disruption, even disappearance of rivers, because of the interruption of aquatic systems.

A proposal has been put to the state government of New South Wales and to the federal government—and I promote this now—that before BHP Billiton goes ahead with this mineral exploration there be an independent study undertaken of the potential impact. That has not happened, because mining is the responsibility of the state authority, but we are dealing here with the water catchment itself. It is fundamental to know that, if mining disrupts the aquifers, it will disrupt the productivity of the basin. If you are going to have legislation which gives authority to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to determine how best to manage the water then that must include authority to protect water flowing underground, including the whole of the basin underground. You cannot manage that responsibility unless you know what the impact will be. This amendment simply requires due diligence: a proper study before damage occurs. Let me read out the amendment:

(1)    Schedule 2, page 318 (after line 8), after item 161, insert:

161A  After section 255

Insert:

255A Mitigation of unintended diversions

        (1)    Prior to exploration licences being granted for subsidence mining operations on floodplains that have underlying groundwater systems forming part of the Murray-Darling system inflows, an independent expert study must be undertaken to determine the impacts of the proposed mining operations on the connectivity of groundwater systems, surface water and ground water flows and water quality.

        (2)    Where a substantial risk is identified exploration licences must not be granted.

It is pure common sense. The amendment states that if there is going to be a mining operation which affects the water catchment then have an independent study done. If a substantial risk is identified then do not allow that mining operation to proceed. Of course, if a substantial risk is not identified, if it is found to be safe, then the mineral exploration will proceed. This is not rocket science; it is just plain, good old country common sense. I recommend the amendment to the committee.