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

I would like to go on record thanking the government for finally acting on the issue of coal seam gas and its effect on aquifers. It is not before time. As folk in this chamber and anyone listening will know, the Greens have moved several bills to address this issue in the last 18 months to two years. That is not only because of community concern but also because of significant scientific concern. Fundamentally, we simply cannot surmount the fact that we do not know enough about aquifers and their interaction between coal seams, and possible connections that can be created once a hole is punched through an aquifer to get to a coal seam in order to extract the gas. We cannot be sure that we are not then making connections that will see the groundwater table drop or that will see groundwater contaminated, either by the residual fracking fluids that are left in the coal seam or indeed by naturally occurring BTEX, which, in a very scary development, we now learn can be mobilised by the process of hydraulic fracturing. So unfortunately we still know that coal seam gas is not safe in the long term for water. We do not know the quantum of risk associated with that, but frankly we should not take the risk. In the driest inhabited continent on the planet, we need to make sure that we will still be able to supply the water needed for us to continue to be a net food exporter in this growing age of food insecurity.

We welcome the new powers that will be given to the federal environment minister to at last take into account the impacts of water when thinking about approving coal and coal seam gas mining. Of course, that is no guarantee that the minister will actually come to the correct decision. It simply arms him or her—it is Minister Tony Burke at the moment—with information to make, hopefully, a correct decision. There is huge discretion in the act. The minister is empowered to make a decision to approve a project even if it is going to have significant impacts on a matter of national environmental significance. So I am afraid this bill, whilst being a good step, is certainly no panacea. It is going to take a courageous minister who is prepared to listen to the science and listen to the community to actually protect this country from coal seam gas and the risks that it poses.

While I am on the risks, it is not just risks to water that we are talking about here; it is also risks to the climate. Finally CSIRO is now doing some independent studies into how much this stuff leaks. The only other independent science that has been done indicates that, where coal seam gas extraction is occurring, ambient levels of methane are about three times above what they are elsewhere. So we have some quantification on an independent basis already that shows that coal seam gas leaks like a sieve. And this is methane, which, as a greenhouse gas, is 26 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. We know this is dangerous for the climate. We know it risks long-term damage to our aquifers. That is why it is long past time that we had some federal oversight. The states have failed in properly looking after land and water. We have heard lots and lots of discussion today about the state laws that apply to coal seam gas. Unfortunately they are simply not adequate. In Queensland we have seen an unseemly rush, and coal seam gas has been approved on our best food-producing land.

I have talked about aquifer and climate impacts, but there are also surface impacts. I was pleased to start off my term in this place as a participating member in the Senate inquiry into coal seam gas, during which we learned that it can interfere with surface operations. Farmers were saying that they wanted to buy, or had purchased, new equipment which required certain turning circles which required the layout of their farm to be a certain way, and the coal seam gas wells threatened to interfere with that. We saw a potential threat, by coal seam gas wells, to more progressive technologies being used to apply fewer inputs to farmland. So there are not just water and climate impacts but also surface operation impacts.

That is why I will be moving amendments on behalf of the Australian Greens to give landholders the right to say no to coal seam gas. Why should landholders have to take the risk of long-term damage to aquifers? Why should they bear that risk? The amendments that I will move to this bill will allow the landholder to say no to coal seam gas. They will say that the minister is not actually able to approve coal or coal seam gas until he has before him the consent of the landholder, after the landholder has got both legal advice and scientific advice. That is crucial because, as we have seen, the coal seam gas companies are effectively trying to bully people into being bought off, with sometimes ample, sometimes pitiful, levels of compensation. Of course, the amount is kept confidential so nobody knows whether they are being ripped off or not. This tactic is being used in relation to landowners because they know they cannot say no.

This is exactly why we need to respect the fact that landholders do not want to take that risk with their land. It should be the government that bears that risk. These amendments will not change the ownership of the minerals. The Crown will still own those minerals, as has been raised today. If the government deems those resources so important that they need to be extracted then the government can use its acquisition powers, as it can in any other instance under the Constitution and as many state governments can under their state acquisition laws. This does not change the ownership of the minerals and nor does it sterilise the resource—a point I hope the coalition appreciates. It simply gives landholders a better bargaining position.

I ask the minister: why has it taken the government so long to finally move on coal seam gas, when you have had your own CSIRO and National Water Commission and now the independent expert scientific committee advising for many years on the uncertainties about groundwater impacts, and when CSIRO have not even finished looking at the climate impacts? Why is there this unseemly haste to approve everything? Why did Minister Burke tick off, within the first six months of his being the environment minister, on those three big Queensland projects? He is currently considering a fourth. Why in February this year did Minister Burke tick off on Gloucester, Boggabri, Maules Creek and Tarrawonga and then several days afterwards suddenly decide to regulate water? Why the timing here, why the delay and why the continued refusal to not properly consider the scientific advice about the uncertainties of this industry?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting the amendments. The proposed amendments would broaden the scope of the water trigger so that it may apply to shale gas, tight gas and underground coal gasification projects. The water trigger is intended to build on the objectives of the national partnership agreement, which is limited to coal seam gas and large coalmining. The proposed water trigger is also intended to build on the established role of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development. As noted in the Senate committee's report on the bill, the rapid and extensive development of coalmining and CSG mining, in particular, and the great community concern that these activities have raised require that concerns about these activities should be addressed. I will see if there is any further information. I suspect some of the questions you asked were slightly rhetorical, Senator, but, if there is any further information I can gather on those, I will seek to do so.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just point out for the benefit of senators that we have not actually had an amendment moved as yet. Senator Waters is still to do that. We are having a general discussion about this bill.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your rhetorical flourish. I would appreciate a little bit more detail as you have taken that on notice. I will move these amendments in due course but first I have a few more questions. Why the restriction to just coal seam gas and coalmining and why these very creatively crafted commencement provisions which effectively give you one foot in one camp and one foot in the other? At what point did Minister Burke formulate the intention to introduce the water trigger? Was it before or after he approved those four New South Wales projects I mentioned earlier—Gloucester, Maules Creek, Boggabri and Tarrawonga?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again I am not sure that your question is on the bill but, as this is a general question-and-answer session, I will seek any further information the minister may want to add on that. I have advisers to help me on the detail of the bill. On the more general political framework, I would need to consult the minister before I could respond.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: For the benefit of senators, we are debating the bill and the question that it stand as printed. So we should be relevant to the bill.

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

Clearly the bill is restricted to considering the water impacts of coal and coal seam gas. We have had an extensive discussion about the fact that there are other impacts—on climate, on food production, on the reef and on the general operation of rural communities. Given that the way any trigger works under the EPBC Act is left to the definition of 'significant impact', can the minister explain how the definition of significance will be developed in the administrative guidelines and what sorts of parameters are being considered by the minister to guide its application? This goes to the very application of the bill itself—not just the content but also the process of consultation for the formulation of those guidelines.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the guidelines are being put together and will include the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater. I hope that assists you.

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

I am hoping to get a little more detail than that if you are able to provide it. Clearly a water trigger would require consideration of the quality and quantity of both surface water and groundwater. Your answer does not really shed any light on the criteria which will be used to determine what constitutes a significant impact for the purposes of enlivening the trigger. The other part of my question was about the process of the formulation of those significant impact guidelines. What stage are they are at? Is there going to be public consultation on them? How far progressed are those guidelines?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the question of the criteria, I am advised that aquifer connectivity as well as groundwater and surface water interaction will be considered. I understand consultation has already occurred in May with NGOs, industry and the states. I am not sure if the consultations have been completed, but certainly they started occurring in May.

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

When are they due to be completed? When can we see a draft of those significance guidelines?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that they are not completed yet. Discussion papers have been circulated for comment and we have already received some comments. We would hope and expect to get draft public consultation documents out within about a month.

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

I am now starting to feel a little alarmed about the pace of that process. If the drafts are due to be circulated in a month, when is it anticipated that the final significance guidelines for the water trigger will be completed?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The drafts will be finalised and circulated as soon as the bill passes, and the final guidelines will be issued within a month. As to when that process is complete, I am still seeking further information on that. About a month from now, hopefully, we will have the draft and then the final version about a month after that. So it is about a two-month process overall.

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

Minister, that is very interesting, given that the bill commences on royal assent, as is the normal process. How do you envisage the bill will be given effect to in that two-month period, given that folk who need to comply with it will not know what the goalposts are in terms of that definition? It is a fundamental definition that goes to when the trigger will apply at all. If you could shed some light on that, that would be very helpful.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The department will act in accordance with the draft guidelines, which will be out very shortly.

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

To put an issue to bed that is bothering perhaps not me but clearly the opposition, could the minister, for the benefit of the chamber, outline the constitutional basis of this bill?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This (—) (): Corporations powers, and trade and commerce.

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

Has the government sought advice on the constitutionality of any of the proposed and circulated amendments?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

And is the government confident that those amendments are constitutional?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not often bring forward amendments that we believe are unconstitutional! So I will hazard a guess that the answer is yes.

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

Minister, they are not your amendments; they are amendments being circulated by other folk in the chamber. My question was about whether you have sought advice on the constitutionality of those circulated amendments.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My advice is that your amendments would rely on the same constitutional power as the actual bill.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While we are on general questions to the minister in relation to this bill, I wonder if the minister could inform the chamber, of the cost of the implementation of this bill to government.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand you were seeking that information in Senate estimates and got an answer in Senate estimates, Senator Birmingham. But I am told it is approximately $10 million per year. But I understand you sought and were given that information at estimates.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understood that to be the case, but it is always useful to get this level of detail in the chamber debate as well so that it is transparent for all those who may not have tuned into the Senate estimates hearings. As I understand it, the budget papers allocate an additional $38.5 million over the forward estimates. Can you confirm as well that the number of staff required within the department of the environment purely to administer this new legislation rises by around 50 additional staff members in the coming years?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Noting the $10 million per annum cost to government purely to administer the bill and the 50 additional staff in the department of the environment required to administer the bill, has the government undertaken any analysis of what the cost of compliance with this bill is to industry?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is the intention is to use the information already provided as much as possible.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not quite sure what that answer actually means, Minister Conroy: 'My understanding is the intention is to use the information already provided as much as possible.' Obviously, if there is a $10 million per annum administrative cost to government, if there are 50 additional staff required, if indeed this bill has any meaningful effect—and one assumes it must, give the administrative cost to government of its implementation—then surely there is a flow-through cost to business and usually, one would expect, a compliance cost that would be some multiple of the administrative cost to the government. Has the government undertaken any analysis of what the cost will be to industry and to business? If so, can the government share the findings of that analysis with the chamber, please?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To repeat something I have already said, this is about using information already provided by state governments. It is state government information probably using language you and I often use in another debate. Data mining of existing information can be very worth while. It does require that internet thingy you are not so keen on called the NBN—data mining of the existing information that is provided by the states.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, Minister, are you suggesting that applicants for EPBC approvals will not be expected to provide additional analysis or information to comply with the amended requirements of the EPBC Act once this new trigger is established?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the assessment is adequate for the states, it should be adequate for the Commonwealth. If it fails the states, then maybe additional information is needed.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is quite an admission—'If the assessment is adequate for the states, it should be adequate for the Commonwealth.' You are supporting an approach that ensures that there has to be a duality of assessment processes, a duality of approvals processes, in relation to this new trigger but you are saying if it is adequate for the states, it should be adequate for the Commonwealth. That is a remarkable admission from the government. It seems to be acknowledging that there is an inherent duplication in terms of the legislative framework it is applying to projects, a duplication of state laws and now federal laws, should this pass.

But, Minister, my question was going to the matter of whether the Commonwealth would expect applicants to provide additional information to the Commonwealth to clear the assessments and approvals framework that will be mandated by the Commonwealth. Is it your contention that the Commonwealth would routinely be satisfied or potentially always be satisfied by the information provided by applicants to states to get their state approvals and the Commonwealth therefore would not be seeking any additional information from applicants to ascertain Commonwealth approvals?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On your basic question you are entirely on your own; you are verballing what I said 30 seconds beforehand. You will obviously end up being up a creek without a paddle. I said 'should be' satisfactory. When you check Hansard, you will see that that is what I said. Your question unravels into irrelevance when you use the words I used, rather than inventing some words I did not use and then building your question on them.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks for the condescending remarks, Minister. On the basis that the Commonwealth 'should' be satisfied by the information provided to the states, we come back to the conclusion that the Commonwealth does not always expect it will be satisfied, that the Commonwealth may be expecting to get additional information from applicants at some stage. I will come back to the very direct question that I asked at the outset: has the Commonwealth undertaken any assessment of the implementation and administrative costs of these changes for industry?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already said and been advised that if you meet the state test you should meet the Commonwealth test. If you do not, there will probably be further information required. I do not think I can be any clearer than that. It indicates that in some circumstances other information may be required, but only in cases where people fail the state as well as the Commonwealth.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What arrangements has the Commonwealth put in place with different states who may be undertaking approvals under different state laws to ensure that information passed by the states to the Commonwealth to allow you to have this apparently streamlined approvals process in place is adequate and satisfactory and presented in a consistent manner across different jurisdictions to the Commonwealth for those assessments to be undertaken?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are bilateral agreements in place with all bar New South Wales and there are discussions in train with New South Wales.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do those bilateral agreements cover the possibility of the amendments that are being considered by the Senate today or will those bilateral agreements require some form of updating to encompass the new triggers and amendments to the EPBC Act that will occur should this legislation pass?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They will not require updating; they update automatically, I understand.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Back to the issues of the cost of implementation: why was this legislation excluded from the application of a regulatory impact statement?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was urgent.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was the particular urgency that saw this legislation being very rare in terms of having no RIS applied to it?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have probably noticed that it is the last two weeks of sitting before parliament rises. So I would have thought it would be very urgent to pass a bill as significant as this as quickly as possible. It could be that that does not occur, but I would have thought there was a self-evident case for urgency, given the conclusion of this parliament.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to address Greens amendment (1) on running sheet 7377. I would like to put to Senator Conroy, and, though I know it is slightly unorthodox, to the coalition as well, whether or not either of the major parties are in support of Greens amendment (1) on running sheet 7377, on schedule 1, item 1, which is intended, as I addressed in my second reading debate contribution, to close a loophole. I do not assume any malice on the part of either the crossbenchers in the other place or the government in bringing this bill to the Senate, but in effect it excludes the western third of the continent. We do have unconventional gas reserves in Western Australia. We have massive reserves on a national scale in the Canning Basin, in the Perth Basin and possibly elsewhere in central Western Australia. Yet Western Australia, in effect, by not having coal seam gas reserves but having their reserves defined by the different forms of geology in which they occur, would be excluded from the provisions of this bill. So my question to you, Minister, is: do we have government support for this amendment? As I say, we believe it is to amend what is simply a drafting error or perhaps the provision occurred in ignorance of the different geological forms in which these reserves occur. And, if there is no government support for this amendment, why on earth not?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludlam, just for your information, the amendment has not yet been moved. It may facilitate things if you would like to actually move the amendment.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Temporary Chairman; I will take your guidance on that. I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7377:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (before line 11), before section 24D , insert:

24CA Extended meaning of coal seam gas development and large coal mining development

In this Subdivision:

coal seam gas development has the meaning it would have if, in the definition of coal seam gas development in section 528, the reference to coal seam gas extraction included a reference to shale gas extraction and tight gas extraction.

large coal mining development has the meaning it would have if, in the definition of large coal mining development in section 528, the reference to coal mining activity included a reference to underground coal gasification mining activity.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludlam; I think you were out of the chamber when I jumped ahead and indicated that the government would not be supporting it and the reasons why, but I will happily read them out again for you. The proposed amendment would broaden the scope of the water trigger so that it may apply to shale gas, tight gas and underground coal gasification projects. The water trigger is intended to build on the objectives of the national partnership agreement which is limited to coal seam gas and large coal mining. The proposed water trigger is also intended to build on the established role of the independent expert scientific committee, which provides advice on coal seam gas and large coal mining development. As noted in the Senate committee's report on the bill, the rapid and extensive development of coal mining and CSG mining in particular and the great community concern that these activities have raised require that concerns about these activities should be addressed.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What the minister has done is to explain, probably more eloquently than I could have, the existence of the loophole without justifying why it should not be closed. Can the government please express why it believes that shale gas formations or tight gas formations should not be subject to this trigger—which the government is supporting, which we welcome—in Western Australia whereas the rest of the continent will be covered? We do not have coal seam gas formations. The extraction technology is identical. The chemicals that you inject into the fracking wells to get the resources to the surface are either identical or very similar. The damage that is done, to water formations and agricultural country, and the methane leakage are all common right across the unconventional gas industry. Can the government explain? Senator Conroy, you have just given me a reasonably lucid description of the loophole. I want to know and understand why the government refuses to close it.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure that there is a lot that I can add, unfortunately. I have outlined where we believe the bill should go to, and I am not sure there is a lot more that I can add to what I have already said. This addresses the great community concern that these activities have raised, and therefore we have moved to address them.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will happily sit here patiently if you want to seek advice from the advisers, who have come all the way from the other side of the building to help us out here, as to why community concern in Western Australia is of any less note or value to the Australian government than that in south Queensland or northern New South Wales? I am very happy to wait if you want to seek advice as to why this loophole will not be closed by the Australian government. If it is simply that there is no reason, then I will take that back to Western Australia. But I think it is worth making one last inquiry to see if there is in fact any reason at all. If there is not, then we will have to make of that information what we can.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not accept your characterisation that the government is not interested in the views of Western Australians; I reject that completely, Senator Ludlam. The government has put forward the bill as it stands before the chamber.

Senator Ludlam interjecting—

I just reject your assertion that we are not interested in the views of Western Australians so you will not be able to draw on the Hansard to suggest any such thing when people read this debate. The bill deals with the issues before us, and we believe that it satisfactorily deals with them.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not detain the chamber any further. I will give the minister one last opportunity so that, when we do check the Hansard, there will be a very clear response to my very clear question: is there any reason, at all—political, geological, engineering, community consent, environmental or any reason at all—why the government is insisting that Western Australia not be covered by this legislation and that these particular kinds of gas formations be outside the ambit of the legislation? Is there any reason at all?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the senator knows, shale is a developing industry but coal and CSG are well developed. We believe that this deals with the issues necessarily.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I can help Senator Ludlam by providing an answer to his repeated questions to Senator Conroy. I am sure that Senator Ludlam, deep down, knows the answer to his questions but is trying to get a genuine policy rationale from the government as against what the real answer is. The real answer, Senator Ludlam, as to why the government has defined it this way—and, I am pleased to see, is at least not accepting your amendment—is politics.

We all know this bill has been brought to the parliament purely to satisfy the wishes of the member for New England. That is the real reason it is urgent. It is not urgent, as the minister proclaimed before, because of the pending election, necessarily; it is urgent because the member for New England said it was urgent. The real reason that it covers coal seam gas and large coal developments and not shale gas developments is because there are coal seam gas and large coal developments in the electorate of New England; there are not shale gas developments in the electorate of New England. These are the reasons the government has brought this legislation on; these are the reasons the government has defined it as it has; and these are the reasons the government is opposing your amendments, Senator Ludlam.

Of course, the problem is that the government has been making this up as it has gone along, every single step of the way. That is because, with this bill, the government is suddenly and urgently—so Senator Conroy has outlined—enacting changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that it had previously, repeatedly, argued against and said were unnecessary. In arguing against those changes, it repeatedly said that they were unnecessary because state governments already had laws that covered these types of issues and that the state approvals processes already addressed the concerns around water.

Already, in this debate, we have heard from Senator Conroy that the government expects to rely in its assessments and approvals upon information provided to state governments for their own assessments processes. So the loop has already been closed in terms of the argument about this duplicating process already. It is very clear that these amendments will simply duplicate what is already going to occur at the state level. So the government has rushed in this legislation—legislation that does things the government previously said did not need to occur—to keep the member for New England, Mr Windsor, happy; to ensure his vote in the House of Representatives; for the confidence of the government; for the supply of the budget; and to prop up the very shaky leadership of the Prime Minister, to make sure it remains intact. That is what this is all about.

The government has rushed it in, waving it past and exempting it from the usual regulatory impact assessment processes. So the RIS has been forgotten about and cast to one side, because the government has made it up as it has gone along. It has made it up so much as it has gone along—it has been running on the spot and changing so dramatically—that in the House of Representatives it reversed not just its arguments that this bill was unnecessary, but also its previous arguments that the Commonwealth should retain the opportunity to engage in bilateral approvals with state governments. It adopted, in the House of Representatives, amendments from Mr Windsor that fly in the face and go directly against what the Prime Minister herself was seeking to have implemented for the bulk of last year, in terms of bilateral approvals regimes with state governments.

So we can have little doubt here that this legislation—the process of its development and the approach it seems to have to amendments today—is all driven by politics of how the government needs to keep the member for New England happy. And that is disturbing. It is disturbing to hear there is no regulatory impact statement; because we hear that the cost to government and to taxpayers of administering this bill is one extra trigger to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act at a cost of around $10 million, which is a significant additional cost. The budget papers indicated $38.5 million extra was being budgeted over the forward estimates; additional bureaucratic costs for the administration of the EPBC Act, with around 50 additional staff required per annum to administer these changes.

Now, the minister comes in here and tries to suggest—despite the absence of a regulatory impact statement—that there is no real cost to industry, because the government will just rely on the assessments, processes and information already contained at the state level. It just beggars belief to think that a new piece of regulation—a new piece of legislation and an expansion of this act to cover a new area—would somehow cost the government $10 million per annum to administer, yet it does not really cost industry anything to comply with it. That just flies in the face of all logic or common sense. Obviously, there would be costs to industry. If the government had done a regulatory impact statement, we would have had some understanding of what those costs may be. But they did not do that, they skipped on that because—of course—they needed to adhere not just to the demands of Mr Windsor of what should be legislated, but they also needed to adhere to his demands of how it should be legislated.

So we end up with this very unseemly and messy process where the government rushes in ill-considered legislation and pushes it through. You, Senator Ludlam, rightly pick up on the fact that there may be discrepancies in some of the definitions; certainly, I have concerns about some of the others. But the coalition does not support your amendment and I will tell you the reason we will not support your amendment: it is because we think it would be terribly unfair of the Senate to—at the eleventh hour of debating legislation like this—expand the definition of what sectors are encompassed with zero consultation, zero opportunity for engagement with those sectors and zero chance for those sectors to comment on what the implications for them would be.

Despite the rushed nature of this bill, despite the absence of a regulatory impact statement and despite the fact there was no real consultation with industry on the measures within it, at least it has gone through the proper parliamentary processes. At least it was subjected to a Senate inquiry where those in the coal industry and those in the coal seam gas industry could make their submissions, give their evidence if they so wished and have their voices heard. At least those affected by it could have a say at some point, thanks to the parliamentary processes, even if the government ignored their views and snubbed them along the way.

If we were to adopt your amendment to now include shale gas, we would be roping in another sector of industry at the eleventh hour without giving them any opportunity to have a say and without giving them any chance to tell you, me, Senator Conroy or anyone else in this place what the impacts on their sector would be, and what are the concerns and problems they may see in this regard. So, if you want to expand the definition of this, then by all means bring in a private member's bill. Once this bill is passed, as I expect it will be, bring in a private member's bill to expand the definition of what sectors are encompassed. But we are not going to support, on the floor of the House, measures that would expand coverage to sectors who have no forewarning in any serious way that they can expect to be included, and who certainly have had no proper process to be consulted or engaged in decision making about their inclusion in this definition.

Senator Ludlam, your concerns about these definitional issues go very much to the heart of the problems with the type of approach the government is taking here, because it is changing dramatically the intent and the approach of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This act has previously treated matters of national environmental significance in a uniform way across industries and across sectors of the economy, whatever they may be. The eight matters of national environmental significance under the jurisdiction of the EPBC Act are: world heritage sites, national heritage sites, wetlands of international importance, nationally threatened species and ecological communities, migratory species, Commonwealth marine areas, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and nuclear actions. Only the last one could be said, even remotely, to be singling out an industry for treatment. All of the others—and it does not matter whether you are mining coal or coal seam gas, whether it is iron ore or whatever it might be that you are digging out of the ground; it does not matter whether you are building a tourism development or dredging something for a harbour; it does not matter what the industry, what the action, what the sector you may come from is—have to comply with the EPBC Act as matters of national environmental significance.

This bill, if passed, will change the fundamentals of the EPBC Act by making amendments that will ensure two industries are singled out for one particular new trigger, the so-called water trigger, which will apply exclusively to coal seam gas and to large coal developments—just those two industries. And you make the point, Senator Ludlam: 'Well, what about shale gas?' Others will no doubt come into this place and say, 'Well, what about X, Y or Z?' The Farmers Federation has rightly expressed concerns, saying that water is a pretty important fundamental in a lot of farming practices—it is worried that the precedents set by this legislation will potentially open it up so that down the track somebody will one day say: 'Hmm. Perhaps we should have a water trigger, as it applies to the farming sector as well'. And they will come in here—as you have just done, Senator, for shale gas—and argue to expand it into that sector too. These are the principles under which the EPBC Act has been developed and which are being undermined by the approach taken in this legislation of singling out certain industries.

Senator Ludlam, those are the reasons why the coalition opposes your amendment—and I have given you the reasons, I think, why the government opposes your amendment as well, at that pure political level. However, I do welcome the fact that the government has at least decided to oppose this Greens amendment. In the time that is remaining, I would invite the minister to put to bed the suggestions in the media that the government is looking to embrace other Greens amendments—in particular, the suggestions in the media that the government is looking to embrace the amendments that would prohibit bilateral agreements on a far wider scale, or the amendments in relation to national parks—because these amendments would expand the scope of this legislation quite dramatically. These amendments, frankly, are a Trojan Horse for far wider reform to the application of the EPBC Act than what is before the chamber. This goes way beyond coal seam gas, large coal developments or the impacts on water; how these amendments would operate would instead mean a far more significant impact across the entire economy. And so, Minister, the opportunity is here for you to make clear to all and sundry that the government will not be supporting any of the Greens amendments, in particular those two, and for you to ensure that there is certainty, going through this debate, that at least this bill only goes as far as what is on the paper in front of us.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Birmingham for his explanation at length as to just how thoroughly the coalition has thrown in its lot with the fossil fuel and extractive industries—so thoroughly that it will not even contemplate this amendment. That is despite acknowledging the inconsistencies in the bill that I have been at pains to point out, and against that quite dense explanation of the coalition's position—for which I thank you, Senator, because it makes quite stark the degree to which you have sided with oil and gas multinationals at the expense of farmers and the environmental protection community. From Senator Conroy, we got nothing at all, beside the fact that you are just going to wait until the industry gets on its feet before you regulate. No wonder people are realising that the Greens are the only ones who can actually be trusted with the environment. I commend this amendment to the chamber.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I notice that Senator Conroy has ignored the opportunity to clarify for the committee where the government stands across the raft of expansionary Greens amendments that are before the committee with regard to this legislation. Senator Conroy had the chance after I finished speaking, and he had the chance after Senator Ludlam finished speaking, to tell the chamber whether or not the government intends to use this legislation as a Trojan Horse to strip away any future opportunities to make environmental regulation more efficient in this country, and to manage to eliminate the duplication that exists between the states and the Commonwealth in so many areas. Senator Conroy has already acknowledged in this debate that the Commonwealth government expects to rely largely holus-bolus on state assessments when it comes to this new environmental trigger. If they are going to rely on state assessments so much it is obvious there is inherent duplication in these laws as there is in environmental laws more broadly. The government was once upon a time going to embrace the opportunity for greater efficiencies; instead, the government rejected that and did an about-face last year, and Senator Conroy has missed the opportunity to—

Progress reported.