|
senate vote 2012-09-10#8
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-01-30 14:39:41
|
Title
Bills — Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012; in Committee- Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012 - In Committee - Five-year moratorium
Description
<p class="speaker">Mark Furner</p><p>We now move to Australian Greens amendment (14) on sheet 7233.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p>- The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-10.369.1 Greens amendment] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Larissa_Waters&mpc=Senate&house=senate Larissa Waters].
- The amendment calls for a moratorium on drilling through or into an aquifer in connection with coal seam gas mining. The moratorium will last for five years or less if the full research program of the Committee created by this bill takes less time. Senator Waters explains that this amendment ensures that "we wait and let this committee do its work before we issue any more approvals".[1] Senator Waters emphasised that this restriction "does not apply to scientific research that is done to better understand the interaction of groundwater systems and coal seam gas mining".
- Background to the bill
- The bill establishes an Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development ('the Committee')[2] to provide federal, state and territory governments with scientific advice on coal seam gas and large coal mining developments which may have significant impacts on water resources.[3]
- References
- * [1] Read Senator Waters explanation of the amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-09-10.369.1 here].
- * [2] Read more about the Committee [http://www.environment.gov.au/coal-seam-gas-mining/ here].
- * [3] See [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4778 here] for explanatory memoranda and proposed amendments.
<p>I asked in estimates hearings how long the committee would take to do its work, and the answer was, 'About five years.' They have a fairly comprehensive research program, including undertaking bioregional plans which, of course, are long overdue and much needed and, frankly, should have been done before any coal seam gas approvals were issued. Minister, was any thought given to actually allowing the committee to do its work before further decisions were made by the federal environment minister?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>I did hear my colleague Senator Feeney as I was arriving in the chamber earlier that the point of this was to find a balance, to find the right solutions. I think these arrangements will provide all Australians with greater confidence that projects will be subject to rigorous and objective scientific assessment. Independent assessment will help build greater trust and help build community confidence in coal seam gas and coal mining development in sensitive areas. Under these arrangements, the states will remain the primary regulators, the framework will apply to future licences and businesses will not be required to change the way they apply for a licence. The framework is not designed to add extra work or to increase the regulatory burden for upcoming projects but it does mean, however, that their applications will be subject to rigorous and independent scientific assessment by the committee before states grant an approval for a relevant activity. This is a good outcome as it will inform better environmental regulation of coal seam gas and large coalmine development impacts on groundwater across Australia without imposing additional Commonwealth regulation.</p><p>It leaves the administration in the hands of the states, which have the local knowledge and local relationships, while avoiding duplicated regulatory systems, with the added cost and uncertainty that brings. Independent expert scientific advice to provide quality recommendations for the protection of underground water has formed part of federal approvals when they have been given. To date, this quality independent advice has been limited to the extent of the environmental powers set out under the EPBC Act. With this new independent expert scientific committee, the level of scientific rigour will be applied to consider the impact on underground water more generally. This is an important development, with Australia set to benefit from a strong coalmining and coal seam gas industry for years to come.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>Thank you, Minister. I am struggling to understand how the government can find the right balance in relation to groundwater once it is depleted, once the pressure has been changed or once it has been contaminated—all of which are likely and in fact demonstrated outcomes of coal seam gas. How on earth can you balance our most precious resource that much of our food growing and food export, for that matter, depend upon with an industry that threatens to have long-term impacts that will deplete and/or contaminate it? How is that a balance, Minister, when one will be totally destroyed by the other?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>I think that is probably more a rhetorical question. I am not sure that that question was actually designed for a response. I think it was more of a statement pretending to be a question.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>Minister, it really was a question.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>Let me declare that we will not be supporting a moratorium.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>Thanks, Minister. Unfortunately, that is perfectly clear, but what is not clear is this spurious balance that you are seeking to create in relation to a resource that stands to be completely destroyed by the activity. I am simply seeking to understand the reasoning. Given that this is the committee stage and we are asking questions here, perhaps the minister could respond to that.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>I think I just read out a fairly lengthy statement explaining why we are going down the path that we are, and I am not sure that I can add much more to what was a fairly lengthy statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>I am disappointed by that. It was a statement of a couple of minutes, but you made a number of contentions within the statement that I am seeking to further understand. It does dismay me that the process is unable to allow me to explore the reasoning and the policy behind the position you have articulated. I thought that that is what we are here to do, but, hey, I'm new to this gig. It seems that I am not going to be getting any joy as to the government's reasoning on how they can 'balance' groundwater with coal seam gas when one punches a hole through the other and threatens to contaminate it and deplete it. I will move to the second point in your so-called lengthy statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Bill Heffernan</p><p>Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. This legislation is designed for the government to be seen to be doing something when it is not doing anything.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>I completely agree with Senator Heffernan, but I am seeking to allow the government a chance to justify their policy position. I hope to succeed in that at some point this evening.</p><p>The next contention, Minister, that you made in your statement was that the public will have greater confidence that coal seam gas will be subject to rigorous assessment. How can they, if the assessment is proceeding and approval will be given without waiting for the results of this committee? If the minister could expand on how that could possibly logically follow, I would be most grateful.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>The committee will provide some expert evidence and I have always found that expert evidence is something that does enhance community confidence.</p> <p class="speaker">Bill Heffernan</p><p>I am pleased that there is an amendment coming to deal with land and I am grateful to all the people who negotiated that, including the government. As I have said several times today, what this is about is a committee set up to look at the various problems which will hopefully, after the next amendment, include the impact of salt on land and its use. But it is designed in such a way as if the minister—I had better not dob him in—had said, 'Look, Bill, we don't want to own the problem.' This committee may well provide some really good research—and I would love to be on it—but there is absolutely no compulsion for anyone at any level of government to take any notice. It is a complete farce if it is allowed to just find the evidence and present it but have no powers to compel some of what may be very compelling impacts on the various players, which will mainly be the states.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>Again, it alarms me, but I agree with Senator Heffernan on that front. That is why we have sought to strengthen this bill with the series of amendments that have sadly received no support from any of the other parties, although I exclude the DLP and the Independents from that assessment.</p><p>Minister, you said that the committee would enable decisions to be based on expert evidence. The whole point of my questions in estimates was to establish how long it would take for those bioregional assessments to be prepared. The answer I was given was roughly five years. The committee is empowered to provide advice on specific referrals but that advice will be hindered by a lack of the knowledge that will be given by those bioregional assessments—that is, we need those bioregional assessments in order to understand the cumulative and longer-term impacts on groundwater. So again, how can you contend that decisions will be based on expert evidence if those bioregional assessments, which take five years, will not be done before more approvals are given?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>As I have already articulated, the committee will examine each proposal that comes forward. We are not going to close down and introduce a moratorium. I do not know if I can be more succinct or clearer than that.</p> <p class="speaker">Bill Heffernan</p><p>The committee gathers evidence. It is a good idea that it is not tooled to do anything; it is tooled to gather evidence. Minister, could you confirm for me that, whatever this committee does and whatever advice it provides to whoever it provides it to, there is absolutely no authority for the committee to have its decisions and findings imposed anywhere?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>You have hit the nail on the head. It is an advisory committee. You have confirmed it is an advisory committee, Senator Heffernan.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>We have come really to the nub of it. This is a committee which was set up to advise someone who does not have the power to consider or act on the advice properly and to advise the states, which are merely obliged to take account of it—which can mean read and then shred. I ask the minister: what is the point? Why is the government even proceeding with this bill when you are determined at every motion to make it as weak as possible?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>I reject the premise on which you base your question. The other place supported this, and we are now dealing with the legislation.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>With respect, Minister, it is not going to be terribly effective legislation. It is a great shame because this was an opportunity for the federal government to step in and caretake what is an incredibly precious national natural resource, groundwater, which so many of our rural communities and productive economies depend on—let alone our natural environment. It is very dismaying that we see pure politics operating here. Of course, that operates a lot of the time—but there seems to be no other motive for this bill because it is deliberately drafted to have as little impact as possible. It is such a shame. It really lets down all those communities which are seriously worried about the future of their land and are basing those fears on advice from CSIRO and the water commission which are both saying, 'The science isn't sufficiently advanced that we know what the long-term impacts of this industry will be; yes, it could have irreversible, long-term impacts.'</p><p>Why are you flying in the face of that expert advice? Why are you flouting those communities' concerns when you have an opportunity to do something to fix these issues? It is not that hard. There are just a few small amendments that would strengthen this. It needs to go much further, and I have two other bills before this place to deal with the broader issues of coal seam gas. One is to give farmers the right to say no to coal seam gas on their land while there is this uncertainty about its long-term impacts. If the government needed that land there are always compulsory acquisition powers at both the state and federal level, so there is no concern about inhibiting the necessary functions of government if government deems it necessary.</p><p>The other bill is to give the federal environment minister some water power, otherwise it is really making a mockery. You made mention in your earlier statement of the fact that there were already some conditions about water imposed on those Queensland CSG approvals. Yes, there were but that is only because there was a groundwater dependent threatened species that was going to be significantly affected by those coal seam gas activities. But there will not always be a groundwater dependent species that is on the threatened species list and lives in the same place as coal seam gas activities want to mine. So I am afraid it is not logical to say that the minister can act, because he can only act in those particular circumstances and those circumstances will not always be replicated.</p><p>It is so important that this chamber and the government—and the opposition for that matter, although there are certain individuals in the opposition who are very strong on this issue—take this opportunity to act to protect our water. We have got one chance and this bill is just such an insult to all of the people who really care about our groundwater, our land, our food productivity—and our climate for that matter and also our reef for that matter because of all of the massive dredging that is going on to build new ports to export all of this coal seam gas once it has been liquefied, which in itself is an energy intensive process. So I think it is a great shame given there is a chance here to set up a body that might do more than just provide advice and that might actually enable the federal minister to act, if he gave himself the powers to act rather than instead weakening the laws, as he is proposing in some other legislation that is due to come to us shortly, and also weakening it all, by the COAG process, by handing off half his powers to the states. It makes no sense that you should dabble in coal seam gas in a completely ineffective manner. You might as well not have pursued this bill at all. It will not actually help much. It is a tiny step in the right direction but so much more is needed and it could have been made so much stronger. Unfortunately, we have had no support for these amendments.</p><p>I am pleased to see that some of the Nats are in the chamber now on this important debate because they do talk the talk on coal seam gas. I have to give them credit for that but I really am disappointed when they do not always come into the chamber to vote in accordance with what they say. Senators, you were not here earlier. I am glad you are here now. I really hope that you will be voting in support of this amendment for a moratorium when I move it. Shake your head you might but we do the same, as do the communities who feel ripped off, frankly, by your lack of support when it comes to the actual numbers.</p><p class="italic">Senator Conroy interjecting—</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|