INDEPENDENT New England MP Tony Windsor has held back on introducing any new legislation in the early stages of the hung parliament, unlike many of his colleagues, choosing instead to give parliament more time to settle down.
But in the new-year, he plans to introduce new legislation that will instigate rules for assessing regional farm land purchases, with a particular emphasis on protecting that land from ground and surface water issues caused by extractive industries, such as coal seam gas and coal mining.
Mr Windsor said he was unsure of the legislation’s exact structure as yet or if it would get the necessary support it needed to pass through parliament.
It has been suggested the legislation could involve amendments to the Water Act 2007 in relation to the Murray Darling Basin, or the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act, allowing the new rules to be applied nationwide.
Mr Windsor said his new legislation would be designed to ensure proper risk assessment was conducted on sensitive farming areas, like those in the Darling Downs in QLD and on the Liverpool Plains in his NSW electorate, before any exploratory activities were allowed to go ahead for coal seam gas and coal mining.
“In most States, say in a national park, we restrict the activities that can happen on that land,” he said.
“You can’t go and put a coal mine in.
“Maybe there are other sensitive lands where we should not be doing that as well, which are not national parks.
“It’s an ongoing issue.
“I got an amendment through in the Lower House a couple of years back and it got through the Senate that night, then the coal industry, mainly, Mitch Hooke (Minerals Council of Australia CEO) and the boys all arrived and the Coalition reversed its position in the morning.
“Ever since then they have said we are sympathetic and looking at the legislation but it hasn’t gone anywhere.
“I’m not opposed to coal mines but what they normally do is buy a certain area of land and then make sure any polluting activity can’t get outside of that area.
“If you develop one of these mines for coal seam methane gas, for instance, where there are massive volumes of ground water underneath, how can you guarantee that the impacts are not happening a long way off site?
“It’s very hard to prove legally, if your irrigation system collapses, because something went wrong in a coal mine 20kms away.
“How are you going to prove it?
“I have serious environmental and agricultural concerns, particularly where there’s a flood plain and ground water that an extractive activity may have off site impacts on, outside the normal impact of that activity.”
Mr Windsor said his legislation would be written in a different form to what he had tabled previously.
He said it was something he was looking to “test the water with” while he held a strong position of power in the hung Federal Parliament.
He said there was also a problem with the States issuing mining exploration licences and then having oversight of them through the planning processes, but running parallel to that were Commonwealth objectives, which may be contradicted.
“What the State is allowing to happen could have a negative impact on what the Commonwealth is trying to achieve, in terms of upsetting ground water or polluting the Murray Darling or whatever.”
Speaking to other media, the Opposition said it would need to look at the detail of what Mr Windsor was proposing but warned it could be unconstitutional because water issues fall within State jurisdiction.
The Opposition added that the two industries, farming and natural resource extraction, in particular coal seam gas, needed to coexist and could coexist if individual farmers’ water rights were properly protected.
Email a friend