THE federal government is being urged to retain the ‘Water Trigger’ legislation that aims to protect agricultural-related water resources from suffering irreparable damage caused by large coal mining or Coal Seam Gas mining projects.
The ground-breaking protections were introduced in the previous parliament by former New England Independent MP Tony Windsor, empowering the Independent Expert Scientific Committee’s scrutiny powers (IESC).
But fears have been raised that Environment Minister Greg Hunt may now be looking to axe the federal oversight powers with an independent review now underway, to determine its future.
The National Farmers Federation has told to the review it’s too soon to assess whether the legislation has actually been effective; a point that WA Palmer United Party Senator Dio Wang agrees to.
Senator Wang said the ‘Water Trigger’ legislation should be retained to provide an effective layer of federal oversight, over and above the States, to protect national water assets.
But he said he was concerned about the government’s review being linked to an ongoing and increasingly pressurised agenda to cut red and green tape and achieve budget savings.
Senator Wang said the Coalition government had been unable to scrap the ‘Water Trigger’ legislation “though the front door so now they’re doing it through the back door”.
“I think it’s probably too early for such a review to occur given only two projects (Shenhua Watermark coal mine in NSW and Adani, Carmichael coal mine in Queensland) are being scrutinised under the Water Trigger,” he said.
“I’ve had a look at the review’s terms of reference and my suspicion is it’s an invitation for negative, rather than positive comments on the ‘Water Trigger’ legislation.
“They’re asking stakeholders to say whether there have been any impacts on business, or what improvements can be made - but only two projects have come under scrutiny by this legislation and they’re not yet operational so it’s too early to make any positive views or comments and measure how effective the ’Water Trigger’ is.”
Senator Wang said he expected comment provided in the review process to be biased towards negative feedback, rather than constructive.
“Both of these coal mining projects have not yet moved into operation phase so we don’t know how any scientific monitoring would go under the Water Trigger,” he said.
“There are a lot of unknowns here, before anyone can make a useful or meaningful submission.
“I think it’s crucial to look after our water resources as a national resource rather than risking them with oversight by separate States.”
The Water Trigger started when the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) was amended in mid-2013 which also prescribed the current review.
An issues paper was released on November 2015 and the deadline for stakeholder submissions closed last Friday.
The review’s terms of reference include; examining the regulation’s effectiveness in protecting water resources from the impacts mining projects, including the IESC’s role.
“The Minister can now set conditions as part of a project approval to ensure any impacts on a water resource are avoided, mitigated or offset,” the issues paper said.
In its submission, the NFF said it retained the view that suitable and comprehensive State and Territory based regulations for large scale coal mining and CSG developments that protect agricultural production from the impact of coal mining and coal seam gas are preferred.
But the peak national farming body warned “such arrangements are not in place”.
“In the NFF’s view, it is too early to tell whether the ‘Water Trigger’ legislation has been effective in protecting the water resources on which agriculture relies from the impacts of coal mining and coal seam gas developments,” the NFF submitted.
“The ‘Water Trigger’ provisions have resulted in specific water-related conditions on developments – for example the condition set place on the Shenhua and Carmichael Coal mines.
“However, these conditions are not yet operational - so it is too early to establish whether the safeguards provided by the provisions are sufficient and whether they will be effective.”
Cotton Australia’s submission said scientific understanding and data should ultimately be the measure under which a mining project is assessed, to evaluate its likely impact.
“We are firmly committed to the Federal Department and Minister maintaining the right of approval under the ‘Water Trigger’ with no devolvement of this legislative instrument to the States,” Cotton Australia said.
Cotton Australia said without the Federal government’s involvement through the ‘Water Trigger’ the Shenhua project would have proceeded without consideration of how to monitor impacts to local water sources, wider cumulative impacts and ‘stop work’ triggers that enforce compliance actions where impacts to water resources are observed beyond Environmental Impact Statement predictions.
“While Cotton Australia still views the approval of the mine as a major failing of both the State and Federal governments, we believe that without the ‘Water Trigger’, no conditions would have been placed on the development approval,” the submission said.
“The conditions enacted on the Watermark project were stated by Minister Hunt to be “18 of the strictest conditions in Australian history”.
“However as these conditions are not yet in place, it remains to be seen how compliance and enforcement of these ‘safeguards’ will be met and whether the triggers in place will halt impacts prior to the occurrence of irreversible changes to water resources.”