The industry has been somewhat up in arms about the legislation, which aims to have all CSG projects which could have a “significant impact” upon water resources approved by the federal government, in addition to state government approval.
Conservationists claim the legislation will provide another layer of protection for water resources but the industry says it merely adds another layer of approvals without any additional environmental benefit.
Senator Stephen Conroy seemingly acknowledged this yesterday, saying the federal government would largely be working from state data to inform its decision.
“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,” he said, referring to his remit as minister for communications.
“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.”
There is also continuing doubt over what “significant impact” means in the context of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, with Conroy telling the Senate that a draft report into its definition would be circulated in “about a month”
The definition of the key phrase may render the legislation moot as no project could be deemed to have a “significant impact” on water resources.
On the flip side, a stricter reading could see almost all CSG projects head off for federal approval.
Meanwhile, Greens senators Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam registered their intention to have the bill’s scope widened to include shale gas developments.
Ludlam in particular seemed keen to have shale included in the bill, saying that the Western Australian government had shown a gung-ho attitude towards shale, demonstrating that it could not be trusted to effectively regulate the resource.
In response, Conroy said the bill was largely aimed at quelling community concern with the industry.
“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,” Conroy said.
Pressed for a more definite answer, Conroy said it would not be including shale in the definition, as it was a “developing” industry.
“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,” he said.
Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham had another point of view.
“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,” he said.
Birmingham also questioned why the legislation was being presented to the Senate without having first gone through a regulatory impact assessment.
