Motions

Inquiry into Unconventional Gas

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:39): I move:

That pursuant to section 16 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the following matters be referred to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee for inquiry and report—

1. The processes involved in the exploration for and extraction of conventional and unconventional gas;

2. The experience of hydraulic fracturing (or 'fracking') for unconventional gas in South Australia, interstate and overseas;

3. The impacts and potential impacts of gas exploration and extraction on—

(a) groundwater;

(b) surface water;

(c) air quality;

(d) climate change;

(e) human health;

(f) agricultural land productivity;

(g) property values; and

(h) local, regional and national economies;

4. How the exploration for and extraction of conventional and unconventional gas should be regulated in South Australia; and

5. Any other relevant matter.

This motion is to give effect to the wishes of local residents, local councils and local members of parliament from the South-East of our state that this parliament conduct an inquiry into the issue of unconventional gas exploration and extraction. This is a motion that I have already raised directly with the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, but the committee was unwilling to accept the inquiry of its own volition; therefore, I am now bringing it to the Legislative Council for resolution.

This motion for a standing committee inquiry into unconventional gas raises a number of issues, and I will deal with these systematically. The first question is whether the Environment, Resources and Development Committee is the most appropriate forum for a parliamentary inquiry. In my view, it clearly is, for a number of reasons. First of all, the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of parliament, as established by the Parliamentary Committees Act, has a clear mandate to inquire into matters that go to the resources of our state, including impacts of resource use on agricultural land, pollution generally, air quality, water quality—you name it.

This is a committee that is already responsible for matters under the Environmental Protection Act, and it is responsible for matters under the Development Act. I think the ERD Committee is the most appropriate forum. Some members might think that an inquiry into unconventional gas might best be conducted through a select committee. If that is the case, then no member has yet moved for such an inquiry, and such an inquiry does impose additional resource issues for the parliament, whereas the ERD standing committee is already resourced and ready to go with an inquiry such as this.

I would also make the point that the ERD Committee currently does not have any formal inquiry underway. The committee has certainly been talking about a number of topics that it might inquire into, but more than six months after the election, there is still no formal inquiry that the ERD Committee is conducting. Therefore, this topic, which is so topical for people down in the South-East, I think is a fine candidate to be the first inquiry for 2014.

The process for getting an inquiry undertaken by a parliamentary committee can take a number of courses. First, a committee is entitled to inquire into any matter on its own volition. If that is not successful, or if it does not think to establish an inquiry itself, then it is possible for either house of parliament to direct a matter to the ERD Committee. That is what this motion does; it is a motion under section 16 of the Parliamentary Committees Act, which effectively refers the matters in the terms of reference to the ERD Committee for inquiry and report.

Under the Parliamentary Committees Act, any topic that is referred by a house of parliament takes precedence over any other inquiry that the committee might be undertaking. But, as I said, there is currently no live inquiry being conducted by the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, so this is a good candidate to be the first inquiry. It is not in competition at this stage with anything else.

I was disappointed that the government and opposition members of the ERD Committee did not accept that this was an appropriate inquiry, and it would be no secret to members that this decision was made entirely on political grounds. In relation to the government, no surprises there. The government never supports inquiries on any topic at any time; it is just the way things are. In fact, I see a number of members looking at me disbelievingly. The challenge, I guess, is (and no doubt I will stand to be corrected) that they will find one or two where the government has agreed to an inquiry, but you have to say they are rare. So, there are no great surprises that the government does not want to have an inquiry into unconventional gas or fracking.

On the other hand, it was disappointing that the Liberal Party were not prepared to accept the inquiry, especially since the two local Liberal members down there are on the record as saying before the election that they wanted a parliamentary inquiry. I have discussed this matter with the Leader of the Opposition and he has expressed to me some concerns about the terms of reference, the breadth of the inquiry, whether it is the appropriate forum—of course, none of those issues hold much water.

I think, at the end of the day, the Liberals are horribly divided on this issue. They have some members who are listening to their local communities' concerns down in the South-East; you have other members who are as gung-ho about fracking and gas as the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis. It is hard to be as excited about gas as the minister, but there are some in the Liberal Party who are equally enthusiastic.

I do need to actually walk the council through the terms of reference briefly, because I think we do need to explore the issue as to whether they are too broad or inappropriate, because I cannot see that they are. When I conclude, I will conclude with an invitation that if members want to tinker, tweak, modify, subtract from or add to the terms of reference I am open to those discussions. The first term of reference for the inquiry is:

1. The processes involved in the exploration for and extraction of conventional and unconventional gas.

The reason that I have included both conventional and unconventional gas is that they do in fact have most elements in common, but it is important in the debate over fracking to understand what the difference is between conventional and unconventional gas. If you have not identified the differences, it is hard to put fracking into context. They both have similarities, especially in relation to the creation of waste, or process water as it is called, but you do need to understand what is different about fracking to conventional gas. The second term of reference is:

2. The experience of hydraulic fracturing (or 'fracking') for unconventional gas in South Australia, interstate and overseas.

The reason that is expressed in that way is that if we were to focus only on the experience in South Australia then it would be a very limited experience. Some members would say it has been used in the Cooper Basin for a period, but down in the South-East, which is the focus of attention, you have a couple of incomplete test wells near Penola and currently that is about it. So, we do need to understand what the experience has been elsewhere, otherwise we have no capacity to assess what the risks are and what the dangers might be. The third term of reference is:

3. The impacts and potential impacts of gas exploration and extraction on—

(a) groundwater;

(b) surface water;

(c) air quality;

(d) climate change;

(e) human health;

(f) agricultural land productivity;

(g) property values; and

(h) local, regional and national economies.

In effect, as is common with terms of reference for inquiries such as this, all of the issues that people are likely to want to talk about in terms of the impacts of the activity—there needs to be a way for them to be raised. Of course, the consequences of having too narrow a terms of reference are that people with legitimate concerns could be shut down if giving evidence and told by the chair of the inquiry, 'You are not to talk about that; that is not in our terms of reference.' So, I really think it does need to cover all the issues that have been raised by South Australians to date. The fourth term of reference is:

4. How the exploration for and extraction of conventional and unconventional gas should be regulated in South Australia.

That of course raises the issue of the current procedures under the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act and whether those procedures (which are currently identical for conventional and unconventional gas) should be different. Are there elements of unconventional gas that warrant different regulation? You need a term of reference to cover that. Finally, any other relevant matter which, of course, as members know, is always added to inquiries because there are likely to be issues raised in the evidence that people have not thought of.

So I think that the terms of reference are appropriate. It would not make sense to narrow it to just the South East because the range of experience there is too limited—a couple of test wells at Penola and that is it. We do need to put the industry into context. We need to understand how the different forms of extraction are different, and we need to look at what is happening elsewhere.

So I invite members to reflect on the terms of reference and to consider whether or not they need to be changed or modified and, like I say, I think we have the forum right, the ERD Committee of parliament. I am open to whether the terms of reference need to be changed and I do give notice at this time that I will be bringing this to a vote before the parliament rises at the end of the year, at a date to be advised to members next month. I urge all members to support the motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.