Motion
Pursuant to standing order 67(3), the following motion by Hon Robin Chapple was moved pro forma on 21 November 2019 —
That the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources (Hydraulic Fracturing) Amendment Regulations 2019 published in the Government Gazette on 6 September 2019 and tabled in the Legislative Council on 17 September 2019 under the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources Act 1967, be and are hereby disallowed.
Comments and speeches from various members
HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [3.56 pm]: I do not rise to indicate that I will vote to support the disallowance motion, but I want to use this opportunity to make some comments more generally about some of the implications of fracking and to touch on some of the issues that have arisen in the way that this particular set of regulations has been put together. Those members who were in the thirty-eighth Parliament will remember that I was the first member to propose a moratorium on fracking way back in 2010. I raised a number of concerns then, and I am very concerned that they are still relevant now. I talked about the water use, the disposal of returned water, the clearing for the wellhead sites and all the interconnecting infrastructure, the health and environmental risks of failing to effectively contain the gas and the fracked water, and the concerns about the long-term maintenance of closed and abandoned wells and the infrastructure that would remain. However, above and beyond the reasons we have to be concerned about the process of fracking itself, we need to be even more concerned about the future we are choosing by expanding the fossil fuel industry. This is something that I started to elaborate on quite extensively in about 2012. This was at a time when we knew that we needed to decarbonise as rapidly as possible. It has been many years since then. Noting that I initially proposed the fracking moratorium a decade ago, it took until 2012 before we were able to debate that motion in this place and, unsurprisingly, the house did not vote in favour of a moratorium. In fact, as I recall, the Greens were the only ones who voted for the moratorium.
I also would like to note that the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs inquired into the implications for Western Australia of hydraulic fracturing for unconventional gas during the thirty-ninth Parliament and reported in 2015. The recommendations in that report reflect much of the same thinking that was in my original submission into the review of the onshore gas regulations in 2012. That report was debated in the first half of 2016 and I was pleased that the Labor Party went into the 2017 election with a promise to ban fracking in WA. However, I was not very pleased, although not surprised, when it turned around and lifted the ban on all the areas where fracking might successfully release gas; that is, the active petroleum exploration permit areas mostly in the Canning and North Perth basins, like the petroleum exploration permits in the Peel, Perth and south west areas, can be explored and turned into production only via conventional methods. It is inconsequential really because it does not make any difference.
Part of the justification for lifting the fracking ban came from the scientific inquiry into fracking that was established on 5 September 2017. It reported on 12 September 2018 and went public in November 2018. The time line of the government’s fracking implementation plan expects that all the accepted recommendations will be fully implemented by the end of the year. The moratorium over certain areas has been lifted and exploratory fracking applications can once again be made. I have stood here multiple times over the course of effectively the last decade arguing that conventional gas has no merit so we cannot with any integrity commit to a future with a growing LNG industry and a future in which we can successfully fight climate change. We have known for years that we cannot continue to extract and use fossil fuels at the rate that we have been. We know that we need to drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels, but now this government is not only seeking opportunities to increase the size of the conventional gas industry, it is also actively seeking to create a productive unconventional gas industry. We are talking about the exploitation of areas that absolutely do not need to be touched.
At the top level, we know that choosing to expand the gas industry in any form is utterly irresponsible, and it is particularly irresponsible to choose to support an industry that carries all the additional environmental concerns that come with the process of fracking. I cannot believe that I am once again standing in this place arguing about fracking. I appreciate that the government has made substantial strides in the regulations since early 2010, which has not been without its struggles. I remember how hard the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association fought to discredit the work I was doing in that space even though it has now conceded that much of what I was saying was spot on. However, I note that there is still no way of guaranteeing the safety of people and land in this process. I appreciate the government’s intent to substantially increase the transparency of fracking activities by bringing in a number of long-awaited measures, such as baseline environmental monitoring prior to activity; a register of the chemicals used in fracking—oh, my goodness, industry fought very hard against that!— a commitment to look at the accumulative impact of unconventional gas exploration and production on infrastructure instead of continuing to deal with each application on an individual basis, which was absolute lunacy; and, finally, separation of the government agencies responsible for the promotion and regulation of the industry. I recognise that these are significant reforms; ones that I was told could not possibly happen when I was calling for them a decade ago.
I have long been concerned about what will happen to the abandoned wells in the decades after they cease being useful to the companies that originally drilled them. I remain concerned about this just as I remain concerned about the risk of stranded conventional gas infrastructure, which I have already spoken about in this place. I am concerned about what it will cost the public to clean up the mess and maintain the wells well beyond when we can expect the companies to still be in business and, even worse, if the companies involved put us in a situation similar to what happened with the Northern Endeavour.
Concerns about the use of water remain relevant, especially in the productive agricultural areas in the midwest where mining, agricultural and fracking operations compete for groundwater, and because climate change is reducing rainfall in other areas of the state. We have already seen the over-allocation of groundwater. Multiple areas in the great southern are now dependent on water being trucked in to keep livestock alive, and multiple townships are also reliant on water being trucked in.
We know that even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gases right now, we would not see for decades an end to the climate change that we set in motion. Farmers in the south west will see less and less rain, and rainfall will occur outside the regular time frames. We will also see wild weather more often. It is unconscionable to not prioritise water for people, animals and food production over water for gas production, especially when we know that the industry is one of the biggest climate polluters. This will only make the situation worse. I am glad that the government intends to bring in a right of veto for private landowners for production wells, but I am not pleased that this does not apply to exploration wells. The best a private landowner can hope for is appropriate compensation while an explorer is investigating their land. As my colleague Hon Robin Chapple also discussed, there are a number of concerns within Aboriginal communities about how the right of veto for traditional owners has already played out and will continue to play out.
Aside from this motion, but in relation to the overall implementation plan, I point out that the idea of the clean energy future fund supported by the net royalties from onshore fracking is a bit of a joke. We already know that almost no net royalties will be seen and that this is just a way to avoid funding the work that must be done for the future. I understand that once again the government has caved in to industry pressure to go ahead with an industry; the technology for which we simply do not need and cannot afford. I will continue to raise my concerns about this issue as I have done for the past decade. I know that I am right, just as I knew I was right a decade ago. I feel confident that history will prove that to be the case and as it has to date. But in the meantime, I remain concerned about this industry as a whole. We should not be looking to expand fracking. We should have maintained a moratorium over the whole state. I go further than that—I would like to see a ban on fracking over the whole state.
Comments and speeches from various members
Question put and negatived.