Alcoa mine rehabilitation, Anglesea
Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (12:37): My question is for the Minister for Water. Alcoa is currently developing plans to rehabilitate their coalmine site in Anglesea. In order to do this, they plan to fill the existing mine pit with water. They have applied for a licence from Southern Rural Water to extract 1.5 gigalitres of groundwater per year for 10 years to do this. That is the equivalent of one MCG full of water annually. For context, Barwon Water is licensed to draw just 0.01 gigalitres per year from the same aquifer to supply the Geelong region in times of drought. Decades of water extraction to fuel mining operations by Alcoa at the Anglesea mine has already resulted in the depletion of underground aquifers and acidification of the Anglesea River, depleting the marine ecology and causing several mass fish kills. There is widespread community concern at Anglesea regarding Alcoa’s plan to further extract significant volumes of groundwater and the risk to the Anglesea River and environment. Minister, will you intervene to prevent Alcoa obtaining this licence?
Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (12:38): Thank you, Dr Mansfield, for that question. There are really strict considerations around environmental impact that form part of discussions around the allocation of water through licensing, and that will be the case in this decision as it is in every other. When we are working to allocating water, we also need to take into consideration a range of other factors. This includes community engagement, where appropriate, and the work of independent statutory bodies and agencies.
It is Alcoa’s responsibility to develop a mine rehabilitation process and a plan and to make sure that when mines are rehabilitated the objectives of ‘safe, stable and sustainable’ are at the heart of that work. This is the case not only at the former Anglesea coalmine site but also in the Latrobe Valley, when we are talking about what mine site rehabilitation looks like there, which is something that I have taken you and colleagues in this chamber to on a number of occasions.
We also need to make sure that any water used does not have an unacceptable impact on local waterways and any sort of groundwater-dependent ecosystems as well. That is part of the framework by which these considerations take place, and it is also about any impact on critical water supplies for the region.
It is not limited to one particular site but rather to a broader range of considerations. So SRW – Southern Rural Water – has received that application from Alcoa, and that is about amending the groundwater licence. They are working through that assessment process, as they need to do. That will consider impacts that it is appropriate that they are in a position to consider as part of an established process, and that process needs to run its course.
Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (12:40): I thank the minister for her response. Filling the Alcoa mine pit with water will result in a lake that is highly acidic and too toxic for any recreational activity, let alone swimming. I suspect it will support limited plant and animal life. Someone said it might be a tourist attraction, but Anglesea is not actually that short of tourist attractions, so I do not think the toxic lake is going to add much. Victoria’s south-west is already experiencing the impact of climate change, with less water and a drying climate. Alcoa themselves claim the acidification of the Anglesea River is due to climate change; it is contested, but that is their claim. So Minister, how can the government justify allowing Alcoa to even consider using precious groundwater to fill this mine pit, particularly in the face of climate change?
Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (12:41): Thank you, Dr Mansfield, for that supplementary question. Again, I will take you back to the guiding principles of mine rehabilitation, namely that those sites need to be safe, stable and sustainable. There are a range of ways to achieve that, and this is also something that requires consideration of often a spectrum of different options, whether it is a partial or a full fill of a pit or whether it is some other form of remediation, and also whether that occurs through natural inflows or through the supply of water from recycled and other water resources, for example. Again, Southern Rural Water is undertaking that work. It needs to be able to undertake that work by reference to the sorts of considerations that I outlined, including impact to water supplies in the region and any obvious consequences throughout the area that might affect the health or the sustainability of broader waterway impact. Climate change remains a significant consideration across the broader work of the water portfolio. I will continue to focus on that as a priority.