PRA: Regional Queensland deserves better

Minister for Natural resources & Mines, Andrew Cripps
photo sourced Courier Mail

Regional Queensland deserves better. Agricultural producers did not deserve to be labelled environmental vandals under the previous government and they don’t deserve the slur made by Minister Andrew Cripps when he said [page 3010] that those who did not support the Mineral& Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill were:

 “influenced and misled by green groups or certain law firms whose main interest is to generate community concern and discontent.”

This is clearly quite ridiculous, this polarising of the debate is very unhelpful and the Minister should take the time to read the transcript to the Mackay hearing where landowners took the trouble to point out that they have a legitimate view under no influence from any other sector.

At 4 minutes to midnight Tuesday night September 9^th the Queensland Government sold out rural landowner’s property rights with the passing of the Act complete with amendments [page 3104]

The lead up consultation was a pretence and the parliamentary committee report a farce on a Bill that was so bad that it had the potential without considered and responsible modification to be second only to the notorious vegetation management act of the previous government. But then the last minute amendments presented in block with no scrutiny realistically possible, rammed through on party lines delivered a disastrous outcome that deserves equal notoriety of anything landowners suffered under the Beattie/ Bligh era.

  Across the board in submission and at the hearings [here& here] rural organisations and individual landowners outlined their grave concerns about the Bill and offered constructive suggestions to how improvements could be made. The parliamentary committee chairman, the LNP member for Lockyer, Ian Rickuss failed to make recommendations which took account of these serious concerns.  Numerous submitters and witnesses at public hearings gave personal accounts of the difficulty of securing a satisfactory Conduct and Compensation Agreement (CCA) and the gross imbalance of power. Mr. Rickuss seems to think they were all just whinging. In the debate on Tuesday night Mr. Rickuss displaying his insensitivity to the submissions made said: [page 3061]

Ian Rickuss, member for Lockyer
photo sourced ABC

 

“What I can say about the conduct and compensation agreements for the landholders is that some of the landholders have to grab these and take control of the agenda. This is what it is about. If they sit down and think about what they have to do with these conduct and compensation agreements and get the appropriate advice, these will be a real win-win for the landholders.”

“I ask landholders to put in a lot of effort into these things.”

Mr. Rickuss is urging landholders to get the appropriate advice and yet the Government has left in a primitive clause in this Act which was meant to “modernise” the resources Acts where landowners can “opt out” of conduct and compensation agreements. This will catch out many landowners who lose their ability to access the Land Court and is binding on future title holders. Landowners need to seek legal advice and not to agree to this option as you lose the ability to call on the umpire, the Land Court, which does its best to be fair.

One would wonder who the minister, Andrew Cripps, believes is appropriate to give advice as he repeatedly slandered legal experts experienced in representing landowners who at their own expense wrote submissions and gave evidence at the hearings.  Under parliamentary privilege Minister Cripps stated that certain legal firms were scaremongering lawyers; legal profession with vested interests; encouraging conflict; attracting and/or protecting their business and were irresponsible.

Property Rights Australia believes that it is the Minister that has been highly irresponsible. Not only are these allegations patronising and insulting but plainly untrue. It is negligent behaviour for the Minister and the Government to discourage landowners to trust experienced legal professionals who are essential to protect landowner rights in negotiations.

The Minister has been misleading in his statements not only before the Bill was passed but in defending it afterwards. Most notable was throughout the debate stating clearly that even though the Bill removes objection rights to small mines that objections can still be made on large mines. In his speech introducing the Bill for its second reading Andrew Cripps did foreshadow the later introduction of further amendments but any informed person would have thought what he was talking about was quite different to what he ultimately introduced. Despite his earlier assurances amongst the amendments was one that effectively has removed the right to object to a large mine as the Coordinator General’s conditions will be considered to address the environmental concerns and therefore almost no one will have the right to object to the Environmental Authority. In effect the Coordinator General will be judge and jury without access to appeal of new resource projects.

Small alluvial gold mine north Queensland

 For the government to talk about small mines as low impact mines is nonsense. There are large mines that affect a large number of people, even entire communities right down to small mines that affect fewer landowners. The impact on the few can at times be severe.

Restricted areas have been severely curtailed and will not exist for most infrastructure unless it is negotiated in a CCA.  Again the minister has been misleading on this subject talking about landowners being left with isolated infrastructure; a Swiss chess affect, he called it. The reduction of restricted areas is of benefit to the resource company rather than the landowner who not only loses protection over important essential infrastructure on their land and privacy around their houses but also loses a very real bargaining chip for the landowner during negotiations. 

No reasonable or responsible person, company or government can expect a landowner to accept damage, loss, contamination or interference to their established business to benefit a resource company.

Property Rights Australia believes that at the very minimum landowners with impacts identified in the EIS should be notified by mail, have the ability to make objections and unimpaired access to the Land Court.

Queensland cannot afford to have property rights of landowners to be sacrificed to ensure the prosperity of the resource industries. 

Property Rights Australia submission

Previous related post

PRA: Hearing into new Qld resources bill .

New bill denies natural justice

PRA: Hearing into new Qld resources bill

Qld parliament AREC Chair Ian Rickuss & deputy Chair
Jackie Trand. Photo sourced Qld Country Life

  

On behalf of property Rights Australia, chair Joanne Rea appeared before hearing at MacKay 20th August  into the Mineral & Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill. The following is Joanne's opening statement to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee






Property Rights Australia believes that this Bill severely erodes many of the protections and rights of landowners for the benefit of resources industries. In fact we believe it to be one of the greatest abrogations of landowner rights since the Vegetation Management Act 1999.

Some of our concerns are outlined in our submission but it is not exhaustive. They are concerns that are shared by many landowner representatives and by legal professionals specialising in representing landowners. PRA highly recommends the submission by Shine lawyers.

We have heard the Premier and Ministers say, when asked about landowner concerns that the resources companies and related infrastructure will create very many jobs and the royalties will fund infrastructure. Such statements imply that resource development and landowner concerns are mutually exclusive. This is not the case.

 We are constantly told of the billions of dollars in revenue which will benefit the state and we are well aware of the above average wages and conditions paid to mine workers and contractors. However, landowners are approached with an attitude of penury and meanness.

If resource companies want a relatively trouble free path they should approach landowners with a fair offer of recompense from the beginning, negotiate in good faith, not waste their time, apply pressure, bully, ignore concerns, renege on agreements and use various other bluff and deception tactics. They should also be mindful of local knowledge. Lobbying Government for changes to legislation which erode the rights of landowners because they are getting resistance to their unfair tactics is unacceptable.

Landowners feel that they have been thrown to the wolves with the lack of protection of their property rights under pieces of legislation like this. Commercial agreements alone are not possible without built in protection when one party to negotiations is an unwilling party whose time commitment is a cost and the companies who have full time paid professionals. This factor is frequently taken advantage of.

The balance of power in negotiations with resource companies has always been in favour of the resource companies and changes to legislation including those in this Bill have eroded almost every bargaining chip landowners may have had and handed the entire box and dice to the resources companies.

The superior fire power of the resources sector has won the day with this proposed legislation and the property rights of landowners are being disregarded. This is not the treatment that we expect from any Government which should be should be concerned about private property rights which are the cornerstone of our free market system.

All in all there is too much left to regulation rather than in the legislation, there are too many things which are not defined and landowner’s rights have been severely curtailed. This legislation should be deferred and taken back to the drawing board. It is entirely inappropriate that resource companies have damaged their own reputations as honest and good faith negotiators and then ask the government to fix their problems by legislation which damages landowner’s rights to the enjoyment of their property. It is very obvious that this legislation was “industry directed” for the benefit of resources companies and that landowner rights will be severely damaged. PRA does not support the further erosion of property rights by yet another government. It would appear that there are no major parties whose philosophical principle is to uncompromisingly to protect private property rights, a valuable and recognised cornerstone of our society and the ability of businesses to operate securely.

New bill denies natural justice

Peter Anderson, Central Qld grazier, photo sourced PRA 2014 conference.

The property rights and principles of natural justice of landholders will be severely compromised by certain provisions in the Mineral and Energy Resources Bill tabled in the Qld Parliament on June 5. Quite simply, this Bill just once more pushes the balance even more in favour of the mining companies at the expense of the landholders.




Please click on [this link] to a letter from Glen Martin of Shine Lawyers for a very readable summary of some very worrying aspects of this new bill.

The submission deadline for this new bill is June 30. This is far too short of a time span set in the busy timeframe of the end of the financial year to understand a long, complex new bill and amendments to 5 other existing resources acts.

PRA urges all Queenslanders to contact their local member of parliament, write a letter to the editor and to write a submission to the parliamentary committee [link] if only to say nothing more than that before such sweeping changes are made wide public discussion should be allowed in a time frame more suitable to the length, complexity and grave implications of this new bill.

Newspaper article from the Chinchilla News May 15

George Bender farms in the very productive Hopeland district and this article was published in his local newspaper The Chinchilla News on May 15.

George was concerned about how close coal seam gas infrastructure could be build to his family farm as was outlined in a review the Qld government released in the lead up the very concerning new bill tabled on June 5.

George had every right to be concerned because in the new bill it appears that CSG & mining exploration and then following gasfields and mines will be allowed as close as 200m from
- A residence
- A place of worship
- a childcare centre, hospital or library;
- school
- a cemetery or burial place;
- aquaculture, intensive animal feedlotting, pig keeping or poultry farming

200 metres is the restricted distance; if you own anything that is not in the above list there are no restrictions. 

Peter Anderson (photo top of the page) addressed the PRA conference in Roma on June 13, 2014. Peter and his family run a vertically integrated cattle breeding, finishing and feedlot operation at Clermont and Alfa, Central Qld.
In recent times the Anderson family's cattle operation has become threatened by mining lease applications in the Galilee Basin. The concern to the operation in the future is the threat of mining operat...ions to underground water impacts on bores that have sustained their cattle operation for many years, especially in drought when they rely on bores after dams go dry. Attempts to strike meaningful Make Good Agreements with international mining companies that recognises this legitimate concern has seen land holders like us in an untenable situation.

The Anderson's and their neighbours were forced to take their very real concerns to the Land Court were they had a significant win that set good precedents for other landholders. Read more [here] 

If the new Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill 2014 is past in its current form the ability for neighbours to object to any new mining or coal seam gas project will not be available. The property rights and principles of natural justice of landowners will be severely compromised by the  proposed changes.

For Those attending the PRA conference it was very evident the personal & emotional toll this battle has had upon Peter due to the stress of not having his issues addressed by the neighbouring Coal Project and the disregarded impacts on their water supply for their cattle and livelihood





Barry Rich with daughter Elyse, photo sourced, Land Court sides with grazier


"The Rich family were among a group of Wandoan landholders who challenged in the Land Court a $7 billion Xstrata mining development on their doorstep because of concerns over dust, noise, odour, vibration and health impacts on cattle and people.

And while his small court victory will see the Xstrata mine pit moved at least 3km from his home, it has been a five-year battle to provide some certainty for Mr Rich's feedlot enterprise."

To read more click on the link in the photo caption.
If the new Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill 2014 is past in its current form the ability for neighbours to object to any new mining or coal seam gas project will not be available. The property rights and principles of natural justice of landowners will be severely compromised by the proposed changes.


Neville Stiller, photo sourced, Farmer sick of CSG workers camp

 

 

Wandoan district farmer, Neville Stiller, without any consultation had a 600 man workers camp for a QGC gas pipeline built close to his house. Under existing Qld law there is very little consideration given to neighbours to coal seam gas projects.

 

For more information click on the link in the photo caption

 

In the new Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill this situation has been rectified. Property Rights Australia supports the advancement of rights afforded to impacts on neighbours outside a resource authority boundary or a property boundary. It is long overdue and should be standard across all policies, regulations and legislation.

However the positives in the bill are overshadowed by new provisions that erode landholders rights..



UPDATE #1 June 21
Good news the parliamentary committee has extended the submission period to Wednesday 9th July.

Please keep sharing this post, the extension only gives a greater time to get submissions in. The parliamentary committee needs to know that some of the provisions in the bill are unreasonable for landholders.
.

Powerlink update for the PRA conference field trip

By Kerry Ladbrook, PRA Board Member 

Kerry Ladbrook with microphone & PRA chair Joanne Rea centre at the field trip to "Sydeva", Yuleba June 12 2014

Powerlink Qld , a Government Owned Corporation, have been contracted by the private Coal Seam Gas Companies to supply high voltage power to Origin & Santos infrastructure in the North West Surat Basin.

In 2013 landholders in this area highlighted  through an e-petition that was presented to Parliament that this was resource requested infrastructure for the benefit of the coal seam gas industry and should not be coming under the the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 but the Petroleum & Gas Act.

In this particular area, landholders are impacted by multiple high voltage infrastructure.  “Sydeva” has three high voltage powerlines interconnecting between 3 switching stations on neighbouring properties.  All three of the lines on “Sydeva” enter or exit from the Yuleba North Substation which is located on our property “Bulah” approx. 7 kms to the North West.  Yuleba North Substation is the central hub & has 5 high voltage powerlines emanating from the substation. These range from 275000 volt Tower construction to 132 000 volt concrete pole construction. There will be an estimated 9000 vehicle movements associated with its construction. In total there are 8 sub or switching stations and all are interconnected with high voltage power lines in the North West Surat area.

With the support of Howard Hobbs, the local member for Warrego, our issues have been raised with his colleagues in State Parliament. 

Landholders are still experiencing difficulties with the Powerlink approach although minor policy changes have been implemented that enable landholders to access expert costs required to detail compensation earlier at the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Stage and before Community Designation. 

Before this policy change, landholders were expected to meet their own costs until compensation was agreed upon which negatively impacted on their ability to negotiate.  Powerlink Qld does require quotations to be provided and accepted before the new process can commence.

Powerlink Qld has tremendous power under the Acquisition of Land Act, so do make sure they act responsibly with clean weed washdown certificates prior to any entry (which has been a serious issue not adequately addressed when PQ first began to access our land), consult properly resulting in line or substation movements if needed and detail compensation early utilising the new policy change process. 

PRA board members Trent Hindman & Kerry Ladbrook
at the PRA field trip to "Sydeva", Yuleba, June 12 2014

 

If there are major issues do not hesitate to beat on the door of your local members Office or involve the Resource Company requesting the infrastructure and make them take responsibility for what is really just another one of their contractors.

 

 

Once Community Designation occurs, landholders lose significant rights.  There is only one avenue to follow under the ALA and that is community designation.  There is no second tier for commercial linear infrastructure which is a serious flaw that needs changing in the Acquisition of Land act 1967.

There are a number of points as landholders we have raised that we would like detailed in legislation for this type of development to protect our rights & address the impacts from this type of development  and these include:

·        Recognition and payment of landholder time throughout the process.

·        Payment of compensation at a commercial rate

·        Ongoing annual payments for the life of the projects- expected to be 50-80 years .

·        Acceptable access protocols with emphasis on fresh & current weed washdowns prior to entry to landholdings. 

Origin and Santos to their credit have recognised that this high voltage infrastructure is resource requested and not community driven, and are now detailing annual “ goodwill” commercial payments for the life of the Coal Seam Gas Industry or 30 years (whichever is the lesser). 

This is a separate payment to the “one off” payment made under the Acquisition of Land Act by Powerlink  and  the two are not connected. .

 

Previously published related articles

It's time to recognise time  

Petition against abuse of power by Powerlink

Power price rise link to Powerlink 

Scrutiny needed for Powerlink projects

 

State Corporation, Powerlink vs Woodduck Landholder Group

PRA 2014 Conference - Proactive protection of your rights

Property Rights Australia media release:

Proactive protection of your rights – Coal Seam Gas & beef roundtables  

Property Rights Australia is offering those who attend their 11^th annual conference a couple of opportunities seldom available on their own let alone packaged in the two day event in

Roma on 12 – 13 June 2014.

 

 

Speaking about the conference theme of, proactive protection of your rights PRA chair Joanne Rea said, “a field trip and presentations will give practical insights how you can be pre-emptive in protecting your rights. The main subjects covered at this conference will be the resource sector especially coal seam gas impact on landowners and also the proposed Global roundtable for sustainable beef.”

Day one has a full itinerary of property visits including a full scale developing coal seam gas field; not usually available for the general public. Connecting infrastructure for CSG fields such as high voltage Powerlink transmission lines will also be covered on the field trip. Attendees will be able to view infrastructure and talk directly to the landholders about their experiences.

On day 1 visit to Brett Griffin’s property “Sydeva”, north of Yuelba which has over 100 coal seam gas wells under development

Day two is the full-day conference with expert guest speakers including from leading legal firms. Mrs Rea said that, “PRA has endeavoured to bring together law firms who specialise in representing landholders and have an active hands-on presence in the Surat Basin. This creates the opportunity for attendees to access the combine expertise rarely gathered together at the one venue.”

 Member for Warrego Howard Hobbs will open the conference and Senator Barry O’Sullivan, proposer of the “Square Table” for beef will be the keynote speaker.

There will be one session of three speakers and a question & answer time devoted entirely to the crucial underground water resource. “Even if you are totally unaware of any imminent resource projects there are simple practical measures the landholder can undertake now with property bores that will give some protection to water supply in the future.”, Mrs Rea said, “This conference is planned to cater to provide knowledge from the absolute novice to those experienced in negotiations with resource companies with targeted talks by high calibre speakers.”

The conference is open to all and the cost has been reduced as far as possible so as to be affordable. Considering the access throughout the day to leading law firms the conference offers high value for money.

Please contact Property Rights Australia 07 4921 3430 to book your place.

2014 Field Trip & Conference/AGM Online Registration

.

WWF: Seductive songs of sustainability

 

Last week the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef met in Brisbane and in various media leading members were at pains to give assurance that there was nothing to fear. It is interesting how the language has changed from the original roundtable meeting in Denver 2010, to the presumptuous launch of the Australian Roundtable [ See: here & here ] at Beef week 2012 that failed after grassroots resistance, to the current day. All in the effort to entice Australian beef producers to the GRSB sustainability principles.

In last week’s issue of the Queensland Country Life Ruaraidh  Petre, Executive Director, GRSB, in a lot of feel good words carefully avoided any mention of the roughly 15 other commodity roundtables both active and proposed and the instigator of them all WWF. Petre repeats the current GRSB mantra that its critics are fearful and adds the charge of conspiracy theorists.

 

Senator Ron Boswell on the facing page strongly warns against involvement with GRSB. Boswell is at the end of a long distinguished career. He has no need to whip up any fear campaign for re-election; this is more a question of legacy, a deep felt desire that an agreement perilous to the long term future of the beef industry does not slip in at the end of his watch. Boswell, as has Property Rights Australia, has done research beyond the confines that Petre and Cattle Council Australia would like to keep our attention. Our warnings are based on real data.

Then on the opinion page of last week’s issue are the words of incoming Senator David Leyonhjelm. He outlines the familiar course used in creating a commodity roundtable; once in place fees introduced, standards raised and governments pressured to make the code mandatory. Leyonhjelm writes that the beneficial promises made for sustainability certification will be mere noise and the downside of not participating, bluff.

 PRA urges beef producers to be very sceptical of the assurance that WWF is but one voice on the roundtable. WWF had gained ascendancy over the major players even before it was convened. The last resistance was supressed in the lead up to the soy roundtable. [See: here, here ]The campaign against soy was based largely on production in Brazil. Nowadays the environmental groups have so much control that Jason Clay from WWF’s Market Transformation Initiative can blazingly state in public that WWF will instigate a finance roundtable which will include principles for sustainable lending in Brazil first because, “that is where we have the most traction.” It appears the traction is so complete in Brazil that Greenpeace was recently reported as directing beef processors including JBS where they could or could not buy cattle from.

Beware that our industry does not become shipwrecked listening to the sirens singing seductive songs of sustainability.

Previous published related post
Are they awake?  

PRA: statement to Regional Planning Interests Bill




Photo: Regional Planning Bill's regulations need more detail

Property Rights Australia supports the intent of the Regional Planning Interests Bill (RPI) and its approach of how to effectively enforce the protection of priority agricultural areas (PAA), priority living areas (PLA) and strategic environmental areas from resource activity. However to be effective the bill requires many amendments as PRA has covered in detail our submission. PRA also cannot give a blank cheque approval of the bill when many details will be in regulation that is yet to be revealed.  

The RPI bill has much power as it overrides various acts including all resource acts, the Environmental protection act (EPA) and the Water act. PRA is concerned that the bill is unclear if landowner rights will be lost by the RPI overriding the EPA and thereby Environmental Authorities that afford protection from the likes of dust and noise. Also the Water Act where protections are offered by the likes of ‘make good’ provisions to loss of underground water from coal seam gas activity.

It’s important not to lose sight of the big picture; this bill will be in effect for all of Queensland. The Newman LNP government has a policy aim of doubling agricultural production by 2040 and for this to be possible full protection needs to be afforded to the most productive agricultural areas. When you get right down to what we must protect, it is the better soil types; whether it is currently being cropped or has a future potential for high value agriculture capable of various commodity production.

Photo: Darling Downs plan may place farm land in CSG firing line

This hearing located in Toowoomba which is on the edge of the Darling Downs where the high quality cropping land covers a wide area without a break beyond any individual boundary. This bill has to be also relevant to all parts of Qld where good soils are often much more fragmented. The soil types will change not only within a district but also within an individual property.

The Newman LNP government also sought to support new areas available for high value agriculture in the reforms to the Vegetation Management Act especially in the less developed regions far away from the more settled south east.

At the time of the reforms to the vegetation management act eminent rangeland scientist Dr Bill Burrows wrote in the paper, Bushland at risk of tree & shrub thickening:

Photo: Protecting the Scenic Rim

“A common maximum of rural landholders is to develop the best country (that is capable of the greatest productivity improvement) first. Yet in generally marginal country there can often still be found what I call “pockets of viability” on most holdings.”

…..”Development of these zones can often turn a marginal enterprise into an acceptable living area.”

It is these pockets of viability throughout the state that must also be protected by an amended ‘workable’ Regional Planning Interests bill






Crucial in determining a regional interest for the protection of the best land, living areas and environmental areas are the various Regional Plans. The PRA submission details the complexities of the various land classification systems to be used with the Strategic Cropping Land trigger maps and soil criteria to be retained from the to be repealed SCL Act alongside the PAA’s as revealed in the Darling Downs and Central Qld Regional Plans. There is no recognition of the decades of work by the old Department of Primary Industries and the Lands Department in the collection of data and the development of the Good Quality Agricultural Land soil classification system. There is neither any mention of the expertise of the current Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Photo: North needs tailored strategies  

 

 

 

It is like retaining a series of old band aids that never quite satisfactory served their full function. The inadequacies of the PAA’s in the Regional Plans are such that it makes one nostalgic for the Strategic Cropping Land soil criteria that PRA was doubtful of its value when introduced.  

 

 

 PRA makes the following recommendations to the parliamentary committee:

·         That it refers to an expert committee to recommend a single, straightforward, cohesive soil classification system to use in the RPI bill to determine a regional interest.

·         All good quality agricultural land no matter its current use should be considered as a regional interest; not just land that is currently cropped.

·         The uncertainty of protections afforded to landowners under the EPA and Water acts be rectified and assurances given that these rights are retained.

·         Where an exemption comes into effect via agreement with the landowner, full disclosure should be made to the landowner and that the resource company must be required at completion of the activity to restore the land to full productive capacity.

·         Clause 50 (2) must be amended that it is not automatic that the chief executive “must give effect” to the recommendations by the accessing agency. PRA fully endorses the comments made on this point by Peter Shannon on behalf of the Basin Sustainability Alliance to the hearing.

·         That throughout the bill that it refers not only to owners of the land but also occupiers and that the definition of owner is amended.

PRA respectfully asks the committee to refer to the submission for further comment and recommendations.

************************************

The above was written from dot points from which I spoke from for the opening statement at the parliamentary committee hearing in Toowoomba on January 30 2014. It won’t be an exact copy of what was said but that the transcripts will be made public soon.

The PRA submission is available [here].

Photo sourced [here]

PRA: July Newsletter

Report of Property Rights Australia Conference 2013

This year was the 10th anniversary of the inception of PRA. Ashley McKay gave us a brief history of the achievements of the organisation over that time. There is little doubt that without PRA many more families would have had their lives and businesses ruined by the Vegetation Management Act and the spiteful and often illegal way in which it was administered.

PRA stalwart Philip Sheridan gave a clear explanation of the amendments to the Vegetation Management Act. He does warn however that it is still not possible to pull your property from fence to fence. There are still laws and regulations for vegetation clearing although some actions have become self-assessable.

At the time of the conference the self-assessable codes under the amendments to the Vegetation Management Act were yet to be released. Subsequently the Queensland Government has released the Mulga Lands Fodder Area Management Plan. Those members in the mulga lands need to read this document closely.

http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/vegetation/clearing/pdf/mulga-lands-fodder-amp.pdf.

There is no doubt that the Government has appreciated the public support by PRA of the amendments to the Vegetation Management Act in the face of a very vicious and sometimes very personal campaign against the Premier by the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) with respect to the amendments.

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Dr. John McVeigh addressed our Conference as representative for the Premier and told us of the Governments plan for agriculture.

 

 

Powerlink was in the spotlight with Gary and Kerry Ladbrook telling us of their experiences.

Richard Golden in his presentation,Living and Working in a Gasfield, gave an account of the extra difficulty of dealing with multiple resource and infrastructure companies. There are many members who are trying to deal with multiple companies and it takes a great deal of time away from their farm businesses.

 

“Powerlines, Pipelines and Porky Pies” was the title of the presentation by Tom Marland, solicitor. Tom also summarised a case won on behalf of a client.

Anne Bridle of Basin Sustainability Alliance had a stunning visual presentation of the extent of CSG wells in the Surat Basin. One of her tips was to be very vigilant about testing bores before extraction, not only for what is in them but for what is not in them and for both quantity and quality of water. Basin Sustainability Alliance (BSA) has on their web site a tool that allows you to view CSG well maps and information at your fingertips, for more information click here>> http://www.basinsustainabilityalliance.org/researchlinks.html

or email BSA for the file - info@basinsustainabilityalliance.org

 

Trent Hindman spoke to the expert report prepared by DR. Bill Burrows for his appeal. 

The media, including social media, like it or not, is extremely important to the way rural industry gets its message across and it must become even more important or our voices will be lost in an avalanche of contra arguments put by environmental and animal welfare groups.

Queensland Country Life deputy editor Troy Rowling gave us some insights into how the urban media thinks and how we may be able to make an impression on them. Alex Sparkes of farmz.com.au, a web site dedicated to rural pursuits, told us of his site and the importance of social media in getting a message across.

Many who attended the Conference expressed appreciation of both the speakers and the opportunity of interaction with others with similar challenges and outlook.

End of report.

…………………………………………..

Local Government Referendum

Professor Suri Ratnapala has been a critic of the Vegetation Management Act as an example of extremely bad law from its inception. He is a former guest speaker at our Conference. He has now prepared an essay in opposition to the Constitutional Amendment giving formal recognition to local government to be voted on at election time.

Professor Suri Ratnapala goes on to say:

‘The proposed amendment may look innocent but, for the reasons that I have explained, is a calculated assault on the fundamental structure of the Australian Constitution. The Australian federation is a system of vertically divided power in which the Commonwealth and the states have their assured spheres of governance. The federal-state balance that the delegates of the Colonies painstakingly worked out has, since federation, been reweighted in favour of the centre by the High Court’s endorsement of the Commonwealth’s expansive legislative claims. Even so, there remain significant constitutional limits to the Commonwealth’s powers. It may only legislate on specified areas. It can only spend public money for the purposes identified with its legislative sphere. Its so-called nationhood power is limited to situations of national emergency. Importantly, it can make grants of public funds under s 96, as it stands, only to the states and only on conditions that the states are at legal liberty to reject. However, as I have explained, the proposed amendment if enacted will further erode the remaining capacity of the states to manage their own affairs and will further threaten their legal, political and economic existence. If enacted, it will cause irreparable harm to the Australian polity and economy.’

His essay can be found here:

http://freedomwatch.ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Reasons-for-opposing-the-LG-amendment-Ratnapala.pdf

…………………………………………..

Land Court

A recent decision of the Land Court involved the Keys, Erbacher and Edmonds families. Unfortunately the initial reports of the case had inaccurate and inflated amounts reported as having been awarded. Queensland Country Life has reported on this story in the past and they did report the decision accurately.

The amounts awarded, although fair were not as generous as originally reported by many media outlets and are only activated if and when Xstrata are given a mining lease which could be well into the future.

The link to the decision on the case is here.

http://www.landcourt.qld.gov.au/documents/decisions/MRA305-12%20etc.pdf 

Some resources and infrastructure companies are trying to make landowners fearful of going to the Land Court in order to rush them into signing an agreement.

PRA’s observation of the Land Court is that it tries to be fair but it relies on documentation and more documentation. It is essential to keep a diary up to date and a camera handy and record every inconvenience, how long it took to rectify and at what cost. Reasonably incurred costs for solicitors and other professionals are allowed by the legislation. This may require an affidavit from the professional as to why the cost was necessary but the final payout is decided by the Court and not the company.
.