LANDHOLDER Groups in Queensland are raising concerns about the Government’s new ‘critical minerals’ legislation, which they say could mean compulsory acquisitions.

A recent inquiry by the Primary Industries and Resources Committee recommended that the State Development and Public Works Organisation (Critical Minerals) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 be passed.

Property Rights Australia chair Dale Stiller said there had been repeated warnings from agricultural, legal, local government and community organisations.

“The way this Bill has been ruthlessly rammed through is deeply concerning,” Mr Stiller said.

“Despite significant flaws being identified in multiple submissions, the committee has chosen to recommend that the Bill be passed without a single change.

“This decision sets the scene for a worrying trend we are seeing from this Government. What further weakening of the protections available to landowners and regional communities are to come?”

Although promoted as critical minerals legislation, PRA says the Bill applies much more broadly to projects considered strategically important to Queensland or a region.

Its powers include access to private land, compulsory acquisition for privately owned projects, restricted third-party appeal rights and modification orders that can change how existing Acts of Parliament apply to individual projects.

“Property rights should not depend on assurances about how a minister may exercise extraordinary powers. The protections must be written into the legislation,” Mr Stiller said.

“Few farmers dispute the importance of major projects to Queensland’s economy. The unresolved question is why the Government is accelerating development without applying equal effort to protecting agricultural land, farming businesses and private property rights.”

PRA sought clear limits on State Strategic Project powers, independent agricultural assessment, full compensation, meaningful landowner consultation, mandatory access and biosecurity safeguards, and preservation of landowner review and appeal rights.

“PRA urges the Crisafulli Government and all Members of Parliament to amend the Bill before it is passed. Queensland’s agricultural land, food production and private property rights are not obstacles to development. They are foundational public interests that Parliament must protect.”

Too high a cost for ag, AgForce

AgForce says significant changes to the State Development and Public Works Organisation (Critical Minerals) Bill come at too high a cost for agriculture.

The peak body strongly opposes expanded powers for compulsory acquisition, land access and infrastructure.

AgForce General President Shane McCarthy said the Bill in its current form is unworkable.

“As it stands, the Bill makes the interests of primary producers secondary to those of major project proponents,” he said.

“The bill is not confined to Critical Minerals but could be applied to any project considered be a State Strategic Project, that is anything considered to be critical, essential or high priority to Queensland, whether that be private or public development.

“In practical terms, the imbalance would leave landholders powerless.

“Anyone who would otherwise be negotiating a project on a commercial basis could face the prospect of compulsory acquisition or statutory access if an agreement can’t be reached.

“AgForce believes those powers must be a genuine last resort, not a tool to gain leverage during negotiations.”

AgForce CEO Niki Ford said AgForce had made its concerns clear to the government during the submission process.

“Despite that, the Parliamentary Committee has recommended the Bill proceed without amendment,” she said.

“We will not accept a framework that shifts the risk and cost of major project development onto the State’s farmers.

“This Bill must be amended to ensure only projects demonstrating a compelling state interest are declared State Strategic Projects and that compulsory acquisition and statutory land access powers are last resorts.

“We also need meaningful negotiations before these powers are exercised.”

AgForce is seeking the retention of appropriate review and appeal rights and the inclusion of sufficient opportunity for landholders to obtain independent professional advice.

“We also want to see reasonable costs covered by the proponent from the start of negotiations, not by the landholder,” Mr McCarthy said.

“AgForce will not compromise on protecting the land-use rights of Queensland primary producers or allow decisions today to set precedents that undermine those rights into the future.

“We support the growth of the critical minerals sector and recognize its role in Queensland’s future.

“However, we cannot have legislation that weakens the protections for agricultural land.

“Landholders are already negotiating against multinational companies with dedicated legal teams and significantly greater resources.

“Weakening the protections of process that provide balance in those negotiations risks creating an irreversible shift in landholder rights and the future of Queensland agriculture.

“The Bill must recognise agricultural productivity and long-term food and fibre security as strategic assets.”

Source: PRA, AgForce