A prominent landholder group is calling on the recently established Queensland Gasfields Commission to step in and seek crown law opinion on the question of how landholder rights to compensation from coal seam gas developments have been affected by recent changes to state legislation.
The question of how recent amendments passed by Queensland parliament affect the rights of landholders when dealing with resource companies has become a hot topic of debate after rural solicitor Peter Shannon raised concerns that many landholders may now be stripped of rights to compensation.
Mr Shannon, co-principal of Darling Downs based firm Shannon Donaldson Province Lawyers, said the recently-passed Streamlining Mining Amendment Bill had changed the definition of “occupier”, and in doing so has reduced the number of parties entitled to be compensated from negative CSG impacts.
Mr Shannon said that before the amendments were passed earlier this month, CSG companies had an obligation to negotiate with, and compensate, owners of the land and occupiers of the land, which included anyone who had a ‘right to occupy’ the land, being companies, family trusts, partnerships and other like arrangements.
With the amendments, he believes a gas company only now has the obligation to compensate owners of the land and occupiers of the land, which is essentially just those with a registered lease.
“This so-called minor amendment has effectively stripped every family trust, partnership, company etc who runs an operation on the land of their entitlement to compensation unless they happen to be the owner of the land or if they have a lease registered on the title, which most do not," Mr Shannon said.
“The majority of landholders in Queensland operate their properties with family trusts, companies and/or partnerships with unregistered leases, and it is these entities who have been stripped of their right to compensation.”
Definition disputed
That position has sparked strong responses from the Queensland Government and an advisory board established by a consultancy service company closely aligned with the Coal Seam Gas industry.
Queensland minister for natural resources and mines Andrew Cripps said in a statement that the previous definition of an ‘occupier’ was very broad, and would have enabled people with occupation interests, but no business or legitimate interest in the land such as campers and other temporary lawful occupiers, to negotiate compensation, which was not the policy intent.
Mr Cripps said the recent amendments were designed to make the definition of persons or parties that a resources company must negotiate with and compensate for impacts consistent with other petroleum legislation, such as the Mineral Resources Act 1989.
Mr Cripps also said the amended definition of occupier was not designed to exclude those parties with legitimate and important business interests in land such as occupiers under trust or partnership arrangements.
He said the same definition of occupier had been functioning effectively under the Mineral Resources Act. “What this demonstrates is that practically, these type of complex ownership and occupier arrangements are able to be dealt with effectively under the definition without exclusion of any relevant interests.”
However he also added that the Department of Natural Resources and Mines was still further examining Mr Shannon’s claims.
Another group called the Flinders Group Land Access Advisory Board has also released a statement this week challenging Mr Shannon’s position.
The board was established by the Flinders Group, a consultancy organisation founded by John Cotter junior, son of Queensland Gasfields Commission chair John Cotter.
Flinders Group provides planning, project management and land access negotiation services to the resources, water, transmission and transport industries, and its clients include a number of large resource companies including Queensland Gas Company, Bow Energy and McConnell Dowell constructions.
In January last year Flinders Group established the Flinders Land Access Advisory Board, which it describes as “an independent advisory group comprising leaders from the rural sector”. A company spokesperson said the board was established to “provide advice to clients in relation to policy improvements for land access, as well as to government to strengthen the reputation of the CSG industry.”
The board members include livestock exporter Angus Adnam, who is also its chair, ABC Landline commodities analyst Kerry Lonergan, landholder and former Stanbroke managing director John Cox, head of agribusiness with Suncorp Greg Leahy, founder of Heron Todd White valuation firm Kerry Heron, barrister Allan Lonergan and Flinders Group associate director Richard Fenton.
In response to an article on Beef Central raising Mr Shannon's concerns on September 6, the board issued a statement this week rejecting Mr Shannon’s position that recent amendments reduce landholder rights to compensation.
Board member and barrister Mr Allan Lonergan said he believed an occupier’s rights to compensation had not changed despite the recent changes to the P&G Act.
“The definition of an occupier in the Act includes a person who owns the land, is the registered lessee or a person given the right to occupy by the owner or lessee,” he said.
“This does in fact mean the rights and entitlements of all occupiers are protected, contrary to what Mr Shannon of Shannon Donaldson Province Lawyers said in the (Beef Central) article on 6 September.”
Board chairman Angus Adnam also used the statement to accuse Mr Shannon of ‘scaremongering’.
The CSG industry was already benefitting Queensland, Mr Adnam said, and “continued pressure by uninformed individuals could negatively affect the growth of an industry that was an important part of Queensland’s economic future”.
“The definition of an occupier in the P&G Act has not changed in any real sense, any person or company occupying the land given that right by the owner or lessee is covered by the second part of the definition,” Mr Adnam said.
Despite the Queensland Government and Flinders Group Land Access Advisory Board's opposition, Mr Shannon, a lawyer with 30 years experience and a landholder with CSG tenements over his Dalby district farm, is standing firmly by his reading of the act.
In fact he said from personal experience his firm has already had gas companies take the view that partnerships and trusts would not be treated as occupiers by them under the current definition of occupier, whereas they have been treated as such by them under the prior definition.
Mr Shannon said it was frustrating to yet again have genuine issues of concern for landholders that required proper attention dismissed with throw away lines such as ‘scare mongering’.
“Maybe the Flinders Group should be more in touch with their client’s practices. Prominent industry lawyers and barristers in the private profession do not share Mr Lonergan’s view and for good reason.”
BSA calls on Gasfields Commission to clarify
Yesterday the Basin Sustainability Alliance, a group representing landholders and rural communities affected by Coal Seam Gas developments in the Surat Basin, called on the government and CSG companies to provide assurances that landholders and occupiers affected by CSG activities would be entitled to compensation.
BSA chairman David Hamilton said he was concerned that new legislation could seriously impact the many farmers who operate using family trusts, partnerships and family companies.
“Unless they have a registered lease in place, our understanding is that family businesses and sharefarmers may not be entitled to negotiate any agreement for compensation with a CSG company even through it would be their business, their lifestyle, and their day-to-day operations that would be impacted.
“We are calling on the Queensland Gasfields Commission to seek crown law opinion to ensure landholder rights are not diminished through this change to the law.
Mr Hamilton said that since raising the issue with several State politicians earlier this month, BSA had not received any formal responses, and information provided to the media by the Minister Andrew Cripps had not alleviated BSA’s concerns.
He said the group was also disappointed by the recent public comments from Flinders Land Access Advisory Board on the matter which BSA felt trivialised the genuine concerns of farmers and those living in ‘gasfield target zones’.
“This is very unhelpful – it’s time to start building trust and good business relationships – not just dismissing legitimate concerns that landholders might have,” he said.
“Given the range of opinion and confusion on this issue, we urge the Gasfields Commission to obtain clarity from the Crown on the meaning of the word “occupier” for the purposes of defining who would be a legitimate claimant for compensation under the Acts.”
Mr Hamilton said the Queensland Government’s move to streamline legislation for all forms of mining and gas activities was another example of how the impacts of mining and CSG industries were so poorly misunderstood.
“We are very concerned that the Government has not recognised there are significant differences between the different forms of mining which are undertaken by very different companies,” Mr Hamilton said.
“The landholder or occupier is expected to continue to live and work in the gasfield, while coal and mineral mines usually purchase the land and this removes the current user of the land from the equation.
“The way this bill was pushed through without any consultation with agricultural and landholder groups is again just another example of the imbalance of power in play in the mining versus agriculture debate.”
Beef Central has asked the Queensland Gasfields Commission if it is likely to consider the BSA’s request and was waiting on a formal response at the time of publication.