CSG Part 2 - Powers sought by the Commission in relation to managing CSG

Posted by: Nick Purcell

I recently wrote about the formation of the GasFields Commission in Part 1 of this blog series, including its role in managing the coexistence of rural landholders, regional communities and the CSG industry.  Given the impending passage of the legislation creating the Commission, I thought it might be worthwhile to identify the powers which were sought by the Commission and then briefly discuss the more interesting aspects of those powers in a series of blogs.  The Commission asserts that all powers sought by it are to serve its objectives, which are to manage and improve co-existence and sustainability between regional communities, rural landowners and the onshore gas industry. Those powers fall under eight “heads”, which are:

• Assessing the potential for co-existence
• Power to review regulatory frameworks and legislation
• Powers to get information
• Dispute resolution
• Power to publish and communicate information
• Leading practice/management
• Ability to seek external advice
• Miscellaneous Issues

Of those powers, it seems to me that the one with the greatest potential for controversy is the power for the Commission to provide advice and recommendations to the Government on the ability of the onshore gas industry, regional communities and landholders to effectively co-exist within an identified area.  The Commission’s Chairman, Mr John Cotter, recently emphasised that, whilst the Commission would provide advice and recommendations to Ministers and Government agencies, the ultimate decision on whether the CSG Industry could effectively co-exist within an identified area would rest with the Government of the day. On the face of it, such a power seems pretty straightforward. However, it seems to me that the concept underlying the proposed power represents a seismic shift in the rights of landholders. As far as the landholder is concerned, the current resources legislation permits resource companies to enter onto land to explore for resources and, ultimately, to develop those resource deposits. In both cases, the landholder’s interests are usually addressed by way compensation. The result is that the resource activity takes priority and the rural activity must surrender to it. If this proposed power were granted, then it would signal an intention from Government that, where the CSG Industry cannot co-exist with regional communities and landholders, then it is the CSG Industry that must go. This would reverse the existing statutory framework and exert a new primacy for rural landholders. Whether the Government of the day would act on a recommendation that the CSG Industry co-exist in an identified area is a question for another day. However, there seems little point in granting the power as it is currently formulated unless there was a preparedness to act. To do otherwise would merely preserve the status quo, and no change is needed for that.

CSG Part 1 - LNP's Resources and Energy Strategy Policy turning Landholders into Activists?

Posted by: Nick Purcell

Over the past few years I have acted for a number of rural landowners who had experienced, at first hand, the frenetic activity of Queensland’s resource boom. Some of those clients were affected by coal and gas exploration activities, whilst others had gas pipelines constructed across their lands. With that background in mind, I read the LNP’s “Resources and Energy Strategy” Policy, which was released prior to the last election, with some interest. You can find a copy of it here. The Policy had three key principles:

1. Fairer compensation to landholders, and land access arrangements;
2. Ensuring greater direct local benefits for the communities impacted; and
3. Rigorously monitoring industry impacts and enforcing stringent operating conditions.

 

Some of the key commitments underlying those principles included:

1. Legislating “items and actions” that are subject to compensation for landholders;
2. Providing clarity that partnerships between landholders and CSG operators should not be limited to compensation arrangements;
3. Rigorously monitoring impacts to protect the natural environment and resources, including the establishment of a “dedicated” inspection and enforcement unit.
4. Establishing a Gasfields Land and Water Commission to manage the coexistence of rural landholders, regional communities and the CSG industry;
5. Establishing a Gasfields Community Leaders Council consisting of local Government, industry and community leaders;

 

Some months have now passed since the election and the implementation of this particular policy seems to be well underway. The now LNP Government has established both a Gasfields Commission and a Gasfields Community Leaders Council. Appointments have been made to key positions for both bodies, including the appointment of seven Commissioners to the GasFields Commission. It is also expected that the powers of the Commission will soon be legislated. In addition to that, the GasFields Commission has also convened a number of community forums in rural Queensland.

Without exception, clients who have sought advice from me about a proposed entry onto their land by a resources exploration company have told me that same thing: they are uncertain about their rights about the entry onto their land or compensation, they are anxious that the exploration activities will adversely impact on their property and livelihood and they feel that they have no control over what the exploration company can and can’t do on their property. In short, the landowner reposes very little trust in the explorer.

The CSG Industry should have been an unmitigated success story for Queensland: an abundant resource in great demand by a world energy market turning to a new source. But the Industry’s public relationship exercise has been so badly implemented that its only success seems to be the rate at which it has converted landholders into activists. 

Whilst it is early days, a properly functioning GasFields Commission and Gasfields Community Leaders Council, with the right people to guide its activities, may provide the means to bridge the schism between landholders and resource companies.