Natural Resources
Mr PERRETT (Gympie—LNP) (4.39 pm): I rise to speak to the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. It is indicative of this government that it introduces bills that are given only a brief time frame for public consultation and investigation by a committee and are rammed through the parliament to prevent a fair and reasonable time for debate, or it introduces a massive bill covering a wide range of issues. This bill is a large omnibus bill that sprawls across 252 pages and amends 32 separate acts. It deals with several issues, including Indigenous land access, gas production tenure management, the establishment of CleanCo and category 2 water governance arrangements.
According to the explanatory notes, the objectives of this bill are to improve administrative efficiency and ensure that regulatory frameworks stay effective and responsive, enhance the water compliance frameworks and implement measures to improve the performance of the resources tenure management system. How can the government really believe that stakeholders have had enough time to analyse all of those changes? It defies belief that, despite concerns raised by stakeholders, the Labor dominated committee could not provide a single substantive recommendation to this bill. The Queensland Resources Council stated—
Even for an omnibus Bill, this legislation is extraordinarily broad in scope … The breadth and complexity of this Bill makes it very difficult for any stakeholder to be confident they have understood all the ramifications of these amendments in the 15 business days between the Bill being tabled and submissions falling due for the Committee.
The government’s hypocrisy is astounding. It is self-serving about consultation when it suits. At the last sitting we debated a bill that Queenslanders were told was a priority in 2015, but it took four years to deliver. Clearly, priority is about political expediency and consultation only when it suits. Even the Queensland Law Society was unable to thoroughly investigate the bill and limited its analysis. It stated—
Due to the size of the Bill, QLS has limited its comments … There may be other unintended consequences which we have not been able to identify due to time constraints.
The opposition will be opposing three separate amendments in this bill that weaken the reporting of foreign ownership of agricultural land, allow unauthorised persons to enter freehold land and increase ministerial powers to make decisions. Removing any obligation on the state government to produce an annual foreign ownership of land report will take away key sources of data and transparency. This government constantly spins that it is all about transparency and accountability. What could be more transparent than letting Queenslanders know who, how much, or what type of land is owned by foreign individuals and companies?
Australia is an attractive destination for investment in broadacre agriculture. The removal of this obligation and the assumption that the federal government’s foreign investment report is an adequate replacement does not match the information that is available from the state. The state and federal governments have slightly different systems for the definition of leasehold land up to 20 years and leases beyond that. The value of annual acquisitions is reported under the state system and not under the federal system.
The general manager of policy at AgForce, Dr Dale Miller, told the committee that, although information would still be collected and available at the titles office, it is open to wrong comparisons and conclusions being drawn. We need to compare like with like. Dr Miller advised the following— … the advantage to date has been that we have had a consistent report coming out, so it has enabled us to make comparisons across time on investment levels and enabled everybody to be speaking the same language … around the information that we have at a state level in terms of investment. If you provide us with raw data without the analysis and the assessment that goes with it, then you run the risk of people talking about different things. As we have seen between Commonwealth and state reporting, there is already some variation in how definitions are applied. Having a single report that is consistent which everybody works to has advantages. Returning to the idea of informed debate, we want people to be talking about the same thing rather than getting confused and disagreements arising because of it.
The government’s addiction to increased powers of entry are seen in this bill. It proposes a new power for authorised persons to access state controlled land by crossing neighbouring freehold, leasehold and trust land. It reduces property rights and takes away the rights and liberties of landholders regarding their properties and provides no compensation to landholders. The chief executive of AgForce, Michael Guerin, told the committee—
The proposal is concerning, particularly in light of the diminution of other property rights, such as under the Vegetation Management Act 1999, and the deficit of trust that agricultural and other landowners currently have in this government.
There is not a legitimate reason to enter properties without consent or permission. AgForce proposed that the government develop an access agreement that protects the interests of landholders.
We have heard much about the spread of invasive pests and weeds and biosecurity risks. The Law Society identified a number of considerations about this proposed amendment, including the biosecurity risk, adequate notification methods, time frames and fairness. There is nothing in this bill to meet those considerations. Dr Miller said further—
… the biosecurity obligation is on landholders … everyone who seeks to access their land has an obligation to try and meet the requirements under the landholder’s biosecurity plan … it is … concerning for landholders to manage pests, weeds and other issues when they have outside parties coming in.
He stated further that there could be a problem in adequately managing these issues. Time and time again the government has been told that the majority of landholders are responsible managers of their land. They want to meet their legal and moral obligations to look after their land. This amendment would make that so much harder.
I am concerned about the scepticism from government members of the obvious increased
biosecurity risk from people crossing the land. AgForce was asked by the committee to provide examples of any precedents where state government bodies or inspectors have spread weeds from one space to another. Among the examples AgForce highlighted was the risk associated with weed seed spread from the maintenance of utility corridors. In the north part of the Gympie electorate at Bauple, roadside slashing contractors slashed through seeding giant rat’s-tail grass, meaning that the sticky sees moved further along the roadside into private properties adjoining the land. Giant rat’s-tail grass is an insidious weed that is completely out of control. It affects thousands of properties in the state. From small acreages to rural properties, everyone has been hit. In the Gympie region, hundreds of properties have been impacted.
The spread of weeds and the cost to control them is now making some rural properties nonviable.
Rural landholders are struggling to stay ahead in the war on weeds. A recent example where I live is where some machinery work on the roadside spread giant rat’s-tail grass and parthenium, among other weeds, yet property owners, under their biosecurity plan, have to do everything possible to minimise the spread, including erecting a biosecurity sign on their front entrances that restricts entry on to their property. Property owners frequently have problems with workers from utility companies, such as electricity contractors from Energex and Ergon, coming on to their properties and spreading weeds.
AgForce advised the committee about a 2017 study into the risk of weed seed spread from vehicles owned by Powerlink, a government owned corporation. It tested six Powerlink Toyota utes for weed seeds. Over 80 per cent of the 209 viable seeds that were found were weed species. In fact, seeds were not only attached to the underside of vehicles; they were also found in the cabins, with peak numbers occurring during autumn. During a pest advisory forum held by North Queensland Dry Tropics in Collinsville in April last year, property owners from the Collinsville region raised their concerns about utility contractors spreading weeds. This problem is not confined to the practice of utility workers.
Despite the committee chair telling the public hearing on 25 March that the department would be asked the same question it had asked AgForce—that is, to provide examples of any precedents where state government bodies or inspectors have spread weeds from one space to another—there was no response. AgForce told the committee of a specific example of land managed by the department of state development. It stated that the state department—
… is thought to have caused weed seed spread issues along the coal seam gas pipeline easement, especially in the vicinity of Larcom Creek and Calliope River near Gladstone. The spread of giant rat’s tail grass (a Restricted Biosecurity Matter) has moved from the pipeline corridor into adjoining grazing properties managed by Jim Elliot. This particular issue has been repeatedly raised with State Development Queensland since April 2015 and further at a Queensland Government Community Cabinet Meeting at Gladstone on 31 January 2016.
These are just a snapshot of the problems raised by stakeholders about this legislation. As I outlined earlier, I will be opposing three separate amendments to this bill that weaken the reporting of foreign ownership of agricultural land, that allow unauthorised persons to enter freehold land and that increase ministerial powers to make decisions.