Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset it is a very useful thing to identify the purpose of the Landholders' Right to Refuse (Coal Seam Gas) Bill 2011, which I will now do. The bill seeks to make the recovery of coal seam gas unlawful on food-producing land without the prior written authorisation of all who have any legal interest in that land. From that definition, which is contained in the explanatory memorandum to the bill, I believe, necessarily, that the bill needs to be considered in the context of two other bills either currently before the chamber or about to be introduced into the chamber: firstly, the government's clean energy package of bills and, secondly, the government's proposed Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill. Both of those sets of bills, as I understand it, are strongly supported by the proponents and advocates of this bill for good, sound and cogent reasons. Their reasons have been well articulated and well established on the public record. Indeed, in passing on rates in respect of the mineral resources rent tax, the Greens have publicly identified that they seek to increase the rent tax imposed by the Commonwealth for access to minerals below the ground. The context of those two sets of bills, therefore, and their relevancy and connection to this bill are important. I will return to that issue later in my remarks.

Let us now consider a range of matters or propositions contained in the bill before the chair. Firstly, the bill exercises Commonwealth power to apply penalties on any constitutional corporation if it, the constitutional corporation, undertakes any activity to explore or produce coal seam gas on food-producing land without the prior written authorisation of everyone who has an ownership interest in that land. Let us think about that critically important proposition. The bill defines 'coal seam gas mining activity' and 'food-producing land' extraordinarily widely. Coal seam gas mining activity is defined as any activity undertaken for exploration—we should note that—or production of coal seam gas. Let us stop here.

Exploration is the first phase of exploration of a mineral or mineral-like deposit. It is the stage only where a potential deposit is identified. Issues like the scope, breadth or depth of the deposit come later. Issues of content come later. Issues relating to value come later. Issues relating to purity come later. Issues relating to commerciality come later. Issues relating to access come later, and issues relating to cost and accessibility must come much later in the process of development.

But the process of raising capital in incremental amounts as potential deposits are valued and revalued is vital to all stages but particularly the exploration stage. Essentially, miners raise debt or equity by selling future rights to producers from a site during all phases of development, including post exploration. Yet this bill would stop such a process from the beginning because it requires the written authorisation of everyone who has an ownership interest in the land. It is the most perfect vehicle ever devised to prevent the proving up of likely deposits of coal seam gas.

Let us now turn to the second unlikely phrase used in the bill—that of 'food-producing land'. At the outset I observed that such a phrase is also extraordinarily wide in application. What does 'food-producing land' mean? It is clearly not just arable land, fertile land, developed land, marginal land, grazing land, crop-growing land or irrigated land. If it were, it would be so defined in the bill. No, I suggest it is arguably and clearly intended to mean any land capable of producing food. Let us think about that for a moment. Let us think about technology and science. Let us think about the ingenuity of humankind. Let us think about desert land recovered across Australia and around the world for wheat production. Frankly, there is not any land anywhere in Australia that, with the correct application of science, technology, finance and endeavour, is not capable of producing food.

Let us go back to the post-war years—post the First World War and post the Second World War—and look at land areas that have been sequentially developed in this country. I refer in particular to the river lands of South Australia and Victoria, to the marginal wheat belt territories in the south of Western Australia, to the Ord River lands in Western Australia and to the rich, fruit growing areas of Carnarvon in the north-west of Western Australia. All of those land areas over time have been developed and exploited with a combination of those matters—technology, science, finance and human endeavour. The bill, in that context, seeks to prohibit any coal seam gas activity from the beginning of exploration in any land anywhere in Australia which is or has been capable of producing food. Again, in that context, food is not defined.

In stopping that process, the bill expressly identifies at the outset how that end is to be achieved. The bill, if enacted, would not transfer the ownership of coal seam gas deposits from the Crown; it would transfer control of those resources and probably also any coal deposits requiring the draining of methane from the Crown to the holders of surface rights on food-producing land. Such a change would enable the owners of any surface rights to extract economic rents in exchange for authorising exploration and production of gas of which they have no ownership, thus depriving the community of its right to maximise its return from assets commonly held. Let us break up that proposition into its parts so that it is clearly understood. Firstly, ownership of minerals for hundreds of years has vested in the Crown. Secondly, the Crown has received income via taxation or royalties or excise for permitting lawful exploitation. Thirdly, the Crown uses that revenue for the everyday purpose of government. Fourthly, because mineral rights were vested in the Crown, the value of exploration is never included in the price of land. Fifthly, and finally, the bill proposes to pass that value, that unpriced value, to the current and temporary owner of the land without payment of any consideration—truly a most remarkable proposition. But it gets even worse.

The government has had a clear position on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill for at least the last 15 or 18 months. The government's position is to increase royalties on major companies who seek to develop mineral deposits around Australia. There has been criticism of that position from the opposition. They are opposed to it. There has also been criticism of that position from the Greens party—not that we are doing it, but they say that our rate, our levy, is manifestly inadequate and should be increased. Senator Brown has repeatedly said that he and his party will move amendments in this chamber to the MRRT Bill when it is introduced to increase the rate. So, for every other mineral, the Greens want to increase the take to the Commonwealth for the purpose of everyday government, but with the bill before the house the Greens want to transfer that benefit to the current titleholders, however temporary, without payment of any consideration at all. Such a transfer of wealth or potential wealth is totally unprecedented, totally unwarranted, unfair and totally devoid of any equity at all.

Senator Waters interjecting—