Views:

Ref: MG/AF/GG23084

11 December 2023

Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government & Planning
By Email: RPIAmendments@dsdilgp.qld.gov.au

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Proposed Amendments to the Regional Planning Interests Act (RPI Act)

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the Proposed Amendments to the RPI Act and Regional Planning Interests Regulation 2014 (RPI Regulation).

AgForce Queensland Farmers Limited (AgForce) is a peak organisation representing Queensland’s cane, cattle, grain and sheep, wool & goat producers. The cane, beef, broadacre cropping and sheep, wool & goat industries in Queensland generated around $10.4 billion in on-farm value of production in 2021-22. AgForce’s purpose is to advance sustainable agribusiness and strives to ensure the long-term growth, viability, competitiveness and profitability of these industries. Over 6,000 farmers, individuals and businesses provide support to AgForce through membership. Our members own and manage around 55 million hectares, or a third of the state’s land area. Queensland producers provide high-quality food and fibre to Australian and overseas consumers, contribute significantly to the social fabric of regional, rural and remote communities, as well as deliver stewardship of the state’s natural environment.

AgForce has a strong policy position on representing members’ interests in the protection of land use and is supportive of efforts by all authorities, at federal state and local levels, that enable the effective coexistence of agriculture with other forms of land use. Please see Appendix 1 where the Land Use Protection Principles of AgForce members, as endorsed by the AgForce Board, are presented as an overall expectation of what broadacre agricultural industry commits to when seeking coexistence with other sectors.

Proposed Amendments to the RPI Act and RPI Regulation

The Department of State Development Infrastructure Local Government and Planning (the department) says¹

“The proposed amendments are primarily in response to some of the recommendations of the GasFields Commission Queensland’s (the Commission) “Review of Regional Planning Interests Act 2014 Assessment Process Report” (the report) – which reviewed stakeholder concerns on the complexity of Queensland’s planning framework and how the RPI Act manages the relationship between resource activities and agricultural interests.

¹ https://haveyoursay.dsdilgp.qld.gov.au/proposed-amendments-to-the-regional-planning-interests-act-2014

The purpose of RPI Act is stated at section 3 which says:

“Purpose and achievement

The purposes of this Act are to -
1. identify areas of Queensland that are of regional interest because they contribute, or are likely to contribute, to Queensland’s economic, social and environmental prosperity; and
2. give effect to the policies about matters of State interest stated in regional plans; and
3. manage, including in ways identified in regional plans—
  1. the impact of resource activities and other regulated activities on areas of regional interest; and
  2. the coexistence, in areas of regional interest, of resource activities and other regulated activities with other activities, including, for example, highly productive agricultural activities.
To achieve its purposes, this Act provides for a transparent and accountable process for the impact of proposed resource activities and regulated activities on areas of regional interest to be assessed and managed.”

To deal with each of the proposed amendments in order:

3.1 Eligibility Criteria for Landowner Agreement Exemption

AgForce has significant concerns with the draft eligibility criteria.

Most significantly, the consultation paper notes that it is the department’s intention to move CSG- induced subsidence impacts to the Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014 (MERCPA). AgForce views this proposal as unacceptable, as it removes a key impact from the mechanisms of the Act.

CSG-induced subsidence, which is the sinking of land caused by the dewatering process in extracting Coal Seam Gas, was confirmed by the Commission in its “Potential consequences of CSG-induced subsidence to farming operations on the Condamine alluvial floodplain Final Report”², to be a permanent impact of CSG mining and potentially ruinous to good quality agricultural land. The full spectrum of impacts of subsidence are still being studied and assessed.

CSG-induced subsidence has been long-recognised as a critical impact to areas of regional interest. It is noted in multiple RPI Act statutory guidelines and is a primary focus of guideline 04/14 (priority living areas). The subsidence management framework proposed by the Queensland Government as a joint departmental initiative with Department of Resources proposes to manage a narrow scope of consequences relating to paddock impacts and overland water impacts on agricultural farms.

Both that framework and the proposed 'eligibility criteria' (to replace the current RPI Act s22 exemption) should expressly require consideration of impacts from CSG-induced subsidence to regionally significant water sources, priority living areas, public road and rail networks, electricity networks, etc and farm-related infrastructure (eg, grain depots), or farm-built infrastructure for example:

- - Sheds (structural damage)
  - Grain silos (collapse from tilting base, cracking, leaking, deformation)

² https://www.gfcq.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Potential-consequences-of-CSG-induced-subsidence- final-report.pdf

- - Houses (structural damage)
  - Irrigation water storage dams (wall failure, seepage, pipe failure in walls)
  - Irrigation water infrastructure (bank failure water channels, slumpage, pump damage etc)

Without such requirements, the replacement of the current RPI Act s22 exemption with the proposed 'eligibility criteria' would greatly diminish the protection of landholder rights and regional interests.

The department describes State Planning Policy (SPP) as³

“The State Planning Policy expresses the Queensland Government’s interests in, and policies for, a range of land use planning matters. It provides a policy framework for planning outcomes across Queensland by requiring that these state interests are delivered through local government planning schemes and regional plans.

The SPP contains guiding principles to ensure plan-making and development assessment

systems are outcome focused, integrated, efficient, positive and accountable.”

The State Planning Policy establishes State interest policies and assessment benchmarks. The state interest in agriculture is described in the Policy⁴

“Agriculture is essential to Queensland’s economic productivity, employment, and the supply of food, fibre, fish, timber and foliage and for ensuring food security for domestic and international markets.

Agriculture is an integral part of many regional and local economies and communities. It supports other businesses in the agricultural supply chain and uses key infrastructure such as roads, energy and water supply infrastructure, rail networks and ports.

Queensland’s agricultural resources are of state and national importance and should be protected from incompatible uses and irreversible impacts that would compromise existing or potential productivity.

With sound management, these resources can support agricultural production in perpetuity. However, these resources are finite and are not easily restored once removed, disturbed or degraded.”

The assessment benchmarks are prescribed to be⁵

State Interest – Agriculture

The resources that agriculture depends on are protected to support the long-term viability and growth of the agricultural sector.
All of the following state interest policies must be appropriately integrated in planning and development outcomes, where relevant.

Agriculture and agricultural development opportunities are promoted and enhanced in important agricultural areas (IAAs).

³ https://dsdmipprd.blob.core.windows.net/general/what-is-the-state-planning-policy.pdf
⁴ https://dsdmipprd.blob.core.windows.net/general/spp-july-2017.pdf page 29
⁵ https://dsdmipprd.blob.core.windows.net/general/spp-july-2017.pdf page 34

Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) Class A and Class B land is protected for sustainable agricultural use by:
1. avoiding fragmentation of ALC Class A or Class B land into lot sizes inconsistent with the current or potential use of the land for agriculture
2. avoiding development that will have an irreversible impact on, or adjacent to, ALC Class A or Class B land
3. maintaining or enhancing land conditions and the biophysical resources underpinning ALC Class A or Class B land.
… etc.,”

The State Planning Policy defines “Important agricultural areas”⁶

“Important agricultural areas (IAAs) means an important agricultural area as identified in the Queensland Agricultural Land Audit and shown in the SPP Interactive Mapping System (IMS) as an IAA or identified by a local government in a local planning instrument as an IAA, based on a localised study.

Note: An IAA is defined in the Queensland Agricultural Land Audit as an area that has all the requirements for agriculture to be successful and sustainable, is part of a critical mass of land with similar characteristics, and is strategically significant to the region or the state.”

The SPP state interest – agriculture requires fragmentation of IAA be avoided, development causing irreversible impact on and adjacent to IAA be avoided and land conditions and biophysical resources maintaining or enhancing land conditions to be maintained.

Exclusion of considerations of the significant impact of CSG-induced subsidence from the RPI Act would be contrary to the SPP state interest – agriculture, weaken landholder protection, remove existing protections with no compensation and represent a departure from the legislated purposes of the RPI Act, which include managing the impacts of resource activities on areas of regional interest.

AgForce disagrees with the removal of the recognition of CSG-induced subsidence as an impact in the RPI Act and considers that subsidence must be explicitly included in the eligibility framework under this section.

The Queensland Government Response to the Commission Recommendation 1 supported replacing s22 agreement of landowner with a compliance-assessment process informed by a code.

The Commission Recommendation 1 did not include removing the recognition of CSG-induced subsidence as an impact from the RPI Act. The RPI Act confers no power to ‘pick and choose’ the resource activity impacts it manages. All impacts on areas of regional interest are to be managed under the Act. Thus, the department has no basis to justify removing management of CSG-induced subsidence from the RPI Act. Doing so would subvert SPP-Agriculture and compromise for example, the Darling Downs Regional Plan (2013), Central Queensland Regional Plan (2011) and the more recent South East Queensland Regional Plan (2017), Draft Wide Bay Burnett Regional Plan (2022) and North Queensland Regional Plan (2020) which says under Goal 1: A leading economy in regional Australia⁷:

⁶ https://dsdmipprd.blob.core.windows.net/general/spp-july-2017.pdf page 69
⁷ https://dsdmipprd.blob.core.windows.net/general/north-queensland-regional-plan-full.pdf page 46

“Any non-agricultural use or resource activity seeking to operate in these areas will not be supported unless they can co-exist with the PALUs⁸ for mutual benefit and without compromising the PALUs current or future ability to operate.”

Then at regional policies⁹:

“1.3.1 Non-agricultural development within PAAs is not supported, unless the proposed use demonstrates net benefits for regional agricultural production, without compromising the PALUs current or future ability to operate, or is for public infrastructure”

“1.3.3 PALU’s (and associated infrastructure) within the PAAs are protected from resource activities, unless it can be demonstrated that co-existence is mutually beneficial, without compromising the PALU’s current or future ability to operate.”

Followed by Development assessment benchmark for PAAs in Table 5¹⁰:

“Development does not result in, or contribute to, a net loss to overall agricultural productivity within the PAA.
Development does not result in widespread or irreversible impacts to the future use of a PAA for agricultural activities.”

Additional guidance is provided stating immediately after Table 5¹¹:

“Note: A widespread or irreversible impact on the future use of a PAA may occur if:

Development will cause a significant reduction in the raw product supplied to, for example, a mill or processing facility in the region, to such an extent that the mill or processing facility may become unviable, leading to flow-on effects for other agricultural activities and/or associated land uses.
Development significantly alters resources that are necessary to maintain the function of existing and future expected agricultural activities within the region. This may include negative irreversible impacts to soil health, water quality and/or availability and landscape features (such as drainage) applicable to agricultural activities.
Development will constrain, restrict or prevent the ongoing conduct of PALUs or other agricultural land uses on the property or adjacent properties. This includes, for example, everyday farm practices or infrastructure essential to the operation of a PALU or other agricultural land uses.”

The plan in Appendix 1 NQ Regional Plan and the RPI Act also provides a ‘quick reference guide’ which identifies relevant parts of the plan for assessment applications¹²:

“1.1.1 PALUs, within the PAAs shown on Map 1, are protected from resource Activities.

1.1.2 Non-agricultural development within PAAs is not supported, unless the proposed use

demonstrates net benefits for regional agricultural production or is for public infrastructure.”

⁸ An Area of highly productive agriculture, RPI Act s 8.
⁹ https://dsdmipprd.blob.core.windows.net/general/north-queensland-regional-plan-full.pdf page 48
¹⁰ https://dsdmipprd.blob.core.windows.net/general/north-queensland-regional-plan-full.pdf page 120
¹¹ https://dsdmipprd.blob.core.windows.net/general/north-queensland-regional-plan-full.pdf page 120
¹² https://dsdmipprd.blob.core.windows.net/general/north-queensland-regional-plan-full.pdf page 133

AgForce considers that RPI Act s22 fundamentally was working as intended to protect state, regional and landholder interests, but requires new accountability, compliance and transparency provisions to fully achieve its intended purpose.

AgForce is strongly of the view that the proposed 'eligibility criteria' should strengthen the protection of regional interests, not broaden the activities that are permitted without a regional interest development approval (RIDA) beyond those permitted under the existing RPI Act s22 exemption, as to do so would significantly erode AgForce member rights.

For example, removing consideration of the impacts of CSG-induced subsidence from the RPI Act and weakening the threshold for consideration of impacts on neighbouring landholders and regional interests should not be part of the move to a proposed compliance-assessment process informed by a code.

AgForce considers the phrase 'compliance-assessment’ to be disingenuous because the process outlined is still the self-assessment by a proponent of its own proposed activities against the proposed code (eligibility criteria).

AgForce is concerned that the rights of impacted neighbours and regional stakeholders will be eroded by the replacement of the current requirements of the RPI Act s22 exemption with the 'eligibility criteria' as drafted in the Discussion Paper.

Eligibility Criteria 1

It should be noted that the location of the resource activity on 2% of the land area could significantly alter the impact of the activity and the productive capacity of the remaining 98% of the land area.

AgForce considers that the proposed EC1 significantly broadens the activities that are permitted beyond those permitted under the existing RPI Act s22 exemption.

The current RPI Act s22 exemption requires an outcomes focus on the use of property and the use of land.

RPI Regulation Schedule 2 Part 2 Priority agricultural area Required Outcome 1 managing impacts on use of property for PALU in PAA at r2(2) says:

“The activity will not result in a material impact on the use of the property for a priority agricultural land use.”

Prescribed solutions for required outcome 1 requires under r3(3)(a)(ii):

“carrying out the activity on the property will not result in a loss of more than 2% of both -

the land on the property used for a priority agricultural land use; and
the productive capacity of any priority agricultural land use on the property;”

and under r3(3)(d):

“the activity will not constrain, restrict or prevent the ongoing conduct on the property of a priority agricultural land use, including, for example, everyday farm practices and an activity or infrastructure essential to the operation of a priority agricultural land use on the property;”

Deletion of focus on land use, which is a priority of SPP-Agriculture through regional plans, is a fundamental change to the operation of RPI Act which erodes the rights of AgForce members and conflicts with the intent of the Act to manage impacts on the productive use of agricultural land.

This was not contemplated or recommended by the Commission, has not been informed by consultation and would not achieve the mandatory development outcomes required by the State Planning Policy for Agriculture and the Regional Plans.

Eligibility Criteria 2

The current RPI Act s22(2)(c) says:

“the activity is not likely to have an impact on land owned by a person other than the land owner.”

And s22(3):

“For subsection (2)(c), a resource activity has an impact on land if the activity has an impact on -

for land in a priority agricultural area – the suitability of the land to be used for a priority agricultural land use for the area; or
for land in an area that is in the strategic cropping area – the land’s soil, climate and landscape features that make that area highly suitable, or likely to be highly suitable, for cropping.”

The proposed EC2 says:

“Carrying out the activity will not have an impact on an existing or potential priority

agricultural land use on land owned by a person other than the landowner.”

AgForce considers that there should be no changes to the existing wording of s22 without clear explanations and justifications for the changes.

Eligibility Criteria 3

AgForce supports this criteria with reservations. AgForce considers that the materiality criteria used by the suitably qualified expert in assessment of whether there is an impact must be informed by site- specific hydrological conditions and PALU rather than general materiality criteria or criteria relating to other locations which are able to be selectively applied by the consultant. This criteria unacceptably excludes impacts on surface watercourses.

Eligibility Criteria 4

AgForce members have significant investment in and reliance upon the Condamine Alluvium which is within the Darling Downs Region and is prescribed under s3 of RPI Regulations as being a regionally significant water source (RSWS).

AgForce strongly disagrees with the proposed narrowing of management of impacts of resource activities on RSWS’ through limiting this eligibility criteria solely to mineral development licences and mining leases under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 likely to produce associated water.

AgForce considers that the proposed change is not compatible with the purpose of the RPI Act or Darling Downs Regional Plan policy which says at “Application and effect” under “State assessment provisions”¹³:

“The following provisions apply to state government assessment processes for resource

activities where a proposal relates to land located within a PAA or a PLA:

¹³ https://dsdmipprd.blob.core.windows.net/general/darling-downs-regional-plan.pdf page 8

1. where a resource activity is proposed on land being used for a PALU in a mapped PAA then the PALU will be given priority through the application of coexistence criteria.

Editor’s note

The PAA co-existence criteria are aimed at ensuring that the approval of any proposed resource activity cannot materially impact or threaten the ongoing viability of the PALU.

The PAA co-existence criteria define outcomes that need to be met to achieve co-existence
within a PAA between PALU and proposed resource activities.”

AgForce considers this proposed change is a fundamental change to the operation of RPI Act which erodes the rights of AgForce members and conflicts with the intent of the Act to manage impacts on RSWS. This was not contemplated or recommended by the Commission, has not been informed by consultation and would not achieve the mandatory development outcomes required by the State Planning Policy for Agriculture or the Darling Downs Regional Plan.

Eligibility Criteria 5

RPI Regulation Schedule 2 Part 4 Strategic cropping area Required Outcome 2 managing impacts on strategic cropping land on property (SCL) in the strategic cropping area at r10(2) says:

“The activity will not result in a material impact on strategic cropping land on the property (SCL)”

Prescribed solutions for required outcome 2 requires under r11 all of the following:

“(a) if the applicant is not the owner of the land and has not entered into a voluntary agreement with the owner – the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to consult and negotiate with the owner of the land about the expected impact of carrying out the activity on strategic cropping land;

(b) the activity cannot be carried out on land that is not strategic cropping land, including, for example, land elsewhere on the property (SCL), on adjacent land or at another nearby location;

(c) the construction and operation footprint of the activity on strategic cropping land on the property (SCL) is minimised to the greatest extent possible;

(d) if the activity will have a permanent impact on strategic cropping land on a property (SCL)—no more than 2% of the strategic cropping land on the property (SCL) will be impacted.”

AgForce considers that prescribed solutions of requirement to consult with the landowner, requirement to site the resource activity other than on SCL, requirement to minimise the construction and operational footprint of the activity, requirement to impact less than 2% of the SCL on the property are fundamental to ensuring the preservation of strategic cropping land and the proposed removal is a significant erosion of pre-existing member rights (refer also “definition of significant impact”).

Eligibility Criteria 6

AgForce supports this criteria as any impact on land not otherwise exempt should be considered

Definition of ‘Significant Impact’

AgForce disagrees with the change to definition of ‘significant impact’ to prescriptive terminology that assumes the outcomes of particular activities rather than requires assessment of the likely impacts on a case-by-case basis.

The discussion paper omits scientific evidence, basis and information on how the department has determined a resource activity will or will not have a significant impact. AgForce considers without provision of this information and a proper consultation process with landholders and agriculture, the department is not justified in proposing to introduce a prescriptive definition.

A key finding of the Commission in its July 2023 “Potential consequences of CSG-induced subsidence to farming operations on the Condamine alluvial floodplain Final Report” was that every farm is different. It is obtuse of the department to ignore this key finding in formulating its proposed change to the definition of “significant impact”.

RPI Act statutory guideline 02/14 “Carrying out resource activities in a PAA” says:

“A significant impact is an impact which is important, notable or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity. Whether or not an activity is likely to have a significant impact on the PAA depends on the scale and the effect of the impact on the PAA.

The Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water’s Matters of National Environmental Significance Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 provides guidance on what may constitute a ‘significant impact’ on a matter of national environmental significance under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This guidance has been used to assist with understanding the exemption under Section 22 of the RPI Act.

To determine whether an activity is likely to have a significant impact, consideration needs to be given to the probability of the negative effects of the impact occurring. For example, to be ‘likely’, it is not necessary for a significant impact to have a greater than 50 percent chance of happening; it is sufficient if a significant impact on the area of regional interest is a real and not a remote chance or possibility.

If there is scientific uncertainty about the impacts of an activity and potential impacts are serious or irreversible, the precautionary principle is applicable. Accordingly, a lack of scientific certainty about the potential impacts of an activity will not itself justify that the activity is not likely to have a significant impact on the area of regional interest.

One example of where an activity may be considered not likely to have a significant impact on a PAA may be where the activity will not:

result in a decrease in the particular agricultural product supplied from the PAA or region
result in a decrease in the PAA or region’s ability to undertake a particular PALU in the future.

What constitutes an impact on land owned by a person other than the landowner?

An impact on land owned by a person, other than the landowner, may occur where the activity will affect or influence the suitability of the land in a PAA to be used for a PALU. For example, reduced overland flow which supplies water storage facilities and which is used in connection with a PALU.”

DCCEEW MNES Significant impact guidelines 1.1 EPBC Act¹⁴ provides substantive guidance on what must be considered in deciding whether an action is likely to have a significant impact:

¹⁴ https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/nes-guidelines_1.pdf

“A ‘significant impact’ is an impact which is important, notable, or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity. Whether or not an action is likely to have a significant impact depends upon the sensitivity, value, and quality of the environment which is impacted, and upon the intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic extent of the impacts. You should consider all of these factors when determining whether an action is likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance.”

DCCEEW MNES Significant impact guidelines 1.3 CSG and large coal mining developments- impacts on water resources¹⁵ guidelines says:

“A ‘significant impact’ is an impact which is important, notable, or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity (Booth v Bosworth, 2001). Whether or not an action is likely to have a significant impact depends upon the sensitivity, value, and quality of the water resource which is impacted, and upon the intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic extent of the impacts. All these factors should be considered when determining whether an action is likely to have a significant impact.”

RPI Act statutory guideline 09/14 “How to determine if an activity has a permanent impact on Strategic Cropping Land” says:

“Schedule 2 of the Regional Planning Interests Regulation 2014 (RPI Regulation) provides criteria for assessment or decision of a proposed activity in the SCA. These criteria require an applicant to identify whether an activity will have a permanent impact on strategic cropping land (SCL).

An activity has a permanent impact on SCL if, because of the carrying out of the activity, the land cannot be restored to its pre-activity condition.

To demonstrate that the proposed activity does not have a permanent impact on the impacted SCL, it will be necessary to demonstrate that:

(a) the land is able (without constraints) to be restored to its pre-activity condition following the undertaking of the proposed activity and

(b) the impacted SCL has been restored to its pre-activity condition following the cessation of that activity.

The actual nature and magnitude of impacts, and the significance of the risks to productive capacity, will be activity and site specific. To restore land to its pre-activity condition it is essential that the land’s condition is well understood so that it is possible to:

(a) accurately identify and characterise the activity and site-specific impacts that might flow from the undertaking of a specific activity at a particular site

(b) properly evaluate the significance and management implications of those impacts

(c) develop an activity and site-specific management plan that manages and mitigates those impacts during the developmental, operational and decommissioning stages of the activity, and so ensure the land is finally restored to its pre-activity condition

(d) establish restoration criteria against which successful restoration can be demonstrated and signed off.”

¹⁵ https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/sig-water-resources.pdf

Resource authority holders are not without options if they require certainty that their activities can lawfully proceed, as directed by RPI Act Statutory Guideline 03/14 they are able to seek a declaration from the Planning and Environment Court under s78(1)(c) of the RPI Act.

AgForce considers that the current definition guidance provided by RPI Act statutory guidelines and detailed guidance resource authority holders, are referred to in EPBC MNES significant impact guidelines 1.1 and more recent significant impact to water guideline 1.3, provide sufficient information and flexibility for significant impacts to be quantified in relation to their location.

AgForce considers the definition proposed for “significant impact” by the department is unacceptably narrow as it does not require consideration of the consequences arising from resource activities that may damage PAA, SCL and/or render land unsuitable for PALU in the future. Those consequences could include, regardless of the nature of the proposed activity at first glance, cumulative impact of successive activities, subsidence (covered separately in this submission), biosecurity issues, contamination of land or water, wellbeing of landholders and the financial impact of the resource activities on the landholder, among other things.

3.2 Register of Exemption

This is a significant area of concern for members. AgForce supports the concept of a public Register of Exemption where those proposing resource activities provide evidence of compliance. AgForce considers the register must include all existing resource activities in PAA and SCL ie, it must be retrospective. AgForce considers that the register should also include the relevant EPBC Act project details because regionally significant water source, the Condamine Alluvium, is in the Surat Basin Cumulative Management Area and is subject to the EPBC CSG Joint Industry Framework for managing impacts to groundwater in the Surat Basin, which receives technical and regulatory advice from the Queensland Government.

AgForce disagrees with the proposed five (5) business day notice period between notification and commencing activities. Such a short period does not appear to account for the time it will take for the administering authority to publish the information on its website. AgForce considers this is severely inadequate and bears no relation to other time periods prescribed in RPI Act. Impacted landholders need adequate time to review information and potential impacts and seek advice. This period should be increased to thirty (30) business days from the time the notification is published on the administering authority’s website.

Further, it is of concern to AgForce that “the administering authority is not intended to have an audit function for this register (or assess or review the information)”. In the absence of the administering authority reviewing this information for compliance, the burden is shifted entirely onto landholders to ensure that projects are compliant with regulations.

This is an unacceptable time and financial burden for landholders.

3.3 Landowner Consultation for Activities Carried Out Under Exemption

AgForce welcomes provisions that increase genuine communication between landholders and resource companies. However, AgForce believes that in order to maximise the benefit of such consultation, a set of guidelines about how consultation will occur should appear in the Act.

AgForce has concerns regarding the significant time required for relevant landholders (including landholders of adjoining properties) to engage in the process and consider it essential that they be adequately compensated for their time. Time required to engage regarding an imposed activity has more than a minor impact on the landholder and the landholder’s business and mental health and personal life. This must be addressed.

AgForce is concerned that there are no guidelines proposed relating to ownership, confidentiality, storage, release, use or security etc, of information provided by landholders (including landholders of adjoining properties) as part of the consultation process. This must be addressed.

AgForce considers it essential that the authority holder provide documentation describing and supporting its decision process on how they have self-assessed they are exempt to landholders (including landholders of adjoining properties).

In certain circumstances, consultation might appropriately occur with the assistance of third-party mediation or facilitation. Where this is required, it should be at the cost of the resource authority holder.

Further, part of the process should require resource authority holders to demonstrate how information provided by landholders (including landholders of adjoining properties) during consultation has informed the decisions made about the resource activities going forward.

Where potential impacts may occur on neighbouring land, those landholders should be afforded the same consultation as the landholders on whose property the activity will occur.

To encourage accurate record keeping, prior to activities commencing authority holders must be required to provide their consultation record to landholders and landholders of adjoining properties (as applicable) with a 20-business day timeframe provided for landholders to respond if they wish.

3.4 Compliance and Enforcement Provisions

AgForce supports measures that ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

3.5 Landowner Notification of RIDA Assessment Applications

AgForce supports this notification provision.

3.6 Expand notification of RIDA assessment applications to include affected land owners

AgForce supports this notification provision.

3.7 Definition of Business Day

Excluding the Christmas period from time limits is supported by AgForce and will increase landholder confidence in processes.

3.8 Public notification of RIDA applications and decisions in a newspaper

AgForce has concerns about this amendment. Regional newspapers remain a vital source of local information and a requirement for resource authority holders to continue to publish notifications in them does not impose a significant burden. Additional options for notification should include the tenure holder using its landholder email database to send direct notification.

3.9 RIDA applications to address all applicable areas of regional interest

AgForce supports this amendment.

3.10 Clarification of the exemption for pre-existing activities (s24)

AgForce disagrees with the proposal to rewrite RPI Act s24 if the change in wording would diminish land holder rights. The wording of the section currently provides useful guidance as to what must be considered to establish if a resource activity can be lawfully carried out immediately prior to commencement of RPI Act ie, in basic terms it must be able to be lawfully done under its authorising resource and environmental authority, it must not need further approval (eg, a strategic cropping land compliance certificate) and the application for either authority adequately detailed the location, nature and/or extent of the expected surface impacts of the activity.

AgForce suggests that rather than changing the wording of s24, it would be of less risk to landholders and more constructive to develop guidance material providing information on the type(s) of application documents which were required for the relevant authorities including what the relevant administering Act required to be contained in the application documents as to location, nature and/or extent of the expected surface impacts of the activity at the relevant times ie, immediately prior to commencement of RPI Act and immediately prior to commencement of Strategic Cropping Land Act 2011. It would be beneficial to supplement this with a list of additional approvals which may be required for resource activity to commence eg, Strategic Cropping Land Compliance Certificates and authorisations under Transport Infrastructure Act 1994.

Next Steps

Fundamentally, AgForce believes that if consultation is going to occur, it is key that decision makers can demonstrate how they have considered information provided by stakeholders and used it to inform their subsequent decisions.

The matters considered in this consultation paper are extremely significant to AgForce members who own or neighbour PAA and/or SCL, whose lives and livelihoods depend on the careful use and protection of good quality agricultural land.

Lending decisions of AgForce members’ financiers, including about interest rate margins, have been made in reliance upon continuation of PALU, the prioritisation of PALU, PAA and SCL, and CSG-induced subsidence impacts remaining within the RPI Act.

AgForce is concerned about the very narrow scope of the RPI Act and its review, given its irrelevance to the majority of AgForce members who own no PAA or SCL, but who regard their property and its use as worth protecting from the impacts of resource activities.

AgForce thanks the Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning for the opportunity to provide feedback and looks forward to continued engagement to better practices for all stakeholders involved.

If you have any questions or require further information please contact Anna Fiskbek, Policy Advisor by email: fiskbeka@agforceqld.org.au or mobile: 0407 813 470.

Yours faithfully

Michael Guerin

Chief Executive Officer
Enc

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: AgForce Land Use Protection Principles
As the body for agriculture, AgForce requires that alternative and potentially impacting land uses ensure:

There is recognition that natural capital has an inherent value
Human health and well-being must not be sacrificed
A precautionary approach that avoids negative legacy effects on natural resources including air, soil, water and biodiversity
There are no negative impacts on existing or future sustainable agricultural opportunities

Before:

- Recognize that resources are finite.
- All projects are assessed on environmental, social and economic criteria.
- There is a formal mechanism for agriculture to be involved in assessment.
- Projects should not be assessed in isolation and cumulative impacts assessed.
- Potential impacts need to be objectively, and accurately quantified rigorously and independently reviewed.
- Agricultural landholders to have equal representation, available resources and bargaining power.

During:

- All projects must have comprehensive monitoring and transparent reporting.
- Non-compliance will trigger cease work.
- Enforcement is primarily the responsibility of government, but landholders must have a right to compel action.
- Industry and Government must proactively identify and manage cumulative impacts, both individual project cumulative impacts and multiple projects cumulative impacts

After:

- Land needs to be rehabilitated to be the pre-existing natural conditions.
- Financial assurance needs to be adequate for rehabilitation.

See: https://www.agforceqld.org.au/knowledgebase/article/AGF-01250/

Keywords: Submission, Regional, Planning, Interests, Act, RPI