Wandoan Coal a first-up hypothetical test of SCL agenda

THE recent approval of a huge coal mine at Wandoan is proving to be the first of many tests of the Government’s intent to deliver a fairer regime for balancing resource development and agricultural primary production.
There are a number of spokes to the wheel that make up this balancing act and there has been plenty of commentary on each of them.
The Water and other legislation Amendment bill that will be debated in the Queensland Parliament next week is perhaps the most crucial when it comes to addressing the traditionally forgotten issues of groundwater impacts.
The slow and sometimes confusing position the Government has taken on strategic cropping land is also progressing, although at glacier-like pace in the background.
Subsequent to the Wandoan approval last week, we have seen the confusion that a vacuum in this policy area has caused.
Recognising good quality agricultural land is not a new concept. Various planning instruments have been required to do so for years.
Of course the difference between recognising the land and actually doing something to protect that land from impact from a proposed development is another matter.
And this, perhaps, is where the old good quality agricultural land (GQAL) policy has largely failed.
In principle at least, the SCL policy framework should build on this GQAL base and entrench in legislation enough triggers to avoid the destruction of the highest value cropping land in the State.
This will inevitably mean picking winners and losers and we need to be honest about that.
Not all farmers wish for their land to come under some overbearing planning protection, which may potentially limit their future development desires.
Equally, many farmers want greater protection to avoid their land being consumed by destructive development that would deny them their ability to farm either now or into the future.
While this may be a simplistic summary of the winners and losers, there is an obvious distinction between the two groups – choice.
I believe it makes sense for the State to have a comprehensive planning system that considers the impact of all development on the long-term assets of the State for the future prosperity of their citizens.
Nevertheless, people need houses to live in and electricity to make the lights go on, so we cannot avoid some impact and we must find the acceptable path through.
The SCL policy framework is not perfect and until we see the final criteria that will identify the SCL land we will not know its full affect.
But the intention is the right one and while this is certainly a problem being seen around the globe the international solutions are not so evident.
So the State Government should at least be acknowledged for coming this far.
But I think the problem here is that while the spokes of the wheel are ever so slowly being formed, and let’s be blunt, some are stronger than others.
The wheel definitely needs more spokes not less.
It is not these individual issues that are of greatest concern.
It is the direction the wheel is travelling in and the disempowerment we as farmers are starting to feel about determining that direction.
No matter what peripheral legislative changes are made, it is in the end always an unjust world where a citizen, business owner and community member is told what will happen to their livelihood and their environment by a third party.
We are not unique in suffering this fate. But this does not make it right.
In this case, the Government has an agenda to increase the amount of gas and mineral exploration in Queensland..
The pure economic case for doing so may well be compelling for the State Parliament.
But the lack of power or choice being afforded the communities who must deliver on this agenda is, so far, largely ignored and it is this, once all the legislative tinkering is over, that must be changed.