Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015: what it proposes and why it keeps returning

The short answer

Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015: what it proposes and why it keeps returning

The Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015 is a private senator's bill originally introduced by Senator Larissa Waters (Greens, Queensland) in 2015 during the 44th Parliament. It has been restored to the 48th Parliament and is before the Senate. The bill gives landholders the right to refuse gas and coal mining on their land without prior written authorisation, sets detailed requirements for valid authorisation, and prohibits hydraulic fracturing by constitutional corporations, and if passed would take effect as drafted.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

A bill with a decade-long parliamentary history

The Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015 is one of the longest-running private senators' bills in the current Parliament. First introduced in 2015 by Senator Larissa Waters, it has been restored — brought back onto the Senate notice paper — in successive parliaments. Restoration is a procedural mechanism that allows a bill from a previous parliament to continue without being reintroduced from scratch.

The bill's longevity reflects the persistence of the issue it addresses. Conflicts between farmers and mining companies over land access for coal seam gas (CSG) and coal mining have been a recurring feature of Australian politics, particularly in Queensland and New South Wales, for more than a decade. The 'Lock the Gate' movement, which organises community opposition to unconventional gas mining on agricultural land, has been one of Australia's most sustained environmental campaigns.

Waters, a Queensland senator, represents the state where much of this conflict has occurred — particularly in the Darling Downs, the Surat Basin and the Galilee Basin. Her sponsorship of the bill reflects both the Greens' national platform and her state's specific experience with land-use conflict between agriculture and resources.

Evidence review

Three components: landholder rights, authorisation requirements and a fracking ban

The bill has three distinct components. The first gives landholders — farmers and other rural landholders — the right to refuse gas and coal mining on their land. Currently, in most Australian jurisdictions, the state owns mineral and petroleum resources, and landholders have limited rights to refuse access. Mining companies can obtain exploration or production tenements that override the landholder's wishes, subject to compensation and negotiation requirements that landholder groups argue are inadequate.

The second component sets out detailed requirements for a valid written authorisation from the landholder. This addresses concerns that existing negotiation frameworks are unequal — a farming family negotiating with a multinational resources company — and that 'agreements' are sometimes reached under pressure. The requirements would ensure authorisation is genuinely informed, voluntary and documented.

The third component prohibits hydraulic fracturing (fracking) for coal seam gas, shale gas and tight gas by constitutional corporations, backed by civil penalties — not criminal penalties. This targets the corporations power under section 51(xx) of the Constitution, which gives the Commonwealth power to legislate with respect to foreign, trading and financial corporations.

Evidence review

Constitutional basis and federal-state tensions

The bill's reliance on the corporations power is a deliberate constitutional strategy. The Commonwealth does not have a general power to legislate on land use or mining — those are primarily state responsibilities. But the corporations power provides a basis for regulating the activities of constitutional corporations, which include most large mining and gas companies.

This constitutional strategy has been used successfully in other Commonwealth environmental legislation, including the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (which relies partly on the corporations power). However, the scope of the corporations power in the context of mining regulation has not been fully tested in the High Court. A challenge to the bill's constitutional validity would be likely if it passed.

The bill also engages state jurisdiction over land and resources. States issue mining and petroleum tenements, and state legislation governs land access and compensation. A Commonwealth bill that gives landholders a right of refusal would interact with — and potentially override — state frameworks. The extent to which the Commonwealth can override state mining laws under the corporations power is uncertain.

Evidence review

The fracking ban: what it covers and what it doesn't

The fracking prohibition targets coal seam gas, shale gas and tight gas — all forms of unconventional gas extraction that use hydraulic fracturing. These have been the focus of community concern because of their potential impacts on groundwater, agricultural land and climate. The bill does not prohibit conventional gas extraction or coal mining — only fracking for these specific gas types.

The prohibition applies to constitutional corporations. This does not cover all potential actors — a small mining operation that is not a constitutional corporation, or a state government-owned entity, might fall outside the scope. The bill uses civil penalties rather than criminal penalties, which avoids some constitutional issues but may be perceived as weaker enforcement.

The bill does not address the compensation question: if a landholder refuses access, does the state — which owns the mineral resources — compensate the mining company for the loss of the resource? This question is politically difficult and legally complex. The bill's silence on it may reflect a strategic choice to focus on the landholder's right rather than the property rights of resource title holders.

Evidence review

Parliamentary status and prospects

The bill is before the Senate as a private senator's bill. It has not been debated beyond the second reading speech, has not been referred to a committee in the current Parliament, and has not attracted government or opposition support. No Bills Digest or regulatory impact statement is available.

The bill's prospects of passage are low, as is typical for private senators' bills that propose significant changes to the federal-state balance in resource regulation. However, the bill serves an important agenda-setting function — it keeps the issue of landholder rights and fracking on the parliamentary record and provides a vehicle for debate when related issues arise.

The bill's restoration across multiple parliaments demonstrates that it is not a one-off protest measure but a sustained legislative effort. Waters and the Greens have maintained the bill through changes of government, changes of parliamentary term, and multiple election cycles.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer