APGA CEO Cheryl Cartwright said the Landholders’ Rights to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015 would affect the property rights of some landholders with its broad definition of those with an ‘ownership interest’.

“It would also stifle industry with more regulation,” Cartwright said.

The bill, put forward by the Greens, would use the Commonwealths’ corporations power to make it an offence for companies to come onto a property where the owner, typically a farmer or pastoralist, has refused exploration operations for shale gas and coal seam gas.

It would also ban fraccing in Australia.

It has been referred to a Senate standing committee with a report due in August, but even the slim prospect of it passing, a move that would require Labor and crossbench support, has APGA worried.

“The Greens’ bill ignores well-established State and Territory laws that cover all aspects of land access, approvals processes and compensation. It would do nothing to improve the rights of Australia’s landholders,” Cartwright said.

“Also, in restricting development of the nation’s gas resources, and therefore gas supply, the bill would be likely to contribute to increased gas prices and therefore encourage the use of coal when we should be moving to cleaner options.”

Cartwright said electricity generated from gas has less than half the emissions of coal-fired power.

“Australia should be using gas to help reduce carbon emissions. It is the ideal complement to renewable energy,” she said.

“Gas power generation turbines start up and shut down very quickly, allowing generators using the technology to rapidly respond to intermittent changes in generation, so gas is the best fit with renewable sources such as wind and solar.”

APGA has made a submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill notes that the use of coal seam and shale gases to displace coal in electricity generation in the US has contributed to a reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions by 212 million tonnes annually – 10.3% of total emissions from the electricity sector – and is widely considered to be the major contributing factor to the US meeting its international emission reduction commitments.

“Australia has abundant reserves of gas and we should be using them to achieve lower emissions outcomes,” Cartwright said.

“We should be introducing policies that encourage the replacement of coal-fired power.

“The Greens’ bill, should it pass, would have a negative effect on efforts to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in Australia. Questions about extraction processes have been answered. Independent inquiries in Australia and overseas have shown that, with appropriate regulation and best-practice processes in place, extraction of coal seam and shale gases, are low-risk.”

APGA was one of 83 bodies and individuals that have lodged submissions to date.

Many, such as that from Lock the Gate, argue that the states have failed to offer a veto, so the Commonwealth needs to step in to address the power imbalance between landholders and explorers.

Opponents say there is an obvious conflict of interest between state royalty income on one hand and the states’ duty to regulate to protect the environment and community on the other, rendering it unlikely that states will ever uniformly provide veto rights for landholders.

Without the power of veto, gas and coal companies have an unfair advantage in any negotiation over land access, Lock The Gate says.

“The power of the gas mining corporation is deliberately and unfairly improved by state jurisdictions at the expense of the landholder, the environment and the community,” the group argued.

“We also believe it is crucial that improvements are made to relevant federal environment and heritage laws to better prevent the degradation of land, water and other natural resources by mining interests, and thus to properly protect the broader public interest.”

It makes the case that water resources that are of continental scale and significance, such as the Great Artesian Basin, which should be properly conserved at a national level by the Commonwealth, since the states, local governments and individual landholders and companies cannot be expected to take a broad perspective on their own use of such a resource.

Others, including the NT government, argue that landholder vetos would be an unacceptable intrusion on its ability to manage its own affairs.

Several submissions said a right to refuse would make negotiations between tenement holders voluntary, and therefore commercial, for the first time, scrapping the misleading term for “landholder agreements”.

They say even small explorers have the cash and resources to demand land access, and recourse to the courts if it is refused.