The government of the day can still over rule a SCL designation and allow mining on the farmers land under a "Public Benefit" ruling.

Also, SCL gives no protection to graziers. There is a way that could secure the land rights of the freeholder and that is to give the land owner the final and absolute say in whether or not the land can be mined.

The SCL is a pathetic sop to the farming community and still does not address the problem of land rights for farmers.

EEMAG's 15 year experience is that supposedly tough new environmental laws will not work.

This view is supported by July 1999 Whistleblowers Action Group (Qld) submission to the House of Reps that called Federal attention to an unofficial policy of non enforcement of environmental regulations governing the mining industry.

Page 4 refers to the 1996/97 Connolly & Ryan Inquiry where the CJC accepted before the Inquiry that a non enforcement policy existed but argued that the policy did not constitute official misconduct because the non enforcement policy had been well publicised

In 2010 DERM declined to restructure the East End mine's Environmental Authority (falsely benchmarked with no off lease environmental impacts) and for a new environmental authority to be issued based on the mine's off-lease zone of water depletion (assessed at approx 50 sq kms by DERM in 2008). The evidence is non enforcement is current, ongoing and apart from the posturing will remain so.

Also, it doesn't address the central issue of still allowing mining or drilling on freehold against the land owners wishes.

Until the government enacts some legislation that gives "freehold" land owners the right to refuse mining or drilling on their properties we will never have any land rights at all.

It is also interesting to note that in the US, fracking is banned in Pittsburgh and Buffalo and New York State has banned horizontal fracking, whilst in Canada, fracking is now banned in Quebec. Mr Seeney, please take note.

We have, as a nation, only ever thought about our own generation and immediate wealth, and it is pleasing to see a government taking a responsible view, even if the miners don't like it.

If we dig the coal now, the land is destroyed forever, but if we keep producing food off it and in 300 years (the amount of coal reserves we have identified in QLD) we decide we no longer need food, the coal will still be there.

The only question in ten years time will be : "Why didn't we do the right thing sooner?"

There is NO process at a State or Federal level to ensure that science used for decision making by Government really IS the best available science.

Under "significant project" status an EIS may not be required, with no public objection process permitted against the project and/or against any inadequacies in the science used to regulate the project's negative impacts.

An independent and affordable appeal on the merits is ABOLSUTELY ESSENTIAL to introduce an acceptable level of accountabilty and to protect the equity of farmers and other adversely affected stakeholders