THE coal seam gas issue took centre stage in Canberra this week as key independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott sought assurances that rural landholders would have more protection from gas mining projects.
The Mining Resources Rent Tax and Petroleum Resource Rent Tax legislation was introduced into Federal Parliament on Wednesday amid ongoing tensions over gas mining in rural Australia.
Member for Lyne, Rob Oakeshott said he had sought further advice from the government on what its plans are to remove inefficient state-based royalties, as was the original intent of the Ken Henry tax reform recommended in 2009.
"I also confirm support for greater landscape consideration in the areas of food, water, and soil, and am seeking advice on what further work is being done by the government in these areas.
"Discussions are also on-going regarding the passage of the eight bills through the Parliament."
Mr Windsor, the member for New England, said earlier this week he had had enough of the methods of coal seam gas companies which are expanding operations dramatically in Queensland and NSW.
He mirrored the concerns raised at Monday's CSG State parliamentary committee inquiry in Taree, when he told the Herald that rural people in NSW did not trust the environmental assurances the companies gave about the impact of mining on water tables and arable land.
Mr Windsor's key demand is for $200 million to $400 million to be allocated each year from the tax revenue to fund bio-regional assessments.
These assessments would scientifically gauge the impact of proposed coal seam gas and other mining practices on aquifers, flood plains, native vegetation, farming and native species.
Mr Windsor said in parliament on Wednesday, "perhaps we should slow down and actually get it right and then make decisions. It'll actually save the companies money in the long run if they know where they can't go".
He said (the mining companies) "know they can't go into national parks now for a whole range of unique reasons, and what we're suggesting is there may be, there may not be, but there may be certain areas that under independent scientific bio-regional assessment would show up as being highly risky to a whole range of factors, and hence they wouldn't be allowed to go there."