YP farmers reaffirm stance for mining exploration veto

The Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill 2018 was introduced into parliament in August and farming groups say it does not answer any of the issues raised during consultation conducted by the former Labor state government.

During a farmers’ forum held on Thursday last week at Maitland, about 300 farmers voted to continue to advocate for an amendment of section 9AA of the Mining Act 1971, wanting to remove exploration or mining companies’ ability to apply for a court order waiving the benefit of exempt lands, including that used for agriculture.

Forum co-convenor Joy Wundersitz said this was a reaffirmation of an existing position held by farming groups.

“There is a lot of concern about the mining bill and its failure to provide extra protection for landholders against mining and exploration companies,” she said.

“We want to give farmers the right to say no without the threat of a court hearing.”

Related reading: Mining veto critical to food security

YP landowners in limbo

Also speaking at the forum was Mining Minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan.

“We’re very appreciative the minister took the time to attend,” Ms Wundersitz said.

“There has been a failure to consult on this bill and we want to make it clear that farmers are not happy.

“This is not just an issue of concern to YP farmers, its all farmers on supposedly exempt land.”

Ms Wundersitz said all cases she knew of that involved the court system had ended in favour of the exploration companies.

“In a court setting, the odds are heavily stacked in favour of mining companies,” she said.

“They have got the resources to prepare their case, they understand the process, have ready access to lawyers – there are so many factors that mean a single farming family is at a big disadvantage.” 

Member for Narrunga Fraser Ellis, who also spoke, said this had been a long-standing issue for farmers on the YP and across the state.

“I don’t see it as a mining versus agriculture issue, I think it is about freeholders’ rights being weakened,” he said.

“If freehold landholders were provided with strong enough protection, these competing land uses would not be an issue.”

Mr Ellis, a Liberal MP who has threatened to cross the floor on the issue, said there was already precedent in NSW with designated strategic agricultural land zoning, aquifer interference policy, and coal seam gas exclusion zones and in WA with a right of veto for land down to 30 metres.

“What we seek has been done interstate and in other countries, so let’s learn from this policy work,” he said.   

“That the Crown owns the minerals under the ground is irrelevant in my view, and I don’t propose to alter that.

“That the freehold landowner’s property has to be destroyed in order to access those minerals is relevant.” 

This was Mr van Holst Pellekaan’s second trip to Maitland in recent weeks to meet with locals on the issue.

He said the government had committed to consult on the draft regulations before voting in the House of Assembly.

“The opinions of landholders from across the state as well as those of the resources sector are being thoroughly considered,” he said.

​“Agriculture continues to be our strongest industry and mining is our state’s best growth opportunity, so we must find ways for them both to succeed.”