RIGHT TO VETO UNWORKABLE WITH OUT COMPLETE SUPPORT
Farmers want to see changes to Section 9 AA of the Mining Act 1971 to give farmers the right to say no without the threat of a court hearing.
This would work well, but only if the whole community was on board, as is the case for Yorke Peninsula, but in most cases, the reality is that there will usually be someone happy to go along with a ‘mining deal’.
As far as the South East and other areas of the state, a right of veto in the Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill 2018 would accomplish nothing.
While the four Liberals who crossed the floor (‘Libs split on mining changes’, Stock Journal, November 29) were given accolades, I wonder what their response would be if we asked that 4.6 per cent of prime agricultural land should be banned from any mining activities, apart from extraction for roads and rubble, when in fact, this is the only way farmers would have any certainty to protect their land.
What we are seeing is political games and stage drama. The bill will be raised again on February 26.
Some farmers also have shares in mining, a family member may be employed in mining, or some may be ready to retire with no one to take on the responsibility of the farm and they see this as their golden nest egg opportunity to sell their property to mining, with no thought for the other landholders.
If the ore body is of considerable size, and the first and second farmers say no to entry and mining, the company may then go to a third farmer, who then says yes.
This does nothing to protect the first two farmers or the community from the mining impacts of dust, noise, stress on animals, or contamination of air and water – the list goes on.
We are seeing examples of climate change daily. Our food bowl, and preservation thereof, should take precedence ahead of everything else. Agriculture and mining cannot coexist. To do otherwise is a complete folly.
Anne Daw,
Kingston SE.
LACK OF LOCAL CONTENT ON WEST COAST FRUSTRATING
I have resided in Ceduna for 36 years.
Initially we only received ABC television services, but today have progressed to presently having SBS, Imparja, 7, 9 and 10 commercial channels, as well as the digital channels available throughout SA.
The concern with the commercial television channels is that ours are transmitted from the NT, Qld, NSW and Vic and contain no SA content news service, local programs and the advertising provided is not related to SA services or products.
We receive regional ABC news, but the SA content is limited.
Throughout the years, I have been provided with two reasons for this occurrence: commercial and technical.
The technical one I find implausible, given that our present television services come from interstate, requiring a longer transmission distance.
As for the commercial one, I find it interesting that only three hours away, residents of Cleve and districts are able to receive commercial television direct from Adelaide.
Many West Coast residents have been aggrieved by this situation through the years, but have resigned themselves to the situation never changing. Petitions and approaches to organisations about the issue have yielded no response or support for any endeavours to rectify the situation.
I don't believe it should be impossible and am seeking knowledge and expertise from readers to assist our community to actually feel like they are part of SA.
It may be that it is unachievable, but a straight, honest, commonsense answer to our concerns would be appreciated.
Any information or support your readers could provide would be greatly appreciated.
