Ellis to introduce bill to increase landowner rights

A six-member committee looking into land access issues - chaired by independent Geoff Brock, who now holds a position in Labor's cabinet, and including Mr Ellis and present Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis - undertook a six-month statewide consultation process last year and accepted more than 30 written submissions.

It handed down a report with six recommendations to improve land access framework, including the establishment of a mining ombudsman, a requirement for exploration companies to also consult with neighbouring landholders, an extension of the land entry notice period and an increase in money for landowners to seek legal assistance.

A statement from Mr Koutsantonis said "the recommendations were made by a Parliamentary Select Committee, not the then Opposition and do not form part of SA Labor's election commitments".

Mr Brock did not criticise the state government's stance, saying the recommendations "were provided to the parliament and are for any member of parliament to pursue".

"I understand the member for Narungga has a private members bill based on the findings and is consulting on that bill, that I would seek to consider," he said.

Mr Ellis said he would reserve judgement on Labor's stance until after he had introduced his private member's bill, planned for September.

The proposed bill will be provided to landowner groups for consultation, including those who were consulted during the select committee process.

RELATED READING: Land access recommendations welcomed, but implementation key

"I'd like to think that due to the nature of the cross-parliamentary committee, including three members who are serving in the current government, that there'd be a positive reception to a proposal to enact those recommendations," he said.

Key aims of Mr Ellis' bill will include the establishment of a Mining Land Commissioner to enforce land access regulations and more protections for fertile agricultural land.

While Mr Ellis said he wasn't fully confident his bill would receive parliament's backing, he would be trying his hardest to convince members of its merit.

"I maintain the personal view that hurdles over which a prospective mining company have to jump should be higher on land that's in use and is valuable agricultural land," he said. "It's also very important that we, at the very least, give the perception that promotion and regulation of mining in our state are functions served by separate entities."

The ongoing issue of land access for mineral exploration, and the problems it can cause, is encapsulated by the story of Kevin and Raelene Heidrich.

In 1994, the Heidrichs took a chance on a 2025-hectare Mallee block with a run-down house and no infrastructure to speak of.

Nearly 30 years of backbreaking work and dogged persistence later, the Heidrichs own 10,700ha.

They built their own house, graded roads, put up all fencing, built machinery sheds, improved cropping soils and are immensely proud of an operation boasting the best in on-farm storage, machinery and cropping technology.

However, the quintessential Australian farming success story has been soured by 25 years of dealing with various exploration companies.

RELATED READING: Dissatisfaction with Mining Act amendment

The latest mining proposal on Mallee View has left the Heidrichs considering their family's future at the place, which is a culmination of their dreams and years of hard work. They said they have spent tens of thousands of dollars in court fees, and an inordinate amount of time, negotiating and fighting inequitable mining proposals over the years.

Murray Zircon operated a mineral sands mine on the property before walking away in 2015, but a new arm of the company has informed the Heidrichs of its intent to resume mining operations this year.

"It was a case of 'here we go again' when they came to us with their plans," Mr Heidrich said.

He said previous dealings with Murray Zircon had been reasonable, but the leadership heading up the latest proposal were "ruthless" and showed "no care".

He said compensation offered, for land to be taken out of production by the new dig, was significantly less than what they'd expect to make from cropping.

The mining company received a valuation and multiple reports on the property and its production value from an agribusiness firm, but Mr Heidrich claimed this was based on "uninformed assumptions" and images from Google Earth, with no visits made to Mallee View.

Murray Zircon and the valuer declined to comment, due to the negotiation's ongoing nature.

The Heidrichs said they would be unable to run any ewes near the mining lease, would be impacted by unrelenting daily truck movements and the dig's close proximity to their house.

"The Mining Act has got to be adhered to so that you can't get taken to court if it is exempt agricultural and cultivated land and within 600 metres of a home - it has got to stay exempt," Mr Heidrich said.

Murray Zircon did not wish to comment in detail because it said the matter was "still in negotiation", but a general statement was provided.

"Over the last 12 months, Murray Zircon representatives have been speaking with the Heidrichs about the development of proposed mining operations," the statement read.

"These discussions have also included steps that Murray Zircon is proposing to undertake on the Heidrich's property to ensure any impacts are minimised and appropriately compensated."

Murray Zircon said it operated within a highly-regulated industry and environmental and social outcomes were in place to ensure any impacts on community and environment were prevented or mitigated.

It said all activities would be regulated by the Department for Energy and Mining and the Environmental Protection Authority.

Mr Heidrich said Murray Zircon's statement that negotiations were still occurring was contrary to its actions, saying the company had issued proceedings in the Environment, Resources and Development court and had requested proceedings start in November, which happens to be during harvest.

Despite the prospect of more time in court, the Heidrichs remain steadfast in their quest for what they believe is adequate compensation or to put a halt to the latest proposal.

"We will not back down," Mr Heidrich said.