PROMINENT prime lamb producer Don Pegler has labelled the passage of the State Government’s mining bill as a kick in the guts for country communities, many of which remain in the dark following an “atrocious” consultative process.
The former independent MP expressed disappointment the amendments to the controversial mining bill, passed in the state’s lower house Wednesday night, does not fairly balance agriculture and mining and would allow exploration to take place on properties without landowners support.
Despite the opposition of seven MPs, including Member for MacKillop Nick McBride and Mount Gambier MP Troy Bell, the bill was backed by a majority of the Liberal Party as well as Labor after being discussed for almost four hours.
Mr Pegler said the State Government’s bill failed to appropriately address the concerns of the Liberals’ core constituency and was weighted towards the mining industry.
“As far as I’m concerned, the Labor and Liberal parties are both acting in the interests of the big end of town and big business and not for the rights of our farmers,” he said.
“People have gone and voted in a Liberal Government believing they will look after the regions and instead they have kicked the regions in the guts.
“Yes they do have a whole state to look after but perhaps they should look at the contribution of the agricultural industry.
“With mining, the whole point of it is you dig a hole in the ground, sell what’s there and that’s it.
“Agriculture actually delivers returns for years if you get it right.”
Mining Minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan initially told Parliament the government had undertaken “extensive consultation” on the contentious bill, but then said consultation was held largely through sector representative groups when questioned by the
State Opposition.
He said he had met with Primary Producers SA, Grain Producers SA and a landowners group and had attended meetings on the issue.
However, Mr Pegler said the government’s process of consultation had been “absolutely atrocious”.
“If there has been extensive consultation as the government says, surely regional people would know what’s happened,” he said.
“I have had people from other areas tell me they have had to go and seek the information out about the mining bill themselves.”
Mr Pegler said any legislation should consider the impacts of mining on a community as a whole given the
wide ranging impacts through mining practices.
“You could have a situation where the person that owns the land is well and truly compensated and now worried about the impacts, yet the community has to deal with dust, road and traffic effects with no say and no compensation,” he said.
“There has got to be some consultation on how mining impacts on a community and how these impacts can be alleviated.”
The bill will now progress to the state’s upper house, where Greens MLC Mark Parnell has indicated he will introduce amendments aimed at protecting both communities and landholders.
“If a mining company offers you twice what your land is worth to operate, it is not unreasonable to expect a landholder would take it,” Mr Parnell said.
“Neighbours and other community members should have their say too.
“There are not too many people saying the 1971 act is the best thing to do and given we are looking at the act now, it is tie to get the relationship between mining and farming right.”
