Sorry, this video has expired

Criticism for mining company land bill

Updated May 03, 2010 08:20:00

A bill which grants mining companies greater access to a farmer's land has passed the Lower House of NSW Parliament, prompting criticism from NSW Greens MPs and farmers alike.

Source: 7.30 New South Wales | Duration: 7min 37sec

Topics: mining-industry, industry, food-and-beverage, mining-environmental-issues, greens, mining-rural, australia, nsw


QUENTIN DEMPSTER, PRESENTER: The might of mining verses the food from farming - it seems it's an unequal battle, judging from the Government's move last week to amend the Mining and Petroleum Act.

The Land Access Bill goes to the Upper House next month and seeks to reinstate the rights mining companies have to farming land. It seeks to overturn a Supreme Court ruling that BHP Billiton had failed to notify all those with an interest in some properties, like the banks, not just the farmers. That case was fought over farmland at Caroona on the Liverpool Plains, and the farmers say new legislation or no, the battle is not over yet. Geoff Sims reports.

GEOFF SIMS, REPORTER: You don't have to be a farmer, you only need to eat occasionally to see that this is more than your average patch of dirt. There may be coal under it and around it, but first things first.

GEOFFREY BROWN, FARMER: People have got to eat, basically. It's a simple factor. We need food to eat and, you know, mining is a short-term thing and especially this area, which is very valuable and very highly - very fertile area and probably one of the most fertile places in Australia.

GEOFF SIMS: Some say second only to the Nile Delta. Wherever it fits in the global league table, it's irreplaceable, and according to the Minerals minister, it's safe.

If you were a farmer on the Liverpool Plains, would you want mining anywhere near you?

IAN MACDONALD, MINERAL RESOURCES MINISTER: Well, just to correct that, Geoff, the mining company has excised the Liverpool Plains from the exploration licence. They cannot mine in that area.

GEOFF SIMS: I said anywhere near, meaning anywhere near where mining could have some impact on the subterranean water.

IAN MACDONALD: Well the question of impact has yet to be determined.

GEOFF SIMS: Even if mining were restricted to the ridges, the groundwater might be affected, the farmers say, and the floodplain could end up being useless.

GEOFFREY BROWN: Our biggest concern is the contamination of the aquifers. When they start bringing up the heavy metals and everything that's down deep in the earth, yeah, they're gonna contaminate the water that we rely on to grow our food and water our livestock.

GEOFF SIMS: That's free-range chickens, too, and the irrigated crops on the floodplain, the whole enterprise, which is why Geoff Brown was one of the farmers who challenged exploration. In the Supreme Court last month, they were successful. The Caroona Coal Action Group claimed the victory as huge, even though it would not prevent mining companies coming onto their land to explore.

TIM DUDDY, CAROONA COAL ACTION GROUP: Absolutely, but the difference was that they would get on the land with everyone being informed as to what they were doing when they came here.

GEOFF SIMS: The court accepted that BHP Billiton had breached the Minerals Act by not informing everyone who might have a stake in the land - not just the farmer, but a bank that held a mortgage over the company and any utility that had an easement across it.

IAN MACDONALD: There's no doubt, in my view, and reading back through the documents that it was a loophole in the sense that it was never meant that the exploration licence would mean that every person that has an interest in a property would be required to approve any access agreement arranged between the mining company and the farmer.

GEOFF SIMS: BHP has set out to have the ruling overturned, but before its appeal is heard, the Government has wasted no time in introducing a land access bill that prevents last month's ruling from applying to all exploration.

IAN MACDONALD: Well, the appeal could take years, in effect, to finalise and we cannot allow the uncertainty to remain over the up-to-8,000 other agreements across this state.

GEOFF SIMS: And yet, the minister says he's defending the farmers too.

IAN MACDONALD: The Government feels that the legislation, in effect, would have put farmers in an untenable position in negotiating and then trying to come to some arrangement, but then having the bank look over their shoulder.

GEOFF SIMS: But the affected farmers say it's all for the miners.

TIM DUDDY: I think the fact that a government would be prepared to reward an industry for breaking the law by enabling retrospective legislation to be introduced, I think it's very concerning.

GEOFF SIMS: The farmers and The Greens, here at least, see eye to eye.

LEE RHIANNON, GREENS: The Land Access Bill should just be withdrawn. It's purely being introduced by the NSW Government for the benefit of mining companies, to make their life easier when they want to go and explore for minerals.

GEOFF SIMS: If not exactly doing BHP's bidding, the Government is not bashful about trumpeting the importance of mining.

IAN MACDONALD: After all, mining last year contributed $22 billion to the NSW economy. It is too important to our economy to ignore and we don't want a situation to arise where exploration activities close down because of this uncertainty.

GEOFF SIMS: Isn't that the issue, though, that mining is worth more than twice as much as agriculture?

IAN MACDONALD: No, both are very vital. Both have downstream processing that adds enormous value to this state. I don't see it as a conflict.

GEOFF SIMS: It's not just what the legislation does, but its retrospective nature that upsets some people. All political parties generally oppose retrospectivity, unless of course they happen to be in power or unless they figure they can cut some deal to their advantage by supporting it.

You can argue the definition of retrospectivity till the cows come home.

IAN MACDONALD: No, it's not a question of it being retrospective. What it means is that it validates the current agreements, the current arrangements made by farmers.

GEOFF SIMS: But you can't deny the Government's being very busy, trying to get the bill through.

IAN MACDONALD: Well I'm working on all other members of the Upper House outside of the Labour Party.

GEOFF SIMS: It may come down to a deal with the Shooters Party. The Nationals, trying to please both the farmers and the mining companies, want an end to the Government's getting fees out of exploration before mining.

DUNCAN GAY, NATIONALS MLC: We find that that inherently is part of had problem. The fact that in one case there was $100 to $110 million paid upfront and another one, $300 million. If you're feeling - I know if I'd spent that money upfront, I'd be feeling that I should be able to get my way.

GEOFF SIMS: Are you aware of any case where a mining company has gone in and done any exploring in this state and not subsequently mined it?

DUNCAN GAY: I am told anecdotally that there is one case.

GEOFF SIMS: The minister has to sound confident.

IAN MACDONALD: I think reason will prevail and this will go through fairly clearly in the end.

GEOFF SIMS: And the farmers have to sound determined.

GEOFFREY BROWN: I'm here. Doesn't matter what dollars they throw at me, I'm here, and I hope to stay here without mining interfering with what I do.

TIM DUDDY: Gandhi brought down the British Empire by sitting on a chair. I don't think that any Australian would wish that the productivity of areas like this is destroyed for a mine that has a 30-year life span.