Farmland Access Rights

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (15:39): I rise today on behalf of a farming family of Yorke Peninsula, on behalf of the farming community of Yorke Peninsula and on behalf of the farming community of the state at large.

Astute observers may have noticed an excellent article in the 2 November edition of The Advertiser featuring Paskeville farmers Neil and Jackie Harrop celebrating what appeared to be the end of an almost two-year courtroom battle over access to their generational freehold farmland. Unfortunately, the exploration company has since indicated that it intends to renege on that out-of-court settlement, forcing the Harrops back to court to ensure that their own freehold farmland be remediated to the condition that the miners found it in before they forced their way in.

Heaven knows that that should be the absolute bare minimum that a miner feels morally compelled to do. Adding insult to injury, the mining company launched a civil claim against the Harrops, alleging that they held up mining operations and cost the exploration company money in the process. I feel compelled to vouch that the Harrops did no such thing and acted as respectful hosts, despite the fact they never wanted the miners on their land to begin with. They then found that their unwelcome guests had the audacity to accuse them of such a thing.

Surely someone who intrudes upon another person's property with the aid of a court order would be going to extraordinary lengths to do the right thing by that person. Unfortunately, that did not happen in this case. Of the 22 court-ordered conditions, the mining company failed to meet a litany of them, including failing to rehabilitate compaction on the land, drilling more holes than the court allowed and refusing to pay the correct compensation thereafter. It is extraordinary. Competing land uses are a complex conundrum, but adhering to court-ordered conditions should be non-negotiable.

I find it extraordinary that this company received barely a slap on the wrist in this case and were allowed to continue drilling and operating as if nothing had happened. To my mind, this example alone, never mind a plethora of other examples, highlights the need for an independent regulator for the mining industry, separate from the department, that can enforce conditions upon mining companies without the need for small family farming businesses to have to haul large mining corporations to court in order to have their rights upheld.

This new government is the party of business, and these viable, successful family-owned businesses cannot operate without certainty—no business can. Landowners in regional South Australia need stronger rights so that they can operate their business, confident in the knowledge that they will be able to continue to do so without the interference of government or courts. As I have publicly stated, I believe the current mining bill before the house does not go far enough. This is a view shared by more than 300 farmers from practically every district across the electorate who recently attended a farmers' forum in Maitland to discuss access rights by mining companies on prime agricultural farming land.

My support for the act's new provisions that are currently before the house will be contingent upon being able to ensure that what happened to the Harrops can no longer happen or be inflicted upon my community, or indeed upon any other farming community in this state. In its current form, I will find it very difficult to support the mining bill. Landowners in regional South Australia need stronger rights, and Neil and Jackie's ordeal is the best example of why this is the case.