Woodside, Gold Mining

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (15:36): I have been provided by a constituent with emails authored by a law firm representing the mining company proposing to mine gold at Woodside in my electorate. My concerns in relation to the proposal are well known but, putting those aside for a moment, the law allows the company to outline its proposal. My reason for raising this matter is not so much to reflect on the balance of rights between mining companies and farmers—I have earlier made substantial remarks in relation to that matter in this place—it is about the way in which lawyers acting for a mining company engage with my community.

My constituent has asked that I bring these emails to the attention of members, and I take that request seriously. I received the following email from my constituent, and I will read the relevant parts to the house with the names of my constituents redacted, reading the emails in such a way as to preserve their grammatical integrity in view of those redactions. From my constituent, dated Tuesday 1 October 2019, subject: threats and intimidation, the email states:

Dear Dan,

I would like to draw to your attention the email correspondence received below and request a meeting with the Mining Minister.

By way of background [and the email then refers to my constituent's partner] was in hospital last night with [and there is a reference to my constituent's child] who was having his tonsils out.

[She] forwarded me the email and was upset to be receiving legal advice. We discussed how unusual it was for it to be sent to [her].

It was my opinion and I assured [there is a reference to the constituent's partner] that it must just have been a mistake.

It was very strange as we do not make [her] contact details available to the public and [there is a reference to the mining company's lawyers or the mining company] already had the correct contact details.

It appears I was in error.

I have previously raised issues of threats and intimidation directly with [and there follows a reference to the mining company] and in public correspondence as have many within the Adelaide Hills Community.

Could you please contact me when convenient.

Kind Regards,

I read to the house the email chain that followed below the cover note, also taking care to redact portions of the email chain that would name individual people if I did not take that step. This email is from an employee of the law firm, dated Monday 30 September, and states:

To whom it may concern,

Please find attached by way of service a Notice of Appeal filed on behalf of the Appellant in the above matter today in the Environment, Resources and Development Court.

Kind Regards,

There is a further email from my constituent, dated Monday 30 September:

Hi

I have no idea how you have got my email. It's not listed…

There is a website reference. The email continues, 'You should email' another address. This is where matters become unusual. There is a further email, dated Tuesday 1 October, from an employee of the law firm to a lawyer and my constituent:

Please note that I have just spoken to [there is a description] on the phone…has requested that all communications be sent only to…I have added the [there are further details] and this email address to the file contacts.

Cheers

There are two further emails, dated Tuesday 1 October, from a solicitor to a law clerk including the email address of my constituent who received this email:

I emailed it to…last night too. Largely just to piss the whole family off.

Cheers

The final email that I wish to raise in the house is dated Tuesday 1 October 2019, from an employee of the law firm to a lawyer and to the address of my constituent who received this email:

I'll get started looking for the grandparents email addresses.

Those of my constituents who are aware of the emails are deeply concerned. This does not appear to be the way that any mining company would want to be, or should be, represented. I raised this matter directly with the minister immediately after becoming aware of it. I take the responsibility of raising these difficult issues and of providing full and proper representation to my constituents seriously. I will continue to represent my constituents without fear or favour, even when dealing with powerful interests.

Time expired.