Council candidates responses to questionnaire

posted in: News | 0





  • Q.1 Should farmers have the absolute right to refuse entry to an exploration or mining company seeking access to their land?  Please give reasons for your response.
  • Q.2 Do you believe large-scale open-cut mining can co-exist with agriculture on Yoke Peninsula?  Please give reasons for your response.
  • Q.3 How do you think Rex Minerals’ proposed Hillside Copper Mine will impact on our region?
  • Q.4 If elected, what position will you take on exploration and mining related issues confronting Council.

All responses received to date are provided below in full. In providing these responses,
all candidates were informed they would be publicly circulated.
(Authorised by Joy Wundersitz, YP Land Owners Group, 0487 431366).
Ray Agnew
Q. 1 As a retired farmer I believe that landowners should have the right to refuse entry
to an exploration or mining company seeking access to their land. I believe it is our
democratic right to do so and I would not restrict this to exploration or mining
Q. 2 Whilst there are already open cut mines on YP e.g. the sand mines in the north of
our Council district and quarries at Ardrossan, Curramulka and Klein’s Point, agriculture
and tourism along with local service industries are the main sources of income on Yorke
Peninsula. The Council logo sums it up “Agriculturally Rich, Naturally Beautiful”. I would
not want to see either jeopardised.
Q 3. I am unsure that the Rex Minerals’ proposed Hillside Copper Mine will ever go
ahead because there are too many mitigating factors. While Council does need to
support economic development on Yorke Peninsula it must be carefully planned,
environmentally sound and sustainable.
Any further comments?

My great grandfather arrived on YP in 1876 so I have a vested interest in protecting our
heritage, environment and lifestyle. This after all is what makes YP a great place to live
and work.


Darren Braund
Q. 1 I noted that a primary concern of the mining forum was to try and deal with the
unfair advantage that the mine operators have in the current draft of the legislation and
I firmly support the resolution that was passed concerning this issue.
I believe farmers should have the right to refuse entry to their farming land. I don’t
believe one business enterprise (the mine operators in this case) should have greater
rights than the current business owners and operators (the farmers). In a similar way,
for example, that a large Kmart store would not have the right to take over a small
business owners land just because they want to build a store with a greater turnover,
even if the larger store would return more tax revenue for the government. This
situation is completely different to Government compulsory acquiring land to use for a
road or similar for community use. It is favoring one business venture over another and I
believe there is a huge and unfair weighting towards the mine operators.
Q 2 : Based on the evidence and arguments I have heard thus far, I don’t believe that
large-scale open-cut mining can co-exist with agriculture. Especially if we want to
preserve the pristine and fertile environment that we currently enjoy. It’s my
understanding that land can never be returned for agricultural use after the mining has
concluded (or been abandoned). I’m concerned that farmers already find it difficult to
deal with contaminants with their grain as they deposit it to silos and potential further
contaminants may compromise the quality of their crops and/or the price offered due
to a lower grading of produce.
Further, the gulfs around the peninsula are unique and I applaud the new man-made
the reef project to restore the native oyster population. This project has huge potential
to increase the overall health of the gulf and also provide greater opportunities for
tourism and the expansion of aquaculture. I am concerned about the potential for
contaminants from large scale open cut mining to pollute the gulf.
Q 3: My concern is that mining may be a relatively short term solution to economic
growth. Even if a mine has a 50 year lifespan, that is a short-term benefit compared to
agriculture. And on the evidence that I’ve seen so far, the land would not be able to be
used for farming again. Farming is a much better long term viable and sustainable
industry and has demonstrated that it continually improves in its methods and also the
quality of produce. I am also concerned that if the Rex Minerals operation goes ahead
that it may open the door for many other mines on the Peninsula I can understand the
great concern of farming families and effect on the quality of their lifestyle, if faced with
large open cut large just a few hundred meters from their homes.

Any further comments?

Agriculture is SA biggest export earner from only 7% of the
land mass of the state. The mapping that I have seen shows there are large deposits of
copper in areas of the state that are not used for agriculture. More of the agricultural
areas must be protected from invasive mining in our state in a similar way that grape
growing areas are protected.
Further to your questions, I have a question for you:
I noted at the farmers forum that there was one brave soul who was keen to invite
mining on his land. I have yet to hear much argument on the effect of smaller mining
style operations such as sand mining or the Curramulka stone quarry on surrounding
agriculture. I’ve spoken recently to a farmer from Wool Bay who deals with a quarry on
the border of their farm and would be interested to hear the views of the Yorke
Peninsula Land Owners’ Group on the subject of smaller operations.
In general, I am not anti-mining, but my priority would always be that the quality of our
local agriculture and the rights of farmers are protected.


Scott Hoyle
Q 1: Freehold owners of cultivated land MUST have the right to refuse entry and
exploration on their land. With approximately 6% arable farming land available for food
& fodder production in South Australia, it is imperative that legislative protection is
afforded to land owners.
Q 2: No I do not. We live in a pristine environment which supports some of the most
reliable & productive farming land in the country. To even entertain the idea that
government would willingly jeopardise our production, reputation, economy and long
term sustainability is incomprehensible.
Q 3. If the open cut Hillside Mine commences it will have a disastrous effect on the
economic viability of the entire region. It will have a massively detrimental impact on all
facets of primary production, aquaculture, health, & tourism. The total disruption to the
Yorke Peninsula’s residents and visitors “way of life”, shows a total disregard to any
form of social licence to operate. A clear message of disregard to the generosity provided
to The Windarra Reef project by an international benefactor being the Nature
Any further comments?

These views are entirely my own. I am more than happy to have
my views shared with the YPLOG.
Authorised by Scott Hoyle, PO Box 62 Minlaton SA 5575



Roger Johns

Q.1 I totally agree with farmers having the absolute right to refuse entry. I feel it is a violation of the rights of owning privately-held, freehold, high value agricultural land. There must also be an absolute moral and legal obligation to restrain companies from troubling or distressing landowners who are going about their business of producing fresh and sustainable food for our country and supplying the established overseas markets.

Q.2 I don’t believe mining and farming can co-exist on YP.  It will create a multitude of problems and disruption. So much quality land will be lost and never returned to its original state.  Ongoing high risks of contamination in various forms will impact over fields and infrastructure.  Chances of pollutants and dust as mines increase will affect the health and lifestyle of townships

Q.3 The negative impacts will far outweigh the positives. There may be some employment opportunities and business trading but disruption to roadways, unhealthy aspects, farming families being evicted and broken up after many ongoing generations of settlement and land custodianship will be devastating.    The uniqueness of a Peninsula recognised as a clean green region, with its rich farmland, pristine coastline and beaches and so many settlements must take precedence over the arrogant approach from hungry mining companies who seek to disrupt our YP for only greedy short term gain.  There also seems to be no consideration from the state government of the perpetual food producing returns and well-being of the people of this region.

Q.4   When debating and making decisions in my role as a YP Councillor I will take a strong and active position to support the protection of our regions in line with my responses outlined above.  I will consult with the many farmers who hold similar concerns and I will also be willing to listen to the views of exploration/mining companies to get a better understanding of their proposed activities

Richard Carruthers

I cannot answer your questions at this stage as I haven’t made up my mind as yet. I have attended a couple of public meetings to inform myself and have come away most confused.  I am sure I should not make a comment uninformed. Please do not think I am a fence sitter but when I can comment fully I will.


David Langford

Q.1 Yes, I believe farmers should have the absolute right to refuse entry to exploration or mining company seeking access to their land.

Q.2 No, I don’t believe large scale open-cut mining can co-exist with agriculture.

Q.3 Yes, I believe Rex Minerals will impact on our region.

Q.4 I will be against large open cut Mines on Yorke Peninsula Agricultural land.


 Ian Marschall

Q.1  I believe that the food production areas of South Australia need to be protected through legislation if necessary. I have been a farmer and as such see no benefit turning productive farming land into a mine. I have seen what has happened in Queensland with coal seam gas [fracking] and what it has done to the farming communities the central west of NSW are now having the same battle of refusing right of entry. So to your question my answer is YES having said that I would hope Farmers would use a common sense approach if require to make a decision.

Q.2   No.But perhaps you need to define large scale open cut mining as we have a number of mines [quarries ] in existence and I have not heard too many objections to them I also believe water is being extracted for commercial use on Yorke Peninsula. So NO I am not in favour of large scale mining.  The Yorke Peninsular has a rich history of being a reliable crop[grain] growing area and with the push for an increase population one wonders where the food is going to come from. This could not be more evident now with the current drought in the eastern states.



  • Degeneration to the farming land and production not only at the mine site but surrounding areas
  • A threat to the environment on land and sea. Noise, dust and contamination of the sea and ground water. A threat to people’s health and life style.   Visible effects, increased road traffic, a negative effect if infrastructure is not upgraded.

Upside:   The possible upgrade of Water, Roads, Power and Facilities, Employment, and Housing.

Q.4   In my previous answers I think my position is very clear land holder’s control of          exploration and no large-scale mining.

If the case arose at council I would be seeking the best outcome to minimise disruption to farming and the environment. To make submissions to make sure that there were sufficient funds available for the reinstatement of the land at the end of the mine’s life. I could have a more favourable out look to underground mining.

We should also remember that farming here has befitted from mining, Sand,Salt,Rubble Lime and the use of BHP’s facilities for the export of grain.

Yorke Peninsula is predominantly a farming community and I would like it to stay that way.

Ian Marschall



Jeff Cook

  1. 1 I believe that the Landowner should have the right to refuse entry to anyone they choose, (including exploration or mining ventures), anyone who does not have a legal right to entry. No matter whether the land has come down through generations past, or recently purchased, the landowner is exactly that – the land OWNER. I have the right to restrict access to my home, my garden, my vehicles etc because I own them unencumbered. Land ownership should/must be seen in that same light.

Q.2  In NON-PRODUCTIVE land ( eg swamps, rocky outcrops and the like, ) it may be possible for small-scale open-cut mining to co-exist with agriculture, but large-scale open cut mining ventures would of necessity kill off any farming venture on that land and near neighbouring land. There is only a small covering of topsoil, and without it, agriculture as we know it, is not viable.

Q.3    If Rex’s plans came to fruition it would have a huge negative impact on Yorke Peninsula’s tourism industry, Localised agricultural industry, localized crabbing and fishing industry and tourism as a minimum.

Q.4   Council does not have very much say in this area, as much of it is covered by state legislation, whereby Council has almost no more opportunity to be heard than an individual. However I am on record as saying that raping prime agricultural/farming land for the almighty dollar is akin to prostitution. I do not, and never will, approve of it. Neither have I ever considered investing in Rex or and offshoots.


Naomi Bittner

Q.1   Absolutely. Existing individual farming enterprises (and their neighbours) should have the right to continue farming land that they own unhindered, indefinitely, over and above any mining enterprises’ rights to explore for hypothetical mines. For the state, the rights of existing agribusinesses (especially on broad-acre cropping & other high-value, high-production land) should be supported to better protect food production & export income over the long term.

Q.2    No I don’t; land used for mines, mining waste, and haul roads will never be remediated back to their current arable state.  The risk of actual or even perceived contamination of our  “clean green” agricultural land, gulf waters and ground water is too great for short-term gain for an encroaching industry.

Q.3  While the mine may well boost employment in the short term, there are also many potential negative impacts –  to housing, local livability, cost-of-living & employing, increased traffic, impacted water availability and damage to our tourism industry to name just a few.

A huge portion of our prime agricultural land is potentially under threat if large-scale mining gets a toe-hold here, particularly if satellite mines & affiliated haul roads are developed. The damage to the local social fabric could be catastrophic.

Q.4   I’m certainly going to maintain the stance I have always held on and outside of Council, supporting the rights of local farming businesses over any conflicting, encroaching industries.  We are fortunate enough to have some of the state’s most reliably producing land here and there are many opportunities in aquaculture, tourism and other compatible industries that could be fostered to encourage growth & employment in our region for much longer than the life of any mine. I appreciate the need for mined products in our everyday lives, but I know that there are many regions in SA with better mineral resources, where intensive agriculture won’t be detrimentally impacted.

Yorke Peninsula Council’s motto has long been “Agriculturally rich, naturally beautiful” and I certainly can’t see how a large-scale, open-cut mining industry would fit this ethos.


Leanne O’Brien

Q.1   Yes I believe farmers should have the right to refuse entry to their land.  It is their land and their rights.

Q.2    I believe businesses in industry can co-exist as long as both parties are willing to work together for the benefit of the region and the community.

Q.3    All steps should be taken to assure the land is returned to its natural state and water tables are not impacted.  It is hard to state the financial impact the proposed Hillside Copper Mine would have on our region as there are many factors to consider.  I would envisage it would bring employment, growth and a large industry infrastructure to our region.

Q.4    If elected, I would look at both sides.  I can see the benefits a copper mine would bring to the YP community and I can also see the impact it would have on farming land.  I would weigh up the pros and cons, rights and fairness, and make my voting decision accordingly.


Trevor Clerke

In reply to your questions, as I do not have access to all information and am not a councillor with the information at my finger tips, I will, If elected  intend to represent  and work for all the people within  in the boundaries of the Council area, to the best of my ability but with consideration for all aspects presented at the time. Thank you for considering me in your quest for the right person for the job.

Trevor Clerke:  Ph 0422162204.



John Rich

Q.1  I think that farmers should have the right to refuse entry to their land. During my 8 years on YP Council we have been trying to deal with the Rex Minerals mining proposals and as I have learnt more about the issues and as the project has become progressively larger my views have changed to oppose the development. I was one of many councillors who voted to oppose the development and list the many issues that needed to be changed or development conditions applied if the project were to proceed.


I’m not against development but I do not support large scale open-cut development of this magnitude. We have some of the best farming land in SA and agriculture makes a very significant contribution to the Australian and local economy.


Q.2  No, I do not believe large-scale open-cut mining can co-exist with agriculture on YP particularly given its close proximity to our high value farming land. The sheer size and magnitude of the open-pit and overburden, it’s proximity to farm land and Residential areas and the potential for pollution of water resources and marine environment all argue against the development.


Q.3  The hillside mine in its proposed location will have negative impact on our region, the environmental issues and proximity to valuable agricultural land mentioned above. The size of the operation and impact on roads and transport will effect tourism which will  not be compensated by any employment or development contributions.


Q.4 This last question is more about what Council can achieve and it must be recognised that we will not be involved in the final decision. State laws currently don’t allow farmers to refuse access on the basis that resources under the ground are owned by the State. All Local Government can do is lend its support to farming communities as you argue your case.

So from what I have said above, I understand the issues and will support councils opposition to large-scale open -cut operations in in-appropriate locations.

 Anthony Bennett

Q.1   Yes. They have ownership of its rates, debts and taxes they should have ownership of its future.

Q 2.  Large scale is open to definition. I have grown up on Yorke Peninsula with mining and agriculture co-existing fine.  Gypsum at Stenhouse Bay, dolomite at Ardrossan and limestone at Klein’s point to name three.

Q 3  It could be positive to the region as long as my response to the first question is adhered to and a proper remediation program is in place.

Q 4. Cautious and measured consideration for the majority of the Yorke Peninsulas rate payers would be my position.


 Kylie Leanne Gray

 Q.1 As an owner of primary production land and our residential home, it is difficult for me to fathom the possibility that we could not refuse entry for exploration. It is not just the land we purchased with the finances we have worked incredibility hard for but the literal blood, sweat and tears that have contributed to re-vegetation, sustainability and production of that land which would be at risk.

Q.2 It is possible that any large-scale industry or venture may have positive impacts on the local region and equally that it may impose detrimental affects.

In these cases, being that Council is not the delegated authority on the approval of the project, negotiations on the finer details may be the best course of action to ensure the best possible outcome, should the two industries have the need to co-exist.

Q.3  This is far too great a question to answer so briefly as the impacts will reach into economics, environmental, primary production, employment, sustainability, real estate (of all types), Council and State infrastructure, tourism, population, building and development, service industries and more.   All large-scale projects should be analysed on merit in each of these areas.

Q.4 My position is from an honest, overt and calculated, case-by-case basis. It is important to remember that major developments are assessed by the State authority and therefore a Councillor may only have delegation in a support based role for groups or individuals.


Gina Voigt

 Q.1 In my view farmers should have the absolute right to refuse entry to an exploration or mining company seeking access to their land. Farmers should have the right to go about their business of farming without fear, negative impact from others, or any bullying tactics from any person or company wishing or feeling it is their right to do so.  Some farming families have been on the land for many generations and their business has been developed over many years.  A farmer should have the right to reject an offer made by a Mining Company.  I believe nobody or no company has the right to force someone off their land.

Q.2 A definite NO, I do not agree that large scale open-cut mining can co-exist with agriculture on Yorke Peninsula.  Austin Exploration Mining visited SYP and have tapped into a source of Gas at Port Moorowie, they are waiting for improved infrastructure to the area. Whilst they were there they had no regard for farmers driving sheep in the area.  One truck driver drove straight through a mob and scattered the sheep all over the place.  Our property at Port Moorowie lost all our underground water due to fracking which can also contaminate groundwater.  Our windmill accessed this water and fracking depleted our bore water supply for several years, and it still has not been fully restored.  We had no choice but to cart water to our stock on a regular basis at our expense.  There was also no consultation between the mining company and our family that activity was commencing in our area.  Despite their legal obligation to inform us as a neighbouring property.

Q.3 Rex Minerals will impact the region  in a number of ways.  Removal of remanent vegetation will not be returned or the natural ecology of the area. Anyone using water for stock through a windmill will not have any for the period of the mining operation and beyond unless they cart water in from another source.  Carting will also impact our roads with more traffic as will the operators of the mine and associated trucks coming and going from the site.  The dust will have an impact on the Peninsula and on our health.  The land will never be reinstated to its original state for farming purposes despite the promises mining companies make.  They will leave the land in a big mess, an eyesore and a huge unusable hole.

Q.4 I strongly advocate that I will always oppose mining on the Yorke Peninsula at any Council meeting. It cannot co-exist with farming.   Mining will greatly impact our fishing industry our surrounding marine life will be contaminated, destroy farming land for many generations to come, impact in ways we don’t fully comprehend yet on our health with hazardous airborne toxins, it will also have a negative impact on our roads, our tourism and also impact residents and families living near the site and surrounding areas.  Mining can trigger or induce seismicity or tremors in the earth.

Miners should not be allowed to take farmers or others to court if they refuse to sell their properties.  There is no legislation in place to fill in the hole left by miners or accountability that they will rejuvenate and restore the land back to agriculture in a reasonable, viable condition.  Our farmers have been a driving force and have contributed immensely to the State Government budget.  Let us continue to thrive without undue pressure or risks to our way of life on the YP.

Authorised & written by : Gina Voigt, P.O. Box 86, Yorketown, 5576:


Adam Meyer

 Q.1 Yes. As the owner of the title of the land, farmers should be able to make decisions on how the land is accessed by exploration / mining companies. No permission, no access.

Q.2 It would be a very small percentage of the Yorke Peninsula, that isn’t land suitable for farming and residential, or set aside for environmental reasons. If Climate Change causes more land in Australia to be non-food producing, areas like the Yorke Peninsula are more important to keep unblemished for feeding the country. I haven’t seen any evidence that suggests more open-cut mining on food producing or ecologically sensitive land would be beneficial for the Yorke Peninsula in the long term.

Q.3 The Hillside Copper Mine would have a short term financial gain via increased employment in the region. Long term, I believe the effects to tourism and the loss of farming land would have a higher detrimental effect than the benefit of short term increased employment. Environmentally, I believe the impact will only be negative.

Q.4 As with any item that I have voted on before Council, I will ask questions to ensure I have sufficient information to make an informed decision. I think the benefits of concentrating on improving Tourism and diversified primary production options would be better for the Yorke Peninsula, instead of looking at open-cut mining.   I cannot see anything that would change my mind on preserving the Yorke Peninsula.


Kristin Murdock

Q.1 As a farmer myself, and from a fourth generation farming family, I strongly believe farmers should have the right to refuse entry to their land to anyone, not only for exploration and mining purposes. A farmer’s land is his livelihood, and, as all farmers know, it is more than that, it is part of a unique lifestyle– I believe we have a right to protect this.

Q.2  As with any issue as contentious and huge as this one, I would need to be informed of both perspectives in order to make a considered opinion. I think it would be remiss of me to comment on this without further information, however, I think the reputation of YP as a clean food location may be impacted.

Q.3  To be honest, I am skeptical that land, once mined, can be rehabilitated. I also have issues with the noise, dust, erosion potential and destruction of prime agricultural land. This is my immediate impression, but, as I stated earlier, I feel I need to be more informed.

Q.4  As I mentioned, I am from a pioneering farming family and will always err on the side of the primary producer but will be open to listening to both sides, as a councillor should.


Jason Swales

 Q.1 Yes definitely , I do believe that farmers or any land owners should have absolute right to refuse entry to exploration and mining companies on their land.

It’s absurd that if they find anything on your land it’s only a court case away from them forcefully purchasing your land to be mined and left as a big toxic useless hole for future generations, this has to change!

Q.2 I don’t believe that large open cut mining can coexist with agriculture on YP . Mining with its massive consumption and possible contamination of ground waters with toxics and heavy metals like Mercury a by-product of gold mining, and the piles of excavations with heavy metals and microorganism that haven’t been unearthed for eons blowing over the neighbouring crops and produce as well . Not to mention the everlasting damage the massive hole in the ground where the mine is located. Are just a few reasons why I think this would be highly detrimental for agriculture on the Yorke Peninsula.

Q.3  I can only see negative impacts on our regions with the mines.  A few jobs for a 15 year period doesn’t justify the fact that the mine lands and its surrounding lands will be contaminated and  unusable for agriculture for  possibly thousands of years . The visual eyesore of the mine and the high amounts of dust produced from the mines will also be very detrimental to tourism, land values and produce   quality and quantity. We don’t want our beautiful Yorke peninsula turned into a toxic mine site!

Q.4  If elected I will stand strong in council for what I have previously stated as I will always believe in YPs long term environment and economical future. I will also always strive to make sure all the people of our community are able to have their voice in council and I will do my best to honour their voice.




 All responses received to date are provided below in full.  In providing these responses, all candidates were informed they would be publicly circulated.  (Authorised by Joy Wundersitz, YP Land Owners Group, 0487 431366) .


 Sue Bell

Q.1 Most definitely. How can someone who doesn’t own the land, trespass and dig up your land. If this was a normal house block, it would be trespass, because it is Agriculture land it is different!!! It goes against everything Aussies have gone to war for.  Farmers need a choice

Q.2 No . South Australian grain producers are global leaders in the production of quality cereals, legumes and oilseeds. The SA grain industry contributed nearly $4.6 billion to gross food revenue in 2014–15.   Agriculture: Feeding the nation is a priority.

Q.3 I will get as much knowledge as possible, so I can make a informed decision, and lobby to change the Act. We, as a community need to change the government. If that is not possible, then we, as a community, need to lobby to change the Act.


Oscar Toribio 

Q.1 I truly think that the farmers should have the right to refuse miners, not only here in Yorke Peninsula but everywhere. Food is more important than precious metals, stones or ores. This area is pristine and should be kept that way. And the worse mining of all is Fracking which i fully do not support. I support the farmers all the way.

Q.2 No, open cut mining can pollute the agricultural ground as dust particles travel in the air an example is Port Pirie with the lead they have a big problem with that. And on top of that leaves a big hole afterwards not a good idea.

Q.3 No mining here in Yorke Peninsula.  There’s other places that can be mined away from pristine locations and heritage.

Written and authorised by O. Toribio: 44 Elizabeth st Wallaroo 5556:  0497582680


 Dean Rodda

 Q.1 I believe that farmers should have the right to refuse mining companies entry to their properties. This is freehold land and the owner should have the right to say who can and cannot come onto their properties. The benefits of Agriculture will be here long after the mines are closed and it is the long term benefits of Agriculture that we should seek to protect.

Q.2 I can’t see Agriculture and mining co-existing on Yorke Peninsula as it is such a close knit community and being a relatively small area the impact of mining will affect most people on the peninsula.

Q.3 If elected I will oppose mining on Yorke Peninsula as it will impact severely on the Agriculture sector and also on the tourism industry which is also a large employment and income earner for businesses on Yorke Peninsula. Mining creates a blight on any landscape and on Yorke Peninsula any mining can be easily seen


 Bruce Schmidt

 Q 1.  As a person who grew up on a farm and currently have several immediate family members still farming I believe farmers should have the right to refuse entry for drilling if that is what they want.

Q.2 If a farmer believes that farming operations can coexist with mining then that is their decision to make.

Q.3 While mining may well be a possible economic saviour for our State I do not think any Government should override freehold ownership and that is the way I would vote if reelected


 Samuel Wittwer

 Q.1 Yes. It is your property. However, exploration permits are issues by the State Government which a vested interest in the royalties from the minerals below lands. Worse still, compulsory acquisition laws can also override as well.

Q.2 No.  Food bowl is far more important, and depends on the nutrients and water in the ground. If we can’t feed ourselves, it’s unlikely we can eat copper and stay health. Worse, it could be years before the land could be rehabilitated to grow food again. Long after the company has made its profit, probably closed down, and the royalties have stopped coming.

Q.3   As you have already pointed out, it is a state matter, not a council matter. I personally would be supportive, and would try to convince my colleagues in the chambers to support a motion to protect our farmers. However, as it at a State Legislation, campaigning against our elected members to protect the food bowl, rather then non-renewable resource below it, would be in the interests. I’m not sure what else the council can do, as they operate legally outside our jurisdiction.

Authorised By Samuel Wittwer 86 Clayton Drive, Wallaroo, SA, 5556


Brenton Chappell

Q.1 As a general rule access to land should be based on custom and practice.  The law doesn’t appear to give any person absolute power over their land, and local government’s power is also limited.  From my perspective, the farmer’s right to refuse entry should be the starting point of any consultation for entry.  It should trigger a process that recognises farmers rights in the first instance, and not give access without due process.

Q.2 Any form of mining can co-exist, if, appropriate protection of existing agriculture takes preference over any planned mining.  It would not be of any advantage for one industry to proceed at the expense of another.

Q.3 My position is that we would need to be open minded about proposals, whilst at the same time taking our traditional agriculture as  our first priority.


Lee Tremayne

Q.1 I support farming over mining, reason is we need food before we need minerals.  I am prepared to be an advocate for the rights of farming. The owner of the land should have the legal and unequivable right to veto any activity on their property.

Q.2 Absolutely not!  Open cut mining is very damaging and even rehabilitation is unsuccessful.

 Q.3 Whilst I appreciate your question, this question is the responsibility of the State Government, but I believe the Copper Coast Council should discuss farming/mining with the State and lobby the State Government accordingly.

Written and Authorised by Lee Tremayne


Roslyn Talbot
Q.1 It has always been my opinion that if you owned the land you should have the right to refuse who does and does not enter their land. I would have thought ownership should extend to above and below ground. I know Mining Act differs but we need to protect our land.

Q.2 I have been raised to believe that land is precious and once we lose our land to housing or mining we will not get it back. Our Agricultural land is very productive in the world food chain and a necessary commodity as are many of the minerals that are wanting to be mined. I would hate to see our land taken over by large mines, however just as I believe it is the landowners choice who enters their land it should be their choice how the land is used.


We urge you to take the time to read their  responses and if you have not yet voted, take them into account when doing so.   If you have decided not to vote, please reconsider!  Your vote could make a difference!


Leave a Reply