Federal Electorate of Grey Mr Rowan Ramsay, Liberal Party AGRICULTURE AND MINING a discussion paper

posted in: Election, News | 0

rowan-ramsey-mp

Mr Ramsay’s views on mining in agricultural land are clearly outlined in his policy discussion paper, entitled “Agriculture and Mining”, released in late 2015.  A summary of the key points in this paper are summarised below. 

 

A full copy of this discussion paper is attached.

 

 Note:  YPLOG does not endorse any specific candidate.  Instead, our aim is to provide an opportunity for you, as potential voters in the Electorate of Grey, to take these views into consideration when making  your decision on July 2nd.

 

 

Agriculture and Mining – a summary

 

Mr Ramsay’s aim:  to provide a better way of dealing with conflict at the interface between miners and farmers.

 

His starting assumptions:

·       Farmers should accept that “the State owns the mineral resources”  and so “has the law on its side” (p.5)

·       If the holders of exploration/mining licences take the farmer to court, “it is almost certain the law will guarantee a right of access  (p3).  If an agreement cannot be reached with the landholder eventually the court will decide a compensation figure and facilitate the mineral extraction”  (p3).

·       Given this likely outcome, “Miners have the upper hand in any bargaining position”.  In negotiations with miners “the landholder starts from position of weakness, [because] they have no real method of measuring their bargaining strength”  (p 4).

 

Compensation  based on a  Protected Minimum Offer (PMO)

 

To put farmers in a ‘’stronger’’  negotiating position when dealing with mining companies over land access, Mr Ramsay argues that;

·       “Should a mining approval be granted over a property to commence operations”,  the farmer should receive a ‘Protected Minimum Offer’ from the mining company  by way of compensation.

·       This, he suggests, could be three times  “the value of the affected land, based on an independent valuation of the whole contiguous property”(p5).  Whatever value is determined, it should be such that ‘’the average business would view the advent of mining on their property as an economic opportunity.”  (p.5)

 

Why Mr Ramsay believes a PMO approach offers “a better way”

 

Mr Ramsay argues this approach has the following advantages:

 

·       “It delivers certainty to both the landholder and the mining entity.  Landholders know they will be generously rewarded”…and that “ïf the mining entity passes every other test, they have the right to purchase on those terms”  (p5) .    “The landowner knows from day one that they will be forced to accede to the rights of the state…..but they will also know that their farming business, wherever it chooses to relocate will be significantly enhanced”  (p.5).  

·       This could allow farmers “to view the disruption to their lives as an opportunity” (p5)  and it could create “a situation where landholders are at least willing, if not enthusiastic to relinquish their properties”.

·        It would also “take much of the heat out of the local arguments” and “the protest [eg against the Hillside mine proposal]  would be greatly diminished (p5). 

·       Both parties could “dispense with expensive negotiating and legal processes, farmers could continue to invest in their properties while miners develop a case for mining,  [and] miners would have clear path of compliance.”

Mr Ramsay – Agriculture and Mining (1)

Leave a Reply