EIDA2: Onto the Soapbox

Comments on the EIDA by a CMPA Voting Member

The following is the main content of an independent submission made by a CMPA Voting Member.

A. ACT REGULATING LANDOWNERS, QUARRY OPERATORS AND WORK AUTHORITIES

There is a real issue facing the industry which needs to be addressed quickly or else the viability, the ability of many quarry operators who are working off land owned by some third party, to continue in their business can be seriously jeopardized.

I have been advised by the DPI that under the current Act if a Land Owner removes consent for use of his/her land for use of a quarry or some form of extraction where a Work Authority has been issued that the Department will immediately revoke that Work Authority (without any discussion with the Quarry Operator) based on the Land Owners request.

This action by the Department can lead to serious repercussions for the Quarry Operator especially if he has a Legal Agreement with the Land Owner to operate the Quarry on the respective land. The Land Owner may have taken such action out of spite, malice, dispute with the Quarry Operator or a number of other relevant issues. Irrespective of the reason for the Land Owner’s action the Department will revoke the Work Authority on the Quarry Site. This then leaves the Quarry Owner without an operating business.

Assuming the Quarry Operator has a Legal Agreement with the land Owner then the only option that the Quarry Owner has is to take Legal Action against the Land Owner for loss of income etc. When Land Owner consent is again established allowing the Quarry Operator back onto his work site, the Quarry Operator has to go through the entire process of applying for another Work Authority.

The above may read like a novel buour company has been involved recently in such a drama as described above. In this instance a private owner of mining tailings with a Work Authority for their removal (being removed by our company for various projects) which were located on farming land had the Work Authority revoked when the Land Owner contacted the Department and wanted the works stopped.

In this instance there is a legal binding contract for removal of the material between the Land Owner and the owner of the material. The Land Owner is now facing a substantial law suit over this issue. It needs to be noted that in the case discussed above the owner of the material with the required Work Authority was kicked off the land, no reason has yet been established as to why and the first thing he knew about it was when he received a letter from the Department stating that his Work Authority had been revoked.

The events described above have ramifications for all Quarry Operator operating on land owned by someone else. Even with a legally binding agreement between the two parties, a dispute between the two parties can lead to economic hardship for a Quarry Operator simply because the Department revokes a Work Authority on the request of a Land Owner without any discussion or input from the Quarry Operator.

Many Land Owners who take such actions when Legal Agreements are in place face serious consequences. I am also sure that the Department will end up embroiled in the action as well. The section of the Act dealing with agreements between Land Owners and Quarry Operators and the way the Department reacts to a request for the removal of a Quarry Operator by the Land Owner requires urgent attention.

This is a serious issue because it goes to the core of private enterprise businesses. Why would a Quarry Operator want to enter into any type of enterprise involving the extraction of material from land owned by a third party when, even given the fact that he has a watertight legal agreement with the Land Owner, he can have still have his Work Authority revoked by the Department at the whim of the Land Owner irrespective of the consequences to the Land Owner and to the financial and emotional health of the Quarry Operator.

B. GREATER PROTECTION FOR EXTRACTIVE RESOURCES

There is a need for the Government to provide greater protection of extractive resources if we are to have viable sources of material in the future. Many sources of material have been made virtually unobtainable by the creation of a number of National Parks and other types of reservations. The market cannot ensure good reasonably priced supplies of material if the sources are all locked away from future use.

The future economical viability of many infrastructure projects in Regional Victoria and in the Melbourne Metropolitan area could be put at risk because of the distances that materials have to be carted to a site. This has major ramifications for the environment as well from the effects of a large number of heavy vehicle movements.

A major factor affecting the source of materials is the NIMBY (Not in my back yard) syndrome or principle. As a society we will need to deal with this issue or else future development will end up being paralyzed by the cost and the simple problem of bureaucracy deadlock.

There are also examples where viable sources of material are being threatened by Government regulation and by unreasonable increases in fees, charges and/or royalties. Unfortunately, there are also many examples where Government departments do not talk to each other leading to confusion, frustration and economical hardship for people trying to develop a material source.

C. AVAILABILITY OF EXTRACTIVE RESOURCES

We believe that there is not a shortage of extractive resources in Victoria as most materials required for the foreseeable future are still in existence. The problem is not lack of materials; the really big issue will be access to the sources of material. For example, many good sources of hard durable rock suitable for excellent fine crushed products are located on hills. This is simply a factor of normal geological degradation over thousands of years.

Attempting to open a quarry source on a hill in most of Victoria, especially within the sight of human habitation, is becoming increasingly difficult. People want the benefits that the rock will bring but the NIMBY principle as well as an increasingly active environmental group within the Victorian community makes access extremely difficult if not impossible.

It may be the case that material can be sourced from areas well away from Melbourne or the majority of the Regional Centers which meets all environmental issues and is not affected by the NIMBY principle. The main problem of this scenario is the cost. The cost of production and transportation may simply make infrastructure projects unviable.

There are a number of extractive deposits available on private land. One major issue for future development of these sources which needs to be re-examined and dealt with is the relationships and responsibilities between Land Owners, Quarry Operators and the Department.

Another major issue that will affect future use and availability of materials is the time it takes from concept to actual material transported to a customer. The whole process takes far too long and needs to be simplified.

Submission supplied by:
Bruce McClure, McClure Earthmoving, Bendigo

You must be logged in to post a comment Login