NO MEANS NO
Why should farmers be forced to accommodate a private mining company's infrastructure on land they own, manage and depend upon for their livelihoods?
For generations, farming families across Chittering and the Northern Valleys have invested their money, time and labour into productive agricultural properties. These are not vacant parcels of land waiting for development. They are established businesses, family assets and, in many cases, homes intended to be passed to the next generation.
Yet Chalice Mining's proposed Gonneville Project could see major water and electricity infrastructure imposed across privately owned farmland to service a mine located elsewhere.
The company has identified a preferred infrastructure corridor approximately 100 metres wide for assessment purposes, although the actual construction footprint would be narrower.
But for farmers, the concern is not simply how much land will be excavated or cleared. It is what they could lose control over, potentially for decades.
And what happens when a farmer says no?
FARMING IS A LIVELIHOOD
One Chittering cattle producer has written to Premier Roger Cook strongly objecting to the proposed corridor affecting two sides of a working agricultural property.
The concerns are substantial. Grazing capacity, livestock movements, fencing, machinery access, pasture management, existing buildings, future development and agricultural water supplies could all be affected.
A farm operates as an interconnected business. Every paddock, fence, dam, access track and stock movement contributes to its productivity.
A pipeline trench may eventually be covered, but that does not necessarily restore the original condition of the land or remove future restrictions. Overhead powerlines can introduce additional limitations on machinery, structures and farming practices.
Construction also brings the risk of soil compaction, erosion, altered drainage and the introduction of weeds or livestock diseases through machinery moving between properties.
These are not hypothetical categories of harm. Western Australia's own agricultural department recognises the importance of controlling vehicle movements, equipment and biosecurity risks on farms.
Why should a farmer have to reorganise an established business to accommodate infrastructure serving somebody else's commercial enterprise?
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN FARMERS REFUSE?
This is where Western Australia's Mining Act 1978 becomes particularly important.
Section 8 defines a mining tenement as including a Miscellaneous Licence, the type of tenure Chalice proposes to seek for its infrastructure corridor.
Section 29(2) provides protections for certain private land, including land genuinely and regularly used for agriculture, stockyards, orchards, dams, bores, substantial improvements and land within 100 metres of specified protected areas.
Importantly, the Act's definition of land under cultivation includes land used for ordinary livestock grazing, whether cleared or uncleared.
For qualifying private land, section 29 generally prohibits granting a mining tenement affecting the surface and the first 30 metres below it without the written consent of both the owner and occupier. There is an exception for tenements confined to depths of at least 30 metres below the natural surface.
These protections make the precise route, land use and proposed licence conditions critically important.
They also raise a fundamental question.
If legislation expressly protects working farmland from certain mining tenements without the landholder's written consent, how will those protections be respected when Chalice seeks approval for its corridor?
The law is not a blanket veto over every form of infrastructure or activity. However, where section 29 applies, written consent is a statutory requirement, not simply a bargaining position.
If a farmer objects to a Miscellaneous Licence application, the Warden may direct the parties to confer or refer the dispute to mediation. But being required to participate in discussions is not the same as being required to agree. The concern is that even farmers whose land qualifies for statutory protection may face considerable time, uncertainty and legal expense establishing and defending those rights.
Affected farmers deserve a clear explanation of their legal rights before any application is determined.
OWNERSHIP WITHOUT CONTROL
Chalice has confirmed that it does not intend to purchase the properties required for its infrastructure corridor.
Instead, it proposes using a Miscellaneous Licence that would allow infrastructure tenure to coexist with private land ownership.
But ownership is not the same as having unrestricted control.
Western Power's published rural transmission easement conditions demonstrate how overhead electrical infrastructure can restrict building works, tall machinery, vegetation, irrigation and changes to drainage.
Chalice's eventual conditions may differ. That uncertainty is precisely why affected farmers need to understand what restrictions could remain long after construction ends.
Could a farmer build another machinery shed? Extend a dam? Change an irrigation system? Reconfigure paddocks? Introduce different machinery or agricultural practices?
Who controls access for inspections and maintenance? Who carries the additional costs?
And what happens when those restrictions affect the property's productivity, future sale or ability to be passed on as a viable farming business?
Compensation may address particular losses, but money does not necessarily restore independence over land.
A farmer should not have to choose between accepting industrial infrastructure and entering a costly legal dispute to defend a livelihood.
WHAT ABOUT FARMS NEAR THE MINE?
The concerns do not end with the infrastructure corridor.
Agricultural properties surrounding the proposed Gonneville mine also face potential impacts from dust, blasting, vibration, noise, heavy vehicle movements and changes to local water systems.
Dust deposition on pasture, livestock watering facilities and agricultural infrastructure requires careful investigation. So do possible effects on drainage, groundwater, surface water and the safety of livestock and farming operations.
Bushfire preparedness is another significant concern. Firefighting aircraft must operate safely around obstacles such as transmission lines, making independent assessment of any additional aviation constraints particularly important in this fire-prone landscape.
None of these risks should be dismissed merely because the mine itself is proposed on land already owned by Chalice.
The agricultural businesses surrounding it belong to other people.
Those businesses also deserve protection.
ARE FARMERS SECOND CLASS?
Chalice has announced that transmission lines will be placed underground through the Maryville Heights rural-residential zone and adjoining agricultural land, reflecting concerns about residential amenity.
Elsewhere, its approach is to negotiate impacts with individual landholders.
Why should productive farmland receive different treatment?
A cattle farm may not look like a residential estate, but it represents considerable financial investment, commercial responsibility and personal attachment.
Chittering's Local Planning Scheme No. 6 recognises the importance of preserving productive agricultural land and protecting it from inappropriate development.
Yet the mining approvals framework allows proposals for industrial infrastructure to advance through a separate statutory process.
That tension deserves public scrutiny.
Why should a family's farming livelihood carry less weight than the infrastructure requirements of a proposed mine?
THE RIGHT TO SAY NO
Premier Roger Cook's Government has adopted a Private Property Rights Charter, intended to ensure that government agencies give proper consideration to the rights of private landowners.
It emphasises fairness, transparency and certainty where government decisions may affect property rights.
The Charter does not override the Mining Act. But its principles should be reflected in decisions that could impose long-term industrial infrastructure on privately owned farmland.
Before any Miscellaneous Licence is granted, the State should demonstrate that affected farms have been properly assessed, that serious impacts have been avoided wherever practicable, and that the legal consent protections applying to agricultural land are fully respected.
The cumulative consequences of the mine, powerlines, water pipeline, access requirements and associated transport activities must also be examined.
And landholders should not be left carrying the financial and emotional burden of defending rights that legislation is supposed to protect.
The public discussion has too often focused on how mining infrastructure might coexist with existing land uses.
But coexistence cannot simply mean farmers absorbing whatever disruption a mining company requires.
The question should not be how much compensation a farmer might accept to surrender control of their land.
It should be why a farmer who does not want that infrastructure on their property should be expected to surrender that control at all.
Farmers have worked for their land, invested in it and built businesses around it.
They should have a meaningful right to refuse infrastructure serving a private commercial project.
When a farmer says no, that decision should matter.
NO MEANS NO.
Legal disclaimer
This article is provided for general information and community awareness and does not constitute legal advice. The application of the Mining Act 1978 (WA), including landholder consent requirements and objection procedures, depends on individual circumstances. Affected landholders are encouraged to seek independent legal advice regarding their rights and obligations.
