Shire of Nannup votes to oppose plans to place $850 fee on objections to mining tenements

A lower South West council has rejected plans to make those opposing mining tenements pay an $859 fee, with its president concerned the move will cut out “the little man”. The Shire of Nannup voted on Thursday to endorse an objection made in November to the Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety’s proposal, which would add a financial burden for those lodging concerns about a tenement. Shire president Tony Dean said the changes would impact the community’s ability to oppose mining proposals. “It excludes the little man from putting in an objection because it is too expensive,” he said. “We know that DEMIRS have costs but every (organisation) has costs they write off against their general income and if they don’t do it, in this case, it will create a lot of problems.” During discussions with DEMIRS, shire chief executive David Taylor and the council were told the main reasons the objections payment was being proposed was due to issues from other mining companies making multiple objections as a competitor, alongside those of a vexatious nature. However, in his report, Mr Taylor said imposing a fee could also deter legitimate objections, resulting in less scrutiny and risking impacts to the environment, and the public interest. “One of the fundamental principles of a democratic society is that individuals and communities should have access to fairness,” he said. “Charging an exorbitant prescribed fee for lodging objections effectively creates a financial barrier that may prevent many individuals and organisations from participating in the process.” The shire council’s submission to DEMIRS states fees should be the same for both positive and negative submissions for mining tenements, with directly impacted landowners able to make a submission at no cost. The shire has proposed a range of scaled fees be implemented, ranging from $20 for members of the general public to $3000 for large mining companies. DEMIRS was contacted for comment but did not respond before publication.