20th March 2002 Power to residential Claims

LRMA objections to the connection of power to Residential Claims reflects an attitude that if there was a preference there would be no township and no residences on existing fields so that potential opal bearing ground did not become sterilised.

They also question the number of residential claimdwellers who are involved in the mining industry.!

What is very important for the LRMA to remember is that residential claimholders have been legitimised by a system which needed to address the mismanagement of the fields in the past. Few would argue that the ‘bushfire’ needed to be contained.

Pre and post ‘87 claims have been brought under the one umbrella to progress the issue to the offer of a Western lands Lease; a hurdle which at one point was thought to be insurmountable.

The battle for residential status has been difficult and often emotive.

It was an issue that the LRMA was not prepared to be involved in, despite its charter to represent the economic and social welfare of its membership.

In 2002 we have another pre and post!

Pre and post Legislation governing power.

Pre legislation, power was supplied to the fields to ‘outstations’, tourist and business leases and Mining purpose Leases.

When this occurred weren’t sterilisation and safety issues a consideration for LRMA boards of the day? Did it take the emergence of a vital service town and a rapidly increasing number of residences on the fields to make the LRMA aware that access to our unique gemstone may be being threatened?

Today on many of the fields we have back to back residential claims. It intrigues me how these claims will be able to be mined!

Maybe residential claimholders will be required to define their involvement in the mining industry? The practicalities of connecting power, including reference to the bill cost, have not been overlooked.

Realistically there will be many who would choose to stay the way they are, but if a choice is given based on density they would be very capable of determining whether the cost is prohibitive rather than have it intimated that they haven’t made these assessments.

Legislative and local issues can, and have been subject to change throughout the years. From dirt floors, unenclosed walls and threatened bulldozing progress has been made!

Where you can or cannot mine, how far from a road fence improvement etc have been determined; and solutions found.

A blanket NO 20 years ago may have shown foresight. In 2002 when everything is subject to change, negotiation and compromise a workable solution should be sought.

To be again caught in the Pre and post web will be counter productive.

The progressive creation of ‘consenting clusters’ evaluated individually, (given that the difficulties of Native Title have been overcome and the offer of Western Lands Leases has been made) would be a likely solution.

Most likely the Permissive occupancy area of the Preserved fields will be the first to receive the offer of a Western Lands Lease. This same area could trial the effectiveness of ‘consenting clusters’.

The proposal would need reasonable guidelines and conditions achieved through a consultative process involving appropriate authorities and residential campdwellers.

If the criteria is met ‘clusters’ would progress to being offered the option of power and make their own determination on whether the cost is prohibitive.