IT IS good that we are having a debate in the letter pages of The Herald about an important development for the Toodyay community, namely the exploration for valuable minerals in the local area by Chalice.
If nothing else, it highlights one of the important roles of a vibrant community newspaper such as The Herald which is to allow local people to express their views on an important issue.
I write to suggest that this debate should not be about whether the mine is allowed to proceed but more about what the mine owners and the WA Government through environmental regulation will do to mitigate its adverse effects on all who live in its vicinity.
Read more
I believe the mine is effectively a done deal if Chalice can actually deliver what it is promising since no government of any political persuasion will easily forego the potential revenue, no matter where it is located.
As well as revenue, there will also be jobs, which – as both Alison Wroth and Frank Panizza wrote previously – are much needed in rural communities, including Toodyay.
Yet some words of caution are required.
Miners are masters of what can be called “job boosterism” which is basically over-promising or frankly exaggerating the numbers of jobs generated by their industry.
But since it might be argued that some jobs are better than no jobs, it is important to focus on the possible downsides of mining in a rural area.
I view the comment that any protest against the mine is centred around protection of an endangered animal as simplistic and somewhat dismissive.
Just ask people who live close to a mine and they will tell you what they have to put up with – noise, air pollution, bright lights 24 hours a day, heavy trucking, etc. – the latter already having an impact in the Julimar area with the Shire of Toodyay having to grade locally affected gravel roads more frequently.
All of the above is not pleasant and far from the rural dream that drives many people to live in places like the Avon Valley.
But these are the realities and it’s the community’s responsibility, with the help of government, to ensure that these effects are mitigated by those running the mine.
Ms Wroth writes of Chalice being an eco-friendly miner, a view that is perhaps understandable when the company is engaged in a slick campaign to get the approval of the community, as well as that of government, to approve the new mine.
The real test of the miner’s supposed eco-friendliness will be if it is prepared to spend some of the profits to mitigate the negative effects described previously, as well as be an adequate caretaker of the environment in which it is operating.
There are plenty of examples where mining companies have promised much but failed to deliver, leaving a much-tarnished environment that others are left to clean up.
Let’s hope Chalice is different but rather than hope, we the community should be presenting a balanced and unified view on what we would like to happen and holding the company to account.
The fact that one resident thinks that objections to the mine are due to the effects on one animal suggests that we are far from that balanced position.
The level of debate needs to be more sophisticated, and the organisations concerned need to rise to this challenge.
Andrew St John
Toodyay
