Mining Reforms Should Serve the People Not Just the Big Corporations

In my years as a GP, I learned that ignoring a diagnosis does not make the illness go away. It just makes the eventual treatment more difficult. The Mining Amendment Bill 2025 feels remarkably like that. We are finally seeing legislative movement after nine years of uncertainty, but we have to ask ourselves: who is this for?

The hidden cost of efficiency

The government claims these procedural reforms are about efficiency and clarity. They want to fix the messy aftermath of court cases like Forrest & Forrest, ensuring that a missing form does not invalidate a multimillion-dollar mining lease. On the surface, that sounds reasonable. But when we look closer, we see a pattern of convenience that prioritises proponents over people. The reality is that for every bureaucratic hurdle removed, we risk removing a layer of necessary public oversight. This is not just about red tape; it is about the power imbalance between global mining giants and the families whose land, water, and future are impacted by these projects.

If you are frustrated by the lack of transparency in our state, please consider subscribing to my YouTube channel. It is where we break down these complex issues into plain language for those who care about a fair go for Western Australia.

Why the silence on native title?

One of the most troubling aspects of this bill is the lack of consultation with First Nations groups for the current version. The government suggests that these reforms are narrow in scope and therefore do not require engagement with traditional owners. I disagree. When we talk about mining tenures, we are talking about the country itself. To sideline the people whose connection to this land predates us all is a profound error of judgment. Our mining industry is a massive generator of wealth, but that wealth should not be built on the back of opaque processes that leave community voices on the outside looking in.

The battle for fairness

I proposed several amendments to this bill, specifically aimed at removing the prohibitive fees for lodging objections. It costs an individual $430 to object to a mining application. This fee is a wall, not a gate. It effectively prices out the farmers, the neighbours, and the small operators who want to have their say. While I was disappointed that these amendments were not accepted, the fight for a transparent, accessible, and fair mining system is far from over. We need a system that respects the environment and the rights of all citizens, not one that treats the community as an inconvenient obstacle to profit. You can review the full transcript of my comments in Parliament to see the arguments raised on the floor. If you believe, like I do, that our state’s future should be built on evidence and equality, I invite you to join our movement at Legalise Cannabis WA.