MINING (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 September 2010.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:45): I am pleased to say that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on this matter. I look forward to the debate on this important piece of legislation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The calm and measured debate I am sure you are going to enjoy.

Mr WILLIAMS: This is quite an important piece of legislation, and it has been a fair while coming. The government has, indeed, taken decisions and highlighted that it was waiting to get this piece of legislation through the parliament before making final decisions. I refer particularly to the decision about Arkaroola, which was—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I will come to our position on that. We do, indeed, have a position, and I can tell the Deputy Premier that it has been enunciated, although I thought that he would have been aware of that. The Mining Act is an important piece of legislation, and it will become more and more important as our state economy becomes more and more reliant on the mining sector. I personally have a keen interest in this piece of legislation and I will take the opportunity to make the point to the house as to why I have a keen interest in it.

One of the functions of the Mining Act is to develop the processes through which the relationship between miners and landowners, landholders and land operators (or owner-operators or whatever they are called) goes forward. As a farmer and a landowner, I have a keen interest in that—more so, as I have an active mine on my property. There is an extractive mineral lease that is owned by either an individual or a company; to be quite honest, I am not sure of the ownership of the lease which has operated on one of my blocks of land for a number of years.

Indeed, I will tell the house about what I have seen as some of the deficiencies in the Mining Act in the past. I have taken certain actions over a number of years as the property owner (which I will explain to the house) to try to protect what I believe should be my rights as a landowner. The particular property in question has a reasonable resource of basalt, what we call 'blue metal' in the industry. It is crushed and used as road-making material. There is quite a resource on one of my properties.

When this operator came in, I was very dissatisfied with some of the ways he was operating; in fact, part of his operation went outside of his lease. This operator has since sold the business, but I am still left today with exposed cliffs in the middle of my paddock in the middle of my farm which are outside of the lease. To be quite honest, I was somewhat dissatisfied with the response of the department to that particular operator, and that was not the only issue that the department had with that operator, either, I might add.

Some years ago, to try to protect myself, I took out a mining claim over a large area of that property, and, from memory, it was probably before I became a member of this place. I took out a mining claim and, under the act, that mining claim had a life of up to 12 months. In that period of time I changed the title of that property from a leasehold title to a freehold title, which increased my rights as a farmer considerably. I had to go through the process of taking out that mining claim to allow that to happen.

More recently, even after doing that, one day—and since I have been in this place I do not spend a lot of time driving around my paddocks—I did observe that there were a series of pegs in my paddock. When I made some inquiries through the department, it turned out that the operator of that mining lease was in the process of trying to establish a much greater area of that lease than was originally pegged and claimed. It was a couple of hectares in the first instance, from memory, and he was trying to expand that out to something like over 10 hectares.

Again, it took me some time working with some people in the department to get the operator back to the original lease within the original boundaries, which is when we discovered that he had gone outside his boundaries in one part of the operation. Again, to try to protect myself, I took out a claim over a much larger portion of that block of land that is in my own and my wife's name, and sometime within the 12 months subsequent to doing that (and I am not quite sure when that was) I applied for an extractive minerals lease to turn that claim into a mine.

That application has been in the department for a number of years—probably three, four, maybe five years; I am not quite sure to be honest. Quite recently another operator in the region approached me expressing an interest in that application of mine and, in fact, that operator and I have recently lodged a proposal to the department which should—I hope—allow the department to complete the analysis of that application and, in fact, sometime in the not too distant future turn it into a mining lease, and suddenly I will be the owner of a mining lease.

I say that to the house because it illustrates the personal interest I have in the Mining Act and the way in which it operates, not that these changes to the act impose or impinge on any of those arrangements whatsoever. What I said initially was that one of the functions of the Mining Act is to establish the processes which occur between the miner and the landowner; and, in this case, I would be both parties—so, there is no issue there to be resolved by the considerations imposed by the regulatory regime imposed by the Mining Act. Notwithstanding that, I give that information because it does two things: it explains to the house not only my personal interest in the Mining Act and how it operates but also the experience that I have had over a significant number of years in working with the existing Mining Act.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I would like to take a point of order at this stage, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been listening with interest. We are now some 10 minutes into the debate and the honourable member has spoken at length about his personal interests in a mine.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please sit down, member for MacKillop.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I have been trying to find the standing order, but my recollection is that we do have a standing order that relates to conflict of interest issues. Maybe the clerks could advise me whether I am wrong, but I would like a ruling as to whether it is appropriate for a member of parliament to be managing a bill on behalf of the opposition for which he clearly has a conflict—and he has been up-front about it, and I am not at all critical about him being up-front. But I would just like to know whether or not a conflict, as I see it, is a matter that would preclude the member from participating in this.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will check it for you now, but I think I did hear the member say that the very nature of this bill would not affect him either way.

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are taking him at his—can you sit down, member for MacKillop? We are taking him on his word. I am sure that is the case, is it not, member for MacKillop?

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have some clarification of this matter. The Clerk tells us that, under standing order 170, if you have a pecuniary interest you may not vote on the matter, but nothing prevents you from speaking on the matter.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: On the point of order, I do not mean to be difficult, but I am a stickler for the rules. I see myself as an experienced member of this house, and it is my job to ensure that we stick to the rules. I was just saying that I got Gunny and Venning on this some years ago with the Wheat Board. I do not know whether or not the member will have a pecuniary interest in this. I do not know how one decides that.

Mr Pederick: It's a rubble pit.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: A what?

Mr Pederick: It's a rubble pit; a road base.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am not critical; I am in awe of him having such multiple business interests.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer. On your point of order—and I understand that you are a stickler for the rules—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not actually say anything. I understand that you like the rules. I am advised by the clerks that what the member for MacKillop is speaking about here is a general interest that any landholder may have. So, I do not think he has a conflict of interest in—

The Hon. K.O. Foley: I don't have a rubble pit in my backyard.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you don't have a rubble pit, I don't have a rubble pit, but it appears that the member for MacKillop has a rubble pit, and he is allowed to talk about these things.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Madam Chair, I will accept, obviously, as I should, the ruling of the house, and I apologise taking up the time, but democracy requires vigilance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Rigorous vigilance, and that is what we like to see: robust vigilance. Had you actually finished, member for MacKillop?

Mr WILLIAMS: I have not even started, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was a sparky moment.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not realise that the Deputy Premier had such an interest in this matter. He has probably encouraged me to lengthen my contribution considerably to whet his appetite for knowledge on the operation of the Mining Act. I would have thought that we might have been able to conclude this matter by 6 o'clock, and that is obviously not going to happen.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that a threat or a warning?

Mr WILLIAMS: No; I am just enthused by the Deputy Premier's appetite.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: I promise not to take any more points of order if you finish by six.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's the way.

Mr WILLIAMS: The Mining Act, as I was saying, is an important piece of legislation. It does regulate those relationships between the parties involved in the industry. At least one of the other important things it does is regulate the way that the state protects its interests, and its interests are obviously in the mineral wealth of the state. It also enables the state to collect revenue from people who, I guess, in a sense are subcontractors to the state in extracting that mineral wealth and processing and selling it. We charge royalties for that; so the Crown has an interest.

The Mining Act sets out how we protect the interest of the Crown and how we assess and collect those royalties. The Mining Act also gives the minister of the day—and, through the minister, the government of the day—powers to regulate the way that miners operate so as to protect the environment (the natural environment and the built environment) and also the cultural heritage. So, they are by and large the three functions of the Mining Act. For the Deputy Premier's knowledge, I might remember some other things that the Mining Act provides.

It is a very important piece of legislation, giving the government of the day the opportunity to extract the mineral wealth of the state for the benefit of the communities in a way that is sensitive to environmental issues and also to manage relationships between the people who are doing the actual mining and anybody who has an interest in the land or the sites where the mining is occurring. Those relationships, as I said, could involve the landowner and/or the land occupier, and often they are not the same person. That is what the act is basically about.

The amendments brought to us in this bill strengthen the minister's ability to manage in regard to the environment. That is the principal change we see here, and there are some quite significant changes, such as new powers or extended powers given to the minister to allow the minister to more adequately manage those environmental issues.

I mentioned Arkaroola earlier, and there is an ongoing public debate about whether or not it should be mined. Obviously, if the decision was taken not to mine it, that would be the end of the story. If the decision was taken to allow mining, obviously, a precursor to allowing mining would be to allow exploration for mineral wealth, and then the person doing the exploration may or may not decide to take that further step to try to operate a mine. That is a question that has been hotly debated in the public arena.

The minister has made a number of statements, which I will paraphrase, and I am sure that I will be corrected by the Deputy Premier if I get any aspect of this wrong. It seems that some 12 months ago, when the minister renewed the exploration lease of Marathon Resources, in particular, he basically said, 'Marathon Resources have a lease; they have an expectation that that lease will be rolled over, it will be renewed, and they will be able to continue and complete their exploration work.'

In the interim, before the parliament had considered these amendments before us today, the minister said that, before allowing Marathon the normal activities under such an exploration lease, he wanted these additional powers. I can understand the rationale behind that if the minister and the government were going to allow that exploration to go ahead. The government has not said that at this stage, but it seems pretty obvious to me that it is going to allow the expiration to go ahead, otherwise the minister would not have renewed that licence some 12 months ago. So, we are in abeyance until the parliament has finished its deliberations on these amendments, and then we will see what the minister's next step will be in regard to that particular issue.

I think only last week I read somewhere that the government has decided that its discussion paper, I guess would be the best way to describe it, 'Seeking a Balance', has now been taken off the shelf and thrown in the bin. I think that was the sensible thing to do because it did not satisfy any of the players within the debate, let alone those on the ground—the immediate stakeholders, that is, the landowners, Marathon Resources and/or the native title holders. However, there were a whole heap of other players and interested parties, particularly from the conservation movement, who were dissatisfied with that particular approach as well. To answer the Deputy Premier's question, that is, what is our attitude to Arkaroola, we came out some time ago—in fact, it was at the end of the winter break when we started to debate this legislation in the other place—and pointed out that we did not believe that 'Seeking a Balance' was a sustainable way forward.

We actually thought that the pre-existing zone over Arkaroola gave a very high level of protection to the whole area, and that we should proceed with that same level of protection—indeed, the level of protection that Marathon Resources was aware of when it first took up the lease to explore that area. We could not see why you would want to change that and water it down. I think that the government has come to a very similar position, and we await with interest the minister's next move once he has the additional powers given to him in this bill.

As I have said, the bill has already been through the other place. The Minister for Mineral Resources Development is a member of that place, and the bill was introduced there. In reality, almost all the heavy lifting and the argy-bargy, the amendments moved both by the opposition and other crossbench parties, have been debated and, by and large, agreed positions found on virtually the whole bill. I will not go into that but a lot of work was done, certainly by myself and my colleague the Hon. David Ridgway, who handled the bill on our behalf in the other place, along with the minister and members of the crossbench and minor parties in that place. I cannot recall the number of amendments, but I know that the opposition moved a significant number and the Greens moved a significant number, as did Family First, and possibly some others as well. So there was a fair amount of work.

We got to a point where there were some outstanding matters. There was considerable debate, particularly with the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy, with whom I was liaising (and I am sure that the minister and his department were also, as well as members of the other place and some other parties), and the Farmers Federation certainly had some input. However, there were some outstanding matters for which a resolution could not be found, and the issue of Arkaroola was one of those. I know there was also some information that we were still trying to gather at that time to satisfy inquiries by some of my colleagues.

Just prior to the winter break a position was agreed between the minister and my colleague the Hon. David Ridgway, the leader in the other place, that the bill proceed almost to completion with a couple of questions left in abeyance. Those were tackled when the parliament resumed after the winter break; they were resolved very quickly and an agreed position was found for all those matters. That is the bill we have before us now.

Interestingly, I received a briefing from the government and the department a bit over a week ago, I think. The government, in considering the bill as it came out of the other place, is of the opinion that there are some minor matters that need to be fixed. Some of the amendments that were passed in the other place may potentially have some unintended consequences, and I see that there is on file a number of government amendments to the bill as it has come from the other place.

Having looked at those amendments, I can advise the minister—I think I have informed the minister's office—that I believe the government's position with regard to those amendments is acceptable and that the opposition will accept them. I will not go into it; the minister will give us the full reasoning behind each of those amendments as we go through the committee stage, just to put it on the record.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Maybe he is not as enthusiastic about this bill as he showed us earlier. I indicate that the opposition accepts the wisdom of the amendments that are on file in this place. Again just getting back to the general discussion of the bill, one of the things this bill does is formalise in the legislation a number of the practices which are already happening in the administration of the Mining Act in South Australia. It is my understanding that some of the things the department has been doing—and I refer to things such as the insistence of having mining plans.

As I understand, there is nothing in the existing legislation that underpins those requirements of the minister to have certain information provided, for example, mining and rehabilitation plans. That will now be specified within the act and underpin the authority of the agency through the minister to insist on that sort of process being gone through and being ticked off by the department before mining licences are given. There are a range of steps within the Mining Act to get from, firstly, obtaining an exploration lease and then moving through a range of steps to get to an operational mine. I am not going to bore the house with going through them, but that is the way it works. There is a lot of rationale for why it is set up the way it is.

Interestingly, my daughter, who works in the mining industry, gave me a book some years ago. I have not completed it yet, but it details how in this country at least—and from what I read it mainly goes through the Victorian experience—we started off in the early days with the discovery of gold in Victoria and worked our way through to the situation where we find ourselves with most of the state's mining legislation today. It is quite an interesting book for someone in my position to read.

The Mining Act (like all our acts) is a living thing: it changes as times and circumstances change. As I said a little while ago, significant parts of these changes are about environmental protection, and obviously our society has a different attitude to the environment from what it had previously. I think the principal act is 1971, so that is almost 40 years ago. Our attitude to the environment has changed dramatically over that time. It is probably long overdue that some of these provisions be put in the Mining Act.

There has been considerable public discussion about the impact on the farming community of some mines that have been proposed and gone ahead within the state in recent years. As we have seen more exploration activity and more mining activity in South Australia, one of the things we are seeing is that exploration and mining activity is moving into the settled areas of the state. In some cases we are seeing conflict between the various land uses, particularly the conflict between what a mining company might want to do and what a farmer might want to do.

I have talked to a lot of farmers in recent years who have been in fear of even the thought that a mine is going to be operating on their farm or across their back fence. They are in fear of that happening. I can understand their believing that their lifestyle is going to change dramatically. I have put to farmers in every case that I have talked to them that it is not necessarily the case that a mine on their farm is a bad thing. It can be an extremely good thing for them; it can deliver them a new source of income. I have seen, in some cases, where that has happened.

Notwithstanding that, there has been some conflict between the farming community and the mining sector. It is good news that the Farmers Federation and the Chamber of Mines and Energy in this state, as a result of discussions amongst themselves, have established a code of practice to try to overcome a lot of the animosity which was otherwise there. Notwithstanding that, I still get phone calls from time to time, as do my colleagues representing rural electorates, from very distressed and disturbed farmers about what is proposed on their farm. I was speaking to a landowner in the member for Goyder's electorate only the weekend before last.

I always put to the farmers, as I just said, that a mine on their property is not necessarily a bad thing, that the Mining Act does offer them protection. It does not (and is not intended to) stop mining operations on any land; in fact, it is designed to do the exact opposite. It is designed to protect the Crown's interest in the mineral wealth of the state and to set in train processes to allow the Crown to capitalise on those interests and have that mineral wealth extracted. Where there is conflict between various land users (particularly between farmers or other landowners/land occupiers) and the miner, it sets out how compensation systems should operate and how compensation should go to the loser in that arrangement, if there is a loser.

There have been people within the farming community who have had the misconception that freehold title should give them an absolute right to stop any mining from happening and, in these conversations I have with farmers, I am always right up-front in explaining to them that that is not the situation. I explain to them why that is not the situation and why it never will be the situation and that what they need to do is to take good legal advice over what their rights are, what their responsibilities are, what the responsibilities and rights of the mining proponents are, and then take their decisions from that point of view. I have seen a number of cases where landowners have failed to do that and have, in my opinion, been dealt with unfairly.

So, that is why we took that attitude in some of the amendments that we moved and some of the amendments we supported in the other place. We thought that there were some anomalies which favoured the mining companies against the landowners, and we sought to rebalance that. I believe that we have moved a significant way to doing that, and the bill that we have before us I think is a much better piece of legislation than the principal act that these amendments would apply to. I do not think I need to say any more on that matter. Time obviously will be the test as to whether we have the balance right or whether we need to move a little bit further in favour of the farmers or whether we have actually moved a bit too far. I am sure that, if there are still flaws remaining in the act, they will be brought to our attention fairly rapidly; if that is the case, hopefully the parliament will address those in a timely fashion. One of the other significant changes is that there are now provisions in the act for the appointment of authorised officers, setting out the powers of authorised officers.

In the knowledge that Graham Gunn is no longer in the parliament, I was very diligent to go back and ensure that the powers we were conferring on authorised officers under this piece of legislation were no stronger than those that appear in many other pieces of legislation. I think the powers in the bill pretty well reflect those in the Petroleum Act, and they have been accepted by the parliament already, so I accepted that the parliament and certainly the opposition would find them acceptable.

As I said, we get to the environment provisions. A new definition of 'environment' is provided in this bill. I am not too sure that it is much different from the old one; it is possibly a bit clearer, but the way it is referred to through the various clauses of the bill I think works better and is probably easier for those people who are going to be working with the act, whether they be a mining proponent or a landowner, occupier, an interested third party or whatever, like the Conservation Council or the Wilderness Society.

I think it is a little bit easier to follow through exactly how the powers operate within the act. As a result, these amendments will then enshrine in the act the powers to make sure that the mining operation and remediation plans are established. It gives the minister new powers to actually make changes to conditions of mining leases at any time. There is set out a process so that the operator can appeal if the minister makes a change to a condition of their lease but it does allow the minister of the day to acknowledge that there are changing community attitudes, for instance.

A mining lease that has been around for a number of years may become dated and it gives the minister the opportunity to update some of the conditions there to reflect the new community attitudes. The opposition accepts that, particularly given that there are rights of appeal. It does not give the minister unilateral powers. We accept that and think that that is a sensible way to move forward. It is obviously acceptable to the industry as well.

New provisions (which are quite new to this act but not new to our statutes and appear in some other acts) also give the minister powers to impose restitution conditions upon an operator. So, if the minister believes that something the operator is doing warrants it or that there is potential for significant environmental damage to occur, the minister can force the operator to take remedial action or to take action to stop that environmental damage from occurring. Again, the opposition accepts that that is one of the tools that the minister should have.

By and large, I think I have covered most of the changes that we will be seeing in the act, and I have highlighted that most of the heavy lifting has in fact occurred in the other place. I will just quickly browse my notes here again to make sure that I have not missed anything particularly important that I wanted to cover.

Mr Griffiths: I think you've been quite thorough.

Mr WILLIAMS: You're trying to get me to shut up, too. I knew there was something I overlooked. Steven, you will be pleased to know that I found this. A new power also allows the minister to insist that an independent expert provide a report for the purpose of assessing royalties payable. I talked about the Crown and the act protecting the Crown's interest. People in the street certainly and even members of this place are probably unaware of the difficulty sometimes in actually determining exactly what royalties are paid and I am sure that the Deputy Premier as Treasurer is very interested in this matter because there are ways that miners can fudge their numbers.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: They've been doing it in Coober Pedy for a hundred years.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes. It is particularly difficult where a miner has an integrated business where they quarry at one point and then the material that they are quarrying or mining moves to another point, because the royalty, from memory, is assessed at the mine gate. The definition of the mine gate can vary and obviously it varies where some products are processed within the mine gate, some are outside the mine gate and sometimes it can be quite difficult to put a value on a product. Just for instance, OneSteel at Whyalla mines its ore outside at a particular site then ships it to where it is refined at its smelters in Whyalla. How do you assess the value of that product as it comes out of the mine gate?

That was one of the really vexed questions that was facing the industry over the commonwealth government's resource rent tax: where do you put that value on? It became even more difficult in the Pilbara, where there were different operators with different systems, because they do a lot of value adding. My understanding was that when the rail lines were built and the ownership of and access to the railway line was set up, some companies could claim different amounts against the value, say, at the dockside because of the way it was transported from where it was mined to the dockside.

To my understanding the assessing of royalties can be quite complicated. There is a new power given to the minister to insist that an independent third party expert be brought in to report on that, perhaps to a lesser extent than the example that the deputy leader gave at Coober Pedy. I think that opens up a different can of worms altogether from what I am talking about. There is some nodding going on from people who have considerably more knowledge in this area than both the Deputy Premier and myself.

I think I can safely conclude my remarks. I know some of my colleagues are very keen to contribute to this debate but, at this point, I do not think there is a lot of controversy left in this bill because it has all been sorted out in the other place.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:26): The member for MacKillop has done a forensic review and there is absolutely no doubt about that, with a tremendous amount of work in the joint party discussions and in his dialogue with David Ridgway in the other house in the review that has taken place there.

I wish to put on the record some contact that I had as a result of the Mining Act review and, indeed, the mining exploration that is taking place on Yorke Peninsula. Traditional agricultural areas are now being looked at quite seriously when it comes to mining opportunities. Farmers in my area are, in some ways, excited by the opportunity to diversity the economy in the area but are also concerned about the impact upon their own traditional operations which, in most cases, are over several generations.

The Copper Coast (Kadina, Wallaroo and Moonta area) has a history of mining that goes back 150 years. The important role that it played upon the economy locally and for the state at that time will never be forgotten and there was a tremendous influx of people into the state who were looking to work the copper mines. However, now we have people who are quite concerned about the work that Rex Minerals and Syngas is doing. I tell them quite openly that it is important that we diversify the economy. The state needs to look at any other economic opportunity that will bring revenue and job opportunities. However, these people are still coming to me quite often.

There is a now a collective of thought where there is a lot of concern. Rex Minerals is quite a professional firm. Certainly, in meetings that I have had with them, they were very open and willing to talk to groups of people. They conduct broadscale briefings on what they are doing and they work with smaller groups also. However, two weeks ago I had a meeting with a family (that the member for MacKillop was talking about; he spoke to them on the weekend for me) who are quite strong on this fact, and they will fight any effort for mining exploration to take place on their property.

They have seen what has occurred in the adjoining property which has been purchased by Rex Minerals from a second or third cousin of theirs. They are there for the long haul and I respect the attitude that they bring. However, it is important that this bill, as I understand it, has looked at every opportunity to ensure that there is some surety and some processes in place to give the traditional operators of that land, being the farming community, some control over what will occur while still ensuring that there is a process and regulations in place to encourage mining exploration.

Getting a balance right is always going to be the challenge. In the case of Rex Minerals, my understanding is that it has raised some $85 million in capital looking to undertake drilling operations. It has five drilling teams in the area at the moment, and it intends to scale them down to three next year. It has been in place for a couple of years now. It believes that the scope of its development is impressive; and, certainly, the information it provided to me leads me to no other conclusion.

It has quite a shallow deposit, but it will be that shallow deposit which therefore creates an opportunity, presumably, for open-cut mining which, indeed, will cause a lot of concern in the community. I take this opportunity to make the chamber aware of the fact that, yes, mining is important, but it must be undertaken with a balance between the traditional users of the land, being agriculture.

The work has been done by others in different places. The shadow minister, the member for MacKillop, has certainly expanded on the bill as it currently stands, and I look forward to its swift passage through the house.

Mr KENYON (Newland) (17:30): I will not take long—I never do. The only point I really want to talk about on this bill revolves around one of the amendments that was successfully moved in the upper house. The amendment is to move the proceedings that have traditionally been in the Warden's Court into the Environment, Resources and Development (ERD) Court.

The reason I have a concern about that is because, as members will know, the Warden's Court is a low-cost court, and, by moving it into the ERD Court (which is a branch of the Supreme Court, if my somewhat hazy legal knowledge is correct), you are moving it into a higher-cost court. The amendment moved by, I think, the Hon. Mr Parnell in another place and supported by the Liberal Party has had the effect of increasing the costs to the very landholders who are seeking some sort of ruling or some sort of surety about the way their land is accessed.

My view is that that amendment is damaging. Obviously, not only does it impose extra costs on exploration companies but also it is damaging to the very landholders the amendment was supposedly designed to protect. My contribution, for what it is worth, is to suggest that that is not an ideal situation, that it should go back to the Warden's Court, and that, when they occur, disputes can progress their way up through the system into more expensive courts, if that is the wish of the protagonists. The Warden's Court is the appropriate place in the first instance because it is the cheapest, the least formal and the most useable and friendly court for both landholders and exploration companies. That is my contribution. Other than that, I commend the bill.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:32): It is great to take the chance to say a few words. I will not take too long on this bill. Given that we know that the Treasurer is a stickler for the rules, I will declare an interest. I have a miniscule number of shares in a tiny exploration company. It was a very poor investment that a friend of mine and I made many years ago. I still have those shares, probably because there would be no-one to sell them to, so I do not think that my ability to speak or to vote is likely to be impacted here.

The only other thing to say, of course, is that, as members in this place know, I do have shareholdings in some businesses in the outback (not in the electorate of Stuart), and naturally they do benefit by whatever traffic is going past. Given that the Treasurer told us what a stickler he is for the rules, I thought I would just put that on the record. I do benefit from increased mining, increased tourism and any increased traffic whatsoever that is going on in the outback, but, as I said, none of that is in the electorate of Stuart.

Our shadow mining minister has gone through the proposed amendments in great detail, which is terrific. It is probably important to highlight that, really, all the discussion in both houses of parliament and outside has been relatively friendly, relatively amicable and, I think, very constructive, and I think that everyone who participated in those should be commended. Of course, not everyone got what they wanted, but I think that there is general agreement on where we are heading here.

There is also general agreement on how important mining is to our state and to our nation. I have been to most of the mines in outback South Australia at one time or another. I worked for BP back when BP was a 49 per cent shareholder in the Olympic Dam mine at Roxby Downs, so I have a long, extensive history and some insight into the importance of mining to our state and to our regions.

Enormous benefits have come from mining in regard to employment for people from both pastoral areas and farming areas. There are people in Adelaide who go to work at mines, there are people all over regional South Australia. There are people who have managed to stay afloat, keep their families and their businesses afloat, by the opportunities that have come to them to earn additional money working in mining, whether as an employee or as a contractor.

Also, Indigenous employment and Indigenous training have been enormously boosted. Of all of the different ways that people put effort into training Indigenous people in South Australia, this seems to be at the moment one of the most successful ones. It has just small numbers at this stage, but with regard to the success ratio of people participating—starting and completing programs—this seems to be very important. I certainly support it if it continues along those lines.

We do hear the Premier say very regularly that he and his government take great credit for the number of mines that have opened in South Australia over the last eight years. I think he is not a shy chap, and he is not shy to take as much credit as it possibly can. I think the reality is that any government has a responsibility to pursue mining as much as it possibly can within South Australia. I have confidence that both a Labor government and a Liberal government would do exactly that.

You do not have to be a genius to see that this is an industry that is going to be wonderful for South Australia. It has already contributed enormously and will do even more so in decades to come. So, I think the government is doing exactly the work that the government should do in that department, and so they deserve credit for that, but perhaps not quite as much as they take.

Rather than go through all of the amendments that have been proposed, I would like to just focus on Arkaroola in the electorate of Stuart, because it still is quite a hot topic and a very important place for lots of different reasons. The proposal to ban mining, to identify Arkaroola as a place where mining would not be allowed, was certainly not accepted by the opposition, and I fully support that position. Arkaroola is an incredibly special place. As those who have been there know, the Sprigg family has been there for just over 40 years. The reality is that they have lived and worked there through two generations now, and they have gone about that in a very responsible and very pragmatic way.

The things that the Spriggs did 40 years ago, they do not do now, in exactly the same way as the things that households did 40 years ago, they do not do now, and what companies did 40 years ago, they do not do now. They have always valued Arkaroola extraordinarily highly, and they have shared Arkaroola with people all over the state, all over Australia and all over the world, and they are to be absolutely commended for that. I suggest that they, more than anybody, know the value of the place, and they seek to protect it, to look after it, and to ensure that nothing changes there as they know it with regard to mining.

I really do commend them on that; however, my position as a local member of parliament and the opposition's position is not, though, that mining should be banned at Arkaroola. That would be inappropriate, because we do not know what technology will be available in five, 10, 20, or 50 years. We do not know what may or may not be available and whether mining would be appropriate decades down the track. So, it would not be appropriate to lock mining out of Arkaroola.

However, what is very appropriate with regard to mining at Arkaroola is to protect it highly. So the position that we took is that, if we were in a position to make a decision, we would not allow the government to water down the zone A protections that are already in place at Arkaroola, as was suggested in the Seeking a Balance document. The government's 'Seeking a Balance' document very clearly suggested that that should happen through altering protections as well as through changing boundaries of protections.

We are adamantly and steadfastly against that, because we think that the environmental protection afforded by the class A zone is extremely strict and extremely appropriate. Just one of the excerpts of that protection is that mining would be allowed in that area at Arkaroola only if it was in the state's and the nation's interests. I think that is appropriate, and I do not think we need to give it any more or any less protection.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: So, you would allow it if it is in the state and the national interest?

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Correct.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: How do you define—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Allowed only if it is in the interests of the state or the nation. That is appropriate. The other side of the coin, of course, is Marathon Resources, which has had a series of exploration licences there. It has had its ups and downs. When we came to our position, we had nine or 10 Liberal MPs who actually went to Arkaroola. They went there, flew over the place, drove around the place and had on-site briefings at the exploration area from both the Spriggs and Marathon Resources.

They also had classroom-style briefings, if you like, back at the village from the Spriggs and from Marathon Resources. I commend both those parties for the way in which they gave us the information and the way in which they put their views and their thoughts forward. They were very responsible and both did their very best to put their views forward to influence us, as they should. Both parties participated in a completely appropriate way in those discussions.

The reality is that, until very recently, Marathon Resources has had a legal entitlement to explore. Marathon is optimistic that its exploration will be extremely fruitful. It believes that it has, to a degree, been very fruitful already and that, if allowed to continue exploring, it would find Arkaroola is an even more prospective resource than it is already and that it would like to go mining.

The reality is that Marathon's exploration licence expired very recently. The Liberal opposition did not believe that it was appropriate to take away an exploration company's legal right to explore and that, given that it was put in place by a Labor government, it would be inappropriate to actually pull the rug out from any company that has a legal right to do that. So, the government is now faced with a difficult situation of whether or not to review that exploration licence and, no doubt, the minister will go through all of his due diligence and make that decision.

Certainly our view, in a nutshell, is that Arkaroola is an incredibly special place and that it should be protected, that the extremely high levels of environmental protection in place at the moment—and, importantly, that were in place at the time that Marathon Resources started its exploration—should not be watered down and that the legal entitlement that Marathon Resources had at the time we came to our position should certainly not be taken away. That zone A protection gave Arkaroola the protection it deserved. I just wanted to give a brief description of how we came to our position and what our position actually is. Certainly, from the position of the electorate of Stuart, that is one of the very important aspects of this mining amendment bill. I am certainly a strong supporter of both mining and the environment within the electorate of Stuart. They are both extremely important, and we will always look for ways where they can coexist and operate together successfully.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (17:44): I, too, would like to begin today by declaring that we have a rubble pit on our property. In fact, we have a gravel pit that has been used for road surfacing in the past and we have a rubble pit for our own private use on the farm. I just put that on the record, given that we have been reminded to declare those interests in this discussion.

I also rise to support the Mining Act amendment bill. This bill regulates the relationship between all parties involved in mining ventures, and it is particularly important and pertinent at the moment because difficulties have existed in the past. I am sure many of our regional representatives here will have had discussions with landowners who have been approached by various mining and exploration companies to traverse their property for exploration and investigation, and it is not always easy for landowners to come to grips with that situation.

Many third and fourth generation farmers here in South Australia have a genuine attachment to their land; sometimes the property has been in a family for more than 100 years, and people become very attached to the land. When others come in and attempt to change the relationship landowners have with their land, it makes for some difficult negotiations, so it is important that we make sure those relationships are balanced, that discussions and negotiations are balanced, and that it is a win-win situation for all.

As the member for Stuart has indicated, I also believe that there is a place for both mining and the environment, as well as a productive landscape generally across this state. It is very important that we get that balance. Mining has been important to the state's history, and it has often been said that in the early days the copper mines actually saved this state from bankruptcy. Certainly in the 1840s, when copper was first discovered in Kapunda, and soon after in Burra and then in the Copper Triangle area of the Upper Yorke Peninsula around Moonta and Wallaroo, copper was a big part of the state's economy. It was very important; in fact, it probably went a long way towards building this particular structure in the 1880s.

The Broken Hill mine was also developed from this state. As every schoolboy remembers, copper, lead and zinc were mined at Broken Hill and shipped by train to Port Pirie, where they were smelted and exported. In fact, my own great-grandfather (I will indulge in a bit of family history here) worked a bullock team from the mine at Burra to the port at Wakefield in those very early days. That is how he made a crust when he first arrived on these shores.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: He also shot through for a time, member for Chaffey, and visited the Victorian goldfields, trying his hand at mining there. He did not make a fortune but he did okay: he did well enough to buy some land around Watervale in the state's Mid North, so I guess that is another family interest in mining here in this state. Of course, in my own region of Eyre Peninsula—it is just outside my electorate but it certainly adjoins it, in the electorate of Giles—the iron ore mines of the Middleback Ranges were very important, once again, in developing the state's economy.

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: I should not respond to that, the whip tells me. We can have that discussion later I am sure, Treasurer; however, it is very topical, as you would be well aware. Certainly, the city of Whyalla grew up around the iron ore mine in the Middleback Ranges as well as the steelworks and shipbuilding yards that were developed from that.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: Shipbuilding, member for Norwood—that was not unparliamentary language.

Members interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: There are interjections here, Mr Acting Speaker. Minerals have been a big contributor to this state's wealth and to regional economies around the state. Specifically, in my own electorate of Flinders we have the potential for extraordinary mineral wealth. We are part of the Gawler craton and the latest estimates of iron ore wealth in that Eyre Peninsula Gawler craton region is somewhere between two and three billion tonnes. We are on the cusp of some very exciting times. The development of a deep sea port will be critical in seeing those mines develop. The benefits and the spin-offs to the state and the regional economy will be significant. We have talked about jobs and infrastructure, and the community relations that go along with that. One mine that has recently developed on the Eyre Peninsula is the Iluka sand mine, north-west of Ceduna.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: It is a very good operation, as the member for Hammond has suggested. In fact, it was only two months ago, after receiving an initiation, that I visited the Iluka sand mine. I was really very impressed with the operation. They have taken into account all the environmental needs and they have already embarked on land rehabilitation following the mining operation. As I understand it, the mineral sand has been discovered along an old shoreline on the Nullarbor Plain.

It really is quite visible once the overburden is taken away and mining begins. In fact, it is visible to the naked eye. The mineral sand is quite a dark grey; it is a very heavy sand and visible to the naked eye. The sand is mined. It is put onto triple road trains and hauled into Ceduna, where it goes onto the port of Thevenard and is shipped to Western Australia for processing. It has made Ceduna a very busy town and its impact on the town has been significant. You can feel it in Ceduna now; it is a busy town when you drive into it. There have been spin-offs not only for the local workforce but also local businesses. Iluka has been very good at keeping the community in the loop and in doing business.

As I said, the future wealth of this state is very much around mining and its development. I am pleased to support this bill, because, as I said, it really does assist the relationship between all the parties involved in mining operations. As I said, it is a critical amendment. We are supportive of this because balance is all important in these sometimes very difficult and tenuous negotiations. With those few words, I support the bill.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:53): I rise to support the Mining (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2010. I believe it is not before time that we are making some amendments to the Mining Act 1971—almost 40 years, as the member for MacKillop rightfully observed. I will go over my relationship with potential mine material, because I want to ensure that the Treasurer understands any relationship I have had with rubble pits and other mines. I believe that my family, in the late 1970s or early 1980s, had an experience with the highways department on our farm at Coomandook when it was realigning the road from Tailem Bend. It did a major realignment, following the railway line instead of going out to Moorlands where the former Dukes Highway is. It undertook a major realignment from Tailem Bend straight down the railway line through Cooke Plains, which cut off some 12 kilometres of driving.

We had a couple of stone hills on our property which, when tested, I believe had pretty good quality road base or rubble. We had certainly used some of this road base on the farm, but for a range of reasons the commercial use of that road base did not come about. But I believe there would be hundreds and thousands of tons on our property, being situated in the Limestone Coast, and it is very good material. We certainly have a couple of pits on the property that we use for filling in on the sheep yards and for tracks through the farm. There are also local sand mines in the area, and we have used a little bit of sand from our own property.

I declare my interest having worked in the mining industry. In 1982 I went to the Cooper Basin, based mainly in Moomba, but then working all around on scrapers mainly and bulldozers, building leases for oil rigs, airstrips and road-making in the Cooper Basin. It was very interesting and challenging work for a young lad; it is a challenging environment. I have noted on my recent visits to mines in the Upper North how incredibly conditions have changed for people in mining. I just look at the camps, and there is an explosion of amenities, which is good, I must say.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: That's an interesting turn of phrase: 'explosion of amenities'.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Well, yes—a major improvement in amenities for people working in mines. I remember visiting Prominent Hill at the opening of the mine and I was very impressed with facilities up there with links to the internet, satellite TV in every room and mobile phone coverage, which back in the early eighties was not around. It was an exciting time, so for 12 months in 1982—and I have spoken about it in this place before—until early 1983 I was earthmoving.

I then worked for a company called Gearhart Australia, which was taken over by Halliburton, in well testing and running what are called 'guns' in the field. These guns have a four-inch steel casing with 22-inch steel piercing cartridges loaded into them to fracture the oil seams. It is not bad work on the surface, and you always hoped that you would never bring up a gun unexploded. It was interesting work, but it was a bit hard when everything is happening 10,000 feet below you and you cannot see the results of your work.

Things have progressed remarkably in the field of mining. Occupational health and safety has moved ahead in great leaps and, as I said, conditions have improved for mining companies and people in the field. But then we get to the latter day where we have far more mines outside of areas like the Cooper Basin or Prominent Hill. There are far more mines in suburban areas—and by that I mean the local farmlands and not out in the pastoral zone. But this is not a new phenomenon.

Look at the silver mine which opened up in the early to mid-1800s at Glen Osmond. Charlie Hill Smith has been the owner of that property, and it has recently come onto the market. I have been to several interesting events there, which I will not go into here. It is an interesting property where one room backs straight into this old mine and there are the old original rail tracks and old railcars for the mine through there. So, mining in more settled areas has happened well and truly in the early days of settlement in the state and it is starting to expand further into other areas. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

At 18:00 the house adjourned until Thursday 28 October 2010 at 10:30.