MINING (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 October 2010.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:38): I rise to complete my remarks in support of this bill. In my concluding remarks yesterday, I spoke about the prevalence of new mines in more suburban-type areas. As I said in my speech last night, when I say 'suburban' I do not mean in the pastoral areas but more like farming areas or closely built-up areas.

Mr Williams: The inside country.

Mr PEDERICK: The inside country, that is the appropriate term. Thank you, member for MacKillop. That has created a whole new regime as far as mining in this modern world. I indicated in my comments yesterday about how mining did occur in built-up areas over many years. If the silver mine at Glen Osmond was not the first mine in this state, it would have been one of the first.

I want to speak about two mines that have been in my electorate. The Strathalbyn mine, which is no longer in my electorate because of redistribution, and the Australian Zircon mine at Mindarie. I am pleased to say that the current Minister for Mineral Resources Development invited me to the ceremonial turning of the sod pre the 2006 election. I was glad that I could be part of that event and appreciated the minister giving me the opportunity to be there.

I have also been heavily involved with the Strathalbyn Terramin mine since before its inception. In fact, it was quite an issue to deal with as a candidate trying to gain a seat in this place and having to make sure that all the appropriate actions were taken to make the residents of Strathalbyn and surrounding districts feel comfortable with having a mine within about 1.5 kilometres of the town. In the main, both these mines have operated reasonably well, although there have been issues.

Obviously, mining is an expensive occupation. I can understand companies wanting to gain the resources with the least cost. I can certainly understand that coming from my farming background. As I said, there have been issues. Sadly, Mindarie is in recess at the moment. I think there is still a lot of potential there. There are issues with how the zircon sands were mined. I think there were issues about the depth of the resource and some of the management that went along with that. It went from a model that was going to be a moving plant to a piped slurry system of mining. As I said, sadly it is in care and control at the moment. Thankfully, it has not just been shut down, it is in care and control.

Recently, I had some constituents (the Crouches from Mindarie) contact me because they are very concerned about some of the rehabilitation that is still to take place. I must say, I was pleased that the minister and his assistants came up to Mindarie only last week to have a good look at this. It has been an ongoing issue. Previously, I believe the mining operator did exceed some of the recommendations of the mining and rehabilitation program. In fact, about three kilometres of mining needed rehabilitation, when, I believe, under the plan, they should have only been 750 metres ahead of the rehabilitation program with the actual mining.

However, things are looking up, I must say. Some compensation has been paid. There are still moneys owing to farmers. There are new operators. I believe Lucas Earthmovers is completing some of that rehabilitation. I note that the minister took it on board that they need the appropriate people from PIRSA to be there when the top soil goes back into place so that these lands can be rehabilitated to support the appropriate style of farming and yield levels that these lands were at before. These are the issues that have been developing over years with farming in this state and with access for miners to farming land.

There was a lot of angst in the lead-up to this mine. I hope it all works out in the longer term because I support both the exploration and mining of minerals in this state. I also heavily support agriculture, and we must make sure that we get the right result for both sectors.

The Strathalbyn mine has certainly had its issues. Part of that has been because more water than modelled turned up in the mine. It obviously needed dewatering. It certainly needed extra water and tailings to be placed into the tailings dam. I am a member of the Strathalbyn consultative committee, and we have worked with the mining company (Terramin) to try to get that remediated as soon as possible.

Sadly, in some of these cases, things have taken far too long, but things are on the increase here as far as solutions being found. A reverse osmosis plant has been brought in from Dubai. There were a few issues in getting that going, but I believe that the company is on track to make sure that it complies with its mining and rehabilitation plan.

In the overall picture of mining in general, that is part of the reason that the Mining Act 1971 had to be updated. We needed to make sure that miners and people living in built-up areas could cohabit and enjoy the resources of the state but not knock around people's lives and their lifestyle. There are certainly issues at Strathalbyn about lead (it is a lead and zinc mine), and ongoing monitoring is going on, with wind monitoring and testing of levels in water tanks around the town.

People in the wider community need to realise that there is going to be more mining in settled areas because there are a lot of resources there to be had. In the same vein, we have to make sure that the miners work in the best interests of not just their companies but also the community. That is part of the reason why the Mining Act is being amended, I believe—so that compliance can be better managed by the minister and the primary industries department.

I note that some of the fines increased heavily, some from $100,000 to $250,000 for compliance. In fact, new environmental provisions have come into the bill that help with overall mining programs. I note new parts 10A and 10B, and part 10A—Programs for environment protection and rehabilitation provides:

(1) The object of this Part is to ensure that the holders of the mining tenements—

(a) provide adequate information about the mining operations that will be conducted under the tenements; and

(b) ensure that mining operations that have (or potentially have) adverse environmental impacts are properly managed to reduce those impacts as far as reasonably practicable and eliminate, as far as reasonably practicable, risk of significant long-term environmental harm; and

(c) ensure that land adversely affected by mining operations is properly rehabilitated.

New subsection (2) provides:

(2) The Minister must, in acting under this Part, have regard to, and seek to further, the objects of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004.

Hopefully, in the future, when the bill is gazetted as an act, we will see some good outcomes. I think it is a good thing for this state. As I said, there is a lot more mining happening on the inside country.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: 'Inside country' is below the pastoral zone.

Mr Williams: Inside the dog fence.

Mr PEDERICK: Inside the dog fence, where the rubble pits are. As I said during my contribution, things have changed a lot, even in the outback mines. There is far stricter compliance on people's behaviour in motor vehicles, and far stricter compliance with occupational health and safety, and also with environmental outcomes in the pastoral zone. As I stress, on the inside country, in the suburban areas and near townships, we have to make sure that we get it absolutely right.

I must say, in regard to the two mines that I deal with in my area as a member still of the Strathalbyn consultative committee, they have generally done pretty well. However, as I said, they have both had their issues. For instance, at Strathalbyn we are putting dimmer lights so they do not upset people at night and mounds so you screen off the plant. In fact, if you drive down the Strathalbyn-Callington Road you would barely know there was a mine in there, which is a good thing. It has to be managed well into the future, and in regard to both of these mines it is the rehabilitation that counts, because tailings dams will be there basically forever, and they need to be managed in such a way that the people of the community are happy.

In summing up, I do support these amendments and I wish the mining sector, the agricultural sector—because they are the people that need consulting as well—and the communities of this state all the best moving ahead. Let us hope that we have a big, bright mining outcome for this state. In the bigger sense, I certainly wish BHP Billiton all the best with its Olympic Dam expansion; it will bring great wealth to this state.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (15:51): I, too, rise to support the bill, but before I participate in this debate, along with the Treasurer, I do have to declare that I have shares in various portfolios, many associated with mining, and I do own a rubble pit, from which I do collect royalties from the council.

Members interjecting:

Mr VENNING: It is a good one, too, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr Pederick: Is it a good pit or good rubble?

Mr VENNING: It is good rubble, good pit. With my past history as the ex-parliamentary secretary for Mines and Energy under minister Stephen Baker, I note with interest this bill and the previous mining act that came into force in 1971. I know at the time minister Baker put some very minor amendments to it—but we needed to redraft the whole thing. Although it has been amended, there are definitely aspects of it that needed savage review.

I can remember—and the member for Hart was here then—when I served on the Yumbarra Conservation Park Select Committee. That was an interesting exercise. I spent a lot of time with Mr John Quirke when he was a member in this house. I thought the result was a fait accompli, but the final result was totally clouded by politics. At the final meeting of the select committee there was a complete reversal of the decision we were going to make. The politics won and it became a farce. As it turned out, the anomaly was still there. I do not think it has been properly or fully explored. It would have been a huge fillip economically for that area. So the Yellabinna stays as is, a scrubby land which had regular fires through it and generally not very attractive.

Parts of this bill seek to amend existing legislation to allow the minister to better deal with the environmental issues that can arise with mining. It includes a new definition of 'environment' and introduces a new definition of 'mining or mining operations' to, amongst other things, include the rehabilitation of land once the mining has finished, because that is a huge issue. We have some huge holes out there. In most cases it is just not practical, but I think every effort should be made, particularly in relation to a new mine.

I am aware of issues that can arise in relation to mining and to the environment. Over the past couple of years there have been some issues with the operation of the Penrice mine at Angaston. However, I understand that they have been working with the community, and I have been involved first-hand myself, and they are attempting to rectify the problem. I commend them on making a pretty tidy effort in relation to dust, noise visual amenity, rehab works, underground water issues and the drag out on roads, amongst other issues.

Particularly during the Northern Expressway works, there was a huge amount of traffic movement in and out of the Penrice mine. So, it has been good for the local community, with about 80 people working in that mine, and they work right across the community. The footprint of that mine, the economic impact, has been pretty important to the Barossa when other economic issues are impinging on it.

This bill also seeks to abolish the chief of mines and inspectors and replace them with 'authorised officers'. Those words always send shivers down my spine. Even though the previous member for Stuart is not here, when you talk about an 'authorised officer' I still go into spasm, because these are the people you always have to be very careful of.

However, we are having authorised officers, and I do have some concerns that the minister is able to appoint anyone from the Public Service to that position. I would think an authorised officer would need to possess a thorough understanding of mining practices in order to carry out their inspectoral roles. I understand that the opposition will be seeking to amend this section, probably between the houses; I do not know what the final result of that is.

We also have some concerns regarding section 30A, which gives the minister new powers to alter the contract of an exploration licence, a mining lease, and a retention lease of a miscellaneous purpose lease, once issued. I also understand that this is 'if at any time in the minister's opinion it is necessary to prevent, reduce, minimise or eliminate undue damage to the environment'. I agree with the intent of the amendment—to provide extra protection for the environment—however, I do have some concerns that the minister will be able to change the terms of the licence or lease at any time. I presume that, without any consultation, he can just do it on his or her own whim.

Penalties are substantially increased throughout this amendment bill for various breaches, and mines will now be required to have a mine operation plan (MOP)—which we hear about every day at Penrice—setting out the expected environmental outcomes for the mining operations and what measures the mine wishes to take to reach such outcomes.

In the case of Penrice, as I have said, the Penrice Community Consultative Group, comprising the community, PIRSA, council representatives and mine management, meet regularly and work through these sorts of issues. A lot of the mitigation measures that the mine has undertaken and to plan in the future to reduce their impact on the environment and the community was the product of these meetings, and they were included in the MOP. I can see that by making MOPs mandatory it will definitely increase the accountability of mining companies to produce the relevant environmental incomes.

I also commend again the mine management team at Penrice. They are a young team—very active—and a progressive company. I also want to commend PIRSA and its officers, where they sat in. Some of these meetings got fairly heated, but in the end, the very good chairman, Charles Irwin, did a top job. Generally, the community is at rest with it at the moment; however, Penrice knows that it must be very careful about what it does, particularly in relation to dust. People would notice that the visual of Penrice mine was not very flash on the crown of the Barossa Valley. It was just—

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Mr VENNING: But if you go there now you will see that they have done a lot of work. Piles of rock have been moved. They have put the dirt across, they have trees and grass, and you really have to look hard to see it. They have done a very good job and, I would think, at great expense.

I also support the protection of good farming land from mining. This is always going to be a conflict. As a farmer myself, there is nothing worse than seeing mining companies come in, because you only own the top couple of inches, and if people take out a mining lease on your farm, well, there has to be an area where we have to give some sort of protection to farmers. I also notice the work that the president of SAFA did in relation to this. I certainly support that angle, and I would like to see something in this legislation that clarifies that. I do not know exactly how; I cannot spell it out exactly.

Also, in relation to reconstituting old mines, several old mines might come back onstream. There are several in my electorate; one is the Bird in Hand Mine, which I think is being quite exploratory. Of course the problem is that these mines all contain water and, if they de-water these mines, they would have to drop the local water table. That is always a concern—what to do with all this good quality water and what is the protection for all those farmers, irrigators and vignerons around when the water table is dropped? That is a continuing concern.

Both the member for Kavel and I have had briefings with these companies. There are two mines in my electorate, and the Bird in Hand is but one, and I note that the previous member for Bright is working on behalf of this company and keeps me briefed on what is happening there. I commend the mining industry generally. It is not the dirty industry that it used to be. They are not rapists and pillagers, as they were once branded. I note the continued success of Roxby Downs and Olympic Dam.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: The mirage in the desert. I was in this house when these matters were being discussed and agreed to.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: You have been here too long, Ivan.

Mr VENNING: I hear what the minister says. I will make no comment about that, but I probably could. Generally, we support this bill. It imposes significantly higher regulatory powers in regard to environmental matters. However, we do wish to propose a few amendments, which I understand is in hand.

My final comment is that I want to commend the industry generally right across the state and those people I worked with. I certainly enjoyed the work I did with Mines and Energy, and I pay tribute to many old miners who are still with us—for instance, Mr John, who was the CEO of Mines and Energy under minister Goldsworthy. He is still around and, of course, he has been involved with Cornish mining history, which I am into as well. I will certainly be very interested to see these guys, and I am pleased to see that Mr John is still with us. I again commend the industry. This state would be lost without its mines.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:02): I support this bill; there is no question about that. As a matter of interest, I have an exceptionally large mine in my own electorate down at Sellicks Beach, Southern Quarries, which is a joy to behold. It is exceptionally well managed, exceptionally well run, exceptionally well rehabilitated. The company that runs both that and the sand mine at Price has a wonderful relationship with their staff, and it is a credit to the mining industry in South Australia.

I also have extremely large sand mines at Mount Compass, which provide enormous amounts of sand. Companies like Kalari are carting sand 24 hours a day 365 days a year from Mount Compass back to Port Adelaide, as the Treasurer will know. He sees them regularly.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: More stuff from my way.

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, and these are critical ways forward for South Australia for the economy. There are numerous other mines right around my electorate, including the former gypsum mine on Kangaroo Island, which closed down in 1986 but which supplied much of the gypsum for the plasterboard industry around Australia through CSR. So, mining is nothing new to me, and I am very much aware that other members and even the member for Bragg have had rubble pits on their properties. I was not so fortunate to have a rubble pit because I do not have rubble.

Where I do think we are going forward with this issue is that we are being much more conscious of rehabilitation. I heard the member for Hammond talk about the Mindarie mine a while ago; my son-in-law worked there as a high-voltage electrician until it went broke. In the past, we actually have not done the right thing in rehabilitating rubble pits, mines or whatever, and I think that we have learned the error of our ways on that particular score and that we are doing much better.

The fact is that this bill has been brought before the house and we are supporting it. I understand there are a few amendments to be discussed, but it is a step forward. The Premier is very fond of lauding all these mines around the place in South Australia. That is the way of the future for us; there is no question about that. We have a long way to go before we get anywhere near Queensland or Western Australia, that is for sure, but it is a step forward.

It would be interesting to see—none of us will be around to see it—where the world is as far as resources go in a couple of hundred of years. I have no doubt in my mind that they will be digging up Antarctica and drilling for oil down there and all sorts of things; it will just have to happen. However, we are responsible for the future.

Currently, we are providing employment in economically and environmentally sustainable mining operations. We have an opportunity to do great things for South Australia and South Australians for the future in the next few generations, and I think there would be a bipartisan agreement on this. I have considerable numbers of fly in/fly out workers who live in my electorate, whether it is on the south coast or the Yankalilla area or on Kangaroo Island, who go away for two, three or four weeks or whatever.

One gentleman who lives near me on Kangaroo Island works on the north-west gas shelf, and he has been out there for many years. He was telling me only the other day when I was talking to him on the plane that they fly out on a helicopter from, I think, Broome, which is a two-hour trip on a helicopter. They are padded up to the nth degree with lifejackets and whatever else. They make a large amount of money.

Recently, there was a documentary on television about the effect on some of the Western Australian towns where some of these fly in/fly out workers come and the fact that they do not actually contribute anything whatsoever to the towns.

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: No, it was some months ago that I saw it. It is good for my electorate and others to have people gainfully employed in the mines. It is wonderful that they are earning a lot of money and bringing it back to our communities, but that applies more particularly in Western Australia.

I am excited about the future. None of my family works in that industry at the moment, but there is no doubt that all of us probably have family members or relatives who are involved in mining. I think it is a wonderful way forward. I support the bill, and I look forward to its swift passage. Heaven knows what will happen when it gets to that other place.

An honourable member: It's come from the other place.

Mr PENGILLY: Oh has it; I beg your pardon, I'm going real well, aren't I? I look forward to the speedy passage of the bill in this place and having it signed off in the other place.

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood) (16:08): I rise to speak on the Mining (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, which the government has brought to this place.

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: The Treasurer raises a good point, when he says, 'What mines do we have in Norwood?'

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Piccolo): Order! The member for Norwood will not address interruptions, thank you.

Mr MARSHALL: No, we don't have any mines in Norwood, but we do have a lot of people who are very concerned about and very supportive of the mining industry, and we also have many people in Norwood who are very concerned about the environment. So, I thought I would rise to speak to this important bill the government has bought before the house.

By way of preparation for this bill, I visited the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary with our leader, Isobel Redmond, and six of my other parliamentary colleagues. Arkaroola is a very significant international site geographically, biologically and botanically. Situated 600 kilometres north of Adelaide, the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary covers 610 square kilometres in the Northern Flinders Ranges. The area includes a veritable smorgasbord of terrain, from mountains to water holes, granite peaks and gorges, and it is host to over 160 different species of birds. It is also one of the few remaining habitats of the yellow-footed rock wallaby.

Arkaroola has a well-established ecotourism sector for bushwalkers and four-wheel drives, with the area now touted as South Australia's best ecotourism destination, following its third successive SA Tourism Award in 2007. Arkaroola pastoral leases coexist with exploration leases. Therefore, on the visit we made to Arkaroola we met with the owners of the wilderness sanctuary, the Sprigg family, and also representatives from Marathon Resources. My personal belief is that Arkaroola is an incredibly precious environmental site. I believe that there are very few circumstances in which it would be possible for it to be mined. Having said that, I believe we have an obligation to honour the exploration licences currently in place.

When this bill was first suggested, I was personally very concerned about it, as I suspected that the government would use this opportunity to water down the existing class A zone protections contained within the 2003 development plan for the Flinders Ranges. I will read a few short extracts from that development plan. It states:

Conservation of the environment and landscape is the paramount aim and consideration in the Environmental Class A Zone.

Objective 2, headed 'The protection of the landscape from damage by mining operations and exploring for new resources', states:

Mining operations should not take place in the Environmental Class A Zone unless the deposits are of such paramount importance and their exploration is in the highest national or state interest that all other environmental, heritage or conservation considerations may be overridden.

Also in that plan, objective 17, 'The conservation of the quality of the environment within the Flinders Ranges', states:

The greater portion of the Flinders Ranges has high scenic value and there are specific localities which are particularly outstanding. It is important that the natural character of these areas be conserved as part of Australia's heritage and all development and activities—whether tourist, recreational, mining or pastoral—should be subordinated to this aim.

Last October the government released the 'Seeking a Balance' document. I believe that this document was canvassing support from the wider community for the watering down of the class A environmental protections in place within the development plan for the Arkaroola wilderness sanctuary. In fact, this was released in October. There was going to be a period of consultation, with the government reporting back earlier this year. There has been no such reporting—that I have been aware of, anyway—from the government. I hope the government realises that the community is not interested, in any way, shape or form, in reducing environmental protections for this most special environment in South Australia.

I believe that this was a deliberate exploration of what community sentiment was, and I think that they heard a resounding: 'No, we do not want to see these environmental protections watered down.' I am very pleased that the government does not seem to be pursuing that whatsoever.

In fact, this bill before us at the moment in some ways strengthens some of the environmental protections, and we are very happy to support those—in particular, increased fines for environmental breaches and bringing them up to a penalty which is more appropriate. I am pleased that Mount Gee and Arkaroola will survive for all future generations to visit and enjoy, and am happy to support this bill.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (16:14): I rise to support the mining amendment bill and also wish to declare my interest, as other regional members have today, that I, too, have a rubble pit on both my properties.

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: I would like to express to the minister that I have one particularly large rubble pit which is on one of the family properties at World's End in the Mid North, and that supplied the Department of Transport with 25,000 tonnes of road base for the Morgan to Burra road. Also, on one of my properties I have a sand mine, which has been extensively used over years for rehabilitation of land through erosion.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Piccolo): You are a country baron, aren't you! Sorry—I'm only acting.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you for that, Mr Acting Speaker. Also, I have an interest with an exploration lease on that property looking at the rebirth of the Utica mine, which was established in 1850 at Worlds End in the Mid North. I just get that on the table so that the minister is aware of any other interests that I have.

In a previous life I was involved in almost mining in the Cooper Basin, up near Moomba. I had a lot to do with the establishment of the processing plant up there, which entailed a lot of land clearing.

Mr Pengilly: We reckon you dug up Karlene and you buried her.

Mr WHETSTONE: That's horrible. Anyway, up in the Cooper Basin there, I guess that initially it was exploration for condensate and raw gas. To be able to explore those resources, a huge amount of land works were undertaken to be able to get to those sites through drought and flood, because much of that country up there is very flat. Of course, as some members might not understand, there are no culverts and no gutters—when the rain falls, it stays.

At Moomba, the oil and gas really does not come under the Mining Act, it comes under the Petroleum Act, but I thought that taking into account the excavation and the lands works that had to be undertaken to keep that industry up and above the flood waters was significant. Also, today, the geothermal energy being mined in the Cooper Basin at the moment for clean power is just another example of environmental responsibility.

I move on to where I am today in Chaffey. We do not have any mineral mines as such, but we do mine water. Obviously, water is a very precious commodity, as most members in this house would be aware, through the shortage of water in our river systems, as well as the depleting resource of underground water. In Chaffey we essentially mine water. We harvest the water for food production, much the same as the mining or harvesting of minerals in many of the other sectors for input into its relevant sectors.

In Chaffey we do have a by-product of harvesting water, that is, harvesting salt. Harvesting salt, unfortunately, is one of the down sides to irrigation in that we do create a salt table. We do create high loads of salt on groundwater—on the sandy, irrigable lands that we have. That is extracted through the salt interception schemes, which have been very successful over the last 15 years. That is keeping the land arable but, most importantly, it is keeping the salt away from food production areas.

We also have several small gypsum mines in Chaffey. Obviously, some members would understand that gypsum is a product that is very well regarded for soil health, particularly in the gardens, and, again, within food production. We have a relatively small mining sector but it is a very important mining sector.

Although water extraction is now being restricted to a percentage of what people can extract, it almost flies in the face, because any of the large mining companies could be asked whether they could survive extracting only 67 per cent of the minerals. At the moment, of course, we all hear that irrigators are restricted to 67 per cent. Again, it is much the same with Olympic Dam: would it survive if it could extract only two-thirds of the uranium out of the base that it mines?

The Hon. K.O. Foley: It has 65 per cent of the world's known deposit.

Mr WHETSTONE: Absolutely, but how cost-effective would it be if they could only extract two-thirds of that uranium? Today they are extracting 100 per cent of that uranium. The member for Norwood has commented on his visit to Arkaroola. I, too, visited Arkaroola with a group of my colleagues to evaluate the mining of such a beautiful place in South Australia. In fact, it is one of the great parts of the world.

I will keep it very short regarding Arkaroola. Really, the bottom line is that it is protected under an Environmental Class A Zone and it must be protected at all costs. Unless something is put up in the nation's best interests that Arkaroola should be mined, I think it is only fair that that priceless piece of the country be left as it is. In saying that, my last call is that, no matter what type of mining, no matter where the mining is, let us protect the environment.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:21): The former lead speaker on this matter is attending another commitment—

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I was simply going to say that I support the bill with or without amendment and sit down, but now I am tempted to get really stuck into it. I am agreeing with the amendments that have been foreshadowed, and do so on behalf of the opposition. I will not be traversing this, other than to say one thing; that is, we can do the structure (which we are happy to support the government on), but the government of the day, whoever it is, has to understand whether or not it is serious about mining in this state, whether that is under oceans or underground, and make sure that, when they are dealing with the Prime Minister on the proposed mining tax, that we get a fair deal in this state; otherwise, we can tinker around the edges with structure, but it is not going to be worth anything to this state if we are going to be raped and pillaged from the federal end. That is all I wish to say about it. We do not have any other speakers on this side, so I invite the Treasurer to close the debate.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Federal/State Relations, Minister for Defence Industries) (16:22): I appreciate the comments from the member for Bragg. Can I say that, during the first iteration of the mining tax, we were lobbied very heavily, and appropriately so, by the most senior levels of BHP, including Marius Kloppers. The Premier and I had a number of discussions: both with Martin Ferguson; the Premier with the Prime Minister; and also both the Premier and I with the federal Treasurer. They were left in no doubt as to our view on a resource rent tax.

That said, I do not think a resource rent tax in itself is a bad thing. I think it is a more appropriate way to extract a rent for our resources in this nation, given we do have a somewhat antiquated system under the current royalties. Although, as somebody did point out to me last night, they are probably less volatile than what they would be under a resource rent tax because the profitability of the mining companies will vary depending on the cycle of the mining boom, whereas the royalties are based on production and you would have a more consistent stream. Given that the former chair of BHP, Don Argus, is overseeing this process, I would be very surprised if we see a repeat of the problems that surrounded the previous attempt at a resource rent tax.

Clearly, mining in this state is one of the exciting, if not the most exciting, industrial and economic developments we have seen. It has been with us for many, many a decade, but clearly, as commodity prices have increased, as a large part of the western world has been explored, South Australia is now coming into it its own. Robert Champion de Crespigny—a great mining magnate in his own right, a senior adviser to this government for many years—made the point that South Australia was arguably one of the most prospective regions globally, and the reason that we are late in the race or late in the peace, to a large extent, is the fact that our minerals sit below extremely deep levels of soil, rock, earth, whatever. In the case of the BHP mine, it is some 300 metres below the surface before you can get the ore that you need.

I do not know if anybody watched television on Sunday night but there was a very good piece on Channel 7, I think, about Andrew (Twiggy) Forrest which I found quite enjoyable to watch. The Forrest family have held that property in the Kimberleys through generations—for 120 or 130 years—and when Twiggy (I think I am right in saying or perhaps his parents) took responsibility at some point within the last 20 or 30 years, that pastoral lease was all but broke. Then I guess somebody said, 'That thing shimmering in the distance might be something worth having a look at.' Of course, on the Forrest family property there were incredible volumes of mineral—iron ore. Iron ore is a much easier mineral to extract in the west, as we can see with the Yeelirrie uranium mine in the west, where BHP say to me in jest that they can almost scoop it up with a tablespoon because it is all but sitting on the surface.

South Australia has had some significant impediments to mining. In fact, it was under Frank Blevins, back in the latter years of the Labor government, when we did put in place a program to start to pick up some of the front-end costs of the initial aerial surveying work. It was maintained and continued under the Liberal Government. When we came into office, through the advice of the Economic Development Board, we asked people of the likes of Hugh Morgan, Robert de Crespigny, Leon Davis, Ian Gould and Derek Carter, to give us advice on what we should be doing as a government to really accelerate mining activity in this state.

Of course, they came up with the PACE scheme, the accelerated program. I do not know if it was you, Mr Heithersay, or your predecessor, but I remember in a budget bilateral many years ago, not long after coming into government, I was going to take the axe to part of this aerial survey work. David Bligh, was it? It looked like a good saving option for me but he pleaded with me not to do it and I did not do it. It has been a wise investment of taxpayers' money because we have been able to pick up the early data and we have seen, in recent years, as much as $330 million, I think, at the peak of exploration activity in this state. It has dropped back now, of course, because of the GFC.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Well, we have not stood in the way of anyone digging anything up. We have never stood in the way. In fact, we have been criticised for allowing them to dig it up too often. I do not think this government could be classified as anything other than an extremely pro-mining government. I see today—and I do not know if these reports are correct—that Prominent OZ Minerals is spending up to $50 million and is now looking for further copper and other mineral deposits around Coober Pedy. They are areas in which they have licences to explore.

These are incredibly large amounts of money. As much as I can reveal to the house my discussions with BHP, as we know, they have already identified about 35 per cent of the world's known deposits of uranium. My guess is that the longevity of that mine will be very long and that it will be with us for many decades to come. I expect that there are some significant other potential possibilities for BHP around where they are currently mining.

I remember the principals behind Centrax coming to see me (when I think I might have been in opposition) and talking about Eyre Peninsula and iron ore. I did not think that Eyre Peninsula could ever be a commercial option for iron ore but commodity prices rise and, of course, it does bring us into conflict with communities. Port Lincoln is a classic example of the clash between mining expansion and the way of life of its citizens. The Port Lincoln community have been, to some extent, up in arms about the transportation of iron ore across the wharf at Port Lincoln. Some noted greenies in the area have been out protesting loudly, but hopefully we will see a port built away from Port Lincoln. These things are bringing clashes to the fore as we exploit the incredible mineral wealth that we have.

I know the member for Bragg is a fan of the Fraser Institute of Canada, which had us No. 3, I think, on the top 40. We have slipped down a little bit, I think, since the resource rent tax debate.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Are they? They rate us very highly. I am very hopeful that the Anangu Pitjantjatjara lands will see mining exploration and development occur over time. The mineral potential in the APY lands, I am told, is extraordinary—quite significant. I think there is no better way to improve the quality of life, the services and job opportunities for the residents of the Anangu Pitjantjatjara lands than to give them real, serious jobs in well-run and well-developed mines, clearly sensitive to the spiritual beliefs of the Anangu and Pitjantjatjara people. Let us see how that develops. I know our agency is doing a lot of work to sensitively progress these opportunities.

As we see shale oil and shale gas become a commodity of value, there are new opportunities expanding in the Moomba gas fields, so it is a pretty exciting picture. We even have oil exploration off the coast and gas exploration underway. As the member for Schubert mentioned, a lot of these old mines that had died a death some years ago are now possibly becoming viable once again. I could go on because, as I am clearly demonstrating to the house, I am somewhat of a scholar when it comes to our state's mining industry.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: That's true, but I am a ripper on mining. An oil rig in the east Parklands would go all right, wouldn't it?

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Any parkland! We say that in jest, of course. At this point, I thank all members for listening to my expert contribution.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: The opposition supports the amendments as tabled. If that is noted as read, I will not repeat it on each amendment.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I move:

Page 7—

Lines 37 to 39—Delete subparagraph (i)

Line 40—Delete 'the adverse' and substitute 'any adverse'

Not wanting to 'show off', as the member for Bragg clearly doesn't, we do not want to perhaps overdo our intimate knowledge of all things mining with the house. We will get on with the job.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 8 to 44 passed.

Clause 45.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I move:

Page 29—

Line 29—After 'this section' insert 'if the court considers it to be just and appropriate in the circumstances of the particular case'

Line 33—After 'compensation' insert 'after taking into account (to such extent as the court considers appropriate) any compensation or other amounts that have been paid to the owner under the other provisions of this act'

Page 30, after line 2—Insert:

(3) This section does not apply in relation to an exploration licence.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (46 to 77), schedules 1 and 2, and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Federal/State Relations, Minister for Defence Industries) (16:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I might pick up where I left off. As the third reading is about how the bill comes out of committee, there is quite significant scope for me to further inform the house on matters. I have a feeling that there would be a contest between the member for Bragg and the member for Bright with the death stare. At this point, Madam Chair, I will take those two stares into account and move that the bill be read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.