ROXBY DOWNS (INDENTURE RATIFICATION) (AMENDMENT OF INDENTURE) AMENDMENT BILL

Referred to Select Committee

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. A. Koutsantonis:

That the report of the Select Committee on the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) (Amendment of Indenture) Amendment Bill be noted.

(Continued from 8 November 2011.)

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (12:06): I rise today to speak to the report of the Select Committee on the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) (Amendment of Indenture) Amendment Bill, and I thank the house for the opportunity to make a few comments. First, in doing so, I acknowledge the excellent speech given last night by my deputy, the member for MacKillop. I did attend for some, at least, of his speech and I listened to quite a bit more, but he dealt with a lot of the details of the process which we on this side of the house have been through, and I do not intend to repeat that but simply say that it is important to understand that we on this side have put considerable effort into ensuring that we have done a comprehensive due diligence on this bill. Indeed, I would venture to suggest that we on this side are far better informed about this project and this bill than the majority of those who sit opposite.

I also acknowledge the assistance in that due diligence process from a variety of sources. First, and most obviously of course, are those members of the government's Olympic Dam task force, which was set up some years ago specifically to deal with this project on behalf of the government, and also BHP. I specifically mention Dean Dalla Valle and the team that works with him, in particular, Kym Winter-Dewhirst, Leah Grantham and Steve Green. They have been very available to us over a period of some years now and we have had extensive briefings from them on an ongoing basis and that has positioned us well to understand exactly what this project involves. They have been very forthcoming and cooperative in helping us come to grips with this process and the project itself.

It was important for us that we seek information and understanding not just from those two parties but also from a range of perspectives because the two parties involved in the indenture negotiations both have a vested interest in persuading us that the agreement they have brokered is a good one. We actually went beyond those two groups, and I do not intend to name the people we have spoken to, as I do not want to cause them any embarrassment or harm in any prospects of future business with the government of this state. I especially do not want to name the people in South Australia. Suffice to say that we on this side, and I in person, have spoken to people across the country, from Perth to the eastern seaboard, in seeking to ensure a sufficient understanding of this project—the EIS, the indenture, the ratification bill—and how it compares to other mining projects throughout the country so that we feel confident that we do know what we are talking about.

What I want to do today is to look at the bigger picture at South Australia's place in the scheme of things. I want to look at why we reached the conclusion that the support for this project proceeding now—and by now I mean forthwith, as soon as practicable—was really the only choice for South Australia and why we therefore chose unanimously to support the ratification bill without amendment and without delay. Can I say, Madam Speaker, that this somewhat unlike the behaviour of those on the Labor side who played politics so extensively with the original decision in 1982.

It is unfortunate that so many people have forgotten that this initial project was in jeopardy until Norm Foster from Labor crossed the floor to allow it to pass and that Mike Rann was a member of Labor's anti-uranium nuclear hazards committee. He famously coined that phrase about Olympic Dam's project that it would be 'a mirage in the desert'. I can say that it has been galling to see him stand in this parliament on a number of occasions deriding those who might scoff at the project as 'a mirage and desert' knowing that most of those hearing him were not aware of his strident opposition to the project from its outset.

So where are we in the scheme of things? I want to look firstly at the world situation at present. This very week, as it happens, we are seeing the demise of two European leaders: George Papandreou in Greece and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. Why? In both cases because of the economic fragility of their governments. The Greek government has been offered a bailout, a package that is subject to them agreeing to certain austerity measures involving significant cost-cutting including actual reductions to the pay of the entire public sector, something we have never seen here and something which is understandably unpopular with the public servants who feel that they are being made to pay the price for bad government over a period of years.

As unpopular it might be, it is absolutely essential that the bailout conditions be implemented. I remember being impressed by a speech given by Papandreou to the EU about 18 months ago in which he basically said, 'I'll never be re-elected because the decisions I will have to make will be so unpopular that no-one will ever vote for me again, but for the sake of my country I have to make those decisions.'

I must confess that I have been a little puzzled over the last couple of weeks with Mr Papandreou's decision or desire to hold a referendum, but I think sometimes from a distance we do not get all the information to enable us to understand what is really going on. Suffice to say that, having survived that no-confidence motion last Saturday our time (and I was watching the telly as the votes were coming through) and survived it in the end reasonably comfortably, Mr Papandreou seems resigned to giving up his leadership in the greater good of seeing the necessary steps taken for this bailout to proceed.

Even just today it seems that Silvio Berlusconi will lose the Italian presidency, again over the monetary crisis, only Italy's economy is six times the size of Greece's. I am sure everyone on this side of the house at least has heard that phrase of 'too big to bail, too big to fail', and that is the dilemma facing the European Union at the moment as we speak, because everything is on the brink. They are literally, in Europe, on the brink. It may pull back from the brink, we do not know, but given that Portugal, Ireland, Spain and others are also in difficulty, it would be fair to say, I think, that we indeed live in uncertain times.

Formerly, of course, the USA was a powerhouse, so we nevertheless, in spite of what would be happening, would feel confident, but the USA this week remains in a difficult position also, with unemployment having marginally improved to something like 9 per cent. That is almost one in 10 people unemployed in the US. Their economy has been flatlining for too long.

It is then, in my view, a happy circumstance that for a number of years Australians have been increasingly looking to our own region and particularly to the emerging powerhouse economies of India and China for our economic future. I have not yet travelled to either of those places, but I have certainly encouraged a number of my colleagues to do so, and they invariably return 'blown away'( to use the vernacular) by what they have seen.

According to a recent presentation by the Fortescue Metals Group, approaching the year 2020 China is planning to build around 20 cities every year—20 cities every year! China is increasing its rail network over the next nine years by 60,000 kilometres. If I can put that into some perspective, the total rail network in Australia is 40,000 kilometres. China is planning to increase it by that and half that again in the next nine years. It is just extraordinary.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: It is. In fact, according to Fortescue's, by the year 2020 China's steel consumption could reach 1 billion tonnes per annum. I saw a program on Dateline a few months ago about the new superfast rail they are going to have—I think it was between Shanghai and Beijing. It was talking about this rail network and how fast it is evolving and they reckoned that within a very short number of years China will have more rail than the rest of the world combined. That is extraordinary. By next year India is expected to become the third-largest steel consumer after China and the US.

What does all this mean for Australia? We happen to live in a sparsely-occupied continent, almost all of us clustered around our major cities and the coastal belt. We have clean, green agricultural land capable of producing far more than we need for ourselves—although we are clearly no longer home on the sheep's back. We have oceans surrounding us which we are already capable of harvesting sustainably. Indeed, we are doing just that and at great benefit to us in terms of, particularly from Port Lincoln, our tuna harvesting going to Japan.

We have highly developed manufacturing capacity, about which I will say more in a moment, and, incidentally, in the midst of it all, we have vast areas of largely unoccupied, largely unviable or marginal land (agriculturally speaking) but land that we now know happens to be extraordinarily rich in the very things the emerging world needs: in our state especially, copper, uranium, gold, silver and zinc.

I just want to sidetrack for a moment to reflect on our manufacturing sector. I recently met the notorious Bob Katter. Not surprisingly, we did not see eye to eye, and that became obvious within a very few minutes of our meeting. Mr Katter's view was that 'manufacturing in this country is stuffed'. I take a different view. In this state, according to ABS figures for 2009-10, manufacturing still accounts for 11.6 per cent of our economy, compared to mining which, on those same figures in that same year 2009-10, was at 3.8 per cent.

We do some amazing things in this state in manufacturing. Look at Codan—I am sure everyone here is familiar with Codan which has been going for more than 50 years, but people do not realise, when they look at television and see United Nations vehicles where, on the front of every one of those vehicles is a big box with a great big aerial on it, that it is made in Campbelltown by a company that has been manufacturing here, sitting in a quiet suburban street, succeeding in not only making every one of those aerials to go on those UN vehicles, but also—

Mr Griffiths: For 52 years.

Mrs REDMOND: For 52 years, the member for Goyder tells me. I have their book about the first 50 years—but they also have the biggest metal-detecting business in the world. They manufacture more metal detectors than anyone else in the world—and better. That is where we are good.

One can look at Osmoflo at Burton—and a number of us have been to visit Osmoflo at Burton. Its name is not familiar in this state but it is familiar throughout the Middle East because of what it does: it makes desalination plants for mining companies right throughout the Middle East. They are designed in Burton, they are built into containers in Burton and they are shipped overseas. And what's more, in Burton, from a computer they run the watering system for the water that waters the golf course at the Hong Kong Jockey Club—from Burton in Adelaide.

Last Friday night I was at the wonderful celebration of Advantage SA (which used to be called SA Great) for the Young South Australian of the Year, but I want to talk for a moment about the South Australian of the Year, Frank Seeley, and his wonderful company which produces air conditioners. They now have this wonderful new air conditioning system, and I will be going down to see it in the next few weeks. It is so clever that it promises to use, I think, 80 per cent less energy than the air conditioning systems we have going today—80 per cent less energy; that is extraordinary. Frank Seeley gave a wonderful speech, and one of his key messages was that we need to innovate, and that is exactly what we are good at doing in this country.

Indeed, can I just say, before I stop talking about manufacturing, that the function at which I met Bob Katter was actually the launch of a new barbecue by another local company, Heatlies. Heatlies has a thing called the Island Gourmet Barbecue. It was a pretty big-ticket launch of this new barbecue: they had Bob Katter, Nick Xenophon, me and David Ridgway at the launch; that is why I got into the argument. This barbecue is so clever because it gives a very even heat, and they use it in the defence force so that they can cook for lots and lots of people.

We are smart, innovative manufacturers in this state, and I believe that manufacturing has a bright future here. Indeed, I think that our growth in both the mining and defence industries will inevitably mean an even more successful manufacturing sector in this state because we are clever, we are able to produce the best in the world. We just do not talk about it enough, and I believe we need to do that. So, here we are, on the brink of a new era, one in which I believe we are going to see a rebalancing of the world economies. By sheer good fortune, this state is poised to take advantage.

We are being asked to share in the future by allowing one of the biggest companies in the world to exploit some of the vast resources which have lain dormant and buried for millennia. The question before us is: should we say, 'No; there is too much risk, there is too much uncertainty, we cannot be absolutely certain that this is absolutely the best deal that we could ever have done, we do not know what environmental imperatives there might be in 100 years, 45 years is too long to commit to a fixed royalty', or any of 100 other matters that might not be answered with absolute certainty; or do we say instead, 'Here's an opportunity for this state'?

It may not be perfect. Indeed, it almost certainly is not perfect, but, given what we know today, we have done our best to ensure that we have put in place appropriate and reasonable safeguards and protections for the environment now and into the future, that we have entered into a deal that fairly balances the rights of a company to pursue its lawful objectives with the rights of our citizens to benefit from the sale to that company of a state resource, and that we as the representatives of those citizens have not given away our rights but have fairly negotiated an outcome which we believe is going to benefit all South Australians now and into the future.

I am satisfied, and my party is unanimous in its agreement with this, that the latter is the only option. So, I have much pleasure in indicating my support, and it has already been indicated on behalf of the party. This project, in our view, must go ahead. I think the people who need to be acknowledged are indeed the Liberals of 1982 who got the project off the ground in the first place. I thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (12:23): From the outset, I need to advise the house that my wife is a shareholder in BHP Billiton, so I just need to put that on the record before I start my—

Members interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No, there is no indenture in relation to that. I just wanted to put on the record that my dear wife is a holder of some shares in BHP Billiton. I certainly join with my colleagues, particularly on this side of the house, in supporting the indenture and supporting the legislation. I was very pleased to attend the three separate briefings that were provided to the members of the opposition at the beginning of last week.

There were three separate briefings: one from the EPA—that side of government. There was one from the Olympic Dam task force and Dr Paul Heithersay and some other high-ranking officials were there to provide some information and answer questions. The third briefing was from the senior executives from BHP Billiton themselves.

I have to say that, over my roughly 10 years in this place, I have attended quite a number of briefings, but I really think that this was one of the most interesting and informative briefings I have had the pleasure of being involved in, if not the most interesting and informative briefings I have attended.

Obviously, there were different perspectives from each one of those three separate briefings. Different information was provided from those three different groups—the EPA, the Olympic Dam task force and BHP Billiton itself—but really they all came to the one conclusion, and that is that the expansion of Olympic Dam has to be approved and it has to proceed. As I have said, there were different perspectives, different advice and lots of questions asked and answered but, really, they all came to the one conclusion, and that was the expansion has to be approved and it has to be proceeded with.

As the house has previously been advised, Mr Dean Dalla Valle, a senior executive of BHP Billiton, was, I guess, one of the more senior executives at the briefing. There was also Steve Green, Kym Winter-Dewhirst and another senior executive whose name I do not recall, but that gentleman was involved in the financial side of the process. They are very high-level executives, who are obviously extremely aware of all the issues pertaining to the whole matter of the Olympic Dam expansion.

From memory, about this time last year, the shadow cabinet and the Liberal Parliamentary Party visited Roxby Downs, the Olympic Dam site. We had some briefings from Mr Steve Green and some other representatives from BHP Billiton. We went on a bus tour to inspect the site, and I have to say that it was very impressive. There was this vast expanse of station country—a massive expanse of broadacre, open grazing country—and, in the middle of it, there was this huge plant, this huge infrastructure construct, where the mining operation takes place. It just looms out of the desert; out in the middle of nowhere, basically.

I would not go to the extent of saying that it is breathtaking, but it is an interesting phenomena. As you drive up to it, it appears on the horizon and looms larger and larger as you travel towards it. I guess there are some things you experience in your life that you do not forget in a hurry, and I think that going out there and inspecting the site is one of the things I will not forget in a hurry.

I have a reasonable understanding of the history of the development of this mine, which started taking place in the early 1980s—and a lot of other members in the house, particularly yesterday, spoke about that. I have a pretty good understanding of the history because a close relative of mine had been actively involved in it.

Mr Venning: How close? Name him.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: My father, actually, was the person that was actively involved in that process, being the then minister for mines and energy. So, I have a pretty good understanding and a pretty good recollection of what took place back in the early 1980s when the then Liberal government was endeavouring to develop this mine.

I know that the Labor party and people closely associated with the Labor party did everything within their capabilities to scuttle their project. They did absolutely everything they could in influencing parts of the media at that time, protest groups—you name it. They tried to whip up as much opposition as they possibly could to scuttle this project. If it had not been for the strength of the then Liberal government to see this issue through and to meet the challenges, I do not think we may be here this week debating this particular legislation.

I remember on Christmas Day at our family home that my father was called to do a media interview on the issue. That was the extent of the opposition that was thrown at the then Liberal government and the extent that the opponents were prepared to go to to convince the media to have my father do a media interview on Christmas Day. I remember the television cameras coming up and setting up on our driveway.

Mr Pederick: Unbelievable.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes. I think I have covered that issue enough. The member for Davenport highlighted some very important points. He made some key points in his contribution yesterday, that Liberal governments both here in this state and nationally are the ones that have made what we call game changing decisions. Liberal governments have been responsible for the greatest shift in the economic development and the financial management both of this state and of the nation. I point to three things, and the member for Davenport spoke about these yesterday.

They are the development of the Olympic Dam project in the early 1980s, the long-term lease of our electricity utilities in the latter years of the previous Liberal government and the introduction of the GST by the previous Howard government. They are three key policy points that previous Liberal governments both here in the state and in the nation have made that I think have been responsible for the greatest shift in economic development and financial management.

As we all know—and even on the other side of the house I think there is agreement to this—the long-term leasing of our electricity utilities and introducing the GST have been the two policy initiatives that have seen the AAA credit rating restored to South Australia's finances. Without that, I know that we would not have had the AAA credit rating restored in the time frame that we have seen.

We are dealing with some of the key elements of this new indenture, together with the select committee report, in the house at the moment. Some of the key elements are:

an expansion of the special mining lease, with the right for the company to have the lease area converted to freehold title;

provision for land at Port Bonython to allow for the construction of a desalination plant and easements to allow for inlet and outlet pipes to the sea, with a corridor for transfer pipes between the plant and Olympic Dam;

provision for a range of options for the supply of electricity, including a new power station at or near Port Augusta or Olympic Dam, a corridor for a new power line and to provide for a new gas pipeline between Olympic Dam and the Adelaide-Moomba pipeline;

provision of land to construct a workers village approximately halfway between the current Roxby Downs township and Andamooka, to be known as Hiltaba. This construction village will house up to 10,000 workers during the lengthy construction phase;

provision for access to land to construct an airport and related facilities;

provision for the construction of a new railway line between Pimba and Olympic Dam;

provision for a barge unloading facility near the head of the Spencer Gulf, adjacent to Port Augusta, with associated corridors for the transport of equipment;

provision for a one-stop shop wherein the company can make all applications for approvals through the indenture minister, excluding environmental authorisations;

provision for environmental authorisations to be made to the EPA, with provision for the establishment of an environmental management program and for the operation of oversight of such a program;

provision for the company to develop an industry and workforce participation plan to ensure that South Australian workers and businesses have opportunities which are maximised;

provision for normalisation of the town of Roxby Downs; that is, for it to cease to be an administered township and to become a recognised local government area with elections, if the population reaches 9,000 and at the minister's discretion. As the shadow minister for state/local government relations, I certainly think that is an important issue that should be included and needs to be acknowledged; and

provision for a fixed royalty regime for a period of 45 years.

I fully understand that there have been a lot of negotiations, discussions and debate behind closed doors. Yesterday, in his contribution, the member for Port Adelaide gave quite a good overview (some history and background information) in relation to those matters. I know that the shadow minister for minerals development also gave an overview of those discussions.

In relation to the desalination plant, I understand there has been some considerable discussion and debate and questions raised in relation to that desalination plant. I have seen some modelling done on it. There has been a lot of consultation in relation to the desalination plant. One of the main points to make is that if, for whatever reason, the performance of that desalination plant is not meeting the required standards, it can actually be shut down. My understanding is that there are two water sources for the Olympic Dam mining project: the Great Artesian Basin and the new desalination plant, and that a reserve of water is to be held at all times in case there is an issue with the desalination plant performance.

We all know that, in relation to the development of electricity infrastructure, the Hiltaba workers' village, the new airport that is to be built and the new railway and port facilities, we will see significant development of infrastructure taking place, because what we are discussing and debating here relates to the largest open-cut mine in the world, and that is something we should all be proud of—not just as legislators at this time but all the South Australian community.

I know that there are some opponents to it. I have read, heard and listened to political opponents. The Greens party does not support the mining of uranium. I remember in past years all the protests that took place. When the first semitrailers of the drums of yellowcake rolled out of the mine site, protestors were lining the roads and blocking the roads, and there were police escorts to bring out the road transports. I remember all that, but now that has all basically faded away to nothing. However, the Greens party is looking to reignite debate. They are happy for other minerals to be extracted, refined and sold but not uranium, and the vast majority of us certainly do not share that view.

In conclusion, I want to say that, as an elected member of this place, I am actually pleased to be part of a parliament that will see the passage of this legislation result in this significant level of development, and, as a consequence, the economic benefit not only for this state but for the whole nation.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:42): I rise today to support this historic indenture bill. I will not overlap with many of my colleagues and the concerns they have shown over their 20 minutes' worth of time on this indenture bill. Just briefly looking back in history, it all seems to have started back in 1982 through the Goldsworthy/Tonkin era, with much display from the government of today opposing it. I think it is outrageous that they are standing here, taking the credit for something today that we see, really, as a bipartisan approach.

I do remember that, back in the late 1980s, I went up to Roxby. At the time I was working at the Moomba oil and gas fields. Just going up to Roxby, I walked into the place and I looked around in amazement that it was just a big orange/grey dustbowl. Really, it was not inviting. It did not have anything that gave me any interest to want to stay. However, I was up there on a purpose. I went up there to install a large piece of pipework that was part of a water reticulation plant.

It was a 14-inch pipework project (a large schedule piece of pipe), but it was the initial starting process in what was the development of the Roxby Downs project, back in Western Mining's day. My reflection is coming from what was happening at Moomba. I should explain that Moomba is a processing plant. It is about processing raw gas. Also, it is a compression station to pump the condensate from there down to Port Bonython and also to pump gas to both Sydney and Adelaide.

My experience up at the processing plant was that it was just a huge opportunity for South Australia. Over time we have seen what Santos (and back then there was also Delhi Petroleum) offered the state. It is about what we, I hope, as a state, will embark on with the expansion of Roxby Downs. Looking at the opportunities up there, it has been a bit different.

I was given the opportunity to go out and hook up well sites that were then piped to compressor stations and pumped into Moomba. We found gas and we found condensate at a lot of those well sites, but they were being plugged. To my amazement, all that money and effort to find a deposit was being plugged. As a young fellow and a little naive about what was going on back then, it soon became a reality that it was about $10 a barrel at that time. Today, all those well sites have been well and truly exposed and they are being drawn on fairly heavily. That same barrel of oil is now worth about $90. Today we are seeing quite inflated commodity prices. That is a concern I have: that today's price is not necessarily a reflection of what will happen in 45 years' time.

I am an eternal optimist, and I think that it will work out for the best for everyone here in South Australia. More importantly, it will work out for the best for the next generation and the following generations. This mine will underpin our economy and it will give a future to a lot of South Australians. I emphasise that South Australians need to be the major beneficiary of this mine. The project up at Moomba—the oil and gas fields up there, particularly moving away from the Cooper Basin, up into the Jackson oil fields—was a huge economic driver, not only for the deposits found and the money that it generated, but for the jobs and the expertise that it created up there.

I have a lot of friends and colleagues that I used to work with up there who are still travelling the world with the expertise and experience they gained back then. They still live here in South Australia but they travel the world, taking their knowledge around but bringing back their large pay packets that the mining sector can generate over a very short space of time.

Last night I was having dinner with my children here at Parliament House. They were asking me what all the hoo-ha was about on the TV and radio regarding the Olympic Dam indenture bill. I explained to them that what we are experiencing over this week—and the coming week—will be something that will go down in history. It is about putting the wheels in motion so that this project can go forward and get underway to stimulate our economy—our ailing economy, I emphasise.

A lot of reliance has been put on what Olympic Dam will potentially do for this state. I would like to again give everyone that brief: that agriculture is underpinning South Australia's economy at the moment, not mining. Agriculture has been—

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Manufacturing is a much bigger employer, too.

Mr WHETSTONE: Indeed. As the member for Waite says, manufacturing is a huge contributor to our economy. We have to be mindful that, through the GST, through commodity prices, Olympic Dam will be a huge factor on our economic radar, but not the only economic factor. We cannot forget what agriculture has done for our economy; we cannot forget what manufacturing has done. Talking about manufacturing, I very proudly did my apprenticeship at GMH at Woodville. It gave me a great skill base, as I hope Olympic Dam will do for the new generations to come.

As I was saying, my children were quite in awe that this indenture bill will impact on not only them and their children, but potentially their grandchildren and even their great-grandchildren if the life of this mine is, as it has been reported, a 100-year operation.

I would also like to reflect on where Roxby is as a town today. As I understand it, we have about 4,000 people living up there. The majority of those people are working at the mine and, yes, they are receiving a very good remuneration package for what they do up there, but with the expansion it is about embracing what South Australia has to offer. Again, I emphasise that it is what South Australia has to offer.

BHP, being a huge player in the mining world, has a big picture, and their South Australian contribution is just a very small part of that big picture. That is another thing I show a little bit of a concern about because South Australia has to be given that consideration front and centre. We have the employment base here, we have a lot of industry base that can be of significant benefit to BHP and Olympic Dam, and BHP need to recognise that. They cannot just go out there and make decisions that will slap South Australia for the benefit of a short monetary income. It is about the big picture; it is about the 100-year plan.

Let's picture what could happen with the upgrade. There have been all sorts of figures that have been touted as to just how many people are going to be employed up there. I have done some calculations on the back of a stamp that show me that 20,000 people is not inconceivable as being part of not only the construction phase, the service phase and particularly getting the removal of the scab before they hit the deposits that they are looking for, but it is also about what the majority of those 20,000 people can do for South Australia.

As I have already said, being an eternal optimist, I would presume that all the due diligence (the impact on the environment, the impact on the sea) and the negotiations have been done here in South Australia between the government and BHP. It is all there in the best interests of South Australia and its people. But how will South Australia benefit, particularly the regions? For me, more importantly, how can the electorate of Chaffey be a partner in this expansion?

I am quite excited that I have had several meetings with BHP executives. They have agreed quite kindly to give their time and come up to the region and give us two days of their time, not only to brief the people of the electorate, but also to brief the RDAs and the council about how they might better prepare themselves for having some ownership and partnership in the expansion of Roxby Downs.

With a little bit of my experience, it is really not just about what the electorate can offer Olympic Dam. We look at what is happening in the Timor Sea, we look at what is happening in Western Australia with those huge iron ore deposits, we are now looking at what is happening on the eastern seaboard with coal seam gas. The list is endless of just how South Australia and the regions can benefit. Again, I emphasise the regions because a lot of the regions have a good skill base, a good work ethic, but they also have their communities with regional airports and infrastructure in place. The big players need to recognise that flying employment from overseas and interstate is not really in the best interests of the partnership between the mining company and the hosting state, which is South Australia.

I would like to think that BHP will embrace what the regions will offer the mining boom. They have said that they are going to come up for two days, brief the councils and the RDAs. They are going to have an open forum so that every person has the opportunity to come along and listen to whether they can be a part of the mining boom, whether they can complement the boom as it is over time, and just how we can better set ourselves up and position ourselves for being part of that expansion.

Again, we have businesses, and we have assets within the workplace in Chaffey that are ready to go and, as I said, we have our skill base within industry that can be a great partner. In particular, we have that advantage called regionalism, and that is what BHP is looking for. They are looking for the regionalism aspect which is living in a region and being able to work in an outback region.

Reflecting on my time working in a supervisory role in the Cooper Basin, and then in the Jackson oil fields, it is a very big adjustment for a young fellow or a young girl to come out of the city and to be plonked in the middle of the desert, being isolated, and working long hours in a very harsh environment. That is something that people in the regions are born and bred with. They have that culture.

Mr Pederick: Some get straight back on the plane.

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes, that's right. I used to run a gang up there and sometimes there were 30 and sometimes 60, but regularly we had to put people who had been there for a day or two back on the plane. They were in a frenzy; they were in a lather of froth and bubble because they just could not understand how anyone could work out in the desert, and work out in those harsh conditions, a place they couldn't perceive any human being actually working within.

Again, the regionalism aspect is something that I think—particularly in Chaffey and particularly in the regions of South Australia—can offer an advantage for BHP to come in and do the fly-in fly-out. Also, something that Chaffey needs to grapple with is: are we able to get some funding to upgrade the airport there? Obviously BHP is looking at a large workforce. It has been reported that they are going to fly 747 jumbo jets in and out of any airport where they can find an employment base. That is a huge exercise for any region, to have such an airport, with the planes coming in, being loaded up, and flying people in and flying people out. There is also the drive-in, drive-out exercise. But I think for the regions to be embraced fully, a fly-in, fly-out exercise is the best bet.

There are social issues with the fly-in, fly-out and, again, I reflect on my experience flying in and flying out, and it is not everyone's cup of tea. It puts pressure on marriages, it puts pressure on people's social skills, and it puts pressure on people's everyday means of dealing with what the world has to offer when they come back to their home town after being locked away for an extended period of time, working long hours in harsh conditions, and being totally focused on the job, and not having the comfort of a wife and family.

I would also like to applaud the bipartisan approach that the government and the opposition have shown to approve this indenture bill. The government, yes, but particularly the opposition leader, Isobel Redmond, and the deputy leader, Mitch Williams, who have come to the party room to inform and brief everyone on just what BHP had to offer, and to rally the party room, to unconditionally rally. I would like to seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00]