Fracking

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (15:09): My supplementary question to the minister is: does the minister agree with the Department of State Development, which submitted to the parliament's Natural Resources Committee that fracking for gas should not occur if community concerns are not adequately addressed?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (15:10): Again, that question needs to be unravelled slightly. Do I decide who gets to fracture stimulate or not? No, I do not.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, I do not. What I do is I delegate that decision-making process to my independent experts, who have scientific backgrounds, who make an assessment based on the fundamental principle which we have set as a government, and that is to do no harm to the natural environment. Unless a proponent can establish that they will do no harm to the natural environment, they will not be granted a licence.

I also concur with the agency that you need to have broad political consensual support from the community because without it you won't have a prosperous industry; you won't be able to. This is the tough question for us as legislators. We know that there is this groundswell of movement of people who are being, quite frankly, I think unfairly influenced by people outside this state for their own political means to try and stop the fossil fuel industry completely in this state who are using the argument about landholding—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Lock the Gate is not a left-wing movement. Lock the Gate is a right-wing movement—let's be very clear about that. We can either kowtow to them or we can use them for our own political partisan benefits, like I think we have seen in Victoria where first we had the former Napthine government put a moratorium and a ban on unconventional and conventional gas and that was then followed on by the Andrews government, or we can speak the truth to our constituents and tell them the benefits of mining in South Australia. There are members in this house who want to speak the truth to our constituents and there are members who just want to get elected.

I submit that the best thing for South Australia is that we have a bipartisan approach to this industry, that we go out and we talk to communities about the benefit of oil and gas mining. Let's be very clear that in the South-East, where there is no social licence, one of the largest employers in the South-East is Kimberly-Clark. Without gas, they don't operate. We have vast reserves in the Otway Basin that we can unlock for Kimberly-Clark to go out and employ more of their sons and daughters to stay in the South-East but unfortunately, because of outside influences, we have lost that social licence.

What is incumbent on the local members and us as a parliament is to go out and re-earn that social licence. I don't believe there is anyone in this room who believes that we can't undertake these activities safely if we had independent experts in the science guiding us along the way. Of course, the easy option is to get up an election campaign and say, 'Vote for me. I'll stop this. Vote for me and your hens will continue to lay. Vote for me and fracture stimulation will never occur again. Vote for me and I'll conduct an independent inquiry into fracture stimulation.'

This industry employs thousands of people in this state, pays millions and millions of dollars in royalties that has helped grow this state. In fact, it wasn't us who started this industry: it was members opposite—it was their heritage. I would defend this industry because it's a good industry. It employs South Australians, it creates wealth and oil and gas are the building blocks of our economy. So, the cheap political points that the shadow minister wants to score don't serve him well—in fact, they demean him.

I know that there are members opposite who go to the Norwood group. I know that there are members opposite who are embarrassed by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister's views on these issues. I will stand up for this industry where members opposite won't.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order: the question was whether the minister agrees with his department, and I believe he is debating the question.

The SPEAKER: I think that the question was phrased in a way that gave the minister a lot of scope, and he took it to the limit.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: I just asked if he agreed with his department.

The SPEAKER: Yes, and perhaps he—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Newland is warned and I agree with him. The member for Morphett.