Natural Resources Committee: Unconventional Gas (Fracking) Final Report

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:15): I move:

That the 119^th report of the committee, entitled Inquiry into Unconventional Gas (Fracking) in the South-East of South Australia Final Report, be noted:

The Natural Resources Committee Inquiry into Unconventional Gas (Fracking) in the South-East of South Australia was referred by the Legislative Council to the committee on 19 November 2014 on the motion of the Hon. Mark Parnell MLC, as amended by the Hon. Tammy Franks MLC. Pursuant to section 16(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the committee has inquired into the potential risks and impacts in the use of hydraulic fracture stimulation (fracking) to produce gas in the South-East of South Australia, and in particular:

1. The risks of groundwater contamination;

2. The impacts upon landscape;

3. The effectiveness of existing legislation and regulation; and

4. The potential net economic outcomes to the region and the rest of the state.

After a public call for submissions, we received 178 written responses. We also heard from 66 witnesses. The committee took evidence from Santos, Beach Energy, Cooper Energy, Halliburton, the Department of State Development (DSD), the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME), the petroleum industry lobbyists APPEA, many business people and residents from the South-East and a wide range of expert witnesses from Australia and overseas. We also heard from the Hon. Thomas George, Deputy Speaker and member for Lismore in New South Wales.

The inquiry, one of many conducted on this subject by Australian parliaments in recent years, has attracted a high level of community interest since the committee began hearing evidence in December 2014. This interest has remained high throughout the two years of the inquiry, with frequent contact via email, telephone and postal mail received from members of the public, community groups and industry.

The committee undertook four fact-finding visits, comprising two visits to the South-East, one to Queensland and one to the Moomba gas fields in the Cooper Basin in South Australia. The South-East visits were to take evidence from local residents and businesses and to visit gas industry sites. We planned a third visit to the South-East, intending to visit Mount Gambier, but as there were no new witnesses who wanted to appear before us the visit did not proceed.

The extended visit to Queensland included the towns of Roma, Chinchilla, Dalby and Miles, as members sought to gain an appreciation of how the unconventional gas industry and agriculture might coexist and what community impacts might be expected. The Moomba visit was undertaken by a subset of the committee in order to view an unconventional gas well in development. An interim report, entitled Inquiry into Unconventional Gas (Fracking) Interim Report, was tabled 12 months ago, on 17 November 2015.

To add to the enormity of the task, the body of evidence the committee was considering increased over the course of the inquiry, as the unconventional gas industry in Australia and worldwide is being studied and reported on regularly. Adding further complexity to the committee's task has been the transition towards low and zero-carbon energy sources underway within global energy markets.

This change has been and will continue to be spurred on by the rapidly falling cost of renewables, especially solar and wind, and as the effects of climate change become more apparent and nations work towards decarbonising the global energy system. All these changes have important implications for the economics of unconventional gas development in Australia. To illustrate my point, I provide a list of just a few of the energy-related events that have taken place in the last 12 months:

1. The Leigh Creek coalmine was closed down in November 2015.

2. Domestic gas prices have more than doubled since completion of the gas hubs at Gladstone, linking Australia to world market prices.

3. March and April of this year saw the most widespread coral bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef as a result of sea-surface warming induced by climate change. New reports just in yesterday show even more widespread bleaching, with 67 per cent of corals dead in the worst hit northern section of the reef.

4. In May, the Port Augusta coal-fired power station was shut down.

5. BP announced on 10 October that it was withdrawing its plans for exploration drilling in the Great Australian Bight.

6. Global renewable energy capacity overtook coal on 25 October 2016.

7. Victoria banned on-shore unconventional gas development in October this year.

8. Earlier this year, the Hazelwood coal-fired power station in Victoria was scheduled for closure in March 2017.

9. Just a few weeks ago on 10 November, Australia ratified the Paris agreement of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, agreeing to work towards keeping global temperature rises within 2º Celsius.

10. On Friday last week, the former member for Giles and Speaker, now Whyalla's mayor, Lyn Breuer, was quoted in The Advertiser as saying that Adani's new 120-megawatt solar plant proposed for Whyalla would bring major benefits to the region. The solar project would be 'just the tip of the iceberg', said the current member for Giles.

All of this is in just 12 months and, according to a range of expert witnesses we heard from, the changes to the energy market will be permanent. Even the International Energy Agency, recognised among global energy analysts as being relatively conservative, described 2015 as a year of remarkable growth in renewables, offering two revealing statistics: first, about half a million solar panels were installed every day around the world last year and, secondly, in China, which accounted for about half the year's wind additions and 40 per cent of all renewable capacity increases, two wind turbines were installed every hour in 2015. All of this helps to give a sense of the context in which our inquiry was conducted.

As important as these developments are, however, what the committee has repeatedly come back to is the community at the centre of this inquiry and thus the question of social licence; namely, does the social licence to operate exist that would allow the development of an unconventional gas industry in the South-East of South Australia? Social licence was invoked in many submissions to the inquiry and by a number of witnesses appearing before the committee. The member for Mount Gambier, Mr Troy Bell MP, summed up social licence in his evidence to the committee:

The term 'social licence', or 'social licence to operate', generally refers to a local community's acceptance or approval of a project or a company's ongoing presence. It is usually informal and intangible, and is granted by the community based on the opinions and views of stakeholders, including local populations, aboriginal groups, and other interested parties. Due to this intangibility, it can be difficult to determine when social licence has been achieved for a project. Social licence may manifest in [many] ways, ranging from absence of opposition to vocal support or even advocacy, and these various levels of social licence (as well as, of course, the absence of social licence) may occur at the same time among different interested parties.

Under this definition, social licence is given by the local community and other stakeholders when a project has broad, ongoing social acceptance. Without proper community engagement, industry may find obtaining social licence more difficult than obtaining legal approvals.

After considering all the evidence available to it, particularly the definition of social licence provided by the member for Mount Gambier, the committee reached a position that social licence does not yet exist for the development of an unconventional gas industry in the South-East of South Australia. This was made starkly apparent by the widespread opposition we witnessed from the local community. We noted that opposition, in spite of there being a pre-existing gas industry in the South-East which had undoubtedly provided significant benefits for the community, including employment.

The vast majority of the submissions and representations the committee received were anti-fracking in the South-East. Essentially, the only submissions in favour of unconventional gas development were from companies and lobbyists engaged by or heavily involved with the oil and gas industry. None of the pro-fracking representations, written or verbal, came from representatives of the South-East.

The committee made an effort to understand, from the perspective of local people and businesses, what the economic benefits may be but, despite repeated invitations and approaches to bodies we felt might represent this aspect of the debate, there were no witnesses forthcoming. The committee was surprised that no regional representatives or businesses approached us to express support for the development of an unconventional gas industry in the region.

At the beginning of this inquiry the committee initially saw its task as recommending whether to frack or not to frack but, after two years, the NRC resolved that ultimate responsibility rests not with the committee but with industry, government and the community to decide in partnership. This inquiry has provided a forum for discussion and the committee has encouraged all stakeholders to have their say.

I wish to thank all those who gave up their time to assist the committee with its endeavour. From my experience in this place, our gallery was always full when we held hearings in Parliament House and certainly when we went out to the regions there was a crowd there as well, wanting to know about and wanting to listen to the evidence we had before us.

I would like to commend the current members of the committee: the Hon. Robert Brokenshire MLC, the Hon. John Dawkins MLC, the member for Napier, the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars MLC and the member for Flinders, as well as past members of the committee, the member for Kaurna and the member for Elder, for their contributions to this inquiry and to the report. All members have worked cooperatively on this report.

I would also like to extend my thanks to the member for Mount Gambier, the member for MacKillop, the member for Hammond and the Hon. Mark Parnell for their assistance with and interest in this inquiry. Finally, I would like to thank the committee staff, the executive officer Mr Patrick Dupont and the research officer Ms Barbara Coddington, for their amazing effort. I would particularly like to acknowledgement Ms Coddington's work over the past two years with this inquiry. I commend this report to the house.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:28): I rise with great pleasure to speak to the 119^th report of the Natural Resources Committee. As I have said before in this place, it is a committee I very much enjoy being a part of, and there is no doubt that this particular inquiry was the great task given to this committee for the past two years. Our interim report was tabled in this place just over 12 months ago and, finally, this week we have managed to table our final report.

The Natural Resources Committee's inquiry into unconventional gas, or fracking, in the South-East of South Australia was referred by the Legislative Council to the committee in November 2014. The committee has inquired into potential risks and impacts in the use of hydraulic fracture stimulation, otherwise known as fracking, to produce gas in the South-East of South Australia. This inquiry particularly related to the South-East of South Australia. It relates in particular to (1) the risks of groundwater contamination; (2) the impacts on the landscape; (3) the effectiveness of existing legislation and regulation; and (4) the potential net economic outcomes to the region and the rest of the state.

The committee's inquiry into unconventional gas has taken almost two years to complete. After the public call for submissions, we received 178 written responses. We also heard from 66 witnesses including a large contingent of local South-East residents and businesspeople, South-East local government representatives and members of parliament, including the member for Mount Gambier, the member for Hammond and the Hon. Mark Parnell MLC. Also, the member for MacKillop I think—

The Hon. S.W. Key: The member for MacKillop.

Mr TRELOAR: —provided a submission, yes. The committee heard from Santos, Beach Energy, the Department of State Development, the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy, petroleum industry lobbyists APPEA and a wide range of expert witnesses from Australia and overseas. In fact, on a couple of occasions, overseas witnesses were even skyped into a committee meeting. It is amazing what we can do with modern technology. Their evidence was greatly appreciated. The committee also conducted additional research including reviewing relevant reports, papers and media articles.

As the Presiding Member has already put to this assembly, this is of course just one of a number of inquiries that have occurred in jurisdictions around the world in relation to fracking. It has been very topical for a number of years now. The committee undertook four fact-finding visits, comprising two visits to the South-East of South Australia to take evidence, one visit to Queensland and one visit to the Moomba gas fields in the Cooper Basin of South Australia. The South-East visits were to take evidence from local residents and businesses and to visit gas industry sites.

The extended visit to Queensland included the towns of Roma, Chinchilla, Dalby and Miles as the committee sought to gain an appreciation of how unconventional gas industry and agriculture might coexist and what community impacts might be expected. Of course, that part of Queensland has undergone significant change and development in the gas industry. It was a prime opportunity for the committee to see how that interaction had occurred.

We heard from many witnesses and it is fair to say that we heard from those who supported it and those who did not. That is all part of the inquiry. I will come to the recommendations shortly, but the report talks a lot about social licence. It is difficult to define but the member for Mount Gambier in his evidence quoted from a paper that summed it up:

The term 'social licence' or 'social licence to operate' generally refers to a local community's acceptance or approval of a project or a company's ongoing presence. It is usually informal and intangible and is granted by a community based on the opinions and views of stakeholders [including local populations, Aboriginal groups and other interested parties]. Due to this intangibility, it can be difficult to determine when social licence has been achieved for a project. Social licence may manifest in a variety of ways ranging from absence of opposition to vocal support or even advocacy and these various levels of social licence may occur at the same time among different interested parties.

Under this definition, then, social licence is given by a local community and other stakeholders where a project has broad ongoing acceptance. Without proper community engagement, industry may find that obtaining a social licence to operate may prove more difficult than obtaining the legal licence to operate. Given that definition and recognising the intangibility, the very first recommendation of the committee states:

Without social licence, unconventional gas exploration/development should not proceed in the South East of South Australia. The committee found that social licence to explore/develop unconventional gas does not yet exist in the South East of South Australia.

Recommendation 2 states:

While the specific process of hydraulic fracturing or 'fracking' in deep shale, properly managed and regulated, is unlikely to pose significant risks to groundwater, other processes associated with unconventional gas extraction, including mid to long-term well integrity and surface spills, present risks that need to be properly considered and managed.

Recommendation 3 states:

A review of the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act 2000 and relevant regulations would be appropriate, with particular consideration given to:

defining terms such as 'consultation processes' and 'risk' to provide more clarity to the public and other stakeholders in relation to regulated activities;

the development and integration of formal guidelines for community engagement and consultation to assist with negotiation processes…

the perception of a conflicted regulator/promoter, and hence the role that other state agencies and departments, such as the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, the Environment Protection Agency and Primary Industries and Regions SA, might fulfil in managing aspects of exploration and development such as water use, community consultation, landowner rights and ongoing monitoring.

Recommendation 4 states:

The potential for disruption to landscape and local community in exploration, construction and production phases of unconventional gas development should be addressed in agreements with landholders, state and local government prior to any significant works occurring.

A very important recommendation, in my mind. Recommendation 5 states:

A definitive proposal for unconventional gas development in the South East of South Australia should be produced before any further consideration can be given to potential economic benefits. This would enable social, economic and environmental impact studies to be undertaken to collect baseline data and inform consultation and community engagement processes…

Recommendation 5 continues but, for the purposes of this morning, those who are interested in the recommendations can go onto the committee website and read them more fully. They are broad-ranging. I congratulate the committee on coming down to just five recommendations because, as we have said already this morning, we received an incredible amount of interest and a significant number of submissions. All in all, I am very pleased with the final report. The recommendations we have come up with form a piece of work we as a committee can be proud of.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the Presiding Member, the member for Ashford, who, in her own inimitable style, chairs this committee in a way that leaves everybody feeling comfortable and gives them surety that their presentation and their submissions have been heard and acknowledged. I also acknowledge Rob Brokenshire in the other place, John Dawkins in the other place and other committee members, Mr Jon Gee and Gerry Kandelaars, as well as Chris Picton and Annabel Digance, who have sat on the committee.

I particularly would like to thank our staff members who provide such fantastic support to this committee: Patrick Dupont and of course Ms Barbara Coddington. Barb was charged with collating and considering all the submissions and, in the end, producing this final report, which was no mean feat. We all knew that, ultimately, we had to table this report and we had in mind that it needed to be done by the end of this year. Barb, I am sure, was working some very late nights and very early mornings to get the report to this point. It is with pleasure that I speak to this report and support the work of the committee, and I look forward to next year.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (11:38): In my 10 minutes, I want to talk about economic vandalism and what that means to the people of South Australia.

Mr Williams: You can talk about Roxby Downs in 1980.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop is not in his place, and I would ask—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What a very good—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Just a moment. I would ask him not to interject.

Mr Bell: Kicked a couple of people out of your party, didn't you?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Mount Gambier not to interject as well. I am getting the book out, and you will not be here for question time if you are not careful. Treasurer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can I have my 30 seconds back? The member for MacKillop makes a very good point: what about Roxby Downs in 1982? I will concede that that was a poor decision of the then Labor opposition to oppose the beginning of the mining at Olympic Dam. I do not think there is a person in South Australia, other than extreme fringe groups, who still maintain that the position the Labor Party held at that time was the right one. I submit to you today—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mount Gambier is called to order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I submit to the house today that the position that the Liberal Party has taken is in line with that opposition to mining at Olympic Dam. Future generations will look back and think what a silly decision that was. There has been a bipartisan agreement in this state since the 1960s about energy independence, and that bipartisan agreement was started by Sir Thomas—

Mr BELL: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mount Gambier needs to have a really good point of order. What is it?

Mr BELL: I am wondering whether the Treasurer is going to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is it first?

Mr BELL: It is relevance, Deputy Speaker. Is the Treasurer going to address the report or is the Treasurer using this as an impromptu speech?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Mount Gambier!

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Everyone needs to take a deep breath. He has only just started his remarks. I will be warning you, and you will not be able to make a contribution if you are not careful. Everyone is entitled to hear the debate in silence. I will pull him up and the table will pull him up if we think it is not relevant. We do not need your help just at the moment. Treasurer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand the nervousness of members opposite when they are telling their base that they don't like them anymore, but I will say this: there has been a bipartisan agreement in this state on the extraction of gas for energy security for the nation. South Australia is interconnected with gas pipelines to nearly every major capital city in the country, excluding Perth and Tasmania. We have pipelines to Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Indeed, the first gas basin that we explored and produced gas from was in the South-East, the Otway Basin. It is the parent region where the oil and gas industry was first formulated. We have fracture stimulated in this state since the 1960s and we have done so safely.

Mr Bell interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mount Gambier.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand the member for Mount Gambier's anxiety about this—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

Mr Bell: There's no anxiety.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will call you to order and warn you if you are not careful. Treasurer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you. I understand the anxiety—

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This better be relevant and it better be pertinent and it better not be frivolous.

Mr PENGILLY: Well, it is relevance: it has nothing to do with the report, and the member for Mount Gambier is irrelevant to what the minister is talking about. We are completely off the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down. Treasurer.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand the anxiety of members opposite in their ability to try to frustrate a debate here because the industry is devastated by what they announced yesterday. It is fair to say that they are in shock because those who have been their traditional supporters have turned on them so violently.

Mr Bell: Which findings are you commenting on?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mount Gambier is warned for the first time.

Mr Pengilly: That's not fair.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you will be called to order as well.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The real impact of this is on jobs, of course, because there is a logical extension that people can make from the Leader of the Opposition's remarks. He says that fracture stimulation is unsafe. By saying that the extraction of gas is unsafe in the South-East, investors and people who run multinational—

Mr BELL: Point of order, Deputy Speaker, again on relevance: I do not understand which section of the report, which I have read, that comment is related to. Nowhere in the report is the Leader of the Opposition quoted as mentioning anything near what the Treasurer is now debating.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I am advised, this is the very beginning of his remarks. You have been up and down and he should get another two minutes. You will have your own time in a moment to say basically whatever you like. I understand your—

Mr Bell: So I can get up and speak about Kermit the Frog but it's got nothing to do with the report?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you keep defying the Chair, there will be consequences. If you have something to say, come and speak to the Clerk and we will handle it properly, but this is not going to be tolerated. Treasurer, back to the point.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I made my remarks about the gas industry. The gas industry is devastated by what they have seen as an attack on them, because the logical extension of the Leader of the Opposition's argument is that the extraction of gas in the South-East of our state is unsafe.

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, ma'am: debate. The report mentions nothing whatsoever about the Leader of the Opposition—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just say the number and sit down.

Mr PENGILLY: Bring him back to order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down. The ruling is: until he is given a chance to bring it back to the report, it is a bit hard to see where it is going. But if you keep standing up and stopping him, I will not be able to prevent him from interjecting when you start, because it is all about preventing quarrels on the floor. You have the standing orders to allow everyone to be able to speak in silence. If you have a problem, come and see the Clerk, but do not keep interrupting the debate. The Treasurer does need to bring it—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, I am talking about gas extraction, ma'am, and I will continue to talk about gas extraction. If gas extraction is unsafe in the South-East, then it is unsafe everywhere. It is not illogical for investors in South Australia to think that if the Leader of the Opposition can make this blanket announcement of a 10-year moratorium on the basis of no recommendation of the committee for a moratorium—in fact, the member for Mount Gambier, on the committee, recommended against a moratorium. He recommended either a ban or to allow its use.

If it is unsafe in the South-East of South Australia, therefore it is unsafe everywhere. If it is unsafe everywhere, investors need to know from the opposition right now if that will be the policy of their government if they are elected. Quite frankly, I think the damage they have now done to South Australia's reputation as an investment jurisdiction is dramatic. What they have actually said to the investment community across Australia and internationally is that, on the basis of no science and on the basis of a report that made no recommendation for a moratorium, they have implemented this ban on unconventional gas in the South-East. This is despite their own members on the committee saying that the opposite should occur and there should not be a moratorium.

Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition's remarks on radio today were that, even after a 10-year ban, he does not expect it to change and will maintain that moratorium in place. I have to say that this committee's report was all about understanding how to implement social licence. The Leader of the Opposition has not come up with a policy that says, 'Until we achieve social licence, there will be a moratorium.' He has simply said, 'Regardless of the social licence implications, there will be a 10-year ban.'

What happens, hypothetically, if in two years' time there is a gas shortage in South Australia, electricity prices are skyrocketing because there is not enough investment in oil and gas, and wells that can be extracted cheaply and efficiently in the Otway Basin, alongside the SEA Gas Pipeline which runs through the South-East, cannot be explored and cannot be extracted because of a ban? Why? The simple answer to why they have done this is not based on science; it is based on votes.

The NXT team in the federal election achieved a majority of votes in a number of booths in the South-East. Millicent and Millicent South received 56 and 52 per cent, and Mount Gambier achieved up to 60 per cent. That is what this is about. It is about two members of parliament who are terrified of losing their seats. In the chase for votes, they have abandoned principle and science. What about making South Australia the best jurisdiction in the world to invest in? What about supporting two of our most famous (and, quite frankly, hardworking) South Australian headquartered companies, Santos and Beach Energy? How about giving them every opportunity to succeed?

Instead, they are treated as if they are the enemy. They are treated as if they have done something wrong. What have they done wrong? They have invested billions into South Australia. They have employed thousands of South Australians. Make no mistake that this is a very simple formula for people to follow. The reason we have higher power prices in South Australia is that all our gas generation requires gas. Our thermal generation requires gas, and gas is not liquid in the market because the price of oil has plummeted. Because the price of oil has plummeted, the returns they are getting on gas are low. They have signed long-term contracts for export. That means the spot market in South Australia and nationally is high, but they do not have enough money to invest in new wells.

This decision yesterday by the opposition will dent even further their ability to invest. Quite frankly, I have to say this: where is the shadow minister? My job as the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy is to defend this industry. My job is to make sure that this industry operates efficiently, effectively and safely. What has happened now is that, on the basis of no recommendation, the shadow minister has decided on a ban, just a blanket ban, not to work through to rebuild social licence. There is no talk about trying to encourage the building up of social licence. It is just a ban that is going to cost jobs, investment and, quite frankly, it is going to hurt South Australia.

This is another decision that shows, in terms of economic management, that the opposition are lost at sea. Economic management is about making difficult decisions in the light of public perceptions. I believe that the vast silent majority of South Australians are sick and tired of special interests controlling our members of parliament. They are sick and tired of fringe groups like Lock the Gate—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I know the opposition want us—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am standing up.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If it keeps going like this, we will not be moving at all. The Treasurer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I note the opposition is clamouring for removing the curfew—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no need for that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —and I will be using that in my pamphlets. However—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you should talk. That is the pot calling the kettle black.

Mr Bell: You were talking about special interest groups controlling this state.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: All I am saying is that we base our decisions on science, not on the basis of a member terrified of losing his seat to an Independent, and we base our determinations on what we can do safely. All the opposition have done is make South Australia a less attractive place to invest in, and the shadow minister should resign.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:52): I would like to put on the record my thanks to the parliament's Natural Resources Committee for the work they have done on this issue. They have approached this topic, which is extremely challenging with regard to not only the science but also socially and politically, extremely openly, objectively and in a very forthright fashion. I would like to thank all members of the committee, their staff and the Chair in particular for the way they have gone about this work over the last two years. I would also like to thank people who provided submissions and came as witnesses to the committee. They provided the information that was required for the committee to do this work.

It is also important, of course, that I put on the record the fact that the things that the Treasurer, the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, has just said are largely untrue. He does everything he possibly can to play politics with this issue, and he is clearly now trying to use this issue as an excuse for the fact that he and his government have mismanaged our state's energy policy for the last 15 years at least. He is scrambling for excuses and he is trying to use the committee's work in this area as another excuse.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.