Statutes Amendment (Leading Practice in Mining) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (15:45): When we ran out of time just before the lunch break, I was saying that the opposition is well aware of the concerns out there with regard to this bill. We are aware of the support for it, too, from certain quarters, but we are aware that there is still a great deal of concern about it. The point I was trying to make when time ran out—and I will restate it because it is very important—is that I am not saying that the opposition is going to take every single concern that comes to us and automatically support it. We will take every single concern that comes to us, thoroughly consider it and then make a decision on whether it is something we support or do not support. I had gone into the reasons why that would be appropriate in the bulk of my speech before we had to take a break.

The other thing I would like to put on the record is that during the lunch break I got some information from a government public servant who has been deeply involved in the delivery of this bill. It relates to my comments about exempt land versus restricted land. I was explaining that I can understand the government's position of wanting to change the word from 'exempt' to 'restricted' because it never really meant exempt. It actually did mean restricted and that is the reason for the change. I also explained that that change has caused people a great deal of concern because when it said exempt, they felt they were getting less than exempt and so, if it is changed to restricted, they fear that they will then get less than restricted down the track.

The person sent a message to me that said that landowner submissions asked for that name change and now there has been an alleged change of sentiment from them. I just want to put that on the record. That was information that was shared with me, relevant to comments I made. I do appreciate the fact that that person gave that information to me. What that really means is that there is still a great deal of uncertainty out there. What that really means is that the consultation process is still ongoing. If that is the case, whether a few landowners or many of them or most of them asked for the change and then whether few or many or most have now expressed concern in that change, it really does make very clear that that is another example where the consultation has not come to an appropriate landing yet.

The opposition will not impede passage of the bill through the house or seek to amend it here. We will not cause any delay in the debate, but we will take the opportunity to learn more in the committee stage of the debate. We will not oppose the bill in this house and we will use the time between the houses, the information gained here in committee, the outcomes of the public consultation sessions that the government is still running for another two weeks, the feedback from stakeholders and other information to determine whether we will support, oppose or seek to amend the bill in the upper house. The government has even filed amendments of its own since presenting the bill to parliament, which is a clear sign that their work on the bill is not complete and there may even be more amendments to come from the government.

I want the potential benefits of this bill to be made available to all stakeholders as soon as possible, but I also want to be sure that the bill is as good as possible for all stakeholders and, given that most amendments the opposition moves are rejected by the government in this house, we will finalise our position between the houses. The opposition will not oppose the passage of this bill in this debate in this house. We will allow a vote to go ahead at the completion of the debate, including the committee stage, and reserve our right to make changes, as I said, between the houses.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (15:50): I rise today to support this particular bill and the review process that has underpinned the bill coming before the parliament. There is a lot more work to be done. There will be other bills before the parliament before this process has finished. I guess by the time it comes to the parliament it is a bit like an iceberg: the amendment bills are just the tip of the enormous amount of work that has been done out in the community with a whole range of groups. It has been a very comprehensive consultation process and, as the member for Stuart has indicated, that process has not come to an end as a raft of other issues still have to be explored and a conclusion in one form or another must be reached before coming to this house.

What the process does is bring South Australia's mineral legislation into step with modern community and environmental expectations by identifying amendments that will bring about more open and transparent community consultation processes, increase environmental protections and modernise application processes to promote investment and job creation in our regional communities.

The value of the minerals sector to South Australia, and the incredibly significant potential for growth that exists in that sector, has been stated, but is probably worth repeating. Last year, we saw $170 million spent on exploration in our state. The production surrounding the minerals sector came in at something like $5.2 billion. The royalties generated were $208 million for the state and for the people of South Australia and exports represented $3.8 billion of our state's overall export. Of course, one of the really important elements is the jobs that are generated, with over 10,000 direct jobs as a result of the mining industry in South Australia. That does not include the indirect jobs, so we are probably looking at 20,000 plus jobs.

The member for Stuart has talked about the agricultural industry and the tension that sometimes exists between mining and agriculture. As in a lot of things involving people of good faith, sound negotiation can often resolve all sorts of issues that we face. As members opposite well know, and as we on this side know as well, the agricultural industry has been incredibly important for the state. It is one of the foundational building blocks, if not the original foundational building block of our state, and it has gone on to make a massive contribution.

The $3.8 billion in exports that the mineral industry generated last year for South Australia is roughly matched by the $3.8 billion in exports by the agricultural sector. The wine industry, which to me is an agricultural industry, a horticultural industry, is separated from that $3.8 billion, but it adds another $1.8 billion in its own right. I am not quite sure why we do that; maybe some other people can tell us. So that sector is a massive contributor to the wellbeing of our state.

I welcome the comprehensive community engagement in relation to this legislation. I am advised that the government has engaged over 70 organisations and 500 individuals in over 40 regional community and open-house meetings. It was good to see that of those meetings, only three of them occurred in the city. The rest were out in regional South Australia. When I look at my own electorate of Giles, the mining industry makes an enormous contribution. The mining industry and resource processing is by far the biggest contributor to the wellbeing of the seat of Giles, and it makes a massive contribution to the state.

That is not to say I do not have farming country. I obviously have extensive pastoral land in the electorate of Giles, and there is even some cropping land around Kimba and Quorn, but overwhelmingly it is mining and some of the value-adding that happens to that mining which makes the massive contribution. We just have to look at what is happening at the moment with the $600 million up at Olympic Dam and the short-term contractor jobs that is generating. There are in excess of 1,200 jobs up at Olympic Dam at the moment as part of the refurbishment of plants and the mine extension.

Ultimately, the southern mining operation is going to lead to a significant number of ongoing jobs—in all probability, in excess of 500, and I have heard of figures of potentially up to 1,000 additional jobs. That is a major turnaround for Olympic Dam. It was an exciting day when OZ Minerals gave the green light to Carrapateena, with over 1,000 jobs associated with that particular development—the largest undeveloped copper resource in the country. What is particularly interesting about that copper resource is that, just to the north of it, there are two other significant copper resources. I am informed that some of them might actually have higher grades than Carrapateena.

There is some additional activity by another company proposing a fairly extensive drilling campaign in that broad region because they believe there is another sleeping giant there—another potential Olympic Dam. When you go to the front bar of the Andamooka Hotel and you have a few beers and speak to some of the people heavily involved in the mining industry—I do not know whether this is speculative or whether it is because they have had a few drinks—they start to talk about South Australia in a way that is just incredibly positive, just in relation to copper alone. They believe that northern part of our state, and coming down from that, we might well be in one of the world's great copper provinces.

It is really fascinating to say this in this particular chamber, which was built on copper wealth in the century before last. We might actually be revisiting, on a far vaster scale, those sorts of opportunities. The really interesting thing about that is, with the electrification of so much in our lives, with vehicle fleets and a raft of other things happening with renewables, along with mobile and stationary batteries, the demand for copper is going to increase significantly. We do know that not many major deposits are being found, and when it comes to some of those really extensive copper deposits in Chile, the grades are going down.

If you look at somewhere like Olympic Dam, with the extension into the southern areas, the grades are going up. So just in relation to copper, South Australia is potentially going to be in a very exciting position. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.