Quarry Sites

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (14:48): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Can the minister inform the house about the importance of using the highest quality road-making material on our network? Mr Speaker, with your leave and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

Mr McBRIDE: Road metal needs to meet national standards for the longevity of our road network and for insurance purposes. There are quarries in my electorate that have high-quality material available that are not being used.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (14:48): I thank the honourable member for his question and his persistence on behalf of his constituents. Given the member's explanation, I suppose what he's saying is that there are unused quarries within his community, and it's a follow-up really from yesterday's question where I think I did not satisfy his inquiry. It's a matter that goes not only across my agency of infrastructure and transport but also energy and mining, and I did undertake some advice.

To Mount Monster, the understanding I have is that DIT used materials from this quarry in the seventies and eighties. Energy and mining has advised that there is a mineral claim in place over Mount Monster, and that it met the applicant in June of this year to discuss scoping requirements to inform possible lease applications. I am told—this is the advice I have—that the location faces environmental challenges, including a commonwealth EPBC referral, as there are listed flora and fauna species within and around the mineral area claim. The site is also located within the Mount Monster Conservation Park, and any decision to grant a lease will require dual-minister approval.

A letter was issued to the applicant in September of this year, which advised of the process to progress a lease application. None of this is to say that there's any gap or impediment, but there are hurdles that this applicant will have to overcome, which is appropriate. I am happy to facilitate further meetings between my department and the proponent, and the local member, about the process of obtaining lease applications but, obviously, it would be done through an independent and rigorous process.

In relation to the other quarry, Papineau Rocks quarry, it's a fully permitted hard-rock quarry. I am advised, based on production records, it is a small campaign-based operation, which has not yet had any reported production for the last two years. Should this site look to recommence a larger production area, I am advised that the 2005 PEPR, which is in place—which is essentially the program of approved works—needs to be updated.

So we are not going to accept a 20-year-old PEPR and allow that to be the basis of a brand-new operation, which I think makes sense because we have to maintain social licence across the entire quarrying sector. If you start having carve-outs for one group or another because of the fierce advocacy of their local MP, as opposed to others, that would be unfair. As influential as you are, I just don't think that would be appropriate.

Again, I am happy to assist but the proponent would need to meet the independent requirements of my agency before it makes a recommendation to me. Once it has obtained that PEPR, it will then undertake another independent process with Infrastructure and Transport to become prequalified. There is no mechanism, and I would not participate in any mechanism where I bypassed any of these processes to give this organisation any favourable treatment. So I think that's appropriate, and that is the method, I think, which is best serving the state to monitor and administer these quarries.