Mining (Land Access Inquiry Recommendations) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 November 2022.)

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (10:50): I rise to close debate, I think, Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that the government is willing to have this vote on this bill after some three years of it being on the Notice Paper, and I am very much excited about it. It would be nice to have a little bit more enthusiasm for the result; nonetheless, it will be pleasing to see the votes cast on this bill after some years of languishing on the Notice Paper.

Members may recall that a select committee at the end of the last parliament formulated a series of recommendations that form the basis of this bill that has been before the parliament basically ever since. So there is a great deal of work that has gone into the construction of this bill, and I hope that work is rewarded with some positive votes when it comes time to cast them.

It was a topical issue at the time that select committee was formed, and it remains so today, not least because of the South-East rare earth minerals proposal that is currently being debated in and around some of those South-East towns. It continues to be an issue which finds itself in the public consciousness.

I for one am of the firm belief, and have been for quite some time, that it is an issue that merits proper reform of the scheme that governs land access currently. It seems like the South Australian scheme is heavily weighted in favour of the miner. It leaves a farmer with very little opportunity for success when it comes to disputing contested land access, and I think that balance could be reformed slightly to provide a greater opportunity for our incumbent land users to secure the future of their production and to secure the future of their businesses to ensure that their profitable land use, which is making significant contribution to our economy, is rewarded and is allowed to continue going into the future.

This has been on the agenda for quite some time, arguably since well before the select committee was formed but inarguably since that select committee was formed and started its work and this private member's bill found its way onto the Notice Paper. It has been there ever since. It remains an issue at home. There are roads that are being moved around to enable the digging of a hole around Ardrossan, so it is very much in the public consciousness at home as those roads are being moved and cars are being slowed down on the highway to allow for that to be done safely.

In the unlikely event this does get voted down—and I have severe optimism that it will not, but in the unlikely event that it does—I would like to think that this will continue to be an issue that will be investigated. There are other states that do this far better than we do it here in South Australia, and I would like to think that if it were voted down the government and opposition might commit to ensuring that the proper consideration is given to imitating the schemes that operate in Queensland and NSW and implementing them in South Australia.

In Queensland in particular, the Regional Planning Interests Act I think is a tremendous body of work that needs the weight of bureaucracy behind it to conduct the analysis of different land uses and different parts of the state to apportion boundaries to the state's strategic cropping land, as they call it up there, to ensure that the hurdles over which a mining company must jump to achieve a mining tenement proposal are significantly higher in the greater or more profitable parts of the state.

So even if this fails today I will be seeking assurances from both parties that work is done to implement a scheme similar to what we find in Queensland here in South Australia, because this is not an issue that I think will go away in the short to medium term. We have the rare earth minerals proposal in MacKillop, which I think will continue to ensure that we have this on our agenda; we have roads being moved in my electorate to allow for a mine to be built, which I think will continue to make sure that it is on the agenda; and I will do my best to make this an election issue and ensure a better outcome for our constituents.

The house divided on the second reading:

Ayes 5

Noes 36

Majority 31

AYES

NOES

Second reading thus negatived.