Question Time

MINERAL EXPLORATION

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:27): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Mineral Resources Development a question about mineral resource development.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: As we are seeing an increase in the value of commodities, often a lot of old mining sites around South Australia that were formerly uneconomical are now becoming economical, and many of them are in close proximity to Adelaide and existing rural and regional centres, and many are now in areas that we would class as high rainfall, high value, highly productive farming land, and the resources under the ground are of interest to mining companies.

With many of these farming properties, generations of blood, sweat and tears have gone into building them, and often those properties are higher in sentimental value than commercial value to the people who own them. In a document published in April 2008 entitled 'Guidelines for Landholders: Rights in relation to Mineral Exploration and Mining', on page 10 it states:

Usually as exploration is transitory and has a low impact activity on a person's land, and hence there is often less scope for compensation, however a landowner is entitled to seek compensation and if the parties cannot agree the Warden's Court shall decide the issue.

Often land is considered to be exempt, and categories of such land set out in section 9 of the Mining Act and which is relevant to private landowners can best be summarised as:

• Land that is lawfully and genuinely used as a yard, garden, cultivated field, plantation, orchard, vineyard or as an airfield.

• Land that is situated within 400 metres of a building or structure used as a place of residence.

• Land that is situated within 150 metres of a building or structure with a value of $200 or more used for an industrial or commercial purpose, or a spring... or reservoir.

In this document it goes on to ask, 'What does exempt mean?'. One would understand that all land in a high value farming area would be cultivated or within 400 metres of a structure used for a home or shed or within 150 metres of a fence or some structure of more than $200 value. The document states:

Exempt land status does not mean the landowner has a right of veto over exploration or mining activities on the land. It means however that the mining company cannot conduct any activities under their licence or lease unless and until the landowner has reached an agreement with the mining company regarding compensation and conditions to waive the exempt status of the land, or if the parties cannot agree, as the Warden's Court determines.

On page 13 of that document it goes on to say:

It is very rare for the Warden's Court not to waive the exempt status of land...as it has generally found that a combination of conditions and compensation can be determined such that the exemption can be waived.

In light of that, in light of global warming and climate change, and given the importance of our high value, high rainfall, high production farming land to the economy of South Australia, my questions are:

1. What protection will be afforded to landowners from this renewed activity and interest in formerly uneconomic mineral deposits?

2. I am aware that the Mining Act has been under review for some 12 months now; when will the draft bill be available for consultation?

3. Will any amendments address realistic compensation in relation to this high value, high production farming land?

The PRESIDENT: The minister will disregard the opinion in that.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (14:32): The member has raised a quite complex area of policy. It is true that with rising commodity prices there has been a renewed interest in former mine deposits. In particular, it has become an issue in the Mount Lofty Ranges, which is where the first metalliferous mines in this country were established. Of course, there have been issues in relation to the number of mines and, of the 10 or 11 mines that have now been issued with licences, probably only two of those are reasonably close to high density population centres. One of those would be the Angas Mine at Strathalbyn (the entrance to that is at an old quarry site, and the tailings facility is actually located on what was a former disused quarry and other land), while the other one is the Australian Zircon operation at Mindarie, which is on farming land. That was the first mineral sands mine we had in this country, and I came to an arrangement for the level of compensation provided to landholders in that area.

I guess the most controversial issues, which may apply in future in relation to goldmining operations within the Adelaide Hills, relate to exploration in that area or any further mineral development. Obviously some balance has to be struck between the relative value of the mining operation and the potential benefits it can provide to the state, and this must be weighed against any impact on rural production. I can think of one particular case where that will be an issue, but before we can make any decisions on that we first have to compile all the facts. We need to know just what value of mineral may be available, what impact (if any) that will have upon rural production, and how that might be mitigated.

So it is not an easy issue. It can only be done on a case-by-case assessment, because I do not believe that any legislation can be devised that will cover all cases. At the end of the day—and just like environmental impact assessments—the assessment of a particular case involves getting the information on that particular case before making a decision. I expect that is how this will pan out in the future.

We are fortunate that the vast majority of our mineral projects in this state are in relatively remote regions. Most of them are on remote pastoral leases, so issues regarding interaction with population centres or agriculture in general are minimal. However, we obviously do have some issues and these are addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Beyond that, I do not believe that there is much further that I can add. In relation to the Mining Act, a review has been undertaken of the act. I will be bringing some amendments to that act in, I think, the next session of parliament when we resume in September. I will have some amendments to that act to address specific purposes later this year, and also, incidentally, for the Petroleum Act. I think there will be amendments to that to reflect some of the climate change and geosequestration issues that come out of it.

I think the best way to sum up the answer to this issue—and it is an important issue—is that we need to do a very careful assessment of the value of mineral production against the value of rural production, and we need to assess exactly how any impact on rural production can be minimised. Then we have to make a judgment as to what is in the best interests of the people of the state.