PETROLEUM (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 July 2009. Page 2792.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:35): When we last debated this bill, I sought leave to conclude my remarks. The main reason for doing so was that, at that point, the bill had not gone through the opposition's very exhaustive backbench portfolio committee process to analyse government legislation and also to seek input from stakeholders. The legislation has now gone through that process.

I raised a number of questions, and the minister has provided me with the answers to those questions. I will not go through those answers, because I think the minister intends to put them on the record during his summing up of the second reading. I indicate that the shadow minister, Mr Adrian Pederick (the member for Hammond), has been briefed by the government, and I thank the government for that briefing because there was a change of responsibilities at the time this bill was introduced. I indicate that the opposition supports the bill.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:37): I thank the Hon. Mr Ridgway for his contribution and his indication of support for the bill. I also thank those other members who have not spoken but who have indicated their support for the bill. This is a significant bill. As we speak, Mr Barry Goldstein, the Director of the Petroleum and Geothermal Section of PIRSA, is in Brisbane for an important meeting with the federal government in relation to carbon geosequestration.

Last week, when I attended the Ministerial Council on Mineral Petroleum Resources with all of the state and federal ministers, this was considered a significant issue for discussion. I think that underlines the fact that, as other states are also moving to change their legislation to facilitate their carbon capture and storage legislation, this state also must move quickly forward on this matter. So, I thank honourable members for their indication of support and their help in getting this bill through.

I place on the record answers to questions raised in debate by the Hon. Mr Ridgway. As the Hon. Mr Ridgway indicated, I supplied those answers in order to facilitate the debate, but they should be put on the record.

The Hon. Mr Ridgway asked, first, whether I could provide details of the likely circumstances where compensation would be payable to a landowner for activities regulated under the Petroleum Act. Circumstances where compensation would be payable to owners of land include situations where the carrying out of regulated activities, such as seismic surveys, drilling, construction and operation of production facilities, and construction of transmission pipelines result in any of the following:

adverse effects to agricultural productivity or other primary production activities, both short and long term;

disruption to important land use periods (for example, calving, lambing, sowing or harvesting);

disruption to recreational, industrial or other existing land use activities;

adverse effect to the conservation value of lands under the National Parks and Wildlife Act; and

damage to fences or other existing infrastructure.

For example, the construction of the SEA Gas Pipeline in 2003, traversing the South-East of South Australia from Port Campbell to Adelaide, involved extensive compensation negotiations between the owners of land and SEA Gas Pty Ltd, the licensee. If my memory services me correctly, more than 1,000 landowners were affected.

Similarly, in 2008, Santos Limited settled compensation payments with pastoralists for the impact of its operations on pastoral activities in the Cooper Basin area and with the Department for Environment and Heritage for the impacts on the conservation values of the Innamincka and Strzelecki regional reserves.

These payments cover the period from the commencement of Santos's operations to January 2004, and negotiations have now also commenced for compensation payments for the period up to the end of 2008. For subsequent years, negotiations for compensation payments will be carried out on a two-yearly basis.

The member's second question asked me to explain whether amendments to compensation provisions made by the bill provide more clarity in relation to the landowner compensation process. The amendments to compensation provisions proposed by the bill aim to ensure that compensation provisions are fair and reasonable and that requirements and entitlements are clear. The amendments ensure that all parties who may be directly affected by regulated activities are provided with notification prior to the commencement of activities and may be entitled to compensation.

An explicit provision is introduced in the bill to entitle the owner of land to compensation for the time and effort reasonably and necessarily incurred during and directly related to access and compensation negotiations. An example of circumstances where compensation may be payable in accordance with this provision is the situation where the owner of land incurs travel expenses to attend negotiation meetings or incurs costs through seeking legal advice.

I take this opportunity to advise the Hon. Mr Ridgway that the bill does not include a specific provision entitling an owner of land to compensation for the devaluation of land caused by the development of permanent facilities by the licensee. While this was included as a proposed amendment in the green paper released in 2006, it was not drafted into the bill. This decision was made on the basis of feedback received during stakeholder consultation and discussions with parliamentary counsel regarding the difficulty in defining the term 'permanent'. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the intent of such a provision is in fact covered by section 63 of the act without the need to make it explicit.

I put the comment on record that the government is obviously looking at these issues of compensation in relation to the Mining Act and, indeed, there is some draft legislation that has only in the past few days been released (it is, I think, available on the web) in relation to how that issue might be addressed in relation to the Mining Act. Here we are dealing of course just with the petroleum and geothermal legislation but, clearly, we need similar provisions in the Mining Act as well. With those comments, I thank the opposition for its indication of support to get this bill through before the beginning of the winter break, and I thank all other members for their indications of support.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.