<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2009-10-13" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>51</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>3</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="3425" />
  <endPage num="3500" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding>
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <text id="200910139e2802f1b80f4f78a0000208">
      <heading>Question Time</heading>
    </text>
    <subject>
      <name>Iron Ore, Eyre Peninsula</name>
      <text id="200910139e2802f1b80f4f78a0000209">
        <heading>IRON ORE, EYRE PENINSULA</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="597" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <questions>
          <question date="2009-10-13">
            <name>IRON ORE, EYRE PENINSULA</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2009-10-13T14:50:00" />
        <text id="200910139e2802f1b80f4f78a0000210">
          <timeStamp time="2009-10-13T14:50:00" />
          <by role="member" id="597">The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (14:50):</by>  I have a supplementary question. Why did the minister allow a 10 year framework, in opposition to the three year allowance of access to the port, as suggested by the fishing industry?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="574" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <electorate id="">Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business</electorate>
        <questions>
          <question date="2009-10-13">
            <name>IRON ORE, EYRE PENINSULA</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2009-10-13T14:50:00" />
        <text id="200910139e2802f1b80f4f78a0000211">
          <timeStamp time="2009-10-13T14:50:00" />
          <by role="member" id="574">The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:50):</by>  A 10 year access instead of the—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="597" kind="interjection">
        <name>The Hon. C.V. Schaefer</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="200910139e2802f1b80f4f78a0000212">
          <by role="member" id="597">The Hon. C.V. Schaefer:</by>  Instead of the three year allowance, which was suggested.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="574" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="200910139e2802f1b80f4f78a0000213">
          <by role="member" id="574">The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY:</by>  For the simple reason that, if there had been a three year access, the investment that would be required for a ship loader would not be recovered. It would not be a viable option. The expected life of the resource at Wilgerup is now about eight years, and that should be sufficient to ensure that the iron from that source is exported.</text>
        <text id="200910139e2802f1b80f4f78a0000214">As I indicated in answer to a question from the Hon. Carmel Zollo, the fundamental constraints of the project will be the rail system, which is limited to 1.6 million tonnes a year for this project, and also the capacity of the port to handle larger volumes. That is why I indicated that future expansion in that area, for future iron ore development which we hope will take place, will require the development of a new port that will take larger vessels, which of course will reduce the cost of export and therefore help pay for the investment that will be required for a larger port. Clearly, for that to happen, it will need a much larger throughput.</text>
        <page num="3437" />
        <text id="200910139e2802f1b80f4f78a0000215">As I said, to kickstart the industry, the current facilities at Port Lincoln will be able to cope with that relatively small volume of ore. When I say 'relatively small', I mean relative to the sort of export that comes out of other ports within this country, such as those in Western Australia and Queensland, which in many cases have some tens of millions of tonnes of capacity. So, 1.6 million tonnes a year is relatively small to ensure that that industry can be viable and generate the cash flow necessary for further development of other resources within the Eyre Peninsula region and the development of a port. That is why that decision has been made.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>