MINING (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 June 2010.)

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:26): I rise to support the second reading of the bill. I note that the legislation is some 30 years of age and, in my opinion, is due for a full overhaul and a full review. Hence, Family First amendments seek to make comprehensive changes to the mining regime, and I note other amendments (some similar) from the Greens. We support the clearing up of what are mining operations and other modernisations of the processes under the act to reflect 21^st century needs: for instance, the greater environmental concern and need for an environmental impact statement in applications, and for existing tenement holders to have an environment protection and rehabilitation plan in place.

We support the new environment definition and considerations subject to what we say about that in our amendments, which I will come to in a moment and speak to in detail when we get into committee. We support the clarification of powers under new section 9A for the minister to declare a special area where certain mining is not allowed. We are particularly concerned about the Arkaroola area, as indeed are many other colleagues—the Greens and the opposition, I understand, as well.

The Hon. M. Parnell: Some of them.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Some of them—right. I know that the Hon. Iain Evans is very strong on that, as is the Hon. Nick Minchin—he is very vocal on that and is out there leading the charge for the Liberals.

With regard to our amendments, in consultation with constituents and the South Australian Farmers Federation—and as a farmer myself I place on the public record my appreciation of the commitment to farming by the South Australian Farmers Federation and to looking after the interests of farmers—I found that they have grave reservations about the unfairness of the way the act operates in relation to farmers and primary producers. I foreshadow here some of my amendments but will go into greater detail during committee.

We have had the benefit of looking at the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendments. Some overlap occurs; for instance, regarding notification before an exploration licence is granted. There has been much debate, and I understand that the new Prime Minister will fix all the problems with the resources super profits tax in the next week or so and then go straight to an election. There is no fear on our part that our amendments are a threat to the mining industry. Family First is pro mining and development but with caveats, and it is important that these caveats are included in the debate and passed as amendments to this bill. They are about justice for landholders, including farmers. I will highlight some statistics and show why farmers deserve a fairer go.

According to the ABS industry report, the profit margin of mining companies varies from 10.8 per cent for small enterprises to 46.1 per cent for large enterprises, with an overall average of 37.1 per cent. I compare that with agriculture where the profit margin is less than even small mining enterprises at 8.7 per cent. It is getting harder every day for farmers to get anywhere near a reasonable return on their investment; yet, at the end of the day, when you look at sustainability and at the most important provisions for a society, it is food and water.

On a cold cruel economic analysis one might prefer mining, but that is not our policy as we support family farmers, rural people and the nation's most sustainable industry—farming—compared to what eventually is unsustainable in an industry such as mining. It may be that we see Roxby Downs operate for 200 years, but at some stage it will run out of the uranium and other deposits. However, we will still be producing food.

Only 51.2 per cent of businesses in mining are profitable. Agriculture is the next worst in the spectrum on 57.5 per cent. It is interesting to note that the most profitable by percentage of total of businesses are the areas of health care and social assistance at 83.8 per cent and transport, postal and warehousing at 82.7 per cent.

Looking at the earlier data, one could draw the valid conclusion that big miners are pulling the weight of many smaller miners who are less profitable and probably exploring mining prospects of unknown potential. Therefore, the risk is that we need to have in place between two industry sectors with an unacceptably high proportion of unprofitable businesses something to ensure that there is justice between the two should a mineral explorer or a miner significantly harm the profitability of the farmer by their mining activities.

Data shows that agriculture employs more than double what mining does in this country yet often miners are getting preferential treatment under this act. In fact, I am sure they get preferential treatment at all times under this act compared with primary producers.

The amendments we have tabled today focus on food security, highlighting the importance of protecting groundwater resources as a primary environmental aim, better notice to landholders of an exploration licence, and making it harder for new mining to begin within the Greater Adelaide area since in the majority of cases new mining will be incompatible with the future of the Greater Adelaide region.

Fortunately, from a mining point of view, once you get out of the Greater Adelaide area, if you look at all the aeromagnetic surveys that have been done by successive Liberal and Labor governments, there is a lot of opportunity in more remote areas. Our amendments also focus on a better compensation regime for landholders adversely affected by mining operations and, finally, our amendments are about shifting much of the mining jurisdiction into the ERD Court instead of the Warden's Court.

The amendments begin with new considerations to be taken into account when mining activities are sought via the Mining Act, namely, food security and groundwater concerns—or what many of us know as underground water or bore water. Bureaucracy and decision-making ought to be driven from the wording of the legislation, being the intent of parliament in relation to mining. Therefore, we want to dictate from the act down to departmental staff what the parliament believes is important when assessing a mining application.

The government has already seen fit to do this, in a sense, adding in its bill 'the environment'. However, we want to particularly emphasise the major importance of groundwater and add the very important consideration of food security. We want food security to be a consideration when the minister grants mining rights. This minister would be very competent at that. I know he is passionate about mining, but he was also one of the better primary industries ministers, if not the best primary industries minister, under this Labor government.

The government bill adds the environment as one new consideration. Our amendment requires the minister to consider food security for South Australia and creates a definition of what food security means for South Australians. In essence, the minister will be forced by the act to consider the impact that mining activity would have on our ability as a state to produce our own best quality, healthy food for not only South Australia and the nation but also export and the regions if the mining activity were allowed to proceed.

We note that the government bill adds the environment to relevant considerations when granting mining rights. Having talked to the Farmers Federation and others, I believe that the Farmers Federation wants groundwater to be a separate consideration to heighten its importance. As I have said, the legislative definition of groundwater is underground water, bore water, and artesian and subartesian water. So, the amendments create that as a separate consideration to the environment.

In my own area, I have always supported the big sand mine across the road from our farm, even though I personally would prefer that it were not there, but I support it in the interests of the economy and jobs. However, you do wonder sometimes what impact these open-cut mines have on underground water and what checks and balances are in place. At some point in the committee stage, it would be appreciated if the minister could advise the council what checks and balances his department has in place to ensure the protection of our underground water. Other aspects of the amendments address the farming community's concerns about the operation of the decades old Mining Act and the inequities it produces for farmers throughout the state.

In relation to the banning of mining in the Greater Adelaide region, the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide sets out what is to happen from Mallala to Murray Bridge to Sellicks. The farming community wants the parliament to exclude mining operations in the Greater Adelaide region for the future. Our amendments create an exclusion zone for Greater Adelaide, with any new operations to proceed only with the consent of both houses of parliament. It takes the pressure off the minister and the government and there is a proper check and balance before mining in those exclusion zones, if the Greater Adelaide plan proceeds, because it would have to go through both houses of parliament and have full scrutiny, which is probably what democracy is about if we are serious about enhancing and protecting this very important area.

It is anticipated that the general future for Greater Adelaide is housing, varied living from rural living to metropolitan, existing commerce and industry and, importantly, only existing mining and extractive industries, subject to what I have just mentioned, and protecting sustainable agriculture and the food bowl. The Greater Adelaide area has some of the best possibilities for intensive food production, with the highest rainfall and some of the best soil types for food and general agricultural production.

In relation to notifying landholders of mining rights, farmers often do not know who has a right to explore their land for mining; at present, there is no right in relation to notification, as I understand it. Our amendments require the department to notify all landholders of what rights presently exist concerning their land—be it exploration, reserved mining rights, extraction, mining or machinery use rights—and I do not think that is an unfair request. The amendments also require the minister to notify landholders whether new exploration rights are being sought by an explorer.

Farmers affected by mineral exploration, mining or other rights want the right to negotiate with the miner or explorer at the earliest opportunity on what the future holds for his or her land. Giving farmers early notice of those with exploration rights is one way to achieve this. In my opinion, justice requires that, if a farmer's land value diminishes when a farm is under exploration or has been found to have significant mineral deposits, the farmer should be compensated.

A case in point quoted to me recently concerns a family on Yorke Peninsula. This family had a generational change not long ago, with the farmer selling to the son and the son obviously borrowing some money to buy the property. The son wanted to bring his son home on that farm and was looking to expand the farm, only to find that a licence had been put over almost the entirety of the farm. The bank was concerned about what that did to the value of the farm. How can you go to the bank and ask for more borrowings to buy and expand if there is a cloud hanging over the farm? I do not think that is fair.

Of course, the farm may be in very good order, but the farmer also has the issue of whether or not they could continue to upgrade it knowing that a mining right might knock off all the plans for the farm.

The Greens' public notification process of someone seeking an exploration licence and giving a right to any individual, such as environmental activists or a group, to take the matter to the court if they do not think the environment is being looked after goes further than our amendment. Our amendment gives that notification right only to the specific landholder affected by the exploration. So, there is a difference there, as I understand it, between the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendments and my amendment.

Our argument is that perhaps we have to be careful about how far we go, but that landowner farmers should definitely receive the advice. We would hope that, through departmental advice and due diligence, the minister would be alert to any environment issues potentially arising from the activity, be it exploration, mining or, subsequently, extraction.

I want to talk briefly about compensation for farmers affected by mining rights: acquisition by miners on just terms, I call it. Farmers also want the right to start a controlled process—and I want to emphasise 'controlled'—to compel a miner to buy their farm if they are severely affected by mining rights. The amendments allow farmers to invoke the land and valuation division of the court to set a miner purchase of the farm in process.

In regard to reforming court jurisdiction over mining disputes, our amendments shift the Warden's Court jurisdiction to the ERD Court. We believe, notwithstanding the groundwater changes made by amendments, that the government ought to be making this amendment anyway, with its own changes, to introduce the environment as an important consideration when assessing mining applications. It would only make sense in that case to shift the Warden's Court responsibilities to the court with environmental experience, namely, the ERD Court.

These Warden's Court to ERD Court changes represent the bulk of the amendments because they are consequential on that jurisdiction-changing concept. The ERD Court has a better understanding of environmental and groundwater issues. In the process of making that change, we also bring in the no-cost jurisdiction, common in the development branch of the ERD Court, to extend to the new mining division of the ERD Court created by these amendments.

The Warden's Court would retain jurisdiction for existing cases until they are wrapped up and the residual jurisdiction for petroleum and precious stones unless or until the government moves a separate bill to transfer that jurisdiction also. I note that the Hon. Mark Parnell's Greens Party's amendments, which seek to create a right for citizens to appeal against mining exploration, gives that right in the ERD Court, not the Warden's Court, which, to me, demonstrates that crossbenchers have some common agreement for supporting the ERD Court being the court of record for future expansion of the mining jurisdiction.

There are some Green's amendments about generally bumping up the penalties for noncompliance with the act and, across the board, forcing a far broader public consultation process in steps by the minister to grant exploration or other licences under the act. They give better protection for Arkaroola, as I have already said, and empower any member of the public to apply to the ERD Court to enforce the Mining Act, so it basically instils rights in the public to be the enforcers of mining laws, not necessarily only the government. This has obviously been inspired by what happened, I believe, with the Arkaroola debacle.

In summary, I congratulate the minister on bringing in amendments to the act. As I said, the legislation is 30 years old and a lot has happened in that time. I would have preferred to see a complete rewrite of the act, but this does give the parliament a chance to ensure that we have balance within the act. We are certainly supportive of mining. Yes, there would be some more conditions on mining activities, but in a fair and democratic world—and I am confident South Australia is still part of that—all sectors need to be considered, not the least of which is the sustainable sector of agriculture.

I believe that these amendments, and probably others that are before the council now, if supported by the government and the opposition, would give a much better balance to mining, agriculture and other industries in South Australia.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (15:45): I thank the honourable members who have contributed to this debate. The Mining (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2010 was reintroduced into the Legislative Council on 11 May 2010. We originally introduced the bill at the end of 2009, prior to the election, so that it would be available for wider discussion.

Best practice management of South Australia's mineral assets, including streamlined regulation of exploration and mining activities, attracts investment that delivers outcomes of sustainable benefit and prosperity. The government recognises that the exploration and mining sectors require predictable procedures for access to land, security of exploration and/or mining tenure and predictable regulatory processes in order to commit to higher risks for investment in mineral resources exploration, new mine development and life of mine operations.

The government also recognises that landholders and communities require clear and timely advice on their rights under the Mining Act and on the responsibilities of exploration and mining companies seeking access to their land. The bill, together with government policies and publicly available guidelines, aims to ensure that landowners and the community are well informed through more effective and transparent government processes.

This bill proposes enhancements to the Mining Act to streamline tenement applications, assessments and approvals. The bill incorporates provisions for improving administration of regulatory compliance, enforcement and penalties under the act, leading to effective and efficient utilisation of the state's mineral resources.

The bill has been developed in accordance with three key objectives: reducing red tape, to repeal or amend legislative requirements that impede industry and the conduct of normal business operations; greater transparency, to require industry to provide more information on proposed and current mining operations and improved notification protocols for access to land for landholders and the community, and greater transparency in government processes; and effective regulation, to ensure that the regulator is authorised to effectively regulate mining operations and is adequately resourced to provide a quality and timely service to industry and the community.

A number of questions were asked during the course of his speech by the Leader of the Opposition. I will endeavour at least to provide some answers. A large number of amendments have been tabled in the last 24 hours by the Hon. Mr Ridgway and earlier by the Hon. Mr Parnell; so, clearly, all members will need more time to examine them. It is the government's intention to defer the committee stage of this bill until the next sitting week so that we can go through those amendments. However, I will at least try to respond to as many issues as I can today to facilitate that debate when it is resumed.

The Hon. Mr Ridgway first of all addressed the definition of 'mining operator'. He said:

I indicate the opposition will be seeking to amend this definition as the industry is concerned that the person on the ground that the mining operation may not always be the tenement holder.

The honourable member has tabled that amendment to the definition of mining operator. The definition proposed in this bill is fundamental to the effective administration and regulation of the act. I would like to say more about this matter during the committee stage of the bill. The government has sought a lot of advice about this, because it is a key matter in this bill, and I know that the mining industry itself has a great deal of interest in this definition.

The Hon. Mr Ridgway also questioned the inclusion of 'public health safety and amenity' into the new proposed definition of environment. The definition of environment brings the act to the forefront of modern legislation, which adapts triple bottom line principles in the assessment and regulation of new mines. So, it is obviously part and parcel of modern mine management and regulation, but it was not part of the act back in 1971.

The bill introduces a new section—special declared areas—and the Hon. Mr Ridgway asked how I saw the main purpose of this new section and how it would work. According to Mr Ridgway, the opposition will be seeking an amendment to deal with the minister's accountability in terms of reasoning to declare a particular area a special area, and we feel that those reasons should be documented and made public.

The special declared areas provide the minister with the authority to temporarily declare an area to be exempt from certain provisions of the act for a maximum period of two years. Currently the act has only one mechanism to exempt certain land from a provision of the act and that is section 8 of the act, which deals with the permanent reservation of land.

A special declared area is a transparent mechanism to deal with such matters, which include the release of land to the open market which has been the subject of a reserve pursuant to section 8 of the act; the release of land to the open market, where the government has undertaken geological, geotechnical or geophysical investigations pursuant to section 15 of the act; or complex competing tenement application matters. The Hon. Mr Ridgway then raised some issues in relation to authorised officers, and he said:

I would like some clarification from the minister on new subsection 14(1), which provides:

(1) The Minister may, by instrument in writing, appoint a Public Service employee to be an authorised officer under this Act.

It seems to be very broad that somebody, who might be very capable in their chosen profession of working for the government with a particular skill set, could find themselves becoming an authorised officer and then not having the appropriate skills to deal with the job at hand, so I would certainly like some clarification as to why the minister thinks that virtually…the 97,000 public servants we have could be appointed to be an authorised officer under this bill.

The bill introduces a new section specific to the appointment of authorised officers. The provision ensures that government is efficient and effective in the administration and regulation of the act. Authorised officers will only be appointed if they have appropriate qualifications and experience. Their powers will be individually specified, and only some officers will be authorised to exercise all the powers under this section.

There will be instances where authorised officers will not be officers of the department—that is, PIRSA and, as an example, could I say officers of SafeWork SA—who are qualified and experienced in the mining industry and whose primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of employees working in mines. They should also be able to report relevant information pertinent to environmental issues associated with mines. This is an efficient use of government resources and avoids duplication where possible. Clearly, one could name other officers from other departments where that would apply. The Hon. Mr Ridgway then raised the issue of retaining records in relation to authorised officers, and he said:

…I think we can all accept that authorised officers may need to make copies of these records. However, it does not say how long the authorised officer can hold them…Maybe it could indicate that 72 hours or seven working days might be a reasonable time frame to allow the authorised officer to copy the records and return them.

In relation to the retention of records by authorised officers for the purpose of making copies, it is implicit that records should only be kept for such time as is reasonable to make the relevant copies required. The Hon. Mr Ridgway then referred to the deletion of the section on public undertaking. He said:

Our next query relates to clause 16, granting of exploration licence. As far as we can see, previous subsection 28(7) basically provides that the minister cannot grant a licence if she or he had given a public undertaking that such an action would not be taken. Why amend the section to allow the minister to take actions contrary to his or her public statements?

The opposition has queried the removal of subsection 28(7) of the act, which provides:

The minister cannot grant a licence that authorises the licensee to carry out exploratory operations for precious stones if to do so would be inconsistent with a public undertaking by the minister to the mining industry.

I point out to the honourable member that precious stones under the act relates to 'opal only'. The clause under section 28(7) of the act was introduced when the Opal Mining Act 1995 came into operation. This section no longer has any relevance as the respective acts have been operating in conjunction for 15 years with no practical issues arising. There are already sufficient provisions in both acts to support overlapping tenure between the respective acts.

The next issue raised by the honourable member was in relation to exploration licences and the new application process. To quote the honourable member:

Clause 17 relates to the application for an exploration licence and the amendment is quite strange...Can the minister explain what he is trying to do with this measure, because it is somewhat confusing. Perhaps the minister can give us some examples to clarify how he sees this amendment working.

Further in relation to exploration licences, the honourable member sought clarification on the new provisions relating to the application process. The current legislation does not provide for a transparent process, which defines when ground officially becomes available to the open market for application.

The bill provides for the minister to publish a notice which specifies what ground is vacant and the time frame and due date for applications to be lodged. This amendment supports transparency of government processes and creates a level playing field in the open market which will maximise exploration investment, leading to new discoveries.

The honourable member next raised terms and conditions for leases and licences, and again I quote him:

The next clause I turn my attention is clause 19, which relates to the term and renewal of exploration licences. The industry has indicated that it has some concerns in relation to this and those concerns are shared by the opposition. In simple terms, the amendment to section 30A(6), provides that the minister reserves the power to change the contract of an exploration licence. Clause 19 provides: 'The minister may, on renewing an exploration licence, add, vary or revoke a term or condition of an exploration licence.'...In what circumstances would they be used?

Further, the honourable member stated:

Again, it is about the granting of a mining lease and our concern, again, is that it enables the changing or revocation of 'any term or condition imposed by the minister' and can 'impose any term or condition considered appropriate by the court'.

With respect to exploration licences, there is no substantive change to the current provisions in section 30A(6) of the act. What was one section has been split into two sections: 30A(6) and 30A(6a). The only amendment to the wording is 'licensee', which is now referred to as 'the holder of the licence'.

Section 30A(6) allows the minister to renew a licence over a reduced area and revise the expenditure commitment. The government's policies and systems have been developed to assess compliance with licence conditions and provide for an official renewal process which has been well adapted and accepted by the exploration sector.

In relation to mining leases, retention lease and miscellaneous purpose licences, new sections have been introduced which give the minister the power to add, vary or revoke a term or condition of a lease or licence where, in the opinion of the minister, it is necessary to prevent, reduce, minimise or eliminate undue damage to the environment associated with the mining operations conducted on a lease or licence.

The amendments have taken into consideration administrative law principles of natural justice, whereby the minister cannot take such action without first consulting with the tenement holder. The intent of this amendment is that no variation should proceed without consultation. However, should action be taken without the agreement of the tenement holder, there is the right to appeal.

The next matter raised by the honourable member related to the rights conferred by a lease. Clause 26 of the bill amends section 39 of the act to provide for the sale or commercial use of a by-product on a mining lease. Currently under the act, the tenement holder would need to apply for a superimposed mining lease to sell or use this by-product for a commercial purpose.

This amendment supports a significant reduction in red tape for both the mining industry and the government. Royalties will be payable on the sale or use of the by-product for a commercial purpose. This is important to ensure that a level playing field is maintained in a competitive environment, particularly for the extractive industry sector. The honourable member then raised the issue of suspension or cancellation, as follows:

Clause 27 talks about the suspension or cancellation of the lease. Can the minister clarify section 41(5)?

The honourable member is seeking clarification on clause 27 of the bill which seeks to amend an existing provision relating to the minister's powers to suspend or cancel a lease if there has been a significant breach of the act or a condition of the lease.

In the circumstances of a suspension or a cancellation of the lease, the tenement holder has the right to appeal the decision in the ERD Court. The suspension and cancellation provisions throughout the act are being amended to give the tenement holder certainty of tenure should a lease or licence expire during the period in which an appeal is being heard. Should the tenement holder be successful in winning such an appeal, the provisions would ensure that the rights of the holder and the currency of the tenement are retained.

The honourable member then foreshadowed amendments to sections 54 and 61 of the act which deal with compensation in regard to an owner of land seeking to negotiate or raise a dispute with a tenement holder who wishes to access their land in accordance with rights under the act. I acknowledge the reasons proposed by the honourable member, and this shall be further considered in the debate on the bill.

The honourable member also asked for an explanation as to why the penalties in the bill had been significantly increased. The penalties outlined in the bill support our government's approach to best practice compliance and enforcement under the provisions of the act. The existing penalties have remained unchanged since the act came into operation in the early 1970s.

The level of the new penalties is being considered in the context of equivalent penalties in other mining jurisdictions and also in state legislation such as the Environment Protection Act and the Petroleum and Geothermal Act. I note that the Hon. Mark Parnell has tabled amendments to further increase the penalties outlined in the bill. That is obviously something that we will consider further in the debate on the bill.

The Leader of the Opposition pointed out a potential unintended consequence of clause 38 in the bill in relation to an authorisation to use declared equipment within or adjacent to a specially protected area: that is, a marine park, Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary, River Murray protection area. The amendment proposes to delegate the powers of the minister to the Director of Mines.

Pursuant to section 59 of the act, where an application for an authorisation to use declared equipment is situated within a specially protected area, the application must be referred to the relevant minister. If the relevant minister and the Director of Mines cannot agree, the mines minister must take steps to refer the matter to the government. I indicate that again we will give further consideration to that in the committee stage.

I now move on to the programs for environmental protection and rehabilitation (PEPRs). The honourable member sought clarification on the application of these programs, which previously were called mining and rehabilitation plans (MARPs) and have been a formal requirement for all leases under the existing regulations.

The proposed amendment seeks to clarify the content of PEPRs and formalise their application to exploration licences as well as leases. PEPRs will be required to be prepared in accordance with the regulations. The bill proposes to allow tenement holders to adopt a pre-existing PEPR rather than developing a new PEPR, effectively avoiding the need to reinvent the wheel.

The honourable member also then made some other comments on this matter. PEPRs are a similar concept to the statement of environmental objectives under the Petroleum Act. This proposal will considerably reduce red tape for the exploration sector, as a PEPR could relate to multiple licences within a particular area.

The government's current practice requires an exploration work approval for every ground-disturbing activity within exploration licences. There may be circumstances where it is appropriate that a site-specific PEPR be prepared particularly for mines, and comprehensive guidelines will be provided to assist industry in meeting these requirements. The Leader of the Opposition then raised a further question:

If the minister has approved the plan and then determines that it needs to be altered, at whose cost will that be?

He is obviously concerned with the cost to industry where a PEPR needs to be updated. The cost should be negligible, as government will provide assistance to effect the change. Essentially, this is similar to existing requirements to alter MARPs where they are assessed to be deficient. The honourable member then turned to environmental directions and said:

Our question is: if the operator is already working per the MARP, why should this subsection exist? So, effectively, if people are operating to the mining and rehabilitation plan, why do you need to have this particular subsection?

The objective of these directions is to ensure compliance with the approved PEPR. The honourable member then went on to talk about the review process (this is for environmental directions) and stated:

Subsection (7) states that the director must establish a process for an internal review if the authorised officer has directed that action is to be taken. Why is that process not also established under the act?

It has been further raised that the internal review process of an environmental direction to the Director of Mines should be spelt out explicitly in the act. The review process will include the mechanism by which a tenement holder will contact the Director of Mines for an internal review of the direction. As the review process will require contact details, it is anticipated that the appropriate information will be spelt out in the written notice of the environmental direction.

The Leader of the Opposition then questioned why a person other than an authorised officer may need to be engaged to ensure compliance with an environmental direction or rehabilitation direction. In some cases it may be necessary to engage a contractor to undertake works on the ground to ensure compliance. This may likely involve the use of heavy earthmoving equipment, and departmental authorised officers may not be qualified to undertake specialised work, hence the reason for that clause. The Leader of the Opposition then raised the direction of compliance directions, and he asked:

What we are trying to work out is why the minister needs to do this. We would like an explanation of what is actually not right with the current act that he needs to do this. If it is not broken, why fix it? Can the minister, when he responds, please give some examples of how and where this particular power might be used?

The honourable member raised the question of why the act needs compliance directions, which will cover all compliance matters on tenements other than those covered by environmental directions. This new provision provides a wide power to direct persons or tenement holders to take action to comply with the act. It is anticipated that the main use of this new power will be to stop illegal mining, which has been a major concern for the industry.

Illegal miners for construction materials gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace because they are not paying required fees and royalties. Legitimate suppliers are understandably not happy with this. There we are clearly referring to the extractive industries as an example of where this may be needed. The Leader of the Opposition then raised the question of compliance orders and said:

We want to know why the powers of the Director of Mines have been lessened in this instance. On the one hand, we have compliance directions—we do not know quite why they are there—and now the director is taken out of the compliance orders.

In relation to compliance orders pursuant to section 74A(1), the powers of the Director of Mines have been deleted from this section as they are included in the new section 74AA dealing with compliance directions. Compliance directions are a better compliance tool in circumstances where an immediate response is required, for example, illegal mining. The remainder of section 74A, dealing with compliance orders, has remained unchanged as landowners have the right to retain their power to seek a compliance order from the ERD Court if needed.

This bill has been developed in conjunction with extensive consultation undertaken with industry, community, relevant government agencies, local government and tenement holders. The government has sought to address all issues and comments raised during consultation on this bill.

I remind members that this bill was first tabled in the parliament late last year. I have not referred to the issues raised by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. I will take the opportunity when we go into committee to address some of the issues he has raised, because many of them relate to amendments he has filed. I have not had a chance to look at them in some detail, but I will make a few general remarks. I think the honourable member suggested that the Mining Act advantages mining over farming.

I make the general comment that the purpose of the Mining Act, of course, was to recognise the fact that mining generally takes a relatively small footprint in the environment but that the value of the minerals so extracted can be extremely large. That is why throughout the history of this state, when mining has played such a significant role in the state's economy, that provision has prevailed.

The honourable member talked about the Greater Adelaide region. Well, I suggest that the land being consumed by housing is far greater than the land that is required to be used for mining. In fact, the mining footprint is relatively small. It is a very low footprint for this country.

The honourable member in his amendments has suggested that he would outlaw all mines in the Greater Adelaide region. There are only a few metalliferous mines within the Greater Adelaide region. I can think of the Kanmantoo mine—which is going through its final stages of receiving financial approval from its board—and the Angus mine at Strathalbyn.

Of course, there are many extractive industries within the Greater Adelaide region. If one was to put a freeze on the number and require the approval of both houses of parliament, I suggest it would be extremely difficult in future to guarantee the availability of extractive material within that region and it could have a huge impact on the cost of housing and road construction, and the like. It would be particularly difficult for local government, I would suggest, in relation to that region.

I am well aware from talking to members of the extractive industries of the difficulties they face in Sydney where extractive materials have to be brought in hundreds of kilometres from the southern tablelands. Undoubtedly, that is one of the reasons that construction costs within cities such as Sydney are so much higher.

Without having examined the honourable member's amendment in detail, this government would have a great deal of concern about that if we were to make it more difficult to deal with those extractive issues. No-one wants quarries close to them, but they are an absolutely essential part of the economy and the proximity of their location is important to the cost of housing for our community.

The honourable member raised a number of other issues involving groundwater and food security. In relation to groundwater, when new mines are established those mines go through a very comprehensive process through environmental assessment. Of course, water extraction is a key element of those processes. Those processes, which mirror or are similar to those under the Development Act for major projects, are extremely important.

If one looks at all the mines that have been developed in this state—certainly over the period I have been minister—water has been a key issue in most of those new mines and it requires an extensive study. Of course, in many cases, there is the issue of licensing through the relevant government agencies. Certainly from my point of view, questions of groundwater are of course very important to the mining industry, and there are quite rigorous processes in place in relation to that. Again, I will consider the honourable member's amendments further during the week.

Finally, the honourable member talked about the issue of food security. Of course, food security is important but, again, I would suggest that, if one looks at the main food productive areas within the state, there is very little challenge to food security from the mining industry. Indeed, I would suggest that there is a far greater threat to food security from urban growth. It is in my other portfolio as Minister for Urban Development and Planning that I believe most of the issues in relation to food security arise.

If one looks at the footprint within the Greater Adelaide region, extractive industries, because they are effectively mining aggregate, are in areas that are generally not highly productive. In relation to the metalliferous mines, I have already mentioned that there are only a couple within that region, and they are certainly in areas that are not likely to be important for food security. So, I would suggest that really the far greater threat to food security is from factors other than the mining industry, which has a relatively small footprint.

I again thank other members for their comments. As I have said, we will have a look at those amendments from both the Hon. Mr Ridgway and the Hon. Mr Parnell, as well as considering those to be moved by the Leader of the Opposition, when we resume debate on this bill in a couple of weeks' time. Again, I commend the bill to the council.

Bill read a second time.