ROXBY DOWNS (INDENTURE RATIFICATION) (AMENDMENT OF INDENTURE) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 11.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have a number of answers to questions that have been asked during the committee stage that I would like to put on record. The Hon. Mark Parnell asked: is the minister's answer that this indenture effectively obliges a company to produce on site the amount of copper, smelted as metal, that they have said they are going to do; and, if they do not, will they have to come back for a variation? I have been advised that no, the indenture does not oblige BHP to produce the on-site amount of refined copper.

A further question asked by the Hon. Mark Parnell was: to tie this right down, when does a variation need to occur? Is it the first year that they do not produce the amount promised, or do they get 10 or 20 years? I have been advised that any future changes proposed by BHPB to the project would require further scrutiny by the government. Should the change be significantly different to what was applied for and assessed under the EIS, BHPB would be required under the Development Act 1993 to review and potentially amend its EIS. This would trigger further assessment by the government and possible amended assessment report and decision. However, the EIS does not define a specific time frame.

In relation to a question about what time frame and what is the formal trigger for a variation of the indenture, I have been advised that there is no time frame and there is no trigger in the indenture, as the indenture does not impose the obligation. A question was asked: which clause of the indenture allows the government to walk away from the contract if a company's commitments to local processing are not achieved; further, what if the government of the day decides that it is happy for 100 per cent of ore to be sent to China? If the government of the day is happy with zero processing, what are the implications? In relation to those questions, I have been advised there is no clause in the amended indenture that requires local processing which means this is not a basis on which the state could terminate the indenture.

In relation to a question asked by the Hon. Rob Lucas in relation to the government's preliminary estimate of $200 million over a period of 10 years for state government infrastructure and between $35 million and $50 million for certain civic infrastructure, we were asked what the current provisions are in aggregate within the forward estimate period. I had been advised that the 2011-12 budget includes $7 million for government housing in Roxby Downs to ensure sufficient accommodation in the short term. Other than that there are no provisions in the forward estimate period. These figures will not be available until the project has been approved. The board of BHP Billiton has not yet approved the project and the workforce projections for BHPB provided in the EIS require confirmation, thus state agencies do not have sufficient up-to-date information on which to prepare detailed business cases for the budget process.

A further question by the Hon. Rob Lucas: is the minister's advice that within the period of 2011-18 there is no requirement to build any new government school facilities in the area? I have been advised that requirements for new facilities are dependent on projected student numbers. The Roxby Downs Area School has spare capacity. When the projections indicate demand for services will exceed capacity, the department will review preliminary plans for a staged redevelopment which were prepared over the period 2006-09.

A further question by the Hon. Rob Lucas: what component of the $35 million to $50 million, which is over that period of 2011-20, will be included within the forward estimates period? It is the same question as to what component of the $200 million would be included in the period of 2014-18? I have been advised that the civic and community components, the $35 million to $50 million as well as state infrastructure, have not been factored into the current forward estimates or for the period 2014-18. In terms of the name of the legal firm, I have been advised that it is Glenn Davis with the DMAW Lawyers.

In answer to a question about the Stuart Shelf area, about how big that area is, I have been advised that we do not have an exact figure; however, it has been estimated to be about 15,000 square kilometres.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. When the committee last sat we were on clause 11 and the Hon. Mr Parnell had some amendments to move at that stage.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Clause 11 is, in effect, the crux of the bill in some ways because it is the clause that provides that the indenture, or the variation deed contained in schedule 1, is ratified and approved; so it is, if you like, the operative clause in the bill. The amendments that I will be putting forward relate to, as I said at the outset, some changes that I am proposing be made to the indenture.

The nature of the bill, its structure and how it is drafted means that my amendments are included in a second schedule and, therefore, the amendments that I am moving now basically provide that whilst, when we pass this clause we are acknowledging schedule 1. I am effectively giving advance notice that I will have a schedule 2 that I will be moving, and that affects the changes that I believe need to be made to the indenture. That is the intent of the amendment. It is simply to revise schedule 1 with a series of amendments. I have not counted them, but I think there are well over 100 if you take the subcomponents in schedule 2 and incorporate those into the indenture.

As I said at the outset, it is my intention, when we get to my amendment No. 27, to effectively move those 100 or so matters en bloc. I am not going to seek to move each component individually, because there are 16 or so pages of them, and I do not need that to happen. What I do require, and I will ask the minister this question for her assurance, is that I will be able to move my schedule 2 and the minister will not seek a ruling that, our having passed clause 11, somehow my schedule 2 is redundant and I will not be able to move it.

If that were to occur, given that I want my proposed changes to the indenture on the record, I would find myself obliged to read 16 pages of amendments, and I do not think anyone wants that. I do not know whether the minister needs to take advice. I just want her assurance that, whilst the outcome might seem assured, I can move my amendment No. 27 when we get to it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I do not have a problem with progressing that way so long as we are technically able to do that. In terms of anything that I have control of, I am happy to progress that way as long as there is no technical impediment for us to do so.

The CHAIR: My advice from the table staff is that that is fine.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In which case I will at this point move en bloc the four amendments. I move:

Page 13—

Line 4—After 'this act' insert:

(but subject to the modifications contained in Schedule 2 of this act)

Line 5—After 'the Indenture' insert:

(as modified in the manner set out in Schedule 2 of this act)

Line 7—After 'the Variation Deed' insert:

(and as modified in the manner set out in Schedule 2)

After line 11—Insert:

(5) Despite any provision of the Variation Deed, the Indenture, as amended in the manner contemplated by this act, is modified by force of this provision in the manner set our in Schedule 2 of the act.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. The Hon. Mark Parnell's amendments propose to enable further variations to the indenture in schedule 1 of this bill through modifications contained in his amendment No. 27, schedule 2. The amended indenture that is before this place is the agreement the state and BHPB have reached following the lengthy process of negotiation that has taken place over the past nine months, setting out the rights and obligations of both parties. Therefore, we do not support the amendment.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clause 12 passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Clause 13 relates to the variation date. This is one of the issues on which the minister in another place said that he was most proud, having negotiated this deal; that is, that the variation date must be no later than 12 months after the date on which this act comes into operation. As I understand it, it is effectively giving BHP Billiton a year to get its act together, as it were. My question of the minister is: what is the impact of that 12-month sunset clause, and why is it that any extensions to that period are not also limited to periods of 12 months? In other words, if the company does not meet its obligations to be ready for the variation date in 12 months, why is it that any extension is effectively open-ended?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Indeed, it is not open-ended at all. There is the period of up to 12 months that has been agreed to and then if there are circumstances where some degree of flexibility might be needed to extend that for a short period of time, depending on sound or reasonable circumstances, that needs to be agreed to by the minister and the company, and it is disallowable before parliament. So, there is a degree of parliamentary scrutiny attached to that.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I need the minister to explore a bit further how that would work. The first thing I note is that there is no condition precedent for extension other than the company wants it and the minister agrees. Secondly, whilst it might be the intention of the government that it only apply to small extensions to the 12-month period, it would seem to me, on the face of it under this clause, that if the company said, 'We are not quite sure what we are doing, we need a 10-year extension,' that the only obligation on the minister is to then table that in parliament where it can be disallowed.

So, I would say, whilst it might be the intention to use it for short extensions, it could be used for long extensions, but my question to the minister is: regardless of the time of the extension, will the parliament have the ability to change the extension to the variation date, or will the parliament just have the power to disallow it? A subsequent question is: if the parliament does disallow the extension and the 12 months has expired, does that effectively kill or end the indenture?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The advice I have received in relation to the last question is: yes, it would kill the indenture. As I said, by ensuring that it is disallowable by parliament, it gives that degree of parliamentary scrutiny. I have put on record what the intention of this provision is: it is to allow for some degree of flexibility where there are reasonable grounds for that to occur, and it is disallowable. So it would have to come to parliament and parliament would have the power to prevent that progressing if it believed those were not reasonable grounds.

Clause passed.

Schedule 1.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): As we move into the schedule, my advice is that the Hon. Mr Parnell can speak to the manner in which his proposed schedule 2 would impact on the current schedule and, once we have got to that stage, we will deal with him moving his proposed new schedule 2.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I would hate to cut across any other members who have questions or comments earlier than I have, but my first contribution is to clause 6 of the schedule.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): It seems there are no contributions before clause 6, so I call the Hon. Mr Parnell.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Clause 6 of the schedule is headed Commitment to a Project. It says, in effect, that, if the company decides to proceed, they are required to notify the minister of that decision. The minister has told us earlier she is expecting that time to be perhaps the middle of next year. The minister then has to decide whether he or she is satisfied of a range of issues, including whether suitable arrangements can be made for the financing of the project and whether the minister is satisfied that the company is ready to embark upon and proceed to implement the project.

My question of the minister is: what is the consequence of the minister not being satisfied with either of those elements, for example, not satisfied that sufficient finance will be available and not satisfied that the company is, in fact, ready to proceed?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that there is in fact no provision here for the minister to approve or not approve. The company is required to provide certain information to the minister. If the company fails to provide that information, then technically they are in breach of the indenture.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I understand that this is primarily around provision of information. That information presumably then finds its way into an application, and we are now moving into clause 7, the approvals clause. I note that when giving approvals, based on the information provided in clause 6, the minister does have the power to refuse the application and, if the minister does refuse, the minister has to provide reasons. The decision of the minister is effectively subject to the arbitration clause. Will the minister clarify that, notwithstanding the fact that a minister might think there is inadequate information on which to base an approval and therefore he or she exercises their judgment not to approve, that decision could be overridden by the arbitration clause?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised yes, that is so.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: On clause 7, the approvals process provides for the approving body to be the minister for any project approval other than an environmental authorisation, yet there are approvals that relate to the environment that are not technically environmental authorisations. Why do those approvals go to a minister who does not necessarily have any detailed knowledge of—and when I say 'knowledge' I am also talking about the department behind the minister—the environment, for example, the environmental management program. Why do the approvals go to the indenture minister rather than a more appropriate minister with a department behind him or her with expertise in the environment?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the indenture sets up a one-stop shop for approvals and that was the intention of the way that we structured the indenture. However, the indenture minister has to consult with the responsible relevant minister and they are required to receive their agreement for appropriate decisions.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Is there some part of clause 7 that I have missed that requires that consultation with other ministers, or is that elsewhere in the indenture?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Clause 7(3) of the act, I have been advised.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Despite that requirement to consult, is there any ability for the minister to delegate his or her powers under the approvals clause, clause 7 of the indenture?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised no.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: That is it for clause 7. Clause 7A—Environmental authorisation. I refer the minister to the final words of clause 7A(1):

...the application for any Environmental Authorisation may, in the discretion of the Company, be made to the EPA pursuant to this Clause 7A.

My question is: what does that mean, that it may be made? Does that mean that there may not be any application needed at all, or an application is needed and the company has the choice of who to make the application to? What does it mean?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the company has the choice of applying to the EPA in the normal way, or taking advantage of clause 7A with the arbitration rights.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: That does not quite answer my question. Arbitration only arises if you have made an application and there is a dispute in relation to the application. My question is: if the company is not to apply to the EPA for an environmental authorisation, who else could it apply to in the first instance?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, if it is an approval under the Environment Protection Act, it can only be the EPA.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer. That is what I would have hoped. I just wanted to clarify that there is no opportunity under this or any other clause for the company to apply for environmental authorisations to anyone other than the EPA. For example, can the minister clarify that such applications cannot be made to the indenture minister? Further, are there any environmental authorisations that the company is not obliged to apply for? In relation to any environmental authorisations that are somehow granted as a right, either through this indenture or through the development approval or through any other process, are there any that are granted pursuant to some other provision or must they all be applied for?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Our understanding is that they would have to be applied for. That is the advice I have received.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer and move on to clause 7A(2), which basically provides that the EPA has a number of options open to it. They are the standard sorts of options: when an application is made they can approve it, they can approve it subject to conditions, or they can refuse it. They are the three basic options. When it comes the second option, approving subject to conditions, there is a requirement that the EPA must give reasons for its decision to attach conditions to the approval.

My question is: why is that a requirement of the EPA in this case when it is not a requirement in any other case where a person or company applies for an environmental authorisation? My understanding is that if the EPA is to refuse an authorisation then, yes, they have to give reasons; but my understanding under the Environment Protection Act is that, when it is simply the attachment of conditions, they are not obliged to disclose effectively written reasons for their decision. Why is it the case here, and why is the EPA not simply obliged to follow its normal procedures?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the EPA currently is required to provide reasons for its decisions as a matter of course.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Can I just clarify their decisions in relation to conditions, because that was my question? I understand they have to provide reasons for refusal but do they have to provide reasons if they attach conditions?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: My advice is yes.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer. In relation to subclause (4) of 7A, this is a subclause that requires consultation. It says that the EPA shall afford both the applicant and the minister full opportunity to consult the EPA if the EPA proposes to attach conditions or proposes to reject the application for an environmental authorisation. My question is: does that requirement to consult apply to any other applicant for an environmental authorisation in South Australia?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised no.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The importance of the question and the answer, of course, as members would know, is that under the Environment Protection Act, which we are told will play a prominent role in this project, the minister is at arm's length from the EPA in relation to two matters: one of them is the issuing of licences and the other is an enforcement. So here we have a primary breach of the arm's length provisions of the Environment Protection Act because we have the minister holding hands with a company in with the EPA, convincing the EPA not to impose conditions or not to subject the company to a refusal.

I just make that observation; I do not require a response from the minister. I am making the point that the EPA is at arm's length from government when it comes to licensing matters. Here is a situation where the minister, in fact, will be consulted and will be in there at the EPA meeting with the company—presumably together, maybe separately.

My next question relates to subclause (5) which is the arbitration provision. Are there any other licence applicants or environmental authorisation applicants that have the opportunity to go to private arbitration rather than have their matter dealt with in the ERD Court?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised no.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In relation to subclause (6), which does mention the ERD Court, it says that if the company does not want to go to private arbitration then the company can decide to take the dispute to the environment court. My question is: why is the choice of forum entirely up to the company? Why can't the EPA decide that the environment court is a better forum for hearing the dispute?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that having the right to arbitration was a condition of BHPB agreeing to take environment authorities out of clause 7; so, making sure that the EPA can make the decision and not the indenture minister.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I understand that that was one of BHP Billiton's requirements, but it really does not answer the question. Why can't the EPA choose to take the dispute to the environment court? Why is it only the company that gets to choose the forum?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As I said, that was the agreement.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In relation to subclause (7) of clause 7A, can the minister just confirm that, in addition to the list of documents that the EPA is required to have regard to, the EPA will also still have to have regard to the objects of the Environment Protection Act and any relevant environment protection policies under that act; that that will still be an obligation on the part of the EPA to take those documents into account as well?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: If those are the matters that are normally taken into account, then the advice is yes.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: They are my questions on clause 7A. When we get to my amendment that deals with this, members will find that there is a number of amendments that clarify some of the matters that the minister has raised in her answers, for example, making sure that all applications for environmental authorisations go to the Environment Protection Authority and to delete some of the special provisions that are granted to BHP Billiton to bring it back to the field, if you like.

Alternatively, the government might want to raise the standards that apply across the South Australian economy, but, in the absence, I think that the EPA should not have any more onerous obligations imposed on it when dealing with this company than it would have dealing with any other company. My amendments seek to reinstate the Environment, Resources and Development Court as the arbitrator of all disputes, and to make it crystal clear, as the minister has just said, that the matters that the court would take into account would include the objects of the Environment Protection Act and any environment protection policies if they were standing in the shoes of the EPA.

My amendments also remove provisions that effectively allow for automatic approval of environmental authorisations once the development authorisation is granted. I know that the minister will probably say, 'Well, that's already inherent in the Development Act.' Nevertheless, I want to see this indenture removed to remove that connection.

When we get to my schedule 2, they will be my amendments to clause 7A. I have nothing on clause 8. With respect to clause 9—Subsequent projects, I have taken the opportunity in this clause to set out what are for the Greens some of the key difficulties we have with this project and some of the prerequisites that would need to be met before we could approve either this project or a subsequent project, which is why I have put it in here. I will do two to start with, the two main conditions: first of all, the on-site copper processing rather than overseas processing. Effectively, my amendments, when we get to them, say in relation to subsequent projects that they are not going to go ahead unless these preconditions are met, and on-site copper processing rather than overseas processing is number one.

As I would remind members, that was the promise that the premier made to us back in 2007. In the answers that the minister has just given us when we started this later session, she made the concession that if the company decides to send 100 per cent of the ore overseas and that 100 per cent of the processing jobs will occur overseas, there is not one thing that the government can do about it, because the indenture locks in the ability of the company to go down that path if it so chooses.

In relation to subsequent projects, on-site processing should be a prerequisite. The other prerequisite which I have included in my amendment to this clause is that 100 per cent renewable energy be used, initially in relation to the electricity supply. We will get to the clause that deals with energy later on and I will have a little bit more to say about that. It seems to me that when you have this massive new demand in an era of climate change, and in a legislative environment where we have passed an act of this place requiring us to reduce our emissions, it makes no sense at all for this company to in fact single-handedly blow all our greenhouse targets out of the water. That is why that is a precondition as well.

The amendment, when people get to it, will realise that those two things are there. The third precondition for future or subsequent projects, which will come as no surprise to members, is that the company needs to agree that all uranium that is capable of being extracted from any product is to be directed to the tailings stockpile and that all tailings are to be eventually returned to the pit. So there are three things: it is a no uranium option, it is 100 per cent powered by renewable energy, and we keep the jobs here in South Australia. When we get to schedule 2 members will be able to put on the record their support for those three important concepts. That is it for clause 9.

Clause 10 concerns compliance with codes, and I draw the committee's attention to subclauses (3) and (4) of clause 10. I am not sure that they are consistent. Subclause (3) provides that if the parliament, either state or federal, sets standards in relation to radiation exposure, transport or whatever, then the company must comply with those standards, but clause 4 says that the government cannot impose higher standards on the company than those that are listed in a certain list of documents that are included in subclause (1).

My question to the minister is: how does that work? How is it that you can say on the one hand you have to comply with the standard set by parliament and then on the other hand say that you are not allowed to insist on any higher standards than exist in a number of documents that are not legislative documents? They are not legislated, they are not acts of parliament, they are not regulations; most of them are codes of practice, recommendations or publications issued from time to time. My question is: how are those two things consistent—complying with the law of the land, but not having to comply with higher standards than in the documents on that list?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that these are not inconsistent. One says that they have to comply with the law and the other says what the law can be. I just remind honourable members that these provisions have been unchanged since 1982.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer and remind the chamber that, when it comes to the history of setting standards of exposure for various toxic materials, standards that are 19 years old are the exception rather than the rule. What we know is that when standards are revised they are nearly always revised upwards to show that smaller concentrations of dangerous substances than we had previously believed are, in fact, dangerous.

What the minister is really saying is that the reason she is saying it is not inconsistent is that they have to follow the law but, when it says 'the state shall not seek to impose on the company any higher standards', effectively the contract is for the state not to legislate for any tougher standards than some of these 18-year-old provisions in guidelines and codes of conduct set out in that list. So, I just make the observation that I think that is an appalling way to manage things. It is effectively trying to require the state never to increase its standards. My solution, which we will get to in my schedule 2, is actually to delete subclause (4) so that what we are left with is that the company complies with the law of the land. That is it in relation to clause 10.

In relation to clause 11—environmental management programs—clause 1 provides that the company has to provide an environmental management program to the government within 12 months or any longer period that is agreed. So, in relation to possible extensions of time, is there any limitation? How long could the government give BHP Billiton to provide that environmental management program if it is not to be done within the 12 months?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that there is no upper limit. It is really just a matter of what is reasonable.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Maybe the minister could point to a provision of the indenture that makes it clear that no relevant work to which an environmental management program applies—no work—can be undertaken until that environmental management program has been received and approved.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the Development Act approval requires a number of environmental plans before work can proceed, and there is an existing EMP which has to be revised and approved by the minister.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I refer the minister to clause 11(3)—Environment management program. It has a curious provision in here which provides:

(3) In addition to the requirements that are or can otherwise be included in an EMP, the Company may, at its absolute discretion, include in an EMP any condition or requirement, however called or described, of any Project Approval to the extent the condition or requirement relates to the protection, management or rehabilitation of the environment.

I ask the minister what is actually meant by that? Why is the company given the ability, 'at its absolute discretion', to incorporate material into this plan?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that these are requirements of the Development Act that the company requested so that it would be easier for them to be able to manage under a single management system.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer. Is there anything in those words, where it says the company may 'at its absolute discretion' to in any way make a decision made under this subclause, immune from the arbitration provisions, for example? Does the fact that the indenture says that is their absolute discretion mean that it cannot be challenged by the government?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised no.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: There are a number of concepts in this clause 11 that are somewhat at variance with the concepts that we are used to seeing in environmental legislation. For example, in subclause (9) there is a reference to something that has 'a material environmental impact'. If we look at subclause (11), there is a reference to 'unexpected material detriment to the environment'. Yet, in the Environment Protection Act, there are a number of established and well recognised concepts and those concepts are serious environmental harm, material environmental harm and environmental nuisance.

How does the minister expect these new concepts, these new forms of words—'material detriment to the environment' and 'material environmental impact'—to relate to the existing suite of language, if you like? How will the EPA interpret those words, given that there are not definitions included in the indenture, whereas there are definitions for those other terms in the Environment Protection Act?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the indenture minister would make a decision about material detriment on a case-by-case basis and that it would be expected that the indenture minister would take whatever expert advice might be necessary to assist them in that decision—whether it was from DENR, the EPA or whomever—wherever that expert advice might be needed.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I understand the minister's answer. My point is that it is a matter of great convenience, I think, to the company when the various tests of performance are untested words. The difference, of course is that, under the Environment Protection Act, those concepts—serious environmental harm, material environmental harm and environmental nuisance—are well-known and well interpreted, with plenty of case law; but I will move on.

Subclause (13) provides that the minister may make available for public inspection an environment management program that has been approved by the minister, an approved mitigation plan and various other documents, including audits. Can the minister explain why the disclosure of those documents is optional rather than compulsory?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, indeed, it is not forcing the minister; it is, in fact, giving the minister the discretion that they need when they need it.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: My question is: why should the minister have a discretion? Why should not the minister be obliged to make these documents publicly available?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is our view that it would be fettering the minister unnecessarily.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I do actually understand what the minister's first answer was—that the default position is one of secrecy, and the clause says, 'Well, the minister may override the secrecy provision and may disclose it.' What I am saying is that I think we need to go one step further and, in fact, I will ask another direct question: is the public register provision of section 109 of the Environment Protection Act overridden by subclause (13) of this clause?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: My advice is that we do not believe that this is relevant because we believe that these are not documents that would go on the EPA register anyway.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Okay, that is interesting. There is a list of documents that must go on the public register. There is a list in section 109, there is a further list in the regulations, and then there is a catch-all provision—and I am working from memory here—that says the EPA can put other stuff up on that it wants. Is the minister saying that her expectation is that the EPA will not want any of these documents to go on the public register and, therefore, will not seek to put them on that register?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I think that my previous answer continues to be the answer to this question, and that is that it is not relevant because we do not believe that these are documents that would go on the EPA register. We are going in circles.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am not happy with that answer. I know, for example, in relation to land contamination, there are requirements to put land contamination information on the public register. There is a requirement under subclause (3) here for audits submitted. I will just disagree with the minister on that and I will move on.

Subclause (15) of this clause talks about effectively where the company has outsourced some component of work, and basically what the clause says in paraphrase is that if the company it has been outsourced to undertakes the obligations in relation to the environmental management program, then the company does not have to. Now, my question is: will all of these companies conducting outsourced elements be required, for example, to have rehabilitation bonds or insurance bonds? If something goes wrong with an outsourced element, is the company completely relieved of obligation or can the buck still stop with them and can they be required, for example, to remediate any environmental harm that resulted?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the party that takes over the outsourced element assumes all responsibility of the indenture in relation to that element.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Does that include provision of rehabilitation bonds or insurance in the event of something going wrong?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that they would have to take over the obligation in relation to clause 11, but in relation to rehabilitation bonds they only apply to BHPB and the mine site.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I think the take home message from that is that if there is anything really risky get someone else to do it. You outsource it and, therefore, you potentially avoid doing your bond, as it were. I now move to probably the most abhorrent provision in this whole indenture. It is pretty hard to put your finger on one, but I am going to put my finger on clause 11(18). It is only a paragraph so I will read it into Hansard because it is an absolute doozy. It provides:

Notwithstanding the provisions of this clause 11, the state acknowledges that the company, in assessing the economic feasibility of a project, shall have regard to the laws, regulations or standards (other than those referred to in clause 10) relative to the environment existing at the time at which the relevant project notice is given. Should there occur, during the currency of this indenture, any changes to any such laws, regulations or standards of or applied by the state, the result of which is to impose substantial additional costs upon the company, the state shall, upon request of the company, give due consideration to ameliorating the adverse effects of such costs.

The reason I say this is an abhorrent provision is because what it is doing is what we did back in the 1960s, where we locked in current standards for 50 years—the standard that applied to Lake Bonney; the standard that applied in the old Whyalla indenture—you can pollute as much as you want provided you really think you have to. Who knows where environmental standards would go in the next 50 years? So, my first question of the minister in relation to this clause is: why on earth did you lock in for 40, 50, 60 or 70 years the environmental standards of 2011 and not leave the door open to increase or change those standards over time without risking the finances of the state in massive compensation claims?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that this clause has always been in the indenture and that we are not required to pay any compensation, only to consider payment of compensation. More importantly, it implies that BHPB is not immune from future environmental laws.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: That is a very interesting spin the minister has put on that clause. It seems pretty clear to me that if environmental standards change and it costs the company money to comply with the new standards, they can then put in a request to the state to pay compensation to them for having to meet those higher standards. If the state refuses and it goes to arbitration, the arbitrator is obliged to look at the objects of the indenture and the commercial considerations of the project, the arbitrator awards compensation and all of a sudden it is the state that pays.

Let me pose a specific question. There is nothing in this subclause (18) that limits these environmental changes to state law. Let us say, for example, the commonwealth changes its standards. Members might be aware that there are a number of bills before the federal parliament, for example, to attach a new trigger under the EPBC Act in relation to groundwater, a trigger that has been, if you like, triggered by the controversy over coal seam gas. We might find, in the future, that that small list of matters of national environmental significance under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act grows over time, the feds will enter into environmental management, where they have never been before, and they will impose standards.

If those standards change, if the commonwealth brings in new environmental laws that make it more expensive for the company to have to meet those standards and they are entitled, under this clause, to put in a claim for compensation, if that was to occur can the minister confirm whether or not the state might be forced, through the arbitration system in this bill, to pay that compensation?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As I have already stated in my previous answer, we are not required to pay any compensation, only to consider it. I have been advised that we cannot be forced to pay compensation through the arbitration process.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I hope the minister is right: I am not convinced that she is. Before I go to the amendments that I have to clause 11—and I appreciate the forbearance of the committee because it is, in fact, one of the longest and most significant of clauses in the indenture—it is the appropriate time for me to raise some issues in relation to particular environmental concerns.

What I have done so far in this committee is talk about the process, the operation, of clause 11. I now wish to touch on a couple of issues. I want to talk about the management of the tailings facility. I want to ask questions about dust suppression and make some observations. I want to talk briefly about the risk to bird life and also ask questions about the waste rock heap.

The CHAIR: I remind the honourable member that in the committee stage you talk about the clause but that is for the second reading speech, mainly. Feel free to ask the questions and move your amendments and talk to your amendments, but we should really leave it at that rather than making contributions, that sound like second reading speeches, to clauses.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Hear, hear!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank you for your guidance. The Hon. David Ridgway says, 'Hear, hear!' I have enjoyed hearing his contributions when he has talked about the extensive briefings he has had from the company and the task force, and the advanced copy he got of the legislation and the different opportunities. His colleagues in the lower house, I am sure, appreciated that they, in fact, had their own select committee where they were able to directly ask the company a range of these questions. So, while I will take your guidance, as always, Mr Chairman, about the appropriate way to proceed—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Did you ask for a briefing?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Yes, we got a briefing from the EPA. We got a briefing from the Olympic Dam—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: You could have got a briefing on anything you wanted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: We got briefings from the Olympic Dam task force.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: You could have got it from whoever you wanted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: We asked questions. I had a briefing early on with BHP Billiton. The point I am making—

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. G.E. Gago: They got whatever briefings they wanted, and the same was available to you.

The CHAIR: Order! You just got a briefing from the chair. It might be best that you follow that one.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Thank you, Mr Chair. In relation to the tailings facility, I will preface my question by reminding members of the editorial that appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser on 24 August 2009 under the heading 'Olympic Dam issues must be resolved' and two sentences from that editorial. It said:

The government already gave ground on its demands for the maximisation of job creation in the expansion, agreeing it made economic sense for much of the ore processing to be conducted overseas. It must not give any ground over environmental issues: future generations would never forgive us.

In relation to the tailings, part of the debate around this issue has been that we posed a number of questions. The Advertiser asked us for our top 10 questions and the government then responded. One of the questions we posed was: how can the government claim that they have met their public commitment for the expansion to meet world's best practice when only 4 per cent of the tailings dams are to be lined and the dams are designed to leak?

The premier in his response in The Advertiser made a substantial admission, I believe, when he said that, rather than using plastic liners, they were going to use the natural sediments, in other words, the natural earth. The premier claimed that this use of natural sediments was considered to be more reliable than a plastic liner.

My question of the minister is: how can the government claim that, given that leakage through the natural sediments is up to eight million litres per day over the first 10 years, given that we know a plastic liner would greatly reduce that leakage, how can the government claim that not lining the tailings facility provides a better environmental outcome?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I reiterate that the government has been extremely tolerant and shown a great deal of latitude during the committee stage. The matters the honourable member is referring to are matters pertaining to the EIS and are not matters within the indenture act, which is before us at the moment and which we are supposed to be discussing clause by clause. I will afford a brief answer, and that is that these matters have been extensively reviewed. We have utilised world's best expert advice in relation to these matters pertaining to the particular terrain and circumstances, and we are applying the best practice and science that is available to us.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In relation to these tailings, I pointed out in previous contributions that world's best practice is disposal of tailings back into the pit. Can the minister explain why that option was not explored and why it was not required as a condition of approval?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Your assumption, I am advised, is actually incorrect.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: If my assumption is that it is not world's best practice to put the tailings back in the pit, why is that the requirement at the Ranger uranium mine?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is a different environment, and that is the science and advice that applied to that particular terrain, and that particular circumstance came up with that solution. We have provided the best advice and science to the particular circumstances at Olympic Dam, and that is the best solution we have to manage those matters there. I can only reiterate that these are matters of the EIS. We are not here tonight passing the EIS. We are here to debate the indenture: these are not matters of the indenture, and I believe we need to move on.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I know the minister would like to move on, and I will not argue with the minister as that would be unparliamentary. We are talking about clause 11; this is the clause that requires the company to document how it will manage the environmental impacts of the project. This is the environmental management program section. I nominated just a small number of environmental issues, and I will proceed with all haste, but I would appreciate the minister answering as best she can.

She said that Ranger is not world's best practice as it is a different environment. I remind the minister that we have actually cut short this committee stage a great deal by my putting an awful lot of questions on notice in advance. I am not proposing to go through all those questions and all those answers, other than when the answers were unsatisfactory. One that was unsatisfactory is in relation to this point. We asked the government if it could provide us with examples of other arid or semi-arid mine sites where there were successful examples of tailings rehabilitation in circumstances similar to what is being proposed here at Olympic Dam.

The government pointed out a whole lot of documents it was relying on as to why what it was doing was appropriate, but it still has not provided us with any examples of arid or semi-arid mine sites where disposal of tailings in the form proposed has been successfully undertaken. Is the minister able to provide any such examples?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have answered the question, and that is that we have had extensive review of these matters. We have relied on world expert advice. and we are applying the best science that is available to us to the particular circumstances and terrain at the Olympic Dam site.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Parnell might get around to moving his amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will certainly do that shortly, as I am able. This is the only point in this debate where specific environmental issues relevant to clause 11, the environmental management program, can be raised. There are a lot of other issues about roads, airports and royalties which we will get to. I know that the Hon. Kelly Vincent is keen to ask some questions on clause 12.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: If the Greens do not ask questions on the environment, who will?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: As the Hon. Rob Lucas said, no-one else would be asking questions. I will push on. Part of the criticism that has been made in relation to the tailings facility is that only 4 per cent of it is going to be lined. I ask the minister, in relation to the environmental management program, is it the case that if more of the tailings facility were lined that you would get a proportional decrease in the amount of toxic liquid that is escaping into the environment?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Again, I have already answered the question; that is, that we have sought the best advice possible. We have based this approach on that world's best scientific advice and we are managing the project accordingly.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister. One question that was not answered and I will give the minister another chance—it was not the minister who did not answer it, it was the Olympic Dam task force—was what it would cost to fully line the tailings storage facility in order to effectively control the leakage of liquid radioactive waste. Does the minister have any understanding of what the cost of 100 per cent lining would be?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the cost is around $30 million per cell, but to suggest that we are not proceeding with the 100 per cent lining because of the cost would be an incorrect assumption. I can only reiterate that we have based this on the best advice possible and we have sought to adopt those solutions based on that best advice possible.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: My final question is on the issue of the tailings facility. First of all, can the minister confirm that a design feature of the tailings dam is that it is designed to leak? Can the minister describe what the materials, chemicals or contaminants are that might be expected to be transported with the leachate into the groundwater?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Based on the scientific advice that we have received and the considerable reviews that have been undertaken what I can assure the honourable member is that the solution that we have put in place absolutely minimises contamination of the underground water supply.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I mentioned in my second reading speech that one of the issues that was raised by Birds Australia was the impact of the tailings facilities on birds, and in particular on the mortality of birds. What conditions would the minister expect to see in the environmental management program in relation to minimising bird deaths in the tailings facility? I note that, in the past, BHP has said that it would partially cover the area with netting which it hoped would reduce the risk. Birds Australia queried whether that would be successful, whether the netting would survive in the acid environment. Can the minister add any more information about how this particular environmental impact is likely to be managed?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that they have put a number of things in place. One is to design the tailings in a way that will drastically reduce the amount of water—and, of course, it is the water that attracts the birds in the first instance. They are also spending $5 million for research to consider further ways to manage the bird issue.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Finally in relation to the birds, will the company be required to undertake monitoring and, if the result of the monitoring shows that the methods undertaken are unsuccessful, will there be the ability, either under the environment management program or elsewhere, for the government to require alternative solutions to be put in place?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: My advice is that the answer is yes to both of those questions.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In relation to dust pollution, members will recall that this was a key feature of the submission from Doctors for the Environment, and I think also the Medical Association for the Prevention of War raised the issue of toxic dust, some of which may include radioactive particles, but we know that all dust is bad for all human health. Can I ask the minister: what monitoring will be in place for air quality? Will that monitoring be undertaken by the EPA or by BHP Billiton or both?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the answer is yes to both of those questions.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In relation to the dust monitoring, are there any assurances the minister can give that the dust suppression techniques and the design of the facility will be sufficient to prevent radioactive-contaminated dust reaching either the township of Roxby Downs or the Hiltaba Village?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the company will be required to develop a management plan in respect of the management of dust and that that is required to result in minimal risk to the township you mentioned—

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Hiltaba, and Roxby.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: And Roxby.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: My understanding is that an amount of the water that is going to be used for dust suppression will, in fact, be saline groundwater. Is the minister able to provide any advice on how much water is going to be used for dust suppression?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that it is 15 to 25 megalitres per day.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The final of the environmental issues that I will be covering under clause 11 relates to the waste rock heap. The waste rock heap needs to be distinguished from the overburden waste storage. The waste rock heap will consist of what has been called class A material, which is effectively low-grade ore. That is going to be stockpiled at the side of the overburden waste mountain. As I understand it, the intention is that that waste rock heap will not be covered in any way or rehabilitated in any way, because it has effectively been put to one side with the hope that one day it will become economic to mine it. The EIS refers to the fact that the class A material would not be covered by benign material because it might be economic to mine it in the future.

The reason I think that is an issue for this environmental management program is that the assumption seems to be that the environmental impacts of run-off from these piles are going to be the same; in other words, the same environmental impacts from the overburden as will result from run-off from the class A material. Now, I am no miner, but it is my understanding that it is not as if the overburden is somehow benign and has no minerals in it, and you then get down to this sort of magic seam where all of a sudden it does. My understanding is that the concentrations of different minerals will vary in different strata. Effectively, the assumption appears to have been that benign material and future mining material is being treated the same way.

So I ask the minister, given that what is effectively a low-grade ore stockpile is not going to be covered, how is it that the problem of sulphide minerals and acid leachate will not be significant? I remind members that we just have to look at Brukunga, a mine that has cost us much more to rehabilitate because of its acid leachate problem than we ever got from it in minerals. Can the minister assure us that that will not be a problem in relation to the waste rock heap?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that I can assure the honourable member that the waste rock heap and the matter it will contain has been fully assessed through the assessment report. It has been deemed to be benign, and particularly because of the very dry environment it is not deemed to pose a risk.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: To clarify the minister's answer, is she saying that effectively the acid levels, for example, the pH, of the pile of rocks to be mined in the future will be exactly the same as the overburden that has little or no prospect of having extractable minerals contained in it?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that it has very little acid-generating capacity.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have some amendments on this clause—

The CHAIR: It might pay to move them at this stage, before I lose my place.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Basically there is a range of amendments to clause 11 which members can see in my proposed schedule 2. They include, for example, changing references from the minister to become references to the Environment Protection Authority. There is a range of deletions of special treatment, where the company is treated preferentially to other companies. There is an obligation on the EPA to make documents available rather than simply an ability to make them available. I further amended the clause to make it clear that the company will remain responsible for the conduct of their contractors, if you like, in relation to outsourced elements.

Most importantly, I have removed subclause (18) from clause 11, which I believe places an onus, or at least an expectation, on the state to pay compensation if there are substantial additional costs upon the company in meeting changes in laws, regulations or standards relative to the environment during the currency of the indenture, in other words, removing that clause that effectively prevents the government, either state or federal, from raising environmental standards unless they are prepared to pay the price of having to meet those standards.

I am just telling you what those amendments will be; I am not moving them now because we can do it later. That is it on clause 11, and we are now onto clause 11A. We are racing along, and we are still far short of the time the other place took to go through this process, so I think we are actually doing remarkably well. Whilst clause 11A might be the shortest clause in this entire indenture (being only 3½ lines long) it is, in fact, one of the most important because it is the clause that relates to the greenhouse gas and energy management plan. Basically, the clause provides that the environmental management program will incorporate a greenhouse gas and energy management plan.

I mentioned earlier that there were some WikiLeaks cables that related to this project, and one of them referred to the Olympic Dam expansion as being a carbon neutral facility, in that the company was likely to purchase international CO₂ reduction credits to offset the much larger emission footprint of the open-pit expansion. That was according to WikiLeaks, but mining minister Tom Koutsantonis was quoted on commercial radio on 10 October this year as saying, 'Whatever impacts it will have, it will be carbon neutral.' My question to the minister is: what does that mean? What does it mean, that this project will be carbon neutral?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Sorry, could you repeat the question? We are just not too sure exactly what you are asking of us.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Presumably what minister Tom Koutsantonis meant was that whatever environmental impacts the Olympic Dam expansion will have, 'it will be carbon neutral'; 'it' meaning the project, 'will be carbon neutral'. What does that mean?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am not able to comment because I do not know what was in the mind of the minister at that particular time or the context in which he made those comments, so it would depend on that.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will not push the minister for an answer on that question; they were not her comments; they were another minister's comments. Clearly, they mean nothing. In fact, the commitment that has been made in relation to greenhouse emissions is that the company would reduce emissions by 60 per cent by the year 2050, so 100,000 tonnes of emissions based on scope 1 and 2 emissions.

I note that the Conservation Council, which did manage (after some pressure) to be able to give evidence to the select committee on the bill, made the point in the media and before the committee that it believes that it is misleading for the Premier or anyone else to say that those emissions are likely. In fact, Tim Kelly, the CEO of the Conservation Council, makes the point that there is a vast difference between aspirational goals and commitments, and, whilst it might be an aspirational goal for the company to reach that target, it is well short of a commitment. If it was a commitment it would be binding as part of the conditions of approval.

Mr Kelly of the Conservation Council points out his frustration and his organisation's frustration with the entire process—right through the EIS through to this indenture we are debating now. The frustration is that there are so many aspirational targets which pass off as commitments. One of the points that he makes is that the supplementary EIS referred to applying a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whereas, in fact, it appears to be nothing more than an aspirational target. My question to the minister is: is Mr Kelly correct? Has BHP Billiton committed to reducing its emissions by 60 per cent of 1990 emissions by the year 2050, or is it merely an aspirational goal?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: BHP has made a commitment in the EIS to apply a goal of reducing greenhouse gases as specified.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: To pursue that answer, the only assured greenhouse-related outcome in the project, as I understand it, that is committed, is the 57 megawatts of renewable energy, so 400 gigawatt hours per year of renewable energy, for the desalination plant and the pumping. On my figures that equates to a maximum of 7.6 per cent renewable energy. Can the minister explain—and this is in the context of the greenhouse gas and energy management plan—how the company intends to meet its obligation, given that it has only committed to that 7.6 per cent so far and it has a great deal further to go?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Sorry, could you repeat that?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am saying that the other minister told me that yes, the company is committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent under the EIS. We have identified about 7 per cent. Where is the rest going to come from? I do not want the minister to say that they have not written their greenhouse gas and energy management plan under clause 11A yet, because the government must have some inkling of how it is they are proposing to meet their target, otherwise the government must know that the target will not be met.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that there is a proposed road map in the EIS and that has to be provided to the minister. We believe that that is annually. We just need to check, but we think it is annually.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Has the government undertaken any analysis of what this project means for the state's overall greenhouse emission targets, in particular the targets set out in the 2007 state legislation?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Not to our knowledge. Again, I think the government has shown a lot of latitude and we are straying very far from the indenture bill before us.

The CHAIR: I tend to agree. The Hon. Mr Parnell should really speak to his amendments, move his amendments. You had the opportunity to put your questions on notice, and you had a second reading speech. I think you should move your amendments, speak to your amendments and chance your luck.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Thank you, as always, for your advice. I just have one or two more questions. I do maintain that the title of this clause is 'Greenhouse and energy management plan'. It is only 3½ lines. It is short on detail and the only way we can work out what in fact that plan might mean for our state and for our overall state emissions is for me to ask these questions. I ask the minister: what is the procedure if the government believes that the greenhouse gas and energy management plan is insufficient to meet the target? In other words, if the company puts forward a plan and the government reviews it and says, 'There's no way this plan is going to reach the company's obligation,' what can and will the government do about that?'

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The greenhouse plan is part of the EMP which has to be approved by the minister.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: With respect, that does not answer my question. My question is: if the plan is clearly inadequate, if the plan shows that there is no way that the company is going to meet its obligation, what can and will the government do about that?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, if they are not meeting their targets, we will not approve the plan.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: If the government has approved the plan and the company does not fulfil its targets, what will the government do? I might just preface that by saying that I understand the target we are talking about is a target by 2050, but the minister referred to a roadmap, and the roadmap is to contain interim targets. It is one thing for the company to say, 'Here's our plan; this is what we're going to do' and then either not do it or do it in such a way that it does not meet the targets. What consequences flow from that? The consequences we are talking about are the state's greenhouse emissions, the greatest moral challenge of our time, we were told by a former prime minister. I want to know what the consequences are for an inadequate plan or a failure to meet a plan and a failure to meet the interim targets set out in the plan.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: My understanding is that the plan is reviewed every 12 months. So, if the plan is approved—I think is what the honourable member is saying—and the plan meets the requirements and the minister approves it, but then during that 12 months they do not fulfil elements within the plan, what happens? It is reviewed every 12 months by the minister and the minister can then impose additional conditions on the next review round.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just to clarify that, is the minister saying that we will know exactly how the company is tracking in terms of its greenhouse gas emissions every year?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: My advice is, yes.

The CHAIR: You said every 12 months. I think there are 12 months in the year.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: That might be, but emissions ain't emissions as they—well, no-one ever said it; I just said it. When we are talking about emissions—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: You just made that up.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I did make that up. Oils ain't oils. There are three types of emissions: scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3. Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions generated by the company, and that would include things like using petrol and diesel. Scope 2 emissions are from purchased energy, such as buying in electricity. Scope 3 emissions are from other indirect sources, and typically that is materials or products or services that are purchased.

For example, the emissions that relate to the biggest fleet of dump trucks in the world has greenhouse gas emissions associated with it. Can the minister confirm that all emissions are going to be included in the greenhouse gas and energy management plan under clause 11A, including scope 3 emissions?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the short answer is no and that no national state law requires that scope 3.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: If the government is not going to require scope 3 emissions to be taken into account, will it nevertheless be seeking to analyse what those scope 3 emissions are so that we have a complete picture of the greenhouse implications of this project?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: If the national standard is scope 3, then we will; that is the advice I have received.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Is the minister saying that, unless someone imposes on the government a requirement to consider all greenhouse emissions, the government will only consider part of the emissions and that it needs to be forced either to consider itself, or even suggest that the company makes some assessment of, its scope 3 emissions? In the absence of externally-imposed conditions, such as from the commonwealth, the government will not pay any attention to scope 3 emissions; is that the minister's answer?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: At this stage, the government is satisfied with fulfilling current standards.

The CHAIR: Have we moved those amendments yet?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: No, but very soon. From the minister's answers, she is saying they are satisfied. Is the minister of the belief that scope 3 emissions are not important in overall greenhouse accounting?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have answered the question. We have talked about what the national standard is, and we are in keeping with that. I have answered the question.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Clearly, one of the key methods the company could have used to reduce its emissions would be to take responsibility for its own generation of energy. Can the minister explain why, either as part of a greenhouse and energy management plan or just generally as conditions of approval for this project, the government did not require the company to take responsibility for generating its own renewable energy?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: You are asking why—

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will expand on my question.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No, I do not want you to expand on your question—please do not expand on your question. My question to you is: are you asking why we are not requiring them to buy renewable energy?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: No, why are not you requiring them to produce renewable energy? They are a new source of demand; why not require them to produce a new source of renewable energy supply?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The answer is that they are a mining operation, not an energy production plant, and they will conduct their business accordingly.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer, and I just point out to members that I think the very year that the original draft EIS was released the government announced that the state target was that we would be producing 33 per cent of our energy from renewable sources. It seems that it would have been a logical requirement to impose on the company that they produce at least 33 per cent of their energy from renewable energy.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: And I think we are pretty close to meeting our target already.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: But the minister did not answer the question I gave before which is: what is the government's assessment on overall state emissions in the short to medium term of this project? Am I correct in my statement that our statutory greenhouse reduction targets will be blown out of the water by this single project?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have already answered this question, so the honourable member is just asking the same question in a number of different ways. We have already said that, if they meet their targets, they will be working within the state achievable target. So, we have already been down this path.

The CHAIR: The honourable member should move his amendments.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Thank you, Mr Chairman, you have beaten me to the mark. I will not be moving it, but I will just explain what my amendment is because we will move it in en bloc when we get to schedule 2.

I do have an amendment to clause 11A, which basically adds an additional requirement for an interim greenhouse gas reduction target of 20 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2020, and that 20 per cent of all stationary energy needs should be met from renewable energy sources by that date. I think that is a sensible amendment. It fills, at least in part, the gap that has been created by the government letting this company off the hook by having only an aspirational, long-term target that the minister knows and I know, and I think everyone in this room knows, the company has not a snowflake's chance in hell of meeting. When we get to it, I would urge all honourable members to support that amendment.

That is it in relation to clause 11A. If we can move on to clause 12, I will sit down. You have heard enough from me, I think. If the Hon. Kelly Vincent happens to get the call, I know she has got some questions on this clause.

The CHAIR: Clause 12. The Hon. Kelly Vincent.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I am sure the Hon. Mr Parnell will be glad to have a Bex and a lie down, as they say. My first question pertains to clause 12(1)(a), which says that, where reasonable and economically practicable, the workforce for this project must come from within the state of South Australia. My question is: if there are professionals in South Australia who are qualified and available and use a wheelchair, for example, but can nonetheless perform the necessary duties for such a job, will BHP be encouraged to alter the physical which, I understand, is done during the job interview process for hiring staff at BHP?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the company has a diversity policy which does not discriminate.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: My second question pertains to clause 12(4), which says:

Nothing in this Clause 12 shall require the Company or an associated company to act other than upon commercial considerations.

My question is: what exactly does commercial consideration mean in this context? For example, if it were cheaper to import a large workforce from some of the developing countries that I mentioned in my contribution yesterday, is it likely that this will be done?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Could you just repeat that, sorry?

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Certainly. Sorry, I am a bit jumbled; I am working with a myriad of notes. In my contribution yesterday, I talked about the possibility that, if there was not an adequate workforce here in South Australia in terms of numbers, then we could perhaps import, for example, indeed people with disabilities, but perhaps young men from war-torn countries like Sudan to undertake this work and therefore get educational opportunities that they may not have had in their home countries. I am wondering that, if it were economically viable to do so under the BHP diversity policy—I think it was called—would they be encouraged to take such measures?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I obviously cannot speak on behalf of BHP and their HR management, but they are a company that is very sophisticated in terms of their HR management. They have a strong commitment to diversity and, where there are not skills available in South Australia first of all, then secondly in Australia, if it is economically viable, I would imagine they really would not mind where they imported their skills from and would be happy to import them from those countries which would be advantaged the most by those practices.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: My next question pertains to clause 12(5)(a) which talks about the importance of BHP giving particular consideration to offering employment opportunities for young people and Aboriginal people. Of course, I am not denying that people in those groups have historically had lower than average employment and education opportunities, but I am wondering, given that workforce participation rates are lower and unemployment rates are higher for people with disabilities, why was special consideration not given to this group, also?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the list provided in subclause (5) from (a) to (f) is an indicative list only. It is simply to provide some guidelines as to the degree of diversity. However, (g) is a catch-all clause that really is to include all elements. For instance, ethnicity is not actually dealt with in (a) to (f), nor is age, except for youth. It does not deal with older Australians or older employees, so there are a whole range of diversity parameters that are not specifically dealt with but that are expected to be captured by (g).

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Following on from discussing paragraph (g)—and I am aware that you are perhaps not able to elaborate enough to really answer this question—has the government task force discussed with BHP innovative diversification measures, for example, something like I discussed in my contribution yesterday, such as employing people with intellectual disabilities similar to the partnership between Orana and the sawmill in Mount Gambier?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that no, to this point, we have not, except in relation to those elements that are addressed in that section that I have just outlined. However, I certainly invite the Hon. Kelly Vincent to meet with the task force to discuss these matters further and look at opportunities to address those sorts of issues.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I look forward to that invitation, thank you. My final question pertains to subclause (8) which provides:

It is the intention of the Company that it will use all reasonable endeavours to implement the Industry and Workforce Participation Plan. However, a failure to implement the Industry and Workforce Participation Plan shall not be in breach of this Indenture.

As I understand it , the Hon. Mr Parnell has an amendment which seeks to delete this clause, and I can certainly see why, given the points I have just raised. There are a number of minority groups in South Australia that may well miss out on employment in what could be wonderful employment opportunities under this project. Why would there be a specific clause in the bill which could allow for this workforce participation plan to not really be used at all?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Our aim was to try to get the company to set aspirational targets, if you like, to look at as high standards as possible. If we were to lock them into specific targets, it is likely that they would have opted for much lower standards, so we wanted to stimulate innovation and best practice and really get them to lift their chin a bit higher and look at greater possibilities rather than respond to a punitive approach where, if they breached a particular target, then some penalty would be put in place. That means they would have set their targets much lower, and we wanted them to lift their chin as high as possible.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: If I can clarify a little bit—and given the hour I feel I am not on top of my game—I was not really talking about specific representation targets, if you like. I was more talking about the fact that this subclause (8) could render much of clause 12 useless if implemented, given that clause 12 focuses mainly on the importance of workplace diversity. I am not really talking about specific measures, but why would you set it up so that the workforce participation plan does not necessarily have to be implemented at all and, therefore, could have negative effects for diversity in the workplace?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the company is in fact obliged to have a plan, so that is a requirement. They are also required to use all reasonable endeavours; however, the targets that I referred to in my previous answer tend to be aspirational targets.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: The part says 'a failure to implement the workforce participation plan'. I do not know what is in the plan but if you say there are no specific targets then I cannot see how that is really relevant given that this subclause really just means that the workforce participation plan simply would not be implemented at all and a failure to do so would not be held against BHP.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I believe I have answered the question to the best of our ability, and that is that they are obliged to have a plan—so, they are required to. They are obliged to use all reasonable endeavours, and we have set aspirational-type targets within that plan. I cannot really do any better than that.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: What is the purpose of obliging the company to have a plan if they are not obliged to implement that plan?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: They are obliged to use all reasonable endeavours.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the Hon. Kelly Vincent for cutting to the chase. Really, a plan that you do not have to do anything with is not that useful. I want to ask about jobs. Clearly, there is an expectation in the South Australian community that a great many jobs will be generated and available to South Australians. Whilst these new jobs have not been filled yet and we do not know who they are, does the government have any indication or any idea of the proportion of new jobs that are likely to be home-grown jobs from South Australian residents? What proportion might come from interstate and what proportion might be brought in from overseas?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that over the last 20 years 65 per cent of the workforce has come from South Australia.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer. One of the reasons that I wanted to ask that question and get it on the record is that I was sent an article today about the contract that has been let for recruitment. The article is headed 'HRX secures BHP Olympic Dam Deal'. I will ask the minister whether she can confirm the accuracy of the statement, but it seems that a Sydney-based company has been given the job (they have been the successful tenderer) for recruitment for specialist jobs at the Olympic Dam mine. Can the minister confirm that an interstate firm has already been contracted to be the main recruitment agency, and does the minister believe that will have any impact on the proportion of jobs that go to South Australians and the proportion that go to people from other states?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that of the current workforce at Olympic Dam about 65 per cent reside at Roxby Downs and nearby towns, the remaining 35 per cent are long-distance commuters, with 32 per cent from SA and 3 per cent from interstate, and with 12 per cent of long distance commuters from the wider northern region. I think the view is that future arrangements are likely to reflect similar proportions and that it is irrelevant where the recruitment agency comes from. They have a long-term track record at recruiting locally and are committed to continue that emphasis.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for providing those more detailed figures. In relation to the 65 per cent that she says are living at Roxby Downs, clearly they are now locals but does the—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: No; that's from South Australia.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: They were recruited from South Australia to live at Roxby Downs? Are there any figures that demonstrate where residents of Roxby Downs who work at the mine came from? Did they come from the suburbs of Adelaide or did they come from the suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We do not have that information. That would be a question for BHPB.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In relation to jobs, there have been various figures thrown around, and I do not need to go through all of those. The premier at one stage referred to 25,000 jobs. In terms of the actual obligations on the company in this indenture, is there anything that obliges the company to employ more people than it currently does? Is there any obligation on it to create more jobs? I know there is an expectation, if the mine goes ahead as planned, that more jobs are likely to be created, but is there any obligation on the company to create extra jobs?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It does beggar belief that you could increase a mine to the size that is being planned and not significantly increase the workforce, given the rate of technological advancement. Predictions have been made about the workforce needs and we believe that they are reasonable estimates.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: 'Beggars belief' I think might have been the words the minister used, but as she well knows the history of mining is one of job shedding rather than job creation. My question is in the context of emerging new technologies. Is the minister aware that BHP is looking (as I am sure most mining companies are) at increasingly mechanised operations, which include driverless trucks and other equipment, driverless trucks that can be operated remotely from a central location? Is the minister aware that those considerations are being looked at, and, if so, does that have any bearing on the number of jobs likely to be available at the mine?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Obviously, this will be a commercial venture and it needs to remain globally economically competitive. Technology is a part of that and we would assume that technology will continue to play an increased part in those so-called productivity and efficiency gains. However, the EIS has identified that there will be an increased need in labour force requirements based on a reasonable scenario and we believe that is a reasonable way to proceed. The member is posing a whole range of hypotheticals that may or may not be so. All we can do is base our assumptions on the modelling that has been done based on current trends, based on current technological changes and based on assumptions that we might be able to predict into the future.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I would like to move on to the issue of manufacturing. In his contribution on this bill in another place, the premier said:

The state government is developing a strategy—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: The former premier.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: No, the current Premier, I think. Anyway, the premier in another place said:

The state government is developing a strategy to build local value chains from the proposed Olympic Dam expansion project.

My question to the minister is: what is the status and time frame for that strategy?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the new department, DMITRE, that actually has manufacturing and resources in its name, has been established to assist with that strategy. The advice that I have received is that they have had preliminary meetings and will continue those developments over time.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I am sorry to go back to a part which has already been discussed, but the question has just occurred to me as I have been listening. If I can return again to clause 12(1)(a), which deals with the commercial considerations, I think I am going to need parliamentary counsel to help me with a clearer definition as to exactly what 'commercial consideration' means in the context of this indenture. The question just occurred to me that, if a person with any kind of disability were qualified for this job but would require some form of assistance to perform it—either physical assistance or text in the form of Braille, etc.—would the commercial considerations clause be used as potentially a form of discrimination against employing people with disabilities due to the cost that this support may bear, or is that likely to be covered by current wage subsidies?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the company has a policy of not discriminating; therefore, in light of that policy, commercial considerations would not be used as a trigger for discrimination, because that is the effect that it would have.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I asked the minister earlier about manufacturing. Another visitor to our state who was very interested in that was Thinker in Residence Goran Roos. My question is: did the Thinker in Residence Professor Roos give the government any particular advice about what the Olympic Dam expansion meant for manufacturing in Australia? Did he make any recommendations, and were any conditions of this indenture changed as a result of his recommendations?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that Professor Roos was, in fact, involved in the development of the workforce plan and is currently working with DMITRE in relation to that value chain strategy.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: It is good that the thinker is working on it. As part of the Thinker in Residence program, or some other program, is that work likely to be publicly available and, if so, when?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I understand that it is the intention for the strategy to be publicly available, but that work has only just commenced.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In relation to the industry and workforce participation plan, which the Hon. Kelly Vincent has asked about—she has covered some of my questions—my question of the minister is: whilst this plan appears to be fairly woolly in its development and its force, is there any intention for the government to seek public or industry input into any part of that plan? Will there be any scope for the community or other businesses, for example, to have input into that plan or is it purely something between the government and the company?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I understand that the company is obliged through this plan to meet with government agencies at least twice a year, so through those forums there is the capacity for broader stakeholder involvement.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: That does not quite answer my question. Under subclause (9) it says that the company, yes, will meet twice a year, but it will only meet with the state's Economic Development Board and the relevant chief executives of state government departments. There is no mention of trade unions, other business groups or even any opportunity for members of the general public, members like the Hon. Kelly Vincent, for example, who may well have things she wants to input into this industry and workforce participation plan in relation to opportunities for people with disabilities to be employed. Will the minister confirm that public consultation will be wider than that narrow list of stakeholders listed in subclause (9)?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The processes for engagement have not been finalised, but I believe there is ample opportunity there for broad stakeholder involvement. I believe that is the government intention, so although there are no formal processes put in place as yet, the intention is to ensure broader stakeholder involvement.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am pleased that that is the intention, and I will take it one step further. I know one group of people who would be keen to engage in this process would be the trade union movement. Whilst this plan is entitled 'An industry and workforce participation plan', I am sure there are other overlapping issues the unions would be interested in, such as the right of their officials to access the workplace to check on the health and welfare of employees who are there. So, can the minister expand that it would be her expectation that unions would be involved and that they would be able to provide feedback that related to, in particular, the welfare rather than necessarily occupational health and safety components to support their members who might be working at the Olympic Dam mine?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have already answered the question. I have already outlined quite clearly what is the intention of the government. We have a very good track record of being great friends of our comrade unionists, so our intention is for relevant and broader stakeholder involvement.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Mr Parnell would be assisted if the members on my left took their conversation outside or dropped the level of it.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Thank you. I do not believe this question has been asked, but if it has I will be put in my place. The requirement under subclause (7) says the minister may make the plan publicly available. Can the minister explain why it cannot be made obligatory for the plan to be made available, given that there is the proviso for the excision of material that is confidential? Why is it optional for the company or the minister to disclose the plan? Why not make it compulsory for it to be publicly disclosed?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the minister in another place during debate indicated quite clearly and put on the record that it would be made available.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have no further questions on clause 12. Unless other members have questions, I will foreshadow my amendments; I am not moving them. No-one else seems to be jumping up. The amendments that I propose when we get to schedule 2 are to amend some of the provisions that various members in the debate on this clause have found offensive. I note that the Hon. Kelly Vincent pointed out the requirement that there is nothing in this clause that requires the company to act other than upon commercial considerations. I think that is the potential death knell for genuine equal opportunity in this workplace, so my proposal is that those words be deleted.

I also propose that, notwithstanding the minister's commitment in another place that the plan will be published, we can put that in the indenture and oblige that to be published. I have also deleted subclause (8), which is the subclause that basically says that failure to implement the plan shall not be a breach of this indenture. I think it is insulting to all concerned to have a plan that has absolutely no ramifications if it is not followed. That is my contribution to clause 12, and I am happy to move on to clause 12A.

Clause 12A relates to diesel fuel. Mining minister Tom Koutsantonis declared on ABC radio, 'They're going to convert to biodiesel.' They were the minister's words, 'They're going to convert to biodiesel.' My question of the minister is: is that true?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I understand that part of their greenhouse plan is to convert to biodiesel.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Can the minister elaborate further? Has the company given any indication of what volume of their diesel usage will be biodiesel and by what time? It is one thing to say that they are going to think about it in their plan, but does the minister having anything more concrete than that?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The diesel usage for this mine is clearly going to be considerable. It is estimated that 400 million litres of diesel fuel will be used per year over the five-year period of the open pit construction. I note that what started off as four to five years I have heard referred to as five to six years now, so apparently the hole is going to take a bit longer to build, but it is 400 million litres of diesel a year, and the diesel subsidy (this is a direct taxpayer subsidy in relation to that diesel) is expected to surpass $70 million a year and total over $350 million during that period.

In fact, as I indicated in my second reading speech, it looks as if diesel subsidies will actually exceed royalties. So, we will be paying the company more than it pays us. My question of the minister is: does she have any idea how much BHP Billiton will be receiving in diesel fuel rebate over the first five to six years of the expansion project whilst the overburden is removed and the hole is dug?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised no.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Given that the minister does not know what the extent of the subsidy will be (and she has not confirmed or denied the 400 million litres a year, but that is in the EIS so I guess we can take that), are there any conditions, other than the yet to be produced greenhouse management plan, anywhere in this indenture that require the company to minimise its use of diesel fuel, other than the obvious commercial consideration that it is cheaper if you use less?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Not that I am aware of.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Can the minister explain the intent of this clause, which has only two parts to it? Basically it is a reporting provision, where the company is obliged to report to the minister how much diesel fuel it is using and, in particular, it has to report on whether diesel fuel usage in any month is likely to exceed their forward estimates. What is the government's intended use of that information? Is there likely to be, for example, some form of diesel rationing, where available fuel is shared between the company and other users of diesel? Why does the company need to know that and what will it do with this information?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that it is really for the purposes of state planning.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The minister says that it is for the purposes of state planning. Can the minister explain: does the government have any ability, if not under this legislation, under any other legislation, to quarantine supplies of diesel for the use of the community and other industries if it appears that diesel supplies in South Australia will be inadequate to meet the needs of industry, the community and BHP Billiton?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, in the event that BHP Billiton's supply chain is disrupted and the company's purchases on the open market threatens supply to other users, the Essential Services Act provides the responsible minister with powers to ensure services under the declared emergency. In that situation, the police commissioner has powers to access and use any fuel resource in the state, thus he could requisition the company's fuel stocks or supply arrangements for the emergency.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just so that I understand the answer the minister has given me, the Essential Services Commissioner can take diesel fuel belonging to BHP Billiton to enable it to be used for the community? Is that only for essential services, such as driving ambulances, or would other mining companies be able to access that fuel and would the general public be able to access that fuel?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that it would be just for the purposes of emergency services.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In light of the minister's response, with respect to BHP Billiton, in the open market, in the case that its direct supplies of diesel were inadequate to meet its needs, is there anything to prevent BHP Billiton outbidding all other potential purchasers of diesel, other than that small amount required for essential services? Could BHP Billiton effectively take over most of the state's diesel supplies simply by virtue of being prepared to pay more for it?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised no.

The CHAIR: Some of those questions are bordering on ridiculous. They will have to line up with their jeeps the same as the rest of us; you know that as well as I do.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: No, I think they are valid questions, and I thank the minister for—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Hear, hear!

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Lucas obviously agrees with you, so they are not valid.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have one final question on clause 12A, and then I am happy to stay and hear other members' questions on this important clause. When the government is considering the company's greenhouse management plan, aside from the potential use of biodiesel (the minister has already answered that question), is there any other aspect of the use of diesel fuel that will be taken into account? In particular, will the government take into account the quantity of the commonwealth subsidies when determining what actions are appropriate for the company to take to reduce its emissions?

To put it more simply, the company is getting a huge handout from the general public for the diesel fuel rebate. Will the government require the company to take that into account in determining what should be asked of the company in its greenhouse management plan? Should it ask the company to do more to reflect the size that public subsidy?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised no.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have no further questions on clause 12A. When we get to my schedule 2, I do have an amendment, which is to insert an additional subclause into clause 12A. It deals with the issues that the minister touched on in her answers, which is that if the supply of diesel fuel within the state becomes inadequate for the demands of both the company and other diesel users, that the company needs to submit to the minister a diesel fuel sharing plan that will make sure that other uses of diesel fuel in the state are not unreasonably disadvantaged.

Given the minister's answer that the law currently only recognises essential services as people entitled to share scarce diesel fuel, I think we can require the company to do a bit more, and a diesel fuel sharing plan in a situation of shortage is, I think, an appropriate reaction.

I am also proposing the addition of another subclause, which basically requires the company to offset its greenhouse gas emissions attributable to its use of diesel by using recognised carbon offset practices. I urge members, when we get to my schedule 2, to support those amendments.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.