Bills

Resource Operations Ombudsman Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 December 2015.)

The Hon. T.T. NGO (17:16): I rise on behalf of the government to oppose this bill. The government recognises that coexistence and collaboration provide diversity and resilience to the state and the regions in the long term. Multiple and sequential land use thinking is currently being implemented across South Australia through the development of the Multiple Land Use Framework.

This government recognises that farming and resource operations are land uses that contribute significantly to the state's economy. The impact of resource operations on farming land is recognised and considered under the Mining Act 1971 and the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act 2000 as part of the regulation of exploration and production of resources.

The existing resources acts provide significant rights to the owner of land, which includes a right to object to any unreasonable access to land and provision of compensation for any economic loss, hardship or inconvenience suffered. This includes avenues of administrative and legal review through government departments, the Warden's Court and the Environment, Resources and Development Court. The current acts provide well-defined procedures for access to land, security of tenure and predictable regulatory processes.

It is the government's belief that creating an additional layer of regulatory burden through the processes outlined in this bill would be detrimental to the resources sector and the broader South Australian economy. The appropriate way to ensure coexistence between these important industries is through prioritisation of genuine collaboration and transparent engagements and, if required, an examination of processes contained in the existing acts. It is for these reasons that the government does not support the bill at this time.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Mr Acting President, I draw your attention to the state of the council.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:21): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to the Resource Operations Ombudsman Bill 2015. It is my understanding that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire only intends to progress this bill to a second reading vote at this stage, and I will indicate from the outset that the opposition will not be supporting the Resource Operations Ombudsman Bill.

The intent of the bill is to establish an office of the resource operations ombudsman to provide for an independent dispute resolution mechanism in an advisory role regarding issues related to mining operations, particularly on agricultural land. The bill specifies 'resources operations' as mining operations in accordance with the Mining Act 1971, which includes prospecting, exploring and mining, and also regulated activities in accordance with the Petroleum and Geothermal Act 2000, which includes the exploration for and production of petroleum (oil and gas). This bill also includes a specific clause on 'fracturing operations'. The functions of the Resource Operations Ombudsman Bill as outlined in the bill are:

to assist owners and occupiers of land in negotiation with resource companies;

an independent complaint handling process, and investigate and resolve complaints relating to the conduct of resource operations;

to identify and review issues arising out of the complaints and to make recommendations for improving compliance with legislative, regulatory and other requirements relating to the conduct of resource operations;

to monitor compliance with orders made by the ombudsman associated with the provision of an independent complaint-handling process;

to provide education and advice on the rights and responsibilities of those conducting resource operations and persons affected by the conduct of resource operations and procedures for resolving complaints; and, finally,

to prepare and publish standards relating to the conduct of resource operations and to promote the adoption of such standards.

It is my understanding that this bill provides the resource operations ombudsman with the investigatory powers of royal commission investigations and could be commenced on receipt of a complaint by the ombudsman's own initiative. Mr Brokenshire stated in his second reading speech that, in seeking to establish a resource operations ombudsman, he does not want to change the intent, purpose or effect of the Mining Act.

He wants to provide an umpire through an ombudsman for those people (essentially primary producers) who are affected by the actions of miners. However, I understand that the majority of the functions proposed for the resource operations ombudsman (as above) are technically available to small business primary producers via the Small Business Commissioner. 'Small business' is not defined under the Small Business Commissioner Act, and the federal government has recently extended the definition of 'small business' to include those who turn over up to $10 million per annum. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of landholding primary producers could be supported by the Small Business Commissioner.

There are a number of duplications in the role that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is proposing and the Small Business Commissioner. The duplicated functions of the Small Business Commissioner are as follows:

Receiving and investigating complaints by, or on behalf of, small businesses regarding their commercial dealings with other businesses, state or local government agencies or bodies.

Facilitating the resolution of such complaints through measures considered appropriate by the commissioner. These include measures such as mediation services and/or making representations on behalf of small businesses.

Disseminating information to small businesses to assist them in making decisions relevant to their commercial dealings with other businesses and their dealings with state and local government bodies.

To provide independent advice and recommendations regarding small businesses to the government of the day. This may include comments or recommendations on various matters related to small businesses.

The Small Business Commissioner Act 2011 also provides a legislative framework for the Minister for Small Business to prescribe industry codes.

The Small Business Commissioner has the authority to monitor, investigate and, where it is prescribed, enforce noncompliance with an industry code that may adversely affect small businesses.

Utilising the Small Business Commissioner in this instance, rather than the Resource Operations Ombudsman, would avoid duplication of services and be a much more efficient use of government resources and expertise.

My understanding from reading the bill, the only major difference between the functions of the resource operations ombudsman and the Small Business Commissioner is that the resource operations ombudsman would be able to provide assistance to all landowners and the functions of the Small Business Commissioner specifies support for small businesses. However, Mr Brokenshire's second reading speech states that the purpose of the bill is to assist primary producers in dealing with mining companies. Clearly, the majority of primary producing landholders would be classified as small businesses.

As you can see, there are a number of duplications. We understand the intent of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill, but where it looks like we have a duplication with the Small Business Commissioner, the opposition is well aware of the, if you like, arm wrestle between mining and agriculture. We see it particularly at times when there are high commodity prices. The community has some concern about the proposed mining operations on Yorke Peninsula and the local member, Steven Griffiths, the member for Goyder, has some concern as well as to how you have that interaction specifically with a mining operation.

Clearly, there are some concerns in the Limestone Coast area with the fracture stimulation that could be used to extract gas from the shale that is underneath the aquifer. We understand those sorts of tensions and the opposition is working towards coming up with a policy and some clarity for both industries as we approach the next election, but we think at this time—and I know it will be a bit of a disappointment to the Hon. Robert Brokenshire—from the Mining Ombudsman's perspective, there is a duplication with the Small Business Commissioner.

We understand his intent. As I said, we have concerns and I think I have put on the record here that I am still the only member of parliament whose entire income was reliant, prior to entering politics, on accessing water out of the aquifer in the Limestone Coast area for my farming operation, so I know very well how important security over those assets and those aquifers is.

When we have had some discussions with the government of the day, I am not sure they fully appreciate the connection between the land, water and farming families. Clearly, there has to be quite a lot more work done. While we have depressed commodity prices, the pressure is not so great. We do not have mining companies wanting to dig up areas currently where we had mines that were profitable 150 years ago. They are no longer profitable, but at the time of higher commodity prices, the prospective miners see an opportunity that they might be able to get extra value out of a lot of those areas in the Barossa, Adelaide Hills and Yorke Peninsula. I have seen them out on the other side of the Adelaide Hills around Strathalbyn. There are areas where we are likely to see that pressure and I am sure, at some point in the future, that world oil and gas prices will also return to a point where some of the deep gas reserves that we have will be attractive to oil and gas companies as well.

I think we do need to have a clear pathway and a clear framework for both agriculture and mining, and the oil and gas industry, to work side-by-side. They are very important industries for us. I think over the long term probably agriculture has returned more, since this state was founded, than the other two industries, but nonetheless they are still very important industries, and we need to have a framework where the two or three different industries can work side-by-side for their mutual benefit and the benefit of the state. But this evening we are not prepared to support the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill at this stage.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:30): I thank honourable colleagues for their contribution to this bill. I am hoping I will get a clearer direction with the next bill, the Right to Farm Bill, to get it to the second reading stage vote only, so I will be careful and calculated with what I have to say. Both the major parties have indicated that there are issues, and that is a good recognition for a start. The idea of the ombudsman was someone with absolute expertise that could assist mainly farmers, but from time to time, even miners, but mainly farmers because sometimes farmers end up spending thousands of dollars just to get advice when they get a notice delivered to them saying that exploration is about to start on their property.

I will be very gentle in my remarks. I just say two things: I am surprised somewhat that the opposition is saying that the Small Business Commissioner is the place to go for this, because I can remember that the opposition opposed it. The Hon. John Darley, I am sure, voted for the Small Business Commissioner, and so did Family First, and certainly the government was very proactive on that, but the opposition opposed the Small Business Commissioner, just for the reinvigoration of the record, and now they are saying that the Small Business Commissioner is the place for the farmers to go, but the farmers are not telling me that.

Notwithstanding that, I will not be giving up and I say to all the rural property owners, primary producers and the farmers, that we will keep working on this because we do need to have a balance between the mining sector and the farming sector, and with that I still commend the bill to the house, and I trust that when we get to the next bill we will get support from the major parties to the second reading.

Second reading negatived.