Statutes Amendment (Energy and Mining Reforms) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 November 2025.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (16:37): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Energy and Mining Reforms) Bill 2025. This is a significant bill that amends the Energy Resources Act 2000, the Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Act 2023 and, most substantially, the Mining Act 1971. This bill is presented by the Labor government as a step towards modernising South Australia's resources legislation. However, the process by which it has arrived in this chamber is deeply concerning.

I want to state this plainly at the outset: this is not our bill. The Liberal Party did not draft this bill, we did not request it, and we certainly did not design the rushed process that preceded its introduction. Who drafted this bill, who requested it and who pushed it through, with one of the worst consultation processes we have seen, will surprise no-one: it was the member for West Torrens, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis. We all know that the honourable member likes to do things his way and at his speed, although most South Australians will remember that speed often gets him into a bit of trouble. I suspect this is the case here today, too.

Before this bill was brought to parliament, the Hon. Mr Koutsantonis and the government released it for consultation for just five business days—five days for reforms that affect billions of dollars of investment, the rights of landholders, the certainty of primary producers and the long-term competitiveness of South Australia's mining sector.

Five days is not consultation: it is a tick box exercise. During that narrow window there was no targeted consultation with primary producers—not one industry body, not one representative organisation for the primary industry sector, not one regional stakeholder actively approached by this government. For a bill that significantly affects land access, agriculture operations, property values and farm planning, to proceed without even a single conversation with those most impacted is extraordinary. It is not respectful, it is not transparent and it is certainly not good governance.

This council knows that the Mining Act 1971 long required modernisation. When in government the Liberals undertook that task through the Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Act 2019 and the 2020 regulations—the most substantial overhaul in five decades. Our aim was to streamline approvals, strengthen environmental obligations and improve clarity for both landholders and mining companies. It was a major reform effort and, yes, it was contentious in parts, particularly around land access. This is precisely why the Select Committee on Land Access was established, and it produced meaningful recommendations on improving balance, fairness and transparency.

The government seems to have forgotten the most important lesson from that process: that landholder engagement is essential. It is not optional, it is not an afterthought, it is fundamental to the integrity of the system. Yet here we are debating a bill that never once engaged with the agricultural sector before being introduced.

The bill introduces several important changes, particularly to the Mining Act. Exploration licences can now be extended beyond the current 18-year maximum, in blocks of up to five years and, critically, these extensions can be repeated indefinitely. The bill empowers the minister to forfeit and transfer tenements to new operators without any requirement to notify or consult affected landholders. The minister gains expanded powers to approve or refuse changes in control of tenement holders, and a new regulation-making power allows for the creation of a mining rehabilitation fund.

The bill also increases penalties across the Energy Resources Act and Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Act from $250,000 to $16.5 million. Some of these measures have merit, but the lack of guardrails, particularly around extensions and landholder rights, is of deep concern. This debate occurs as South Australia's global mining competitiveness is in freefall. According to the world-renowned Fraser Institute, our Investment Attractiveness Index has fallen from 19^th to 35^th in a single year. Our policy perception index has dropped from 20^th to 30^th, and our mineral potential index has collapsed from 19^th to 34^th. Just a few years ago, under a Liberal government, South Australia ranked 10^th in the world.

If we are serious about restoring confidence in South Australia's mining sector, I would argue this is not the way to do it. Handing the minister unchecked authority for carte blanche exploration will only deepen uncertainty and push investment further away, because when the rules of the game can be changed at the whim of a single minister, investors lose certainty. A stable, transparent and predictable regulatory framework attracts exploration dollars, not ad hoc decisions, not political discretion and not carte blanche approvals that create risk, not opportunity.

It is not only investors who bear the consequences of this approach. South Australian farmers will feel the impacts most acutely. Granting a single minister unconstrained discretion to authorise broad exploration access fundamentally weakens the certainty and protections that primary producers rely on to plan cropping rotations, to manage biosecurity risks, to safeguard water resources and to maintain productivity.

Our farmers already navigate complex land access regimes. Introducing political rather than process-driven approvals increases the likelihood of abrupt, poorly consulted exploration activities occurring during critical periods such as seeding, harvesting or livestock movement. It heightens the risk of biosecurity incursions, soil disturbance, infrastructure damage and disruption to business continuity, all at a time when margins are tight, input costs are rising and producers are asking for stability, not surprises. This legislation shifts the balance away from fair, transparent negotiation and towards discretionary intrusion, and that is simply untenable for modern agricultural operations.

Some of my colleagues in the other place have rightly noted this prolonged uncertainty can have significant mental health impacts and deeply affect land value. These are not hypothetical concerns; they are lived experiences of regional South Australians. The ability to extend exploration licences repeatedly without any cap, without mandatory consultation and without considering agricultural impacts means that uncertainty could hang over a farm for decades. This uncertainty affects long-term planning, biosecurity management, property valuations, cropping and grazing decisions, and intergenerational farm succession.

Because of this, the Liberal Party will move four critical amendments, which seek to reduce the extension period from five years to two years, remove the possibility of multiple rolling extensions, require genuine consultation with affected landholders before any extension, and require the minister to consider any agricultural impact assessment before granting an extension. These amendments are practical, they are reasonable and they are essential. They do not block mining investment. They do not undermine exploration. They simply ensure that primary producers are not sidelined or steamrolled in the process.

Let me be absolutely clear: if these amendments are not adopted, the Liberal Party will vote against this bill. We cannot and will not support legislation that was rushed through a mere five-day consultation process, had zero engagement with the agricultural sector, exposes landholders to indefinite exploration uncertainty, allows licences to be transferred without even notifying the landholder and fails to provide any real balancing of interest between industry and primary producers. This bill, as drafted, fails that test.

A strong mining sector and a strong agricultural sector are both crucial to South Australia's economic future. They can coexist. They should coexist, but that coexistence depends on trust, fairness and proper consultation, and the government has not delivered that. The Liberal Party is attempting to fix this bill to bring balance, to bring fairness and respect back into that process. If the government will not accept these amendments, then we cannot in good conscience support the bill because primary producers deserve more than zero consultation; they deserve a voice, they deserve certainty and they deserve legislation that treats them as valued partners, not afterthoughts. With that, I commend our amendments to the chamber.

The Hon. L.A. Henderson interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (16:47): Thank you for your protection, sir. This chamber for some time has been a very congenial place, but lately, I tell you—I thank honourable members for their contribution on this important bill and look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 11, line 25 [clause 16, inserted section 30AAB(2)]—Delete '5 years' and substitute '2 years'

This amendment seeks to reduce the special circumstances extension from five years to two years. Under new section 30AAB of the government Statutes Amendment (Energy and Mining Reforms) Bill 2025, the minister may grant an exploration licence holder up to five years' extra time, a special licence extension, once their licence reaches 18 years. This five-year extension could be repeated, creating the potential for decades-long tenure with little scrutiny.

What our amendment does—and it is very simple—is reduces the maximum extension available from five years down to two years. In moving this amendment, we are seeking to provide indefinite licence locking of productive agricultural land, ensure regular reviews rather than giving mining proponents a multi-year entitlement by default, and ensure decision-making is more responsive to changes in agricultural conditions.

We are simply saying here: if an explorer generally needs more time, that is fine, but by providing an extra two years on top of that 18 years (so 20 years in total) we think that this is a reasonable length of time for explorers. Certainly as well, I note that some of these mining exploration companies are coming up to their time in the next two or three years, and so what this amendment does is say that there will be an extra two years on top of that. We feel that this gives explorers flexibility, but it also provides our farmers with some certainty and it keeps everyone accountable and keeps the project moving rather than leaving land tied up indefinitely.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate the government does not support this amendment. I am advised it is the same amendment that was moved by Mr Fraser Ellis MP, the member for Narungga in the lower house, which was defeated. SACOME and the AMEC have indicated that they would not support the passage of the bill with these amendments. The ability to grant a special circumstance extension up to five years meets industry needs and supports the department's regulation function. If this is reduced to two years, it will serve no practical benefit to the industry.

Exploration is a high-risk activity and certainty is required by industry to protect and develop discoveries. The sector has consistently raised concerns that a lack of flexibility regarding extensions and security of tenure is driving a reduction in exploration investment in South Australia.

In addition, the amendment does not provide the additional certainty that the opposition is seeking for landowners in relation to future exploration activity. Upon expiry of a licence, the act provides the land can become available for new exploration activity. The land is not sterilised from mining. We do not support the amendment, as I indicated.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I ask a couple of questions of the mover, please. I am sure the mover appreciates that we have only just received this and I was not privy to what happened in the other place, but I just want to clarify. We have a five-year extension and then the issue of being able to increase it beyond the five years, potentially indefinitely, in terms of those. So is the mover suggesting that the five years be reduced to two? What happens to the additional extensions?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: This is the additional extension.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: But under the bill you can go beyond the one extension. So what does this do to that provision?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: We also have some other amendments.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Which would not—

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: It would allow only one single extension.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: One single extension of two years?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: If this passes.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just to be clear, if this amendment is passed—as I said, I have not had a chance to look at these—then you end up with a two-year extension, and is the opposition then proposing that there cannot be additional extensions beyond the two years?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: That is correct, with another amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: So it will just be one extension of two years and that is it?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: At this point in time, yes.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just to speed things up, I might indicate my support for the Liberal amendment. No-one from the government has reached out to me regarding this bill. The opposition engaged with me with respect to this amendment, so I am happy to support it.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 10

Noes 9

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus carried.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 12, after line 21 [clause 16, inserted section 30AAB(4)]—After inserted paragraph (c) insert:

(ca) be accompanied by an agricultural impact statement, prepared by an independent entity, which details the effect of extending the exploration licence on agricultural resources and activities in the area to which the licence relates and surrounding areas; and

There is currently no requirement in the bill for an exploration proponent seeking an extension to assess or disclose how that extension will impact farming operations, soil condition, farm biosecurity, water access, market access or long-term land productivity.

Therefore, our amendment requires that the application for extension is to be accompanied by an agricultural impact statement addressing impacts on the licence area and surrounding agricultural areas. This is critical for things like biosecurity, drift dust, access, noise and cumulative effect and ensures that agriculture is formally recognised as a primary land use of equal value. It provides the minister with meaningful information before granting extra tenure and helps avoid conflicts, environmental damage, lost productivity and access disputes.

What we are asking here is, we believe, common sense. If a company wants extra time on a piece of land, particularly if that is being actively farmed, then they should have to explain how their activities will impact that farm. Farmers already provide detailed plans for water, soil, biosecurity and chemicals. We certainly believe that it is reasonable for these companies to do the same if they are seeking further tenure and that they do so via an independent body. An agricultural impact statement simply puts the facts on the table so that the minister can make a properly informed decision.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government does not support this amendment. This amendment imposes an additional requirement and administrative burden on licence holders seeking to apply for a special circumstance extension which is incredibly broad. The act already provides adequate environmental controls and consultation requirements for on-ground programs, ensuring exploration is done in a way that meets contemporary standards and community and landowner expectations.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 11

Noes 8

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus carried.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 12, after line 24 [clause 16, inserted section 30AAB]—After inserted subsection (4) insert:

(4a) The Minister must, in considering an application under this section—

(a) have regard to the agricultural impact statement that accompanied the application; and

(b) consult with the owner or owners of the land to which the agricultural impact statement relates.

Under the current bill the minister can grant long extensions without consulting affected landowners. Our amendment requires the minister to have regard to the agricultural impact statement and not just ignore it, and requires that the minister consult with landowners whose agricultural operations will be affected. This is fairly straightforward and just ensures that the voices of farmers and landholders are heard before decisions are made. It also prevents a tick and flick approval being made solely on the mining proponents' submissions, and it will strengthen procedural fairness and transparency.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As with amendment No. 2, the government does not support this. It is the government's view that this fetters the minister's discretion to grant a special circumstance extension. In particular, it introduces an impractical requirement to consult with a potentially substantial number of landowners to which agricultural impact statements relate, which are likely not even subject to the exploration activities.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps for the benefit of other members who are reading this on the fly and making decisions on the fly as well, can I just clarify: I have just sought some advice which tends to indicate that this is really a consequential amendment on the one that just passed. You have effectively made it a requirement for that agricultural impact statement and this is just saying that the minister has to have regard to that. They can be standalone but is it a flow-on from the previous amendment that just passed? Could someone clarify that?

The CHAIR: Our indication is that is correct.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 11

Noes 8

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus carried.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 12, lines 39 to 43 [clause 16, inserted section 30AAB(7)]—Delete subsection (7)

Under the government's bill, exploration licences can receive not just one extension but unlimited further extensions and this, of course, as we all know, means that a licence can be extended again and again, stretching far beyond 20 or 30 years, indefinitely. This is not what special circumstances, we believe, should look like.

Unlimited extensions would effectively allow land to be locked up indefinitely, and we on this side of the chamber believe that that is unfair for primary producers and for farmers, who need certainty for long-term planning. Our amendment removes the ability for endless extensions and simply says there is one extension. This approach encourages genuine exploration while preventing land banking.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As with amendment No. 1, this is the same amendment, I am advised, that was moved by Mr Fraser Ellis MP, the member for Narungga, which was defeated in the House of Assembly. For the same reasons as I have outlined, the government does not support it. It is important that the ability to grant a second or subsequent special circumstance exception is retained. It can take up to 15 years to define a resource, undertake economic modelling and progress an exploration model. In special circumstances, additional extensions may be required.

The minister was clear in the lower house that these amendments do not allow industry the certainty required to progress exploration discovery to the next mining development. The minister was also clear that if this bill does not receive bipartisan support in the form it is in from the upper house it will not come into operation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Given the haste with which we are dealing with this—and again, we are not always paying attention to what happens downstairs in another place—

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti: It was rammed through.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Regardless of whether it is rammed, we are dealing with a large volume of legislation. I do not have time to go and see what Fraser Ellis or anyone else is doing in the lower house.

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am just speaking for myself. Thank you. I just want to clarify. The Leader of the Opposition and I, without divulging any private conversations, had some conversations this morning where the indefinite nature of the extensions was certainly something that I raised with her as an issue.

I just need us to be crystal clear about this. The first amendment reduces the extension to two years; so that is it? There is a two-year extension. This amendment would mean that beyond the two years you have to go back to the drawing board. So there cannot be any further extensions beyond the two years, if this amendment is successful; is that the member's—yes?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: That is correct.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just to be clear, the government's position is that SACOME and AMEC have said that in the absence of a five-year extension, then what?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will read out the advice I had from amendment No. 1. SACOME and AMEC have indicated they would not support the passage of bill with these amendments.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just to be clear, though, if this amendment is passed, which is looking very likely, then there are no extensions beyond the two years. That is it. It is two years more, and then nothing else after that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, yes, that is correct. It is two years, and that is it. As I have said, with amendment No. 1 having passed, from my advice, that means SACOME and AMEC have indicated they will not support the bill—with amendment No. 1, let alone amendment No. 4.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I do not know about other members, but on that basis—and I have sympathy for what the mover was trying to do. I think I would have approached it in a different way and was waiting to see what those amendments would look like in terms of whether it was five years or two years and whether there could be one extension or no further extensions. But the two years is not the option I would have gone for in that position, and on that basis I will not be supporting the last amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 10

Noes 9

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (17 to 22) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (17:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.