HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-09-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PETROLEUM AND GEOTHERMAL ENERGY (TRANSITIONAL LICENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 September 2012.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:03): I indicate that I am not the lead speaker on this bill. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (member for MacKillop) is the lead speaker, but I will make a contribution while he is delayed elsewhere. This legislation was introduced with some haste—and I put on record, once again, that I am just a humble veterinarian, not a lawyer (and by that I am boasting not apologising)—and seeks to right some inadequacies in legislation that was passed in this place a while ago.

There has been considerable angst among some of the Aboriginal citizens of South Australia and, as the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, I have said to people who have contacted me that, in fairness to them, I will read into Hansard their news release as well as a letter that was written to the minister from the South Australian Native Title Services. On 7 September, Khatija Thomas, the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, released a press release headlined 'Minister introduces bill to remove native title rights from Aboriginal people'. It went on to say:

A Bill that seeks to remove native title rights from Aboriginal people has been introduced into South Australian Parliament this week.

The Bill, entitled the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy (Transitional Licences) Amendment Bill 2012, was introduced by Tom Koutsantonis, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy.

Urgently introduced to Parliament, without any notice to or consultation with Aboriginal people, the Bill seeks to retrospectively remove the Right to Negotiate procedure from Aboriginal people in relation to petroleum production licences granted to petroleum producers in the Cooper Basin, including Santos Limited.

In introducing the Bill the Minister stated that the application of the Right to Negotiate procedure was an 'unintended consequence arising from transitional provisions', highlighting the 'need to provide certainty to petroleum producers in the Cooper Basin'.

The Right to Negotiate procedure is an important right afforded to Aboriginal People pursuant to the Native Title Act 1993—

that is a commonwealth act—

so that an agreement can be made between stakeholders and Aboriginal people on important issues, including protecting cultural heritage and providing consent for activities that affect native title. The Bill is intended to cover licences that did not comply with the Right to Negotiate procedure and may be invalid.

Khatija Thomas, the South Australian Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, is dismayed at the introduction of the bill.

'This bill flies in the face of government rhetoric supporting the engagement of all South Australians including traditional owners,' she said.

'First, the process adopted by the Government to introduce the Bill without notice to Aboriginal people is contrary to international law requiring that only free, prior and informed consent be given by Aboriginal people for decisions such as the one to remove a native title right. Second, the Bill undermines our democratic processes.'

Commissioner Thomas also stated that the Bill demonstrates Government willingness to side with big business no matter what the consequence.

Keith Thomas, South Australian Native Title Services Ltd Chief Executive Officer, is also appalled at the decision to introduce the Bill.

'We encourage all stakeholders to reach agreements to properly manage native title rights and interests, and this Bill is an unfortunate attempt by the Government to meddle with our efforts to build sustainable relationships', he said.

'Such agreements are a result of a legal right to negotiate in good faith providing certainty for all parties, and can result in benefits that help foster community development. This Bill attempts to remove that right.'

Mr Thomas also stated that the impact of the Bill should not be underestimated.

'Without agreement, risks to native title interests and cultural heritage will remain unchecked. We are concerned about the message this sends to Aboriginal People,' he said.

That was a press release put out by the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, Khatija Thomas, on 7 September 2012.

The other bit of correspondence I received is from Mr Michael Pagsanjan, a legal officer with the South Australian Native Title Services. This email is addressed 'Dear Ministers', so I am not sure exactly who it has gone to. It has been CC to a number of people but I assume it has been spread quite widely, and certainly was sent to me. It says:

Dear Ministers,

We write to urgently express our serious concerns with the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy (Transitional Licences) Amendment Bill 2012...The Honourable Minister Tom Koutsantonis has today given notice to the House of Assembly that he will introduce the Proposed Bill tomorrow. In short, our concerns relate to the Proposed Bill's impact on native title rights in South Australia.

Then the background on this is that:

South Australian Native Title Services (SANTS) is the Native Title Services Provider for South Australia pursuant to the Native Title Act 1993...SANTS currently acts for a number of native title parties, including the Yandruwandha Yawarrawarrka Native Title Claimants (the YY Traditional Owners) in the Cooper Basin.

There are a number of issues that are raised in this email which I will not go into here, but it outlines some other proceedings that SANTS is involved with, and I will allow the minister to explain to the house in his second reading summing up what consultation he has had with the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement and SANTS, because I think there are some very technical legal issues involved here. I know the member for Stuart is concerned that there was an article in one of his local newspapers, and I will leave it to him to outline that.

This piece of legislation, it appears, could have been handled much more diplomatically, if not procedurally fairly. The need to make sure that we are handling all of these native title and native heritage issues is so important. I will give another example of a similar sort of issue that we have been seeing here, and this occurred back in January. In an edition of The Koori Mail there was a headline, 'SA court ruling against drillers'. The article states:

An exploration venture in South Australia's north has been blocked by a court ruling in favour of the land's traditional owners.

Argonaut Resources and its joint venture partners, Straits Resources Ltd, were planning to start drilling for copper, gold and iron-oxide in parts of Lake Torrens and Andamooka Island.

The companies had been given ministerial approval to access the area, which is part of the traditional lands of the Kokatha Wati and Adnyamathanha people.

But the South Australian Supreme Court has overturned that approval, ruling that the traditional owners were denied procedural fairness in not being properly consulted.

The Aboriginal people involved were rightly concerned about this. I was very concerned when I read that the Chairman of Argonaut Resources, Patrick Elliott, said that the court's ruling was disappointing; and he urged the South Australian government to amend the Aboriginal Heritage Act to prevent traditional owners from having a right of veto over any activity on any traditional lands. That is quite an ask from the Chairman of Argonaut Resources. I wrote to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on 25 January. I asked in my letter to the minister:

Can you let me know what the government plan is to resolve this matter and if there are indeed any amendments to the Aboriginal Heritage Act being investigated.

In his response to me dated 9 March 2012, the minister (Hon. Paul Caica) said:

Dear Duncan

Thank you for your recent letter regarding media comments about the ruling by the Supreme Court in the matter of Starkey and Ors v the State of South Australia.

In his letter the minister said that there are some ongoing issues that are being sorted out. The minister then went on to say:

I am aware that both prior to and since these court matters, Aboriginal groups have met and negotiated with mining companies (and other proponents) on questions of land access and heritage protection. This approach of resolving matters through negotiation is consistent with the government's policy in the native title area and is likely to be reflected in the new Aboriginal heritage legislation which is being tabled in parliament following the completion of the current review.

So far we have not seen the final bill from the review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act, but what we do see is a position where this government is not handling Aboriginal affairs as well as it might. There is a need to negotiate. There is a real need to close the gap between Aboriginal affairs in South Australia and non-Aboriginal affairs.

We are seeing $1.5 billion a year being spent on Indigenous affairs in South Australia—$863 million, I think the figure is—from the state government alone on about 29,000 people. That works out at about $52,000, I think it is, per man, woman and child per year being spent on Indigenous people in South Australia. That is a huge amount, yet we see significant gaps in Indigenous disadvantage and non-white conditions.

We need to close those gaps. We need to talk, we need to conciliate, we need to arbitrate. We need to make sure that business in South Australia is able to do what it wants to do, but we should not being walking roughshod over everyone's rights and privileges. We should make sure that this parliament is all about protecting the rights of every South Australian. And whether it is through spending money wisely in healthcare or whether it is spending money wisely in allowing businesses to get on and do what they are doing in consultation with the owners of properties, in consultation with business owners, well, then that is what we should be doing.

It is very important that we do not continue on and say, 'This is what we need to do. This is how we are going to do it.' Announce and defend is not the way to do it. The new Premier promised that we were going to have consultation. It was going to be true consultation, not just going out there and telling people what they were going to do. It is so important that we continue down that path.

There is a lot of evidence here from the Aboriginal people of South Australia that that has not happened in this case. I find it personally disappointing, but the thing we do need to do is to make sure that this piece of legislation does not disadvantage any particular groups and certainly does not give any extra advantage to people who may be involved in any form of discussions, disputes, legislation and negotiations.

I ask the minister to tell us in his second reading speech what negotiations and discussions he may have had with Aboriginal groups and with the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement to put their minds at rest that this is not going to be a piece of legislation where we see, once again, as we have seen in the distant past, Aboriginal people being given no consideration.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:14): I indicate to the house that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy (Transitional Licences) Amendment Bill. As a nation, we have grappled for many years with the idea and the establishment of rules around native title. The commonwealth Native Title Act is an act of 1993, so it has been almost 20 years since we formalised the processes which surround native title. We still have a significant number of native title claimants across the nation, and likewise here in South Australia.

There are a number of places where the interface is set between native title claimants, native title holders and the rest of our society. Generally, it is to do with people who operate businesses outside our metropolitan area and outside our townships. So, the number of people directly involved is quite small, but of course the ramifications are quite large not only for the Aboriginal peoples but also for people like pastoralists, where native title still exists. We have co-existence of native title land, pastoral leases and obviously the mining industry, and this particular bill is about the mining industry.

It did take the mining industry a significant amount of time after the passing of the commonwealth legislation back in 1993 to come to grips with it, and I think the mining and petroleum sectors still have a number of issues with regard to how they can effectively and efficiently deal with their obligations under native title law. Similarly, I think native title claimants, native title holders and the Australian Aboriginal people in general are still getting their head around and still grappling with the paradigm that we now operate under with regard to that interface.

One of the issues that this bill seeks to address arose 12 years ago when parliament passed the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act in 2000 and repealed some earlier legislation. From memory, one of the things driving that was the idea of geothermal energy. In the latter days of the last Liberal government we were aware that there was huge potential for geothermal energy in South Australia and that legislation at the time did not accommodate that, so that was one of the drivers for that piece of legislation.

One of the drivers for changing the legislation was to increase the amount of activity, particularly in the Cooper Basin. My understanding is that Santos had been in the Cooper Basin for many, many years since it was first discovered and developed as a productive gas and oil field. The government of the day, and Santos, were negotiating about getting other players into that area. As a result of the change in the legislation, Santos changed some of its production licences and some areas which were previously held under licence by Santos were freed up and we saw other players move into that field.

Today, we have a number of players, a number of companies, that have been very successful: Beach Petroleum is one that comes to mind, and Stuart Petroleum has been very active up there over the years too. There are now a number of players in the Cooper Basin, whereas previously it was pretty well limited to Santos, and that is one of the really good things that has come from the legislative changes that were made some 12 years ago.

One thing that came to the attention of the mining sector and the government is that in that new legislation, as I was saying earlier, we were coming to grips with the new paradigm under the commonwealth native title legislation. It seems that some provisions in the new legislation of the day opened up some questions as to the application of the commonwealth act. My understanding, from the briefings that I have had on this, is that this bill is to answer, or clarify, those questions and reaffirm the intent of the parliament of the day.

My understanding is that this has only arisen because of that process I have just described, that Santos went through a process of consolidating some of its previous licences and in that process relinquished some of the ground it had previously held under licence. I have been advised that that process involved revoking the original licences and granting a new licence. The intent of the parliament was that that process could occur without triggering any other unforeseen happenings, such as creating a future event under the commonwealth native title legislation.

My understanding is that there is now a question mark over that and that we, as a parliament, should go back and reaffirm the original position; that is, that when Santos amalgamated those licences and relinquished that ground it still retained the rights and obligations that were previously held by it and its licences. It is not just Santos, I understand that there are a number of other businesses potentially impacted in the exact same way.

I also understand that some of the Aboriginal claimants and title holders are caught up in this with a question mark over what their rights and obligations are. Again, I think that for everybody involved, if the parliament could reaffirm the pre-existing understanding that would probably be a good thing. I am assured that if the bill before us today is approved by the parliament there will be no granting of further rights to any of the particular parties that might be involved across the native title interface, anybody who holds a licence.

We are talking about licences that have been held for a long time, on my understanding licences which, by and large, have been held since before the 1993 commonwealth Native Title Act, notwithstanding that in some cases they have been modified in some way, but not modified in a way that gives any additional rights to the licensee.

It is my understanding that support of this particular bill would not give any enhancement to the pre-existing rights and would certainly not derogate from any of the pre-existing rights held by native title claimants or, indeed, native title holders. I suspect that this is really a piece of legislation which from time to time we see in the parliament to correct what in the fullness of time is seen as an oversight in earlier legislation and/or to correct the machinery of how a piece of legislation operates to overcome some unforeseen circumstance.

The opposition understands that this happens from time to time. We have traditionally been very supportive, both in government and in opposition, of making the appropriate corrections once we are convinced that we are not changing materially the rights of any party involved, particularly when legislation has a retrospective nature to it, and this piece of legislation does have a retrospective nature. The opposition is always very reticent to support legislation that has a retrospective nature and generally will only do so under the sorts of circumstances that arise as have with the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act and its application.

I am also informed that this measure would potentially impact on only a small number of licences held by various petroleum industry operators principally in the Cooper Basin. I am also reliably informed (I am assuming reliably; it is an assumption, and I am sure it is right) that, as they go forward, companies like Santos do indeed have a continuing relationship with native title claimants and/or native title holders because this is an ongoing process for them and other operators in, for instance, the Cooper Basin because they hold many licences.

I am told that Santos expects that over the next few years they will be in negotiations with mostly the YY people for in excess of 70 licences, which will come up for renewal and which will trigger a right to negotiate for the native title claimants and/or native title holders. I think it would be wrong for us not to acknowledge the very real fact that these operators in the Cooper Basin area, principally, are not obliged to have an ongoing and fruitful relationship with the Aboriginal people who have traditionally been in those lands.

Santos were at pains to point out to me their expectations for the sorts of negotiations they will need to undertake over the next period, the next five to 10 years. Basically, they told me that they are acting in good faith, that they cannot operate in the area without acting in good faith, and that that is the way they go about their business on a daily basis. In fact, they tell me that virtually on an ongoing basis their relationships involve them having representatives from the native title claimants and holders regularly working with them pretty well at any time they undertake what is described in the industry as 'ground disturbing' activity.

So, every time they build a roadway, put down a pad for a drill, put on a drilling rig, or build a pipeline, all those basic activities they undertake in the Cooper Basin, they have representatives from the native title holders or claimants on site advising them and working with them on Aboriginal heritage matters, on matters that sometimes operate under an Indigenous land use agreement. They have this range of arrangements, all of which mean that they do indeed have to have an enduring relationship with the local Aboriginal people.

I am confident that this legislation is designed to achieve a very limited outcome, that is, basically to clarify the pre-existing position. When I say 'pre-existing', I mean the position that applied to these particular licences pretty well from the day they were initially granted, which was probably back in the seventies or even earlier. I am also confident that this legislation will not derogate at all from the rights of the local Aboriginal people, and that is important to the opposition.

My colleague, the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, has already made some comments and has indicated that he had had discussions with some people from the Aboriginal support agencies. The opposition is continuing with negotiations on this matter. I understand my colleague, the shadow attorney-general, is arranging to meet with some representatives from the South Australian Native Title Services organisation, possibly as early as this afternoon.

The government has indicated that they want to progress this bill fairly quickly. The opposition, through negotiation, has agreed that we will be a party to seeing this get through the parliament. I think I have pretty well covered the position of the opposition. The bill will proceed through this place very rapidly and it is my expectation indeed that the bill will be through the parliament later this week. I will conclude my comments there.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:32): I too rise to speak on the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy (Transitional Licences) Amendment Bill 2012. This house will know how seriously the opposition is looking into this issue from the comments already made by the shadow minister for mining and the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs.

Let me just start out by saying that this is also exceptionally important to me, both as the shadow minister for regional development and the member for Stuart—the electorate in which the effect of this bill will have most impact. I know very well the importance of the petroleum and geothermal energy industry to our state and to the electorate of Stuart. It is exceptionally important not only from the energy production aspect but also from the local employment aspect.

I have spent an enormous amount of time in the Cooper Basin, around the Innamincka and broader area, speaking with people from Santos, from Beach, from Stuart and from many other energy companies, their subcontractors, their sub-subcontractors, their employees and also, very importantly, Aboriginal people who have an interest in this area. I have spoken with many people over many years in the different capacities that I have had in that area. It does not make me an expert, but I think I do have some genuine understanding of some of the conflicting interests and also some of the very important and more common interests that arise out of this sort of debate.

Like my colleagues and the Minister for Mineral Resources, I put on record our expectation that this is actually an amendment bill put forward for all the right reasons; that is, to try to close an unintended loophole and get things on track the way we all want them to be. In that context though, I just have to say very firmly that, at this stage of the debate in this house, the opposition will not oppose the bill but we do have more research that we want to do. We do have more briefings that we want to undertake and these are, quite possibly, things that the minister should undertake himself in this area before we can actually progress to agreeing in the other house.

On that note, I would like to put on the record some comments of great concern to me, and to the community of Port Augusta and, more broadly, the community of Stuart, which came up last Wednesday. The minister may well, in the nearly one week since then, have taken steps to address these issues, and he may well make some comments that address this, but none of us are yet aware of that.

Certainly in The Transcontinental newspaper in Port Augusta (which comes out once a week on a Wednesday) last week local Arabunna native title chairperson Aaron Stuart criticised this bill. He called it 'administrative racism'. The Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, Khatija Thomas, said that she was dismayed at the introduction of this bill. She said:

This Bill flies in the face of Government rhetoric supporting the engagement of all South Australians including Traditional Owners.

Keith Thomas, South Australian Native Title Services chief executive, said that he was appalled at the decision to introduce the bill. Those quotes are very important. It does not make them right; that is their opinion. It does not make them right, but it does mean that it is very important for us to pursue a deeper understanding of their views, of their positions, and to try to find out exactly why they hold those views and why they chose to make those very public comments.

Let me just wind up by saying that I understand that the proposed retrospectivity of this bill will neither confer additional rights on licensees nor detract from the pre-existing rights of the native title claimants or holders, but merely reconfirm the status quo. If that is proven to be the case, then certainly as the member for Stuart I will have no hesitation in contributing my support for this bill as we progress negotiations between the houses, but I think that the public comments made by very genuine Indigenous leaders in my local community deserve further investigation. Until that is done, we cannot agree just yet.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:37): I rise to make a contribution to the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy (Transitional Licences) Amendment Bill 2012. I note that on this side of the house we will be seeking more information on this bill, and I note that it seems that there has been an oversight with the traditional provisions of the principal act. It seems that some existing licences which have been granted, renewed or consolidated may now be subject to the right to negotiate provisions in subdivision P of the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993.

This issue has come to light as a result of the South Australian Native Title Services instituting a case on behalf of some native title claimants seeking a declaration in the federal court in relation to certain licences granted to Santos in South Australia. It is said that the unintended consequence may well impinge upon a number of licences granted, renewed or consolidated, the important point being that the renewal confers no additional rights to the licensee and in no way derogates the rights of the native title holders or claimants.

There is proposed retrospective legislation to reaffirm that existing transitional petroleum production licences granted, renewed or consolidated remain consistent with the aforementioned subdivision 1 and that that is not subject to the right to negotiate. This could potentially impact a number of production licences in the Cooper Basin, and I note the government's wish to ensure that the original intent of the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act 2000 is upheld. As I indicated earlier, it is noted that the proposed retrospectivity of this bill will neither confer additional rights on licences nor detract from the pre-existing rights of the native title claimant holders but merely reconfirms the status quo. I will a make a few additional comments in this regard, especially as the word 'geothermal' is in the title.

Notwithstanding that, as I have indicated before in this place, I worked in the Cooper Basin myself 30 years ago for a couple of years. I was up there in the last couple of months and I had a quick look as I went past the geothermal activity just outside Innamincka. It is a huge project and I was talking to some locals up there. It could have a great outlook for South Australia as far as renewable energy is concerned. From what I understand and was told, $400 million has been spent on that project, and there are not too many people, especially in the Innamincka region, raising hopes that there will ever be anything other than limited energy coming out of that well.

They are struggling to control the high temperatures and depth of the well. It is causing some significant issues, and I know that a lot of federal money as well as some state money has gone toward that project. I note that the powerline is being built back towards the Innamincka township only a few kilometres down the road—I think it about 15 kilometres from memory. I would like the project to be successful, as there have been significant amounts of funding poured into it. With those few words, I note that we support the bill and seek further information.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:42): Very briefly, I support the motion and commend both the opposition and the government for agreeing to something that is pretty straightforward, with a common purpose in mind, namely, that we to not want to put any further impediments in the way of our explorers, as this would have been if it had not been turned around. I returned from the Eyre Peninsula last week and saw the amount of money being spent on exploration, with no income forthcoming for at least two or three years. As a government we have to make sure we remove all stumbling blocks so that the investment has an opportunity to come to fruition.

In this instance I know it is fraught with danger in relation to the activity of native title, but the existing rules lay it out quite clearly. Everybody wants to have a say about these matters, but it takes time and usually costs money by way of legal costs, and so on. Without further ado, I certainly support reconfirming the status quo, and I commend all our explorers and hope that the exploration they are undertaking in South Australia comes to fruition. The biggest hope is that BHP Billiton can return to the fray and again be the powerhouse to the South Australian economy that we hoped it was going to be. I support the bill.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (11:44): I start off by thanking the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his support. I know this is a difficult measure, and I thank members who have spoken—all but the member for Stuart, obviously. When it comes to matters like this, there is a level of bipartisanship that is enjoyed rarely. I commend the deputy leader today: you will not often hear me saying nice things about him. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has put his state and community first today, as has the government.

I am not an administrative racist like the member for Stuart repeated in the house today and I find remarks like that, quite frankly, appalling. The member for Stuart is trying to say 'This is what other people are saying about your proposal which I am about to vote for' and I think that that is the height of cowardice. The member for Schubert has been here for a long time and he got up and said 'I support this bill. I know it is difficult but I support it.' The member for Hammond got up and said the same thing. The member for MacKillop did the same thing. The member for Stuart is a political coward.

In August I took to cabinet some details of a bill and the bill was introduced on Wednesday 5 September. It was the Petroleum and Geothermal (Transitional Licences) Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill was to ensure the validity of petroleum licences which were originally issued under previous legislation introduced by a Liberal government and which have been renewed pursuant to the Petroleum Act 2000. When the parliament passed the Petroleum Act 2000, it provided for petroleum production licences to be granted for an unlimited term.

Under earlier petroleum legislation, petroleum productions licences were granted for 21 years, or sometimes 31 years, with the unlimited right to renewal for 21 years at a time. The grant of any mining or petroleum interest under state law has to be done consistently with the commonwealth Native Title Act in order to be valid. The broad intent of the Native Title Act is that, if an act is authorised by certain earlier legislation or legal agreements, it can proceed without going through the so-called 'right to negotiate' process.

The right to negotiate is a specific right under the Native Title Act which allows native title parties to have a say on new mining or petroleum developments where the development will affect their interests. The right to negotiate does not apply to renewal or re-grant of certain earlier licences. In providing for petroleum licences to be granted for an unlimited term in the 2000 act (particularly that part of the act that deals with the transition of earlier act licences to being dealt with under the 'new' act), parliament inadvertently created a situation where instead of the pre-2000 act licences being able to be renewed or consolidated consistently with the provisions of the commonwealth Native Title Act that allow for such things 'the right to negotiate' part of the NTA became applicable.

All parties had assumed for the past 10 years since the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act was enacted that licences created under early legislation could be renewed without the right to negotiate applying. It was thought that the specific part of the NTA that allows for such renewals applied. The government has now put before parliament a bill that seeks to clarify that it did not intend the grant, renewal or consolidation of those licences created under earlier legislation or agreements to be subject to the right to negotiate.

This bill is a one-off piece of legislation to address these unintended consequences. Parliament is entitled and, in fact, I think we have an obligation, to give effect to its original intention by ensuring that the terms of the licences granted under earlier legislation continue to be for 21 years (rather than an unlimited term) to bring them back within what is permitted under the renewal provisions in part 2, division 3, subdivision 1 of the Native Title Act.

The bill is not seeking to avoid the operation of the Native Title Act. It is simply seeking to clarify which part of the Native Title Act will apply to the licences in question. The Petroleum and Geothermal Energy (Transitional Licences) Amendment Bill does not remove native title rights. The bill is not contrary to any commonwealth or international laws. I understand that native title parties may be disappointed that parliament is moving to correct a misstep in the 2000 act, but in my view it is necessary to do so, and native title groups have been and will still be entitled to negotiate (either under subdivision P or the alternative Indigenous Land Use Agreement provisions) about the grant of any new licences. An offer to meet with representatives of the South Australian Native Title Services to explain the bill was declined. At the request of SANTS, debate on the bill was deferred until the week commencing 17 September 2012.

In presenting this legislation to the parliament, the government has carefully weighed up the need to provide certainty to petroleum producers in the Cooper Basin who have continued to produce petroleum on renewed tenements in the belief that they had been properly issued, against the understandable desire of native title parties to participate in the economic benefits of petroleum production. Newer petroleum production licences granted under the commencement of the petroleum and geothermal act will, of course, be subject to the right to negotiate provisions in the usual way.

Put simply, the commonwealth Native Title Act is very complex legislation. How state laws interact with the NTA is also very complex and can, as in this case, raise some very technical issues. It turns out that there was a misstep in the way the state dealt with the renewal of petroleum production licences granted under earlier legislation, and it is this misstep that the government is now seeking to fix.

I submit the bill to the house, and I say to all members: let's not try to inflame this into some sort of racial debate. I want to thank the member for MacKillop for his strong—he did not say 'support' but he said that he would not stop it passing, so I applaud him for being invisible.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr WILLIAMS: These questions apply equally to clauses 4 and 5. New clause 4 has proposed amendments to allow for the consolidation of existing licences; clause 5 allows for the division of existing licences. One of the things that I have been very careful to get my head around is that the rights are not increased by the licensee under the act, and I think that is very important to the native title holders. I think the original intent was that, as long as the status of the licence remained the same, it did not trigger the right to negotiate, so my questions go to the heart of that.

I mentioned earlier that I was aware that licences had been consolidated and that through that process some ground was relinquished by the licensee. I accept that you can argue that the licensee did not gain a benefit from that; in fact, the state may well have gained a benefit by allowing other players onto some of that relinquished ground. There may have been other benefits to the licensee. I am not quite sure why they might have gone through that process of relinquishing ground. It is even less clear with regard to the division of the licence area. If a licensee has a licence over a particular area which grants to him certain rights—obviously, in this case, to establish a petroleum production site within the licensed area—I am a little confused about why that licence holder may wish to divide up that licence.

It seems to me that it is inherent in the idea that you would want to divide it that you would do that for some benefit. Can the minister explain why we even have this ability to divide an existing licence into smaller licences? I can envisage, I think, where a licence holder may wish to sell off a part of their licence and hold another part of it, but I am not sure whether that is the case. I am just trying to determine, to reassure myself and see that the committee is reassured, whether there are not any other benefits which can be gained by the licence holder going through these processes and which might indeed give the Aboriginal native title claimants some degree of anxiety.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you. I will say, first and foremost—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Time's up? Yes; time's up for someone. First things first. The reason the government is moving this bill is not to increase an entitlement for the licence holders: it is basically to maintain the sanctity of the licence. The bill quite clearly provides under clause 4(2a):

The rights of the holder of a licence under subsection (2) are not to be more extensive than those existing under the relevant licence or licences immediately before any variation or amalgamation under that subsection.

What Santos has done, I am advised, is that rather than dividing the licences it is consolidating them to save on an administrative function. So, it is not in fact any value-add. In fact, you could argue that we are decreasing: we have gone from an unlimited licence term to 21 years. The idea of them gaining some benefit out of this is not the intent of the government's amendments. The intent of the government's amendments is to maintain the intention of the 2000 act as introduced by minister Matthews. Our intent is to maintain the integrity of that act: it is not to confer any new rights upon anyone.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you. The minister has answered half my question, and I accept his answer but, with regard to division, why would they divide?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that there have not been any divisions. If the honourable member is asking why they have the capability under the act, I suspect it is an administrative tool to allow them to consolidate. I am guessing, and I can get a more detailed answer, but we have no examples of them dividing licences, I am advised.

Mr WILLIAMS: I accept that, minister. Another—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: I think it mentions the flexibility to have them consolidated.

Mr WILLIAMS: I was wondering whether it did indeed, because you used the term value-add, and I was wondering whether it indeed gave them the opportunity to divide a licence and then sell part of it off. The value of the parts may indeed be greater than the value of the whole. That is why I asked the question. Depending on how the minister answers this, this might be my last question.

The other thing that came to my mind is that, when you consolidate two licences, we have to make one of two assumptions. One is that the conditions of the licences are identical and so when you consolidate them the conditions on the various parts of the licence remain the same. If that is not the case, the conditions of the amalgamated licence are the lesser of the rights that are enjoyed by the licensee before the consolidation.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is correct: it is the lesser.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (5 and 6), schedule and title passed.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (12:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT