HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-09-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Pastoral Land Management and Conservation (Renewable Energy) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 August 2014.)

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:53): It is my pleasure to speak on this bill on behalf of the opposition. I am the opposition's lead speaker, and I think the member for Flinders is also going to speak. We will make this as brief as possible, but I have to say that I do not think we will wrap before 6. So, I will just say that now.

This bill, the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation (Renewable Energy) Amendment Bill 2014, comes to this house and a great deal of work has gone into it and I really do understand the very positive intent of this bill. I think it is coming for very genuine and very positive reasons from the government, and I thank them for that. I also thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink for her significant amount of work on behalf of the opposition on this bill.

I also thank the minister, his staff and departmental staff, who have all put a lot of time and effort into this bill over, I suggest, around two years now, or maybe a little bit longer, in terms of the various versions that we have been working through. Everybody has put a lot of time and effort into this to try to improve this bill. It did need a lot of improvement, certainly from my perspective, and I thank all those who people who have contributed towards that effort.

It is very difficult to balance everybody's interests when you are looking at trying to create a bill that is reasonably specific today, here and now, that balances interests which are all very long term. I have to say, there is more that I would have liked to have changed on behalf of my constituents, but I guess in all these discussions and these negotiations you come to a point where you have to weigh up the positives and the negatives.

There are significant positives in this bill, and we have also come a long way on behalf of my constituents, who are largely the prescribed interested parties represented in this bill. Certainly, the member for Giles has many constituents who are also prescribed interested parties under this bill. I would have liked to go further, but I have made a decision, at least in my involvement, that it would not have been right to push any further because it is quite likely that some of the positives of the bill would not have come forward. It is a great positive to be trying to give as many opportunities as possible within reason, cost constraints, etc., to develop renewable energy within our state; that is a very positive goal.

The opposition supports this bill. I will have significant questions to ask in committee of the minister managing the bill on behalf of the government. I am not looking for problems, but I am going to be looking for some fairly significant clarifications. The reason I say that is that every single party affected by this bill, whether they be a solar or wind farm developer, a pastoralist, a person, a family, or a corporation which a holds native title interest, or whether they be a company that holds a resources tenement—one category of prescribed interested party is somebody who may hold a native title interest in the land—all these people and organisations have exceptionally long-term interest in the land. There is nobody there who will not be around for probably decades to come, at least, so that is why this is a very important issue.

One of the important intents of the bill is to create opportunities for renewable energy production in the more remote parts of our state. We are all aware of the difficulties that there have been, particularly with regard to wind farms and the development of wind farms in close country parts of South Australia. There are many people who want them, and many people who do not want them. There are many people who say that their homes, their livelihood, their sleeping patterns and the health of their families have all been negatively affected, and it is very hard for any of us to come to firm conclusions about what is happening to a person's home, a person's body or a person's sleep pattern, etc.

It does make good sense to try to get them further away, to where there are fewer people affected and fewer communities involved. I support the government in trying to do that, but of course people living, working, and pursuing cultural interests in pastoral areas also have rights. One person living in pastoral South Australia is just as important as one person in close country or one person living in the city, so it is very important to consider the views of those people.

The government has gone through a fairly extensive consultation process with as many of those people as possible, as have I. This bill, as well as having very important personal interest for me as the member for Stuart, does affect my roles as both shadow minister for mineral resources and also for energy. It is probably easily forgotten, as we tend to be focusing our discussions on pastoralists and native title holders, but the holders of resources tenements are very important players in this as well.

I have to say that at one stage through my negotiations, after seeing the consultation opportunities that had gone out primarily to pastoralists, I was disappointed (and I do not know exactly where this went wrong) that when I asked the minister's office whether Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal people, holders of native title or people who may hold native title had been consulted with I was told no. I believe that has been rectified, but I think it is really important that all the people involved in this bill—families, corporations and organisations—deserve equal representation. Certainly, pastoralists are very important, but every Aboriginal group that is a prescribed interested party deserves full representation, as well as the mining companies and resource tenement holders.

Very briefly, what this bill does is allow opportunities for solar and wind development. In the case of solar development, it proposes an excision from the leasehold; a section of land would be taken out of the pastoral lease so that a solar farm could be developed. In the case of a wind farm, a licence to operate that wind farm would be potentially offered to a wind farm developer. There would be a period of initial access for companies that wanted to pursue these sorts of things and, if they were successful, following that there would be a licence offered to undertake these developments.

Money would be paid, by way of compensation to prescribed parties, which would go into a fund, and it would be paid for the initial up-front access as well as for the licence opportunity, if you like, which would go on for 25 or 50 or more years. That money would go into a fund and be negotiated by the government on behalf of the prescribed interested parties. The government would keep 5 per cent of that money—a brokerage fee, if you like, or an ongoing administration fee or whatever purpose the government chooses—and 95 per cent would go to the prescribed interested parties. If down the track there were disagreements, the ERD Court is the place where those disagreements would be dealt with. I will not go into all the details, but I think that is a pretty fair summary of how things are proposed to work under this bill.

There are of course a lot of questions and a lot of concerns about the money because the money is what is meant to offset the compensation. The total quantum of that money that might be negotiated by the government on behalf of the prescribed interested parties, and also how 95 per cent of that total quantum of money would be shared between the prescribed interested parties, is very much up in the air.

I have to say that I understand that it is not possible for the government to try to explicitly define all the ways that the total quantum might be determined or how the sharing out of it might be determined. I really do understand that, but it is equally important that this house understands what an awkward a position that leaves the prescribed interested parties—to have the government negotiating on your behalf, instead of you negotiating on your behalf; to have the total amount of money that might go into the fund being really unknown; and also to have how that fund would be divided up unknown.

Many of the prescribed interested parties get on exceptionally well, and in the bill the holders of resources tenements would not get access to a share of the 95 per cent. The pastoral lessees would get it, and also the holders of native title would get access to the money that is paid up-front, if you like, to have access to the land to essentially do their exploratory investigations, and that might be 2½ and I think up to five years in total. Once a licence is conferred upon a renewable energy developer, as well as the pastoral lessees and the native title holders anybody who may hold native title is also potentially able to access a share of the fund. Deputy Speaker, you will understand how that makes people really wonder where they are going. Keep in mind the long-term view: that we are putting something in place at the moment that maybe in a year or two, or maybe in 20 or 30 years, a wind or solar farm developer might come along and want to take the opportunity to develop a wind or solar farm.

Having said that, I just have to accept, and my constituents have to accept, and the member for Giles' constituents have to accept (the member for Flinders has constituents in this category, and I believe that the member for Chaffey does as well), that we have done the best we can to leave the grey area as small as possible. Certainly, we did manage to put into the bill that the minister of the day must negotiate on behalf of the interested parties, after consulting with them, and with their views and opinions in mind. I guess that is probably about as good as we can get at this stage. The minister of the day may be Liberal or may be Labor, and may understand energy and outback issues better or worse. We just have to accept that that is how it is going to go, and that is at the heart of the most difficult part of that bill.

I draw your attention, Deputy Speaker, to negotiations that have gone on for in excess of 10 years with regard to the Cultana training range in the member for Giles' electorate. Those negotiations, of course, were with the federal government—Liberal and Labor—where they were trying to negotiate with native title holders and other people who had cultural interests in the land as well as the pastoral leaseholders. That negotiation did not go well, and it stretched out over a very long time. I am not pointing the finger at anyone here, because over 10 years there were successive governments, but I can tell you that the people—not the governments, but the people—in the local area were very dissatisfied with that process.

You can imagine leaseholders who were quite comfortable, and there were certainly some of them who thought, 'Look, this is okay. I am happy. I will sell you my pastoral lease, as simple as that. Maybe we'll have to haggle over the numbers just a little bit, but broadly speaking I am happy. Let's get on with it.' Other pastoral leaseholders would say, 'I don't want to go. This has been part of my family's history for a hundred-odd years. I do not want to go. I am completely opposed to this and I refuse to go.' Well, the reality is that 10 years later none of them are really satisfied with the process they went through. Those who wanted to go had to wait 10 years to go; their whole lives were on hold for 10 years. Those who did not want to go, after 10 years they still had to go or they had to divide up their property. So, really, no-one is comfortable with that. I mention that as an example of how difficult it can be for governments and for the real people involved when you have to enter into these sorts of things, where the government is essentially negotiating on what is taxpayer-owned, publicly-owned, leased land that might be put towards another purpose.

I also want to touch on, in my mind, another grey area. There is an assumption that this bill will apply only to parcels of land on pastoral leases that are near transmission lines, near the mains grid. There are four mains lines, essentially, two of which I know that the member for Giles would be very aware of: one that heads from Port Augusta up to Woomera and onto the Woomera rocket range, and includes Roxby Downs as well, and one that heads up into the Flinders Ranges up to Leigh Creek. There are also two others: one that runs just at the end of the southern edge of the pastoral zone in the Riverland area, and another one that just scrapes through the member for Giles' area in what, I suppose, would be the south-east corner of his area and the north-east corner of the member for Flinders' area. There are also mains grids there.

That looks pretty simple because then you could say that you really could not develop a wind or solar farm too far away from those mains grid lines because there are constraints with regard to: you produce your solar or wind power here, you have to run it through a transformer, you have to put it through other lines to get into the mains grid and then you are on board in terms of being able to sell your electricity to customers. I am sure that will be, in the main, where people are looking at developing wind and solar, but they are not the only ones. We will have some questions in committee to try to clarify this.

It is not inconceivable that a company might want to develop a mine and they might say, 'Well, to run this mine we are going to need truckloads of diesel, truckloads and truckloads of diesel, to supply us with the electricity that we need, or we could use less diesel and we could supplement that with wind and solar.' So, we would have, potentially, a standalone minerals development; it could be minerals, it could be oil or gas, whatever, and a really smart, capable, good developer could say, 'I can contribute renewables to this.' They might need to put a solar farm or a wind farm on a pastoral lease in proximity to their new mine and that might be a very smart and good thing to do and this bill would cover that, which is positive, but it has not been part of the mainstream conversation—it could actually be anywhere.

One thing I will be asking in committee is in regard to the potential scale of wind and solar developments. It is quite easy to imagine the larger end where a developer wants to put their electricity into the mains grid and, essentially, they are hoping to make money by generating electricity and selling it into the main publicly accessible grid, but there may also be others with much smaller developments who might just want to use it for themselves, for their own independent industrial or commercial interests.

It might also be that someone wants to do a development for wind and solar that would fit into this bill very neatly to connect into one of the RAES towns (the remote area electricity scheme towns), of which there are 13 across our state. They are all supplied with electricity by standalones for that town; diesel and gas generation linked into one grid that supplies that town only. Again, the member for Giles has approximately half of those, I have approximately half, and I think the member for Flinders has one at Nundroo.

Somebody might come along and say, 'I'd like to put a wind or solar electricity development on a pastoral lease in proximity to one of these 13 towns and supply power into the town.' Now, you will not be able to do that on non-windy days and you will not be able to do that when the sun is not shining, but it could be an outstanding supplement to the current diesel and gas power generation that goes on. So, there is another potential example of where this bill might apply nowhere near the mains electricity grids whatsoever. I would ask people to consider that possibility.

I think the potential scale of the development and how those things could dovetail into electricity needs would be very important. As I mentioned, there are 13 towns on the remote area electricity scheme across outback South Australia, but there are approximately 30 towns in total across outback South Australia and most of them are very small, maybe this bill could support some of them as well, and that would be really good. Those towns are currently not getting any electricity, so there is no expectation that this would necessarily provide them with 24-hour electricity but it might supplement what individual people are currently doing. In those cases, if they are not near the mains and they are not a RAES town, typically, people, families, businesses are supplying their own electricity.

This might be a way of contributing to those towns, and that will be at the very small end. It will not be what we are familiar with with wind farms and what we see when we drive through many of the country electorates—big wind farms that have anywhere from 10 to 100 turbines. That is a very genuine opportunity, but I will be looking for some clarification during the committee to see what is and what is not possible. I think it is very important that is on the record, so that in five, 10, 15, 20 years down the track people are aware of it.

Another positive aspect of this bill is that I hope it will contribute to avoiding the great unforeseen difficulties we have had with regard to an overlap between the Mining Act and the planning act when it comes to wind farm developments. I bring to your attention, Deputy Speaker, the proposal by Investec for a wind farm at Hornsdale, which was given approval, not to develop but to thoroughly investigate and proceed, if you like; it was not the final signoff. However, there was a significant problem.

There were already exploration and mining tenements in that area that were held by a relatively small mining company and/or, in different combinations, a local family who had already started mining phosphate on their property near Tarcowie. The Tarcowie Phosphate company, as far as mining companies go—I know the family would not mind me saying this—was miniscule; however, to that family it was everything. To that family it was an exceptionally important adjunct to their agricultural business. They had already started mining phosphate, they had already started selling phosphate, and they already had plans to develop that operation further.

If you can imagine the beautiful rolling hills of the Tarcowie area, many of them have rocky outcrops or rocky ridges running along them, primarily rounded top, rolling-type hills but with rocky outcrops here and there. That is where they wanted to mine, that is where they had permission to mine, and that is where Investec wanted to put their turbines, because it was at the top of the hill where the greatest wind resource is. That is an issue I have been trying to work through with the government and the family for a long time.

I have to say that the government, through the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, and particularly Mr Paul Heithersay, have been trying very hard to get through this issue. For now at least it seems to be okay (resolved would be the wrong word). However, that issue arose because nobody had ever thought about the fact that somebody gave mining permission and somebody else gave wind farm permission. Here at least, on land that is held by pastoral leases, we have a way to work through this, and I think the government has done well to try to develop that.

There are also, of course, as I touched on briefly before, many issues across country South Australia with regard to the development of wind farms. I do not imagine there is a country member of parliament in this place who has not been asked by constituent, 'Why not put a wind farm across Mount Lofty and see if they like it?' That is a very fair way to think if you live in a country area, whether it is your land or you just live near the land, and you are going to get a wind farm and you do not like it.

This does address in a very positive way the problem of trying to place wind farms in more sparsely populated areas of the state. I say again: the people who live in the more sparsely populated areas of our state deserve exactly—exactly—as much consideration when it comes to their opinions as anybody who lives in the country, or anybody who might live in Adelaide and does not want to look up at Mount Lofty to see it covered by wind farms.

One thing that this bill will not help my constituents or the constituents of Giles, Flinders or Chaffey who live in pastoral areas with is their extraordinarily strong and understandable frustration that mains electricity grids run through their cattle station or sheep station and they cannot access the electricity. You can sit there in a town or a homestead and you can see the mains grid right there, and I have to pay, the pastoralist has to pay, $20,000, $30,000, $50,000 and sometimes $100,000 a year for diesel for electricity, and they are not allowed to access that electricity. Every member here would understand how very frustrating that would be.

It is now going to be the case that, if a solar or wind farm were to be developed under the auspices of this bill—and if that were done with fruitful and satisfactory negotiations, I would think that was an outstanding outcome, a really positive outcome, and I am fully behind the good results that can come from this bill—not only would that pastoralist be looking at the mains electricity grid that goes close, they can see it right there, but also they will be looking at a wind farm, potentially, and they may still not be able to get the electricity to their homestead or to their small town, their shearing shed or to whatever development they have on their property! I really feel for those people with that issue.

It does affect outback businesses in pastoral areas, which have to generate their own electricity and to pay a fortune to do so. I put on the record that, while this bill contributes positively to the development of renewables in a more sparsely populated part of our state, as a state and as a government and as contributors to developing the state, we have to do more to get electricity into the pastoral areas of our state, electricity that those people can use.

If you head out to the eastern end of my electorate of Stuart, you will come to the New South Wales border, and you can see their electricity, which comes all the way from Sydney to our border—just like if you go to Queensland, you can see the bitumen road that comes all the way from Brisbane to our border, but that is a different story. It is incredibly frustrating for our pastoralists to know that their neighbours just over the border can access mains electricity to their homestead or to their hotel if it happens to be a business in town. Our people, more often than not, cannot do that.

In their further deliberations, I urge the government to consider not only how we can develop renewable energy in outback parts of our state but also how people who live in outback parts of our state can directly access the electricity that is being harnessed in their backyard. It is a very important issue.

The key issue that remains unknown is how the total quantum of money will be developed when the minister negotiates it on behalf of other people and how that will be derived. This is a really important issue, and an important component of this issue which I think most people have not really thought through is that every single one of the parties affected by this has a very long-term interest.

If you are going to develop a solar farm or a wind farm under this bill, you will be entitled to a 25 plus 25-year licence. If you happen to be a pastoral family, company or enterprise, who may have been there for 100 years or who may have just arrived (you would like to be there for 100 years, you would like to have your family there for 100 years) or you are the holder of a resources tenement, whether you are just exploring or whether you are producing, the shortest development licence from exploration through to closing your production is 10 to 20 years. From the first time somebody says, 'I think there's gold in them there hills,' through to finishing their goldmine is 10 to 20 years; most are much longer.

Of course, in this vein, the people with the absolutely longest connection to the land are the Aboriginal people, those people who hold native title and whose families have been there for tens of thousands of years, who, of course, understandably and rightly, have a mindset to say, 'We would like our families to have a connection to this land for thousands of years to come.' It is very natural and very appropriate and I support them in wanting to have that connection.

There is nobody involved in this issue who does not have a very long-term view. We are trying to set up something that, even if a developer banged on the government's door tomorrow morning, everybody involved would be tied up with this issue for decades and decades. That is why I believe it is important to go through it in some detail at the committee stage in an effort to try to get some clarification for all the people involved and to try to get at least a bit of clarity about how some of the unforseen circumstances might eventuate, circumstances that none of us—the minister, the minister's staff, departmental staff, my constituents and I—can see There are things that we can predict but there are certainly others that we know will arise in 10, 20, 30, 50 years that we cannot predict. So it is important to try to get a little bit of clarity about how those things will be dealt with.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (17:26): I commend this bill to the house and congratulate the government on bringing the bill and also the work that the member for Stuart has done on this as our shadow minister but also as the member for Stuart who, of course, has a vast area of pastoral lease within his electorate, as does the member for Giles who I know also has an interest in renewables and was speaking briefly about them earlier today.

It is good to see this bill finally get here. I think it goes way back to 2010 when a germ of an idea from the current government led to the development of this bill. Essentially the bill aims to enable wind farm development on pastoral lands. My understanding is that this has been nigh on impossible up until now because the opportunity and the capability simply was not there. By passing this bill we create the opportunity for development to occur, but it does not necessarily guarantee it.

The member for Stuart has been through a whole range of arguments and debate around how and why this bill may be applied but essentially it is about opportunity. I have just a half a dozen or so pastoral leases in my electorate. There are three inland from Elliston, a couple inland from Venus Bay and a couple more north of Bookabie. It is probably unlikely that wind farm development will take place on those pastoral leases. My understanding is that you really have to target those areas with a good wind resource and, in my area at least, it is more likely to be closer to the coast.

The wind resource in the pastoral areas really varies depending on the terrain, but certainly there will be opportunities for solar, I am sure. In the discussion paper it has been suggested that it is likely that developments will take place close to existing transmission lines. I think one of the big challenges is not really the generation of electricity; it is the transmission and delivery of that electricity. I have certainly seen an example of that with the wind farm at Cathedral Rocks which is due west of Port Lincoln on the south-western tip of Eyre Peninsula, and from the city of Port Lincoln you can see those turbines turning on a clear day.

It is not too far away, yet there are factories on the outlying areas of Port Lincoln—fish processing plants—that cannot access enough electricity. So it is all very well to talk about the generation of electricity; it is just as critical to talk about the transmission and delivery of that electricity. It will be interesting to see how the electricity market evolves in this state and this country over the next few years and what options are taken up. I believe that there will be a suite of solutions. I suspect that oil and gas will be the primary source for a long time yet. It is certainly as efficient as we have at the moment, but renewables will continue to play a part and they may grow in their importance.

We have talked about consultation in this bill and how there are various stakeholders: those with native title, the original owners of the land; and those who own a pastoral lease—and of course, it is not owned freehold, it is just leasehold; it is ultimately owned by the Crown. For the most part, I think they are 49 years. Is that right?

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Forty-two.

Mr TRELOAR: Forty-two; my apologies. They are renewed each and every 42 years, of course. They are the primary carers of that land at the moment. There are mining interests and of course now with the passing of this bill, there will be those companies that are keen to be involved with renewable energy.

I was interested to see that disputes will now be referred to the ERD Court, because there is no doubt that there will be disputes. When you strive for coexistence among varying land uses, they are often, in the first instance at least, seen as competing land uses, and almost invariably there is angst in the initial stages of discussion or even development. I think the ERD Court is the right place for those disputes to be carried out. It is always interesting to see how the legislation will be tested at that time.

The member for Stuart certainly mentioned money. Often things do get back to money and I think the existing landowner needs to be acknowledged and compensated, and that is dealt with in this bill. It looks to me that the payments will generally be between $8,000 and $12,000 per turbine. That is fair and reasonable. It is probably in line with what landowners are receiving on the inside of the country of course. A lot of the wind farm developments have been subjected to some discussion, and often my belief is that those who have a turbine or a wind farm on their property are more than happy with the development and those nearby who do not have the same opportunity are not necessarily so pleased.

I know the member for Stuart is keen to get to committee and given that it is late on a Thursday we will move on, but I just wanted to make a brief contribution, commend the bill to the house and acknowledge the work that has been done on both sides, particularly by the member for Stuart, but also by our shadow minister for the environment, Michelle Lensink, in the other place. I look forward to the passage of the bill.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (17:32): I also speak in support of this bill and commend the bill to the house. I would like to firstly acknowledge the enormous contribution of the Hon. Michelle Lensink in the other place, the member for Stuart and the member for Flinders, and acknowledge the enormous impact that such a bill has on their electorates, having many pastoral leases in their electorates.

I have to declare that I have enormous interest in renewable energy sources. Having been in the funds management industry for a couple of years, it was a great privilege to start to learn about renewable energy sources. I sincerely think that government has an enormous role to play in facilitating investment in the area and in facilitating growth in the area, be it solar energy, biomass waste to energy, water energy, wind energy or, particularly, geothermal energy. History has shown us in recent times that this government has failed the renewable energy sector, particularly in the geothermal energy space.

Obviously, as we have heard, renewable energy development cannot and could not have occurred on pastoral leases, because the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989 was drafted prior to its occurrence. There have been enormous obstacles arising from existing provisions, and it is fantastic that this bill is hopefully coming to a head.

The Pastoral Land Management and Conservation (Renewable Energy) Amendment Bill was drafted to allow this coexistence of pastoral activities, wind farm development and mining. The bill hopefully will enable wind farm development on pastoral land. It has been said that up to 40 per cent of the state's land mass will be open to potential renewable energy development—and this is a good thing. I think we should always aspire to ensure, of course taking into consideration all the relevant parties, that we maximise the potential of our land since we do have so much of it.

It has obviously been said that the most likely location of wind farm developments, as the member for Stuart alluded to, will be in proximity to the state's transmission lines, and it is believed that it is hard for wind farm developments to operate outside a 30-kilometre radius of these lines.

It is important that we note the important role that the Howard government played in initiating the initial investment into the renewable energy space, in renewable energy technology, setting a substantial target many years ago. I note that it has been said that South Australia has—

Mr Hughes: 2 per cent.

Mr TARZIA: It can always be improved, member for Giles—no doubt about that. In fact, the member for Giles should ask—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is unparliamentary to interject and to respond to interjections. I draw members back to the task at hand. The member for Hartley.

Mr TARZIA: Deputy Speaker, it is fantastic that we have bipartisan passion for renewable energy. I just sincerely hope and wish—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to task.

Mr TARZIA: —on behalf of this space, that the government did more about it in their 12 years in office. I note that South Australia does have a certain percentage of energy coming from the renewable sector, but I am sure the member for Giles will be appeased—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to task.

Mr TARZIA: —to hear me say that it needs to be much more.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are still responding to interjections.

Mr TARZIA: Obviously I have struck a nerve here, Deputy Speaker, but more needs to be done in this space. They seem to be sincerely all talk and no action in this space. One only has to look into my own electorate in Lochiel Park in Campbelltown, in Hartley, where we have had a sustainable energy project that was set up many, many years ago and is still unable to be fully utilised by the local electorate.

Conversely, the Liberal Party has a strong record in this space. In fact, at a state level, the previous Liberal government (many, many years ago now) had a strong record of leadership on greenhouse gas emissions, and some may actually remember—those who were here—that in 1998 the Liberal government actually initiated South Australia's first government greenhouse target program, which is a very good thing.

As I have mentioned, we are advised that renewable energy could not previously occur on pastoral leases because of the original act that was in place. This particular bill, following its passage, will allow coexistence of pastoral activities, and that is a fantastic thing. I thank honourable members for their contributions and really hope that, in a bipartisan manner, we can progress this bill through this place.

There are a number of issues still to be clarified, as the member for Stuart did raise: issues concerning monetary payment, dispute resolution, the time in which a minister is able to determine whether an application is open-ended or not, and whether and how grant licences can be issued, with or without the consent of interested parties. There are also issues still to be rectified concerning the resumption period. However, all in all, I will support this bill. I commend the bill to the house and I hope that we can resolve some of those outstanding issues in the committee stage.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for the Public Sector) (17:38): I thank honourable members for their time in the consideration of this bill. This bill before the chamber today makes it possible for a wind farm developer to apply for a licence to build and operate a wind farm on crown land subject to pastoral lease, and for that wind farm to coexist with a pastoral leaseholder's activities. The bill also expedites access to pastoral land for solar energy projects.

As it is the first of this type of legislation in Australia, the amendments will send a strong message to industry that South Australia is a competitive place for renewable energy investment. We have benefited greatly as a state from renewable energy development and, since 2003, there has been $5.5 billion in renewable energy investment, with 40 per cent of this occurring in regional areas. This bill will ensure that such benefits continue to flow into regional South Australia. This package of amendments will benefit developers, pastoral lessees and native title holders, as well as ensuring that the interests of mineral and resource companies are preserved through ensuring strong consultation with these groups at an early stage in the licence application process.

The bill was originally introduced into the Legislative Council in May this year by minister Hunter. I would like to thank the minister and also acknowledge and thank the member for Stuart for his input into this process to date. Following amendments in the other place, the bill now provides similar rights to pastoral lessees, as is provided for existing mineral and petroleum and geothermal exploration tenement holders. A land access agreement now needs to be negotiated between a wind farm developer and a pastoral lessee before a wind farm licence can be issued. The negotiation of this agreement will give the pastoral lessee an ability to discuss sensitive areas such as water points and draw up an agreement which addresses the usage of common infrastructure such as access roads.

The wind farm licence will, for safety reasons, include areas such as substations, control rooms and maintenance sheds that need to be locked and therefore cannot be part of the access agreement. The land access agreement provides for the Environment, Resources and Development Court to intervene if requested by either party. Wind farm licence conditions will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis in recognition of the varying nature of pastoral lease land and the great variation in scope of wind farm projects.

The bill now requires the minister to specifically consult with a pastoral lessee before he or she authorises a wind farm payment. Another change to the bill passed in the Legislative Council altered the court in which the disputes under the wind farm division will be heard. The ERD Court is now the court rather than the Administrative and Disciplinary Division of the District Court.

The passing of this bill by the South Australian parliament will continue this state's strong role in facilitating development by ensuring that practical regulatory regimes are in place to promote appropriate development. I would like to thank my colleagues in both houses for their work on this important piece of legislation. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: My question is about part 2, clause 4 and, essentially, I have the same question for solar energy facility definition and wind farm. If the answer is the same, no problem: if the answer is different, please let me know. This gets back to what I alluded to before in my contribution with regard to scale or size. Is there any minimum or maximum size facility that could be part of this legislation? Are there any specifications with regard to what type of wind farm or solar farm could be dealt with?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The only definition we have is that it would be at commercial scale not private use.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: That makes good sense but could it be commercial scale for a commercial operation that might be privately owned? I am thinking about perhaps an outback hotel or a roadhouse or a cluster of businesses together. They might want to develop this for themselves for commercial purposes. Would that be in or out?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am advised that, although it is targeted at commercial scale, something of the nature of the operation you have described could be subject to this bill, yes.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Similarly, even though it might be technically private use in terms of only being homes clustered in a town, could they group together to do a small wind or solar development to supply their town jointly? It would be a commercial development, if you like, to provide electricity to them jointly as commercial customers but, essentially, for private use.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, as long as, of course, we are talking about pastoral lease land not the township itself, but, yes, that scenario otherwise could operate.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Just to be clear, often there is a cluster of houses already excised out of a pastoral lease, so the wind farm or the solar would be on the pastoral lease but supplying the town. All those sorts of options are potentially available under this bill?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, that is correct.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 and 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am looking at clause 7(3), new subsection (8), which states:

Despite the preceding provisions of this section, the Minister may, from time to time, issue directions to a lessee for the purposes of the condition referred to [above] (and such directions will have effect as if they were conditions of the lease).

What that is really saying is that, within the context of this clause, the minister could throw in some other conditions if the minister wanted to. That might well be good, but I am looking for some direction on or some examples of how it might be used because the example that is given in the bill alarms me. It states:

Directions might, for example, specify areas in which trees are not to be planted so as not to interfere with the operation of a wind farm.

That makes good sense, except it would almost never apply in a pastoral setting. Are there other types of examples?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I understand it, this is replicating what is already the case with freehold. It is essentially about ensuring a wind easement so that any large structure that would inhibit the wind from reaching the turbine, once it is agreed that there will be a turbine, would be problematic. That could be, say, a large shed. That may have been, on pastoral land, a better example to use, but the case remains the same.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So, it is really just about any subsequent development by the pastoral lessee or anybody else who could interfere with the operation of the wind farm or the solar; that is really what it is about. This condition would not be invoked for any other reason than that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is exactly right. It is, as I understand it, exactly the same as the freehold arrangements.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Clauses 8 and 9 essentially both deal with solar, so this section of the bill is really talking about land that is excised out of the pastoral lease. When that land is resumed for a solar development, what expectations would the government have of the developer with regard to removal of equipment and rehabilitation of that land—hopefully, decades down the track?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I understand that the provisions for the standard of rehabilitation and the expectation for rehabilitation are already sitting within the act, and these clauses do not trouble that. All they do is have a different resumption time frame, down to two months from four, but the expectation of how the land would be rehabilitated sits in the existing act.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Within those aspects of the existing act, it probably was never envisaged, quite understandably, that there could be acres and acres of solar farm. If a solar development goes bust, and the developer genuinely just does not have the resources to remove the equipment, are the provisions in the existing act good enough to cover for that very large-scale impediment?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The advice is that we are content with the existing provisions, that they would be sufficient. However, I have also been advised about a cognate question, which is: what is the most likely scenario to occur under that circumstance of a solar farm development going broke? The suggestion is that mostly the way these organisations and these businesses are operated with the bank is that they have non-recourse bank financing.

The expectation would be that, in the event they were no longer able to continue their business, the bank would seek an alternative operator to take over and operate. The expectation would be that the rehabilitation and remediation would not be required because it would be an ongoing proposition. That said, your specific question was: irrespective of all that, what if it does need to be removed? We are satisfied that the existing provisions are sufficient.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I understand that, and I guess my difficulty is that, if one of these solar operations goes bust, it will not be because the sun stopped shining; it will be because the customers disappeared, most likely. If you are just putting it into the mains grid, I think that once it is set up, it is set up and it should work for decades, and that would be great.

However, I am thinking also about some of these other smaller opportunities which I think could be really positive, but I also worry that, if you get one of the smaller-scale developments we were discussing before that you said were quite okay, and if somebody could make a go of it they could fit into this legislation, it is not unlikely that some of those customers might not be there for decades. Ideally they would grow, ideally because you can get the electricity there would be more customers and it would get better and better, but I have seen outback towns shrink too.

I am happy to accept what you say, that you believe that the existing provisions will be good enough for remediation and clean-up, because I would hate to see some sort of Mad Max-type landscape left behind because what was once a wonderful idea did not actually work in that place.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: To elaborate a little on our answer as well, it appears that in a worst-case scenario the Crown becomes responsible for the clean-up, which means there will still be clean-up. I also note that usually these assets, although large, are nonetheless portable and nonetheless useful, so the most likely thing would be that it would be packed up and sold.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am looking at clause 9(3) and the combination of (a) and (b). Paragraph (a) essentially says that 'if the resumption is for the purposes of a solar facility...', but (b) says 'in any other case'. I am not aware of 'any other case', other than the resumption being for the purpose of solar here. There may well be one, but if the minister could explain I would be grateful.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am advised that you are absolutely right: the expectation is that it is for solar, but that clause exists just in case there is something different that comes up and is probably one that parliamentary counsel has recommended be applied in this kind of clause.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is no real expectation that that would ever be used for anything else?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you, minister.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This is the interpretation of access and I refer to new section 49A—Interpretation. Each of the following are access agreements in relation to pastoral land:

(a) an agreement between an applicant for a wind farm licence in relation to the land and the lessee for access to the land, or infrastructure…

That is the access to land in advance of a licence agreement. Proposed subsection (b) states:

(b) if a resources tenement is held over the land…

What I am real trying to understand or confirm is that the pastoral lessee is wrapped up in that. Unless I have misread it (and I am not an expert in these things) it does not seem to require the pastoral lessee's involvement in that section of the land. It talks about pastoral land, but it does not talk about the pastoralist, if that makes sense.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before the minister commences her response, do we need to report progress or extend, and, if so, are we going to go significantly after 6pm?

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I suggest that I am about 30 or 40 per cent of the way through.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We will report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


At 17:59 the house adjourned until Tuesday 23 September 2014 at 11:00.

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