HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-07-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

State Drill Core Reference Library

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (15:07): My question is to the Treasurer. What developments have occurred regarding the new State Drill Core Reference Library?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (15:07): I thank the member for Newland for his interest in the State Drill Core Library, because he has a keen interest in resources, as do all members on this side of the house. We want to grow our economy, unlike some of the protectionists opposite who don't want to see our natural resources exploited.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Treasurer is not responsible for the opposition.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, thankfully, sir. The government is committed to growing our resources sector and developing world-class, pre-competitive data is a key element to supporting such growth. Since 1978, the Glenside Drill Core Storage Facility has stored millions of metres of drill cores and helped unlock some of the state's biggest resource developments. It is recognised by the minerals and petroleum industries as one of the best purpose-built drill core reference libraries in the world. We are committed to ensuring our state has a world-class facility today and into the future.

Following extensions in 1982 and 2005, the current core library is now at capacity. That is why the government is committed to building a $32.2 million new State Drill Core Reference Library at Tonsley. We are committed to this new core library because delivering world-class pre-competitive data will attract and sustain international investment in mineral petroleum and geothermal exploration in South Australia.

The State Drill Core Reference Library will be the cornerstone of investment for a resources hub at Tonsley. It will work in tandem with the world-renowned PACE program and the Mining and Petroleum Services Centre of Excellence, projects such as the ICT Roadmap and, of course, the Onshore Petroleum Centre of Excellence to drive synergies for mining supply and services.

This investment in our resources sector will advance our pathway to a 20-year period to generate an estimated $6.5 billion in royalties. This is because world-class resource information and data leads to new discoveries. It leads to new mining and energy developments which can create thousands of jobs and grow our economy. To help fund this development—and I am looking directly at the member for Mount Gambier—DMITRE and Renewal SA have progressed towards undertaking—

The SPEAKER: Point of order from the member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: Sir, this matter is readily available. It's been printed, it's been in the parliament through a report from Public Works, and I ask for your direction on where the minister is going with this.

The SPEAKER: Can the minister assure me that this information is not readily available in a parliamentary paper, and can he be very careful that his answer is correct?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, I would never mislead this house but, given my experience with the member for Unley not reading his Economic and Finance papers—

The SPEAKER: That—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —I doubt very much if members opposite have read any of the Public Works reports.

The SPEAKER: The Treasurer is warned for the second and final time. Has the Treasurer thrown in the towel?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Never, sir—not until the last dog dies. I will say this: there is much available on the progression of the drill core library, but I think it's important that the executive detail to the house its importance to our future prosperity.

The SPEAKER: Of course, if it has done that through the Public Works Committee, that wouldn't be in order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, we will talk about it in the first 100 days and in the first 1,000 days, and we will keep on talking about it until our job is done. The government's objectives are consistent with the state's strategic objectives for the site of the sale.

We intend that use of the land for sale be consistent with the state's previous and future intended use of the land, being for mines and energy, and preserves the heritage of the Z ward through adaptive re-use in accordance with the state heritage requirements and the objectives of this site. It is an exciting step forward in the development of our resources sector as it will help cement our place as one of the world's leading mining jurisdictions.

There being a disturbance in the strangers' gallery:

The SPEAKER: The stranger should be removed from the gallery forthwith; it's out of order. Has the Treasurer finished the answer? The motion before the house is that the house note grievances.

Mr WILLIAMS: Before we move to that, sir, I want to bring a matter to your attention that occurred in question time today.

The SPEAKER: Is it a personal explanation or a point of privilege?

Mr WILLIAMS: I will seek your guidance, sir, but it's not a personal explanation, and I do wish to bring this matter to your attention. Today, in question time, the Premier was answering a question. I think it was the member for Heysen who brought to your attention that he had impugned improper motive—

The SPEAKER: Imputed improper motives.

Mr WILLIAMS: —imputed improper motive on the part of—

The SPEAKER: He didn't impugn anyone.

Mr WILLIAMS: —on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, standing order 127 says that a member may not impute improper motives on any other member or make personal reflections on any other member. Erskine May—I refer to the 24th edition of Erskine May at page 396, 'Rules governing the form and subject matter of motions'—says that:

Certain matters cannot be debated except on a substantive motion which allows a distinct decision of the House. These include the conduct of—

and then it names a class of people starting with the Sovereign and going through members of the house. It goes on and says:

Such matters cannot, therefore, be raised by way of amendment, or an adjournment motion. For the same reason, no charge of a personal character in respect of these categories of person can be raised except on a direct and substantive motion. No statement of that kind can be incorporated in a broader motion nor, for example, included in a reply to a question—

which is exactly, sir, what the Premier did.

The SPEAKER: So, it is a point of order?

Mr WILLIAMS: I believe, sir, you asked the Premier to withdraw, and he then went on to justify his statement earlier in the reply to the question. Sir, I put to you that if we were going to continue to allow such behaviour the house may well descend into some form of anarchy. The standing orders are there for very good reason. Erskine May has developed over many hundreds of years and has come up with a set of rules which keep this place very orderly. Yes, sir, I do ask that you reflect on what did occur in question time today because it is far too often that ministers, in my opinion, do resort to this sort of behaviour.

The SPEAKER: It is a fair point of order. I am going to read it now—The Practice of the House of Assembly by Blackmore, which lists all those things that this volume thinks is unparliamentary. I took it to be a point that the member took offence. The member for Heysen was taking offence to the words used by the Premier on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, and that is why I asked the Leader of the Opposition if he took offence, and then I invited the Premier to withdraw, but he did not.

That is the proper procedure for members taking offence; however, the member for Mackillop is now raising a slightly different point—that it is altogether unparliamentary to impute improper motives to a member, and I am sure he is right. Whether it is to impute improper motives to say that the member is not really interested in the question he is asking is, I think, conjectural.

Mr WILLIAMS: Sir, if my memory serves me correctly, I think the Premier didn’t suggest that he wasn't interested. I think he suggested that the reason the question was brought to the house was to try to incite fear in the community. I think the Leader of the Opposition was offended by that when he brought this matter—

The SPEAKER: But is it unparliamentary? Are you saying those words are unparliamentary by dint of imputing improper motives?

Mr WILLIAMS: Absolutely, sir.

The SPEAKER: Alright, well, I will read Hansard—

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir.

The SPEAKER: —and get back to the house about it.

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