HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-11-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Leading Practice in Mining) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (19:34): I want to move on a little bit now, but only to more current times. On 2 February, there was a meeting convened at Maitland on Yorke Peninsula by Grain Producers SA which the Department of the Premier and Cabinet staff attended (and I appreciate that fact also), and it was about the mining legislation review. It was certainly a good number of people who attended. Staff from DPC who were there that day would reflect upon the fact that there was considerable emotion. It is one of the many that I have been a part of in the last couple of years, there is no doubt about that. But, as part of that, I asked when legislation would be available for review. I put the question: would legislation in a draft form be available for scrutiny by not just members of parliament but, indeed, by industry or people who are impacted by the impact of mining for a chance to review it?

I asked that deliberately because I was hopeful that would be the case. It would have meant that legislation would have to be tabled before the winter break. Unfortunately, that was not the case. The minister gave notice of it and tabled it some two weeks ago on this day, but now we are up for debate about it already. I feel great frustration, and I reflect upon some words that were actually part of a joint statement in a document produced by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, entitled 'Fast facts: the way forward', talking about feedback on the review. It is a joint statement from Primary Producers SA, Grain Producers SA, Livestock SA, the Environmental Defenders Office, Conservation Council, and the Wilderness Society of South Australia. I will only read a portion of it, which states:

Our respective organisations have appreciated the opportunity to be involved in this review. We cautiously welcome what would appear to be positive Recommendations for amendments to the Act…subject to having the opportunity to analyse the contents as set out in the draft Bill.

That itself is a dilemma. Legislation was only available for review by any person, beyond some members of parliament who were given an embargoed copy, I think six days before it was presented to the house, two weeks ago. The consultation, as the member for Stuart has alluded to, about the drop-in centres is continuing. In fact, the last meeting is at Port Augusta, I believe, on 15 November.

It is that inability of considered review to take place that has put the Liberal Party in the position where it intends to debate the legislation as it is in full and to consider amendments between houses and to propose those in the Legislative Council and reserve its final position depending upon the success or otherwise of those amendments. However, it has put me in the position where the consideration of the feedback provided to me by the community over some period of time, and indeed the concerns I have in regard to the change from exempt to restricted access and land, as we talk about, to declare that I will vote no on that on the legislation at the second and third reading.

It was put to me at the drop-in centre meeting at Maitland last Friday that I should be for agriculture. I am, but my response to that is that I am for communities because it is an inclusiveness to me. Communities are made up of all aspects: ages, land uses and activities that take place. I am for trying to find the absolutely best result. I do reflect upon the fact that there are considerable aspects of this legislation that are actually improvements. I understand that, but it is for the reason I have outlined about the land issue that I am intending to vote no.

I put before the house a suggestion that I was not aware of from a policy that exists within government, as I understand it, primarily within the Department of Primary Industries and Regions, which is for a thing called 'primary production priority areas' to be declared. As I understand it, the policy exists for some 19 to exist across South Australia, but as yet I do not believe they are in place. When the sustainable agriculture select committee that I was a member of was presented with this information probably five years ago now, I was immediately attracted to that because it provides some level of guidance of areas that are intended to be preserved for their activities.

This has been used in the past and talked about for a variety of things such as where wind farms should go and where boat ramps should be and where facilities and services should exist. I see that primary production priority areas as actually being a very key initiative which has been a policy but never undertaken or put in place, which has caused part of this problem. I do put on the table that the government, as part of legislation that has already passed this house some time ago about character preservation areas for the Barossa and McLaren Vale areas, has put restrictions in place on land uses to occur.

In the planning, development and infrastructure legislation that was debated in this chamber for hours on end, the environmental food protection areas were established by the Minister for Planning. They are designed to ensure that no residential development takes place within those identified areas, which are quite substantial—they surround Adelaide and head north, east and south. This is a similar case, where regional communities want to see some surety attached to the land use.

At the drop-in meeting with DPC in Maitland last Friday, the following question was put: what takes precedence? Do development plans that exist on the style of land uses that are allowed by virtue of community input, local government review and the Minister for Planning have the final say on it? My understanding is they do not allow for mining to occur. In this area, it is general farming or industries that are associated with general farming. One could argue that this is very much to the complete opposite of a mining proposal.

That is where I think those primary production and priority areas are a key opportunity to do things a bit better. I call upon the government—and I have also called upon the opposition, as part of its own policy work—to ensure that effort is being made on that. My understanding is that the legislation we are reviewing is partially a review of the 1971 legislation. When the review of the mining legislation was proposed to me, I assumed that it would be a conclusive rewrite, as with other substantial acts such as the Local Government Act 1999 and the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016.

Instead, at a briefing provided by the minister's staff which I think was on 22 September, we were told that it was being broken up into separate components and that—and these are my words, not theirs—the areas where there is a high level of agreement in place is the legislation that is going to be proposed, and the one that we are debating now. Indeed, I reviewed the document provided by the government on the 82 recommendations, and the feedback that arose from that. My comment to the staff at that briefing was, 'This is all about love and peace, but when does the war start?'

I did not use that term flippantly, but I used it as a reflection of the feedback I had received from people who were just so angry about what they see is an attack upon the multigenerational activity that their families have undertaken through farming. We have reached a situation whereby this proposed legislation, as I understand it, will probably have two further tranches of legislation, depending on if the bureaucracy that exists, no matter what the next government may be. We are then going to get to the situation where there is a complete rewrite of the 1971 legislation.

I understand that it is required, because I think the 1971 legislation replaced 1931, so we do this roughly every four decades or so. My natural position on legislative change is to be supportive of improvements. I flag that there are aspects that I do support, but it is the key ones that prevent me from doing so. I am frustrated about the current legislation and the way it is administered with PEPRs (the plan for environment protection and rehabilitation) where it is basically impossible to refuse it. You have to keep reviewing it and have it amended by those who propose to undertake mining until it is in a form that can be supportive.

I am grateful for the DPC staff who have advised me that that is not the case in the proposed legislation, so that is a good move. I do support the increased level of financial compensation available to property owners who seek legal advice. It is increasing from $500 to $2,500. There are other aspects that worried me. I note an email from a staff member provided to me from DPC earlier this week, which states:

I advise that the proposed amendments to the bill would avoid any project with a footprint and profile of the Hillside Mine going forward, unless [the owners who are directly adjoining it] agree to waivers, etc. This is just one of the significant better protections under the current bill.

It is currently a requirement, as part of the PEPR and as required by the mining extraction permits, for adjoining owners who are impacted by the blast zone to sign exemptions. It is my understanding that is not going to be the case and they will never do so, so it seems to me that protections are still there but it is all subject to negotiation. It comes back to the theory of others: what is the highest fair use of the land?

The mining legislation has been of great personal concern to me. I have family members who are impacted by this because of the very close proximity of the land they farm to the mine site. I am desperate to try to ensure a positive outcome, but the word I come back to, and the summary of my comments, is 'balance'. Balance needs to exist—balance that preserves the right for communities to do what they feel is important for them, but also for opportunities to be pursued for diversification.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (19:44): I am pleased to make some comments in relation to the legislation before the house.

The SPEAKER: Whose electorate is home to the Kanmantoo mine.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Indeed it is, and I will be making some remarks in relation to that mine in my contribution. As I said, I want to make some remarks in relation to the Statutes Amendment (Leading Practice in Mining) Bill that is before the house. I have listened to contributions made by the shadow minister, the member for Giles and the member for Goyder because I am interested in mining. As the Speaker has pointed out, there is a fully operational mine at Kanmantoo in my electorate, which I want to make some remarks about. There is also a proposed mining operation at an area called Bird in Hand, which is a couple of kilometres east of the township of Woodside, again located in the electorate of Kavel.

As I said, I listened to the speech made by the shadow minister, the member for Stuart, and I understand some of the key and what you could call controversial amendments within the bill. There are a number of them. I do not think I necessarily need to traverse each and every one of them, but I note—and I will talk about this a bit more later on—that, as has been highlighted, the public consultation process in relation to this bill is still running. It does not conclude until 14 November, as I understand it. I am somewhat puzzled that the bill is before the house to be debated and voted on before the public consultation has concluded. I will talk a little bit more about that later on.

The current mining operation at Kanmantoo, the Hillgrove Kanmantoo Copper Mine, has been operating as a fully functional mine for quite a number of years. There was a long process leading up to the commencement of that mining operation in relation to the community consultation process. I became involved pretty much at the very start of that community consultation process. They named it the Kanmantoo-Callington Community Consultative Committee. Colloquially, we call it the KCCCC. It still meets reasonably regularly, but in the early days, before the mining application, the PEPR and so on were approved, it met regularly.

As I said, I was involved in that process pretty much from the inception of those meetings. It was a long, drawn-out process. Many concerns and issues were raised. The mining company, Hillgrove, obviously had to address and allay those concerns as well as they could and go through that whole process, a long, drawn-out process. The mining application was approved, the PEPR was approved, and Hillgrove, the mining company, commenced operation in what had been an existing mine site. It is an open-cut mine. An abandoned pit had been there I think from the 1970s. They had mined it up until the seventies and then disbanded. I think the bottom fell out of the copper prices at the time, and they basically walked away and left a lot of the old infrastructure there.

To give a bit of history on the site, it was bought later by a company called Neutrog, which is a garden fertiliser manufacturer. The company bought a lot of the infrastructure on the outskirts of the old mine site and turned it into what has become a very successful business. They not only have their plant there at Kanmantoo but they have operations in South Africa and I think in China, if my memory serves me correctly, but that is digressing slightly from the Hillgrove copper mine.

As I said, it is a fully operational mine. It is open cut. They blast, they have big excavating machinery that pulls out the material, they load it into trucks, they cart it out of the pit on the haul roads into the processing plant. They actually produce a copper concentrate that is then trucked from the site, I presume to Port Adelaide, and exported. That operation has been going for quite a number of years. I understand that the mine is still some time away from ceasing its mining operations, but the community consultation committee is starting to look at what might take place in terms of remediation and what have you when the mine does cease operations when it finishes its mining activity.

As I said before, there were a lot of issues for the mining company to traverse to come to a resolution, which went to some level to satisfy the community. It is on the eastern side of the Mount Lofty Ranges but in close proximity to the Kanmantoo township. Initially, there were issues in relation to blasting. Some of the blasting was not carried out in accordance with the regulations, practices and procedures, so that had to be worked through.

There has been an ongoing issue with dust. To the credit of the mining company, they have done a considerable amount of work to try to mitigate the dust that emits from the mine site. They have dust monitoring equipment, but I will say that the dust that flies around the district is not just from the mine because there are open grazing paddocks, cropping paddocks and primary production activity, and obviously dust originates from there as well. Dust has been an ongoing issue that we have had to deal with over the period of the mining activity. From time to time, also noise and lightning spill out of the mining area and what have you.

Those issues were not insignificant and they continue not to be insignificant, but I think the KCCCC has operated quite well in relation to community engagement and the way it has sought to address those issues. The mining company, to its credit, has been very accessible and informative, providing a lot of information at those community consultative meetings, so I think it has tracked along probably as best as it could have.

If anybody has studied the redistribution maps, that part of Kavel to the east has actually been cut out of the electorate of Kavel and is going into the electorate of Hammond.

The SPEAKER: Indeed.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: So the member for Hammond, on his re-election next year, will assume the responsibility for that part of the district—a very good part of the district. Kanmantoo and Callington are great smaller communities within the electorate.

The SPEAKER: Harrogate.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Harrogate is a bit farther to the north, Speaker.

The SPEAKER: But it is moving electorates.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Indeed. I do not want to digress too much, encouraged by the Speaker. I know he is an Argus of knowledge when it comes to electoral maps, electoral districts and the like.

The SPEAKER: I know; we have been having street corner meetings there.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I know, I have heard about it—and there was only one person who came along!

Mr Williams: There's only one Labor voter in Kavel.

The SPEAKER: There were two at Harrogate, both sheep farmers.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: My intelligence network spreads far and wide, and I have had feedback about the Speaker and the member for Wright hosting some Labor Party meetings in the eastern part of the electorate, and only one person went to a couple of those meetings. He was pretty lucky because he had the total attention of the Speaker and the member for Wright. I was not necessarily going to raise that but—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Hammond, Matt O'Brien.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: —the Speaker took me there. Callington and Kanmantoo are great communities within the district. Callington has just enjoyed its 16th annual show last Sunday and, as the local member, it has been an honour to attend every one of those 16 shows at Callington. The member for Hammond was there, and he had his stand set up. The weather was a bit against the whole set-up—it was stormy, it was windy and we were covered in a fair bit of dust—but the member for Hammond had icy poles, and he was giving them out to all the kiddies who would come along and to anyone who wanted a cool icy pole.

Mr Griffiths: Eight hundred.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Eight hundred, says the member for Goyder, so that was a bit of a hit with the people attending the Callington Show. It was a credit to the president and the organising committee of the show—all outstanding volunteers—that it is such a success.

In relation to the Bird-in-Hand project, that is a proposal to mine gold. It is a different mining activity, as it is proposed to be an underground mine. Gold was mined there back in the late 19th century, in the 1880s, and there are several old disused shafts in that area. A company called Terramin Australia has the tenement, and they are developing a mining proposal for that operation.

Again, a community consultative committee has been established, the Woodside Community Consultative Committee (the WCCC). Although not in its infancy, the composition of that committee has only recently been established and is now getting on to dealing in a more in-depth manner with those issues that the community and local landowners are concerned with, and I think the shadow minister spoke briefly in relation to that in his contribution.

I would like to thank the shadow minister because he came along to the very first meeting that was held at the Woodside Bowling Club to support me, as the local member, as did Dan Cregan, the endorsed Liberal candidate for Kavel. Mr Cregan and I have been regular attendees at the WCCC meetings pretty much from their inception.

There are real concerns within the local community about the proposed mine at Bird-in-Hand, and they relate to dust, noise, transport issues, impact on the local amenity and—what is really, in my view, the most crucial issue—any potential impact on the underground aquifer because there are a significant number of agricultural, viticultural and horticultural businesses that rely on that aquifer. My understanding is that there is potential for the underground mining activity to have a potential impact on that aquifer.

Through the course of community consultative committee meetings, the mining company has given overviews of how they propose to deal with that. They have done a lot of work. I will give credit where credit is due: they have done a lot of work on that and engaged the services of a company that specialises in hydrology. They have done some extensive modelling in relation to the potential impact mining may have on the underground aquifer system there. It is theory, and we all know that theory can differ considerably from that which we experience in practice.

There are some concerns, and I have to say that I understand and share the concerns of the local community. Again, Mr Dan Cregan, the endorsed Liberal candidate for Kavel, has been regularly attending the community meetings, and he has also been quite active in discussing these concerns with the local community. I encourage anybody within that local community, and in a broader context as well, to provide feedback. It is my understanding that the minerals and energy group within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet will soon commence an independent community feedback process, which will be advertised by the government. When that is advertised, I certainly encourage everyone to provide their feedback in relation to this proposed mining activity.

The mining company, Terramin Australia, has not lodged an application as yet. We are certainly in in the pre-lodgement period of an application. The local community is raising a considerable number of concerns. High-value industry is neighbouring either side of the proposed mine site. There is a big facility owned by Accolade Wines—the Petaluma winery. On the other side of the proposed mine site is the Bird in Hand winery and function centre and facilities. There are some high-value viticulture, tourism and related activities on the neighbouring properties of the proposed mine site. There are other premium commercial activities as well within reasonable proximity.

It is not any sort of mystery or secret that there is some contention and concern about the proposal to commence mining activities. As I said, it is an underground mine, but there certainly will be activity on the surface. There will be stockpiling of rock, there will be the carting of the ore from the site, so there will be activity on the surface, not just underground. As I said, there are issues with noise, transport, trucks and dust.

In relation to this legislation, submissions have been made by the Inverbrackie Creek Catchment Group. That is one of the local organisations that is extremely concerned about the proposed mine at Bird-in-Hand.

Unfortunately, time has got away from me and I will not be able to read any of the submissions into the record. In conclusion, as I said earlier in my contribution, the public consultation process has not concluded and it will not conclude until 14 November. In view of that, I am giving consideration to not supporting the bill.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (20:05): I rise this evening to make a brief contribution to the Statutes Amendment (Leading Practice in Mining) Bill. It could quite easily be called the minor adjustment in mining bill or the tinkering with the existing mining bill. I remind members in this house that when you look at the floor of this parliament in this house, we have wheat, barley and grapes as symbols of what this state was built on.

One of the issues that I have with the bill is I do not think it goes anywhere near far enough to protect the rights of farmers. When you look at some of the purchasing power and some of the equity that some of these mining companies have versus farmer Jones, who is third generation or has been handed down the family farm, you see a power imbalance that I was hoping the bill would address.

With exploration licences covering 80 per cent of prime agricultural land on the Yorke and Eyre peninsulas, and a similar amount in the South-East, the area I represent, you see how this review of the Mining Act has raised tension between farmers and mining once again. I do not believe that it is strengthening the rights of farmers to the level that I would like to see nor is it making clear their rights under the act.

I will give some credit where it is due. Obviously, there is an increase from $500 to $2,500 for landowner advice and assistance. As I understand, that is for exempt land matters. I think that figure needs to be increased to $5,000. Anyone who has actually sat down with a serious lawyer for any period of time will understand that money has a different concept from those individuals than it does from you and me. Again, if we were serious about leading practice, we would make sure that farmers were feeling like there was some legal support there that was meaningful and not tokenistic or minor.

As I see it, we have a major problem that nobody wants to talk about, that is that the Department of State Development is both the promoter and the regulator of mining. This could be sorted out very quickly with a mining ombudsman, an ombudsman who can impartially look at every application, look at every concern and, from an independent viewpoint, make a decision that could be binding, a decision that in some circumstances the farmer is not going to like. No matter what compensation, no matter what level of bending or adjusting a mining company may be prepared to go to, it will never be far enough for that farmer. Having an independent arbitrator make a ruling gives me some comfort that there is no bias or perceived bias. Again, the problem is that the Department of State Development (DSD) is both the promoter and the regulator of mining. If we were serious about leading practice we would have a serious look at that.

In terms of primary production, again I point to the floor and what this state was built on. We do not see mining operations woven into the carpet. I am not opposed mining. I am not saying that we should ban mining in South Australia. However, I think there are improvements that could be made to the act to make sure that there was an independent arbitrator of contentious decisions and decisions that create anxiety and stress amongst communities.

I think I will look at Grain Producers SA's Wade Dabinett, who I know pretty well, and quote a little bit from him. He says that the:

...exploration process was not only a huge disturbance to farmers' businesses but also their health and emotional well-being.

Some people who live in the leafy suburbs or parts of the CBD have no idea what that sentence means, but when you are out on a farm, talking to a third-generation farmer who has mining activities potentially around them—they do not know, because it does not occur in a short period of time—that does impact on their business, it impacts on their health and it impacts on their emotional wellbeing. I will finish off the quote from Mr Dabinett:

They say in the discussion paper that it could take a 1000 exploration efforts or operations before you get one mine, so that's a massive amount of disturbance to people who are trying to run an existing business...

There needs to be greater consideration to the land owners about what that disturbance of exploration is actually causing, not just physical and financial distress on businesses but emotional as well.

That is where we do not think the balance has been anywhere near right between landowners and mining, and I concur 100 per cent with those comments.

If we look at the South-East, which is an area I know a little bit better than Yorke Peninsula, which I visit quite regularly—in fact, every Christmas, because it is a beautiful place in the state—the uncertainty around fracking in the South-East has caused massive community unrest and discussion, I suppose, in that area.

A policy that I put forward at a different time and with a party was a 10-year ban on fracking in the South-East. It is a policy that I stand by because until you have social licence or community consent, even though it is difficult to measure, you are asking for trouble going into areas with an attitude of, 'We've got all the rights, and pretty much we can do what we like.'

I know the lobbying power of the mining companies. If I compare that with the lobbying abilities of the farming community, I can tell you which one wins out 1,000:1. I have experienced that firsthand over a number of years now on my stance on no fracking in the South-East of South Australia. Just to add to that, we had a parliamentary inquiry on fracking in the South-East which specifically said, 'Until you gain a social licence, those activities should not be occurring down there.'

In conclusion, I will finish by saying that this is not leading practice in mining legislation; it is minor amendments to an existing bill, but it does not go anywhere near far enough. If we were serious about this, we would actually be talking about a mining ombudsman. We would not be kowtowing to lobby groups, who I know are deadset against that type of intervention. Why? Because it would provide a fair adjudicator on many of these decisions, which are contentious.

Yet I say to them that it is actually probably the one thing we could implement that would progress mining activities in this state because they will not get bogged down with individuals who, quite rightly, are going to protect their patch and who, no matter what compensation is offered, no matter what level of service is instigated, are never going to budge—and I understand that 100 per cent. But we are not talking about that, and that does sadden me to some degree.

It is unlikely that I will be supporting the bill. I do not think it goes anywhere near far enough and I do find it absolutely incredible that next week in my diary I have a consultation in the South-East looking at this bill, yet here we are debating the second reading and, if the government wanted to, they could push it right the way through tonight, so I am wondering what this is all about. Why is there a rush all of a sudden? Why do I have consultation in the South-East next week, yet I am here with the cart, which seems well before the horse in this situation? With those comments, I will conclude.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (20:15): I will start by informing the house that I am the holder of an extractive mineral lease (EML), a tenement holder. I do not believe I have any conflict in addressing the matter currently before the house.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: You are a farmer as well.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am indeed a farmer as well, and I will address in my contribution a number of the issues that I think are paramount in this discussion, including the tension that exists between miners and the farming community. I will start by taking up from where the member for Mount Gambier has just left off. The government is still consulting on this bill, yet here we are debating it, and I dare say this bill will go through this house before those consultations are held throughout the state.

To me, that shows very clearly the sort of government we have operating in this state at this time. That, indeed, is why the people of South Australia have been trying to get rid of this government for an extended period. At least in the last two elections, the people of South Australia by a majority vote have tried to get rid of this government because this government has become so damn arrogant.

I certainly concur with the member for Mount Gambier and several of my other colleagues who have raised this point: why are we here debating this while the government is still consulting? Why are we here debating this when the government is so ill-prepared that it is proposing to bring forward a plethora of amendments, which we in the opposition have not even had an opportunity to see at this point?

I pointed out that I am a tenement holder of an extractive minerals licence, which is a gravel quarry. I am a landholder, so I do have an interest in the relationship between mining and particularly freehold title. I have served on the opposition benches as the shadow minister for mineral resources for a significant number of years, dating back to about 2004, and I have been the lead opposition spokesperson on numerous occasions when this particular act has been amended, so I think I speak with some knowledge of what is going on.

There are a number of things in the bill before us that disturb me—one in particular. I know that in the last major amendment to the Mining Act 1971 that went through this parliament, we shifted the jurisdiction from the Warden's Court to the ERD Court. That was done specifically because Mark Parnell from the Greens in the other place convinced me that the Warden's Court was biased. The evidence he presented to me at the time and the discussions we had at the time led to no other conclusion: the Warden's Court was there to promote the mining sector. As a consequence, the parliament moved amendments to shift the jurisdiction out of the Warden's Court and into the ERD Court.

I see now that the government is seeking to shift that back to the Warden's Court. I suspect that has been done at the behest of the mining sector, who believe that they have lost some power, certainly before the court that is adjudicating on disputes. I suspect that Mark Parnell in the other place will have plenty to say about this issue. Whilst I remain here, which will not be a long time, I at least retain the corporate knowledge that I had over the years that led me to bring the Liberal Party's support to the position that Mark Parnell put to the other place some years ago. I think the government has failed to explain why they want to revert to that previous position.

One of the complaints that I have had on I hate to think how many occasions we have debated legislation is the argument about what goes in the act and what goes in the regulations. As a parliament, we give head powers in the act and then the executive government—and I would like to think it was the executive government, but to my mind it is not the executive government, it is the bureaucracy—develops the regulations and all the power resides within the regulations. I do not think this parliament takes anywhere near enough notice and applies anywhere near enough scrutiny to those regulations.

Indeed, I have argued on many, many occasions that we should be much more circumspect in granting head powers that open up the ability to make a vast array of regulations to which we apply minimal scrutiny. At the end of the day, the administration of this act in the years going forward will be more about what powers are enshrined within the regulations than the powers that we grant in the legislation. No more important is that point than it is in this particular piece of legislation. Yet again, I think an incredibly slack government with an incredibly slack executive has been rolled by an incredibly powerful bureaucracy.

Each one of us needs to understand our role. We are here not only to govern for the people of South Australian but to protect the interests of the people of South Australia. If members of the house share the experience that I have in my electorate office, most of the work that comes through my electorate office is from constituents who have a complaint about the heavy-handedness of the bureaucracy. Most of them are banging their head against the brick wall of government authority. It is not the executive government because this government has usurped those powers—it has walked away from them. It is lazy and it is slack.

I implore members to look very seriously at this issue, particularly going forward. We as parliamentarians need to understand our role and understand that we are here for the benefit of the people we represent, not to make life easy for the bureaucracy but to do the right thing by our constituents. I do not believe this bill goes anywhere near achieving that outcome. The tension in the Mining Act has increased significantly in recent times because the mining industry has moved from the far outback, certainly of South Australia, to have a much higher level of activity within what we refer to as the settled areas. The mining sector has bumped into the farming community in a way that historically it never has.

I have argued, certainly for all the time I was shadow minister for mineral resources, that the state should and needs to reserve its right to the value of the state's mineral resources. In fact, I did some research a few years ago. In the early days of the state, there was some confusion, and at one point it was accepted that the ownership of the mineral wealth of the state was not unlike that of the United States of America, where the freehold titleholder to the land owned the mineral wealth beneath the land.

That was clarified I think sometime in the 1880s by an act of this parliament that provided that the value of the mineral wealth beneath the land's surface belonged to the Crown, and that has been the case ever since. I have always supported the reality that the Crown should retain the right to access that mineral wealth, as and when it can, for the benefit of all South Australians. However, we see a huge amount of inconvenience visited upon freehold land title owners, none more so than the member of Goyder, who has experienced this, as I heard in some of his contribution before the dinner break.

We have had a proponent (Rex Minerals in the Hillside project, which is in the member for Goyder's electorate) which has been ongoing for a considerable number of years—probably eight or 10 years. I must say that my understanding of that project is that I have always questioned the value of that ore body versus the cost of extracting it, and certainly the cost if you were wishing to rehabilitate that landscape.

A person I have talked to regularly over many years has considerable experience in the mining sector and in the regulatory field of the mining sector, and he told me quite recently that, in his opinion, if an ore body could not demonstrate that it had the ability to cover the cost of the extraction, provide some profit and then cover the cost of rehabilitation, it should not be condoned. I would argue that the Hillside project falls into that category and always has. I have never been convinced that it was an ore body that could fulfil the requirements that should be imposed on mining tenement applicants—that is, that the body had enough wealth to pay for the extraction, to provide some profitability, and to cover the cost of rehabilitation.

How, as legislators, do we address that situation? As the member for Mount Gambier said, not through tinkering with the existing act. Not through the sorts of things that have been presented to us here. In my opinion, we need to give a lot more power to the freehold landholder to ask very serious questions and to get answers.

In the early days of becoming shadow minister for mineral resources back in the early 2000s, I had cause to meet with a number of farmers in the Mallee when the Mindarie sands mine was getting underway and then in operation. It very quickly became apparent to me that those farmers were not misled, but they were certainly ill-informed and were forced into decisions basically through their ignorance. I think if we are going to seriously try to address the problem of the interface between the mining sector and the sector which contains freehold land titleholders, we need to seriously even the balance.

I would argue that if a mining company wishes to establish a tenement on a piece of land which is under freehold title, one of its obligations should be to provide for the cost of the landholder to get all the information and the high level of advice that they need. To date, that has not been the case. Certainly, in the case of those farmers out at Mindarie in the Mallee, that was not the case. Indeed, I think a number of them ended up in a situation in which they should not have been because of the failure of this parliament and the act to protect them. This bill does nothing—it does absolutely nothing—to address that particular situation. I lament that it does not.

I have been through the bill briefly. I have marked a number of issues, and most of them come to this particular point. I see in the Fast Facts document that was provided by the government that they have a tick next to this: 'Creating a new independent landowner advisory service to assist landowners.' If that is going to assist landowners, it has to be high level, it has to be well informed and it has to give sound advice. It has been my experience that that has not been the case.

I think it was the member for Mount Gambier who said that of a thousand explorations only one will turn into a mine. This is part of the problem. The freehold landholder is sitting there unaware of that with this sword hanging over their head, as are those on Yorke Peninsula and out at Wudinna in the member for Flinders' electorate, which I visited many years ago to talk to people. I remember saying to them that the chances are that a mine will never be established here and, if it is, it probably will not be in their or my lifetime. That did not assuage their fears, and I can understand that.

The sort of proposition that farmers put to me was, 'We have a plan. We want to do some new fencing, we want to build some roadways, we want to put in water pipes, we want to build some sheds and we want to do improvements to our property. How do we make a decision to expend that money on infrastructure on the property to improve the productivity of our property when we have this sword hanging over our heads?'

If a farmer is approached and a mining company seeks to go onto that land to undertake preliminary investigation and preliminary exploration, there is nothing in this bill that gives the farmer the confidence to go on with their daily business in the knowledge that—and this is the big question mark—in 10, 15 or 20 years' time all they have done in the meantime to improve their property will be adequately compensated for. They are left in limbo, and they are too frightened to go out and make those investments.

That is the sort of thing that I think this parliament should be addressing. We should be making it very clear to the freehold titleholders what their rights are. I am not suggesting that we should deny the Crown's right to extract the mineral wealth of the state. What I am suggesting is that we need to assure the landowners, the farmers, the occupiers, that their interests will also be protected in the meantime. I say that in the knowledge that the vast majority of exploration permits will not lead to an active mine, but that does not say that those exploration permits do not cause incredible upset and incredible disruption for the landholders.

I will very briefly touch on another particular matter that I picked up this afternoon when I was going through my notes—authorised officers and the powers of authorised officers, another of my favourite topics. This bill will remove the right of an individual to refuse to answer questions on the ground that it might incriminate themselves. I have argued this point many times in this place: why would we give authorised officers and the legislation greater powers under environmental law or water law or mining law than we would give to our sworn police officers who are operating under the criminal law?

I have made this point plenty of times, too: it is high time that all the powers in all the legislation and all the statutes of the state should be brought into line so that there is no mismatch and so that we do not have this creep effect where, in every new piece of legislation brought to the parliament, we incrementally creep forward and then play catch-up with all the other pieces of legislation and, by stealth, deny the fundamental freedoms that the people of this state have enjoyed for so long. I notice that my time has expired; unfortunately, there is plenty more I would have liked to say on this matter.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps another day.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (20:35): I rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Leading Practice in Mining) Bill. I speak on the basis of being born and bred on a farm and also having been actively involved in the mining industry and still actively involved as an MP in the mining industry. Going back to the history of mining in South Australia, four years after South Australia was settled, in September 1840 to be exact, two Cornishmen, which is where the Pedericks came from, located a strain—I do not think it was us: we pulled up in Plympton and set up a farm and a boot shop, and I put that on the record.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: You don't look like a Cornish miner.

Mr PEDERICK: —yes, we got a bit bigger as time went on—of silver lead ore at Glen Osmond. I believe that the Glen Osmond silver mine was one of the first mines in South Australia. This mine has an interesting modern history. Charlie Hill-Smith, of the Yalumba Hill-Smiths, owned a house, which I assume was part of the mine works, because there was a big room that had mezzanine floors at one end of the house. They had some notorious parties in there over time. Kylie Minogue was actually there at one party; I was not there for that, but be that as it may.

At the end of this room was a door that led straight into the shafts of the Glen Osmond silver mine. You could go down there and see the crib rooms and the little train tracks that they had for the carts. It was amazing. I do not think there is that access anymore. The ore from that mine at Glen Osmond was manually broken, bagged and transported to smelters in England as the first mineral export from Australia.

It must also be noted that the northern Burra mine became the largest mine in Australia for the 10 years of its life, supplying 5 per cent of the world's copper for 15 years, producing a total of 50,000 tonnes of copper metal. In 1846, gold was being produced in South Australia from the Victoria mine in the Mount Lofty Ranges, and the Victoria mine assisted in the discovery of several other gold depositories, predominantly throughout the Mount Lofty Ranges. Further to the Victoria mine, the South Australian government offered £1,000 for the discovery of a payable goldfield. This scheme consequently led to the discovery of Jupiter Creek in 1852.

Interestingly, the discoveries and developments of mining provinces were by farm workers as more remote areas were established—well, more remote for those days. The developments and discoveries of towns, including Kapunda, Burra and Moonta, saved this state from bankruptcy. The first Australian mining laws were enacted in 1851 but, prior to this, mineral and petroleum ownership was attributable to those who were granted title to the land in which the mineral was located. I wonder, if landholders had title to the minerals under the land or had some level of royalties, whether we would have a different outcome with the mining of minerals but, as it is, it is vested in the Crown. This principle excluded what were considered to be royal mines, known for those precious metals of gold and silver.

In 1855, colonial parliaments legislated for the ownership of minerals to be allocated to the Crown in future grants of freehold title. This legislative change developed into the Crown owning nearly all minerals throughout Australia in the right of that state. Copper was first discovered in 1859, near Kadina, which subsequently created a mining boom. Even though the mine closed in 1923, it is still accessible to the public to view the ruins of the Moonta Mines. Mining certainly has a strong history within Australia, and South Australia.

There has been ongoing discussion about coal and the high power prices we have in this state. Coal was first discovered at Leigh Creek in 1888; however, it was not mined commercially until 1943. Olympic Dam is now the fourth-largest copper deposit, and the largest known single deposit of uranium in the world. Olympic Dam has given work to many people, and I will declare a slight interest here as my wife, Sally, is an environmental scientist, and she did a lot of the mound springs analysis work. At times she would stay at Marree, but she would also stay close to Olympic Dam as well to look at the impact on the mound springs when they did the first expansion many years ago.

When I think about Olympic Dam, I think about the opportunities it gave to many lads from farming families. In fact, for a while, it was called North Kimber because of the number of opportunities it gave to people from farming families from the West Coast. Obviously, they were coming from other places, but that was a common saying.

Gypsum was mined at Inneston in what is now known as Innes National Park, and I note that Cooke Plains gypsum has been going for a long time as well. Norm Paterson, a proud Liberal and proud supporter of mine, has started a very successful business, Paterson Bulk Transport. Apart from the trucking company, they are still mining gypsum and will be mining gypsum for a long time at Cooke Plains and into the future.

Dolomite is still being mined today at Ardrossan, and that is transported all over the world. There have been several new graphite discoveries on Eyre Peninsula, along with Angas Zinc Mine being discovered in 1991 on the outskirts of Strathalbyn, a town with a silver and copper mining heritage dating back to 1848. I will talk a bit more about Strathalbyn shortly.

Additional mines that have a more recent history in South Australia include the Challenger gold mine, Prominent Hill and Carrapateena, which is just coming online. At the time that Prominent Hill had its opening, I was the mining shadow and very pleased to be up there at the time. Hillside is being looked at; Hillgrove at Kanmantoo is also fully operational; and, in 2009, Iluka commenced activities west of Ceduna, being the largest, highest assemblage zircon development globally for several decades, capable of producing up to 300,000 tonnes of zircon per year.

We have had a rich mining history, but we have also had a rich farming history in this state. As I indicated earlier, my family came out here in 1840, and we settled at Plympton. It was paddocks back then. We had a farm and a boot shop before we moved out to Gawler River and Angle Vale. I note there has been some discussion about the Mindarie mine, where Murray Zircon were involved in getting that going. As a candidate, in 2005, I was heavily involved in discussions leading in to that mine starting up. It was interesting. As I have mentioned in this place before, I went to the Karoonda sheep fair, and a couple of blokes came in from Mindarie and said, 'Right, outside, we need to talk to you.' They were Mindarie farmers.

Rightly, they were concerned about the outcome of what they were going to get at the Mindarie mine in terms of access and what is being called exempt land. It never really was exempt because you could negotiate that land regarding access, which was 400 metres around a homestead, for instance. In this bill, if it gets through, it will be called restricted land, which in my view gives a more accurate description of what really happens because exempt land, in my mind, never really suited the story.

Over time, I got involved in the community consultative committee at Mindarie. We worked through a few issues, and there were some issues over time, but you have to work through these things. I must admit that I provided employment for over 100 people at any one time. An issue brought to my attention was about some of the rehabilitation work. I raised it with the Hon. Paul Holloway, who was the mining minister at the time. I said, 'You've got to come out here and look at this.' To his credit, he came out and had a look. The long story short is that, when the Chinese investment came in with $40 million to restart that mine because it had shut down due to a lack of capital investment, part of their role was to address the rehabilitation issue. They had to do that first.

Talking about the Hon. Paul Holloway, who used to sit in the other place, I want to place something on the record, and I have done so here before. The week before the 2006 election, when I was not a member of parliament but basically just a punter, a candidate waiting to be elected, he invited me to the turning of the first sod for the Mindarie mine. It was an interesting move from across the political divide. I had a lasting working relationship with Paul Holloway for as long as he was the mining minister. I wrote him a letter when he retired and he sent me back a note. I just wanted to make that point.

Strathalbyn has the Terramin mine, which is based about one kilometre out of town. That has been interesting. It has had its challenges over time, but it also worked. It provided many jobs, and it was churning around $70 million a year, putting a lot of money into the local community around Strathalbyn and into companies that operated not only there but also in Murray Bridge. During the time of the River Murray drought, between 2006 and 2010, it was great fillip to local communities, when a lot of other industries were shutting down, whether it was irrigation on farming and they did not want supplies or that sort of thing. That is not to say there were no issues to deal with. I am still on that consultative committee, as I have been since 2006. We worked through issues about how to deal with the amount of water coming into the mine. In the end, they got enough reverse osmosis plants up, and that water was delivered to a local vineyard, a local farmer, to get the water out of the pit.

It is interesting that people have different perceptions of mining operations. Eighteen months after physical mining stopped at that site, someone rang my office and said, 'They are blasting under my house.' I said to them, 'They're not blasting under your house because they never did and they are certainly not doing so now.' I managed to sort through issues around lowering lights at night to have less impact and managing noise issues. They were doing lots of work putting plants on batters and banks and making things quite presentable.

I have seen the environmental work that goes through on what mining proponents either have to put up or what they have to do while they are operating a site. A lot of work goes on and there is a lot of work to get approvals. Certainly, in my own physical experience working in the mining field I worked in the Cooper Basin from 1982 to 1984. Initially I was building leases for oil rigs with scrapers, graders and bulldozers, but then for the next year, from March 1983, I worked for a company called Gearhart Australia, which was subsequently taken over by Halliburton. We did well testing and wireline work. I was a junior hand at 20 years old. We also did fracture stimulation. It was the first job where I have fallen asleep standing up. I had been up for 24 hours.

I had a handful of explosive charges and I woke up leaning against a truck, and I thought, 'That's a bit interesting.' I think occupational, health and safety has changed a bit; now they rotate the crews a bit more. It was an interesting time. I have seen when an engineer shoots off site, and when he shot water and not gas that was the end of his job. He disabled an oil and gas well in one fell stroke because he did not get the depth right. That was some of my experience. Whether it was working inside cased wells or through tubing perforation, I did a lot of that work in Queensland in the Cooper Basin.

I know that there is a lot of talk that mining might take over the country. We do not want mining to take over all the agricultural land—absolutely not—but both industries are vital for this state. From what I understand, the mining footprint in South Australia is less than that of hotel car parks. There has been far more land subsumed by urban development than by mining. I know that there is talk about acquisition and generational farmers, and absolutely I can feel their pain.

My father died a couple of years ago. He was nearly 95 and he knew Salisbury and Elizabeth when they were bare paddocks. They have been urbanised. The best value land is probably directly under our feet, right here in Parliament House, the best value land in the state, but we cannot grow crop on it. I understand that, but there are opportunities out there. I note some of the arguments that come back from Grain Producers SA that they do not want to see mining on agricultural-producing land.

What I do know about grain farmers, being one myself, is the simple fact that grain farmers want competition, and part of that competition, if it does happen, is the Iron Road development on the West Coast, on Eyre Peninsula, where there is potentially the opportunity for a mine. Obviously they are waiting for investment approvals and a whole range of compliance issues. The only way that we are going to get competition in the grains industry in this state is if there is the opportunity to share a wharf with a miner. I just put that on the record.

But do not get me wrong: my family has farmed in this state since 1840. I may be the last one. We need to make it work, but we also need regional development. We need jobs in the regions because as the regions deteriorate—and they do with population—services disappear, whether it is education or health, but we need to do it right, so we need better compliance and we need to make sure it is right. We will ask a lot of questions during the committee stage of the bill to see how far this goes. I have some reservations, and I know that some of my colleagues are saying that it does not go far enough. Perhaps it does not, but what I have seen in the bill is an improvement on what we have had.

I reflect on compulsory acquisition. I know that it is not relative to mining, but my family has been involved in compulsory acquisition three times. In 1939, at Angle Vale, when the weapons dumps were put in that was on Pederick country. Eleven years later, in 1950, as part of Edinburgh Air Base my grandfather did a few more acres in. My father moved down to Coomandook in 1961. He probably thought that world peace had finally happened but, no, within 10 or 12 years there was a move to move the Dukes Highway. I am just thankful that they did not put it where they were going to do the bypass around Coomandook and put a main highway between our shearing shed and our homestead, which would have made the farm virtually unusable.

But they did move it; they did move the Dukes Highway. They took 7½ acres of land, and at the time they paid $1,000 an acre, which was 2½ times the value of that land, and they put in new fences, but we had no choice in that. I am just putting that as a comparison: you do not basically have a choice with compulsory acquisition, but you have to negotiate an outcome. I was not privy to, and never heard the full story about, what happened in 1939 or 1950, but I am quite aware of what happened in the seventies.

What I am saying is that we have to get it right. We have to give farmers more negotiation rights. We have to give them those access rights. We also cannot turn our back on the minerals industry in this state because both mining and agriculture have been the base industries, below everything else, that helped start this state, and they will continue to drive this state forward. But we have the opportunity through this legislation to get that right. We will have a big discussion through the committee stage.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (20:55): I rise this evening to speak to and make a contribution on the Statutes Amendment (Leading Practice in Mining) Bill 2017. It is the second time I have been involved as a member of parliament in amending the Mining Act. The first time was in 2011, as the member for MacKillop mentioned in his contribution. If my memory serves me correctly, he was the shadow minister for minerals at that time and certainly did a great job, and I believe we did a good job then, strengthening particularly the environmental aspects of the mining bill.

Time, however, moves on: six years have passed, and it is certainly time to address this again. It is very timely. I do not think it has turned out to be all that we hoped it might have. As you would have discovered during this debate, Deputy Speaker, even though we are debating the leading practice in mining bill, it is about much, much more than that. For many on this side of the chamber, at least, we have been dealing with constituents, particularly farmers and landowners, who believe, rightly so, that it is not just about mining; it is also about agriculture as well.

I must declare at this point that I am a landowner—I am an active farmer still, although from afar, I guess—but I also have an exploration tenement over two sections of my property, section 20 and section 4500 of Mortlock.

On Wednesday 18 October 2017, the government introduced the Statutes Amendment (Leading Practice in Mining) Bill 2017. It amends approximately 180 separate sections of the Mining Act 1971, the Opal Mining Act 1995 and the Mines and Works Inspection Act 1920, so three acts in total. The bill is the result of the government's leading practice review of South Australia's mining laws, which commenced in September 2016, so more than a year ago. It is extraordinary, to my mind, to think that after 13 months we are looking to get this bill through the parliament—through both houses of the parliament—in the final weeks of this calendar year and, ultimately, in the final weeks before the coming March election.

There were 82 recommendations that came from this process, and a majority—74 of the recommendations—are included in this bill. Some of the key and controversial amendments in the bill—and I call them controversial because, of course, they will be the ones we will be questioning particularly during the committee phase—include new and amended definitions in section 6. The bill aims to establish new meanings and redefine the existing meanings under the Mining Act to better reflect the type of mining and exploration operations undertaken. This includes, but is not limited to, advance exploration operations, ancillary operations, low impact operations and a private mine.

There is restricted land, under section 9: the legislation is amending the term 'exempt land', under section 9 of the Mining Act, to 'restricted land'. If there is one piece of terminology that needs to be addressed, or at least a better understanding given, it is this because, understandably, many landowners among those faced with exploration or even a mine proposal on their land have been led to believe that the term 'exempt land' meant something completely different to what it ultimately turned out to mean.

The 400-metre restriction of mining operations from a building or structure has been replaced with a prescribed distance depending on the nature of the operations—for example, 200 metres for low-impact operations, 400 metres for advanced exploration operations and 600 metres for high-impact operations around residences or 600 metres if no distance is prescribed. The distances have increased compared with those in the existing legislation. Land is 'restricted' if the value of a building or structure situated within 150 metres of operations is valued at $2,500 or more or an amount prescribed by regulation, whichever is greater.

This is an increase from the existing value of $200 or more. It is a significant increase, which probably does not go anywhere near to fulfilling the true cost. There will be an increase in the financial assistance for legal advice from $500 to $2,500 for landowners on restricted land. Once again, this would barely touch the sides, I think, if one were serious about engaging good sound legal advice. I stand to be corrected, but there would be residents of both Yorke Peninsula and Eyre Peninsula who have spent many tens of thousands of dollars on legal advice and legal dealings in relation to exploration and mining activities.

Notice of entry is covered in section 58A, which increases the notice period for entry from 21 days to 28 days—another week—for the holder of an exploration licence or a mineral claim. Notices must be served to the landowners and the Mining Registrar and must outline the nature of the operations intended to be undertaken in a specific way, I would hope. In relation to the Mining Registrar, section 15AA establishes a comprehensive mining register, expanding the documentation published and available to landowners and community.

Section 30A extends the exploration licence renewal period from five years to six years. After 12 years, the exploration licence area will be reduced by 50 per cent and after 18 years, it will expire, to ensure that other companies do not indefinitely hold licences. Eighteen years seems a long time. There is a plan to amalgamate mineral tenements under section 56P, which will provide new power to the minister to allow for the amalgamation of two or more mineral tenements to support joint ventures.

Subdivision of exploration licences is provided for in section 30AA. The ministerial powers in granting mineral leases will also be changed and there are new investigatory powers for government to provide the department with additional powers to investigate mining operations. I am particularly pleased to see that because, although some people genuinely believe that the existing act is not too bad or is okay, often the complaints I get from constituents are about the way it is administered and also alleged breaches by companies going about their business.

Mining is something I have been dealing with even before I became a member of parliament as the member for Flinders in 2010, way back in 2008 when I began campaigning. In fact, my first memory is of a company called Centrex which proposed to mine iron ore near Murdinga on central Eyre Peninsula. They had actually purchased a farming property at Murdinga and their proposal was to load the iron ore onto the existing train line at the Murdinga siding, freight it by train to Port Lincoln, put it on the wharf and onto a ship to go overseas.

Centrex were successful in purchasing the farming property, and one of the very first constituent visits I had was from the owners of that property. I knew them and I know them even better now, but they came in particularly to talk to me about the difficult process they had been through. Ultimately, they agreed on a price. They felt that they were forced into that situation. They exited the property that had actually been with that family since settlement, more than 100 years previously. It was a very distressing time for these people. It was added to by the fact that they relocated to a place called Yallunda Flat and, lo and behold, within a couple of years, there was yet another mining exploration company that apparently had discovered iron ore in the vicinity and they were under the same threat all over again.

My point in all this is that I attended public meetings; in fact, I remember going to a town hall meeting in Port Lincoln and it was wall to wall with people. They were mostly residents of Port Lincoln, I might add, who were concerned about iron ore being freighted through their town, the delightful coastal town of Port Lincoln, and being put on the ship and taken overseas, and having to deal with the extra noise, extra freight movements, dust and all those things that people worry about.

It was not too long and Centrex disappeared completely from Eyre Peninsula, although they did have a brief foray, under the guise of Iron Road, into further exploration in the Koppio Hills with yet another proposal to develop a port at Port Spencer and ship iron ore out through a slurry, and all these grand proposals, which really did not amount to anything and caused a lot of people a lot of grief along the way.

I have a theory that much exploration—I will not say all of it—is undertaken in the hope that something worthwhile will be found, but not necessarily the expectation that something worthwhile will be found. The result is that a tenement is allocated, some funds are raised, announcements ensue, a couple of utes drive around for a few months, a hole or two are dug, more announcements are made, capital is raised, wages are paid, and most particularly and most importantly, director salaries are paid. That seems to be very much the cycle of mine exploration. Just occasionally, one will go a lot further, and I will talk in a moment about the Iron Road proposal on central Eyre Peninsula.

As others have said, mines already exist on Eyre Peninsula. Certainly, the Middleback region and Iron Duke are very close, even though it is in the electorate of Giles. The member for Giles has spoken today about the importance of mining to his electorate and to the major town of Whyalla, and I acknowledge that. I have a constituent who lives in Flinders, and this person will be known to the member for Giles. This fellow is a wheat farmer and he has real concerns and issues about what he believes is the impact of fugitive dust from the Iron Duke mine and the impact that is having on his farming operations and his wheat yields. It is an argument that could stack up. Fugitive dust could well impact on the photosynthesis capacity of the wheat plant. As the landowner and the grain grower, the onus is on him to prove that that is detrimental to his farming operation.

I think the member for Hammond mentioned Iluka. It is way out west. It is north-west of Ceduna, but it has really high-quality mineral sands that are exported out of Thevenard. There is a gypsum mine just south of Penong within cropping country. It is adjacent to the coast so it is near some wheat farms. This has a mine life of some hundreds of years. It is being shipped out of Thevenard and is supplying pretty much the east coast building industry and also New Zealand.

There are numerous lime pits, gypsum pits, and obviously rubble pits that council use. DK Quarries mine the hardest rock in South Australia on the outskirts of Port Lincoln. So mining goes on and it has continued for a long time. There is interest in graphite and further interest in iron ore within the agricultural zone of Eyre Peninsula, and that is where the crux is. It is mostly magnetite.

I think a lot of the interest and a lot of the excitement is brought about by the fact that Eyre Peninsula is contained within what is known as the Gawler Craton. My understanding is that some of the oldest rocks on the planet are in these cratons, and the Gawler Craton is here in South Australia and I assume that Olympic Dam is also within the Gawler Craton. The downside, of course, is that although there is much interest in the minerals, my understanding is that they are very deep and, as a result, can become cost prohibitive to mining companies.

Iron Road is the mine proposal at Warramboo. In fact, it is known that iron ore has existed at Warramboo for more than 50 years. I have a friend who is now over 70 and originally hails from Minnipa. He can remember going to dances at Wudinna in the 1960s and everybody was talking about the iron ore mine that was going to be at Warramboo. What happened, of course, was that the deposit was identified but never proved up, and various explorers came and went.

Six or so years ago, a company by the name of Iron Road negotiated entry into a number of properties, and I guess the farmers assumed that it would be the same as every other explorer: they would come and hang around for a while, drive around on the ute, leave a couple of gates open and eventually disappear. But this particular company proved up an enormous deposit of magnetite, and as it has turned out, Iron Road have been granted approvals to progress their mine proposal. Those approvals were given in the last few weeks. There is a PEPR still to come, which will cater for the environmental impact, and there is still the need to raise significant finance. I say 'significant' because this is a $4.5 billion project.

There is no infrastructure to support it at this point in time, and Iron Road are not just talking about the mine site. They are talking about acquiring half a dozen properties, processing the ore (the magnetite) on-site and putting it on a train—the line is yet to be built—and shipped out of a port (which is also yet to be built) at Cape Hardy. So it is a $4.5 billion project and they are still looking to raise those finances. There are no guarantees that this will go ahead. My public comments after the approvals were given were that, should it go ahead, it is likely to bring much-needed investment into Eyre Peninsula, into things like infrastructure, transport, electricity and water.

All of this is of little consequence to those who own the land, operate farming businesses and simply want to go about their business with some security, a sense of purpose and long-term viability. Despite the necessary and required interactions between the exploration company (which sometimes goes on to become a mining company) and the landowner, the discussions are usually strained. In my view, they leave an overwhelming feeling of uncertainty—uncertainty, to a certain degree, to the mining company, but more particularly to the landowner.

I have not seen anything in the proposed bill that goes to dealing with this uncertainty. I think it is a really critical part of the interaction and the progress of this bill because this uncertainty leaves too many questions around how this interaction occurs. I have always approached life with a view to finding a way through, and I have approached these issues—negotiations at Warranboo; I have sat on the CCC committee and another one at Tumby Bay. I went to countless meetings where we talked through many of these issues, often never finding an answer.

My philosophy is to find a way through, but I cannot yet see that here. I want to see it in this bill, I really do, but I cannot see that it is essentially about anything other than mining. I will ask some questions during the committee stage and I might just flag them now. There is one in particular that I have attempted to have answered in various forums, and I have written a number of letters to different departments and both the public and private sector. My question is: how do banks view agricultural or farming properties that have a mining proposal lying over the top of them?

I ask this question because, for example, an owner of a property may wish to buy another property. He can foresee the day where he needs to move out of where he is and wants to continue farming, or he wants to expand the existing property, or buy a new piece of machinery. Obviously, businesses go to banks to do that.

How do the banks view the property he is sitting on in relation to its value? How do they view it in relation to the mortgage he might carry? Do they value it more highly than surrounding farmland? Do they give it a lower value than surrounding farmland? My information is that it has been very difficult to negotiate with banks around business arrangements and mortgages when these mining proposals sit over the top of farming properties. That is a really important question that needs answering.

I only have a few seconds left but, like the member for Hammond, I will recognise ultimately the importance that mining has had in South Australia's history. Copper essentially saved this state from bankruptcy. Like many others in this state, I have a Cornish surname. My great-great-grandfather drove a bullock dray from the Burra mine to Port Wakefield, had seven sons and they all went farming. The irony, of course, is that all us South Australian farmers with Cornish and Welsh surnames probably originally came here to go mining. Some of these issues are tremendously difficult to reconcile, and I think the challenge with this bill is to attempt to do that.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (21:17): I would like to thank all the members for their contributions.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we are going to be here all night, it would be good if we could move things along.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, I agree. I would like to thank the shadow minister for his contribution, and I thank members for their contributions. I think it is important to note that this is a very controversial and often emotive issue. I accept that it is very difficult for members who represent regional communities to grapple with how best to deal with the extractive issues. Fundamentally, it is a lot easier for members of parliament who represent metropolitan communities than it is for regional members, so I want to thank the shadow minister and I want to thank members opposite and the member for Giles. I know how difficult it can be and how emotive this issue can be.

It is important to note that consultation on the bill is still open. We said this from the very beginning. The government is not attempting to offer a fait accompli to members or to the community. We are interested in their feedback. We are interested in making this work. We are interested in making sure that we get a very good outcome for regional communities.

Ultimately, I think on this issue we are all on a unity ticket. We are all attempting to get good outcomes for the people of South Australia, to get the full benefit of our mineral wealth and to do it in a sensitive way that understands and, indeed, pays particular respect to the communities that are most impacted by the extractive industry and the mining industry. Obviously, we will go into committee. I thank members for their contributions and look forward to the speedy passage of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 11, line 11 [clause 4(18)]—Delete 'after the definition of prescribed notice of entry insert' and substitute:

delete the definition of prescribed notice of entry and substitute

Amendment No 2 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 11, line 34 [clause 4(25), definition of tenement holder, (a)]—Delete paragraph (a) and substitute:

(a) the registered holder of a mineral tenement; or

I want to correct the record. I said that consultation on the bill is still open; it is not still open. It was my error and I apologise to the house for any confusion. What I meant to say is that there is regular consultation on new bills, and issues and policies will continue to be updated. I apologise if I have in any way given people the wrong impression.

Amendments carried.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, I am looking towards the top of clause 4 where it talks about ancillary operations that can occur. Do these operations need to be directly undertaken by the tenement holder or a subcontractor to the tenement holder, or can a completely different business organisation come and set up maybe catering, accommodation or something like that on the site?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, of course they can; that is the advice I have received. Ancillary services can be provided by contractors. Obviously, we want competitive services offered to the industry.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Who has the authority about how far it could go in terms of what business is allowed to be there or not? Does the tenement holder have any authority over that or is it essentially just the same as if it was in any town anywhere else: as long as you are law abiding, you are allowed to get established.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My advice is that they still have to be approved. They still have to apply for their tenement operation, so yes. I suppose the answer to that is that activity still needs to be approved and licensed.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Approved by the government or approved by the tenement holder?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: By the government, I am advised.

Mr GRIFFITHS: My question is an extension of that same area, but it refers to a determination of the minister or by regulations. We have all mentioned the fact that draft regulations are not available, but are there any examples that you are able to quote already of the types of issues that will be included in the regulation that may relate to that area for ancillary operations as being not included?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that we can do that by regulation, so by regulation we can preclude operations.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand, minister, and I agree with that. I know the draft is not available—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Let me get some advice. Anyone receiving a tenement licence must be approved for mine operations. The exclusions are things such as transport, or other ancillary services that are not related to mine services. We are trying to restrict it to mine services so that we do not have too much of an expansive bureaucracy involved here.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The reason for the question, minister, is that I take the committee stage to be a very strong guidance for you and your staff when it comes to regulations being drafted. The intention is to seek clarification where regulations are mentioned, just to try to get an idea of what we are actually talking about.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Obviously, we will consult with industry and stakeholders, and I would be very interested in the views of the member for Goyder.

The CHAIR: Any further questions on amended clause 4?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have questions about several areas in the definitions. I note that 'Crown lands' has been deleted from the definitions. I am interested to know why that has occurred?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised it is superfluous and not used in the current act.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is in different areas of each definition.

The CHAIR: Okay, but we are going to be here all night if you ask more than three questions on each clause.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand. Similarly, minister, 'director', which is the next definition provided there, is a new one that has been inserted. In my case, there is a presumption that people understand what 'director' means without it necessarily being defined. Where did this suggestion come from?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: These are directors of companies. I am advised that we are bringing in very strict environmental regulations that are applied directly to directors of these companies, and that is what the definition means.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, are there any circumstances where the responsibilities of a tenement holder could be passed over to an agent or a subcontractor, or something like that? Are the responsibilities that actually sit with a tenement holder able to be delegated in any case at all?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, they can, but in practice they are both equally liable for any activity that might be in breach of their tenement conditions. It reflects current practice. What we are attempting to avoid—and I will get clarification on this in a moment—is the tenement holder contracting someone to do some mining-related activity and have no liability. What the act is clearing up is the ability for everyone to be equally liable. I imagine this is a way of tidying that up and making sure that everyone is responsible for the proper management of tenements.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Is that delegation at the option of the tenement holder, or is ministerial or departmental approval required for the delegation?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised it is redeeming sections within the act, which put the onus on the tenement holder to make sure that any contractual work being done is in accordance with the tenement conditions.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, the onus remains with the tenement holder, and they are the ones who are ultimately liable.

Mr GRIFFITHS: For clarification, there is an area about 'exploring' and then adding 'exploration operations'; I understand that. There is a description of 'exploring' or 'exploration operations'. I understand the reason for that inclusion, but new subclause (d) provides:

undertaking any other activity brought within the ambit of this definition by a determination of the Minister or by the regulations…

Given that directly above this it talks about 'prospecting for minerals', 'exploring for minerals' or 'establishing the extent of a mineral deposit', what else would you do that might be brought within the ambit of the regulations?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think it is just to clear up exactly what 'exploring' is so there could be no question about what the activity should be, so there is no chance of anyone slipping through the cracks. We want to cover as many definitions as possible. I hope that covers what you are attempting to look for; if not, I am sure you will clear it up in your next question.

The CHAIR: There might not be a next question; he has already had five.

Mr GRIFFITHS: And I am grateful for the generosity of the Chair.

The CHAIR: It will not be lasting.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand that. As I say, given that it talks about prospecting, it talks about exploring and it talks about establishing the extent of a mineral deposit, my question is specifically about what you can do beyond that that gives consideration to be included as part of regulations in the future. That is what the wording of new subclause (d) allows the minister to declare via regulation. I am intrigued by what you can do beyond those three areas already mentioned.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: It talks about 'prospecting for minerals' or 'exploring for minerals' or 'establishing the extent of a mineral deposit', and then it creates this new subclause (d), which allows you to add to that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I would have thought that this is the type of clause that the member for Goyder and the conservative side would possibly enjoy. It keeps the lawyers out of the definitions, rather than leaving it up to lawyers to define. This is just taking out any ambiguity about what 'exploration' is, but I take your point. What we are attempting to do is the very thing that you are inquiring about—taking out the ambiguity.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Over the page—

The CHAIR: Which page are you looking at?

Mr GRIFFITHS: On page 11, where subclause (21) refers to:

Section 6(1), definition of radioactive mineral—delete the definition.

I know later on there is the deletion of areas in relation to radioactive materials also. Why is that definition being removed?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a remnant of the old three mines policy, and it is now redundant. It is now no longer necessary within the act. Hopefully, we never return to that policy ever again.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I note there is a new definition for senior warden. Why is there an intention to create a senior warden of the Warden's Court when I presume that has not been in place already?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that it previously was not under statute and now it is under statute and that is why the amendment has been made.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 5.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Clause 5 is an amendment to section 7(2) and it starts off with a new subsection (2), which states, 'These regulations may provide.' I am interested why they do not say 'shall'. Why is the word 'may' used? There is an ambiguity that is attached there by the word 'may' instead of 'shall'.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that it is a drafting style issue. If the member thinks it should be 'shall' I am not particularly fussed. I think 'may' gives more discretion, but it probably does not, given my experience of the way these things are interpreted. There is no conspiracy here; it is just a drafting style.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the minister for his response. My next question relates to new subsection (2a) which is directly below and the wording of this one really intrigues me: 'The regulations may,' and I am now comfortable with the minister's explanation, 'provide that a specified provision of this Act does not apply'. How can a regulation say that a requirement of the act does not apply? Can you give some examples of where that is actually the case? I would have thought that the act would have had the primary responsibility.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: These are drafting issues. There is not a secret clause in here that gives me a secret key just to use a regulation to take away the will of the parliament. The parliament is supreme. Its clauses cannot be removed by regulation. These are drafting questions by parliamentary counsel. Parliament is the master of its own destiny.

We cannot pass a bill saying that all other bills can be overridden by some other act. At least, that is what I think. That is the way I have always understood it. I think these are drafting issues. The answer is the same as the answer about 'may' or 'shall'. This is the way that parliamentary counsel go through acts. When they are drafting amendments and cleaning up acts, they add these clauses in to clean up the function of the act so that they operate as they are intended.

Again, for the member, this is also to end any conflict between other acts, such as the Local Government Act, which you would be well aware of—things like borrow pits, for example, so there is no conflict between any of the acts.

Clause passed.

Clauses 6 and 7 passed.

Clause 8.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, would you please explain how you determined to set the new distances that are set up in clause 8?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think it is important to note that this activity does have impacts on communities. It does have an impact on people. This is a cost to industry that industry initially were not very comfortable with, but the government's view, and I think the parliament's view generally, is that we should be consulting more people about potential impacts. What this is designed to do is to make sure that more people are consulted, that more people are involved in the consultation process, not fewer. This provision is relatively important to make sure that the industry and the act and the parliament recognise the impact this industry can have on people's amenity and that they are consulted. That is why we have done it.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, that is why they are there, and I agree with you, but the question was: how did you determine the figures? For example, 600 metres, 400 metres—how were those numbers determined? Was that a recommendation that came from people with homes in proximity? Where do the numbers come from?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Again, it is based on a number of things: first, it is based on cost. Every hundred metres you go out there is an added cost to proponents in relation to consultation. Of course then it has to be about reasonableness. We think we have found the right balance. It is never going to be perfect; let us be completely frank about this. We could keep going for miles and miles, but we have attempted to achieve the right balance. Is it perfect? No, it is not perfect, but every hundred metres you move out is an added cost, so we have tried to balance between cost and appropriate consultation, and I think we have got the balance right.

However, it is not perfect. I make that concession to the parliament immediately. Every time you add a couple of metres or 50 metres or 100 metres, it adds further cost. But that is not to say that people who are in that extra zone do not deserve to be consulted. Yes, they do, but we have to work out a boundary. We have increased it from 400 to 600, and I think that is appropriate.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: A bit further down, at about line 30, minister, the bill talks about deleting the word 'person' and substituting the word 'landowner'. What about pastoral lessees? Is that captured in the definition of landowner, or is that excluded from the definition?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that, yes, it captures pastoral leases.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Over the page, minister, towards the bottom of page 14, the legislation talks about prescribed distance, so can we move forward to that bit. That is where, in relation to low impact exploration operations, it becomes 200 metres. I listened intently the minister's last answer, when he said that every time you go out it costs more money, and I took that to mean out further. In this case are we not actually coming in closer? I know there is a great concern amongst community members who talk to me about any level of exploration taking place closer than what was the case before.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Again, it is a balance. We are not talking about drill holes; we are talking about early exploration. Again, it is trying to get the balance right—very little disturbance, very little impact. We have to get the balance right. These are explorers who do not have many resources so, again, we to try to get that balance.

This is the difficult part about this area, which is why I know the difficulty that regional members face over metropolitan members—it is the impacts. We have to get the balance right between allowing access and appropriate consultation, and managing costs and bureaucracy and red tape. So, yes, I accept your point, but this is a different type of impact, which is lower impact, and we are attempting to try to get the balance right. Is it perfect? No, it is not perfect. Let's be clear about this. Is it 50 metres, 100 metres, 600 metres or somewhere that is 601 metres?

I will give you an analogy in the modern day. Regarding Adelaide Airport curfew insulation, I know people who live across the road from people who have received government insulation and people who have not. We are talking about a matter of metres and the noise impact is almost identical, but a line is drawn somewhere. I am not saying it is fair. It is arbitrary, but we try to get the balance right. This is the difficulty about prescribing distances and the difficulty about the way you make this legislation.

I think I know the member for Goyder well enough to know how considerate he is about the tools that we have here. Often we like to use scalpels, but we do not often have scalpels. In the real world, I have to make a balance between the very legitimate issue of the cost of consultation versus the impact of the actual activity. If we overdo it, we will be criticised, rightly, about being overburdensome on red tape and bureaucracy. If we are too lenient, we will be criticised, rightly, by landowners and impacted residents about not giving them enough protections and consultation about activity that is occurring near them that will impact them. We try to find the balance.

I do not think for a minute that any jurisdiction anywhere in the world has got this absolutely right. We are trying to find a balance, so it is not perfect. You have got me. I am serious, you have got me. What is the appropriate number? How long is a piece of string? It is different for everyone. We are trying to get the balance right. I know exactly what you are saying and I take the point. I know how your constituents feel. I can only imagine what it is like, but I have to find the balance.

Clause passed.

Sitting extended beyond 22:00 on motion of Hon. A. Koutsantonis.

Clause 9.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Around about line 5, it states:

(i) in the case of a notice given to the owner of land under subsection (1)—the tenement holder has made a reasonable attempt to reach agreement...

Who is the assessor? Who judges a reasonable attempt by the tenement holder?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This is where we have set a higher burden and a higher hurdle for the mining companies, rather than the landowners. Landowners are directed to a court, whereas mining companies must take reasonable steps to consult, so we are having a higher burden here on the mining companies. They must demonstrate that they have made reasonable attempts and not just pretended that they have made reasonable attempts. They actually must make reasonable attempts to consult.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Who judges that? Who assesses that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that it is a matter of law through submissions.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: A little bit farther down on the same page, subsection (8a) provides:

If an application is made for a production tenement or a miscellaneous purposes licence and the relevant consultation period in relation to the application has ended, an owner of land—

and it says a couple of things, but what I am really interested in is—

may apply to the appropriate court…

I know this links to what you said a minute ago: why is it the landowner who has to go to the court to try to unlock the dispute? Why is it the landowner's responsibility when it is actually the potential tenement holder who wants the action to take place?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Because landowners never had that right previously. This is giving them a new right where they can go to the court and say, 'We want a determination,' and force the hand of the mining company. This is something that landowners have been arguing for. I think, if the opposition consider this carefully, this is actually a big win for landowners. Previously, they did not have this right. They were completely waiting for the mining company to progress the processes and they were just sitting there being a recipient waiting for these processes to occur.

Now landowners, for the first time, if this legislation is successful, have the right to go immediately to the court and seek a determination and force their hand. So this is actually a win as opposed to a burden. This is the sort of thing that, if you are a landowner who wished to argue exempt land, would want. It is not attempting to weaken it: it is attempting to strengthen it because again, through long, hard, bitter trials, the government have recognised that landowners may have not had the same rights as mining companies and we are trying to even the balance.

Indeed, what we have done is given landowners pre-emptive rights. This is a new right that landowners did not previously have. I would have thought that the opposition would be celebrating this—and you still may.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, I am not judging or celebrating or denigrating; I am just asking for clarification. Is it possible that that, given that right—and rights can be responsibilities as well—could encourage the potential tenement holder not to pursue reasonable attempts and just say to the landholder, 'If you are dissatisfied, you go to the court. You sort it out,' and make it the landholder's responsibility to actually really be far more active in trying to resolve the dispute than the tenement holder's responsibility?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Firstly, if the mining companies do not make a reasonable attempts, given the way the legislation is drafted, courts will view them very dimly because they have a legal requirement to act reasonably. Secondly, what farmers can now do is go very quickly to the court and say, 'The impact is too large. Don't let the companies on at all,' and they can do it pre-emptively and quickly. This is exactly what regional MPs would want.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I would like to jump up a little bit to clause 9AA(4). There are some amendments to the wording in that, but there is a word that was already in the current legislation where it talks about a cooling-off period. There is not a definition of what 'cooling-off' actually means and I presume there is a legal interpretation of that, but just for the record could you put what the cooling off period is please?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised:

…The cooling off period, in relation to an agreement with a tenement holder to waive the benefit of a restriction, means the period commencing when the agreement is made and concluding at the end of the fifth clear business day after the day on which the agreement is made.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the minister for his detailed answer. My next question relates to section 9AA(5). Indeed, I am looking through the current legislation because it is for the deletion of that subclause, which relates to a 'notice rescinding an agreement may be given'. I am just wondering why that has been removed.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that there are—sorry, my wife just texted me and said the kids are watching on TV.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, true. I am advised that this measure allows conformity throughout the bill in terms of the way notifications are made. We are going to consult on the regulations to make sure that we have the ability to make regulations, so the notification process can be variable.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The clause that has been removed talks about 'a notice rescinding an agreement may be given' and then the various methods that are under it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Say that again.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is about rescinding the agreement that is in place and how notice is actually provided. I would have thought it is therefore implied, by removal of that clause from the existing legislation, that that opportunity does not exist and instead it is a legal action that has to be taken by a property owner if they wish to rescind an agreement.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If people wish to rescind the process, what we want to do is have the regulation-making power so we can go out and consult with people about how best to facilitate what the process looks like and the time period. This is not a perfect answer to a very complicated issue, but the advice I have is that this clause allows us to get an understanding of how the act will work. We can go out and talk to people, have learnings from it and be able to adjust if it is imperfect. The clause allows us not to make the perfect the enemy of the good so that we have the ability to actually attempt to try to modify the process if it needs modifying after consultation.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Through talking to each other?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I like the words conveyed, but I am not sure if they are relevant to my question. The current legislation provides an opportunity for a notice to rescind an agreement to be lodged, but this legislation puts in place a deletion of that ability to do so. Is that ability still available and is it available through a clause later on that we have not got to yet? That is the easier question to answer, I think.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Landowners will have the power to rescind an agreement. This is about the notice that they have to give. We have to go out and consult with people about getting the regulatory power to do that. The time frames required for that process will be done through consultation.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Again, minister, I am asked to have blind faith and the regulations will take care of it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The parliament has the right to refuse regulations so, yes, you will be part of the process. Yes, the parliament will be consulted. Yes, landowners will be consulted, as will the mining industry and the shadow minister.

Mr Odenwalder: The Legislative Review Committee.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Legislative Review Committee, indeed. The all-powerful Legislative Review Committee will be consulted.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand that, but I am not here next year.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: And that is a shame.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am pleased that you have given me some explanations about how the replacement option is to be put in place. I suppose I am intrigued as to why the need for the replacement option actually has to be considered. You must have had some representations from some people during the consultation about the ability to rescind the agreement. I am a bit confused. I was hoping there was a simple answer to it, but it appears there is not.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This is a complete rewrite of the processes in the act, trying to balance up the power divide that has been in place since probably 1971.

The Hon. P. Caica: Before you were born.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, the same year that I was born.

The Hon. P. Caica: Yes, before Steven was born.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Are you younger than me? Gee, you cannot tell. I am joking—not really. I think what we are attempting to do as we put in this new power is to make sure we can consult on it and get it right.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Section 9AA(14) provides that a tenement holder is liable to indemnify an owner of land for the reasonable costs of obtaining legal assistance relating to the operation of this section up to $2,500. How did you determine that $2,500? I know it is an increase, but how did you settle on $2,500? I think most landholders in that situation would say that that is not nearly enough.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a five-time increase from $500, which from my advice is about an hour's worth of advice depending on the quality of the lawyer, and $2,500 is about a day's worth of advice. I think that is about right. Again, it is the balance between making the perfect the enemy of the good. Beautifully, we can now up this in the regulations. We can increase it if we think down the track that it is not sufficient. Let's face it, I am of the very strong belief that if someone wishes to derive an economic benefit from your land, even though you may not own the assets they wish to derive an economic benefit from, like mineral rights, you have the right to legal representation.

This is a legal clause that has been forced upon you through no fault of your own. You have not committed any offences, you are not defending yourself— it is just that your land happens to coincide with mineral rights owned by the Crown—so you should be given some resource to get some independent legal advice about how to act and what to do next. It makes perfect sense. Could it have been more than $2,500? Do we give a week's worth of legal advice? We went for a day. We think a day is sufficient as a very good start.

Clause passed.

Clauses 10 to 15 passed.

Clause 16.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am looking at the part that talks about breaking into vehicles, if necessary, for entry and inspection. You will remember the discussions we had about the electricity and gas act. Why is it necessary in this situation to actually break into a private vehicle to undertake an inspection?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is consistent with the environmental regulation, making sure that they have the appropriate powers to enforce the appropriate environmental regulations. If people are hiding things, the regulator should have the right to be able to prove it. Again, the clause in the other debate we were talking about earlier was about people who may have returned to the site of a fire to remove evidence of their shoddy work the next day and hidden faulty wiring in their vans.

We wanted the Office of the Technical Regulator to have the power to compel those people to open their vans and search their vans to retrieve evidence so that people could claim insurance on their homes, and for people be prosecuted, and protect householders who have access to land to make sure that there was not work being done that was inappropriate near powerlines. That was rejected by the parliament, I understand, in the upper house.

This is just about giving the environmental regulators the ability to do their job. If some proponent tenement holder was keeping things hidden in their vehicles that would show an act of exceeding their licence conditions, they could inspect it. It makes complete sense.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, it also states that a warrant is necessary to do these types of inspections in a home. How do you determine a 'home', and let me work through that because it might sound a bit silly to start with. When you have people who are working away from home two weeks on and two weeks off, sometimes a month on and a month off, the definition of 'home' can get a bit skewed. For example, I have a unit in Adelaide where I stay for 10 to 15 nights a month. It is not my home, but I am sure it would be considered a residence.

With regard to the need to get a warrant to enter and inspect a home without the owner's permission, would it apply to a camp accommodation setting, for example, or would it apply to a mine manager's house, which might not be that manager's official home but it might be where he or she lives a lot of the time?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: First and foremost, these amendments align with the current powers of authorised officers in modern environmental legislation, including acts of this parliament, the EPA Act 1993 and the Fisheries Management Act 2007, so these powers are not new. A warrant from a magistrate, warden or justice would be required for this to occur, unless the inspection relates to a non-residential building or structure. How do you define a home? Well, that is for a prosecutor to decide, not for a parliament.

A prosecutor will decide what a residential home is and whether they need a warrant or otherwise, and if they conduct an illegal search it is at their risk. That evidence is inadmissible. These are the burdens we put on prosecutors, and it is the same burden they have in other parts of the act. I am comfortable with it, and we have just taken the standard definition from the EPA Act and the Fisheries Management Act.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It would be a burden on the prosecutor after the fact.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That's right.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: But it would be a burden on the inspector before the fact. The inspector has to determine whether that inspector has the right to enter this abode. Minister, what is your understanding of whether an inspector would have the right to enter a mine worker's or an explorer's accommodation on site, which is not the official home, but it is where the person might be living for several weeks at a time? Do you think that the inspector, with your understanding of the act, has the right to enter that temporary residence or not?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I cannot give you a legal opinion, and the parliament is very clear about that: ministers do not give legal opinions. That is a matter for the authorised officers to determine, given what we are given. It will be a case-by-case basis. We have drafted it in a way so that common sense will apply. There are standing operations under the other acts to have a well-crafted corporate history of how they operate—a legal history, precedent, and I expect they will be followed. An inspector who illegally inspects the wrong type of property without a warrant, without getting advice, is being derelict. They are the protections in place.

If you are going to go into someone's home, you get a warrant; if it is not their home, you get advice about whether or not it is a non-residential property. You get advice and act accordingly, in the same way that you would act under the EPA Act or the Fisheries Management Act. The parliament is not going to take away that discretion from prosecutors. Magistrates will decide and investigators will decide whether or not they need to get a warrant or otherwise, but if they get it wrong it is on them, and that is how it should be.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In the same area, minister, this issue was raised at the drop-in meeting at Maitland last week. I hope it was a misinterpretation by a member of the community who raised the question, because they made the comment that, the way they interpreted it, it was an ability for a farmer's property to be accessed when needed.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: In Nangawarry?

Mr GRIFFITHS: That was not the issue highlighted. I presume, from the answer provided to the shadow minister by you, minister, that it relates to those who operate mining activities there, or part of the tenement holder, and there is no action that could be at risk against the farmer, the property owner, who is the permanent resident there.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The act is pretty clear. It provides:

5(a) the premises are used by a tenement holder—

a tenement holder—

for, or in connection with, authorised operations…

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am sorry to take up the parliament's time, but I just want clarification from you on that because I know there are people who will ask me about it, so I appreciate your assistance.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The member for Goyder is clear about the tenement holder, but what the member for Goyder was asking is whether the property or the residence has to be on the tenement or not. I think that is what he is really asking about.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It depends on whether the premises are used by the tenement holder. If the tenement holder has a property that is not near the tenement, and it is a commercial property or a residential property, depending on whether they need a warrant or otherwise, it can be searched if it is relating to the term of activity.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Of course; if it is in connection with the activity of the tenement. We are not giving inspectors the ability to kick doors open and just walk into farm homes, saying, 'What's for breakfast?'

Clause passed.

Clauses 17 and 18 passed.

Clause 19.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: In terms of things being seized, it is pretty clear what can and cannot be done. If a property is left for a certain period of time, it is then allowed to be removed, and the proceeds go to the Crown, and then the previous owner gets reimbursed, less costs. Is this something that must happen, or is it possible to come to an agreement between the owner of the property and the tenement holder so that that property could stay without this coming into effect?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This is in relation to tenement activity. I think what you are asking is: is there farm equipment that farmers need to work that might be seized? There would be no reason to seize that. We are talking about offences by mining operators. If a mining operator has committed an offence and it is seized, it is seized because the officers may need it as evidence. They can choose not to, and make an agreement, but they have that discretion, and they may take the risk. This provision of the act gives them the same powers as the Environment Protection Act and it aligns with the Fisheries Management Act. These are powers that are well defined and well in scope already by this parliament.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: With regard to compensation, it states that, if the property is damaged in some way, there would be compensation paid to the owner of the property. That is pretty straightforward if it is a vehicle or something that has a clear market value. What about drill core samples or something like that, when, in all good intent, inspectors think there is something going on that should not be going on, so that property is seized and that property is misplaced, mislaid or damaged and not returned in the condition that it was in and potentially could be worth nothing, or potentially could be extraordinarily valuable? How would that be dealt with?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Drill cores have value. That value is easily determined and they will be compensated.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: How is the value of a drill core sample that may not have been assessed yet easily determined?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I hate to quote Darryl Kerrigan. The Kerrigans are very keen on assigning value to property that they thought far exceeded market conditions. If someone attempted to sell them something or buy something from them that was not at market value they would say, 'Tell them they're dreaming.' The court will determine what the market value is of a core sample. It is easily determined.

Clause passed.

Clauses 20 and 21 passed.

Clause 22.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: At about line 15:

(1) A caveat under subsection (1) may—

(a) forbid the registration of any transfer, mortgage or voluntary surrender affecting a specified interest in the mineral tenement…

What about voluntary surrender if it is not explored or it has not been used in any way? This is talking about something that has a value. What if it has not actually been explored or mined? How does that work?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can you expand on your question so that we can get an understanding of what it is that you are attempting to ask?

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Under Caveats, it states:

(1) A person…who has, or who is claiming, an interest in a mineral tenement may apply to the Mining Registrar to have a caveat registered under this Division…

(3) A caveat…may—

(a) forbid the registration of any transfer, mortgage or voluntary surrender affecting a specified interest in the mineral tenement…

What if that specified interest is unclear? What if it has not yet been explored and it is not really clear what the value is? How does that caveat apply?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: People are not going to put a caveat on an asset that is not worth anything because of the risks they take later. The system has inherent safeguards in place. It is a commercial risk. If you place a large caveat on a property and it does not turn out, it would be a very serious risk for the people placing the caveat.

Clause passed.

Clauses 23 to 36 passed.

Clause 37.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 47, after line 29 [clause 37, inserted section 28(1), definition of open ground]—Insert:

(da) that has been the subject of an exploration licence and is to be considered as open ground by virtue of a determination of the Minister; or

Amendment No 4 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 47, after line 40 [clause 37, inserted section 28(1), definition of relinquished ground, (a)]—Insert:

, other than where the Minister has determined that the land should be considered as open ground, or should be the subject of a mineral tenement granted to a particular person; or

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 38.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 51, lines 24 to 27 [clause 38(4) and (5)]—Delete subclauses (4) and (5) and substitute:

(4) Section 30(8)—delete subsection (8)

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 39.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This is just clarifying expenditure and the need to set an expenditure obligation. Is it always a monetary obligation, or is it a result obligation? Is it $100 or could it be 10 drill holes? Is it a physical amount of work or must it be money?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We want them to spend money. If they do not spend money, we want them to move on and turn the land over.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am looking at proposed section 30AAA(12) in clause 39:

If an amalgamation of expenditure commitments is allowed under subsection (10), the exploration licences to which the amalgamations relate will be altered by reducing their licence areas by an amount or amounts determined by the Minister after consultation...

If they are merged, why is the acreage reduced?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think it is an ingenious way of making sure we get as much expenditure as we possibly can and at the same time not allow explorers to lock up land. So, yes, if you are combining all your tenements together and spending all your allotted expenditure on one tenement, it will shrink.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Just for clarification, the amalgamation of the expenditure means essentially the focus of the expenditure. So if you said you would spend a certain amount of money on tenement A and a certain amount of money on tenement B, it is actually spending all of that money on one of those tenements; is that right? And that is the logic for the reduction in acreage?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This is driving good commercial outcomes. It is trying to incentivise people to spend the money where they think the best targets are, and it also frees up land to make sure that we keep on getting someone else to have a go if they are not interested.

Clause passed.

Clause 40 passed.

Clause 41.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I refer to substituted section 30A(7)(b):

If application is made for renewal of the licence for a period beginning from the 12th anniversary—

so this is the six years; it has gone from five to six—

...the area of the licence must be reduced by 50%...

How do you determine which 50 per cent of the initial area?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is done in consultation with the tenement holder. They have to start rationalising and thinking about where they think their targets are. Mind you, they have had 12 years to explore this land. We are just attempting again to keep turnover churning. People cannot just sit on property indefinitely.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Just to be clear, you get your first six years and you can renew for another six years. If you want a third six years, the act forces you to reduce your effort because clearly you have not put enough in to achieve anything before now. You have to reduce and it would be done by negotiation. You might get 10 per cent of what you had. You might get 90 per cent, but it would be by negotiation with the department and the government.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Fifty per cent is fixed, but they know best. They know which they are most interested in.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So they get to choose which 50 per cent they keep?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Let's be clear. Explorers know their acreage better than the department and we are going to ask them to rationalise. Which is the 50 per cent that they are interested in most? They choose and we will work with them and consult with them.

Clause passed.

Clause 42.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: 'Excise of land for public purposes,' are there any excisions planned at the moment by the government? Are there any parts of the state that are expected to be excised if this went through?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No.

Clause passed.

Clauses 43 to 45 passed.

Clause 46.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Right down at the bottom of page 58, it states:

(3) A mining lease must not be granted in respect of land within a subsurface stratum except on the authority of a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament.

What sort of circumstances would that be?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Obviously, this is to keep the integrity of underground mines. We want to make sure that people are not creating situations where there would be degradation or any risk. It has been in place with the opal act for a long time. Both houses of parliament must be consulted and it remains.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I noted this one also. I know that there was a special provision for mining to take place in Arkaroola. The terminology was that it had to be of national significance and there was special legislation for it. Is that the sort of thing that is considered by this?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Arkaroola has its own act of parliament, its prohibition, and it is excised from the Mining Act thanks to the Liberal Party and the Greens.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: At the top of page 60 under the broader heading of 'Application for mining lease', it says:

(c) must be accompanied by a mining proposal—

which makes sense, and further states—

(iv) setting out the results of the consultation undertaken in connection with the proposed operations in accordance with the regulations…

You are aware of concern about the regulations—and I have deliberately not raised this every single time that regulations come up—but this really is one of the most crucial issues with regard to the mining proposal and the results of the consultation undertaken in connection with that proposal in accordance with the regulations. If this bill passes, I think we really need to know what sort of regulations would be in place that would affect the consultation on the actual proposal. It really is a core to the whole thing.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We want to tighten up and have more transparency in these amendments than under the previous act. We will be out consulting on the regulations next year. The whole purpose of the act is to give greater transparency, greater consultation, more involvement and more say. I think it is pretty self-evident, and I do not mean that in a disparaging way. I just think what we are attempting to do is give people more of an opportunity to have a say on how these things operate and this is what we are going to be consulting on next year with the regulations.

Clause passed.

Clause 47.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I refer to 'Term and renewal of mining lease', right at the bottom of page 60. It deletes 'not exceeding 21 years' but it does not appear to actually insert any other renewal period—not a maximum and not a minimum—so how then would that be established?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We had this absurd position previously where we could only issue a 21-year lease regardless of the mine life. How do you capitalise the operations? How do you get security for investors? How do you raise capital? What we do now is we assess the mine life and issue a lease that matches the mine life of the operations. It gives greater certainty and flexibility and commercial certainty to proponents.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can I just seek clarification because I know I have read somewhere else—and I think it was referred to in the drop-in meeting at Maitland—about 99 years being the case now. If 21 is removed, is 99 put into it, or is it the expected mine life?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: One of the big issues is being able to raise capital, and the ability to raise capital is of course linked to tenure on land and tenure to mine the resource. If you are going to raise capital, or raise an issue paper, and you have a resource that you claim is 60, 70 or 80 years' worth of mining operations and the most the government of the day can give you is a 21-year lease, it limits your ability to raise capital. It makes it tougher.

Of course, we would all say, 'Of course we are going to renew it.' No-one is going to tell Olympic Dam or anyone else that after 21 years they have to leave, which is why companies seek indentures, which is why people seek the certainty. What we are attempting to do is to give mine and mine life every opportunity to raise the sufficient capital they need to give the commercial markets the certainty they need to invest in South Australia, and this is a great way of doing that. I think it is a very good reform.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I raise the question on that, particularly in relation to Yorke Peninsula mining, because of the exploration tenements that exist around the Rex Minerals site. I raise this question about the length of approvals because I need some clarification for the record. While there is an anticipated mine life attached to the Hillside mine, and that is in the range of 15 years, the community needs some clarification that if the mine were to seek an expansion, that is a whole new application, is it not? That is just it. Then it is assessed on that, which might make it a different period of time and it takes into account the rehabilitation of the site also as part of the operations.

I need some surety, if you are granting a longer period than 21 years potentially, depending on the level of the resource available, that it does not mean an automatic approval for deposits that might be found around an existing mine site to extend its size and therefore give it a longer life by virtue of mining a larger area.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It depends again on the size of the potential deposit. It is assessed. Someone cannot just turn up and say, 'We believe the mine life is now 110 years; extend our licence,' without any substantial proof. Obviously, we need to understand how it operates. At the same time, we can only have bonds in place for 21 years as well, so we can do the same. It works both ways.

For Rex, I think this is a very good outcome for the people of Yorke Peninsula in terms of understanding how this works because the rehabilitation bonds and the other bonds that are put in place also would match it. I think it works well but, ultimately, depending on the size of the deposit, we will assess it. These things are not just tick and flick because there is a commercial interest for the state as well and we do not want to incentivise people to increase the tenure and not mine. We obviously have to assess. They have to explore and prove up the deposit. We have to know exactly what activity will be there, so I am not that concerned about this amendment.

Clause passed.

Clause 48 passed.

Clause 49.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Looking at page 64, if the minister decides to grant a renewal of a retention lease, the renewal will be for a term determined by the minister. This is a renewal of a retention lease. There are other terms, obviously, for expiration of a mining lease, as you have just explained, but there is no term in here for the renewal of a retention lease that I saw.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that it is five years, in proposed section 46(1).

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thanks, minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am here to help.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I refer to the middle of page 64, Nature of miscellaneous purposes licence. There is a bit of a description about a miscellaneous purposes licence and then it states that the purposes will be determined by the minister. What are the types of purposes that are contemplated for a miscellaneous purposes licence?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The type of activity under the miscellaneous definition would be things like crushers, road access—ancillary services that go along with mining.

Clause passed.

Clause 50.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: How does a special mining enterprise fit with an indenture act, as we have typically been using? It does seem that there would be quite a bit of crossover. It does seem to be quite similar. When would the government use a special mining enterprise provision and when would the government contemplate an indenture act?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We are upgrading it because it has not been used as often as we would have liked. We think this is a great application for people who have multiple tenements and want to coordinate activity across those tenements. Middleback Ranges is a very good example. With the way it was drafted previously, I am advised that only one person had taken up its use. We want to make it fit for purpose and ready for the 21st century so that people can take full advantage of it.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: And there would still be indenture acts for other very significant types of projects, as we have now?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This is not an indenture.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No, I understand that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: An indenture is a completely separate act.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: That is fine.

Clause passed.

Clauses 51 and 52 passed.

Clause 53.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Towards the bottom of page 72, subsection (2) provides:

(2) If an application to which this section applies relates to an area within or adjacent to a specially protected area, the Minister must, before making a decision…

When it says 'within or adjacent', does that mean immediately adjacent, or is there scope for a buffer zone, for example? I am thinking about a wind farm application that is on the books at the moment. The developer has bought a sliver of land between where he wants to develop the wind farm and the next neighbour so that the next neighbour is not adjacent, so the next neighbour cannot object. Does it have to be technically adjacent land or is there some other proximity involved?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a case-by-case scenario and it is up to interpretation. Interpretations are done independently.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Looking at the bottom of page 74 and the top of page 75, alteration of terms and conditions of a mining lease, retention lease or miscellaneous purposes licence, subsection (2) provides:

(2) Without limiting any other provision, the Minister may at any time add, vary or revoke a term or condition of a mineral tenement to which this section applies if the Minister considers that the addition, variation or revocation is necessary…

It is pretty straightforward. I might have missed it, but I do not see anything in here about a requirement for community consultation when that happens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is just a greater burden for greater environmental controls and greater environmental standards, but it is the same power as under the other act just tightened up and given greater responsibility to have more environmental controls. I am not quite sure why that would trigger consultation. Perhaps you could explain what your thinking is.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, I am happy to, minister. I can understand that if it was about tighter environmental controls you would assume the landholder would be comfortable with that, but it does talk about alteration of terms and conditions of mining leases and retention leases. It clearly states:

Without limiting any other provision, the Minister may at any time add, vary or revoke a term or condition of a mineral tenement…

That is not limited to environmental aspects. It could be a wide range of things that the minister could choose to change in regard to the terms of a mineral tenement. Further down, it states:

The Minister must take reasonable steps to consult with the holder of the relevant mineral tenement…

but it does not say anywhere that the minister must consult with the landholder.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Because we are not putting extra burdens on the landowner: we are putting some burdens on the tenement holder. We are asking them to do more. The government has its independent regulators and environmental experts advising them. This gives them the ability to go to the tenement holder and ask them to do greater environmental protection, and we can consult with them because they are the ones who will be impacted with the costs of doing the extra work. The landowner will not be impacted by extra costs, so I am not quite sure why you would go to the landowner.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I can understand fully what you are saying, but this includes 'may…revoke a term or condition of a mineral tenement'. It is not only about lifting standards and giving extra protection; it states very clearly that the minister may revoke a term or condition, and that term or condition may be very important to the landholder.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We need to be able to respond very, very quickly and be very, very agile. If a pit wall collapses, we need to move quickly and have the situation remedied fast, so we need to change conditions very quickly to have that fixed. This is all about putting in requirements to strengthen the environmental provisions, rather than weaken them; sometimes that means revoking old ones and imposing new ones. It is giving maximum flexibility for us to put as much responsibility as we see fit on tenement holders, not to weaken them but to strengthen them.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, can you just confirm, to be sure that I have not missed it, that there is no obligation to consult with the landholder in this section of the bill?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Sorry, say that again?

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: In case I have missed it, because I am not a lawyer, can you just confirm that in this section there is no obligation for the minister to consult with the landholder when strengthening, weakening or changing for any of the reasons that you have mentioned any of these terms and conditions?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, no obligation.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am just inquiring about the adjoining landholder. There are many concerns put by people who live in surrounding properties intended to be mined. For those people, there is a need for some level of comfort to exist that, if the intention to exercise this clause is used, there is an opportunity for them to be made aware of it before it is enacted.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If we require strengthening of environmental conditions, we impose them: we just go ahead and do it. The damage by not doing it can be quite dramatic, so we just go ahead and do it.

The CHAIR: Can I have an indication of where your next question might be.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It is the same one, Chair.

The CHAIR: You are still on clause 53?

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am; it is a very long clause. I jumped ahead so many pages for you, which is actually what really counts, is it not, just to try to get through. I am looking at the bottom of page 81. The clause provides:

(4) The Minister must not take action under this section unless or until the Minister has—

(a) taken reasonable steps to notify the tenement holder of the proposed course of action…

(b) provided the tenement holder with an opportunity to make written submissions…

(5) The Minister may, after complying with subsection (4), by instrument registered on the mining register, cancel or suspend a mineral tenement.

This makes sense. That is straightforward, minister, and I understand that, but it is more about the advice to the tenement holder only. Is there no need to provide any opportunity to make a correction? What it really says here is that the minister can do these things—and it talks about how the tenement holder is notified and that the tenement holder will be provided with an opportunity to make a written submission—but it does not say anywhere here that the tenement holder will be given or could be given the opportunity to remedy whatever the fault is.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The state almost always retains the absolute right and discretion to cancel tenements—we must. Of course, we have procedural fairness in place, but the state must retain that right. It has been in place since 1971; we cannot lose that.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The fact that it is not expressly in the act, though, means that the minister, if the minister thought it was appropriate, could give the tenement holder the opportunity to remedy rather than be limited to the things that are in the act.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, you are right.

Clause passed.

Clauses 54 and 55 passed.

Clause 56.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I refer to the bottom of page 86. Section 58A—Notice requirements—provides:

(1) A person who is—

(a) intending to prospect for minerals under section 20; or

(b) the holder of an exploration licence or a mineral claim,

must, at least 28 days before first entering land to carry out authorised operations, serve on the owner of the land notice of intention to enter the land in accordance with this section.

How would an inspector or a police officer or somebody determine the difference between a breach of this part of the bill or the act, if it gets through, versus regular trespass? In a practical sense, if somebody breaches this, they do not do the right thing, and they say, 'I wasn't prospecting. I wasn't doing this. You caught me, and I was just bushwalking,' or something, how does that work in a practical sense?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Trespassing is trespassing. If they have not served their notice, they have trespassed. It is pretty simple.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So which fine would apply?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That would be a matter for the DPP or whoever prosecutes them about which penalty would apply. It is for the court, not for us. There are investigators and there are penalties that apply in the act, and they would choose the appropriate one.

Clause passed.

Clauses 57 to 59 passed.

Clause 60.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: In relation to the mining rehabilitation funds, minister, you may or may not be aware, but I certainly made it clear in my second reading contribution that SACOME has advised me that they are broadly comfortable with this and that they are supportive of where the government has landed on this. Specifically with regard to SACOME or a broader industry view, are they supportive of the structure in this mining rehabilitation fund?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Moving towards this model, we have a central mining rehabilitation fund and when you penalise mining operations for any form of behaviour that might be neglect, we can put it into this fund. This fund will obviously grow. If there is any need to draw down on the fund to rehabilitate lands, this would be the appropriate way to do it. We have led the intergovernmental discussions on this. I think this is going to become world's best practice.

The mining industry is very supportive of this. Obviously they are very concerned about the reputational risk of new mines from old mines that have not rehabilitated land appropriately. These measures are overwhelmingly welcomed by responsible mining associations and mining companies because ultimately it ensures social licence going forward.

Clause passed.

Clause 61 to 70 passed.

Clause 71.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 94, lines 9 and 10 [clause 71(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 72 to 120 passed.

Clause 121.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Why is it that it is a condition of every precious stones prospecting permit that the holder of the permit must not reside (I will not read it all) on the Aboriginal lands other than at Mintabie?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The advice I have is that we do not want people residing in and around the stone fields unless they are residents of the APY lands. This is something that is very important to the traditional owners. I think the amendment speaks for itself really.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, you say it is self-evident, but why could an Aboriginal person who lives on the lands not be the holder of a precious stones prospecting permit?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: An Indigenous claimant would have a different right under the APY lands act to reside on the APY lands—under a different act. We are talking about people who have only tenement rights as opposed to rights under a different act.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So are you saying that an Indigenous person from the lands is allowed to prospect for precious stones without a permit?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, they would be able to reside there but they cannot prospect.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Does that mean that there is no prospecting on the lands?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You misunderstand. Prospectors who do not have rights under the APY lands act to reside in the stone fields, so someone like you or I—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: From somewhere else—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —from somewhere else, must reside in Mintabie. We do not want them residing in the stone fields. If you have a different entitlement under a different act to be in the stone fields and a tenement, then you can do both, but unless you have the appropriate tenement rights and rights under the APY act you cannot reside on the stone fields. This is something from the act that has been brought in. It was already there; it has just moved.

Clause passed.

Clauses 122 to 164 passed.

Clause 165.

The CHAIR: The minister's amendment No. 7 on schedule (1) has the effect of deleting the clause, so you are not making an amendment; you just vote against clause 165.

Clause negatived.

Remaining clauses (166 to 181), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (23:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank members for their contributions. I would like to thank Mr Woodyatt and his team for the exceptional work that they have done to get the bill to this point. I wish this bill speedy passage in another place.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, exactly—hope eternal. This is a good piece of legislation.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I would have thought that, rather than interjecting, the leader, if he had something to say, would have come during the debate and made those remarks.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer is speaking!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, ma'am. Thank you very much to the shadow minister for his contribution and to the member for Goyder for his contribution. I know he is someone who has been at the front line of the impact of mining and farming interests. It is very difficult and it can get very emotive, and it is very difficult for members of parliament.

I want to thank the member for Flinders for his contribution. It is also very difficult for Eyre Peninsula communities to be dealing with these types of issues. I am very cognisant of the impacts it has on members. It can be very stressful on families.

I want to reassure members, politics aside, that this piece of legislation will stand the parliament in good stead. This legislation will hold the parliament in high regard for mining companies and landowners. I think we have the balance right. It is not easy to get the balance right. The difficulty about these issues is ultimately where we confront some very difficult ideological emotive issues.

Fundamentally, what people get concerned about is the loss of amenity and at their core is someone else receiving an economic benefit from what they perceive is on their land, and that is difficult for a lot of people to understand and conceptualise, that collectively, as a community, we all own those mineral rights. We want to make sure that those mineral rights are exploited for the benefit of all South Australians. That is easy for us to say here in North Terrace in this parliament, but it is very difficult when you have to wake up every morning knowing that you are confronted with the activity of a mine that is very close to your home or a traditional farm which has been in the family for generations. The government understands that.

We have to make sure that we can turn mining back into what it was originally, which was something that was embraced by communities and welcomed by communities. The opportunities were there and were taken advantage of by communities, and the communities did not feel as if they were powerless to stop or have a say about how mining operations worked. We have tried to get that balance right here, but I conceded from the very beginning that it is not perfect. No legislation is perfect, but I think the work Mr Woodyatt and Kirsty Braybon and their team and the department have done has been exceptional, and I commend the bill to the house. I wish it a speedy passage in the other place.

I thank the member for Goyder for what might be his final contribution on a very significant piece of legislation. He has always been very thoughtful and very considerate in his approach and he will be a loss to the parliament.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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