HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject 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 KNOLL: Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (17:38): I will briefly recap on where I was before the adjournment, and I think I was waxing lyrical about the contribution of the mining industry in our state. I finished by referring to what is going on at Olympic Dam and the great news about Carrapateena. I was going to get on to my great community of Whyalla, a community that knows from long experience the importance of mining in South Australia.

My area has had mining going back about 116 years now with the development of Iron Knob at the turn of the century before last. Of course, the development of that particular iron ore deposit, the richest iron ore deposit in the world at the time, led not only to the creation of what was initially the Hummock Hill settlement and then Whyalla but it was literally the birthplace of the Australian iron and steel industry. It had a major impact over in the Eastern States at Port Kembla, Wollongong, and up at Newcastle.

During the Second World War, we saw the development of iron making in Whyalla itself with the blast furnace. In 1965, we saw the commissioning of the integrated steelworks, which have served this nation very well ever since, producing much of the rail product and much of the structural product that go into the construction industry. I come from and in fact live in this community, and my family came to that community as a result of the presence of iron ore 50 kilometres or so to the west of Whyalla and all that has meant.

As the member for Giles, when it comes to the sorts of conflicts that happen between mining and agriculture, they are very limited in my part of the world. They are very limited because we usually have vast pastoral properties that have been able to accommodate the localised impacts of mining, so we do not have the intensity of agriculture that grows the farther south you go. The member for Stuart had a lot to say, much of which I agree with. He talked about how it can be very difficult for farming communities and farming families who are facing the prospect of the development of what are potentially large deposits cheek by jowl with where they might live, with their property or over on their neighbour's property.

What often happens is that the explorers come in and they start to have a look around, and that sets in train a whole set of experiences that are not necessarily positive ones for the families immediately involved. Some of those families might have been living in that area or living on that land for generations. When the prospecting or the exploration starts, and if the eventual outcome is that there is something mineable there in commercial quantities, it can take a very extended period of time, and that generates an enormous amount of uncertainty.

Another element is that it is often a David and Goliath type of approach. You have companies that are often cashed up and they are able to access resources and lawyers. They have a whole range of people working for them and a farming family or a farming business does not have access to those sorts of resources. It is good to see that one of the issues flagged in the bill is a bit of additional legal support earlier on in the process. I think it is really important that we get those early steps right.

At the end of the day, I think we pull back from the detail of the individual circumstances and we ask our questions as politicians: what is the cost benefit? What is the net benefit to the state? Often mining projects deliver very significant benefits to the state, which is not to detract from the experiences that people who are on the ground and very close are going through. We have to recognise that there can be, for those people, very significant negative externalities, to use that fancy economic term.

My view is that, if the state is to benefit and if mining companies are to benefit, the people affected should also benefit. They are the ones who in a sense have given up a lot more than the rest of us. The rest of us get that generalised benefit, some people get some very specific and very high benefits, but the farming families that might be impacted often have to wear the negative consequences in a whole range of ways. It can be emotional, or it can be physical consequences on the land that they farm. I believe that companies, and we as a state, need to recognise that. If there is to be a significant state benefit, we need to in some way adequately—and I would argue more than adequately—compensate people for the issues that they have gone through.

I have come through some of these struggles in a different way, growing up in an industrial community, living very close to a pellet plant that for many years spewed out very fine particulates that had a material impact on the surrounding community. For many years, BHP denied there was any impact; it was just bizarre. They were getting legal advice: 'We accept no liability.' I went through a whole process and was involved with a range of people and, in good faith, once BHP had gone, we worked through the issues with OneSteel, as it was, and Arrium.

We got to a point where the activist group was disbanded. They got what they wanted and the company got what it wanted. Compromises were made in good faith through negotiations, and there was a willingness to recognise that the company was causing significant damage and needed to provide some redress for that historical damage and, partly, the ongoing damage, which is now far less. That required the company to undergo a change of attitude. When I come to some of these issues here, it is about recognising that there is an overall benefit to the state from mining but also recognising that we must attempt, as far as we can, to do the right thing by the people who are impacted.

The member for Stuart mentioned the involvement of a whole range of people in this very extensive consultation process. I think it involved over 1,700 landowners and environmental groups—a whole range of people. Once again, when people are involved in this sort of thing, the companies have their experts and everybody else they employ to do this, but, as the member for Stuart said, when people are involved in this sort of thing, it is often either a labour of love or a labour of frustration on their part because it is their own time and their own energy and they are not being paid for this, and it is often at the expense of the work that they do.

I know that one of the really important elements is what happens in the early stages, before anything physically happens, and having a framework that will enable us to get that right. Once again, the member for Stuart said that there will be people on both sides right out on the fringes, but in my experience, most people are decent and they want to do the right thing and are willing to compromise. What I might disagree with is that occasionally people out in the fringes are right. The people out on the fringes can be right, and we always have to be aware of that.

I can point to any number of examples: the people who protested and stood their ground at the Franklin River were right; the people who protested about the potential exploration of oil on the Great Barrier Reef, they were right; Fraser Island. There is a whole raft of examples where people who were willing to engage in civil disobedience and other methods were entirely right. As a state, let's hope we get this right and end up with a decent bit of legislation.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:49): It is an honour to have the opportunity to speak on this legislation. I will flag from the very start that I appreciate the excellent amount of work done by the member for Stuart as the shadow minister and his very efficient summary of what the legislation does and indeed his summary of the issues as they come from both sides of the mining equation. I will flag very early on, though, that I do not support the legislation. It is my intention to oppose it. I will set out the reasons why that is the case.

I respect the fact that the shadow minister has flagged that the Liberal Party does not oppose it, but does reserve its right for amendments and its opportunity to make its final decision, depending on how those amendments proceed in the Legislative Council. However, I want to put on the record that, when it comes to the votes that will occur in the House of Assembly, I intend to say no.

It has not necessarily taken me a long time to come to this position, but it has been an ongoing issue. While we are talking about legislation that was first flagged 14 months ago, for me the debate about mining has been a local one for the last nine years, involving a significant mining proposal for copper and gold, and originally iron ore, and potentially other products, but now it is copper and gold on Yorke Peninsula, based around the south-west of the Ardrossan area, and impacting upon coastal communities and significantly upon the farming activities that take place there. Many of those farming activities involve five generations of occupation of the land and caretaking of the land and the effort that has gone into preserving it for the future generations who will farm it.

I am not a politician by nature. I am probably a bureaucrat by nature, and for me the detail is important. I have read this legislation; I have gone through the 154 pages. There are many areas in this legislation where I understand and support the reason for it. I believe it has come through discussions and negotiations that are not always unanimously agreed to. For me, the key issue is around changing 'exempt' to 'restricted' and the concern about that and the concerns that have been continuously put to me, not just about mining in total but about when it first became evident as part of the 82 recommendations and the feedback that was sought on that.

The very strong representation from the YP Land Owners' Group and individuals who are part of that or who are supported by that group has been to reject outright the majority of the recommendations and, by association, seriously question or reject the legislative amendments. I do not reject all of them, but because I have a particular issue with 'exempt' versus 'restricted' that is the reason why I will be voting no and will do so at the second and third readings.

I want mining to be well regulated. When the minister stood up here—and previous ministers have spoken about this—he talked about the fact that South Australia is held up as an example, not just for our nation but around the world, for the way in which regulations are upheld and for the controls that are put in place. I can argue that, in granting approval to Rex Minerals for mining to take place on Yorke Peninsula and the conditions attached to that is an example of where, by government assessment of the application, by community involvement in the application and by highlighting the issues of concern which have impacted upon the range of conditions attached to it, a situation has been created where a mine, if it is to proceed, will be one of the examples of what mining in a developed community is—and that is what I classify Yorke Peninsula as compared to many other mining activities in South Australia—and the conditions to try to deal with that.

I have attended all of the Hillside Mine Community Voice community engagement events that have been held in the last three months, where different components of the plan for environmental protection and rehabilitation have been discussed. As I understand it, they have been finalised to a certain stage but the PEPR itself—an acronym for the plan for environment protection and rehabilitation—has not been lodged, and a further extension has been sought to lodge that. I believe it has to be submitted by 26 February 2018.

There has been a mixture in the numbers of people who attend. Many who attend are the same person or couple because they are intrinsically involved in that mine. What I say about the legislation looks more at the concern of what the impact is for the Goyder electorate and that community. You can see the uncertainty in these people's eyes and in their emotions. I do not even try to contemplate the level of challenges they have faced in the nine years of Rex Minerals proposed mine.

I fully respect the fact that the legislation and the laws of South Australia provide the opportunity for the mine to be proposed. Rex Minerals has spent $170 million or thereabouts in proving the scope of the resource that exists and in the work that has been undertaken so far to get it to this stage. That is all shareholders' money, that is, people who believed they would get a return on their investment in the mining venture on that site.

The farming community has been insistent over the years, and I completely respect why, and for the majority of the time that I have had the great honour of being the member for Goyder they have been concerned about it. While discussions or negotiations have occurred about the land that is required specifically for the mine—and it was either purchased earlier on or rights to purchase were put in place, as I understand it—the impact upon the adjoining property owners, be they close or a little bit farther away, is significant.

I respect why those people do not want it. They do not want anything to occur close to them they feel impacts upon the way they run their business. They are concerned about the marketability of Yorke Peninsula, not just as a tourism area or a place to live but in terms of its products also. That is why they have a very strong opinion about it. They have been insistent, and they have spoken to me and indeed other members about this. They put their case continuously because they believe in what they do and they want to try to protect what they do.

The law provides an opportunity for mining to be proposed. The law has assessed it; the law has attached conditions to it; and the law allows for the PEPR to be finalised. But there again I think a frustration exists because it was in August 2014 that Rex Minerals were approved. They were given a certain amount of time for a PEPR to be developed and submitted. I believe that has been extended twice and now the third time. During that time, yes, the company has worked on it, and I respect that. Yes, the company has supported the initial community consultation group that was appointed. Yes, the company supported the Hillside Mine Community Voice, the last version of which has been in operation for about two years and which an independent chair, Mr Phil Tyler, who is a former member of this place, was appointed to operate, to chair the group.

They have been involved in community negotiations about the conditions attached that will be included in the PEPR about how to meet the conditions of approval, but we still get to the case that, by virtue of this legislation— and we have been told by the member for Stuart earlier today that the suggestion of the change from 'exempt' to 'restricted' came about from the consultation that occurred early on about the review into the legislation.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The government has advised the member for Stuart about that, and during the questioning on the clauses I will try to find out where that came from, because the community that has put me in this place the last three times has questioned where it came from because they do not believe anyone from their area has expressed that.

They see that as absolute key. I noted the change from 'exempt' to 'restricted'. 'Restricted' is actually a term that covers what the 1971 legislation put in place about exempted, and with amendments since then, the practicalities of mining expansion have created a different acknowledgement of what the word is meant to mean. Is that, therefore, why the change has occurred? There will be questions asked about that in the committee.

I respect the feedback from the member for Giles and how he related to the people who are surrounded by or live close by it and the impact upon them. I am not trying to stretch the truth imaginatively here, but in the last eight years I have had a conversation daily with people. I was also asked by the Yorke Peninsula Land Owners' Group to chair a public meeting at Ardrossan, where there were 400 people. So you go between the emotions of a one-on-one conversation and the emotions of a 400-people-in-attendance conversation where I am asked, 'Do you support it or not?'

I am a bureaucrat by nature. For me, it has been about process. I have been criticised for that, I have to tell you. I have copped quite a bit in my area. At one stage, I was accused of being a shareholder in Rex Minerals. I have always thought that my role as a member of parliament is to support the future of the economy of the area. I have respected that there is a strong concern that lives close by and probably within 30 minutes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This might be a good spot to take a breath.

Sitting suspended from 17.59 to 19:30.

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