HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-11-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 August 2018.)

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:49): I rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill 2018. This is a bill to amend the Mining Act 1971, the Mines and Works Inspection Act 1920 and the Opal Mining Act 1995.

It is fair to say that the bill has had a very long gestation period. Indeed, it was the subject of an extensive review by the former government, and a bill introduced by them in similar terms to this lapsed at the end of the former government's parliament before the last election. That may have come as a surprise to many. Indeed, I attended the University of Adelaide for a special meeting, which had been arranged to consider the new provisions that were going to apply if the bill had passed the previous parliament, only to find that a number of them thought that it had and were progressing with the education session and instructions as though it had.

I was able to point out to them that it had not passed the parliament, that therefore it was an important exercise to still discuss aspects of it, because there had clearly been a large amount of work done, and that, if we were successful at the next election, in forming government it would obviously be a matter we would give attention to and need to look at it with fresh eyes to review aspects of it that we considered inadequate or unsatisfactory. I would like to place on the record the work of the Minister for Energy and Resources in making sure that, in retabling the bill in the new parliament with some amendments to the previous bill, it was then allowed to sit for some months, from its introduction in August, to enable people to still make a further contribution if they saw fit.

I think it is fair to say, without going through a number of the submissions that were made, that perhaps the most significant area of request for reform was for those who were the owners of rural property that had a higher growth capacity and were usually in the business of cultivating a valuable crop for South Australia, and they were active in ensuring that they had their say on what further reform should occur in relation to this legislation. I thank the minister for taking the time to consider that. I think other members in the parliament, of course, were approached, as I was, about their plight and their claimed resolution as to how they should be protected in those circumstances.

I also want to place on the record the commitment of the minister to a second tranche of review in relation to the operational aspects of how this broad legislation would work in the amended form for our new mining laws that are to apply. That is important because there are some practical issues that still need to have some resolution to the extent of how they are actually going to work. If there is a capacity given for access to land, wherever it is in South Australia, to have the opportunity to explore the identification of a reserve in this regard—whether or not it is worth digging up is another matter—we need to know operationally how these things are going to work, especially with the new definitions and modifications proposed in the bill.

I would like to declare, before I say anything further, that, yes, I am the owner of residential, commercial and rural property in South Australia. I am pretty confident that it is unlikely that BHP is going to knock on my residence in the seat of Bragg and say, 'We want to dig up your plot to find some mystery gold underneath it.' If they do, I will talk to them about reasonable compensation, no doubt. In any event, commercial development of property, operations of existing businesses and so on, are actually all covered in the current law but are being protected in this further regime of amendments.

The rural land I own, luckily for me, is on Kangaroo Island and, as most people know, Kangaroo Island is a rock with a bit of dirt on top. I have to say that over the years plenty of people have tried to dig and find silver, gold and all sorts of things; alas, there appears to be nothing there, so I do not expect that I will have some company followed up by BHP come and establish an exploration or seek the right to explore and ultimately dig in relation to that property. I do accept that there are a number, perhaps in a fairly limited space geographically in South Australia; nevertheless, that is very important to them, and I would like to be clear that our expectation as a government, and I know it is the minister's personal commitment, is to ensure that that continues.

I would like to flag a couple of matters that have been raised; one is the question of whether the owner of a property should have the right to access mineral rights, whether under a house, under a building, under a shed, under a sheep yard or anywhere. This is a matter that is very clear in our law in South Australia and has been for almost 50 years—that is, an owner does not own what is under the ground and does not have the opportunity, if there is something valuable there, to dig it up and keep the proceeds.

We can go into the reasons for whether or not it was a good idea by former premier Dunstan to change the law. The fact is that it happened and that those opportunities were removed. The gate is open, the sheep are out and I do not see them being rounded up or it being changed. Because some states in the United States of America have the right to own everything under the ground, sometimes people have the impression that that should be restored here in South Australia. I do not see that happening in Australia. Governments all around the country have taken over the right to have that.

The reason it is important to remember that it is here, and I do not see that changing anytime soon, is that the public now owns this resource. It is then a question of in what circumstances should they have the opportunity to exploit it and for governments to operate the licensing and process that are going to apply for that to happen fairly and for the protection of other people's existing interests, including farming and cultivation interests. I do not think that there is any easy answer to those who would like to have complete control of that.

The next phase is a veto scenario so that the owner of the property can say, 'I don't get any access to this money, the proceeds from a resource, and I don't want to be in a situation where anyone else gets access to it.' The ultimate denial of access to a public asset is something that I think the rest of the people of South Australia, quite reasonably, have a right to have explored. The act, with some new initiatives under this government, will provide some protections around that and forums where, hopefully, those matters can be justly and equitably decided. The opportunity to say, 'I don't have any access to this public asset and I'm not going to let anybody else have access to it,' is not something that we can justifiably accept.

In the course of reviewing this matter, I have looked at other jurisdictions, including the Western Australian model. By way of a tiny bit of history, my mother's side of the family was involved in the establishment of the Geraldton mines in Western Australia. From time to time, I have had some interest in mining in Western Australia, not because I have any interest in the mine, I might add—unless my superannuation fund manager has some mining shares in my superannuation portfolio, I do not have any direct interest in mining companies or as a shareholder—but because I have had a personal interest in the history.

They have done it slightly differently in Western Australia, but they do not, in my view, under their model, address the fundamental question: should the landowner have access to the proceeds of the resource or, more importantly for this debate, to allow the exclusive right to veto the opportunity for anyone else to have access to it? It is not going to remedy the complaint and that is the reality of what we are faced with.

The detail of the bill has been traversed by our minister and I will not go through it, but I may have some comment to make in relation to any committee process. What I would like to say is in relation to two other matters. Firstly, I place on the record the importance to me of representing the people of Bragg. The electorate houses the first mine in South Australia—at Glen Osmond. I will just find the history of that—

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: We can google it.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —which is the silver and lead mines. Some might know this. Perhaps the noisy member from Mawson might know this. In early days, it was mistaken as having a copper resource, but he might not have known that. I presume he knows most things, but in any event—

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: I did. I have been through it.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Order! I was unaware. Thank you for that information, Deputy Premier.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, sir. Nevertheless, it was and remains, of course, of national historical significance. The Glen Osmond mines comprise Wheal Gawler, Wheal Watkins and the Glen Osmond mine itself. In refreshing my memory about these mines, I only just noticed that one of them was actually located on Chapman Crescent. How about that? Obviously, it was the wrong Chapman because I did not get any interest in that one either.

I make the point that it is of national significance. It was the first metalliferous mine in Australia and, very importantly for the colony back in the 1830s and 1840s, it was the first producer of mining product for export. It was the first metalliferous export from Australia, so it was a very important mine in the history of South Australia. When one looks at the history, relative to the act we are opening up and amending, I notice that the land at Glen Osmond was first surveyed in 80-acre sections and sold in the late 1830s. According to the laws at the time, the mineral rights belonged to the purchasers and the boundaries of the properties would become the boundaries of the separate mines, so you could dig up to the boundary line.

We have since learned a lot about the coexistence of enterprises and their need to prevail and be protected. There has been an area of mining law developed in South Australia to ensure that, where possible, the interruption to other enterprises or neighbouring pursuits, for example, are protected from pollution and the like.

The other matter I want to mention because it is very contemporary at the moment is Mintabie opal mining. The Minister for Energy is also the local member and is very—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: No, it's Giles.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You are not the local member anymore? What a shame!

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: It's Giles. It's probably a good one not to have.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member for Giles is the current member under the boundaries. Nevertheless, I am aware that the minister has a very good working knowledge of and understands what happened with the Mintabie township. Some would know that it was granted an opportunity to continue to operate as a town and a mine under our APY legislation back in the early 1980s because all the surrounding land was identified, for the purposes of the APY Act, to be handed back to the management of the local Indigenous Anangu families, etc. It was given a significant lease of 40 years or so to operate under the management of the government of the day, not the local governance of the lands. That lease expired, and sometime in 2017, I think, the then government indicated that they were not going to—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: February 2018.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: February 2018, so just before the election. After some inquiry, the then government indicated they would not be extending the lease and it would therefore transfer to—not be restored to, because they never had it—the general management of local governance.

I mention this because there have been around 40 years of mining at Mintabie. I think there are still 30 or so permanent residents in the town. I know of Mintabie because it used to be where people would sometimes hide out if they did not want to be served with a subpoena—usually mine—for a witness to attend. Nevertheless, I also recognise it for its very important role in opal mining in South Australia. According to the investigations by the Department for Energy and Mining, in a report they published in August this year, Mintabie has:

…an area totalling less than two square kilometres and has [of course] been intensively mined. A conservative estimate of the area of greatest prospectivity within the Mintabie Precious Stones Field is 20 square kilometres. Within the 20 km² region of high prospectivity, the Mintabie opal field will support Mining for 400 years…

That is not insignificant. The report further identifies:

The total value of the opal mined at Mintabie to 2016 has been estimated by the South Australian Government to be $421M. An area-based analysis concludes that this is less than 10% of the total contained opal at Mintabie. The opal resource in Mintabie, including the opal already found is therefore estimated to have a raw opal value of over $4B.

The reason I mention this is that, as some will know, there have been some calls for assistance. In fact, the Hon. Graham Gunn, a former member of our parliament, has been on the phone—you do not usually need a phone because you can hear him from the West Coast. He was very concerned about the future of the town and its people. Having represented a lot of the area, he of course understands the significance of the opportunities in Mintabie for South Australia and, in this case, opal mining.

If you pick up the paper today, you will see that concerns have been raised by at least one resident—I think they are the principal or deputy principal at the local school—about acts of vandalism. Concerns have been raised by the local community that there may be some attempts to almost run these people out of town. I do not know whether that is the case; the media report seems to indicate that attempts are being made to ensure that the people who may be responsible are being investigated, and I think some arrests have been made.

The fact is that, whatever the governance arrangements in respect of this area, people need to be able to live in their homes free of threats, property damage, assault or harm—and in regard to that we rely heavily on members of the South Australian police force who are on the APY lands. It is of absolute importance to the government that the Mintabie area and township continue to be protected, and we will make sure they are.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:09): I rise to make a contribution to this debate on the Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill 2018, and I recognise, as others have and will in this debate, the importance of this particular bill. I recall debating amendments to the Mining Act way back in 2011, when the minister and I were both relatively new members of parliament. We were very pleased with the work we did, even from opposition at that time, particularly in relation to the environmental benefits that we brought to the act and to the mining industry itself.

As the member for Bragg pointed out, this particular amendment bill has had quite a long gestation period. It was brought to the parliament by the previous government in 2017. In fact, it was debated in this house and progressed through, but it lapsed in the upper house when parliament went into recess before the election in March 2018. Our commitment as Liberals in opposition was that, should we gain government, we would review all the consultation that had occurred under the previous government, reintroduce the bill in a new format or with some changes and, hopefully, address some of the concerns brought up in that time.

I am going to declare an interest, as did the member for Bragg. For many years, I was an active grain grower and farmer on Eyre Peninsula. I still own farming property on Eyre Peninsula. I add that there is a tenement sitting over a couple of the sections that I own, section 20 and part of section 45, Hundred of Mortlock, which are situated about half an hour's drive north of Port Lincoln.

This bill is a mining bill to enable mining; that is its intention. However, as many of us on this side of the house have discovered, it is about much more than that. It is also about agriculture because the number of tenements sitting over agricultural land in South Australia is now significant, and it is possible that some exploration and even mine development will occur within the agricultural areas of the state. If that were to occur, it would not be the first time in our state's history that that has happened.

It is well known that a discovery of copper, initially at Kapunda and then at Burra, saved this state from bankruptcy in the early days and, in fact, built half of this fine building we are now sitting in. This chamber was built in the 1880s very much on the back of the wealth that copper brought to this state from Kapunda, Burra and Upper Yorke Peninsula, around the Moonta area in particular. I do not mean to be facetious, but a lot of the names that we see in South Australia and in this place are of Welsh and Cornish derivation.

Mr Ellis interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: The member for Narungga has just commented on my tie. Given that he has, I indicate that this is the Cornish national tartan.

The Hon. D.J. Speirs: Hear, hear!

Mr TRELOAR: 'Hear, hear!' says my Scottish colleague. Quite by accident, I happen to be wearing this today. I digress, but that was well picked up. My great-great-grandfather came here in the 1840s. He worked as a teamster, and he hauled copper ore from Burra to Port Wakefield. The place abounded with mines and miners, but eventually the resource ran out. Obviously, for South Australia, the money ran out because we were not able to finish this parliamentary building. It was not until the 1930s that we were able to finish it.

All the time I have been a member of parliament, this has been bubbling away as an issue, particularly in relation to Eyre Peninsula. As people know, the electorate of Flinders extends from Port Lincoln all the way to the Western Australia border. It does not include the Middleback Ranges—that sits in the member for Giles' electorate—but historically that has been the foundation of the heavy industry in South Australia. The iron ore mined there really brought about the foundation of the City of Whyalla and generated the steelmaking works, the shipbuilding and all the rest at Whyalla. It is still being mined for both haematite and magnetite, and it looks like going on for quite some time.

Graphite was mined in the early days on Lower Eyre Peninsula, and the Uley graphite mine had several incarnations over the ensuing 100 years, none of which was particularly long lasting or successful. Nevertheless, the resource remains, and I am sure people will come back to have another look at it. There are graphite deposits across other parts of Eyre Peninsula as well, particularly in the east, and gold was also mined in the early days.

Iluka has a mineral sands deposit north-west of Ceduna, and that is particularly lucrative for them; the world market, particularly China, is demanding the mineral sands, the zircon, etc., they are able to dig up out there and exported from Thevenard. We also have the usual rubble pits from which councils source their road metal, and the gypsum and lime go into the agricultural area, so mining has occurred on Eyre Peninsula.

One of the very first public meetings I went to—in fact, I was in campaign mode when I was attempting to win the seat of Flinders for the first time—was a public meeting at the Port Lincoln Town Hall. A company by the name of Centrex had discovered a haematite deposit, I think it was, at Murdinga near Lock and had actually purchased the property from the farmer who owned it.

The family had owned that property since settlement and it was a particularly difficult negotiation. They eventually achieved a price that was reasonable, although I have to say that the landowner was not at all happy about that outcome because, ultimately, he wanted to stay. The interesting thing is that Centrex really disappeared altogether. The property was leased back to a neighbouring farmer to farm, and I understand that it was eventually sold. No mine was developed; despite the proposal and all the angst created around that, nothing developed.

Of particular interest to the people of Port Lincoln was that the Centrex plan was to rail the haematite down the existing rail corridor and put it out over a belt on the wharf at Port Lincoln. Understandably, people were not too happy about their pristine seaside town being filled with red dust. Of course, historically that was the case in Whyalla, but I understand that conditions have changed and that they are now better able to manage that situation.

That brings me to the next big proposal for Eyre Peninsula: the Iron Road magnetite mine at Warramboo. I became familiar with this very soon after being elected. Interestingly, it has been known that there is an iron ore deposit at Warramboo for at least 50 years, maybe longer. Everyone was aware of it and various interested parties came and went over the ensuing decades, but nothing progressed very far until a company by the name of Iron Road obtained the tenement, did some significant core samples and determined a really significant magnetite deposit.

That said, negotiations with the landowners—I believe there are six farmers involved in that area—were difficult and they remain difficult. The farmers were receptive or not to varying degrees, and my understanding is that Iron Road have not purchased any of the properties. They have a proposal for a $5 billion project that includes a mine site, a processing plant (because it is magnetite), and a freight corridor, which will include a train, power and water to a new port facility at Cape Hardy. None of that is in place at this point in time.

I know that the company is still seeking investors, but at this stage they have not been able to source the required capital. Once again, the proposal has left the landowners who sit over the magnetite deposit, as well as those landowners who are within the proposed rail corridor, in a situation of uncertainty, and that is the real issue—the uncertainty that pervades the issue. Iron Road, for the best part, have negotiated and committed as much as they can in the rail corridor. Landowners have been, to varying degrees, receptive or not, so who knows whether or not this proposal will get up. I do not know. I cannot necessarily say that it will get up next year, the year after, in 10 years or in 50 years. Who knows? It may never. It is a big deposit, though.

That brings me to the next point, that is, the development of a port facility. Cape Hardy has been identified as the priority site for Iron Road. Deep water is positioned just south of Port Neill and would be quite capable of loading Cape class vessels relatively close to shore. Within 600 metres, I think, there is 16 metres of water. Farmers have been watching this with interest and looking for the opportunity to piggyback on that development in relation to possible grain exports as well.

I am familiar with the difficulties and angst caused through exploration companies—let's call them that—approaching landowners and farmers for access. Really, that is the crux of it as far as landowners are concerned—the access. I acknowledge the work done by the previous minister, the current minister and the department in developing this bill and the benefits it will bring to landowners. I will spend a couple of minutes running through those quickly because it is worth people understanding them.

'Exempt land' is a term that, for a time, looked like disappearing. It still exists. I will come to this again a little bit later, but for me one of the real bugbears in this bill is that term itself, the definition of 'exempt land' and what that might mean. The courts have decided that it means something different from what a landowner might think it would or could mean.

The exempt land legal advice has been increased from $500 to $2,500 per landowner. The exempt land radius for high impact mineral operations has been increased by 50 per cent, from 400 metres to 600 metres, and I think the member for Kavel will have some things to say about that. There is improved access to justice by expanding the courts that hear exempt land matters to include the Warden's Court and the Supreme Court, as well as the ERD, and there are new rights for landowners to apply for an exempt land determination.

There is increased transparency and access to information. There will be free access to information of what is approved over land through an expanded mining register. In other words, there will be more information and it will be much more available. There will be improved industry and government transparency and accountability through modernised powers for compiling, keeping, providing and releasing materials publicly; updating an expanded public consultation on tenement applications and change of operations; and clearly documented reasons for ministers' decisions through preparation of assessment reports. There will be publication of directions or orders for noncompliance and annual compliance reports.

A couple of the residents of Eyre Peninsula who have really been at the coalface of this issue over the last half a dozen years or so have commented to me that, in essence, the act itself—and we are talking about the previous act or the existing act—is not that bad but that it is the application of the act that really has become an issue. I think there is a message in that for our government, the minister and probably the department as well, in that the act, for the most part, is quite definitive, and it is beholden on the department itself to ensure that the application of the act is as it should be.

Regarding notice of entry, there will be clear and understandable definitions of operations so that notices to landowners are clear about what activities are proposed and approved. There will be improved notices to reflect the impact and proposed exploration activity. There will be a new notice of intention to apply for a production tenement, with rights to object or progress negotiations, and there will be increased time to enter to commence activities. Minister, that has now stretched out to 42 days, the extension of the time?

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Yes, six weeks.

Mr TRELOAR: Yes, six weeks or 42 days, that's right—thank you for that; I knew you were listening—that's great. There will be increased compliance and enforcement tools, including guaranteed payments to landowners, with new powers to allow government to recover unpaid rent; increased penalties for breaching exempt land and notice of entry obligations, a right to use more extractive minerals through clarification and a right to compensation protected. Also, native title is dealt with. There will be red-tape reduction, commercial flexibility and all those things.

But the crux of the matter for me, and the crux of this bill, is in relation to section 9 and section 9AA. I think landowners right across the state will be familiar with this, and it relates to exempt land. We are proposing amendments to that. In fact, clause 8 amends section 9 to declare land of the following kinds to be exempt land:

land that is lawfully and genuinely used as a yard or garden, as in the electorate of Bragg, which the member so ably described;

land that is lawfully and genuinely used as a cultivated field, plantation, orchard or vineyard for commercial purposes;

land situated within the prescribed distance (as now defined in the section, which varies in relation to whether the operations are low impact or advanced exploration operations or any other authorised operations) of a building or structure used in a place of residence; and

land within 150 metres of a building or structure with a value equal to or exceeding the prescribed amount, as defined in the section, used for an industrial or commercial purpose.

The clause also makes a number of consequential amendments to section 9. As I said, I am personally having some difficulty with this in relation to exempt land and the fact that cultivated land, as indicated in section 9, should and would be exempt. If you were a farmer on Eyre Peninsula, Yorke Peninsula or anywhere else in the state, you would expect that the arable—

Mr Ellis interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: If you were, and I am; I have already said that, member for Narungga—then that paddock, that field that you would cultivate and crop on an annual basis, would be exempt. It seems that that is not so, that the option is for an exploration company to go to court and have that exempt land waived. It seems to be a no-win situation for farmers, which makes it really difficult and just adds to this uncertainty that we have been talking about.

Section 9AA provides a formal process for a tenement holder to invite an owner of land to enter into an agreement with the tenement holder to waive the benefit of an exemption. If the tenement holder is unable to reach an agreement with the owner of land, they can apply to the ERD Court for an order waiving the benefit of the exemption. As I said, this is the crux of the bill for me. I have had much correspondence from constituents relating to this. It is a vexed issue. It is not entirely solved with the new bill. Most of the bill is the result of a lot of good work over a long period of time, but I do not believe in my own mind that we have addressed properly the quite rightful concerns that landowners have around exempt land and what that might mean for their farming business.

I know there are various hotspots of unrest around the state, let's call it that. I take the view that each and every farming business in South Australia is of equal value. They are all making a contribution, whether they are at Sandilands or Edillilie or Orroroo or Poochera. They are all making an equal contribution to the state, they are all viable businesses and they all need to be treated with the respect they deserve. With that, I conclude my remarks and look forward to the progression of this bill and the subsequent impact that it might have.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (12:29): I rise today to raise my concerns and voice my support for the concerns raised by my colleagues, the members for Narungga, Kavel and Davenport, in relation to the Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill 2018. I have stated in this house that I am proud to be member of the Marshall Liberal government, a government that has a great many runs on the board in demonstrating that our regions matter. Our government has listened to the people of my electorate of MacKillop in enshrining a ban on fracking in the South-East. The government has cut payroll taxes and reduced emergency services bills. These changes have been needed and are taking great steps to restore the confidence of business across the state and, importantly, in regional South Australia.

It is with regional South Australia in mind that I oppose the bill in its current format. It is my view that, on this occasion, we are moving forward with a bill that mirrors the one that was composed under the previous Labor government—a government that clearly did not have the interests of the farming community or regional communities on their radar. The Liberal Party has picked up the Labor Party mining bill changes and has kept 95 per cent of its intention. It is a bill that would have benefited from a more substantial review and community engagement undertaken under the new Marshall Liberal government. What I really like about our new Liberal government and what we promised prior to the election is our promise to underpromise and overdeliver—and the bill here today just does not cut it.

Landowners are small family business owners and have always seen the Liberal Party as their ally. Prior to the election, the Liberal Party promised consultation on a Labor government problem. I would like to see us as a government ensure that a consultation process is undertaken that welcomes the perspectives of mining businesses and the farming sector. Through the correspondence that comes through my electoral office, I am acutely aware that people are now raising matters with the Marshall Liberal government on which they could not previously get any traction under the former Labor government.

In considering the earlier draft of this bill, I am aware that regional constituents raised a great many points during consultation, seeking to improve the Mining Act to bring balance between farmers and mining companies. I suspect there could have been a great many more issues raised, had it not been that our regional constituents were so disillusioned with legislative amendment processes and government decision-making that were a product of not being listened to during the entire period that the other side was in government. Had our government initiated additional consultation, evaluation and meaningful consideration outcomes, I am confident that we would have found ourselves with a bill that provided a more balanced approach to access to land on which mining is proposed to occur.

As I have previously stated in this house, I am very supportive of the mining sector and recognise its importance to the state. Mining should not be thought of as the enemy of regional South Australia. We simply need to ensure that the rights of both parties are fairly treated and managed in an even-handed way. I would like to support the constituents of Narungga in relation to the status of freehold property. Like many other members of this house, I have received many emails raising concerns about the need to delay the consideration of this bill and further engagement.

I am aware that the appeals process under the Mining Act appears to be stacked against the farmer-landowners: mining companies have a very successful track record in court in the appeals process against the designation of exempt land. A fair process is required to enable landowners to operate on a more level playing field. We as a new government need to take ownership and bring new ideas and opportunities for the next generation of legislation. A more extensive consultation process would have facilitated this. We have missed an opportunity to reduce the red tape involved in the Mining Act, missed an opportunity to bring greater transparency and balance to the rights of landowners under the act and missed the opportunity to include fit-for-purpose conditions for mining development that make it more straightforward to proceed, particularly for small-scale mining activities.

My opposition to the bill as currently drafted is associated with a lack of consultation and missed opportunities. The Mining Act in its current form does not well differentiate between different scales of mining, and small-scale enterprises are a case in point. Very early on in the process, I heard from local constituents and businesses that were into earthmoving that, when they raised rubble, sand for cement, gypsum, dolomite and those sorts of things that are extracted in the Limestone Coast area, any sort of mining development was like starting out a whole new Roxby Downs project.

These are projects that fit under 100,000 cubic metres or 100,000 tonnes. The red tape for these small earthmoving businesses makes it so difficult that most of them just say it is too hard. In fact, I learned the other day that mines in the Limestone Coast were closed down for environmental reasons, such as vegetation. In my region, we are now going into Victoria to seek the same deposits, minerals, gravel and the like, because our state is so hard to deal with under our current Mining Act.

There is a case to consider for the smaller end mining operations, that is, mining that extracts less than 100,000 tonnes per annum, to be subject to less onerous requirements. Currently, the ministerial determinations are suitable for large developments but too complex and onerous for smaller enterprises. It is small-scale mining of this type that operates in a range of rural locations for activities, such as small-scale sand mining or rubble raising. These activities bring local benefits through the use of local contractors to smaller, regional mining activities.

Smaller activities, such as the preparation of pads for silos and grain bunkers, are getting caught up in the Mining Act requirements. This lacks common sense. There should be some inclusion of special requirements to enable these activities to proceed unencumbered by weighty regulatory requirements. Revision of the mining act could have created a pathway for assessment and compliance that is simple and commensurate with the scale and risks associated with the mining activities.

Consideration of existing land uses is an area that could be considered. Currently, land cover, such as bracken fern, being picked up is a requirement for the special environmental benefit payments for small mining enterprises. Current practices, such as grazing of the land, are not considered. Any new application for mines brings a more onerous requirement for the landowner and proponent.

A small earthmoving business in my region told me that they have to deal with two levels of environmental bureaucracy. They work through the Department for Environment and Water and get permission in that format, but they have another environmental aspect in the Mining Act they have to work through as well. It is a double layer. These are but a few of the types of issues and improvements that could be made to the mining sector that would support the reduction of red tape.

Our regions are our state's food bowl. We need to ensure that the provisions of the Mining Act look out for key regions that are important to the state's clean, green food image. The state's tourist wine and food regions need to be recognised as important and appropriate provisions and safeguards put in place to ensure mining activity does not detract from the very values upon which this tourism is based. There will be places where agriculture can coexist with intensive agriculture, but safeguards need to be in place so this can happen.

We need to look at the bigger picture, at the longer term sustainability of farming across the state. We cannot afford to lose any more of our prime agricultural land. The expansion of urban sprawl encroaching on agricultural operations and the growth of lifestyle farming, also encroaching on good quality agricultural land, are already pressures facing our agricultural sector. Granted, these are market-based drivers that provide some choice for landowners; however, continuing to operate with inequitable provisions that enable mining companies to continue to successfully appeal exemptions under the Mining Act simply adds pressure and stress to farming families and businesses.

Protecting arable land, changing land use and the intensification of agriculture are key issues for farming business in light of the potential loss of their land to mining. We have seen good evidence of fast-paced changes in land prices and technology. Land values double every 10 years and more quickly in recent times. If you sell out to a mining company and wish to reinvest, you have to act quickly before land prices leave you behind after recent price surges.

The continuation of successful appeals to exempt land under the Mining Act also leaves farms vulnerable. There is often limited ability for farms to reinvest in the acquisition of land close to their farm in an effort to replace like for like. Good quality land is tightly held, making it harder to trade out and in. The more successful the region, the harder it is for businesses to relocate or find like for like. Mining opened up Australia to agriculture and still has a role to play. The pastoral regions are trying to attract mining as it builds infrastructure and brings people to remote areas with water, roads and communications. The Mining Act includes provisions that still enable this exploration and mining activity to occur.

With the difficulty that we as a government face with this bill, I would like to explain the land use issues and how they reach from one pole to another. If a resource were found in the North Adelaide Parklands of Adelaide and it were deemed feasible to mine, would it be acceptable to dig up those Parklands to mine that resource and do everything it would do to the city—dwellers, residents, transport and so forth—because it was a rich resource?

I know that is on the far end of the spectrum and will probably never play out but, on the other end of the spectrum, I can take you 300 or 400 kilometres beyond Port Augusta and you will be welcomed with open arms regarding any sort of mining activity in these regions. In between those two ends of the spectrum, this government has to find its way to where it is going to protect and look after the community and what it values and then open up the opportunities that mining brings.

When you go beyond the suburban fringe—which is the easy thing to do because there are a lot of votes involved in the urban fringe—you start getting into hobby farms, lifestyle farms and then intensive agriculture like vineyards and land with tourism appeal, be it vineyards/winery/lunch and restaurants and perhaps even motels. Then you go beyond that into more agricultural operations, be they farming, crops and so forth, and livestock, and it all becomes easier and easier to go mining the further we get away from our city centres. This is where the important part of the balance comes into play.

Where is it acceptable to put a mine right alongside a vineyard that tries to encompass everything a vineyard is about—clean, world-quality wine, food, a tourist attraction—and then, for example, on the flipside, only metres away they say, we can open up an old mine? This is the dilemma that government, any government, will have to work through and find the balance, and this is what I am talking about today: I do not think this mining bill has encompassed this balance. It has not gone out seeking consultation on this issue and it needs to hear from the community as to where the answers lie.

Coming back to our food production in this state and meeting the world's need for food, we know that we are no longer just a product: we are a niche market. Niche markets are about providing food of the highest quality in the world so that we can return or receive the highest premiums for our food. One of the growers and landowners on Yorke Peninsula said, 'We are trying to grow the world's best wheat, the world's best lentils and the world's best grains.' So does it fit—and I only say 'does it?' I ask the question: does it fit to have a copper mine right alongside that scenario? That is the question, and this is why I say that consultation is absolutely key.

I also highlight that I probably would not be here today without a mining industry. My forebear arrived in Australia in about the 1860s and headed to Burra to go mining. He found himself very bad at it, so he did not stay mining. But we were there, we actually attempted it and we lived off the miners because we discovered livestock, fencing and digging for water, and they were the three key elements that gave us the legs into the sheep industry that we currently run today.

Since then, our pastoral pursuits have benefited immensely from the mining operations of South Australia and what mining has brought to South Australia in infrastructure, roads, communications and water. We will continue to do that because there are still minerals out on our pastoral lands waiting to be explored, waiting to be found and waiting to have that value encompass that resource; some of the resources are not ready for mining yet because it does not stack up, but they are there.

We need a mining act that reduces red tape. We need a mining act that brings greater transparency and greater balance to the rights of landowners. We need a mining act that includes fit-for-purpose conditions for mining development that will make it more straightforward, particularly for small-scale mining activities to proceed. This will in turn support businesses in our regions to add value to mining operations.

It is my view that we need a process to review the Mining Act that is consultative and engages the people of South Australia in a discussion that values prime agricultural land. Until we have that engagement and robust discussion that bring balance and fairness, we will not have a Mining Act that will stand us in good stead for South Australia's future.

I congratulate our party and I congratulate our minister on trying to work with this bill. He has not taken the bill exactly from the old government and thrown it back out for the government to take in its entirety. There are changes. He has tried to bring some changes of metreage and moneys for the appeals process through the courts. They are all positive steps and I welcome them. They show intent—and a very good intent—to try to do the right thing, but they are very, very superficial.

When you talk about going to court and challenging a multinational mining company, $2,000 does not give you even 10 minutes in a court. This is what we are up against as farmers, small businesses and small family businesses. Although I think our intent is very noble, it does not go very far at all. On that basis, I am unable to support the Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill 2018 in its current form.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (12:46): I rise to make comment on the Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill 2018 and register my grave concerns with the imbalance of power between mining companies and farmers. In fact, listening to the member for MacKillop, I wholeheartedly endorse every aspect of his speech. I thought it was very well done.

One of the biggest threats to farming today is the loss of valuable farming land. This can be attributed to mining but also to the loss of landowners' legal rights in relation to this issue. It beggars belief that anyone in this room would tolerate a company coming onto their property without asking and not having any say in when and how that company operates or what is taken from their land. For the majority of us, this scenario is inconceivable, yet this is exactly what is going on in my part of the state, the seat of Mount Gambier.

Last week, the member for Narungga told us of a family farming couple in his electorate who went to court for two years over access to their farmland. I would like to make mention of a family in my electorate who are in this situation: Gordon Walsgott and his son Jason. The Walsgotts are fourth-generation farmers who have a long history in the Limestone Coast. Since 1992, a mineral lease has allowed a company to mine for dolomite on the Walsgotts' property at Compton. The lease has been renewed three times for different time periods of five and seven years.

The Walsgotts have engaged lawyers to battle the mining company over the lease being renewed again and again, arguing that multiple breaches of the Mining Act and the lease terms mean that the lease should not be renewed. They said that the quarry has been mined to five times the depth that was initially agreed upon. Mining has been carried out just 400 metres from the Walsgotts' home and just 150 metres from an underground well, which is supposedly exempt land. Piles of waste lie on their property, which has been taken over by noxious weeds and feral animals.

Since 2009, the site has lain dormant. The Walsgotts say that the site has not been remediated at all. I can confirm this because, going through my records, it was in 2014 that I wrote to the then minister for mineral resources and energy, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, highlighting their concerns and on 16 December got a reply.

At the change of party at the last state election, I wrote to the now Minister for Energy and Mining on 16 August 2018 and highlighted these same concerns. I just want to read through what was actually written:

Dear Minister

I am writing to you on behalf of a constituent Mr Gordon Walsgott.

Mr Walsgott has property on the edge of Mount Gambier that he leases out for the purpose of mining Agricultural Dolomite.

In accordance with the attached statement of proposed mining, [mining company] was approved to mine to a depth of 4 metres. Mr Walsgott is concerned that this site has been over mined to a depth of approximately 25 metres deep and mining has been undertaken in close proximity to the Walsgott residential home. There have been numerous breaches of the terms of the mining lease as per attached Independent Expert's Report. We understand the mining lease expired on the 2nd February 2018.

Due to the various breaches, lack of mining activity for the past seven years and the lack of remedial work to rehabilitate the land, Mr Walsgott requests that the mining lease not be renewed.

Unfortunately, after that letter, the Walsgotts came into my office and indicated that the department has approved a new licence for that mine. That is the imbalance that I am talking about. This family has been, with lawyers in courts, battling the mining company over the lease continually being renewed. Let me tell you that $2,500 is certainly nowhere near the cost that they have experienced due to no fault of their own, just wanting to farm their own land.

They are concerned about erosion and the safety of the walls of the quarry, which is now a quarry on their land. An independent expert said:

…works conducted are examples of some of the worst mining practices observed in over 50 years of [his] mining experience.

Despite all of this, just two months ago the lease was approved for an additional 10 years. A letter from the Department for Energy and Mining says:

In considering the application to renew ML5779, the Department took the view that, having regard to all the circumstances of this matter, the existing compliance issues did not warrant non-renewal of the tenement.

You can imagine how powerless the Walsgotts felt. A farmer's land is their pride and joy. Now the Walsgotts look out their window and all they see is an open quarry and damage to their property—their freehold property.

The stress and anxiety that this ongoing battle has caused the Walsgotts is significant. To make matters worse, they have no idea when the trucks are going to come rumbling through their gates again. As I said before, the Walsgotts first came to me about this matter in 2014, and I raised it with the then minister for mineral resources development, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis. I would like to read the final paragraph of the letter that I received on 30 September, which says:

Consideration by the Department of an application for renewal of ML5779 is on hold until proceedings before the Warden's Court concerning access to ML5779 can be determined. If the Warden's Court confirms or grants access to ML5779, then the Department will consider whether the lease should be renewed.

On 16 November, I again wrote to the minister asking why this lease was recently renewed for a further 10 years when there have been ongoing breaches of the Mining Act. I have received no response to these questions as yet.

There are plenty of questions the Walsgotts want, and I believe deserve, answers to. When will they be able to access their own land again? How can they plan for the future? What impact will this have on their property's value? Most importantly, what are their rights? Stories like this are firm evidence that landholders need a voice in this process, independent of the minister or the developer.

The state government needs to act in the interests of landowners, and the balance of power needs to be restored. We have a duty to represent our electorates, and the people in my electorate are telling me they want the right to refuse mining or exploration on their land. The Mining Act was introduced in 1971 and, as it now stands, does not make clear the rights of farmers when it comes to exploration on their land.

The review process and amendments are a step in the right direction by the state government, but we need to ensure that this act represents the interests of and, above all, is fair to South Australian landholders. Our state's future farmers depend on it. Community consultation may have been conducted but certainly not in my electorate, and certainly not concerning the Walsgotts, who would love to sit down and have their input into this part of legislation.

Our farmers are facing an increasing number of issues, including weather, fluctuating commodity prices, urban encroachment and drought, just to name a few. They have a lot of things to worry about and, more so, they want to know whether a mining representative is going to walk through their door with an agreement in their hand. Most farmers I know would rather be out working the land and putting food on the table than dealing with legislation. That is our job as MPs, and the people of my electorate are telling me that they want the right to refuse a mining company access to their land.

In the case of existing leases, South Australian landholders should also have the right to veto the renewal of a mining lease on their property, particularly if conditions are not being met as agreed. Yesterday, I listened to an interview on the ABC's Country Hour with Grain Producers SA Chair, Wade Dabinett, in relation to this bill. His words really resonated with me. He said that the 'balance isn't right' and that 'there needs to be a greater consideration of the impact of agriculture upon this state' and the importance that it holds.

Last year, Australian Conservatives MP Robert Brokenshire attempted to introduce right-to-farm legislation. He said that the legislation was about South Australia 'making a statement that we see farming as paramount'. I wholeheartedly agree with that comment. We need to show our farmers that we value the conservation and protection of land for agricultural purposes and also to demonstrate how valuable farming is to South Australia.

People are very passionate and well educated about mining and exploration practices in our region of the Limestone Coast. Today, I speak for the rights of all Limestone Coast residents and all South Australian landholders. Agricultural land is a finite resource. It is vital to our state's economy. There is only so much of it, and once it has gone or eroded through mining activities it cannot be replaced or rehabilitated. On your land, you deserve the right to say no.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (12:57): In opening, I have listened very carefully to the debate and welcome the contribution of members on all sides. At the outset, I wish to wholeheartedly endorse what the member for Mount Gambier has just said in regard to this reform being a step in the right direction: it is just that. It is a reform that has resulted from a considerable amount of work, including considerable consultation, and it is a step in the right direction.

It is a step in the context of work that will need to continue in this vexed area in which we endeavour to balance the rights of those on the land, whose land would be accessed and affected, with those who are involved in mineral extraction industries throughout our state. It is a balancing exercise; it has always been thus. Conscious of the time, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.

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