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

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (15:42): I rise to continue my remarks made prior to the adjournment. Prior to the adjournment, I commenced by recognising the observation of the member for Mount Gambier that the bill that is before the house is a step in the right direction but a step in the process. There is more to be done, and a process of ongoing reform in this area must characterise what we do in this place to ensure that, when balancing the rights of landowners, farmers and communities in our rural and regional areas—some of the most important communities across our great state—with those who are involved in the mineral extraction industries, we work diligently so as to ensure that, as far as we possibly can, we get that balance right.

To be clear, we are dealing in South Australia with a regime around the regulation of access to minerals. We know that in Australia minerals are generally the property of the Crown and not the landholder, and South Australia is no exception. The Mining Act 1971 has long provided, under section 16(1), that property in all minerals vests in the Crown. There is no mystery about that. The controversies, such as they are that are the subject of this bill, do not concern that matter as a matter of principle. It is not so globally.

There are different arrangements in different countries, but in Australia it is long held that that is the case, and South Australia, pursuant to the Mining Act, has long provided that that is the case. That creates this vexed and challenging question of how best then to manage the question of access to those minerals. So as to underscore my particular interest in this area, and before I address briefly some of the key steps that have been taken to improve the position which previously applied and which are the subject of the bill, I want to note, as I did in my first speech in this place back in May this year, that I grew up very much aspiring to farming as the greatest thing I could possibly do with my life.

My forebears on my mother's side are Western Australian and are farming in the south-west of Western Australia. I was for a time at the end of primary school at a very small school at Frankland in the south-west of Western Australia, and my uncle and aunty and grandparents were mixed farmers in that region and still are. My forebears before them, interestingly in the context of this debate, migrated to Western Australia in the course of the Coolgardie mining boom, so the original cause for them to come to Australia was associated with mining.

Farming is something that I hold very dear, and I feel very strongly that we must do all we can to ensure that we can continue to strengthen and support those who are active in our farming and regional communities. Just last Tuesday morning, I was finding myself in one of those increasingly rare weeks when the day began very early in the welcome rain, bringing in cattle to bring to market.

It has been an odd sort of spring in that we have gone from a very dry winter to a spring when even late in the day we might find ourselves getting around in rubber boots, but it was marvellous to be out in country where I know the last thing I would want is for it to be disturbed in any way by mining activity. So these things I feel very personally. I am very committed to ensuring that we do all we can to get this balance right.

I just make one further general observation. It may be that it is the view of a lot of people in the state that mining is conducted largely or exclusively in our pastoral areas. Famously, we know all about Roxby Downs, and we know about OZ Minerals' work at Prominent Hill and soon to be at Carrapateena and the longstanding mining activity in the Cooper Basin. However, mining is certainly not exclusively carried out in our pastoral areas; indeed, mining activities are conducted throughout the state.

To go to the other end of the spectrum, within my electorate of Heysen and in the former suburb of Dorset Vale, which is now part of Scott Creek Conservation Park, many will be aware of the Almanda silver mine complex, an early, small, someone might say quaint or antique mining endeavour, but something that highlights that there we were with a mining activity carried on more or less in suburban Adelaide in times gone by. So the challenge to get this right is not simply about imposing appropriate checks and balances on mining activity in the remote parts of our state: it relates to all of our state and to families and communities in all corners. It is a very important challenge.

I will keep my remarks brief in highlighting what I regard as a key step in the right direction in terms of what the bill has achieved. Having commenced my remarks on that note, I will step through it briefly. It is the subject of clause 9 of the bill. It introduces for the first time, in section 9AA of the act, a new subsection (8a). New subsection (8a) will provide, for the first time, for an owner of land who has the benefit of an exemption under section 9 and has given to the tenement holder relevant notice pursuant to new subsection (1a) of a dispute in relation to the entry the opportunity to apply to the appropriate court for orders.

The reason I want to bring particular attention to that provision and to highlight this aspect of the reform as an important step forward is that, for a long time, the Mining Act has provided for a procedural regime that is very much driven by the activities of those involved in the mineral extraction industry, those on the mining side, to take the steps that they would take in order to pursue necessary permissions. New subsection (8a) provides for steps to be taken by the owner of land to pursue their own remedies and their own orders in circumstances where they are pressed to do so due to a dispute.

That is a step in the right direction, and it is part of a substantial body of reform that has reflected a considerable amount of work over the early course of this government, as well as work that has taken place over the course of recent years. I want to stress that this is a step. Further reform will be required. Those of us who represent the regional parts of our state, indeed the rural and remote parts of our state, are also particularly engaged in this debate. However, all members of this house should be acutely aware of the importance to our whole state of getting the balance right between the interests of those involved in the mining industry and those who are on the land.

I also want to reflect briefly on the fact that land use across the board will remain a challenging, if not vexed, issue for a number of reasons. We know that the loss of agricultural land is something that we keenly feel in this state. We have a very scarce and limited amount of prime agricultural country in the state, relative to the area of the state.

We have already seen, in recent years, large swathes of some of our best country being converted for use, particularly in my part of the Adelaide Hills, as residential development. That is a development that will remain challenging for communities that are in and around the areas that were formerly farmed as agricultural country.

Whether it be a question of conversion for residential purposes or, in this case, the challenging balance that needs to be achieved between the interests of miners and farmers, we must ensure that we keep a clear eye on ensuring that we maximise, as far as possible, both the productivity and the health of our agricultural land and those communities that live and work on the land. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (15:55): Mining and agriculture are vital state industries. When both industries prosper, we improve our material wealth and our social security. Both mining and agriculture depend on access to land. Miners' access to land must be balanced against farmers' rights and the need to preserve the best farming land in the state. Only about 4 per cent of South Australia's land is suitable for productive farming. Some of that land is in the Adelaide Hills, where there is good soil, high rainfall and clean aquifers for summer water.

I made a promise to my community before the election and I want to keep it. That promise was to ensure adequate consultation on mining legislation. As a shadow minister at the time said, 'We cannot progress this bill until local communities have a chance to have their say.' As matters stand, consultation has been inadequate. Much of the consultation was designed and conducted by Labor. We should not have much confidence in that process. Labor does not understand farmers or farming communities and has, over many years, acted to diminish or ignore their interests. We will always stand up for farming communities and for farming families.

The regulations to this bill, which do much of its work, were received by me in November. It is still November. I cannot effectively consult with my community in that period. I sought to persuade my colleagues of the value of a number of amendments to the bill. Those amendments were not successful. We also sought to have a harvest moratorium on this legislation for a short period to allow harvest to finish. For these and other reasons, it would be better to adjourn this bill to allow more consultation.

I want to place on record my thanks to the minister for working with me and others to develop the scope of further consultation that will allow the passage of this legislation. It is a measure of the strength of our party that we can express views on any subject openly and freely and reserve our right to vote differently from any decision of the party room. That right forms part of our platform and party rules. We are the only major party to afford its members that right. It is a valuable right; it is a right that gives our electorates confidence that we will always represent their interests.

The best approach in politics is to be frank and fearless. My commitment to Kavel is non-negotiable. In my view, this bill does not adequately balance the rights of small farmers against miners' rights. That balance is important in my community. I want to thank the minister, the Premier and my colleagues for being supportive and understanding of my position. I particularly want to thank the Premier, who encouraged me to enter politics and who has been an outstanding leader and friend. I hold the minister in the same esteem. The minister has a difficult task; we respect that. The fact that I do not support this bill at this time is not a reflection on the new government, which is one of the best in the country.

As I said, the flawed consultation was started by Labor and is infected with their errors. My comments are a mark of confidence in the robust debate that is openly permitted on our side of the chamber. Only a healthy, confident party and a good government focused on the needs of all South Australians in both urban and farming communities would permit the open and free nature of the debate we will see in the chamber today. That is also the mark of a healthy democracy.

There being a disturbance in the strangers' gallery:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Finniss, can I remind the visitors in the public gallery that they are to refrain from being involved in the proceedings of the day. You are very welcome to watch, but you need to do so in silence. Thank you.

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (16:00): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill 2018. I reflect on some comments the member for Mount Gambier made about the balance. I am very much in agreeance with both him and the member for Heysen that the current act is not balanced. The weighting to the mining sector is out of weight of what it should be in relation to farming.

Like the member for Heysen, I believe that this bill moves part way to addressing some of that. It may not go as far as some may like at this time, but there are further opportunities. The minister has given assurances that following this bill, if it passes, there will be further consultation and procedures to make sure that we see if we can get a better piece of legislation going forward. I guess my concern is: let's lock this in. Let's make sure that we get this legislation locked in and then move forward so that we then end up with something better in the future. We need to make sure that we do not lose what we have gained in this process.

I have also been a little disappointed by some of the discussion in public. I was at an event on Sunday where a radio personality was launching an art book with a poetry session joined with it. Peter Goers decided that was an opportunity to have a go at the Liberal Party and the way it was discussing this bill. I thought it was unfortunate that he did that in the way he did. I had no right of reply to the 150 people he was talking to at the time. He just got up and made a statement saying that we needed to stop this, and it was a very uninformed view that he had at the time. He gave me no opportunity to sit down with him and understand, and I think it is very disappointing that that has been his approach.

As a farmer myself, I certainly understand the pressures that face us, the pressures that we have on our land and on that of our neighbours. I live in an area where urban encroachment has certainly been facing my farm and put enormous pressures on what we do and how we do it, but we also have the pressure of the increasing value of our land. Can we stay where we are, or are we being effectively forced out by the increased value of our land, looking for future opportunities to get a return on our capital investment because our land is now worth so much that we cannot make that sort of return out of farming?

There are many different pressures. The property pressure on my farm, for example, is very clear. As I drove down our road, which is 16 kilometres long, I did a quick sum: there are seven commercial farms left on that road and at least 38 hobby farms. Commercial farmers have maybe only a third of the total land now; the other two-thirds are basically lost to commercial agriculture. So we have all these other pressures that we have to deal with. I would like to include in future discussions within our party the question of how we can bring some of that land back into active agricultural production because it is important that we do not lose large sections of land to waste in that regard.

The mining industry is certainly an important part of the state. It employs 26,000 people, production is valued at $5.2 billion, exports are valued at $3.8 billion and royalties to government amount to $214 million. We need to make sure that we look after the mining industry just as we look after agriculture. Agriculture is also very important, with similar figures: there are 9,500 farms, with production valued at $7.2 billion and exports valued at $6.2 billion. Both are extremely important to the economy of South Australia, and we need to make sure that we protect them and that we can find the right balance.

This bill goes to improve the act from where it is now. The last thing I want to see is the current act left in place as it is. We cannot do that. The pressure that is putting on people is just unfair. We need to move forward, and I think that what is being proposed does help us to move forward part way but, like others, I also believe that more can be done. I am very thankful that the minister has made the commitments, and I will hold him to those—that we need to go out there and consult further going forward, and we must do that.

It is important that we make sure that we are protecting the communities—protecting not just the farmers, not just the miners, but the whole community. If we make dramatic changes to this act that cause a dramatic effect in one go, we could see dramatic effects in those communities. We could see an exodus from mining, or we could see an exodus from farming if we get the balance wrong, so we have to be very careful and very considered in the way we progress this bill and make changes to the act.

Mining has also been undertaken in the seat of Finniss; although certainly not on a large scale, there are significant mining operations in the seat of Finniss. Mount Compass is a clear example of mining operations that occur right alongside the town. There are three sand mines in Mount Compass that operate commercially. Every day of the week, sand is shipped out of those mines and transported to Adelaide. They have done many different things over the years with that sand; a lot is used for making glass and at times has even been used to replenish the beaches. Those sand mines have operated right alongside the town, and part of one of those sand mines has been rehabilitated into the Mount Compass Golf Course and subdivision, so in time we have seen a significant change in that space.

There are also other mines within the area. At Tooperang, another sand mine is currently supplying sand into Adelaide for glass and operates for about 16 hours a day, with trucks constantly travelling up the road to keep that sand moving into Adelaide. In Victor Harbor, the quarry that operates on the outskirts, next to the Victor Harbor golf course, has recently written to neighbouring residents informing them that it is modernising their agreements, etc., and having those conversations that are covered under this act.

There is also a history of mining in the area. My family had a copper mine on its property at Port Elliot, and most people are probably unaware that copper was actually mined there at one stage. If you walk along the bike track between Middleton and Port Elliot, just before the track departs from the railway line is an area on the left with some old wooden fences around a hole in the ground. That is an old shaft that was a copper mine back in the 1850s. So even right down there alongside the coast there has historically been exploration and copper mining going on.

It is certainly sad that we have this issue where we cannot find a balance that makes everyone comfortable that we have reached the right balance. I am not sure we will ever find a position where everyone is happy, but we are moving towards something that does improve it for the farming community. We need to keep that journey going; we have started that journey with this bill, and we need to keep it going.

I understand the emotion behind this. As a farmer and landholder I understand; my farm has been my home. I understand that for generations farmers have had their farm as their home, and to have these challenges brought to them is very difficult to deal with, so we do need to make sure we get the balance closer to being right. I believe this bill does move it closer to being right. I do not think it is perfect and I think it will need more investigation, but we need to make sure we move that way.

Within all this space we have to recognise that compromise is needed. There will be a need for some compromise, and there will be a need for some give on both sides, to actually find where that balance is. I am very happy to support the bill the minister has put forward, and I thank him for bringing it to the house. I would like to see the bill passed. Hopefully, it will support the farmers going forward and, going forward, I would like to see a further continuation to improve this bill as well.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (16:12): I rise today to state my firm opposition to this bill, the Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill. I state that I will not be able to support this bill in its current form until significant amendments are agreed to. This bill is too eerily similar to a bill those opposite tried to push through when last in government; in fact, I have even heard it referred to as such by the minister, and that alone should be reason enough for people on this side of the chamber to oppose the bill.

I took great delight in driving from farmhouse to farmhouse during the state election campaign decrying the previous government's attempt at a mining bill. Basically, I stopped in at the houses of farmers and made three points to them. I said that the balance had not been achieved between competing land uses, that there had not been enough meaningful and legitimate consultation and that they were trying to ram this through at harvest right when farmers were in their busiest time. Needless to say, each farmer was already aware of the ills being perpetuated against them and were incensed that something so impactful could be conducted in such a disrespectful way.

While I was at each farmer's house, I looked them right in the eye and said words to the effect of, 'Don't worry, the Liberal Party is the party of regional South Australia and I will do my best to make sure this doesn't happen under our watch.' I did this with the consent and even the accompaniment of MPs in this building at that time. Indeed, that commitment remains in writing on the GPSA website, promising to consult in a thorough and meaningful way because the Labor bill does not get the issue of competing land uses right.

That letter was from a former minister for primary industries, and it was pleasing to note his support as the former shadow and disappointing to note that that support appears to have changed with portfolios. That being the case, I now feel obliged to do my utmost to ensure that this does not happen under our watch, and I fully intend to deliver on the promise I made, at the very least.

This new government has done a great deal of good for farmers in South Australia: ESL bill reductions, which were disproportionately affecting regional landowners; the waiving of stamp duty on multi-peril crop insurance; and mandatory farm debt mediation for those in financial difficulty—a great deal of good. Unfortunately, this bill is not one of those goods, and it will all be for naught if farmers are forced from their land because politicians prioritise mining over what are existing, sustainable and viable family businesses.

The timing of this bill is incredibly disappointing. The government is repeating the errors of the previous Labor government. We have scheduled the bill for debate in the midst of harvest, and not just any harvest but a very difficult one. Quite a few farmers from around the state are counting the cost of a relatively dry year and pinching pennies to ensure that they have enough seed to plant in the hope of a better year ahead. The only thing that can make a dry year worse is a storm right in the midst of harvest, which South Australia endured last week, adding to the stress levels for primary producers altogether.

As I said, the only thing that could make a dry year worse is a storm. Those who were not lucky enough to get their crops harvested prior to the storm, hail, wind and all the other elements hitting are likely counting the cost that comes along with that storm. I note more untimely rain today, which has allowed the gallery to be so full. There was no need to impose this extra, unnecessary stress of bringing on the bill, which impacts them directly, for debate while our food producers have had to deal with a difficult harvest. It would have been my great preference if the bill could have been debated outside harvest and we presented a party room paper with an option for a harvest moratorium and time to engage in thorough and meaningful consultation like we promised, but, unfortunately, that was voted down.

Those who know me and those who are starting to know me understand that I do not oppose my party easily, but such is the discontent among Narungga constituents about the legitimacy of the consultation that Labor entered into during their attempt to revamp the mining bill last year—the same consultation that my party has relied on to reform the mining bill—that I feel I must. The landowners of the electorate view the consultation as a sham, with delegates at information sessions there simply to tick off a box. They were there to tell the farmers how the bill was going to be constructed, not to earnestly listen to their submissions.

I remember that even the guide to the bill, the glossy feature that Labor released, selectively quoted from the ag sector. I recall vividly that former GPSA CEO Darren Arney's submission on behalf of Grain Producers South Australia in the glossy report only featured the part of the submission that endorsed a small part of the bill. That suited their argument, not the plethora of objections that GPSA had lodged. It was outrageous but, as I have already alluded to, the former government did not believe it had the electoral imperatives to produce a mining act. They did not believe they had the electoral imperatives to produce one that benefited regional South Australia, but this government does and should produce a mining bill that is markedly different from the one currently on the table.

Unlike the previous government, we care what the electorate thinks. I remain immensely proud to be part of the Marshall Liberal government, and even with the disagreements I have voiced around the bill it is a tremendous honour to be part of a government that cares. I would like to acknowledge the Premier for his tremendous leadership thus far. We need to ensure that we continue to listen in this case. Lobbyists, peak bodies and industry groups are all important and need to be listened to, but it is the people on the front line who deal with these issues who are the most important in this case. In this case, they are the farmers. They need to be listened to and, importantly, they need to actually be heard.

On this front, I applaud the minister, who has visited Maitland twice, on the second occasion fronting a rather hostile crowd organised at a farming forum in Maitland by the Yorke Peninsula Landowners Group. People attended the forum from every district in the electorate, from Foul Bay to Port Broughton. It really was an extraordinary turnout and quite a few impassioned pleas were made on that night asking for help from the minister. A number of motions were passed and, as an interesting aside, the Liberal Party Rural and Regional Council passed an identical resolution recently.

On that night, a number of motions were passed and I was to judge those amendments or motions as having passed unanimously. Certainly, there was absolutely overwhelming support. Unfortunately, the Liberal party room did not see fit to endorse those amendments when I presented them, despite my strongest argument and the clear, obvious will of the people—the people whose support I relied on to be elected as their representative in this place. Needless to say, their views and needs remain very important to me and will be for as long as I am member for Narungga.

The issue of balancing competing land uses is undoubtedly a difficult one—there is no denying that. However, landowners own the land above those minerals, and existing law has it that it is okay for their valuable asset to be destroyed in order for mining companies to access those minerals. An asset that carries value, the prized soil that they own, and, in many cases, their families have owned and cared for 150 years—the dirt that mines grain, if you like, and can do so with certainty for 150 more years at least—is far less valued than the mineral mine, often for a mine with a life as short as 13 years. Only on a guess of what might be under the ground is that benefit of land ownership waived. Even people from the mining sector acknowledge that it is impossible to remediate an open-cut mine, which can be 450 metres deep and a kilometre square wide, to anything like it was before the mine commenced.

The economic contribution of agriculture to our state is a vital one that deserves recognition. Enough arable land is being absorbed by urban sprawl, changing climate conditions and other such factors that our arable land is becoming increasingly scarce. At the same time that is happening, the world population is growing significantly and rapidly. There continues to be an increasing number of mouths that need to be fed and a decreasing land mass capable of producing the food that can do so. I would even make the argument that arable land is as precious a resource, and increasingly precious, as any mineral that can be found under the ground, particularly when exploration mapping shows there is an abundance of copper and other elements still waiting to be mined further north on pastoral lands where mining is a more expected and welcomed activity that has prospered the state for generations.

I note a story in today's Advertiser regarding further discovery of minerals near Carrapateena. That is called 'having your cake and eating it too' when we dig up prime cropping land that is used to feed the nation. The agricultural industry in South Australia contributes 4.56 per cent of the gross state product from approximately 5 per cent of the state's arable land that, by definition, is prime cropping land.

Across Australia, other states have valued their arable land through more legislation of stronger rights for farmers, the same rights I am advocating for today. They do so with less reliance on ag in their GSP. I cite New South Wales as an example, which has 17 per cent of its land considered arable, with ag contributing only 2 per cent of its GSP. Queensland's GSP features only 3.2 per cent from the ag industry, while Western Australia, which is the model I prefer for competing land use, has only a 3.86 per cent contribution to the GSP.

Of all cited jurisdictions, South Australia relies most heavily on ag, and always has done, to fuel its state's economy, yet we are the state that offers least legislative protection to farmers. Why have we lagged behind? The grapes and wheat that feature so prominently on this carpet are evidence of our longstanding reliance. To suggest that that reliance is fading is a folly, and that mining needs to be encouraged because it provides us with growth opportunity is also a folly.

In the 2016-17 financial year, the agricultural contribution towards the gross state product grew by 30 per cent. Our farmers are getting better, producing more with less and creating a wider range of produce. Off-farm development continues to improve as well. Technology development in machinery is astounding. I know very little about the intricacies of farm machinery, but every time I visit the Paskeville Field Days there seems to be a new feature, a new machine or a development that is pushing farming into the future.

There is great excitement in science as well, particularly if the independent review into GM crops recommends that they finally be permitted in South Australia. That permission, if it is granted, will spur on a new wave of research and development in a field that has not been allowed to progress. The opportunities it could create in a sector that has been completely untapped in South Australia are exciting. In my opinion, ag is a real growth area. Its importance to the state has not diminished since this carpet was designed and does not look like diminishing any time soon.

Giving freehold landowners full autonomy over their land is, in my view, an inherently Liberal thing to do. We are the party of small government, free enterprise and individual freedom. There is nothing Liberal about prioritising one private enterprise over another because it is perceived to be more lucrative in the short term. It is inconceivable to me that a government would knock on the door of a generational cafe in metropolitan Adelaide and order them to leave because the government would prefer that a car yard be built for the increased payroll tax it would receive. However, in regional South Australia the government knocks on the door of farmers and says, 'We would prefer the royalties that come along with a mine, so you have to vacate your home and business.' We respect the cafe owner's right to freedom to operate the business, but not the farmer's. The question I ask is: why?

A Liberal government should have no need for a short-term cash injection. This is supposed to be a government focused on responsible spending of taxpayer money and leaving people to determine their own destiny. Continuing to allow the court to find in favour of the miner 100 per cent of the time forces the exemption clause in the Mining Act that was designed to protect him and her to be waived—and at a considerable personal expense to boot.

There is no individual freedom in having your land taken away from you against your will because the government prioritises an alternative use. That said, there are other options in other jurisdictions that would present workable solutions for South Australia. Both New South Wales and Queensland use planning law to ensure that vital agricultural land is protected. That could be appropriated here for use in South Australia, but there needs to be greater protection for farmers. This act clearly is in need of a major revamp and not minor tweaks.

I also respectfully disagree with our plan to push the current minor amendments made to the bill through phase 1 on the promise of a more thorough look at access rights in phase 2. I would like to know why the reform cannot happen in one thorough process. The need for those amendments was canvassed in a grieve I delivered in this place during the previous sitting week.

The Harrop family, who are in the gallery today, have had to put up with an almost two-year courtroom battle. It is a perfect example of a big, powerful mining company trying to wield its impressive power over what is essentially a small family-owned business. I give credit to Neil and Jackie, who, in trying personal circumstances, have refused to be intimidated by the power imbalance and fought it all the way. Despite being grossly in the wrong, in my personal opinion, the mining company continues to drag things out because it can. This is part of the imbalance of rights that we need to redress.

Interestingly enough, I received correspondence from a former employee of this company. I will keep the correspondence from this employee confidential, but I can assure this place that it is legitimate. I would like to read out parts of the employee's email, if I could. I quote:

I will say that their behaviour (the behaviour of the mining company) is not uncommon in the mineral and mining industry. Bullying of landowners, freehold or perpetual lease, seems to be an accepted way to operate. It is only after becoming aware of the situation on Yorke Peninsula and delving deep into the role of DEM and other government departments that I realised that farmers have little in the way of reasonable rights and that there are no consequences for mineral explorers or miners doing the wrong thing. DEM are very reluctant to penalise breaches of the Mining Act and actively provide shortcuts for miners to obtain licences and approvals.

I have worked in the mineral exploration industry for over 30 years. I have to now conclude that many operators in this industry are happy to willingly breach exploration and mining conditions and not fulfil their obligation to landholders. The Harrop's situation is not a one-off. I have to now agree with farmers and keep the gates shut.

These are words from within the industry acknowledging exactly what I am trying to rectify today. There are mining companies out there that are voluntarily breaching the rules because they can, because the power imbalance with regard to both size of operation and legal backing allows them to do so. This needs to be rectified.

Other amendments I have discussed privately with other members regarding a solution to the land access issue fall short, in my opinion. It is my view that it is important that any solution actually gives farmers the ability to alter the result of an approach by a mining company. Other amendments merely seek to frustrate the process more and to drag it out and make it harder. That does not even the balance, in my opinion.

Larger mining companies are still better placed to withstand an elongated process. We can make landowners jump through as many hoops as imaginable—many mediation sessions, compulsory negotiation, site visits, extra compensation, and so on—but if farmers are not granted the ability to change the result what is the point of going through the process? If the result is predetermined, as it is now, the process will only cause greater financial strain and misguided hope for farmers and, at the end of it all, the result will mean they are displaced from home and business.

One of the things I prefer about the Liberal Party over other parties is the focus on making things happen, rather than just talking about things. There is a focus on action, not discussion. If we do not give farmers the ability to alter the result, all the changes are moot. In summary, I commend this government, minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan and the Premier for the things this government has done for primary producers already.

The Liberal Party is a fantastic party for allowing its members to express points of view freely, without fear of reprimand from the party. To constituents and industry stakeholders, for the overwhelming support that I have received from the electorate in advocating for this change, I say thank you. They inspire me, and it is not just the farming community that is supportive. A great deal of Narungga residents who do not farm appreciate what freehold land should mean—an unalienable right to possess that land and do whatever one wishes to do on that land.

I implore members of this place to take this opportunity to rethink this bill. This is an important opportunity we have to have a vision for what the future of South Australia looks like. Let's have a long-term look at this thing, further away than election cycles and even our respective careers in this place. Bearing in mind the wheat on the carpet and the infinite future it provides our state, we need to ensure we care for it.

I note that there is support from the Greens and SA-Best in the upper house to amend this bill to provide some support for the long-term vision. They recognise, as I and a number of my colleagues do, that this bill does not go far enough. The balance between farmer and miner is significantly out of kilter and needs to be rectified. Having the foresight to protect our agricultural land will not mean the end of mining in South Australia. It only makes up less than 5 per cent of the state and there is plenty of dirt up north that would be welcome hosts of mining. We need to be a state that truly provides an appropriate balance between mining and agriculture with fruitful results for both.

I will not oppose this bill at the second reading because I would wish the debate to proceed to committee so that the merits of amendments can be fleshed out properly. Having said that, I wholeheartedly reserve my right to oppose this bill after the third reading.

There being a disturbance in the strangers' gallery:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, ladies and gentlemen, I remind you that you are not to applaud.

An honourable member: Let them clap.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Seriously, you are very welcome here today, but you need to watch the proceedings in silence. I know you have—

Mr Cregan: It's a long way down, Pete. Come on.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kavel—otherwise I am going to have to ask you to leave, so please desist from that, despite the contribution for the member for Narungga. The member for Davenport has the call.

Mr MURRAY (Davenport) (16:31): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and can I thank the members for Kavel and Narungga for their help in calming things down in matters already spoken.

I rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill. It pains me immensely to advise the house that, after considerable research, discussion and angst, I cannot in all conscience support this bill. I will not oppose the bill in this second reading, but I reserve my right to oppose the bill at the third reading subject to the progress of amendments flagged for the committee stage of the bill.

As a former state president of the state Liberal Party as late as last year, and as a long-term member of and volunteer for the party, it is instinctive for me to support the Liberal Party. Accordingly, it is incredibly difficult for me not to support this bill, but I am convinced that, in the words of my late father, I am 'doing the right thing'.

Before moving to briefly cover the reasons for my stance, I wish to pay tribute to Premier Steven Marshall, minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan and all my colleagues in the government. I greatly appreciate that we have conducted matters in a mature, constructive and respectful manner. I have sought the consideration of and adoption by my colleagues of a variety of models and/or regimes principally but not exclusively related to land access.

I thank the minister and my colleagues for the favourable consideration of one of my suggested amendments pertaining to exempt land. Although I have been largely unsuccessful in my attempts, everyone involved in this debate has been without exception polite, gracious and respectful of our differing opinions. I remain proud to be part of a government which is delivering for South Australians and which is being led and run by our Premier in the finest of Liberal and Westminster traditions.

By way of personal background, as a Liberal I love that we stand for liberty for small businesses and for property rights and especially the right to have and espouse a view. I am pro mining and pro agriculture, but most of all my highest loyalty is to the people in Davenport and the people of South Australia.

Agriculture and mining have played a big part in my life. I grew up in the country. All four of my grandparents came off farms. My dad worked at the Kanmantoo copper mine in the early 1970s driving a 100-tonne Terex truck and operating the drilling rigs in preparation for blasting. It was comparatively well paid but dirty and dangerous work. The mine has closed and reopened over the years due to the fluctuation in copper prices. He went on to work for many years at Horwood Bagshaw Ltd and later with Claas.

I, too, worked for Horwood Bagshaw as a young man. I grew up in the town of Mannum, in which Horwood Bagshaw is based. It may surprise my friend the member for Hammond to learn that Horwood Bagshaw also had a mining division in my time with them, making successful underground ore loaders and importing the Liebherr range of construction and mining equipment.

When I was growing up, the pre-Christmas period in my home was filled with frantic after-hours phone calls to our home from farmers from Wimmera, the Mid North, Yorke Peninsula and Eyre Peninsula, placing spare parts orders in order to get harvest done. Drum bars, concaves, straw walkers and my personal favourite, the riddle box, and innumerable other parts were ordered and delivered posthaste, such was the importance of the harvest. I have an affinity for the vagaries and special needs of both industries, and I have accordingly sought, unsuccessfully, a harvest moratorium whilst this bill is being considered.

Turning to my electorate, it has a substantial amount of agricultural land in the Hills area, especially around Cherry Gardens. Davenport is home to the historic Mount Malvern silver and lead mine, which opened and closed on at least five separate occasions between 1859 and 1925. That particular mine, and especially its tailings dumps, was apparently the cause of the moat around large parts of the Happy Valley Reservoir. The moat is designed to channel run-off water, including that from the tailings, which still exist, away from the reservoir itself. Mount Malvern, whilst now in private hands, is four kilometres up the hill from my home. I note that the member for Heysen has also referred to other mines in the area, primarily the silver mine at Scott Creek. So much for the background.

Turning now to the problems I have with this particular bill, they fall primarily into three categories; the first is land access issues, which in particular, in my view, mean that people are not put first. This in turn leads to conflict. Everyone knows that farmers are often preyed upon, predominantly by unscrupulous explorers as distinct from miners, and no-one cares or, if they do, not enough to actually do anything about it. There are no industry codes and there is little prospect of any censure or court action for perpetrators. It is literally the wild west.

No-one, not SACOME and no government department, is sticking up for farmers in their battles or preventing them from being preyed upon—no-one. The members for Narungga and Mount Gambier have provided us with graphic examples of the total disregard shown by some miners and explorers and the complete lack of any meaningful redress. The second problem I have in regard to the bill before the house is its structure, especially the extensive use of regulations and ministerial determinations. I will detail that further. The final issue I have is one of process; that is, the process we follow.

Turning now to land access, mining and agriculture are both vital state industries and have been for many years. This is true today with Roxby Downs and the broadacre farms on Yorke Peninsula and Eyre Peninsula, as it was with Moonta and Burra and farms on and around the Adelaide Plains 140 years ago. Since the 1880s, legislation from this place has always rendered agricultural land exempt from mining, usually evidenced by some sort of test of the use the land is put to. If it was cultivated or had features supporting cultivation—for example, dams, etc.—that land was exempt from mining; that is, being very clear, the state's right to enable access to any minerals on a property was always limited if the land was agricultural land.

Over time, there has been a continuous erosion of the real value of that exemption such that it is now often close to worthless. It is worth reiterating at this stage that minerals on a property are still always owned by the State of South Australia and its people, rather than by the landowner. There is, however, a substantive difference for some landowners. Let's take an example: a churchyard, schoolyard, graveyard, or backyard are all always exempt from mining.

A farmyard, on the other hand, is exempt, too, that is until one of two things occurs: the owner is forced to court to hand the land over for exploration and/or mining, or the owner is threatened into signing a waiver, enabling that access by way of relinquishing their exemption, which anecdotally is very common. The end result is the conflict or competition we see between the two parties, farmers and miners/explorers, for access to land. That conflict persists with this bill.

Additionally, there is an argument made to support the status quo insofar as land access is concerned, which states that the state owns the minerals and therefore farmers should always give way to activities that liberate or explore those minerals. That is true, but by the same token the state owns any minerals under Rundle Mall, St Peter's, your home or your business. Their existence does not automatically mean that they have to be exploited. 'Exempt' means just that in these cases. Why not for farming land, too? To be crystal clear, I want more mining in South Australia but not at the expense of people, as is the case now. It is possible to get this fixed so that both agriculture and mining can move forward. It is way past time we addressed it.

Turning now to the people, simply put, the people who live and work on these farms are South Australians just like us. They are predominantly family-owned small businesses. In many cases, they are multigenerational, the property and businesses having been handed down from one generation to the other. They deserve to be able to live in their homes and go about their business without being dragged to court or threatened with legal action unless they acquiesce and allow some other group of strangers onto their property. Everyone knows this is happening, but no-one is doing anything about it. This is not addressed in this bill, when, in my opinion, it should be the first item we deal with.

In my maiden speech in this place, I set myself a standard of: 'If not us, then who? If not now, then when?' If this were happening in suburban Adelaide—people being harassed in their homes, lied to or threatened—there would be an uproar. This behaviour is a direct result of the existing act, and the new one will, if anything, make life harder for these farmers in my opinion. The vote on this bill is therefore, in my view, a vote on whether these farmers, these South Australians, deserve better. I think they do and I will vote accordingly.

Moving to the structure and the consideration of the bill, I think that many of the provisions in the old act will now be moved into either regulations or ministerial determinations under this new bill. This effectively means that whoever is in the minister's chair will have greater discretion, but with that come less accountability and transparency. Changes are far easier to make. Today's debate shows the value of parliament operating as intended: an open battle of ideas conducted by people representing the rights of their constituents. That is our job description.

A move to devolve much of the machinery of the act to regulations, especially many of the provisions pertaining to land access, decreases transparency. It effectively removes those provisions from parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. By way of example, the steps required under the new act to cancel a waiver that has been granted—that is to say, cool off on the waiver—are enshrined in the current act. Under the new act, they are removed and will instead be embedded into the regulations. They are harder to find, subject to change, and therefore harder to do. What a surprise!

I move now to the question of process: perception is reality. There is a strong belief in sectors of the community that there have been insufficient consultation and insufficient time to consult on matters regarding the bill. This is obviously a subjective metric, but I reiterate: perception is reality. My preference is that we will consult further, if only to address those perceptions. If we must have much of the detail of the new act buried in regulations, let us consult on all those, too.

Finally, insofar as next steps are concerned, I will continue to seek to work productively with the minister and other stakeholders to seek to improve this bill, particularly provisions and associated remedies which improve the equality of treatment of all landowners. I am encouraged in this regard by discussions with the minister and the prospect of further legislative developments pertaining to this matter. I will continue to put my constituents and the broader South Australian community first. I came to this place to get things done and to do what I perceive to be right. I shall continue to seek to do, as my father instructed, the right thing.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:45): I rise to support the Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill 2018. The debate is not dissimilar to the debate we had with the deregulation of the barley market in this house.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: I voted the right way.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you. I mention that because we are the party that has the freedom to speak out and for people to put the point of view of their electorates, and I absolutely respect that.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: So do we.

Mr PEDERICK: Sorry, I do laugh at the shadow minister's comment, 'So do we.'

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order in the house! The member for Hammond has the call and will be heard in silence.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you. The last time I looked, the Labor Party spoke as one. Perhaps they have had a road to Damascus moment, although I doubt it.

I do support the bill. I support it because this is actually an improvement on a mining act that goes back to the early 1970s. I struggle with the fact that we have people willing to challenge this legislation. I respect that, as I said before, but the simple fact is that this is an improvement: it is an improvement regarding land access and it is an improvement regarding the time for people to be allowed to communicate, whether it is the mining company or the farmer. There is a whole range of improvements, and a whole range of improvements will come over time with the second and third phases of legislative change in relation to access to our minerals in this state.

I think the very important thing we must remember here is that the Crown owns the minerals. I speak as a fifth-generation farmer, if anyone has any doubts. My family came out here in 1840 and farmed at Plympton. What happened there? Urban encroachment. They went out to Angle Vale. In 1939, my grandfather lost a patch for the weapons dumps through compulsory acquisition. In 1950, he lost some more land to the Edinburgh RAAF Base.

When my father moved to Coomandook, I think he thought he had probably seen all the compulsory acquisition for a little while. In the early 1970s, they decided to move the Dukes Highway and we had 7½ acres, in the old language, bought off us, but we were well compensated: it was about 2½ times the value and had some new fencing. That is not directly part of access arrangements under the Mining Act, but we have certainly been impacted. Certainly, the urban encroachment I believe has had 1,000 times more impact on farmland in this state than mining has; in fact, mining is said to cover no more land than the footprint of the hotel car parks in this state.

A lot of misinformation gets out there, and I have heard stories that whole tracts of land will be mined. A very good friend of mine, a knowledgeable man—I will not identify him—said, 'They will dig up the whole of Yorke Peninsula.' I said, 'It just won't happen. It's just not feasible on a range of levels.' They are struggling even to get their money to dig the hillside. The mining company own that land, and the chance of a second mine at that level in a hundred years is extremely minimal. There is also a real issue with people who think that they can just block the Crown out.

Like many farmers' sons, I come from a background of needing the opportunity to head off to work in the industry. Another brother came home, but I worked in the Cooper Basin for two years earthmoving on Caterpillar equipment, mainly scrapers: a 639D twin power and a 623B single power. We were building leases for oil rigs, airstrips and roads. It was a great job and a great way to introduce life in the desert to a 19 year old.

A year later, I worked for Gerhardt Australia and was involved in fracturing oil wells and wireline testing. I say that because some people seem to think that it is okay to mine up north of the Goyder line but nowhere south of that. The water resources in the north, the Artesian Basin, are very precious. We had the practice of not only low-volume fracking for oil and gas up there but unconventional fracturing is happening now and station owners can still access untarnished water. I put that out there by way of background.

I want to talk about the mines, and I call them the suburban mines, either in my electorate or they have been in my electorate. The Mindarie mine was foreshadowed in the early 2000s. The Mallee farmers were having a lot of trouble, but they could not seem to get any other farmers across the state to back them and lobby for them to work out access issues and so on—and there certainly were issues. Before I was elected, farmers dragged me out of a tent at the Karoonda Farm Fair and said, 'You're going to be the next member for Hammond.' I said, 'You're very positive; thanks for that.' Next, there was strong dialogue, and I still have great dialogues with those same people today. That started with Australian Zircon sand mining for zircon, and down the track Murray Zircon came in. That is not to say that there were not some issues.

When there were issues, I was very proactive working with the minister at the time, the Hon. Paul Holloway in the other place, and I must commend him. I have relayed this story in here before: a week before the 2006 election when I came into this place, he invited me to the turning of the sod for the Australian Zircon mine. I have never forgotten that and wrote him a letter when he left acknowledging the interaction we had from those very early days. It is interesting to acknowledge that he obviously thought that I was going to get elected as the member for Hammond. Well, he was right, so that is a good thing.

When Murray Zircon came on board, one of the first things they did as part of that $40 million injection in Chinese investment was to make sure that the rehabilitation was right, and that is exactly what they had to do under regulation. I was a member of the Mindarie Community Consultative Committee, having worked with them before I was even elected as a candidate. It was the same deal with the Strathalbyn Terramin mine: I worked with that community before the election in 2006. Having a mine within a kilometre of the town engendered strong debate, and I remember the town hall meetings with 300 people present. But we made it work.

For many years, they were very successful in mining lead and silver out of that mine. They have actually mined under the Strathalbyn-Callington Road, but they had to leave enough ore body upstairs, obviously, to make sure the road did not collapse. I did manage to venture underground a couple of times, and I vow and declare I will never be an underground miner but it was good to go down and have a look.

Occasionally there are issues. People did not like the lighting, so I again worked with the minister of the day, the Hon. Paul Holloway, to put in shading so that the lights operated appropriately. Some people think that these miners just act and do whatever they can, but there is dust monitoring, noise monitoring and thousands and thousands of pages of environmental work they have to do. It is amazing.

I have heard the commentary today about mining near vineyards—well, guess what? At Strathalbyn, that is exactly what they were doing, mining near those iconic Langhorne Creek vineyards. The issue there was that the Langhorne Creek winemakers made a decision not to make a big deal about it; they said, 'We can work side by side. We'll deal with this.' They did it, and they did it very successfully. We had dryland farming, we had vineyards and we had mining working side by side. In fact, when there was some dewatering that needed to be done it was used for watering vineyards. It was mining and agriculture working together.

That can happen, and quite frankly I get a bit sick of the conversations that say they cannot work together. It has been proved they can; I have seen how it works. I am still on the Strathalbyn Community Consultative Committee in the member for Heysen's electorate—just because I have history, I guess; I just stay there without trying to encroach on his patch. That mine is in abeyance at the moment, and they are looking at the Bird in Hand project in the member for Kavel's electorate. I acknowledge that is in the middle of vineyards. I have been out there and looked at the program, opening up an old mine.

The gold gets better the deeper they go, and they do not even know how good the gold is yet. If they get down deep enough and keep drilling, it will get better and, from what I can see, there will be minimum impact. There will be a bit of a mound at the surface, there will be an incline at the top and there might be a dozen trucks a day accessing the area if it does get approval. It has to go through all the approval processes, and I am well aware of the work they are doing in regard to working through those processes. I note the member for Kavel's interaction there with his community, and I note the community's interaction with the mine, but we just have to be realistic.

With Callington and Kanmantoo coming into the seat of Hammond, we have the Hillgrove mine there at Kanmantoo, which is quite a big open-cut mine. I recently went on a trip there with Brand SA, and we had people from across the board, people who had nothing to do with mining, who had very fixed views. One of those people—I think he was from CMI Toyota—when we were looking at the environmental offsets that mine was doing above and beyond their regulated role, said, 'I have absolutely turned my mind around on how I view mining in South Australia.' That is very close to what he said, almost word for word.

They were planting trees and doing those environmental offsets to get the right outcome. Yes, it is an open-pit mine and guess what? You will end up with an open hole. There is talk that it might be used to pump hydro if it stacks up, and there is also talk that they are looking at tunnelling underneath to grab those other reserves of copper there at Kanmantoo. Certainly I am working with the Kanmantoo Callington Community Consultative Committee as well to make sure we get the right outcomes.

The local pub at Callington has been shut down for a while for various reasons, but a community centre is going in there and they have been successful in getting some grant funding. Guess what? Hillgrove are putting a substantial contribution to that community centre as well. That is not to say there have not been people with different views from those of the mine owners, but they have got on that community consultative committee and worked through the process—just as I have seen at Mindarie and just as I have seen at the Strathalbyn.

In fact, one of the farmers with exempt land and allowing exempt access to one of these mines that is in abeyance at the moment now gets paid a cheque every year. I remember my last correspondence to the former minister, the now shadow minister, was asking, 'Where’s his money?' So the cycle can turn around. There is also the silver mine right here in the city, next to a house at the bottom of Glen Osmond. I do not know if you can go down it anymore, but I went down it years ago and had a look around. I want to reflect on land use. People say that we would not dig up Rundle Mall or the Botanic Garden.

Mr McBride: You would!

Mr PEDERICK: I will leave that. Some of the best land in the state—and I do not want to offend the good people of Yorke Peninsula—would be under this building on the edge of the Torrens. We are not going to start bulldozing Parliament House because we cannot farm it. It is the same argument. Some of the best land would be along the banks of the River Torrens, as it was farmed all those years ago.

I want to reflect on some of our history and talk about some of the mining in our area and the Copper Coast. It is obviously recognised as a region of this state, situated in the northern Yorke Peninsula and comprising the towns of Wallaroo, Kadina, Moonta, Paskeville and Port Hughes. The area approximately bounded by Wallaroo, Kadina and Moonta is also known as a the Copper Triangle. The area is so named because copper was mined there in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a significant source of economic prosperity for South Australia at the time. These three towns are known for their large Cornish ethnicity and often called Little Cornwall. Kernewek Lowender is the world's largest Cornish festival and held biennially in the Cornish Triangle.

I would like to give a little bit of history about the area becoming established as a source of copper. In 1861, Paddy Ryan found copper traces coming out of a wombat's burrow on a pastoral lease granted to Walter Watson Hughes. Hughes formed the Tipara mining company, which later became the Moonta Mining Company, and by the late 1800s Moonta had the largest urban population outside Adelaide, with 12,000 people, including many Cornish miners and their families, who brought with them their skills and lifestyle. Much of the character of this period was captured by local cartoonist Oswald Pryor (1881-1971), the son of a Cornish miner.

I want to reflect on Kernewek Lowender, the Copper Coast Cornish Festival, and give some commentary about the 2019 festival dates. The Kernewek Lowender Copper Coast Cornish Festival is held on the Copper Coast in regional South Australia, in the coastal towns of Wallaroo, Moonta and Kadina. The region is full of Cornish buzz during the festival week, and the local community welcomes approximately 45,000 people, who join in on the festivities and celebrate the area's Cornish heritage. There we go: mining has backed in not just this state but obviously the Yorke Peninsula.

We have made so much in this state from mining and agriculture, and I note that we can work side by side with both industries—many people from the agricultural sector have benefited from the mining industry—and we must keep going. Yes, we do have to get the balance right, but the issue for me is—and I am not sure how much consultation we need; we could consult forever—I do not think it would make some people happy and especially with some of the words I have heard in this place today. My fear is that if people want to invoke veto, with no rights to minerals that are obviously the property of the Crown, what do we do then? Do we invoke compulsory acquisition? That is not what I am advocating. The point that I am making is: how do you manage it when it is owned by the Crown? The point I am making is: be careful what you wish for.

We need to work through this. This is an improvement on the current legislation. We need to keep moving forward. I acknowledge the work that Premier Steven Marshall and minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan are doing in working through this process. I acknowledge the robust debate in our house and I acknowledge people's choice—and I absolutely respect it. But we must work hard so that we have a vibrant economy that relies on both mining and agriculture.

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (17:05): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 24

Noes 17

Majority 7

AYES
Bell, T.S. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. Brock, G.G. Brown, M.E. (teller)
Close, S.E. Cook, N.F. Cregan, D.
Ellis, F.J. Gee, J.P. Hildyard, K.A.
Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P.
McBride, N. Mullighan, S.C. Murray, S.
Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J.
Rau, J.R. Weatherill, J.W. Wortley, D.
NOES
Basham, D.K.B. Cowdrey, M.J. Duluk, S.
Harvey, R.M. (teller) Luethen, P. Marshall, S.S.
Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G.
Power, C. Sanderson, R. Speirs, D.J.
Teague, J.B. Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.
PAIRS
Stinson, J.M. Chapman, V.A.

Motion thus carried; debate adjourned.

There being a disturbance in the strangers' gallery:

The SPEAKER: The members of the gallery will cease making noises or I will respectfully have to ask you to leave, thank you.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (17:11): I move:

That the debate be resumed on motion.

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (17:12): I move that the motion be amended as follows:

The words 'resumed on motion' be deleted and replaced with 'made an order of the day for 26 February 2019'.

The house divided on the amendment:

Ayes 24

Noes 18

Majority 6

AYES
Bell, T.S. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. Brock, G.G. Brown, M.E. (teller)
Close, S.E. Cook, N.F. Cregan, D.
Ellis, F.J. Gee, J.P. Hildyard, K.A.
Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P.
McBride, N. Mullighan, S.C. Murray, S.
Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J.
Rau, J.R. Weatherill, J.W. Wortley, D.
NOES
Basham, D.K.B. Cowdrey, M.J. Duluk, S.
Harvey, R.M. (teller) Knoll, S.K. Luethen, P.
Marshall, S.S. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S.
Pisoni, D.G. Power, C. Sanderson, R.
Speirs, D.J. Teague, J.B. Treloar, P.A.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.
PAIRS
Stinson, J.M. Chapman, V.A.

Amendment thus carried.

The SPEAKER: Now the question is that the motion as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 24

Noes 18

Majority 6

AYES
Bell, T.S. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. Brock, G.G. Brown, M.E. (teller)
Close, S.E. Cook, N.F. Cregan, D.
Ellis, F.J. Gee, J.P. Hildyard, K.A.
Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P.
McBride, N. Mullighan, S.C. Murray, S.
Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J.
Rau, J.R. Weatherill, J.W. Wortley, D.
NOES
Basham, D.K.B. Cowdrey, M.J. Duluk, S.
Harvey, R.M. (teller) Knoll, S.K. Luethen, P.
Marshall, S.S. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S.
Pisoni, D.G. Power, C. Sanderson, R.
Speirs, D.J. Teague, J.B. Treloar, P.A.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.
PAIRS
Stinson, J.M. Chapman, V.A.
PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT