HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-07-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 November 2018.)

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (19:30): I indicate to the house that I am the opposition's lead speaker on this bill. Here we are: the mining bill. This has been a very controversial piece of legislation. It has seen, without a doubt, some unprecedented events occur in this chamber. It has been nearly 17 years since government MPs voted against government legislation.

Mr McBride: Only because they can.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Only because they can—the member for MacKillop is absolutely right. The Labor Party does bind its members to vote on caucus positions. I accept that absolutely. While I was mining minister, there was no dissent on this bill—none.

Mr Cregan: You were also in government for 16 years.

The SPEAKER: The member for Kavel is called to order.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Energy and Mining will have his time to shine.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the losers.

The SPEAKER: Order, member for West Torrens!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir, I know I should not respond to interjections.

The SPEAKER: You should not.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: But I will say this: this bill is controversial because it does attempt to bring into the 21st century a piece of legislation that has far-reaching impacts. I cannot imagine what it would be like, living in suburban Adelaide, to have to contemplate the idea of someone entering my land to conduct activity for an economic benefit for someone else. I just cannot imagine it. I can only imagine what that causes. I can only imagine the heartache, the pain, the sense of helplessness, the sense of injustice that that must cause in regional communities.

Fundamentally, what we are grappling with here is a dispute about the ownership of mineral rights and freehold land. The Labor Party was basically formed over a dispute over freehold land. Should the government have right over freehold land? If I asked my father that, he would say, 'Absolutely not.' As far as he is concerned, he also owns the air rights above him. Every time Qantas flies a plane over to land at Adelaide Airport, they should be paying him a fee for violating his airspace.

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

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There you go. The government agrees with me. Of course, my father grew up in a very different time in a very different country. The question now for us is: how do we balance the needs of rural communities where mining activity will more and more impact on the activities of farming? That is an emotional debate. It is an emotional debate that there is no simple answer to. This is a complex question.

The problem with legislation is it does not contemplate nuance, because every situation is different. I have said in this place many times previously that, when I was growing up, if you watched movies where someone found oil on their land, they celebrated because all of a sudden they were instantaneously wealthy. Whereas in Australia, if minerals or petroleum or geothermal assets are discovered on your land, it causes a great deal of anxiety and a great deal of heartache.

The question for us as a parliament is: how do we deal with that? How do we create jobs and incentivise the exploitation of minerals that are owned by all of us collectively on behalf of the people of South Australia? How do we extract those minerals, and how do we do it in a way that has minimal impact on families and their livelihood?

There are farming families in this state who have been on land for generations. They are linked to that land. I have spoken to some of those families and, for them, it is not a sense of ownership that they have. It is a sense of custodianship that they have over that land and it must be difficult. It must gall them to see inner suburban city MPs making laws about how this impacts on them. It must be galling for them to listen to people who do not understand how this impacts on them in making laws.

I suppose fundamentally it gets down to this. From mineral resources, we create thousands of jobs. I was a very young man—I think I was 11 or 12—when Olympic Dam was first put into production by Western Mining. I remember the Labor Party being opposed to mining at Olympic Dam. It was the first time my father voted Liberal in his entire life. He voted Liberal, not on the basis that he supported uranium or otherwise. His view was that this state needed to exploit its natural resources to create wealth and jobs. Against the grain, he voted for the re-election of the Tonkin government. Of course, that did not occur. The Bannon government was elected and the Labor Party then grappled with the three-mine uranium policy and we moved on.

But mining has been controversial since day dot, and there is no question about it; it is difficult. It is easier for the Labor Party than it is for the Liberal Party—no question about it. Why? We do not represent as many regional communities as members opposite do. But the reason we are in this situation is because I believe promises were made that cannot be kept. Promises were made and expectations were lifted by a movement of a political party to try to ensure that their base made sure that no Independents were elected.

What we have now is a regional constituency that overwhelmingly supports members opposite, except for some glaring exemptions. The member for Mount Gambier is an Independent and the member for Giles is a member of the Labor Party, but overwhelmingly, regional South Australia and regional communities support members opposite. So when the interface occurs between mining and farming, the traditional base of the Liberal Party turns to its traditional allies and says, 'We need your help. We need your assistance.'

I just point out to you, Mr Speaker, that this legislation passed this parliament in almost an identical form in 2017 with every regional Liberal MP supporting it. Not one opposed it. They all voted for it in the hope that it would pass the upper house and not be an issue at the election. Well, we ran out of runway. We were not able to pass the legislation. Make no mistake: this is Labor's legislation, and I want to thank the minister for doing all he can to pass my legislation. I think he is doing something very difficult. He is swallowing a bitter pill. He is passing Labor's agenda because Labor wants to grow the mining industry. We want to diversify our economy.

Manufacturing and agriculture are not enough. We need to diversify. I know that is difficult; I accept that. It is not what people want to hear, but we need to grow the state. Last night, we heard from three very highly qualified geologists and investors in the mineral sector who talked about another discovery at Oak Dam, adjacent to Olympic Dam, having intersections and grades of copper that are probably the best discovery found anywhere in the world in the last 10 years, Olympic Dam being the best discovery found anywhere in the world in the last 100 years.

South Australia is blessed and endowed with mineral resources. We are copper central. We will overtake Chile. We are going to become the powerhouse of the mining sector in Australia. We will take our rightful place amongst the titans of mining. This bill will assist us to do that, but our constituents must come first. Where we have failed collectively is in explaining the benefits of mining to the people of South Australia. I do not think that what the minister is doing is popular; I do not think that what I was doing was popular. Does it cost votes? Yes, it does—no doubt about it.

Four members of this house voted with the opposition to adjourn the bill. I understand that four members of the government will still vote against the third reading, as will some of the crossbenchers here. They are doing so because they are representing the views of their regional constituents. But sometimes you need to speak truth to power, and speaking truth to power can be difficult. It is hard to tell your constituents that they are wrong. It is hard. I can only imagine the debates occurring internally in the Liberal Party.

I think it is brave what the member for Narungga, the member for Davenport, the member for Kavel and the member for MacKillop are doing. I think it is brave. It is very hard to stand up to your Premier and say, 'No, I disagree. My constituents come first.' What I thought I would do today is talk about where we really are and why we are here. I said on radio today that I think the minister has lost control of this debate, and I do not mean that in an offensive, partisan way. I just think that it is impossible for a Liberal Party mining minister to satisfy the two constituencies he has to serve, simply because of the nature of what is being done.

An example of where we had to deal with that was with WorkCover. We made a decision in 2013 to change WorkCover. We had an unfunded liability in WorkCover of over $1 billion that the state carried on its books each and every year because we were making unsustainable payments to injured workers that the state could not afford. It was crippling business because the premiums on business to meet that unfunded liability were massive.

The Labor Party had to turn to its industrial base and say, 'This is unsustainable. We cannot do this anymore. I am sorry, but we must change this. We must change the benefits that injured workers receive.' The union movement turned on us because they serve their members and we serve the people of South Australia. It was a difficult debate, but we all, to a person, stuck to that agenda. It was not easy, no-one liked it, but it had to be done. That unfunded liability is now gone, washed away, no longer a millstone around the neck of the state.

Here we are now with the mining industry, and we have quite legitimate views in the farming community saying that once we mine this land it can never be farmed again. It is pristine. I have been to Yorke Peninsula, and I have seen the pristine farmland. I have seen it on Eyre Peninsula, and I have seen it in the South-East of our state. The question then becomes: is this an either/or situation? Are we really that unsophisticated that we are unable to regulate two industries to live alongside each other?

I tried to remedy that by sharing the mineral wealth with the landowners through having a royalty scheme to share that wealth with people who have minerals on their land. Why? Fundamentally, it again goes back to my core, which is that I believe passionately in the rights of people who own freehold property and that you should be the only person who derives an economic benefit from activity on your land that you own freehold. That is a fundamental principle of most Western democracies: freehold land and ownership of it. It is a bedrock of who we are as a community.

The question then becomes: what happens if there is another ownership structure beneath that land? What if there is hundreds of millions of dollars of mineral wealth sitting beneath that land, but the life of that economic wealth is only eight, 10 or 15 years? What do we do? Do we say to the other 1.6 million South Australians that we are not going to mine that $300 million worth of gold, copper, uranium—insert name of mineral—because there is a cropping family that runs a farm, and has done for the last 150 years, and it is theirs and it has been handed down from generation to generation and there is no amount of money we can pay them that will satisfy them in transferring the ownership of that land? If they do not want that land farmed, what do we do? What is the solution?

The solution suggested by some members is that we transfer the ownership of that mineral wealth to the landowner, and we do that de facto by saying, 'We are going to grant that person a right of veto.' That is, that individual can say, 'No, the state cannot license anyone to explore or extract that mineral wealth.' Then the question becomes: are we then transferring the ownership of that mineral wealth to an individual? I think in effect you are.

How does that benefit the rest of our commonwealth? How does that benefit the rest of the state? I think the answer is: the same way that we acquire property to build a road. The emotional impact is not that different. Sure, I accept this difference: your home is not where you derive your economic wealth from. When I was transport minister and treasurer, I sat in the homes of western suburbs residents while we were compulsorily acquiring their homes to expand South Road. A gentleman took me to the kitchen to show me where he had marked each and every birthday on the door frame—just as I have done at my house with my daughters—as his four daughters aged.

I said to him, 'No worries. We'll remove these architraves for you and put them in your new house.' He shook his head and said, 'You don't understand. I don't want to move. This is my home. I live here and the state is forcing me to move. I don't want to go. I do not want to leave.' I said, 'I'm sorry. We have to expand the north-south corridor. You have to move. We'll pay you.' He said, 'I don't want money. I want to stay here where I raised my children.'

I have to say it was a terrible conversation and my heart broke for this person. As I was sitting in that living room, I thought about Rex Minerals or Iron Road, or any other mining company having the same discussions with freehold dryland farmers, saying, 'We want to bring an exploration rig and drill on your land. We may find hundreds of millions of dollars worth of mineral wealth, and we'll pay you for a loss of the activity for which that land was used but no more. There are legislative processes in place that will allow us to have access to your land whether you like it or not.' These are difficult conversations and I am not sure exactly how we can ever get that perfectly right.

Any politician who turns up to a public meeting and tells you that they can get it right is lying. It is just impossible. What occurred regarding this debate is that expectations went through the roof after the election: their people were now in charge and they would change things. 'Our blokes understand what it is like to live and grow on a farm, raise a family on a farm and have intergenerational wealth transferred on a farm and they know what we are going through. The Liberal Party will not let us down.'

The Liberal Party was hit in the face at 100 miles an hour by the reality of what it is to govern and run a state in an economy that is worth $100 billion or more and growing, in an economy that requires the commodities of copper, silver, gold, uranium and iron ore. Diversifying our economy into those sectors helps grow our prosperity.

I sat here and watched the government ban fracture stimulation in the South-East of the state and I thought we had lost a wonderful opportunity to grow the economic wealth of the South-East. But the existing landowners won that debate and investment in oil and gas in the South-East of the state is now halted forever. The 10-year moratorium will last forever. I do not think it will ever return.

I have grave concerns about when politicians start saying things like, 'Mining can't act. You can't have this mining activity safely in one area.' That is why we are here today: there are communities on Yorke Peninsula saying, 'Why is it you can ban mining and fracture stimulation in the South-East but you can't protect us on Yorke Peninsula or the Adelaide Hills or Eyre Peninsula or the Great Australian Bight? Why are those communities more important than ours?' That is what happens when politicians come in over the top of independent scientific regulation.

When I was mining minister for six or seven years or whatever it was (I cannot remember the exact time line), one of the first documents I signed was a delegation to approve and not approve mines for the department. Why? You must believe in independent regulation. You must believe in the science. You must allow the science to govern your decisions. You ask the agency independently, 'Can we mine this safely? Will it harm aquifers? Will it do damage to the natural environment? What are the consequences of this?'

If it all comes back that the risk can be managed, the mining practices have been peer-reviewed independently, the risks are assessed by the agency, the agency recommends approval and the politicians come in over the top and say, 'Regardless of all the expert opinions about whether this is safe or not, I am saying no because the local community oppose it,' well, why have the independent experts at all? Why have them governing anything? Why do we not just allow politicians to decide where we can mine and how we can mine and the procedures used in mining? Why have regulations at all about environmental safety or work practices or noise levels? We will just ask the local MP, 'Is this a good idea or a bad idea?'

Then we head down this path where there is no activity. I have not met a constituent of mine who does not think that there should be a local road closed to traffic other than that of local neighbours. It is hard to say to them, 'You're wrong. They have to go about their business.' The number of times I have had to go to public meetings to say, 'Building this shopping centre is good for all of us. Our kids will work here. We will have competitive prices. It is important that we have this development; it will create jobs,' and I get the same people saying the same things to me. I understand their passion, I understand their pain, but it is difficult to speak truth to power.

Sometimes, some politicians are courageous enough to lose their seats over it because they are prepared to stand up to power and say 'You're wrong,' and that is brave, that is very brave. I like to think that I trusted the scientific regulators and scientific experts in my department to give me the right advice when I was minister. One of the most difficult decisions I ever took as mining minister was banning mining in Arkaroola. I do not think the agency would have approved mining in Arkaroola. I think the agency would have itself come to the determination that mining there was not environmentally sustainable and would not have approved or peer reviewed to a point where Marathon could have mined that area successfully.

But I lost a cabinet decision, and I was forced to sign a document excluding, as part of that cabinet process. I voluntarily did that. I was the minister. These are the risks. I lost the debate in cabinet and I signed an exclusion for Arkaroola from mining forever because the opposition, who are now the government, were calling on us to ban mining in Arkaroola. The point I am getting to is: political pressure, ban mining, ignore the regulators, a politician over the top bans it. Fracture stimulation: overturn the regulators, political pressure, legislation in this parliament to ban it. Where does it stop? I have heard that there have been debates internally within the Liberal Party and that there were some members who advocate a ban of all mining below the Goyder line.

If we get to the point where politicians are deciding all these matters, rather than any sort of framework or structure, and we can keep on changing the rules as we go, no-one will invest in South Australia. BHP will say, 'It's too hard to expand Olympic Dam. You keep on changing the rules. If you keep on changing the rules on mining companies, why not agriculture? Why not exports? Why not manufacturing? Why not the foundry?'

All of a sudden, Capital starts thinking to itself, 'You know what? Every time I try to invest or someone tries to invest in South Australia in a mine or some other activity, a politician uses local political pressure to stop it, all the rules are pushed aside and there is an act in parliament to stop it and overturn it. I will just take my money to Victoria. If it's too hard in Victoria, I'll take it to New South Wales. If it's too hard in New South Wales, I'll just press a button on my bank account and move all my capital to Western Australia. If that's too hard, I'll go to Asia.' And then, as the Premier said once, we can just make coffees for each other. We will all be baristas.

The mining industry creates jobs. The mining industry is good for South Australia. The mining industry in the late 18th century and early 19th century made South Australia one of the richest colonies anywhere in the British Empire on the back of copper.

Mr Picton: It built this parliament.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It built this parliament. It built the Railway Station. We were the envy of the British Empire because of our mineral wealth. We have 45 per cent of the world's uranium. We have the fifth largest gold mine in the world at one mine: Olympic Dam. You cannot tell me there are not more like the anomaly of Olympic Dam, of which we have not found the bottom yet.

What is copper used for? We are in the midst of the greatest urbanisation in human history. More people are leaving the land and moving to the cities than ever before—in China, India, Asia, Russia, Ukraine—and they are moving in to suburbs. What does that require? The commodity of the 21st century: copper. We are electrifying our cars and our rail systems. What does that require? Copper. Escondida is the largest copper mine in the world. Its grades are reducing each and every year.

This year, a South Australian headquartered copper company called OZ Minerals will begin production on Carrapateena. The Carrapateena copper deposit has some of the highest grades found anywhere in the world in the last 25 years: 2 per cent or above. It is at a depth of 900 metres, but they have made it work. It will create thousands of jobs and pay hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties to South Australia that will build schools and that will help people in the regions and in the cities. We will use that money to pave bitumen, to build schools, to build hospitals—a billion dollars over the forward estimates in mineral resources alone in royalties, yet we are actively debating in this state bans on this type of activity. We are making it harder and harder to get out.

Many South Australians do not know that we are the largest onshore producers of oil, that our gas keeps the lights on in Sydney and that our copper is leading the transformation for autonomous vehicles and electric cars and building this urban revolution that is occurring in China and India. We are the beneficiaries of that urbanisation. The question for us is: should this parliament make it harder to get those commodities out of the ground? Should we allow people who have massive deposits under their land to choose what that land is used for? This again gets back to the touch point for us: what do we do?

When we formulated this bill, I thought it was a comprehensive piece of consultation, but I accept that not everyone agrees with that. I accept that the grain producers do not agree that when we were in office we consulted adequately, although I was informed by my agency that the grain producers supported the bill. The mining industry supported it. I understand that the then members covering the regional areas who are no longer here supported this bill; indeed, as I said earlier, it passed unanimously. But here we are.

After the debate in this parliament was adjourned the minister conducted a bit of fence mending, I think—to try to come up with a better term . He went back to the communities, regional communities, and started asking questions: 'What is it we can do?' And he is left with this Gordian knot that he has to cut through. How do you please everyone? Can you please everyone? Can we compromise with everyone?

The Labor Party was left with a choice. The easy choice, the easy road, is to support the four Liberal MPs and the crossbenchers who want to stop this bill and we could keep the 1971 act—that is older than me—that still governs the way we mine in South Australia. It is my age; it is 47 or 48. I like to say to my wife that I am 46, but she does not believe me.

Mr Pederick: There's a reason for that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: She never believes me, but then again neither do you.

An honourable member: A sensible woman.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: A sensible woman—yes, yes, yes.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, I'm lucky I married her. Any more? No? Everyone is finished? Good.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There is plenty of mileage in that, yes. She is probably watching now to prove it. Believe it or not, sometimes she does not believe the parliament is sitting late; she thinks I am out drinking with my friends, so she checks.

The SPEAKER: She is not the only one.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am getting back to it, yes, Mr Speaker, thank you very much. So here we are, and the reason I think we have this impasse is, again, expectations. If the state wants to support what I think the dissidents within the government are calling for, it would be a major disincentive to invest in South Australia—a major disincentive. I accept that people do not universally agree with that.

The structure we were trying to come to was: okay, these were the hurdles that were given to me about when a tenement was issued for cropping land. One of the first things that occurs, strangely, is that banks immediately devalue that land, which I thought was a very interesting tactic of the banks. I had met with some farming communities that told me the moment that a tenement had been issued for their freehold cropping land they received notices from their lenders that the value of the land had now decreased and they needed to deposit funds to improve the covenant arrangements for that mortgage. Point one: unfair treatment, I think, on regional communities.

The second point is: how do you run a farm on the basis of a potential exploration find? From exploration to mining could take up to 25 years, a quarter of a century. To prove up a deposit, get the finance, get the approvals and start mining takes an average between 10 to 25 years. On average around the world it is 25 years, a long, long time. There have been exceptions, but by and large that is what it is. If you are a farmer and someone says, 'I've got a tenement on your land; I've got to start drilling holes,' where do you build your sheds? What do you plant? How do you plan for the future? Can you borrow more money? Do you sell now? Who is going to buy it, given that this company is exploring on your land?

All these questions start coming up, and we have to grapple with them. The difficult part about grappling with those is coming up with a solution which threads the needle beautifully, which allows companies feel a certainty and safety to invest in South Australia and protects the interests of our constituents and our citizens. Thus far I have not seen a perfect system. There is not a perfect system in New South Wales, there is not a perfect system in Queensland, there is not a perfect system in Western Australia, there is certainly not a perfect system in Victoria or Tasmania and there is not one here. This bill will not make it perfect either, but it is as good as it can get. There will be improvements as time goes on.

Should we transfer the objections to this to the agriculture minister? Should the agriculture minister have some statutory role to play here? Should the planning minister have some statutory role to play here? With all due respect, all those are about delaying an outcome. I understand the tactic perfectly. You can dress up any tactic you like, but what it is really about is conferring rights on people that they do not have now to stop an activity that they do not want. We can invent thousands of those in this act, but that would be dishonest.

The honest thing that any member of this house can say to any member of any community is that we must share the wealth of this state. Those assets beneath the ground are owned by the Crown and no-one should be able to stop them from being exploited, unless the proponents of that exploitation cannot satisfy the independent regulators that they can do it within the current framework, that they can do it safely, and that they can remediate it and follow all the appropriate rules that we set out. However, to confer on people a right to say, 'Just no, veto,' will fundamentally change the way we mine in Australia, and if we do that it will hurt our economy. If we hurt our economy, people lose their jobs. If they lose their jobs, it causes social disharmony.

All of us here in this parliament—Labor, Liberal, Independent—are working towards a prosperous South Australia. We all want South Australia to grow. We all want jobs for our children. We all want the wealth of the state to grow. I do not want to see a single farming family thrown off their land and miserable. I do not want to see any suicides. I did not want to see any family break-ups or stress. I have seen it and it is terrible, but what is the alternative? Our just saying, 'No. No, you can't exploit this mineral wealth. Sorry, you just can't. It's under a farm. That's it'? we cannot do that.

The argument then becomes: if it was in the CBD or the city, you would not allow that. That is a difficult, vexed question for us to answer as legislators—very, very difficult. What if Olympic Dam was under the CBD? What would we do then? What if it was under parliament? What would we do then? These are difficult questions and they are questions of equity. I am not sure of the answer. If someone does have the answer, an honest answer, I would love to hear it.

In the end, this gets down to the ability of people to coexist. Can a farmer and a miner coexist? Is there a way we can do this? Is there a way we can facilitate both working together? In the end, we are going to get to a point where farming communities say, 'You're making us live with them. You're not forcing them to accept us.' And that is a divide—there it is in black and white. Should we allow a mining company to mine, regardless of the impact on the farming family?

I think local communities have now reached the point where they are basically saying to their elected representatives, 'Look, I understand that you have to do this or that you want to do this, but I'm telling you that if you do this I will be voting for an Independent or someone else,' or, 'I'll join your political party and have you unseated at a preselection and choose someone who will do what I want,' and that is democracy in the raw. Good luck to you. That is absolutely a legitimate form of protest.

There are members who are going to make articulate speeches here, hopefully afterwards I imagine, and who are going to make representations to the parliament about the hardship felt by regional communities, who are going to make the argument about the impacts on intergenerational wealth and intergenerational farming and the connection that they have to land. Mr Speaker, every time you open this parliament we recognise our Indigenous Australians' connection to this land. Connection to land can mean many things to many people, and I have no doubt that farming communities have that.

We get then to the point of asking: how do we compensate someone? My view was that we should share the mineral wealth, share it as a percentage of royalties—10 per cent of royalties—to the landowner. When I announced that for petroleum and geothermal activity, oil and gas, in the South-East, it was derided by community leaders as being divisive, that it divided communities and I was setting neighbour against neighbour. But I have to say that the amount of phone calls that our agency received and that I received supporting that measure was quite large.

It got to the point where we had to consider what the objection was and how we could minimise the impact of that objection, that sense of helplessness that people have if someone else is deriving an economic benefit from their land and they are helpless to stop it, much like the person who sees their house compulsorily acquired to build a road or a hospital or a school, all of which we retain powers in this parliament to do.

The health minister can compulsorily acquire land to build a hospital. I think the education minister can compulsorily acquire land as well, and the transport minister certainly can. We do it all the time, and it is current practice. Indeed, the government announced just a few weeks ago that they will be compulsorily acquiring up to 1,000 homes in my electorate. Sorry, it is not just my seat, it is also Badcoe, but one-thirtieth of my seat will be compulsorily acquired and demolished to build the north-south corridor. If it is a tunnel it will be 600 homes, 400 less; nevertheless, 600 families will be brutally impacted by progress.

Should we allow those people the right to say no? Should we allow them to say, 'Sorry, this is my house. I own it freehold. I have a title here. The Crown is on it. I'm an Australian citizen. You can't have it. You can't build your road'? Should we say, 'Fair enough,' or should we build the road, because the freight links will grow our economy, the arteries of our economy? We have to have difficult conversations. I have to have difficult conversations because Labor voters are going to turn to a Labor MP and say, 'They are taking our homes. Stop them.' I have to say, 'No, I can't. They are doing the right thing and if I was the minister, I would do it, too.'

That is tough, especially if they are friends that you went to high school with. I grew up in the western suburbs so I am going to have these conversations with family and friends that I have known my entire life. People who came to Australia with my parents on the same boat are going to have these conversations, and it is going to be tough. But all of us—all of us to a person in this room—know the benefits of the north-south corridor.

Why is it different for mineral wealth? Why? Why are the citizens of regional communities allowed to use the planning laws or a right of veto or the agriculture minister to stop economic activity, but people in the city are not? When we have this debate about how regional communities are bearing the brunt of this, it happens at both ends. They are difficult conversations with everyone, and we are not going to please people.

When I was transport minister, we announced the Torrens to Torrens upgrade that many of you might have seen. I know everyone in this house has. It is the nonstop corridor from the River Torrens right through to just before Pym Street. A young family I spoke to had inherited their father's house and they did not want to move. The agency did what it did. It deposited the money in the Supreme Court account, they went to court, the agency won and that family received what they received.

We did as much as we could, but they had to move, and they went there and watched their house being demolished. It was brutal. I have seen this couple over and over again at the Brickworks and it is a difficult thing for them to accept—very difficult. So I do not envy the minister, I do not envy the member for Narungga, I do not envy the member for Kavel, the member for Davenport or the member for MacKillop. These are tough conversations as they are for the members for Frome and Mount Gambier. It is very, very tough. I mean this with a lot of respect because I know how tough it is to turn on your own party.

It is also tough to do what we are doing, which I think is the responsible thing for our economy and our state. It is going to cost us votes. This will not make us more popular. This will not make the Labor Party more popular in regional South Australia, and we need to be to win the next election. We cannot keep on getting the vote we are getting in regional South Australia and govern. We need to lift our vote, and this is going to make it tougher for us.

But I am being honest with you. I am not going to turn up during an election campaign and say, 'Vote for me and we will fix this when we are in parliament,' and then not do it, or comfortably watch a few of the members vote against it while the majority vote for it, and it gets through anyway. I am going to be honest with you. We are going to be honest with you. We are going to tell you the truth. We are not going to make promises we cannot keep. No-one is going to stop mining in this state—no-one. No-one is going to stop mining in this state.

An honourable member: We don't want to.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am glad the member says he doesn't want to. I am glad, even though we have banned fracture stimulation in the South-East and that was done for political reasons, not scientific reasons. I am glad the member acknowledges that. Any amendment to this bill moved by Liberal crossbenchers that we are not going to support to change this bill will not be about science, it will be about politics. That is what we are here for.

Mr Cregan interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is completely legitimate, though—completely legitimate to do so—and I do not doubt that for a second. The member for Kavel is right to interject. There is nothing immoral about it. They are serving their constituents' needs. But I think the rest of us, the majority of this parliament who are going to support this bill, are doing so in the greater interests of this state, which does not mean that we want to intentionally trample the interests of people affected by this.

I have no love for Rex Minerals. The way they behaved was appalling—absolutely appalling. With the way that they conducted themselves and then pulled out and did not mine and are going through this new process again, I understand the anger, member for Narungga. I understand the anger of the people who were impacted by them, and I think they are not a poster boy for mineral resources. That does not mean, though, that one bad case should make law. One bad case should never make law, and I think that should be our guiding principle.

I do not know what is going on internally in the Liberal Party and I do not know how many are going to vote for or against this. I am assuming it is the same four who voted for the adjournment. There could be more, there could be less—I do not know. I do believe, however, that there is a level of tension between the minister and the agency and some of those crossbenchers—I could be wrong—and I am sure the minister will clarify in his remarks what his views are about how they are getting on. From what I have seen and heard—

Mr Cregan: You are wrong, Tom, and it won't be the first time.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay, there you go.

The SPEAKER: Member for Kavel, please.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There you go. It is all love and flowers on the government side.

Mr Pederick: Two dozen at a time, thanks, Tom.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Two dozen at a time. They love what the minister is doing and they completely support him, and they will be moving amendments in this parliament to establish a judicial inquiry to move it to a select committee, all safe in the comfort—maybe—that the opposition is voting with the government.

An honourable member: We don't send our members to Siberia.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: True, it is true. The Liberal Party—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: You should read your history before you say that.

The SPEAKER: Member for Light.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They do allow democracy. That is why I watched with interest how members squirmed when I asked them about how they were voting on these measures. There were some very interesting conversations behind closed doors, which I will not repeat because I am a man who likes to keep secrets—unless it embarrasses Liberals. If it embarrasses Liberals, I like to tell everyone what those secrets are.

I think there has been a lot of double playing here from everyone, and in the crosshairs, in the middle of all this, are the people who are affected by this. We have to come up with a solution. The solution is not perfect. The solution is not going to solve all these issues. It will give landowners more rights. That was very much what we were attempting to do. The minister has gone a little bit further, but not to the satisfaction of regional communities, and they will express their view at the ballot box.

That is the way these things work. They will express their views any way they know how: through the local media, through protests—as they should—speaking out about this, and no doubt some of them will encourage members to leave the Liberal Party and be Independents—fine. Stay in the Liberal Party—fine. But my view on this is that I think there needs to be a bigger dose of honesty here and that we cannot be all things to all people.

The reason politicians on both sides have such an appalling reputation with the public is that politicians say things that they cannot deliver. A vote for an individual will not make you any better off or worse off. These things move in increments, and we need to make sure that we guard against populism at the expense of scientific rigour. That is why this country has no energy policy—populism. That is why this state is now mired in this debate on mining—populism.

Populism is also, of course, to be fair to people who are crossing the floor to vote against this bill, representative democracy. I do not begrudge them that. I do not want people to think I am just having a go at people who are crossing the floor. I think they are absolutely serving what they believe are the interests of their constituents.

For whatever reason, the government did not brief the opposition on the amendments they filed until Tuesday. I do not know why. I am not that fussed or upset about it, but I would have thought that if there were an eagerness to have the opposition's support on this there would be a lot more activity from the government. That is probably because the minister is doing his job trying to convince his own colleagues to vote for the bill. I think he has convinced enough members for it to pass. Mind you, he only has to convince five of them because 19 Labor members are voting for the bill.

As I said earlier, I want to thank the minister for pushing this Labor bill. It is difficult. It must be very hard for him advocating and arguing for a bill that was drafted by the former Labor government to be passed in this parliament in its current form. That takes courage, and I give him credit for that and for accepting the fact that Labor's mining agenda will continue into the future, that Labor's plan to grow the economy through a third pillar of diversification in the mining industry—value-adding—will continue. That, I think, is a compliment to all of us on this side of the parliament.

To people who want us to vote differently, I apologise to you now in advance. I am sorry. I am not going to be voting on the basis of hope. I do believe that there is probably more work we can do. I note, without anticipating debate, that the honourable member for Frome has introduced legislation for an independent judicial inquiry into land access. On the face of it, it looks like it has lots of merit, and that is why it is something that we may look at supporting, but I have not yet given my colleagues the courtesy of consulting with them, and I have not seen the details of the bill.

I look forward to that debate. I look forward to hearing the views of regional communities on a judicial inquiry into the mining sector and whether or not it would alleviate some of their concerns having an independent retired judge looking at land access, one way or another, and coming back to us with a formula about how best to deal with the impact on the regional communities and the mining sector. But if the hope is that we will just give one side or another a blank cheque, the answer to that is no, we will not, because we do want our mineral wealth exploited, we do want to grow the economy and we do want to see South Australian jobs.

One of the great things about mining in regional South Australia, which I think is not promoted enough, is the ability it has to droughtproof some communities. I will give you an anecdote. My daughter was born prematurely, in 2010. She was born at 26 weeks. There was a regional family from Broken Hill who were originally from South Australia, and they have a sheep station. We became unlikely friends through the fact that my daughter and his son were both born prematurely, at 26 weeks. We catch up regularly. We both joke that he is a Liberal voter but I like him and that I am a Labor voter but he likes me, blah, blah, blah. We have all these jokes. He works at a mine site in between working on the sheep station. It supplements their income.

There are a number of regional communities where seasonal farmers and their families do work in regional mines and it does supplement their incomes. Regional mines in regional communities have an impact: they help the local economy, they grow the local economy, they improve housing values in the local economy and they create more shopping. They attract potential investors. Most of the miners I know are also farmers, and they often invest where their mines are. When they do, they lift all our boats. I think we do not do enough, as South Australians, to sell that story.

Yesterday, the minister and I organised a function, which I talked about earlier, where we had three experts talk about mining and the challenges and the chances of a mine actually getting up. I think the odds were quite small. There are 6,300 mines throughout the world, and South Australia has 18 of those 6,300 mines. We played mining bingo, which was a vector diagram on the basis of the geology, where you had to pinpoint the chance of getting a deposit. I have forgotten the odds of a successful find, but I think it was one in 25,000. I cannot remember the number, but I am sure one of my colleagues will correct me. They were trying to tell us that this is not an exact science, and every hole they drill into the ground costs about half a million dollars.

Often they will put a tenement out over a very vast swathe of land where there could be up to 2,000 or 3,000 landowners. After a process of elimination and exploration that is not invasive and occurs through aeromagnetic surveys, plant cuttings and looking at the geography, they can whittle it down to a couple of hectares, and the mining and exploration can be less invasive. For the other 2,299 freehold landowners in the area, that means nothing; to the five in and around the area where the exploration is occurring, it means everything.

We are being asked to work out a way we can make all this fairer, and I think this bill does that. I think this bill by and large gets it right. I think this bill by and large does give landholders more right, does better define what 'exempt land' means. I know that the 'exempt land' stuff infuriates people because they feel that if it is exempt land it should be exempt, full stop, rather than allowing some higher authority to then allow access or mining on that land. I understand that. But, again, we get back to the original points that I made.

I can only imagine what some freehold landowners are thinking when some environmental protection in some vast area that is not farmed is protected, but pristine agriculture land is not stopped from being mined, other than to say that we do all we can to minimise that impact and to make it as small as possible to ensure that we do not destroy pristine farmland, that we do encourage intergenerational farming, that we do understand how they are custodians of this land and that we do understand the benefits of father/son, mother/daughter passing on farming expertise on land they have known and grown up on. We do get it, but we have to find better ways.

Ultimately, as I said, we were unsuccessful at the last election, and the royalty program is not in place. I do not know if that would benefit people. I am not sure if the proponents who support members crossing the floor would support that. I thought it was a good initiative, and it was an initiative that was not borne out of some political mischief; it was borne out of trying to work out a way to share in this idea that finding minerals on land is not a burden, that it is actually a benefit for the state, that it actually improves our economy, that it actually improves our economic output.

In the end, we are not going to convince some people, and that is a perfectly legitimate point of view to have. I will not convince the member for MacKillop that fracture stimulation is worthwhile in the South-East.

Mr McBride: You don't have to.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There you go. He is not going to convince me of the alternative, but I will tell you who can, though: independent regulators can convince me. I will always listen to them, whether it is electricity, whether it is planning, whether it is mining or environmental standards. The idea that politicians think they can substitute themselves for these independent experts, who are charged by this parliament and statute to give us independent advice for regulatory decisions, I think is dangerous, a dangerous precedent that we should not allow to continue.

The arbitrary changing of laws to allow populism or local concerns to take away from the greater good can be dangerous and can become out of control. In Victoria, there is now a constitutional ban on fracture stimulation on mainland Victoria. It is in the constitution that it cannot be conducted.

Mr McBride: A Labor government, too.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Started by Denis Napthine, who was a border to the South-East region when he was premier. We have been fracture stimulating in this state since the 1960s. We have been exploring copper since Burra—we built this parliament with it. Again, I caution what it is we are wishing for here.

I wish it was as easy as just to say that we are not going to mine on farmland and everyone was happy. I wish it was that easy and everyone was happy. If it was that easy, where do we sign, where is the box that we tick to say, 'I'll vote for that'? But deposits do not work that way. Mineralisation does not work that way. It is not always conveniently in a desert that no-one cares about. Sometimes it is where it is inconvenient, and that is when principles come up—when they are inconvenient. Holding principles when it is inconvenient is the hardest thing you can do in public life, the hardest. Throwing them away is easy; holding them against public will is hard—not that I am asking for sympathy, I am not.

There has been extensive consultation. I think our agency probably consulted so much that is why we delayed the bill from getting into the parliament so late, because we kept on going back and going back. I am not sure if that was a tactic of some of the people who were involved in the consultation or not. I do not for a moment want to say that that was their tactic, but I do think we did a large level of consultation. The minister did more; he has not convinced some of his colleagues, and that will be borne out here on the floor of parliament.

I hope we can have a civilised debate over this. I hope that members understand where we are coming from. I hope that the broader South Australian community understands where it is we are coming from. We are coming at it from an aspect of job creation, wealth creation, building South Australia, allowing us to take advantage of what God has endowed us with as a state and a land mass, to make sure we can grow our state for future generations.

Of course, we also want to feed that state, but I also point out that we are a net exporter of food, not a net importer of food. The reason we are such a great state for agriculture is because of our export markets, and we should be very careful about the idea of thinking that somehow we should only worry about feeding ourselves. The reason we overproduce is because of our export markets. It has created wealth and trading, and trading with other countries and other states is good for South Australia. It is not good just for wheat and barley, meats and other products: it is also good for copper, zinc, gold, silver, and—the dirty word—uranium. It is good for us, it opens up markets, it opens up food markets, exporting these minerals and mineral wealth.

Every year, I would go to the city of Toronto in Canada for the prospectors and developers conference. It is the largest mining conference in the world; I think, at last look, there were 25,000 delegates. South Australia conducted an event called Vines and Mines, where we would invite every major investor to a night in Canada where we would showcase a region of South Australia, whether it was McLaren Vale, the Barossa, the Clare Valley or the Coonawarra. It was not Langhorne Creek; we did not do that one yet, but we will get to it eventually no doubt. The government will do that.

Mr Pederick: Good.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Good, okay. We were competing with 25,000 delegates to get people to this event. You had the United States holding events, you had Western Australia holding events, you had the Canadian government and Canadian states holding events, but ours was always sold out because we were able to use the knowledge of our geology and our farming techniques and our produce—mining and farming together—to sell the state.

Any farmer who was in that room seeing the passion with which miners spoke of the soils in South Australia—the soils that produce the wheat and barley, the soils that produce our vineyards, the soils that produce the cattle, the soils that produce the produce we are so proud of—would see there would be no conflict between mining and farming. These geologists, these miners, were lovers of the land. They do not want to destroy farming and cropping land. They want to see both prosper together, and I think this bill does that.

Unfortunately, in politics we are pitted against each other all the time and here we are, pitted against each other where it is farming rights versus mining rights. There is no nuance. There is no grey area. Well, there is a grey area; there is an area in between there where we can find common ground, and that takes intelligence, it takes hard work and it takes understanding that we are all in this together, in this South Australian experiment. We are not on our own. We are not a group of individuals. Yorke Peninsula is just as important to South Australia as Torrensville. We are all citizens of the same state. We are all part of the same commonwealth. We have to look after each other and that is why there has to be common ground. We cannot keep going with this us and them mentality because nothing will happen—nothing will be achieved. We will just pick winners the whole time and that would be a disaster for our state.

So the opposition will be supporting the passage of the bill, the government amendments and the government amendments only. I have not seen any other amendments. I have not been asked to support any other amendments by Liberal crossbenchers, so I do not want anyone to accuse us of not listening to the crossbench in the Liberal Party. They have not come to me and said, 'Support my amendment.' No-one has done that. The only person who has done that is the minister. So if there are amendments that come out of this session, we will treat them on their merits.

We are not doing deals. This is Labor's bill. The government is working hard to get Labor's agenda up. We congratulate them for it. I know it is costing the minister a lot of skin, but this is where we are. If there are amendments and members want us to support their amendments, they know who we are. They can get up, they can ring or they can come to our office and speak to us about them, but that has not happened. No-one has come to me since the adjournment and said, 'Here is my amendment. Vote for this.' It has not happened, so I think our hands are clean here. I think our hands are clean.

With those remarks, I wish everyone well. I know it is difficult. I know it is hard. I am sorry to have laboured you for so long on such a long, cold night, but I think this bill is important for South Australia's future prosperity. I commend the bill and the government amendments to the house.

The SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, members and members of the gallery, I respect that this may be a debate that does incite some strong emotions. The behaviour thus far has been exemplary, and I hope that that continues, but I do remind members, especially our visitors and visitors of some members, that visitors are required to refrain from attempting to address the house, interjecting, applauding, conversing, etc. So I just wanted to put those few remarks on the record. But the behaviour has been exemplary thus far, thank you.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (20:42): I have listened attentively to the shadow minister's comments and I would have to say that the vast majority of what he said I agree with; not everything, but certainly the vast majority of it. Some people like to claim that, if the government and the opposition agree on something, it's a fix, it's a set-up, it's a problem, you're colluding, you cut us out. And I have been told that quite a lot in the last several weeks and months.

But I know, and I suggest that every member of this house knows, that the overwhelming majority of people in South Australia say, 'Why can't the government and the opposition agree on something? Why is it that they have to fight? Why is it that they have to create a false argument just to seem like they can't get along?' How often have we all been told, 'Wouldn't it just be better if, where they find something they agree on, let them say so, let them act on it?'

I know that that will not satisfy a lot of people taking close interest in this issue, and this is a very difficult issue. This is an incredibly difficult issue. This is an issue that the previous government did its best on for close to two years. It is an issue that now, 15 or so months into the Marshall Liberal government, is still being dealt with, and I suggest that, given the schedule we have ahead of us in parliament with estimates and no parliament in August, we will be dealing with this for a couple more months at least.

It is not an easy issue, and I agree with the shadow minister that it is not an issue that we are ever going to find a solution for that will satisfy everyone. We will not find it tonight, we will not next year or in 10 years or in 20 years. On this issue we will never be able to find a solution that suits everybody. This is an issue that will be difficult and it is also an issue that will evolve. Farming practices evolve, regional communities evolve, mining practices evolve, environmental protections evolve, world prices evolve and demand for different minerals evolves. This is very much a moving feast. We have to do the very best we can at the time.

We have a lot of people in the gallery here today—people who are earnest, genuine, sincere about their view. The last time that I stood and spoke on a similar issue was with regard to fracking in the South-East. It became our government's position that not only would we deliver on the 10-year moratorium on fracking that we took to the election, which we did implement, but we would legislate for that. On the day we debated that bill there was a different group of people with broadly a similar attitude. On that occasion, I think to the surprise to most of them, they got what they wanted.

I acknowledge, and I suspect it is not to the surprise of most of them, that the people in the gallery—the good, genuine, earnest, down-to-earth, caring people—will not get tonight what they want. I will step through this and explain it to the very, very best of my ability. There are so many pros and cons associated with the issue, but one of the most important things we have to keep firmly in our minds is that agriculture is our oldest industry in South Australia and today it is also our biggest industry.

No-one can pretend that agriculture is not extraordinarily important to our state for a wide range of reasons. It is important with regard to its contribution to the economy most broadly and also with regard to contributions into regional communities, to lifestyles, to environmental protection in country areas that would not happen if it were not for farmers and graziers—a wide, wide range of reasons. But mining is also one our most important industries and one of our biggest industries. It is also probably our greatest growth opportunity from a wealth development perspective.

We have to find a way for those industries to coincide. I know that a lot of people think it cannot happen. I know and I understand a lot of people think, 'I'm on my farm, I'm in my community, I've got my family, I've got my heritage, I've got my work, I've got my investment, I've got my future, and it can't work here.' I do not doubt that when people say that they mean it. I do not think anybody who says that is making it up, but the reality is that we have to find a way. People say to me, 'This bill is not good enough. This is not the way.'

I have said very openly, genuinely, honestly to people for a long time, 'I know it's not the perfect solution. I know it's not the final solution, but in my opinion and in the opinion of the overwhelming majority of members of parliament not only in this chamber but in the government, we believe that what we have to do is lock in the positive work that has been done so far. We have to lock in the benefits that we have now, acknowledging that they are not enough and this is not the place to stop. We have to lock in the benefits we have, take a good, strong, half a step forward, get through that, and then start work again and look for another good, strong, solid step forward.'

I know that is an approach that dissatisfies some people, but I also know that if we try to get the perfect solution, get everything wrapped up and to the best of our ability satisfy as many people as possible all in one go, we will not do it; it just will not happen. Let's take the benefits that we have at the moment, understanding that the agricultural sector wants more and the resources sector wants more. Neither is fully satisfied. Some people say that we have not made anybody happy, what a stupid bill. I say we have benefits for both. We will lock them in, then we will start the work all over again.

It cannot be agriculture or resources. It has to be agriculture and resources, otherwise our state is never going to fulfil the potential that it has. We have been underperforming for a long time. We have to find better ways to do things, and getting this right is one of those very important ways. The shadow minister mentioned his personal challenge with regard to South Road and his electors and his friends, people he would see outside of his work and has known for a very long time. Not that anybody has to care, but do you know what? This issue is exactly the same for me.

I live in a small community in Wilmington of about 250 people. It is a farming town on the outskirts of Port Augusta. A lot of people work in Port Augusta, but a lot of those people who work in Port Augusta live on farms and are multigenerational farming families. I also know that a lot of those farming families in my home patch would not have their farms today if they could not have worked at a mine over the last 15 years or so, let's say. There is so much integration between these industries that goes far beyond what actually happens on the piece of ground that may or may not be in conflict for the use of that piece of ground.

This is an extraordinarily deep industry. I do not suggest that everyone who is farming anywhere in the state—potentially people in reliable country, higher rainfall country, good soil country—needs to think the way people in the Wilmington area do, especially on many other parts of the state where there is lower rainfall, because there are places where you do not need that off-farm income, and good luck to you. That is outstandingly tremendous, and I would bet that every farmer in Wilmington wished they had those circumstances as well.

But we cannot make different rules for different circumstances in that way. We have to be thinking about communities. We have to be thinking about environment. We have to be thinking about the state's economy and jobs and rural communities, but we cannot be saying that because a person might believe they will never need mining in their area that we would rule it out for them. I believe that is a mistake and I understand that other people feel differently.

The shadow minister said this is Labor's bill. Labor started consultation on this bill. Labor brought the genesis of this bill to this parliament before the last election, and he is quite right to say that the genesis of this bill was passed in this house. I was sitting over there and the shadow minister was sitting over here. It was debated thoroughly and it was passed. Since then, an enormous amount of additional consultation has taken place. It has been put to me that there has not been enough, and I understand that frustration. But people say there has not been enough because maybe it has not reached where they want it to be in this half a step forward.

It has also happened that some of the people who have told me that there has not been enough consultation have also asked—and, in some cases, in writing—how many times have we had the discussion and why are you not listening? So I think it is very important, and I say this with respect, to separate 'not enough consultation' versus 'we have not come to the same landing that people want to be on'. I understand that that is a very difficult issue. It is easy to say, 'If you did not do what I want, you were not listening,' and we all know how that can work. But there has been an enormous amount of consultation.

There have been approximately 20 amendments to this bill since the last election, so there has been some significant change to it. Five of those amendments, covering three topics, we will deal with here this evening. So there have been 20 amendments, and it has also been put to me that some of them are irrelevant or inconsequential and do not mean a thing. Maybe it is just the change of a word. Well, fair enough.

However, then in opposition, we were also told, 'You have to change this word. You have to change this term. It's really important. I know it's just about appearances or semantics, perhaps, but we really want that to happen.' Then, when we did it, we were told, 'That's just a word. It doesn't count.' Whoever tells me these things is quite right. They are 100 per cent right with regard to their integrity and their sincerity when they tell me these things. I do not think for a second that anyone is making it up, but we have to figure it out.

We have to pick the landing spot that we think is the best for now and, as I have said and will continue to say, if this bill is passed, we have to get straight back to work to look for the next phase of improvement. I have made that commitment countless times publicly in the media and countless times face to face with people who are very dissatisfied with me for my position on this. I have made it to my colleagues individually and collectively. If this bill passes, that is what I and the Department for Energy and Mining, in consultation with a very wide range of stakeholders, will do.

I will not go through absolutely everything. Understanding that I run the risk of some people saying, 'Well, that's not that big a deal,' or, 'That's a lovely list, minister, but you haven't got the thing that I want on the list, so it doesn't matter,' understanding that some people may react that way, I will go through the benefits to landholders.

There are benefits to the environment, there are benefits to Indigenous communities and there are benefits to the resources sector as well, but this is just a list with regard to landholders. There is an increased contribution from the resources sector to landholders with regard to legal advice about exempt land, from $500 to $2,500. People are quite right when they say, 'What does $2,500 get you?' Not enough, never enough, but it gets you five times more than exists at the moment under law.

The exempt land radius will be increased. Much has been made of this in the media. Perhaps deliberately or perhaps accidentally, some people have said, 'Well, it's 400 metres right now for exploration from the boundary of exempt land. It's coming back to 200 metres. That's a huge backwards step.' That is partly true, but of course that only applies to low-level invasive exploration, which is back to 200 metres, in return for extending the 400 metres out to 600 metres for invasive exploration. That is an agreement that representatives of the agriculture sector agreed to and said that they were satisfied with. It is an improvement for landholders.

The range of courts that can hear these issues will be expanded. Nobody wants to go to court; I get that. It may not be too attractive to say, 'You've given me lots of places to go when I'm really in strife,' except for the fact that people actually asked for a wider range of courts to go to if necessary. People have been given what they sought in that area, and the Warden's Court is a no-cost jurisdiction. There is a new right for landholders to apply for an exempt land determination. This is one of the amendments. We will come to it later, but this was in the bill and it is proposed that it be taken out of the bill.

This is an obligation that was contemplated to require a landholder to prove commercial value of an asset or some exempt land. You can imagine that might be a dam that may not have held water for quite a while, or it might be a shearing shed that may not have been used for quite a long time or is perhaps even in disrepair, just as some examples. The previous government's bill included an obligation that the landholder would have to show commercial value for that asset for it to be considered exempt land. We hope to remove that so that, essentially, the landholder will not have that obligation anymore to make that commercial proof. Again, it is a step forward.

There is free access to information of what is approved over land. One of the things that landholders have been quite rightly very concerned about is not knowing nearly as much about the rules, regulations, rights and responsibilities as the resources sector proponents do, and that is a very fair thing for them to say. A lot of what is in this bill is about trying to get greater clarity and greater simplification.

There is improved industry and government transparency and accountability, updated and expanded public consultation on tenement applications and change of operations, clearly documented reasons for ministers' decisions through preparation of assessment reports and publications of directions or orders for noncompliance by tenement holders. So, essentially, when somebody does the wrong thing—which does happen and I will come back to that—publish the fact that they have done the wrong thing. I think that was a very fair request from landholders, and anybody from the resources sector who thinks that is unfair to them should just stay off the list.

We are improving definitions of operations so that notices to landholders are clear about what activities are proposed and approved. There will be improved notices to reflect the potential impact of proposed exploration activities, making it really clear to the landholder—'Not only am I asking to come onto the land, this is what I want to do and I want to drill a couple of holes, etc.,' but be really clear: 'This is exactly what I want to do and these are the potential impacts of that.'

There is a new notice of intention to apply for a production tenement, with rights to object or progress negotiations. Again, there is more about clarity. People might say, 'That's not a lot, that's not a lot and that's not a lot,' but every one of these are part of the half a step forward. There is increased time to give notice of activity. Again, I hope this will pass in amendment. The current law is that three weeks' notice must be given to a landholder by somebody who would like to access their land.

The current bill moves three weeks to four weeks at the request of the industry and some of my colleagues—again, I will come back to that. The amendment we will deal with tonight proposes to move it to six weeks. So it is three weeks now, the previous bill said four weeks and we propose going from three weeks to six weeks, which is a significant change aimed clearly at giving people more time to consider things, understanding the seasonality that a lot of landholders have to deal with.

There is a new right for pastoral lessees to object to notices of entry to commence activities. I understand that that probably will not be of interest to too many people who are in the gallery today, but it is a very important thing for landholders. There are increased compliance and enforcement tools so all environmental rehabilitation obligations are met. There are guaranteed payments to landholders with new powers to recover unpaid debts and increased penalties for breaching exempt land and notice of entry obligations.

There is the right to use more extractive minerals on the landholder's property. If a landholder wants to get some extractive minerals, typically through a small quarry on their own land, there is greater opportunity to do that on their own land, which seems very fair and a good step forward. There is the right to compensation being protected by clarifying that rent or lease payments and compensation are not the same thing. There has been a blurring of that over time where some resources sector proponents have said, 'I am paying you rent, so that's all okay; I don't have to do anything else.' Well, no, rent is rent. Compensation is on top of rent. We are making that very clear.

Another amendment that we want to deal with tonight is one which again came from colleagues and the farming sector and which is to clarify that the tenement holder, not the landholder, must notify the registrar of an agreed waiver. Again, people might say that is a small thing but it is something that the sector sought. I will come to a couple of other things in a minute, but I want to be very clear about these amendments. The government would not be proposing and dealing with these three topics covered in five amendments here tonight if it were not for four of my colleagues: the member for MacKillop, the member for Kavel, the member for Narungga and the member for Davenport.

Those four MPs have done everything they possibly can to represent their communities. They have come to me with these suggestions. They came to me with some others as well—let's be really clear about it—which are not on the list, but those four MPs are responsible for these improvements. I commend them for that, and I thank my other colleagues for seeing the wisdom of what they have put forward to us and supporting them as well. I think that is very important to get very clearly on the record.

There are a couple of other benefits. We took to the election a commitment that we would give the Small Business Commissioner the authority to deal with mining/exploration/land access disputes, and we have done that. We have delivered on that because we said we would. In quite an understandable reaction to that, some people have said, 'Look, that's fantastic. I would love that her extra help if ever I am in strife.' Other people have said, 'That's great if you are in strife. We don't want to get in strife. Help us before we get in strife.' That is a very fair suggestion to make. We have done it, nonetheless, because we think it is a positive step forward.

We have committed that if/when this bill passes, we will provide an up-front, free, independently delivered advisory service to landholders about their rights, their responsibilities and any other information they are after with regard to this legislation and interaction. If discussions progress, as I fully expect they will, that will be delivered by Rural Business Support, a support agency, which is an organisation with a terrific reputation that is genuinely independent from government, operating throughout regional South Australia.

The government, through the Department for Energy and Mining, will fund that service if this bill is passed. I think that, as the up-front service, combined with the tail-end service from the commissioner for small business, is a very genuine step forward for people so they can understand everything they need to understand at the beginning, and they can get support at the end if they need it. I think those are all important. Some of them are small and some of them are quite big, but anybody who says that there are not benefits in this bill for landholders is making a mistake.

Anybody who wants to, though, could say, 'But it's not enough,' and if they believed that they would be right. So many of the people, hundreds of people, I have dealt with personally, face to face, have said to me, 'That's great, Dan. Thanks so much, but you are missing a couple of really important things that I want, that my community wants or that our district wants. They are not on your list, so your list is worthless.' I have a different view. I accept that there are other things that are sought.

I accept that there are people who genuinely believe it when they describe it to me that way, but I do not accept that there is nothing in the bill for landholders. I have a very strong view and the government has a strong view—not a unanimous view but a strong view—that we need to lock in those benefits and start working again to look at the next list of improvements that we can make, things that we can do to help both of the sectors.

I should also comment on the shadow minister's contribution, where he said that he only just received a briefing this morning on the five amendments covering three topics. That is quite true: he did only receive that briefing this morning, but what is also true is that in late November he was offered that briefing in writing. I have a copy of the email, so certainly in very good faith the government did go to the opposition in late November last year offering the briefing on exactly those amendments. It was not taken up. It was sought in the last couple of days and it did happen today. I think that is very important to clarify.

Much has been made of the internal discussions of the government on this topic and I do not think that is anything that anybody should shy away from, be ashamed of or sweep under the carpet. As the shadow minister said, in the Labor Party you just do not get to do that. As I have said a couple of times today, if you acted in the strong fashion that four of my colleagues have in the Labor Party, you would be sent off to a Siberian salt mine and never seen or heard from again.

It might make us a bit messier, perhaps a bit more difficult to deal with, perhaps it takes us down a slightly windier road to get to where we need to be, but I support the right of Liberal members of parliament to reserve their right to speak and vote against legislation, so long as they do it in the clear, responsible, up-front way that we have articulated in our rules. I respect their right to do that. I respect the member for Narungga, the member for Davenport, the member for Kavel and the member for MacKillop for taking the write-up and using it to the very best of their ability on behalf of the communities they represent.

We have had absolutely nothing but sensible, constructive, cordial, responsible, mature discussions on this issue. Have we agreed on everything? No, we have not agreed on everything. Have we agreed on lots of things? Yes. Are we big enough to say, 'Here are the things that we still are at odds with. Let's come back next week and see if we can flesh it out. We will both go away and get some more information and see how we can improve our position'? That has been a process—and the opposition will be very disappointed to know this—that has made our team of government MPs better and stronger than it was before.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: People in the media like to try to make it difficult. People in the opposition—we have two of them here, cackling away, laughing and trying to make jokes. It is because they just do not understand.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: They do not understand. We would not have—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for West Torrens!

Mr Cregan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Kavel!

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Hammond!

Mr Murray interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Davenport!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: They do not know what a favour they have done for the Marshall Liberal government to test us in this way. Do you know what? We have passed the test.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Audible laughter is out of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It does display a lot about the opposition to listen to that. I thank my colleagues who have supported me or agreed on our position all the way through this debate. I thank my colleagues who have not agreed or supported me all the way through this debate. This is not something that we are scared of or that we worry about. In another year or whenever it is, there will be another topic and there will be another small group who say, 'This isn't quite right.' We will work it out and we will know how to do it even better on that occasion than we do already.

One of the ways the resources sector suffers is caused by a bottom-end tail, overwhelmingly in the exploration side of the business, that does not do what it should do. That has to change. I often say mining, in the public opinion, is not like cars. If you buy a Commodore and you are totally dissatisfied, you can drive a Falcon for the rest of your life or vice versa. You move on, you find what you like and you find what you do not like.

If a bad operator turns up at your property, knocks on your door and says, 'I want to get access to your land,' or do this and this, and they do it completely the wrong way, and that landholder or that group of landholders have a bad experience out of that, get treated inappropriately or badly, guess what? In those people's minds the whole mining industry has been tarnished. It is quite natural and quite understandable.

The person does not say, 'Well, here is a dodgy operator. I'm going to make sure next time I'm dealing with good ones.' All of a sudden you get one dodgy operator from interstate coming and scratching around on your land and, in people's minds, BHP is blemished or tarnished. That is understandable, and we have to fix that. We need to make that part of the next phase of what we do. This is incredibly important.

I will share an example with the house of very good friends of mine just outside Wilmington. They both have two generations of adult couples actively working on their properties at the moment. An explorer came along and went to both of the older generations' homes and said, 'I want to come along. I think there will be something here, and you will just have to let me on.' They said, 'Well, no, we don't just have to let you on. Actually we don't even want you on.'

He said, 'Well, I'll just go away and get permission. It will just happen. You might as well just let me on now because if you don't it will just happen.' They said, 'Well, go and get your permission. If you come back with something that is legally binding, yes, of course, we will comply, but we do not want you on.' And guess what? Two weeks later one of them found that dodgy explorer trespassing on the other family's farm.

Why would you not have a bad taste in your mouth if that happens? Why would you not say, 'I don't want anybody ever coming here again,' if you had that experience? So then all of a sudden my friends come to me—because unbeknownst to me this is happening—and they say, 'Dan, you're our local MP. You're the mining minister. Sort this out. What on earth is going on?'

That is exactly the type of real-world example which has to be fixed, because do you know what? There are a lot of very good operators, a lot of very good explorers out there, wanting to work with people properly. There are companies that have said to me, 'If people say no, we just don't go there because it's not worth the hassle. We don't want to tarnish our reputation. We don't want to force our way in with legal means and go exploring or have a mine, whether it is native title rights or whatever it is. If they say no, and we can't convince them, we don't go there because we don't want our brand tarnished that way.'

That is tremendously good practice. The other example I shared is tremendously bad practice. As Minister for Energy and Mining, one of my responsibilities is to work with industry to try to clean up that bottom tail so that the industry has less problems, so that landholders have less problems. It is incredibly important that we understand that this is overwhelmingly a responsible industry in mining. This is overwhelmingly a responsible set of operators, whether it is in exploration or in mining. But the ones at the bottom of the pile do a lot of damage to everybody else, and I can understand why landholders would have so many frustrations.

Right of veto has been discussed quite a lot. The shadow minister described his views on this very well. I will lay out a few things but in a slightly different way. If I was a landholder, if I was a farmer—I live in a rural community, but I am not a farmer—I would want a right of veto. Of course I would. Who would not want that right to be able to say, 'I'll choose whether this proceeds or not'?

Some people might want it because they are never, ever leaving, and they want nothing to change. Some people might want it because they know they can bid up the price perhaps and just get a better deal to say yes. There is a range of reasons, but I can understand. I would want a right of veto if I was a landholder. But the reason I cannot agree to that for landholders, and the reason the government does not agree to that is that, number one, we are talking about a genuine transfer of rights from one to the other—and the shadow minister touched on that.

If that were to happen, we would need to apply an extraordinary amount of compensation. I do not even know how many millions of dollars it would be, but over almost all of South Australia there is some kind of mining permission. Whether it is something that may never be used or whether it is something highly prospective, these permissions are all over the state—inland, country, pastoral country. They are everywhere.

If the government were to say that they have decided, hypothetically, to make this change, who would compensate the people who currently have those rights which have just been taken away or perhaps have been made significantly less valuable? Who would pay for that? Would the government just be writing out cheques to people in the resources industry all over the state? No. Would the landholders be writing out the cheques and saying, 'Well, the government has just given me a right of veto and you've got an exploration or a mining lease on my property or under my property; I'm just going to write you a cheque'? No, of course not. How would we get through that? Who would bear that cost? I do not think there is an answer to that.

The sovereign risk would be very serious and very genuine. It would have a significant detrimental impact on our state's economy. Sure, if you are the landholder, that may not be your biggest problem. If you are in government, that is a serious consideration. In my mind, the most important reason that a right of veto should not be given to landholders to have the right to say that they have sole discretion about whether an exploration or mining activity will go ahead is that it would do nothing for the neighbours. I know this is not in all cases; I know that.

There is a very live case in our state at the moment where this does not apply. However, it is true to say that generally, overwhelmingly, the landholder and the mining company come to an agreement on whether there is going to be a mine. If you have the situation we have at the moment, they generally come to an agreement. If you had a right of veto, I still think they would overwhelmingly come to an agreement. It would just be a more expensive agreement; it would be much more expensive.

But what about the neighbours? What about the people who live around the outside of that land? The person who lives where the mining activity is has the right of veto, and overwhelmingly they will surrender that right in return for something else—not always, I accept, but overwhelmingly. All the neighbours are then left next door, hypothetically, to a mine. They get nothing out of the right of veto. So today, if there is a mine, it is the neighbours who are left with the biggest problems because now they will be living next door to a mine, and they do not want that. If we have a right of veto, it is the neighbours who will be left living next door to a mine, and they do not want that.

The biggest reason I do not support a right of veto is that that right of veto to the individual landholder does nothing to help the people and families who, if there is a mine, now have to live next door to it. It does nothing for them, and I think that is a significant flaw. Other people have different views. Other people will disagree with me, and that is how it is, but it is only fitting that I explain my view in this contribution.

Another reason we have these challenges is not so much about whether we grow enough food or whether we have enough copper to export. It is not so much about the value of the production of the land. Is it better to allow it to produce grain or something else for the next however many hundred years or is it better to mine it for the next 10 or 20 years? One of the biggest issues is that we are talking about people's homes; we are talking about where they live. Mining companies do not live there. Mining companies and mining employees fly in and fly out more and more. It is work, and then they go back to their home in a small country town in the middle of Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne, or wherever it may be.

However, the landholder—most of the time, not always of course but the cases that are toughest to deal with—says, 'It's not only my business, it's not only about food production, it's not only about the economy of the region, and all those other things, it's actually my home.' In my mind, that is one of the most difficult parts of this issue that we need to deal with better. We need to address that better in the next phase of work on this matter if this bill passes.

The shadow minister talked about royalties. He talked about approximately $1 billion of income from the resources sector in royalties, and he is right; it is around about a quarter of a billion dollars a year. That is very important. It may not be the top priority to the landholder who feels exposed, but I can tell you that it is a huge priority when it comes to government requiring income to build roads, to build schools, to build hospitals, to pay police officers, etc. It is a hugely important issue. I am not saying that everything is about money but I can certainly say that we are not in a position in our state to do anything that would undermine the flow of that income. In fact, we should be doing things that will increase the flow of that income over time.

Another thing that has been discussed is the proposal for an independent review into the mining sector and, broadly, land access in exploration and mining. It is an incredibly compelling proposal. We should have an independent review, and we will get advice and recommendations from that independent review. Yes, it is great in theory. I am 100 per cent on board with that. I know that representatives of the ag sector and the resources sector are 100 per cent on board with that, but they are 100 per cent on board with it, as am I, in principle.

But when you delve down into how that would really work, when you actually sit down with representatives of those industries and ask, 'Could we flesh out terms of reference? Could we actually get the sectors to agree on what is most important with regard to the terms of reference?', that is when it gets really hard. That is when you actually find that the principle that everyone is united on, moving towards the practice of doing it, starts to separate pretty quickly.

When you talk to people and ask, 'Who would be the independent leader of this review?' that is not so easy either. This is probably the most difficult one. If you were to ask people: if hypothetically we could do this, if hypothetically we could get everybody to agree to terms of reference and get everybody to agree on who would lead it, the time line, the budget, exactly how we would do it, would everybody agree to what this inquiry recommends? No way—and nor should anybody agree to that.

No-one should be asked to agree to the recommendations of an inquiry that has not even begun. But without that, what do we have? Without that agreement, whenever that inquiry is done, we are right back to where we started, with people saying, 'We have a whole set of recommendations and some we like and some we don't; some we agree with'—there is a whole range of views—'why don't we adjust this recommendation just a little bit and why don't we cut that one out?' And we are right back to where we started.

I believe I am taking a pragmatic view about this. I understand that there are people who have another view. I have said that a lot tonight because I really do want to acknowledge it, but the nice, theoretical concept that we can all agree with, of an independent review, when you try to put that into practice it does start to get pretty woolly pretty quickly.

So I come back to my view, the government's view, that we should lock in the benefits, accepting that people want more, accepting that it can be described as half a step instead of a whole step. We should lock them in and get those benefits, that list of benefits that I read out before. I do not want people to wait any longer than they need to in order to get those benefits. Even if those benefits are not all they want, we should still get those benefits out there and not delay moving onto the next phase of work to see how we can make things better from here.

As I said before, I have made a firm commitment to my colleagues, to myself and to people from both the resources and the ag sector that, if this bill passes both houses, shortly afterwards I will get on with the next phase of work along with my department, my team and others. I have been asked about all sorts of things: could this be in or could this be out, or this, that and the other, and I have given a view, and I have described my view as best I can with regard to the right of veto.

Broadly speaking, let me say that I am not ruling anything in or anything out about where we might go from here. It has been put to me by some of my colleagues that we should consider royalty payments to landholders. Well, let's look into it; let's find out. I am not saying that it is right or it is wrong, or that we will do it or we will not do it. But, broadly speaking, let whatever is sensible to be considered in the next phase of work be considered. Let's have a look at it and see exactly what it is that we can do.

Let me just finish and sum up very quickly. We have five amendments in the government's name—in my name, technically. They actually come from discussions with four of my colleagues. We have an overwhelmingly strong position within our government to support this legislation. We acknowledge that not every government member is satisfied, and we respect their rights and their views to represent their seat in this chamber exactly as they see fit.

I give enormous credit to those four MPs I mentioned before for the way they have worked through this to the best of their ability. I have worked through this to the best of my ability with them. We have done everything we possibly could to get to where we are. Is it perfect? No. Is it vastly improved? Yes. If this bill passes, will the resources industry and the ag industry be better off than they are today? Yes. Will we use the work and the learnings that we have acquired over the last 15 months to streamline our approach and make it better? Yes, we will.

I have also made a personal commitment to the member for Narungga and the member for Kavel that, if this bill passes and gets through both houses, one of the very first things that I will do is go with them to their electorates to personally engage with their communities again as quickly as possible. That is the government's position, and I believe it is the right position. I know that not everybody believes it is the right position, but the government thinks that this is where we are and this is what we should do.

I would also like to thank people in my office and people from the Department for Energy and Mining; I will not name anybody specifically. For better or for worse, wherever we are today, whatever anybody's opinion is about what is being presented to this parliament, people in my office, and even more so people in the Department for Energy and Mining because they have been at it for longer, have put an enormous amount of effort into this work, and I thank them for that. Thank you.

The SPEAKER: The question before the Chair is that the bill be now read a second time. It has been moved by the Minister for Energy and Mining. Is it seconded?

Honourable members: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: I will put it now. All those in favour say aye. Against, say no.

An honourable member: No.

The SPEAKER: The ayes have it.

Mr McBride: Divide!

The SPEAKER: A division—

Mr McBride: No, sorry.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: A division has been called. You either name him—

The SPEAKER: One moment.

Mr BELL: Point of order: the member is not in his correct seat and therefore cannot be recognised by you as Speaker.

The SPEAKER: I have the point of order. I am not going to recognise the call for division. The member is out of his place. He should not be doing it. He is called to order, and if he does it again I will be naming him. I believe the ayes have it, and I believe it is the will of the house to go into committee.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Could I ask the minister a few questions about consultation on this bill. I would like you to give a brief outline to the committee on the process you went through post the bill being adjourned. I understand that you went on a consultative outreach, and I was very keen to hear how that consultation was conducted and what the purpose of the consultation was.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It is a fair question. The purpose of the consultation, obviously, was to check existing representation of people's views, to see what they thought, to see if there were any gaps, to see if there was any additional information and to see if any understandings were inaccurate.

The consultation was undertaken largely through the sector representative groups, Primary Producers SA and Grain Producers SA. I met with and received a lot of information from the YP Landowners' Group as well. In fact, I should say that in terms of meeting with them I met with many of their members. I do not think it was actually a formal meeting with that group, but I certainly met face to face with many of them at Maitland.

On the resources side, SACOME took a large role. APPEA, although not involved with this bill directly but still with a stake in the industry, was invited to talk. There was consultation with other industry representative groups and of course with local members of parliament, directly with local members of parliament, primarily those representing country seats.

I went to meetings myself. The most memorable of them was at Maitland; approximately 300 people, I am told, were at the footy club at Maitland. They shared their views with me in no uncertain way. I dealt with them very directly and openly and constructively. I know that they were not thrilled with what I shared with them, but I did it as openly and straightforwardly as I possibly could. Some were formal and some were informal, but there were a lot, and that included receiving submissions as well.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: At that Maitland meeting on 27 December 2018, did the minister say, 'I will not consult rural interests on the mining bill'?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No, I do not think so. I do not really remember, to be honest, but I can tell you for sure what my intent was. It was—and I think I described it fairly—that I was not looking to open up from scratch again the entire process that the previous government had undertaken. I did not see any value in that. I am not aware of any rural sector representative groups who have expressed an interest in this topic who have not had the opportunity to share their views with me.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will give the minister some context on this. The opposition has been contacted by an individual who claims that, during this consultation process on the mining bill—and I accept what you say, that you claim you did not say it, because I was not there and so I do not know—the government (that is, the minister) said at that meeting, 'We are not here to consult on rural issues on the mining bill.' I would have thought that was the exact intent of that meeting at Maitland. The reason I am asking this is: if you are not consulting on rural issues and with rural people, why the consultation at Maitland and not anywhere else? I assume it was about the rural impacts of the mining bill on that community.

If this statement has been taken out of context or is different, why would the agriculture minister not be consulting on this bill? I understand that that was promised at the last election by the then Liberal opposition—that the then agriculture spokesperson, the Hon. David Ridgway, in the other place, made public comments about consulting the rural sector about the mining bill. If you are not consulting about the rural sector, are you just consulting them about mining practice? What was the purpose, if you were not consulting them about the rural sector and the impact of mining on it?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I think the shadow minister has answered his own question. It does not make any sense to suggest that. I was there for I think about two hours with about 300 people to talk with them about the mining bill. It just does not make sense that I would have said, 'I am not talking to you about the mining bill.' That is exactly what I was doing. With regard to questions about the minister for agriculture, I know that he has engaged with the rural sector—I would say seven days a week, continuously and nonstop—on an incredibly wide range of issues.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Since the minister raised the minister for agriculture in those terms, is the minister supportive of the Mining Act and its implications for the rural sector?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The shadow minister raised the minister for agriculture, and I was happy to respond to his questions. The minister for agriculture is certainly fully on board, as far as I am aware. He has certainly supported this and has supported me. He has never said otherwise. We have had very constructive conversations with regard to being the two ministers most closely connected to this issue. He has raised concerns about specific issues, but not about the full composition of our final bill and where we are today and the amendments.

He has certainly advocated very strongly for the ag sector. He has said to me, 'What about this? I have representations. I have information. My department has brought this.' He has been incredibly responsible with regard to raising the interests of the ag sector with me on this topic for a very long time. He is also a country member of parliament himself, not only as the ag minister for the last 15 months but also as the member for Chaffey for eight years before that.

The agriculture minister could not have been more proactive with regard to engaging in discussions. Is he comfortable with where we are today and with taking the benefits in the bill at the moment, locking them in and then moving on with the next phase of consultation and looking for more benefits? Yes, he is.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Commencement is always an important clause to make sure the parliament gets its head around it very quickly. Obviously, some people do not want to see this bill commence. Did the minister receive any submissions in writing from any of his party room colleagues advocating that this bill not proceed?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am not sure, because I am concerned about what your definition of 'submission' would be. I have spent a long time explaining how some of my colleagues have told me of their concerns. I don't know if you think that is a submission or not. I don't think I have received particularly formal submissions raising concerns on the bill, but for a very long time, as I have clearly articulated, we have had ongoing, grown-up, mature discussions about concerns that have existed.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I thank the minister for his openness and candour in letting me know that no member of the government has written to him saying that they oppose the bill. I think that is a fascinating development.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: You'll have to check the Hansard.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I'm sorry—did someone? I apologise, I withdraw that. If a member of the government wrote to the minister opposing the bill, I would like to know who it was.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am sure you would like a lot of things. The reality is that I have answered your question truthfully and I suggest, Chair, that the shadow minister checks the Hansard before he tries to put words in my mouth.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I can take from that answer that no member of the government has written to the minister saying, 'Do not proceed with this bill.' It is an important point that I think communities need to know.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: You're such an idiot.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I'm such an idiot—this is what we get from the first law officer of the land.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you for your protection, sir.

The CHAIR: The member for West Torrens is asking his third and final question on this clause, given that there are 190 clauses—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Oh, yes, we want to move on from this as quickly as we possibly can, I understand.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, can you listen to me for a moment? Standing orders indicate that there be three questions on each clause. You had four questions on the first clause—I was happy to run with that—but, given that there are 190 clauses, some amendments and a schedule as well, we will from now on stay with three questions per clause. You now have the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I notice that I get all the attention, but none of the interjections were called up by you, sir. So, I understand.

The CHAIR: I called the house to order, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand, sir, I understand. In terms of the commencement of the act, have any members of the government asked you, verbally then, not to proceed with this bill?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: To be as open as I possibly can with the shadow minister and with this committee, we have had so many discussions over so many months, contemplating so many possible scenarios, that almost any question along those lines that the shadow minister might want to ask me might have been somewhere in that entire bundle of conversations, but I can't remember every single one of them. What I can say is that the government has a bill before this parliament, before this committee, for consideration and that is the government's position.

Clause passed.

Clauses 3 to 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [EnergyMin–1]—

Page 14, lines 7 and 8 [clause 8(1), inserted subparagraph (ia)]—Delete 'for commercial purposes'

Amendment No 2 [EnergyMin–1]—

Page 14, lines 13 and 14 [clause 8(4)]—Delete subclause (4)

These amendments, together, address the one issue I outlined in my second reading speech, which was to remove from the bill the obligation—

Ms BEDFORD: Point of order: we do not have any amendments to clause 8. Do you have a copy of them?

The CHAIR: It should be available, member for Florey.

Ms BEDFORD: It should be available, that is true.

The CHAIR: You could ask for them. We are after—

Ms BEDFORD: We do not have it; that is why we are asking for one.

The CHAIR: Minister, I need to clarify whether you are moving one or both at the moment. You are moving both? Okay. Do the members for Florey and Frome have the amendments? Minister, I think you can continue.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you, Chair. I hope any members who did not have copies of the amendments have been able to find them in the place that copies of amendments are always put.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, member for Florey! Do not interject.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: Please, have some order. This is a very simple process. We work our way through the clauses. You now have them in front of you. Members get to ask questions of the minister about each and every clause. The minister is moving two amendments. Minister, you have the call.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you, Chair. This is essentially about removing the obligation in the bill that would have made it necessary for landholders to prove commercial value for places, land, assets for them to be classified as exempt. The amendments remove from the bill that obligation, so they would not have to do that.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I move:

Amendment No 3 [EnergyMin–1]—

Page 18, lines 26 and 27 [clause 9(21), inserted subsection (14b)]—Delete 'parties to the agreement' and substitute 'tenement holder'

This is one amendment dealing with one issue that I described in my second reading speech. Essentially, it clarifies that it is the tenement holder who would need to advise the registrar of a waiver, not the landholder. The original wording in the bill just talked about 'parties to the agreement'. This change is so it is very clear that it is the tenement holder who has that obligation of notification. This is something my colleagues asked me to do. It is something that the ag sector representatives asked for and it seemed to be good sense. It is pretty straightforward.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 10 to 52 passed.

Clause 53.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is an amendment in my name, amendment No. 1, which is actually nothing to do with anything that we have been discussing. This is an amendment that is technical in nature—administrative—and completely linked to the budget process. It is an amendment that the Manager of Government Business in the house, the Minister for Education, filed a while ago—two weeks ago, I think.

For complete clarity, this amendment will be withdrawn. Tonight, it is my intention that we only deal with things in the mining bill proper. We are not dealing with anything in the mining bill that is a consequence of the budget bill. So that everyone understands, there are things that come out of the budget process—in this case, different ways of charging and some higher fees for companies that have exploration rights. That has come out of the budget process, so I withdraw this amendment. It will be dealt with another time.

The CHAIR: You are withdrawing the amendment?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, in a suite of all the things that come out of the budget.

The CHAIR: You do not have to withdraw it if you did not move it, but that is okay. You did explain it. There is no amendment to this clause.

Clause passed.

Clauses 54 and 55 passed.

Clause 56.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I move:

Amendment No 4 [EnergyMin–1]—

Page 87, line 1 [clause 56, inserted section 58A(1)]—Delete '28' and substitute '42'

Amendment No 5 [EnergyMin–1]—

Page 87, line 7 [clause 56, inserted section 58A(2)]—Delete '28' and substitute '42'

These two amendments together deal with one issue, which I described in my second reading speech. The act, as it currently stands, provides a requirement for three weeks' notification associated with requesting access to land. The bill changed three weeks to four weeks. This amendment changes four weeks to six weeks. It changes the bill so that, if passed, the act would be changed from requiring three weeks' notice to requiring six weeks' notice. Again, that is a proposal that has come to me from four of my colleagues that I think is very worthy. The ag sector also supported it, as did, in fact, the resources sector.

Mr BELL: I have some questions around the actions of the minister in terms of suspending all or some of the authorised operations under a mineral tenement. In terms of your powers, regarding new section 56W, what circumstances would enliven your powers to suspend or cancel a mineral licence? Have you been presented with any examples, perhaps from the South-East, where that has occurred and yet the mineral licence has progressed?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thanks for allowing me to get some advice. The first part of the member's question is about what enlivens it. Basically, someone doing the wrong thing, essentially, is what starts that process. Removing the permission is usually the last step in that pyramid. To put it in layman's terms, which is the best way for me to describe it, you start by talking, you identify the problem, you deal with it and you ask what the rectification is. You move on through that and, if you cannot deal with it in any other way, you revoke the permission.

Someone might ask, 'Why not just revoke the permission straightaway?' As soon as you do that, a lot of the authority that the government and the department have over the permission holder evaporates if you do not have it either. That is one of the reasons to actually use that as one of your last tools. With regard to your question about whether it has been used in the South-East just recently, I am advised that it has not.

Mr BELL: Would one of the noncompliance issues be encroachment onto exempt land, progressive rehabilitation not carried out in accordance with the PEPR, a failure to mine or maximise recovery of resource, failure to complete annual compliance reports, as well as potential weed and feral issues on the site of a landowner, be cause for that provision to be enacted?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Member for Mount Gambier, I suppose we both need to be pretty careful with information that we share here. I suspect that your questions, while being used as an example quite appropriately in the committee stage of a bill, directly relate to an example in your area. It is an example about which we have had discussions and swapped correspondence and obviously about which it would not be right for either of us to go into specific details.

When you ask whether this type of activity is the type of activity that would lead to the removal of the permission, it is not possible to give a definitive answer because it really does depend about the circumstances. For example, if there is a bond in place, if the bond is large enough to deal with the cost of rectification, it might well be that the permission would stay in place. The bond would be used for that because, if you remove the permission, you might be taking a step a little bit sooner than you would actually want to do. I think it is fair to say that in general, and in the case that I think we are both contemplating at the moment, all the steps need to be worked through, that all those options need to be exhausted, with a general view that the removal of the permission would be the last step that is taken.

Mr BELL: Minister, without being specific to any case, do you have a time line between encroachment or noncompliance of the regulations through to cancellation? In your mind, is 12 months, 18 months, two years, five years an appropriate time? If not, should there be a time period put in here so that everybody is clear as to how long this could go on so as to give certainty to farmers who have mining on their land where, in their opinion, the mine is not doing the right thing? We are at year 1, but by year 5 or year 10 or year 20 or whatever, will there be an end to this if there is not compliance by the mining holder?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Member for Mount Gambier, I will not be able to give you a specific yes or no or this amount of time or that amount of time. It unfortunately is not that clear-cut. I wish it was; that would be nice. But as in many disputes, even outside the resources sector, it is not possible to say, 'Do you give it 12 months or do you give it 18 months?' It is very much about the progress down that path if somebody is complying, if somebody is trying to help, if somebody is taking responsibility for what they have done versus if they are not versus if there is a bond in place, exactly what the damage is.

I would like to say, because I think this is probably one of the foundations of your questioning, there can be enormous frustration in this issue. It might appear that clearly, 'You only have to come and see what I can see and it is so obvious the wrong thing has been done.' I do not make any excuse for this whatsoever, but the government has to give the person holding the mining right due process, if you like.

We both have one case in the South-East very much in our minds, but there is another case which comes to my mind in another part of the state which has been extremely frustrating. It can, hypothetically, happen that a person is given support but prefers not to access that support right away. So without trying to be coy or anything, they are very difficult situations. I want the right things to happen. I want this area to be made more transparent, more consistent, easier for landholders to understand their rights and responsibilities. But I have to say it is not possible or practical to say, 'We just follow this path every time we get to this result.'

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Has the minister delegated his authority for section 56W?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: For the shadow minister, I will get a little bit more advice in a minute. But I suppose the first piece of advice I have received is that section 56W is a brand-new section that does not exist yet, so by definition it would not have been possible for me to delegate my authority on that. I am happy to get more information, if you want.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sure, okay. Has the minister delegated his authority to suspend an exploration licence, a mining lease and a retention lease for a miscellaneous purpose licence?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that it is delegated but has not been exercised.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 57 to 61 passed.

Clause 62.

Mr BELL: Minister, in determining the size of the rehabilitation fund, do farmers have any input into the final amount?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am taking advice on this. For clarification, the question, if I understand it, was about clause 62 but was specifically about the fund. I think section 62 talks about the bond and new section 62AA talks about the fund. Is the question about the fund?

Mr BELL: Yes.

The CHAIR: There is a bit of confusion here. I understand that this bill is a little difficult to read, member for Mount Gambier, but you are asking questions on clause 60 at the moment, which we have already passed. I am in the minister's hands. If he would like to give an answer to that, we are happy to take it. Clause 62 is a couple of pages on.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am advised that the bill creates the fund, if you like. It creates the bucket, so to speak, but there is still work to do in regard to the mechanism of how that is actually used. That is something that will be done if, when, the bill is passed.

Mr BELL: Minister, can you give an assurance to the house that the size of that fund, or the mechanism that is used, will be of a substantive nature to adequately rehabilitate the area?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is a difference between the bond and the fund. When you say, to precis, 'Will there be enough money there to do the rehabilitation or fix the work?' that can be largely about the bond rather than this new fund that is being created. I am not saying that they are mutually exclusive, but they are not exactly the same. As I said, there is a process to go out and develop that mechanism further. That will be done through a discussion paper that will go out soon after the bill is passed, if it is passed, but there certainly will be consultation.

To your question, 'Will there be enough money?' enough money broadly is meant to be in the bond rather than in the fund. The fund is largely meant to be about cleaning up legacy mines, older issues and things that are not so much about contemporaneous operation. To your question that I think you asked, 'Can I guarantee that farmers will have an input into that?' to be really clear, yes, I can guarantee they will have some input into that because they will have the opportunity to consider the discussion paper. Will I guarantee that anybody who might put a response back to the discussion paper will get exactly what they want? No, of course I cannot guarantee that.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (63 to 190), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (22:17): I just want to be clear: I understand there are members who would like to make a third reading speech, so I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (22:18): I imagine to the great delight of the gallery, I rise to make a brief contribution to the bill. I would like to start by thanking all those in the gallery and especially those who came today to join us on the steps of parliament. I do not much like rallies myself, but it was good to see so many there at such short notice. I thank them all for the effort they made to come down and join us—it is such a long trip for some—and I would like to acknowledge their presence now.

Once again, I rise to state my opposition to the Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill. I previously stated my opposition to this bill during the election campaign when I drove farm door to farm door with the former shadow minister for agriculture, David Ridgway from the other place. We visited tens and tens of farmers from across and all over the peninsula and stated the party opposition to this bill. We jointly trumpeted our success in stopping the passage of this bill in the upper house of the previous parliament, and we jointly decried the unfair provisions of the bill, which we suggested would affect farmers' livelihoods and mental health.

We promised more: more consultation and more favourable legislation for our core constituency. That promise, I would argue, exists in written form on the GPSA website signed by the former shadow minister for agriculture. I also stated my opposition to this bill numerous times in the party room in the past 18 months. I, along with my colleagues the members for Kavel, Davenport, MacKillop and the Hon. Terry Stephens and the Hon. Dennis Hood from the other place, have presented a plethora of amendments seeking out compromise for the betterment of the Liberal Party.

I submit to this house that we have gone above and beyond in an attempt to find a palatable compromise. Indeed, some of the options that we presented to the party room would have been exceedingly difficult to sell as genuine progress to the constituents of Narungga, the great people we see in the gallery tonight. Nonetheless, we presented those amendments, those genuine attempts at compromise, and they were voted down by the majority of the party room, which is how we find ourselves in this position tonight.

Indeed, the most sensible amendment we presented in seeking a compromise was one that triggers an independent review of the Mining Act, and I note the introduction of a bill by the member for Frome doing just that this afternoon. Both sides of this debate support that measure. Both sides view the Mining Act as outdated or insufficient to their needs and regard measures introduced in neighbouring jurisdictions as far superior. In my view, our party should have the courage to provide a solution that is desired by both the mining industry and the agriculture industry, not push through with a bill coveted by no-one.

Finally, I have opposed this bill in this chamber previously and publicly in my community and I do so again today. I have had a consistent position throughout this debate and my position today should come as no surprise to anyone. No meaningful strides have been made on compromise and, as such, my position remains unchanged.

Regarding the merits of the bill, I wish to make two things clear right from the outset. Firstly, farmers have no desire whatsoever to wrest the ownership of the minerals away from the Crown. Contrary to the views of the member for West Torrens, farmers appreciate the need for the benefit of mining to flow through to the community through royalties and are, by and large, amongst the most patriotic South Australians one could possibly find. Often, critics of the push to give freehold landowners improved rights portray some sort of veiled push to transfer the ownership of minerals from the Crown to private citizens. That could not be further from the truth. It is a transparent push to allow farmers to continue to operate their business free from government intervention and intrusion.

Indeed, by interpreting the situation as Crown ownership meaning automatic access, essentially the ownership of those minerals is already vested in private enterprise. For some reason, we are content to have the ownership of those minerals essentially vested in often foreign-owned mining companies that use that against supporting local farming business. Secondly, in my view, the failure to act in support of our farmers is a complete abdication from Liberal values.

The Liberal Party that I signed up to believes in individual freedom and free enterprise, where farmers and freehold landowners who are operating successful, viable, profitable, generational private enterprise should be empowered to continue that operation free from fear of government intervention. Since its inception, the Liberal Party has been operating under the charter of reducing the impact that government has on the daily lives of its constituents. The current legislative and regulatory system supports a significant burden on the lives of individuals, so much so that the uncertainty over the family home and income that supports that home is causing a proliferation of mental health issues.

As I said in my second reading speech in this place, it is implausible that a profitable generational metropolitan cafe would receive a knock on its door with a message that it had a certain number of days to vacate the premises. This hypothetical doorknocker would be from an alternative, larger private enterprise—maybe a car yard, for example—and their justification would be that the government wants the increased payroll tax revenue that comes with their enterprise and therefore it has been prioritised. That just would not happen in metropolitan Adelaide, yet it is happening everywhere in regional South Australia.

What is the increased short-term government revenue that justifies this? Clearly, the short-term difference between mineral royalties and farm revenue is enough to justify it, but I think we all agree in this place that the cafe and the car yard would not be. All business—farmers, miners, the local IGA, cafes—should be empowered to operate in perpetuity for as long as they wish, until they choose not to. That is free enterprise. That is what the Liberal Party values say we believe in.

The custodians of the less than 5 per cent of arable land in this state, which is all that remains with the ever-increasing urban sprawl, know what they would like to see. The precedent already exists interstate. The former Liberal Queensland government, under the leadership of Campbell Newman and the relevant minister, Jeff Seeney, instituted a new act entitled the Regional Planning Interests Act, which effectively segregated parts of their state according to their agricultural fertility.

The hoops through which a prospective mining company must jump became progressively more difficult the more lucrative that the ground became. This act delivered on a commitment to protect prime agricultural land and provide greater power to landowners in negotiating with resource companies—an eerily similar commitment, I would argue. This is exactly what South Australian landowners desire: a promise to protect prime agricultural land and leverage while negotiating with resource companies.

We currently have the absurd situation in South Australia in which someone who owns even a small general farming-zoned block—an eight-hectare block, to use an example I am familiar with—will apply for planning approval that will not be granted in order to protect diminishing agricultural land, yet vast open-cut mines will be approved. Owners are forbidden to build a small house on general farming-zoned land because the footprint is regarded as so precious that to allow such development would jeopardise our food production areas, yet we allow mining companies open slather. It is exceedingly difficult to reconcile those two things.

But it gets easier for the government because, in an effort at compromise, both the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME) and the Grain Producers of South Australia (GPSA)—and I should include the Yorke Peninsula Landowners' Group (YPLOG), who are present in the gallery and who I have worked especially closely with—have managed to come up with an agreement. SACOME, GPSA and YPLOG agree that the 1971 act needs reform. It is 48 years old and outdated in a lot of ways.

All agree that the best way to proceed is by way of an independent review conducted by an independent umpire who can consider frameworks that exist in other jurisdictions, impacts on each industry and any other related matters. It is wonderful news, I would argue, that these industries, who have been at loggerheads for an extended period and who at different times it seemed would never be able to reach an agreement, have miraculously managed to do so.

Surely, an easy out for the government was to give both industries what they wanted and get to work. That is incorrect: the party room did not see fit to grant the obvious solution. It was a bewildering decision in my view and one that I cannot accept, which is why I stand here today, disagreeing with the bill.

From my perspective, at least, when both predominantly affected parties agree on a solution, then it is best to adopt that solution. Everyone wins in that situation. I will continue my pursuit for an independent review of the Mining Act on behalf of the mining and ag sector into the future and I look forward to working with the member for Frome to deliver that.

I would like to quote the words that I received from GPSA late last week, which summarise their point of view. I quote GPSA CEO Caroline Rhodes:

The Bill as it stands leaves many issues unresolved for our State's farming community. It fails to meaningfully address the land access conflicts arising from the current law, and I believe we can, and must, do better to strengthen the rights of farmers. That's why GPSA will continue to seek further amendments to the Bill, while pushing for an independent review into the legal framework governing mining activity on agricultural land.

GPSA believes that South Australian farmers are at a distinct disadvantage compared to their interstate counterparts. We should be taking best practice models from Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia, in resolving land use conflicts arising from mineral exploration and coal seam gas activity. This will need a whole-of-government approach to planning and environmental protection of this natural resource, recognising that prime agricultural land cannot be replaced.

South Australia has such a limited area suitable for cropping based on soil type and rainfall, and so it naturally follows that this scarcity should be accounted for when legislating rights for private mining or exploration companies, over the rights of landowners who want to continue farming. We must address the imbalance in the land access framework arising from the current mining law.

Now that we have heard from GPSA, I would also like to take this opportunity to debunk some of the claimed benefits to landholders briefly in this contribution. There are three that I would particularly like to touch on at this point.

Firstly, the increase in legal advice from $500 to $2,500 will get farmers exceedingly limited legal advice—perhaps an initial consultation at best. We have the situation where a small, family-owned business is operating year to year. When they get a knock on the door and someone saying that they have to leave, the financial burden falls upon them to retain a lawyer and convince a court otherwise. All they get in this fight to continue their life is a measly $2,500. It is absurd, in my view.

I would argue that it would also be the easiest money the lawyer will ever make. They take the $2,500 and offer the initial advice that there is no precedent for the farmer to win the case, that in 100 per cent of the cases judgement has been in favour of the miner and the best thing to do is to start moving the family and find other work. It is easy work, if you can get it.

Secondly, I would argue that the separation distances do increase from 400 metres to 600 metres; I do acknowledge that. It is true for high-impact activities, but it is also true that for low-impact activities the distance will be reduced to 200 metres. The unfortunate reality is that if those low-impact activities uncover a mineral deposit, then it is a matter of time until there is a mine in your backyard.

Finally, there are increased compliance enforcement measures introduced for the department to police. It is the evidence of constituents of mine that the department have proven to be failures in policing mining regulation. The conflict between promoter and regulator of mining—both roles the department currently performs—has proven to be, in the evidence of my constituents, an insurmountable challenge. The fear from my community is that giving greater power to the department will not give them greater cause to use it and, according to constituents, they are unwilling to use their current power to regulate, let alone any further. Those are just three examples of claimed benefits for landowners. I am sure YPLOG would be able to articulate further debunking.

As this bill progresses we will watch now what happens in the upper house and what amendments may come, if any, from the debate and also in due course the form and content of the phase 2 of reforms the minister has indicated in the past he believes are necessary. I am sure that members of the illustrious other chamber, particularly those on the crossbench who may have picked up the community sentiment quicker than some of my colleagues, will be eager to move amendments to this bill. I look forward to those amendments coming to the party room for further debate and hopefully for widespread support.

If those efforts fail to garner support from the other place, or if they fail to come at all, then I look forward to taking the Minister for Energy and Mining up on his commitment for a second tranche of mining bill reform. Ultimately, this is an outdated act that needs significant modernisation for both sectors to achieve their greatest possible potential. It is with great optimism that I look forward to working with the minister on the next tranche of reform. Hopefully, we have the ambition and foresight to tackle the challenge of instituting the change that is needed to protect the regional people.

Similarly, I look forward to working with the Minister for Planning, the member for Schubert, in developing a planning law solution. It needs his support, and I have raised this issue with him in the past and will continue to do so. Plainly and clearly, the most recent precedent, instituted by a Liberal government, is protection of prime agricultural land through planning law measures. I look forward to his support in instituting similar systems to the ones found in Queensland and New South Wales. I also look forward to working closely with the minister for agriculture in seeking out a solution.

We have an obligation to support an industry whose benefit to our great state has been so longstanding that we only need to look down at the carpet in this place to see the clump of wheat to get a glimpse of its importance. If I fail to garner support from those people, which I would like to think would not be the case, then I would like to indicate to this place that I will be taking steps to further enhance the possibility of gaining an independent review.

Ultimately, this is an effort at compromise for both sides, elusive compromise which has been agreed to by each industry. I feel compelled to attempt to give them what they both desire, and if this bill passes then I will bring back to the house, as I said earlier, the necessary steps to support an independent review. I would look forward to taking another attempt at urging all here to support the compromise measure endorsed by all parties affected.

Thus, with great disappointment, I vote against the bill before us today on behalf of constituents and in support of my firm belief that an independent review must occur for the benefit of this state as a whole. Only the results of that review, undertaken at arm's length of the government and comprehensively done, can dictate the direction of meaningful reform. I will continue to fight for the constituents of Narungga. That is what I was elected to do, and it is what I will continue to do for as long as the voters of Narungga see fit to elect me.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (22:33): I rise today to speak in relation to the Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill 2018. Consistent with my speech delivered in the house last year, I rise again to highlight my opposition to this bill in its current form. I wish to reiterate and support the concerns raised by my colleagues the members for Narungga, Kavel and Davenport on this matter. I thank my Liberal government for the freedom to express my views on this matter.

I preface my position on the bill with a strong appreciation that both mining and agriculture are two important sectors of the South Australian economy. Both sectors provide substantial contributions to our state's GDP. They are significant employers, generators of wealth and play a key role in sustaining our economy. Regional landowners are a resourceful and resilient sector. They deal with a great many risks, including fluctuating commodity markets, seasonal variability, disease and pest plants and animals. They are intelligent business owners. They are custodians of our land and producers that underpin the fabric of our regional communities, and I wish to preserve their right to undertake their businesses. They are people who have a voice, and they want to be listened to.

Likewise, the mining sector is undoubtedly a significant sector, providing a great many export, trade and employment opportunities and it is a significant generator of economic stimulus to our state. This sector, too, deals with uncertain commodity prices, important environmental regulation and has significant corporate governance and regulatory requirements. It is a sector that generates infrastructure, employment and wealth. This industry, too, has a voice, like landowners, and also wants to be listened to. I believe our government has a role in supporting and creating the right legislative environment for both these sectors to flourish. We need to ensure that the settings are right.

My opposition to this bill as currently drafted remains associated with the lack of consultation, the need for an independent review and the missed opportunities associated with this bill in its current form. I received overwhelming support for my position from the constituents in my electorate of MacKillop, key industry sectors and the wider regional South Australian landowners. My position is consistent with their values, expectations and aspirations.

It is important, I think, to again reflect on the genesis of this bill under the former Labor government, which showed scant regard for our regional communities. I understand that, as part of the consultation process that was implemented under the former Labor government, input provided by landowners was focused on ensuring that the mining bill achieved a better balance between the rights of mining companies and farmers. These views were not addressed in a meaningful way in the draft bill. The bill today continues to mirror that which was composed under the previous Labor government.

We know that prior to the election the Liberal Party promised consultation in relation to the mining bill. Regional constituents were and continue to be frustrated with the reality that they continue to be placed in a weak position in relation to their rights under an act that has always put mining first. A commitment was made to consult after the election. This consultation needed to occur in a way that welcomed the input and perspectives of both the farming and mining sectors. I retain my position that I want to see this consultation engagement delivered.

Regional South Australia has not been consulted in relation to this bill under the Marshall Liberal government. Nor has the mining sector been engaged in the discussion about how a more thorough independent review of the Mining Act under our government can support mining in this state in the future. I feel today that, in this bill, in what is being delivered for both regional landowners and the mining sector as a whole, we have missed an opportunity for both of these sectors to stand in good stead for the future.

It is with regional South Australia and the agricultural and mining sectors at the forefront of my mind that I maintain my opposition to this bill in its current form. I maintain that the bill would have benefited from a more substantial review, an independent review, and community engagement under the eye of the Marshall Liberal government. This review and engagement are what the regional community and the mining sector have been asking for and have continued to ask for since the bill was tabled last year.

I understand that the formulation of legislation is not done lightly. It takes time, effort and resources. As the Marshall Liberal government, with the responsibility for our state legislation, we have a duty to engage the people of our state in developing settings that enable our state's economy to thrive. We need to ensure appropriate checks and balances are in place to deliver a balanced and fair system that can operate for all. We need to give people the opportunity to continue this discussion and process. Our legislation should not advantage one sector over another.

Iterations of legislation should improve on that of the past and take opportunities to bring new ideas and learnings from other jurisdictions. It should enable settings that provide opportunities for all sectors to both thrive and operate their businesses with certainty. Grassroots consultation with affected stakeholders can support this approach. In my earlier speech on this bill, I highlighted some of the shortcomings of the current legislation which have been raised with me. I am compelled to raise a few of these matters again.

The current bill represents a missed opportunity to bring greater transparency and a better balance to the rights of landholders under the act. I also wish to highlight again that landowners and I want to see a fairer process to enable landholders to operate on a more level playing field with mining companies that wish to undertake mining activities on their land.

I understand that the appeals process under the act has to date resulted in mining companies having a significant success rate in appeals processes against the designation of exempt land. A fairer process would consider landholder rights more strongly and provide a more appropriate level of financial support for landholders to address court proceedings initiated by mining companies. A fairer process would better ensure the acquisition of land by mining companies is undertaken under real commercial and economic terms so that landowners are not disadvantaged by land acquisition.

The current bill represents a missed opportunity to include fit-for-purpose conditions for mining development that make it more straightforward, particularly for smaller-scale mining activity to proceed. We have missed an opportunity to consider existing land uses and how they are being managed/considered for smaller mining operations. Examples that I have previously given include categories of land cover considered for special environment benefit payment, and existing land uses such as grazing which are both requiring onerous requirements on landholders and, importantly, missing important categories of land use in mining assessment approval processes.

The current bill represents a missed opportunity to reduce red tape involved in the Mining Act. There are several examples on this front and include a lack of differentiation of scales of mining activity which is resulting in onerous requirements for small mining operations. I maintain that there is a case to ensure that smaller-end mining operations be subject to less onerous approval requirements. The current level of complexity creates impediments to the operation of these businesses. This impacts local regionally based businesses involved in activities such as small-scale sand mining and rubble raising.

I have also previously highlighted that revisions are required to ensure that common sense prevails to avoid weighty regulatory Mining Act related requirements to ensure that smaller activities, such as the appropriation of pads for silos and grain bunkers, avoids being entangled in heavy regulatory provisions. We have missed the opportunity for an amendment that creates pathways for assessment and compliance that are simpler and commensurate with the scale and risks associated with mining activity. We have missed the opportunity to examine provisions offered by smaller jurisdictions, including the concepts of agricultural impact statements facilitated through current New South Wales legislation.

We have missed the opportunity to assess options for improved compensation provisions for landholders such as that provided through the Western Australian legislation, a well-known and accepted model for land access. These are but a few of the opportunities that could have been addressed in a bill delivered after an independent review and with more comprehensive community engagement.

Since the period when this bill was tabled, I and others on this side who crossed the floor to delay the bill have worked hard to speak with constituents and the mining sector to bring a constructive and consultative approach to the process of amending this bill. What we have all heard loud and clear is support by the affected sectors for an independent review of the Mining Act. An independent review of the mining legislation will enable a fine toothcomb to be put across the issues that the mining sector and landholders are experiencing. An independent review would support the assessment of the provisions and workability of legislation from other jurisdictions.

An independent review would be a platform from which a progressive and balanced legislative framework could have been generated. My colleagues and I have worked with the Minister for Mining and Energy as respectfully and productively as we could, and we appreciate his attention to this important matter. However, despite many discussions it is unfortunate, in my view, that this dialogue has not delivered a better outcome for the mining bill. Until we have that engagement and robust discussion that brings balance, fairness and settings that ready the mining and agricultural sectors for the future, we will not have a mining act that will stand us in good stead for South Australia's future.

I would particularly like to again highlight the way that the minister has gone about his discussions in a gentlemanly, respectful way, always courteous and always open to all of the discussions that the four of us have engaged in. I really do thank him for his efforts. I also thank the crossbenchers who have joined us in this bid to have these changes: the member for Florey, Frances Bedford; the member for Frome, Geoff Brock; and the member for Mount Gambier, Troy Bell. I thank you.

I also thank those who have stayed in the gallery, from all around the state, I believe, and have listened here tonight about this bill and the changes we are trying to achieve. I thank you for your efforts and your patience. In finishing, it is known, I believe, in the state of South Australia that when mining is applied for on farming land across South Australia that we have the most accessible rules that would probably go against landowners but perhaps some of the hardest rules that go against miners with environmental laws and suchlike. That is why I believe that, when we address this issue, we do not just look after agriculture and landowners but that we look after the mining industry as well. On that basis I am unable to support the Statutes Amendment (Mineral Resources) Bill 2018 in its current form.

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (22:44): I said in earlier remarks in this place on a different day, in the course of debate on this bill, that mining and agriculture are vital state industries. We want both industries to succeed. When both industries succeed, they improve the wealth of the state and our collective wealth. That might be a brief though perhaps not quite so eloquent summary of the member for West Torrens' contribution to this debate absent some of the Labor philosophy that was infused otherwise in his remarks.

In my view, a more appropriate and equitable balance needs to be struck between the interests of mining companies and farmers. Mining executives do not need to strike that balance. Farmers do not need to strike that balance. We need to strike that balance. That is our responsibility and our communities look to us to ensure that there is an equitable balance, that the law reflects an equitable balance between farmers' rights and mining interests. In my very respectful view, we need to look to Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia as leading mining state jurisdictions to better inform an instrument to achieve that balance. Tensions in those states between mining and agriculture have, in my view, being appropriately resolved.

A landowner recently wrote to me in relation to a mining proposal in my community. I will not identify that constituent or the proposal because it is not my purpose tonight to name or vilify (or ever to) any person or company. Instead, I want to illustrate that the concerns we have raised are real. From the many emails and letters I have received on this issue, I have chosen this one because it also asks very practical questions of all of us. I turn to the correspondence, which reads:

I am contacting you [regarding a] proposal for a mine.

Thereafter follows the name of the project and a description. It continues:

I have been looking through [the] Mining Lease Application and it shows that there are 71 triggers invoking Exempt Land within the mineral claim. 14 of these are residences…As you know there is no way some of the landholders would sign a waiver.

A series of questions follow, including whether exempt land provisions are ultimately effective, the distance of a mine from a dwelling and questions in relation to compensation.

Mr Speaker, I could read emails to you that would detail the difficulties faced by farmers when dealing with mining exploration. I could have read correspondence detailing the failure to adequately compensate landowners. I could have read correspondence that describes the anguish and anxiety of waiting for years on land that your family has always farmed since arrival in Australia for a knock on the door or for legal papers to be served. I could have read stories about the failure to properly remediate land. Those matters are also important, but I return to the email and the correspondence I have raised.

The answer to the email is straightforward. Exempt land provisions in the act, in this bill, could well, in my view, be more effective. What happens in farming communities and what will continue to happen is this: if you do not agree to let the mining company mine on land, which is otherwise exempt from mining because, for example, there is a dwelling on it, the company can ask you to waive your interest in exempt land. If you do not sign a waiver they will take you to court; and what happens when you get to court? The law says that you have to reach an agreement, and one is fixed, and you do not know in advance what necessarily the compensation will be or the terms. In short, you have very few rights.

The member for West Torrens says it is hard on people in those circumstances. He says there is no other better way. He says that those who preach a better way are lying to you, in part perhaps because they do not realise or have not arrived at the same destination. They do not have full knowledge. Well, he is the Father of the House. He has been here longer and there is much in his contribution to this debate and his contribution on other debates.

I have great respect for the knowledge and understanding, drawn, of course, from his time as minister. But I say this: there is a better way, and I think that it is very clear from the course that other states have taken that efforts have been made to resolve these tensions in different ways, in ways quite different to the balance that has been struck in the course of legislative decisions in this state, the balance that is struck in this bill and the balance that will be struck if this bill passes.

I accept the argument that the mineral wealth that lies beneath the land belongs to the people of South Australia and that mining companies need a better system to access that wealth. I accept that argument. It is well made; it is well reasoned; it stands up to scrutiny, but we say, as I have outlined earlier, that inspiration can and should and must be taken from other jurisdictions that in recent years have taken a much more progressive attitude to the resolution of these difficult questions.

We say that it is not a fantasy to think differently about how mining and agriculture might be regulated. We say the examples are out there and can readily be adopted in this state. I say that inspiration can be taken from Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. I think, as I have also earlier remarked in the course of this debate, that Labor does not understand farmers or farming communities. South Road is not a productive paddock. It never has been—or perhaps it was at some point, but you cannot grow a crop there.

Trying to educate Labor about how farming works is a very difficult and foolhardy exercise and one that I am not going to detain us with tonight. I accept that their contribution is well-meaning, but there are aspects of farming that are detailed, scientific, practised over generations, passed down from one generation to the next. It is an art and it is a science, and when it is done well it feeds all of us, it adds to our wealth substantially and it is the engine room of the state.

I have also earlier remarked—but I think it bears repeating in the course of this debate—that it is the 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 to any decision of the party room. That right forms part of our platform and party rules. We are the only major party that has adopted that course. We are the only major party that has those rules. The rules are valuable; the rights they confer are valuable. It is a right that gives our electors confidence that we will always represent their interests.

As I said at the outset of the debate, in my view the bill does not adequately balance the rights of small farmers against miners' rights, and that balance is important in my community. I acknowledge that important improvements have been made to this bill. I acknowledge that the minister has worked diligently and fairly for a long period with us to try to make those improvements, and I am very grateful that substantial amendments have been passed tonight, but in my view, respectfully, they are not enough.

Can I reflect briefly that all our discussions with the minister have been cordial, thoughtful and useful. They have been the type of discussions that I hoped to have in relation to this bill. I thank the minister very sincerely for taking that course with us. I also want to thank my colleagues and the Premier for being supportive and understanding of our position and for allowing me time in a different forum to seek to persuade them of a different outcome.

Some of the matters that we have attempted to ventilate and succeed in persuading our colleagues have been discussed by other members tonight. I will not detain us. It is late in the course of debate, and I think that my colleagues have fairly represented to this place the nature and the scope of the matters that we have sought to ventilate. It would serve no purpose for me to detain all of us here to reflect further on those matters, except to say this: we made every effort, and we have strained every sinew of our being in order to try to achieve a better outcome for our constituents. Truly, we have.

It is a mark of the man, the minister, that he has been prepared to hear us out in relation to every single one of those matters—patiently, thoughtfully and respectfully. The fact that I do not support this bill at this time is not a reflection on the government or the minister. My comments are a mark of confidence in the robust debate that is openly permitted on our side of the chamber. It bears repeating that only a healthy, confident party in a good government, focused on the needs of all South Australians, would allow such an approach. It is an approach that our party has permitted since its founding—since its founding.

Earlier with us in the chamber tonight, in the advisers' box, were employees of the state, employees of the people, who I know have worked tirelessly with the minister and the government to try to ensure that they give their advice, expertise and knowledge to ensure that we are best placed to serve our constituents. They are no longer with us now, but I also thank them for their work and assistance. I cannot support the bill.

Mr MURRAY (Davenport) (22:56): I want to start by thanking my colleagues, especially the Minister for Energy and Mining, for the manner in which they have dealt with me, notwithstanding our disagreement on much of this bill. In particular though, I want to apologise to the South Australian farming community. I have failed to convince the majority of my parliamentary colleagues of the methods, if not the merits, of treating you fairly.

There is little doubt that the existing Mining Act leaves farmers at a substantial disadvantage, and this bill, if enacted, will exacerbate that situation. To be crystal clear, this bill will still result in farmers having mining exploration conducted on their properties, whether they like it or not. It will still result in legislative exemptions for mining on farmland not being worth the paper they are written on. It will still result in woefully inadequate compensation processes, to the financial detriment of the farmer. There will still be no enforcement of the few rights farmers do have. The sad fact is that everyone knows this but few care or, if they do, do not care enough to do something about it.

Jackie Harrop is part of a fifth-generation farming family on Yorke Peninsula. She is a South Australian, just like us. Jackie is affected by this bill and by the current act, and she has fought against exploration on her farm for the last four years. At the same time, Jackie has battled against cancer. She has very publicly stated that she rates dealing with the mining exploration and the associated courts processes as being worse than cancer. To be clear, someone who has dealt with the practical ramifications of the current act, which this bill reinforces, rates that as worse than cancer—worse.

That is not an indictment of the mining sector or indeed of anyone else. It is up to us, the people in this place, to rectify this situation. We make the rules; the miners and explorers simply follow them. I want to stress that many of our mining companies, especially the larger, locally based ones, do go out of their way to respectfully interact with the farming community. That said, many of the exploration companies are cowboys who do what they want to farmers and their properties, and they inevitably get away with it. This is not about being opposed to mining and it is not about some discussion about vetoes. To suggest it is, as the member for West Torrens has, is at best oversimplifying matters. This is about inadequate access and compensation arrangements.

There are several ugly secrets that I wish to canvass tonight. The first of those is that this bill is bad for farmers for a reason. There is no malice, there is just cold calculation by the department which, after all, being fair, have a job to promote mining. The intention is to make South Australian farms the cheapest and easiest in Australia to access and exploit. That is why our legislation and its protections and compensation for farmers is the worst in Australia; it is designed that way.

This is not just a crude attempt to provide an incentive for added mining activity and it is not just patently unfair to farmers, but it does not work. South Australia's share of the national mining investment spend has been in decline for at least the last decade, notwithstanding the fact that our farms are the cheapest and easiest to get to and, in the event that they are got to, that the compensation due is at best minuscule. This is a longstanding issue. It is an issue with the current act, let alone the current bill, and it is bad for a reason.

Ugly secret number two is that, in my view, this situation will only get worse. The primary zones for exploration in South Australia, based on previous data collected by the industry, include large parts of Eyre and Yorke peninsulas. The South Australian mining industry has matured to the stage that all of the easily locatable and accessible mineral deposits have already been exploited. The industry is confident that there are vast amounts of mineral deposits still yet to be discovered in South Australia.

The industry further believes that the bulk of new discoveries will be located deeper—that is to say with more overburden—and that as a result the only way they can be discovered is by way of drilling. That is to say that other less intrusive methods, such as magnetic surveying or surveying by the air will not work. The pressure on landowners for property access for drilling by mining explorers will only increase here in South Australia in the next five to 10 years. More drilling obviously means more land access. This means more people affected by the inadequacies and inequities this bill perpetuates. Left unaddressed, this situation will therefore get worse, not better.

That said, I want to briefly cover the risk of reiterating or rehashing some of the points previously made. A group of us have unsuccessfully sought support for a range of amendments to the bill. Our aim was to take South Australia from being the worst state at protecting land access and compensation and instead using the best practices from other states and jurisdictions. The amendments have all been canvassed before, but they include:

stopping farmers being dragged off to court to force them to sign away their exempt land use without adequate compensation for their court costs;

an independent inquiry along the lines of the one already publicly advocated and envisaged by both the major representative bodies in this argument: Grain Producers SA (GPSA) and the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME);

the independent inquiry would be designed to assess alternative models and jurisdictions, with a view to suggesting best practice ways to address the question of land access, aquifer protection and compensation regimes or methods; and

we also sought, unsuccessfully, realistic compensation methods and regimes, as already used in other Australian states, if exploration does go ahead and as a result there is damage to the farm.

The member for Kavel pointed out, and I reiterate the view, that the answers to a lot of these issues are in the legislation already in place in places such as Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland. It is possible to do better; I suggest we should, and it is important that we should.

So who really cares? Well, the people of South Australia do. They know injustice when they see it, and I have been heartened by the support of people generally, in particular with the stance we have taken. These people support the farmers' fight for some justice and better balancing between small farming businesses on the one hand and, on the other hand, the mining bloc, which includes the Department for Mining and Energy, its minister and the miners and explorers themselves.

South Australian people do support a better and fairer balance between long-term food production versus the permanent loss of that food production or the destruction of our water aquifers in return for the transient exploitation of a small portion of our abundant mineral wealth. The farming community should know that they do have overwhelming public support, even if they do not yet have overwhelming parliamentary support.

So what now? A group of us, me included, do not think it is unreasonable to want to have South Australia's mining land access and compensation laws at least as good as those in operation elsewhere in Australia. Today South Australia's mining land access and compensation laws are, in my view, very deliberately the worst in the country as an attempt to reduce potential costs for exploration especially, and thereby induce more mining operation investment.

It should be stressed that in my view the mining department and the minister are to be commended, because their job is simply about promoting mining. They are just doing their job. The miners, too, are just doing their job. To their credit, many of them, through SACOME, recognise the need for substantive change towards the bill, hence the SACOME call for a comparative review and adoption of best practice—exactly the same things we have sought, as well.

The need for equity for farmers in this act is the job of this parliament and its members. That is our job. In my view it is our responsibility as MPs. I urge the farming community to continue the fight. You are used to overcoming adversity and this will be no different eventually. I am confident right will prevail. As my late father used to say, 'Do the right thing and you'll be alright.'

I will close by thanking Nick McBride, Fraser Ellis and Dan Cregan for their support and friendship throughout this very long process. I join them in articulating my opposition to the passage of this bill, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to get a better deal for farmers and miners than the one we currently have before us.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (23:06): I rise to make just a few very brief comments. Whilst it would be enjoyable to wax lyrical with the member for West Torrens on the rights of the state versus the individual, particularly around airport curfews and mining on Parklands in the heart of the CBD, I will not do that because that would delay the debate even further. What I was hoping would occur out of last November, when we were facing a similar situation and the bill was delayed through an act of this parliament, was that an independent review would occur.

The reason I am opposing this bill is that I think we are putting the cart before the horse because when you have the main stakeholders, when you have the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME), when you have Grain Producers SA (GPSA), the National Farmers Federation, Primary Producers SA, Livestock SA all coming together at a round table chaired by Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce—who, by the way, conducted the royal commission into South Australia and nuclear waste and the nuclear future, so a very credible individual—when we have a round table like that coming out and saying, 'We're the main stakeholders and what we would like, what we are asking for, is an independent review,' I think you need to take that very seriously.

Having delayed the bill last November, that would have given an opportunity for that independent review to occur and the outcome, or the recommendations from that review, then form the basis of the bill, whether it was a new bill or whether it was amendments to this bill. To me, that is the logical process.

One of the issues I have advocated very strongly for a long time—and I am happy to have these debates, and I am happy to be proven wrong—is that I have always advocated for an independent umpire, a mining ombudsman or some other term that you may want to use because this is a very complex area and every situation is different. At some point, somebody has to make a decision. We can provide the framework, the legislative boundaries, that it has operated within, but it still comes down to somebody making a decision.

One of the issues I see is that you have the regulator and the promoter of mining coming out of the same department. They have an independent body making that decision. It does not predetermine which way it is going to go—and from time to time there will be farmers very upset and very angry with the decision, and from time to time you are going to have mining companies very upset and angry at the decision—but what an independent umpire allows is all the questions we have been talking about. What is fair? What is reasonable? What we have at the moment is people using lawyers and the court because, quite honestly, that is the only avenue they have.

I have an example in my local area, and I touched on it with a couple of questions. When you see it firsthand and you are sitting down with farmers—or a farmer, in this particular case—and they are talking through their journey, as a local member you cannot help but be influenced by that. In this situation, the department has confirmed noncompliance: encroachment into exempt land for this mining licence, progressive rehabilitation not completed resulting in a disturbed area greater than the operational approval, a failure to maximise recovery of the resource since around 2009 and annual compliance reports not being submitted since 2007.

So when a farmer comes to me and says, 'Listen, we are tied up in court. It has cost me nearly the farm in trying to defend our position, but I think we have a ray of hope because this mining licence expires on 2 January 2018,' and then they come to me a couple of months later and say, 'What the hell is going on? It has just been approved for another 10 years,' you sit there and say, 'I don't know how I can help you.'

That farmer has gone through immense stress and immense costs tied up in court. I do give credit to the minister who has engaged with this—I want to put that on record—but you can see where we end up with the current legislation. As I said, I am not going to take up too much time. To my mind, this bill should have come after the independent review and the recommendations out of that. I am a strong advocate for the independent umpire with appropriate compensations and all the other enabling parts that need to go along with that. With that, I will be opposing the bill.

Ayes 39

Noes 7

Majority 32

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