HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-11-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Statutes Amendment (Energy and Mining Reforms) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 October 2025.)

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (19:47): I take the opportunity today to speak about the Statutes Amendment (Energy and Mining Reforms) Bill. This bill makes changes to a number of acts: the Energy Resources Act 2000, the Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Act 2023 and the Mining Act 1971. When I look through the changes a number of them are replicated in each of those acts but only to do with change of control for licence holders around forfeiture and transfer of licences that those go through, all three, but then the Mining Act also makes some important changes to how exploration licences are dealt with.

I would like to thank the department for providing the briefing. They went through the main aspects of each of those bills and what the amendments are seeking to do and, through that, trying to give consistency across those acts. I am using the learnings over the decades—you see those acts, years of them from the 1970s to the 2000s and to the current time—and modernising those acts and bringing them into line over time is important.

I will talk through what the substantial changes to the Mining Act are. The bill allows exploration licences to be extended beyond the current 18-year maximum in special circumstances. In talking through the briefing with the departments, it will be interesting when we go through the committee stage. I indicate that we might have a few questions in committee around whether this effectively changes the 18 years as a hard limit, or whether that is the default.

What will the special circumstances be to extend those 18 years? We want to make sure it is not going to become—certainly not a fait accompli, according to the briefing—something that is expected when explorers enter into these leases, thinking, 'Well, the 18 years—that can be ad infinitum as well.' That is certainly not, from my understanding of the briefing, what it was meant to be, and certainly that is not what the opposition's expectations are either.

The bill talks about inserting new provisions to require ministerial approval for significant changes in the control of mining tenement holders, which aligns also with the Energy Resources Act and hydrogen and renewables. It also allows the minister to forfeit mineral tenements for material breaches and transfer them to other parties without compensation. We might have to unpack that a bit in committee, in terms of what the remedies are at the moment and how that fits within there.

At the moment there is a provision to cancel, and suspend as well, and now we have 'forfeit'. Forfeit yes, but transferring across I think would need to be handled quite transparently by the minister so it does not become something where, all of a sudden, there is a company that falls into favour with the government of the day and which allows it to be transferred out. You would hate to think that that is the case, but we would like to understand that more.

The amendment bill also introduces regulation-making powers to establish a mining rehabilitation fund to look towards making sure that companies can effectively contribute to this fund to help with mine site rehabilitation and legacy management. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. The briefing provided said that the amounts in the mining rehabilitation fund probably are not sufficient to allow for legacy mines to come through. So what are the expected levy contributions: are they going to be forward looking and back looking as well? Certainly we can talk to that, and some of the industry views as well.

In terms of looking at what this bill does, it also introduces new ministerial powers to approve or refuse changes in the control of licence holders. The idea is that it would give greater oversight of who holds or acquires significant resource tenements. Again, it would be interesting to unpack how that has come about—if there are issues there, or if this has come from trying to standardise the acts themselves. You can certainly see, in the Energy Resources Act and some of the other bills we have passed, the potential takeover of really important companies in the state, such as Santos. That is certainly an issue, and how does that filter down to exploration licences? Is it for standardisation, or is it also a problem foreseen in the way exploration licences occur?

These exploration licences, these junior miners, require a lot of capital, and ownership changes do occur as well. So that will be interesting to work through. There is the fact that there is no compensation payable to a former licence holder if it is forfeited and transferred. So there are serious ramifications in terms of what that means, and it will be interesting to see the appeal rights there.

To go with that as well, we can see that the maximum penalties for breaches under these acts have been increased substantially from $250,000 up to $16.5 million. Again, maybe under the Energy Resources Act, where you get big players, you can see how that is important. Certainly, for some of the junior explorers, $16.5 million is probably more than what their market cap is, so that is an issue as well. They are a few points coming out of the briefing that we can also go through in committee.

In terms of looking at the key stakeholders, a lot of their energy had gone into the extension of the special circumstances required to exempt the licence and both AMEC and SACOME themselves had been building up over time that this was definitely a necessary change. As it got closer and closer to the 18 years for exploration, they were seeing that investment in exploration was potentially drying up because there was the real threat of whether they were able to have that continuation, so that was certainly an issue.

There are about 58 companies holding 130 exploration licences that are coming up in the near future. I think it was AMEC that pointed out the need to have certainty around what was going on with the 18 years, and the prospect of extending it by up to five years would certainly be necessary before the end of 2025, hence the need for this bill to come before us.

One thing that was pointed out in the AMEC submission, and also by SACOME, was the consultation that has gone on with this, and the compressed timelines. It really has not been best practice, I think is a nice way of putting it. They made the point that they only had five days in which to provide feedback for this, which seems really quite rushed. SACOME made the point that, in terms of best practice for consultation—and that comes out of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—it should not be rushed or burdensome for stakeholders, and between 30 to 60 days is usually appropriate for effective consultation, with 30 days considered the minimum.

The industry bodies that I think the government, the opposition and the parliament rely on to provide boots-on-the-ground advice are saying that there was not a lot of time here. It speaks to the fact that the legislation coming before us had to be rushed into parliament because, as I said, there needs to be some certainty for those explorers before the end of 2025.

There has been ample time for this legislation to be worked through and consulted on but, because the timelines behind that were so compressed, it only allowed five business days of consultation to be provided, to then go through the process where, of course, it goes to the cabinet and then comes to the parliament here with only two sitting weeks left this year—potentially three, with the optional week.

SACOME and AMEC made the point they made every effort to provide feedback for this, but the period of five business days was potentially not enough. It also overlapped with a significant mining conference here in Adelaide and a public holiday in Western Australia, where a lot of these companies have their headquarters. It did not allow for in-depth consultation and the opposition certainly relies on that consultation process to be able to go to those industry stakeholders.

It is not clear how many primary producer industry bodies were able to provide stakeholder input to put their points of view across. Certainly the opposition is in the process of reaching out to them and getting their views on this bill and, to some extent, that gives pause for thought just to make sure we get both sides of the story. As we have seen throughout the progress of mining here in South Australia and primary production, the best-case scenario is that they coexist together and that both major industries to the state are able to thrive. At times, of course, it comes into conflict, so it is certainly something that does need to be taken into account from that point of view as well.

Another point was made, in terms of that consultation and why it was so rushed and the timelines required to process these licences and the change of control provisions, which was: are there enough resources in the department to handle it?

Other stakeholder feedback was that a lot of the attention from the department has been focused on the hydrogen side of things, with resources being poured into the Office of Hydrogen Power SA, whereas insufficient resources have been available in DEM to be able to handle the regulatory side of things and take on the concerns of industry around that. Also, could this legislation that we now see before the parliament towards the end of 2025 have been accelerated and brought to the parliament a lot earlier, and could the consultation with stakeholders have been done a lot earlier?

If you look at what is going on in terms of exploration here in South Australia, one of the key indicators is the Fraser Institute. They release their annual Survey of Mining Companies that looks at how jurisdictions are ranked throughout the world in relation to the mining industry in terms of investment attractiveness, the policy perception and the best practices. Certainly mining is very important to the state of South Australia, but over the last three years we have seen South Australia drop significantly in all three of those major indices.

We talked before about the Investment Attractiveness Index and South Australia has dropped from 19th out of 86 in 2023, to 35th out of 82 in 2024. You can see the drop in the last ranking under the former Liberal government was 10th out of 84 in 2021. If you look at the Policy Perception Index, South Australia has dropped from 20th out of 86 in 2023, to 30th out of 82 in 2024, compared to the last ranking of the former Liberal government being 16th out of 84 in 2021, so you can see a decline over those years. If you look at the Best Practices Mineral Potential Index, back in 2021 South Australia was ranked 9th out of 84. It had dropped to 19th out of 58 in 2023 and then to 34th out of 58 in 2024.

They really point to an issue in terms of investment attractiveness in the state compared to other jurisdictions. It is not like these warnings have just crept up on us and something had to be acted upon late in 2025 and hence the short notice in terms of consultation. These warning signs were there when talking with AMEC and SACOME in the lead-up. In terms of this 18-year licence limit, there was cause for concern. It is not the only reason potentially that those rankings are on the decline, but it was one reason given.

Of course, when it comes to these licences, the advice that the explorers were giving was that once you get to two years towards the end of the exploration licence, it makes it really hard to justify spending more capital on exploration in what is a speculative and, many times, a capital-intensive process. There are certainly risks there because of the probabilities of finding new minerals to an extent that they can then move on to be mined economically. If you have had 16 years then in those final two years they are reticent to invest.

That is certainly one of the things, and I note that the department said that there are other reforms to come out of this going forward, but that is certainly one of the reasons given by AMEC as to where we are going in terms of investment attractiveness—those indexes in South Australia. Of course, it is really important to the state that these explorers are able to go through. As I said, it is a risky business in terms of exploration, but there are opportunities there if finds are made and mineral deposits are found.

In terms of the reasons given, as I said before, the briefing was that the underlying principle is that the 18 years for licences is still the norm, and it is only in terms of special circumstances that there would be an extension to the licence. It talks through some of the provisions of that and, hopefully, the committee will be able to get some more clarity around what potentially would enliven the minister to be able to consider reasons to have a special circumstance extension.

If we talk a little bit more in terms of the changing control, certainly what was initially consulted on it seems was that if there was a change to control of 20 per cent that caused industry a lot of concern to the point where AMEC was making the submission that if that was the cause then the clause should be removed and, as an alternative, a 50 per cent threshold was proposed, and that has come through.

From that perspective and because of that they have at least been able to live with that, but it is interesting to go through in terms of what is currently in place. It shows that these explorers rely a lot on capital and on having ownership interest change over time to bring in capital. They also had questions around how it was going to interplay with some of the other bodies such as ASIC in terms of them also having an oversight on changing control. They were some of the considerations that were pointed out.

In terms of the Mining Rehabilitation Fund, I think the feedback they got from industry is that they are supportive of having a rehabilitation fund. They had questions around the funds that were put into the scheme and how they were going to be used, whether they were going to be used on legacy mines to rehabilitate or whether they were going to be only forward looking. There is overall support, and you can understand that, but we will be trying to get to the bottom in committee around potentially how those funds will be levied and collected from that point of view.

Circling back, we can see from the shortened consultation that is provided that there is certainly still the need to be able to consult more broadly with stakeholders, especially the primary producers and the industry, around what their thoughts are from that perspective. We are still waiting for that.

We understand the necessity to have speedy passage of this bill, predominantly to assist with the special circumstances extensions, so we do not want to stand in the way of that, but we note that we still want to get feedback from the primary producers and from the peak industry bodies around their views, just to provide comfort that can be done, certainly between the houses. I look forward to maybe fleshing out a few of those questions as we go into committee, going forward, and then again consulting, but between the houses ensuring that we look at both sides, both the mining side and the primary production side as well.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (20:11): Here we are again: another mining bill that may well have adverse impacts on our farming communities presented for debate in this parliament in November. It is like clockwork that we have these experiences. It seems that when the headers come out of the shed the bills also come out of the drawers of the Department for Energy and Mining for presentation to this parliament for our consideration.

You may remember that this—in fact, I am sure you do remember this, Mr Deputy Speaker—has been a longstanding passion of mine, this issue. I have had quite a bit to do with the battle between mining and farming and agricultural land over the seven years that I have been in here, and that was most famously exemplified by my crossing the floor in November 2018. You might note that date: that was in November. That was when the previous Liberal government presented a mining bill to this parliament to significantly change the land access arrangements that farmers had to endure when a mining company approached their land.

That was the most famous example of my interaction with this issue, and on that occasion we were able to get that debate delayed until February. We did so on the basis that it was the middle of harvest and the farming community were out there in their headers attempting to feed the nation and were unable to partake in the debate or influence the outcome because they were otherwise engaged in reasonably important pursuits.

That was a wonderful decision by that parliament. It was made possible, of course, with the support of the then Labor opposition. They were the ones who supported that motion to adjourn debate until February on the basis that it was in the middle of harvest. In fact, the now Premier was the person who amended the motion to ensure that it was moved to February. So to see this bill now put before this parliament in November again, despite having had that lesson presented to this parliament four years ago, is incredibly disappointing.

What is more, the previous iteration of that bill that we successfully adjourned to February was presented to the parliament in November 2017. These bills just seem to keep coming before the parliament in November, in the middle of harvest, whilst the farming community cannot have its proper interaction and say on the outcome of the bill.

You may well call me a conspiracy theorist. I can see the minister giggling in such a way. Maybe once or twice it might be a coincidence; three times not so, I would say. I might ask the question in committee whether we might consider putting this off until February, or after the election as well, on the same basis that the last mining bill that was presented to this parliament was.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Second mandate, you say?

Mr ELLIS: I think that would be a wise idea. I think it has some merit, because the department is advertising this piece of legislation on the department website and is also identifying that there will be a far more broad suite of reforms that will be coming after the election. I have written some notes about it. I quote from the website:

A broader suite of reforms in respect to the Mining Act may be considered for a legislative program in the new term of government following the March 2026 State election.

So why do we not we just tie them all in together? Why do we not present these four or five changes that are presented to the parliament now, at the eleventh hour of this government, all tied into the bill that seems to be forthcoming following the March 2026 election?

It would, of course, as the minister just alluded to, allow all parties and participants to take their positions to the election. It would allow all of us who have formed strong positions on this issue in the past to repeat our bona fides to the community that have elected us previously to see if they are still important issues to them, and it would allow us not to have to rush this bill through parliament.

Mr Speaker, you would be well aware that at the conclusion of today's sitting we will have five days left of parliament, not including the optional sitting week. That would in my view constitute a rushed bill that goes through this place and an undesirable outcome for such an important piece of legislation.

So I would submit to this parliament and to the government that perhaps we would be wisest, in the same spirit that we did in the last iteration, in the last November effort, to put this off until February, until after harvest is completed, until after the election has been conducted, so that we can properly interrogate all the different parts of it.

While we await an answer to that idea that has been put—and I am sure it is being given proper consideration in the halls of power as we speak right now—I would like to address what we do have before us now. What we have before us has been advertised as an effort to give certainty. That is an interesting word that I would like to touch on just that little bit further.

This word, 'certainty', will presumably be only to the benefit of exploration companies. They will now be able to operate with the certainty that there is unlikely be any danger of their exploration licence ever expiring. As best as I can tell now, the minister has the absolute discretion to grant five-year extension after five-year extension to an exploration licence without any end date in sight.

I am sure in the rebuttal we will hear that there is, of course, some criteria that the minister is able to consider in making his decision to exercise his discretion, but he is certainly not constrained by it. He is certainly not obliged to consider those criteria, and if he decides to exercise his discretion in another way then that is a matter entirely for him. It is a matter entirely for any future minister that comes and occupies his position.

So I think whilst that criteria we find in the bill is certainly a thing that we might put forward to the farming community as desirable and to ease their minds, ultimately what we have here is a discretion that is 100 per cent up to the minister to exercise and completely within his power to do so. I can quote from the second reading speech:

The minister retains absolute discretion to refuse an application for a special circumstances exemption.

At the end of the day, I would contend that those criteria are not worth the piece of paper that they are written on.

On the other side of the coin, of course, where the exploration companies get absolute certainty that they will be able to operate in perpetuity, farmers get the opposite. They get the uncertainty that they will have an exploration licence hanging over their head forever.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr ELLIS: Well, that is a theoretical possibility.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That's not right.

Mr ELLIS: There is a theoretical possibility that there will be a five-year extension granted after five-year extension and that that exploration licence and that operator will be there in perpetuity. These are the two sides of the coin that we must consider. The certainty given to the exploration company comes at the expense of the uncertainty now bestowed upon the landowner.

This, of course, was a key theme in the select committee report that this parliament and a committee therein worked assiduously on at the end of the last parliament. I disseminated that when I shared my amendments with everyone—the key passage from that select committee report, which was made possible, of course, with the then member for Frome, now member for Stuart, and chaired quite ably by him. The burden that was being borne by landowners with mining licences was quite clear to see from everyone we spoke to. So that certainly, whilst good for explorers, I think will come at the expense of landowners.

I will now touch on those couple of amendments. Where the bill will allow for an indefinite number of extensions theoretically to be granted to an exploration company, I propose, and will propose when I move the amendment, that it will be limited to one two-year extension. That will give an exploration company 20 years total, hard cap, to turn their exploration project from an idea to a mining licence. That, I would contend, is more than enough time for these companies to go about their business and determine whether it would be a profitable and economic venture for them to undertake. That amendment will come in two parts, and I intend to move both of them, regardless of the outcome of the other, and I will be seeking the parliament's support in so doing.

There are other amendments I would have liked to have moved had I had more time, but this bill was presented to the parliament approximately two weeks ago and I had my briefing about eight days ago. That has not been enough time for me to properly consider the ramifications for a number of amendments. I do note that there will be some in my community and others who would have liked for me to go even harder on some amendments, in line with my previous positions.

I would like to make quite clear that there are other amendments I would have liked to have moved, and chief amongst them as a headline is that this would have been a tremendous opportunity for the government to instil a mining ombudsman or commissioner or a land access ombudsman or commissioner. It has just happened in New South Wales, where there is an ag commissioner who will be able to adjudicate on complaints that are filed to the mining department, and now would have been the perfect time to present one to South Australia.

Another key finding that came out of that select committee report which was tabled in parliament some four years ago was that there is an inherent conflict with the mining department being both the promoter and regulator of mining in South Australia. That was a key finding of the select committee report and something that came up time and time again as we moved around the state and listened to different farmers who felt that they were not being heard by the umpire when there was a break in the rules.

Now we are proposing that the minister will have the power to revoke an exploration licence or a mining licence should the breach of the terms and conditions of that licence be so egregious as to justify it. That I think would be a power better bestowed on an independent umpire rather than a minister, a member of the government. I think this would have been a wonderful time to separate the promoter and regulator to enable the regulator to be an independent umpire so that we could have consistent, transparent and universally trusted regulation conducted across both the mining and farming sector.

We will now inevitably have questions—rightly or wrongly—about whether a government had its preference for a different operator, whether there was different treatment given to a different breach of the terms and conditions, whether one was allowed to continue and the other was barred from doing so or vice versa. I can foresee that there will be problems coming, or at least the perception of conflict, for the mining department as they attempt to adjudicate on issues presented to them by the farming community.

I would have liked to have presented an amendment like that to establish a commissioner or an ombudsman so that farmers could present their complaints to an independent umpire and have faith that the process was being conducted free from any interference from a party or organisation that wanted to see mining promoted in our state. Unfortunately, I did not have time to conduct that properly but it will be something that I continue to pursue in the lead-up to the election in March and it is something I have pursued since the select committee and since the issue became quite topical in my electorate.

There is quite a bit more I would like to say, but in the interests of time I will wrap up. I will be opposing this bill if both of my amendments do not pass. I have referenced a couple of times the select committee that was formed as part of the deliberations in this house in the last parliament. The multipartisan committee was set up in large part thanks to the current government and did some incredibly thorough work across the state and met with a large number of people. Hansard will be able to attest to the work that that select committee did. It seems to me that the findings from that committee have been summarily ignored. There does not seem to be anything that has come from that select committee report that was tabled in this place that has managed to find its way into the next iteration of the mining bill. I think that is incredibly disappointing for those farmers who turned out across the state who were able to present their ideas.

We heard some genuinely heart-wrenching grievances presented and to have none of those find their way into this bill is incredibly disappointing and, might I say, possibly even somewhat offensive to those people who turned out. Also, I know for a fact that a number of farming industry groups put submissions in for the consultation on this bill specifically. As best I can tell, none of these suggestions were picked up either, so those submissions have been ignored. To borrow some words from a different author, it presents:

…a serious failure of consultation and accountability that reinforces fears that the reform process has been designed primarily to facilitate new mining activity rather than to protect South Australian ag, environment and community.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Who said that?

Mr ELLIS: That was said by the Limestone Coast Sustainable Futures group. I know that they put a submission in and are disappointed that their feedback was not taken into account, or at least did not form part of the final product. The fact is that it is going through in November, right in the middle of harvest, as all mining bills seem to do; the select committee report did not make it into the final copy, after so much work was put in by so many across the entirety of the state; and finally, those farming communities that did put in submissions to the consultation on this bill have not had their voices featured in the final product.

On that basis, unless my two amendments pass, I will be inclined to oppose the bill as well and take forward to the election my position that it is well time for an ag commissioner, a mining on ag land commissioner or someone to assume these responsibilities of the independent umpire to make sure that complaints from farmers and landowners about misgivings or malpractice that occurs on their land are properly heard, properly adjudicated, and they can get a fair hearing and hopefully some of these are held to account.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (20:25): It gives me great pleasure to be able to stand and respond at the second reading of these mining amendments. I thank the member for Narungga, and I even thank the Minister for Mining for bringing these amendments forward, because as I have heard in his second reading, he is endeavouring to bring about some efficiencies and some changes that will hopefully bring more prosperity not only to the mining sector but to the state as a whole.

Unfortunately, some intentions are not always well understood by everyone in Adelaide, and this is what I am seeing: the greater divide, this type of process and what is happening here tonight. As the member for Narungga has clearly described, the previous attempts by another government previous to this one to do what it did were late in the year, in a rush; under the carpet, in a way. That caught the government by surprise, and it did not act or did not end up being delivered as intended.

Since then, there has been no real great opportunity or movement to address what was understood back in 2018. This is why I actually have to thank the Minister for Mining for doing what he is trying to achieve in addressing this 18-year period. It goes down to five-year increments; that is how I would best try to describe it. Readdressing mining licences and functions of mining companies goes back to this five-year period. My counterpart the member for Narungga is bringing in a clause where he can hopefully bring it back to two years.

One of the things I think is really interesting in this process is it is my understanding that if there is a large mining development that is just suddenly found out of nowhere and they have to start out from day one, if they were well resourced with millions and billions and money was no object, there would be no way that this mine, depending on its size and proximity, would even be functioning in the first five years and turning over a sod of soil because of the paperwork that may be involved and the processes that they have to go through.

I was told that if the same mining outcomes happened here that are happening in Western Australia, like at Roy Hill for Gina Rinehart, it would now require 1,200 pieces of information and paperwork and legislation and so forth to be worked through to do that same mine. I could not tell you the number of years or amount of time it might take to get done. That is how difficult it has become to do work in Australia. I am talking about a Western Australian example; I do not have an example to give you in South Australia.

What I would say is this is why we wanted an inquiry into the Mining Act that would work in the interests of both miners and landowners, and for the Australian people. On social media even today we are hearing about the way that we export product out of this country—particularly gas and coal, which are great forms of energy—to little benefit for Australians. We actually can buy it back in some cases cheaper than we can dig it up and keep it for ourselves because of certain contracts that were put in place 20-odd years ago.

Just to touch on the issue around the whole process of the Mining Act and the way it does and does not work, what I see from those in the offices of the tall towers in Adelaide is that they have the best of intentions, but they really have no idea about the unintended consequences. The unintended consequences are the raft of paperwork and the legislation and rules that people and businesses have to work through to make a dollar and get things working, which puts added pressure and risk to mining in this state. This is happening everywhere. Australia is not a lone soldier here. That is one of the reasons when, if we consider what happened in 2018, we were looking at other mining acts and other jurisdictions outside of Australia, recognising that maybe even Queensland, New South Wales or Western Australia did not have it as well as what they could have it.

Coming back to my local area, I will touch on the Mining Act and the difficulty in regard to small quarries and earthworks and so forth. We see that earthmoving businesses that work on roads—lime and dolomite and gypsum—have all of the paperwork and regulations around those small types of processes, and then that goes on to metal and rubble for roads and infrastructure. It is really tough on these businesses, finding and getting approval to work and extract these materials out of the ground, and it adds extra burden and extra cost to anyone who wants to buy those products out in the market.

The other overlaying issue that is giving my region concern—and it probably emulates a little my offsider from Narungga and the copper mine on Yorke Peninsula—is this new proposal of rare earths in the Limestone Coast. I do hope that these amendments tonight that the minister is bringing forward will help, not only so rare earths can operate bilaterally, in parallel, and landowners who have valuable land and valuable environmental aspects that need protecting are protected but also so those landowners can participate in Australian rare earths and be part of that mining operation, which may even lend themselves to better agricultural lands in the end, when rare earths have been through and put it all back together.

One of the things highlighted by these amendments, as has been said, is that the government hates shadows and people being locked out and stopped from investment, where people put down their claim and title, and they sit on it. They might sit on it because they have no money to invest. They might not have any interest really, but they are speculative. It is seen as so bad, and I am not suggesting it is not. One of the main things that happened around renewable energy is that they were deliberately making sure that people could not go and apply for a renewable energy development like a wind farm site, get the approval and then say, 'I'm not developing this now. We're going to sit on it for five years or 10 years and lock everyone else out.' There is no doubt this takes place in the mining sector.

I hope that the government's change from 18 years back down to five years is one of the reasons they are looking at this and addressing this tonight. I hope that that is an aspect of allowing these mining titles to fall into the right hands, rather than the silent hands or the speculative hands that are sitting on it and watching and waiting for time to go by.

With that, I hope and pray that we do have some good outcomes in this mining bill and the amendments that will be moved tonight. I will be looking out for my landowners who do not want to suffer the rare earth mines and want to keep them well away from what I hopefully say is either really pristine country with environmental aspects or productive agricultural land that it is too valuable to turn upside down and put back together. But then on the other side of the equation, I know that we can find other landowners who are going to be more welcoming. They have been sought and will be sought into the future. With that, I will sit and watch tonight's proceedings and wish the minister and the government luck.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Energy and Mining) (20:34): Interesting contributions, Mr Acting Speaker. I thank the Liberal Party for their support of the mining amendment bill. The Liberal Party have been strong advocates of mining for a long time, and I thank them for their continued support, and the Independent regional members, of course, standing up for farmers as they usually do, and I completely understand.

I suppose my concern is that my job here is not to play fair or favourites with either side. My job here is to make sure that we can have a good outcome for farming communities, a good outcome for the mining industry. Why? There is always going to be a natural tension between freehold farming land and mineral rights, and that extends because the taxpayer—that is the community as a whole—owns the minerals under the ground, and the farmer owns the land on top. So the question then becomes: if we own the minerals underneath, how do we get to them? Through the freehold land.

I do not want to put words into the mouths of the regional Independents, but I suspect their view would be, 'Listen, the farming land is more valuable than the minerals underneath, so therefore we sterilise that; farming is more important.' And there are others who would say, 'Mining is far more valuable than farming land, therefore, push the farmers aside and just get to the minerals and get them out of the ground.' I have to find the balance between both, and it is difficult.

When you speak to the member for MacKillop and the member for Narungga, these are two passionate advocates for regional communities who care about farmers, and there are farmers who have been on these farms for generations. So their connection to the land is not financial, it is emotional. I understand that. My father was a farmer. I completely understand the connection to country. However, I am also the Treasurer of the state, who wants to build the state's economy and build our revenue base and create jobs. I also point out to members in regional communities: do you know what mining does? It droughtproofs communities. It gives you the opportunity to have work in areas that are not reliant on weather.

The member for Narungga once said to me, 'There are exploration companies that have a lower capital value than some of these farming entities.' That is, the farmer can buy and sell the mining company that gets access to their land, and I understand his point. But my point is that finding the balance between giving the right access is valuable.

Now, why the extension? The former Liberal government brought in an 18-year hard deadline on developing a mine. Otherwise you lost your mining licence. My argument is commodity prices in the minerals sector go up and down. You might have a deposit that is vast and, to the novice or to the uneducated: they've got a mining licence, they've got all their approvals, they've got their capital, why aren't they mining? Well, it is not economic to mine yet because the commodity price is not high enough. You might argue, 'Well, bad luck.'

A larger investor may come along in year 16 and say, 'I want to buy this mining licence, I want to buy this company, I do not want to develop this mine, but it's going to take me another six years to get it operational'—and the truth is, from discovery to development, it is about a decade, from finding the first store in the ground, if everything goes right, with commodity prices on the same trajectory as discovery and capital-raising. The question for me is: do I sterilise that mine site at year 18 and say, 'Start again,' when we could have had the jobs, the investment, the capital invested in South Australia, the royalties being paid to South Australia, people being employed in South Australia, two years after the mining lease expired?

With regard to the point the member made about the uncertainty for farmers, this is the point I make in response: let's say you have a mining licence over a family farm, and there is a copper deposit under the ground. The copper deposit is at a depth that is uneconomic to mine unless the copper price reaches a certain point. Over that 18-year period, the copper price never reaches the point where it is economic to mine. That mining licence expires. That farm is not extinguished from the mining licence from the Mining Act. A new explorer can turn up, lay a tenement over the top and start again, and put the farmer through that entire process all over again.

My point is, where the member's argument falls over about the uncertainty is that there is no sterilisation of land here. So I think his argument is wrong. I would like to point out to the member, just because this is the sort of thing I do, that he talked about November. Do you know when he introduced his bill?

Mr Ellis interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sure, yes, but you introduced it in November. The truth is that the member, who is a very proud advocate for farming communities, introduced a bill that amended the Mining Act that had amendments he could have moved now—they were ready to go. Where I do give him credit is that he believes passionately in the democratic process, and, from what I can tell, he is taking his points of view to the people of Narungga at the next election about mining, and the Labor Party will take theirs.

If I was a betting man, in Narungga you will do better than we will. But as a whole, across the entire community, the South Australian public will rightly say to me, 'We have mineral wealth under the ground. What are you doing to get it out of the ground and return a return on our investment? We have been endowed with that mineral wealth. It belongs to the people of South Australia. It funds our schools, it funds our hospitals, it funds our roads, it funds the good governance of this state. Why aren't we developing it and creating jobs and creating royalties?'

Mr Ellis: Most of them don't have to live next to it or drive past.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry?

Mr Ellis: Most of them don't have to live next to it or drive past. They just get to read about it in the papers.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, but they do get the benefit in their schools and their hospitals. They get the benefit on their roads. This tension is always going to exist, and I suspect there is no bill that I can introduce that will satisfy some members of the farming community, and I do regret that because they are good people and they work exceptionally hard.

Living off the land is probably one of the most noble and difficult pursuits you could ever undertake, but so is public service and so is balancing the public good. So I make no apology for attempting to grow the state's wealth. I make no apology for attempting to create jobs. I make no apology for attempting to improve the state's standard of living and our income from royalties.

I also point out to members that if you looked at all the farmland that had been taken up by mining, it is a fraction of what we produce in this state. There is no real threat to farmland in this state. There is threat to individual farmers, but there are provisions within the Mining Act that make sure that they are well compensated for the loss of their endeavour, the loss of their work, and in the end it removes the uncertainty of weather for a lot of these farmers.

What it gets down to is the emotional response, 'This is my land and I have lost control of what happens on my land,' and that is a normal human response to have. Members might disagree, but it is no different to the government turning up and saying, 'We need to buy the family home to knock it over to build a road.' That is painful. That is a painful conversation.

I have been in people's living rooms, as transport and infrastructure minister, where they have taken me to the corridor and shown me the architraves around the doorframes and said, 'This is when my daughter was four years old and I carved her height in it, and this is my son's height, and there on that tree is where I put a swing up for my kids, and in this driveway is where I taught my son how to ride a bike,' and I am going to turn up and bulldoze it to build a road. These are difficult conversations. Progress is important for the greater good and good governance of the state and sometimes we need to make difficult decisions.

What this bill does is minimalist. This is minimal change. This change does, I think, a number of things that I want to explain to the house. The first thing is it gives me the opportunity to make sure we do not inadvertently undo the chance of agreeing for an extension of a mining licence from beyond eight years for circumstances that are beyond the control of the mining licence holder: commodity prices, a buyout, a new buyer coming in year 17 saying, 'I have only had it for a year. It's unfair. I can't develop it in time. Why extinguish it and make me start all over again? I can have the mine producing in a couple of years.' Tick.

But I point out to the member for Narungga and the member for MacKillop that this is not an automatic approval. This is not an approval that I will just grant on the basis of application. I do not think there are many mining ministers who would be inclined to just grant consistent approvals for an extension because I think people do hold land and I do like the idea of use it or lose it. So I will be pretty strict about its application.

The member quite rightly makes the argument: what is the discretion? It is up to the minister. I say to the member that you do not want this in unelected hands. You do not want this in the hands of the bureaucracy. You want this in the hands of elected officials. Why? Because you have my number and you can call another elected official and the unwritten rule of the parliament is that we take seriously what backbenchers and local members say.

The truth is that my bigger constituents are the members of this place. If you release it and put it into some sort of independent hand that you are talking about, you are going to have even less say—a lot less say. Every time we remove the public from the decision-making process—and when I say the public, I am talking the parliament—the less democratic the outcomes are. I see this a lot in public life—hand over infrastructure spending to independent bodies, hand over health spending to independent bodies. They do not hear the real-world stories from constituents. They do not hear the mother talking about holding her child in an emergency waiting room for hours at night. What they hear is the efficient allocation of capital to where it is needed the most.

What we want in our system is elected officials hearing the complaints of elected members of parliament who represent the constituents about real-world problems because that is when you get real-world outcomes and the more you remove it from those real-world outcomes you get the economically efficient outcome; that is, what is written in the textbook is what would occur. That is not the outcome the public wants. That is what happens in countries where there is less democracy and I would caution against that.

If members opposite or any member of this parliament thinks that giving the discretion to an unelected official or ombudsman to decide whether a mine should proceed or not or whether a mine licence should be extended or not you will get a better outcome for the public, I caution you on that completely. I would say that there is absolutely no pressure that any community could put on an unelected official who has either a lifetime appointment or a seven-year appointment and a contract. What you want is the fierce fire at the feet of democracy, at the feet of politicians, every four years about every decision they make.

I know that I am not going to convince you and I accept that and I know you are fighting for a constituency and I accept that. But I say to you that this legislation is the best outcome for farming communities because we did consult and we did listen to farming communities and we did make changes. We listened to AMEC and we made changes about changing control and change of control is important.

In relation to change of control, currently, the mining minister has no say in who owns our mining licences. I submit that the public would be horrified to hear that—horrified to hear that—and the changes I am bringing in insert the public, that is the minister on their behalf, to have a decision-making process about whether or not the right persons, the right people with the right credentials, own these mining licences. That is not a bad thing: that is a good thing.

There are foreign countries and foreign states that use state-owned enterprises to buy mining licences in other countries to control those commodities. We have the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB). No-one criticises their ability to have a say in who owns what. Why would we not do the same here? I will give you an example: let's say FIRB just passed through a small mining licence that is not a mine yet and it has been sold to a foreign country. The state has no recourse other than the parliament.

These clauses give me the ability to intervene and say, 'Actually, I do not think you are the right owners for this.' I think that is a good outcome for the people of South Australia, not a bad outcome for the people of South Australia. I know the mining industry do not like it. The mining industry want me to have no say in who owns the mining licences. They want the market to apply, which means they want to sell all their mining licences to one country to our north, which is our largest trading partner.

I think that is a bad outcome for the people of South Australia. I think the people of South Australia want us to have a say in who owns the mining licences, the same way farming communities want us to have a say in who owns our farms, the same way the public of South Australia want us to have a say in who owns public housing or private housing and why they want us to discriminate in favour of our citizens as opposed to foreign citizens who want to buy houses here.

What we are introducing here is the ability for me to intervene and say no. For example, I have these powers in the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act. If someone who is not an Australian company wants to buy Santos, we have a say. That is a good thing. It is not a bad thing. The way the member characterised it in his second reading address I think was a little bit unfair. I think what the government is attempting to do is to give the people more say in who has these licences to make sure we protect the public from the coercive influence of state-owned subsidies coming in and buying up our mineral wealth. So I caution the member there as well.

Having said that, I consider this a pretty uncontroversial bill. There are relatively few changes. Are there more changes coming after the election? Yes, there are—of course there are. We are always refreshing legislation. I will go out and consult, I will talk to the community about them and I will take them to the election. We will publish our mining policy. Members will see it, see what it means. They can hold it up to the light, they can look at it, they can think about it and they can debate it. People can choose: do they want to vote Liberal in Narungga, Liberal in MacKillop? Do they want to vote Independent in those two seats or do they want to vote Labor? They will make up their own minds on the basis of policies.

The member has put a stake in the ground on his views on the mining industry and the farming industry, as has the member for MacKillop and so have I. My view is that the two industries can coexist and coexist well. I think it can benefit regional communities. I think mining on Yorke Peninsula would benefit the Yorke Peninsula, not hurt it. I think mining on Eyre Peninsula will help. I think mining in the Mid North helps. I think mining, in general, grows our wealth, relieves us of our dependence on international trade, gives us more economic sovereignty, allows us to produce the raw materials we need to produce the metals we need to fund our economy and build our economy. With those few words, I commend the bill to the house and I look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr PATTERSON: As I mentioned in my speech, there is significant concern around the duration of the industry consultation on this bill. Can the minister explain why industry consultation was limited to five business days, and during that time it overlapped with a major mining conference but also public holidays?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Because the industry asked for these changes. The industry are the ones who have been at me for the last four years to undo the changes you made when you were in government about the hard 18-year cap. Here we are, after four years of lobbying, I have brought it in and there are some consequential changes to it. The change of ownership provisions are something that is just aligning it with the Petroleum and Geothermal Act. I am not quite sure that industry have much to complain about given that they are the ones who asked for the changes. I say to the industry, if the industry are not happy with these changes, I will withdraw the bill.

Mr PATTERSON: Can the minister advise which primary producer industry bodies were contacted for consultation on this bill and, if they were contacted, did any of those primary producer industry bodies provide feedback to the bill?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The bodies that were consulted were AEP, AEMC, CCAA, Clean Energy Council, H2 Council, SACOME and Energy Producers. We received written submissions from AEP, Alliance Resources, Alligator Energy, AMEC, Barton Gold, Havilah Resources, Investigator Resources, Marmota, Revera Energy, Santos, Sinosteel, Veritas and SACOME.

Mr PATTERSON: You have given there a list of who was contacted. I notice there were no individual licence holders contacted. Again, a point made by the industry bodies was that there were no licence holders contacted individually. My question then is: is that the case and, if so, why were individual licence holders not consulted about this change?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Industry associations, which individual licence holders are members of, lobbied for these changes. I am not going to go out and write to every licence holder and say, 'What is your view of this change?' We publish it, we ask for written submissions and they come back to us. I have yet to meet an industry body that is opposed to an extension of the 18-year hard cap. If the member has a mining interest that he thinks is opposed to the extension of the 18-year cap, I would like to hear it.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr PATTERSON: In terms of the commencement, when this comes in, and going through the timelines again, you made the point industry are asking for this. You talked about the special circumstances, the exemption there, but there were also other parts of the act brought in which are quite substantive in terms of how they go about it, such as changing control, the forfeiture of the licence and the transfer of the licence as well. It is not just changes to the special circumstances extension.

I think they are quite right to make the point as leading to the question I asked around that. Just because they are not the one part that industry may well be comfortable with, there are other parts of the bill tacked on, to the point where some of the submissions were that some of the clauses be totally removed because they have not been consulted on properly. There was an issues paper released in May and then the consultation for this bill was only circulated in September. Why was there such a gap between the issues paper and the consultation? Could that consultation have been brought forward to allow for more consultation to occur?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think trying to find unanimity of opinion in the mining industry is like trying to find unanimity on net zero in the Liberal Party: it is impossible. If I can only introduce legislation on the basis of everyone agreeing, that is complete unanimity and that I consult within an inch of my life before I get an outcome, it reaches a point where you have to have some leadership. We have to say, 'I'm the mining minister. I have listened to industry. These are the changes that I think need to be made. Also, while I'm here, I think these are other consequential changes that I should make in the interests of the state.' And I am not particularly interested in what the mining industry has to say about this because it might not be in their financial interests but it is in the financial interests of the state and the people of South Australia.

In terms of change of control, there is no company in Australia that wants there to be any government oversight of change of control, yet we do it. The Liberal Party are free to vote against this. I believe we have a right to have a say about who owns our mining licences. If the Liberal Party disagrees, you can vote against it. I think, if there are foreign interests that wish to buy our mining licences, the people of South Australia should have a say through their elected government: pure and simple. There is not a mining company or an investment company in the state that would think that is a good idea.

I wanted to set a cap at 20 per cent. After consultation, we moved it to 50 per cent. That is me listening. That is the government being responsive to consultation. However, I make no apology for it because we should have a say in who owns our mining licences. How many times have members of this place complained to me about foreign ownership of Australian farming? Constantly, it happens all the time. I am doing something about it. Get on board.

Mr PATTERSON: We have the timing of the commencement of the bill and there is an intention to make further changes in 2026 and beyond. In terms of coming back and reviewing these changes, is it the government's intention to do a post-implementation review of the bill's impacts on exploration and the regulatory efficiency of this bill? If so, what would be the timeframe in which such a review would occur?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, we make constant improvement. We constantly review our regulatory framework. My mining agency is probably more in touch with this industry than any other mining regulator in the country. They regularly get feedback from the mining industry about what is working and what is not working. They are constantly at me about tweaking the Mining Act.

My concern has always been: what outcome do we get out of parliament? As far as I am concerned, these changes will either pass or they will fail. It is very simple. If members attempt to amend this in the upper house, then the bill will be withdrawn. I am not interested in making changes to this bill because this bill is minimal in its change. It gives good certainty for the mining industry, it gives taxpayers the protection they need, and it gives the state its economic sovereignty. I think these are good outcomes for the people of South Australia. So, no, there is constant improvement but there is not a statutory process for review in the bill.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr PATTERSON: In terms of the change of control, the bill states:

Without limiting anything in subsection (2), the Minister may, in considering an application for approval for a change in control under this section, have regard to the following matters,

It lists five of them. The question would be: to what extent is this a guideline? Is the minister constrained by this, or can the minister have other considerations? If so, can the minister provide further explanation on that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not think we are trying to constrain the minister. I think that what we are trying to do here is give him a guide, a framework, of what to follow. The act is setting out the principles he should consider. I also point out that these are all justiciable, so if the minister makes a mistake people are free to go to our courts and say, 'You haven't considered what the act has said.' We are giving some general constraints within the bill, and the minister should follow those.

Mr PATTERSON: Maybe if you could explain: we are talking largely about companies purchasing this, and under new subsection (2a) it provides:

(a) whether the holder of the licence after the change in control takes effect is a fit and proper person to hold the licence;

If you could explain how that plays out: what is a fit and proper person and what criteria would be used to assess what a fit and proper person is? How subjective is that and how much of a guideline is there for that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Technical capability, reputation, financial capability: for example, if someone had a mining licence and had created massive environmental damage in another jurisdiction or in South Australia, that would be something the department would consider. Past practice and regulatory performance—these are all the things that the department, in any fit and proper test, would consider as part of any legislation. It is no different to any sort of test we would have for a regulatory licence application scheme.

We do not have it in place now, and it is appropriate in 2025 to put that type of regulatory framework around a fit and proper person test. You do not want someone having a mining licence who is reckless with the social licence that is implied with mining, because the damage that they could do could be horrific. The members knows what the examples are. If you give someone a mining licence who has never done something before and has no capability or no financial ability to deliver on the regulatory guardrails that we put around them, or on the rehabilitation guardrails that we put around them, the department would be concerned and they would say that you failed the fit and proper person test. These are normal, modern-day precautions that we would put in place.

Let's say, for example, that you are choosing a candidate to run for parliament and you want to do a fit and proper person test. Let's say you are assessing an upper house candidate who is an existing member who wants to run for a lower house seat. You would go through and see what they have said previously about things, and you would check. You would check to see what they have said and you would ask, 'Does it match our values?' That is what we do. I know it is probably foreign to you. You can think of a few examples. That is the type of thing we are trying to talk about here.

Clause passed.

Clause 4 passed.

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