HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-11-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Statutes Amendment (Energy and Mining Reforms) Bill

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendments.

(Continued from 25 November 2025.)

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments be disagreed to.

I know it is deeply inappropriate to mention anyone in the gallery—it would be against standing orders—but just to give the people an example of what is occurring here today, there was a bill passed in this house, it went to the upper house, which is the big red room, and there were changes made. Those changes are now coming back to this house for us to consider and we are going to say no. We are going to insist that the views of the House of Assembly, which is the house of the people, should prevail, not the views of the Legislative Council.

We are not alone in that view. I want to read to the house what I think are probably some of the most damning comments. The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC), which is the peak body nationally for mining and explorers, put out a press release yesterday. It was about the Liberal Party's amendments in the upper house. It states:

They claim to be working in the interests of farmers and agriculturalists, yet these amendments offer no further protection to them. All they do is further harm investment in the State's mining industry.

It sends a message to investors far and wide that South Australia is a risky place to invest.

The real loser out of this, aren't just those working in or investing in the mining industry, but the people of South Australia, who once again find more barriers placed between them and the chance to realise the value of the minerals that belong to them.

With the state Liberal party claiming they are acting in the best interests of farmers, they are ignoring the fact these industries can and do co-exist well together.

The minerals in the ground belong to all South Australians, not just those who happen to occupy the land on top of them.

This is the most devastating line:

And while the Liberal Opposition will no doubt seek to place the blame elsewhere, the simple fact is that they had the opportunity to vote for legislative change that would have enhanced the State's investment attractiveness and they chose not to.

With an election just around the corner, the Liberal Party has already demonstrated that when it comes to growing the South Australian economy they're just not interested…

They go on to say:

Although this is a disappointing outcome, industry thanks Treasurer; and Mines Minister Tom Koutsantonis and the South Australian Government for listening to the needs of the industry and bringing this important Bill to the Parliament.

The shadow minister is meant to advocate for his portfolio within the Liberal Party. This is the shadow minister for net zero and, nationally, the Liberal Party have abandoned net zero. He is also the shadow minister for energy and mining. His job in the Liberal Party is to advocate for the mining sector. The mining sector have just said he has failed. He has failed terribly at it. In fact, he has made South Australia a less attractive place to invest in for the mining industry. He laughs at the mining industry. He laughs at it.

Mr Patterson: I laugh at you. I laugh at you and your hypocrisy.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have been entirely consistent.

Mr Patterson: Yes, consistent in down ranking in the ratings. Good.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If I were you, I would be nervous too. A press release like that before an election is damning. I look forward to debating you in the mining sector. I look forward to standing up alongside my friend, the shadow minister for energy and mining, and debating access to mining and access to get minerals out of the ground. I look forward to him getting up and explaining to the mining industry why they think these changes are no good and why he has made South Australia a less attractive place to invest in.

The House of Assembly will carry our disagreement. We will insist on our changes and the Legislative Council, led by the Liberal Party, will block these changes, and the people of South Australia will decide at the election. We will seek a mandate for these changes, and the shadow mining and energy minister will go missing. He will not talk about these changes to the mining industry. He will not front up and defend his position because it is indefensible.

While the shadow minister is completely captured by the rural part of his party and does not have the courage to stand up to them and speak truth to power, and he abrogates his entire responsibilities as the shadow minister for mining and energy and just lets the people within this party who are on the side of a small section of the farming community—not by any way a majority part of the farming community—he has now chosen to say that the mining industry and the farming sector cannot coexist, which is simply untrue. Of course they can coexist. But what he has done is hurt the mining industry. It is not just me saying it. It is the mining and exploration industry who are saying it themselves.

This press release is damning. I do not know how any self-respecting mining shadow can get a press release like that and think, 'Job done.' I do not know how any self-respecting shadow minister can see their industry calling out for change and still, stubbornly, put up these changes. There was no phone call to me for a compromise position. It was just the Liberal Party's way or no way. And so the Liberal Party, siding with the Greens—

Mr Telfer: It's your way or the highway.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Interject as much as you like.

Mr Telfer: You pretend you try to work together. As if.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will give you an example, Mr Chairman of Committees, of where I have. That was on the legislation regarding councils and the LGA that members of the opposition moved. I gave my word that, once they offered the ability to consult and discuss this, that I would not push through those changes until the sector was happy, and I kept my word on that. The Liberal Party, on this bill, just sided with the Greens to block these changes. You had a choice to make between the industry, economic growth, the exploration industry and the mining industry and the Liberal Party of South Australia chose the Greens. That is who they chose.

I hope you do go out and defend this decision. I hope you do. No doubt this is a sign of a party that is not outward-looking. It is not looking to grow its base. It is simply sandbagging seats that it currently holds, rather than trying to grow the economy of South Australia and take on the difficult conversations with stakeholders and say, 'This is in the broader state's interests.' Instead, they have chosen the narrow path, the path about sandbagging seats that they already hold, which is fine. It is fine by me. But there will be a reckoning on this because what the Liberal Party are doing is hurting the state's investment attractiveness. When they see that the Liberal Party, the conservative party, the so-called party that is pro-business and pro-investment, are siding with the Greens to stop explorers and miners from getting onto land, from having their leases extended—

Mr Patterson interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes it is.

Mr Telfer:What a misrepresentation.What a misrepresentation.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is not a misrepresentation at all. If I am misrepresenting it, get up and move a motion. Otherwise, sit quietly and listen because votes have consequences. If you do not like what you have done, do something different. But what you have done is side with the Greens which has been given the most scathing of attacks from the mining industry, and when I explain it to you, you do not like it and you interject. You are the shadow treasurer: act like it. Act in the interests of business. Act in the interests of investment. Instead, you act in the interests of who? A small, select group of people—

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order. The minister—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order please. Your point of order is?

Mr TEAGUE: The minister has been skating close to standing order 127(1) throughout. We are dealing with amendments. He needs to stick to the subject matter, not engage in ad hominem abuse and threats about what might or might not happen in the future. We need to look at the substance of the amendments. We are here in committee to do that. It is a 127(1) point of order.

The CHAIR: My understanding of what the minister is saying is that he is explaining the repercussions of these amendments. That is what I understood him to say, to explain that. He clearly—

Mr Teague interjecting:

The CHAIR: Don't interrupt. I have the floor. I listened to you. My understanding is he is quite within in his rights to explain what he believes these amendments mean. You may have a different view. All of you on my left may have a different view. You will get a chance to say so, in a second. Minister, continue.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This is exactly the place that you would talk about this, not in question time. The bill is before the house. This is exactly the time you would air these grievances. They are not personal threats. They are political realities. The Liberal Party have taken a stance. They have sided with the Greens in an important sector that is important for the growth of our economy in this state and we are going to ventilate it. That is entirely appropriate.

The reasoning that the Liberal Party have is that they are sandbagging seats that they think are either a risk to Independents or a risk to the Labor Party. That is what they are doing. The shadow treasurer interjects that that does not characterise what is going on. That is completely not true. If I have misrepresented what the Liberal Party have done, get up and say that I have misled the parliament, otherwise sit quietly and listen and you will have your chance to make your remarks.

The amendments moved by the member for Narungga were defeated in this house. The peak bodies, the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy, which is basically the business chamber for the mining industry in the state and which has members like BHP, Santos, Beach Energy, previously OZ Minerals, the big miners who invest millions if not billions of dollars in South Australia, say that they cannot support this bill with the amendments the Liberal Party have moved; that is important to note. These are big investors in the state. They employ more people than almost any other industry. BHP have the largest operating expenditure in the state.

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay; so even though their peak body that represents them says this. Alright. So we are carving out, are we? We are carving out industries. Fair enough. As I said earlier, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies have indicated they would not support the passage of the bill with these amendments. The ability to grant a special circumstances extension of up to five years meets the industry's needs and supports the department's regulation function. This is not carte blanche. This is about making sure that there is investibility and some certainty in investment frameworks, which the shadow treasurer and the shadow mining minister both disagree with the industry on.

If this is reduced to two years, it will serve no practical benefit to the industry. That is what the industry say—not us, the industry. The people who this bill is for say that the extensions that the Liberal Party want to grant them have no practical benefits. For the party of entrepreneurship, exploration is a high-risk activity where you are putting up lots of capital with potentially no return. You would expect the party of entrepreneurs to say, 'We're going to back these people.' Of course, they do not. They do not back them. The sector has consistently raised concerns that the lack of flexibility regarding extensions and security of tenure is driving a reduction in exploration investment in South Australia. Mr Chairman, you might have heard a disorderly interjection by the shadow minister for energy and mining talking about metrics dropping in exploration. This is trying to deal with it and they vote against it.

It is another example of the shadow minister complaining about the metrics around exploration numbers. When the government attempts to alter legislation that they introduced restricting tenure and I want to give us the ability to extend that tenure, they vote against it. They complain about the lack of investment, and then when you are trying to do something about it to increase investment, they vote against it. There is a Greek word for that: it is called hypocrisy.

In addition, the amendments do not provide the additional certainty that the opposition is seeking for landowners in relation to future exploration activity. Upon the expiry of a licence, when the licence expires after 18 years, it does not extinguish that land from exploration rights. So what you are attempting to do has no practical benefit. That land is not sterilised from mining, which is a massive misconception.

If I go through clause by clause, clause 16, page 12: this amendment the government cannot support. It imposes an additional requirement on the administrative burden of licence holders seeking to apply for a special circumstances extension, which is incredibly broad. This is not a narrow request the Liberal Party are making; it is a very broad request. The act already provides for adequate environmental controls. These are the same environmental controls members opposite legislated for and implemented. These are your environmental controls that you are now saying are not broad enough. You can imagine why the industry is so confused about your position. They get it from the member for Narungga. He has been consistent from the very beginning.

When the first mining bills were brought in by the previous government, the member for Narungga was entirely consistent. Members on the opposition frontbench have not been. They voted for that bill. They implemented the environmental standards and now they say, 'We were wrong. The member for Narungga was right all along.' This is hypocrisy writ large.

I do not know how you justify this in your own head other than this is not about being consistent or formulating a policy framework that you can sort of rest a foundation on to grow the mining sector, this is simply thinking to yourself, 'There are votes in the farming sector for us. We will go after that.' The member for Narungga is the only one here with clean hands.

The environmental controls and consultation requirements that the previous government put in place in the Mining Act meet contemporary standards. We voted for them and we backed them. You wrote the laws, we supported them. We are now in office. Nothing has changed in the last 3½ years that I can tell, but now you say they are not broad enough, they are not consistent enough. What has changed? Other than an election in March? Other than you are worried about losing seats in regional South Australia? Other than that, nothing has changed. Hypocrisy writ large.

If I go to amendment No. 3, clause 16, page 12, after line 24 where they inserted a clause, this amendment cannot be supported. It fetters the minister's discretion to grant a special circumstances extension. In particular, it introduces an impractical requirement to consult for a potentially substantial number of landowners to which the agricultural impact statement relates, which are not subject to exploration activities. So you want us to go out and consult with people who are not affected.

Again, the consultation requirements were put in place by members opposite. It went to their cabinet, they supported it, it came to the parliament, it passed with opposition support at the time which was the Australian Labor Party, and now that we are in government you do not want to have that discretion.

Amendment No. 4, moved by the Hon. Ms Centofanti, is again the same as with amendment No. 1: it is the same amendment moved by the member for Narungga, which was defeated in this house, and for the same reasons I have outlined, the government cannot support this amendment. It is important that the ability to grant a second or subsequent special circumstances extension is retained. I think the misunderstanding from the opposition is that they think everyone who applies will get an extension. What we are saying is there needs to be a cohort. They should be granted and extended.

I am very disappointed with the opposition. It can take 15 years to define a resource—15 years—and to undertake economic modelling and progress an exploration model, and in some cases there would be special circumstances that could relate and require an extension to be made.

What is going to occur now is that the House of Assembly, I can anticipate, will insist that we disagree with the changes. They will return it to the upper house and the upper house will not accept our changes because of the Liberal Party and its alliance with the Greens. No doubt this will play out very well in safe Liberal seats—very well.

Where it will not play out well is in mainstream South Australia who want to see economic growth and are scratching their heads, and long-time Liberal voters in metropolitan Adelaide are thinking to themselves, 'Why would the Liberal Party be opposed to investment? Why would the Liberal Party not support entrepreneurs? Why would the Liberal Party not understand in the mining industry to develop a resource can take decades? Why would they not understand that? Are they that far removed from the economic realities that are facing companies today that they have sided with the Greens?' That is the question that members opposite will have to explain to their constituents in March.

The member for Flinders cannot wait. He cannot wait to go back to regional South Australia and tell them about this huge win. I wonder if the member for Morphett will be here to have the same conversations. I wonder. So, while he takes the side of the regional members in the safe Liberal seats so they can have a win, what does he do to the rest of the state?

Mr PATTERSON: This side of the house will be supporting the amendments that have come down from the Legislative Council. What a tirade! I am listening to a minister who is arrogant and has a big dummy spit when he does not get things his own way. Of course, the Liberal Party makes no apologies for standing up for regional South Australia against what has been a ruthless attack on not only farmers but landowners and primary producers by a bill.

Let's look at where we are. With two sitting weeks of parliament to go, it gets rushed into parliament by this arrogant minister who just wants to ram it through and then all of a sudden when there are some sensible amendments made he carries on. We will not give Labor a free pass to just trample on people who put food on our tables and, as we do with all bills, we will look at things sensibly and look at bringing a balance to things.

It is quite obvious that Labor in this bill have failed any real balancing of interests between the mining industry and primary producers. There is always a conflict between the two, but both sides of the argument need to be listened to in any changes that are going to happen to the Mining Act because they are both very important economic drivers for this state. That is why the Liberal opposition introduced sensible amendments. When you look at them they bring fairness, they bring respect and they bring balance back into the process here.

If we go through what the amendments are to what has already changed. We have the minister carrying on saying that the Liberal opposition are making changes to something that was already put in. Well, actually, no, it is the government that is making the changes to this bill, not the opposition. It is entirely consistent that, when these changes come through, we look at them and make changes as required, which we have done.

The amendments that have come through that the government is not accepting is that you already have 18 years to explore. The mining exploration licence lasts for 18 years. This looks at capping that exploration licence and granting an extension for another two years. That gives 20 years for mining exploration companies to be able to explore because we want companies to explore. We do not want them to take their time. We want progression to happen here because of course if there are mineral deposits then we want them to be mined and as quickly as possible, whereas the government wanted to have repeated five-year extensions that could go on indefinitely at the discretion of the minister.

We just heard his performance here before. How much consultation is he going to do? He gets very angry when people do not agree with him. We have to be careful not to give unfettered powers to a minister who just wants to run carte blanche over people, which this process shows has occurred.

The other amendments are that we have also included a requirement for the minister to get an independent agricultural impact assessment done before awarding an extension. That is just for that additional extension because farmers and primary producers know there is an 18-year licence. They are trying to plan for the next steps for themselves as well, so this again tries to bring into place a balance between mining explorers and farmers in terms of what needs to occur going forward to allow both parties to plan.

Finally, there is another requirement for the minister to consult with the landowner if an extension is to be granted. Hearing the minister, he was incredulous that we might actually put in as a requirement that the landowner, on whose land the exploration licence is occurring, be consulted. He tried to say that we have to consult all the landowners all around. No, it was that they have to consult the landowner to whom the exploration licence applies.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr PATTERSON: Off he goes again, trying to talk over again, when we provided 20 years for mining exploration to occur here. As I said, these amendments get that balance right between fairness and respect. They get balance back into the process. That is something that, if the consultation process had been done properly, could have been arrived at by the government as well. Instead, all there was was five business days of consultation—five business days. The federal government provides a standard and says there should be at least 30 days of consultation on any bill, but here we have had five days. We have here a bill that is being rammed through the parliament after a mere five days of consultation.

As we found out in committee when this went through this house previously, there has been no consultation with primary industry. Not one representative organisation, not one regional stakeholder and not one industry body has been approached by the government. So it only gets the views of the mining industry and not of the farming industry.

They have left it to the last two sitting weeks of parliament, despite knowing about this issue for well over two years. Why has it taken this long to get through? There are a number of reasons. The first reason is that all the resources and all the effort of the department was not going into the mining side of it; it was going into the government's hydrogen fantasy. There were three years of that—all the effort and the human resources.

We have seen all the highly paid executives: the CEO of the Office of Hydrogen Power SA, the most highly paid employee in the Department for Energy and Mining at $600,000 a year. When, embarrassingly, the hydrogen power plant had to be shelved and thrown away, we found out that there was a golden handshake to a mystery executive of potentially up to $850,000. That tells you where all the resources and all the effort were going.

All of a sudden, just before the parliament finishes this year, it has dawned on them: 'We had better put this bill through. There's no time for consultation, so we will just do this tick the box exercise: five days not 30 days.' Then they put it into parliament and the minister is surprised when there are changes to it that balance the interests of the mining industry with the interests of the farmers and the primary production industry.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr PATTERSON: As the minister tries to interject, I will read in some of the comments here from Grain Producers SA and what they had to say about this:

'GPSA welcomes the Legislative Council's majority support for amendments to the Energy and Mining Reforms Bill to provide greater clarity for grain producers and the agricultural sector when it comes to exploration'…

It then goes on to say:

…the new safeguard requiring an independent agricultural impact assessment before any extension was an important addition. 'Grain producers, and farmers more broadly, carry the production and business risks when their land is under exploration, so it is only fair that any potential impacts are properly assessed by an independent expert'…

Quoting still:

'Just as importantly, we strongly support the requirement to consult with the landowner before any extension is granted. It is the farmer's business, their land, and their long-term planning that's directly affected. Genuine consultation cannot be optional.'

So there we have Grain Producers SA. Had there been proper consultation performed during this process instead of rushing it through in five days, those concerns would have been heard. Now we have the histrionics of the minister, trying to attack the Liberal Party for making sensible amendments.

Another reason why this was left until two weeks before is a question that has to be asked of the minister: was this just a cynical wedge attempt by Labor on the Liberal Party before a state election? We have heard him stand up and say he is going to take it to the state election. It is just another example of this minister in the energy and mining portfolio putting politics above actual practical policy.

We have seen how that has worked out in other parts of his portfolio. In the energy portfolio we have had electricity skyrocket for people. It has gone up by $776 for a household.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Are you talking about this bill or electricity?

Mr PATTERSON: No, this is about using politics instead of proper policy. Up 43 per cent—and then what about trying to put in the hydrogen stuff?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr PATTERSON: No. Hydrogen fell over too because, unfortunately, that does not work on politics, and now again we have this one coming through. So, unfortunately, the mining exploration industry are being used as pawns in what is a political wedge by this Labor government. They are trying to wedge the Liberal Party, but no. We have sensible amendments here that balance the two sectors. They allow for 20 years of exploration.

On this side of the house, the Liberal Party will ensure between now and the next election that every regional South Australian, every farmer, every primary producer and every landowner will know about this assault, this ruthless attack on them, by the Labor government. They will know. Ultimately, the food and fibre producers of this state provide food to put on our plates. It helps with the cost of living. If you put prices up, that affects all people. So if you want to attack primary industry and not be sensible, if you want to play political games and if you want to arrogantly ram legislation through, go right ahead, because we will not stand for it on this side of the house.

Mr ELLIS: It has been a rather combative start to debate. I would like to offer a slightly more conciliatory tone, as we move forward, by congratulating both parties on taking this to the election. It is something that I mentioned in my second reading speech might be a good idea, and no matter how we got there I am pleased to see that we have arrived at that very destination. At the risk of putting aside the enjoyable combative debate, congratulations to both parties on this becoming an election issue.

To that end, we have the amendments and the bill in front of us, but we also know that there is a further tranche of reform coming in the not too distant future, as outlined on the Department for Energy and Mining website, where it says:

A broader suite of reforms in respect to the Mining Act may be considered for a legislative program in the new term of government…

I would like to see—if we could, please—that data or that policy or that idea released by the election as well. Let's put it all out on the table, all our ideas and respective views on the issue, so that we can have a proper, informed debate about the merits of the ideas and the path forward. I think that would be best case and would allow for all our electorates to consider the pros and cons of all the ideas and make an informed vote one way or the other.

I am quite hopeful, despite the fact that this has been portrayed as a city versus country issue, that there would be quite a few people across the entirety of the state who recognise the preciousness of our arable land. There is some 4 per cent or 5 per cent of land that is used to produce food, and I suspect there would be a great majority of people who acknowledge that we need to preserve that land for its current use so that we can continue to produce food to feed our state and to feed our nation.

From where I sit, I would like to think that these amendments—the ones that I moved, particularly, but also the other amendments that have manifested themselves in that select committee report—would be a vote winner across the state and that we can continue to reform the mining industry to provide them certainty. By 'certainty', I do not mean certainty that they can mine wherever they want; I mean certainty that they can mine in areas of our state that are more conducive to hosting mining than others. For mine, that is up north and away from arable cropping land where we produce food.

Hopefully, we can have an informed debate about mining and agriculture as we head toward the election, and I would like to commend the government and the opposition for ensuring that this matter does become an election issue. I would also like to acknowledge the submission from the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies. In particular, they identify, and I agree, that:

These amendments—

the ones we are talking about now—

offer no further protection to them.

By 'them' they mean the interests of farmers and agriculturalists. That is at the heart of the issue of what I am most concerned about. We have had the select committee report, tabled some four years ago, which was painstakingly put together from consultation with farmers and landowners across the entire state and tabled in this place, and which has not found its way into any of the proposed amendments to the Mining Act. That, I think, is a mistake. That work should have been considered as part of the reform on account of there being, as AMEC have identified, no improvements for farmers or agriculturalists, and I do not think this is a bill worth pursuing.

I would like to see, as I have said in my second reading speech and as I repeat now, the results or some of the efforts that have found their way into that select committee report to find their way into the next tranche of mining reform so that we can provide certainty to both industries about what is encouraged practice in what parts of our state. That is the path forward, because although AMEC have claimed in their press release that there are examples of mining and farming coexisting, I have not yet seen a hole with crops growing in it anywhere around our state. As far as I can tell, you have a hole or you have a crop. It is one or the other, and there is no coexisting.

If you drive past Pine Point at the moment, you will see some golden crops poking their heads through and driving right around them are massive excavators and diggers, and piles of dirt from the roadworks being done to enable that mine to happen. That is not coexistence; that is crops being trampled in the name of mining. It is not a criticism of Rex; they have gone through all the processes that they needed to to get that approved. It is what it is, and that is happening down there, but it is evidence in my view that coexistence is a bit of a folly.

The other thing that I would like to take slight issue with in the AMEC press release is there is an allusion to South Australians having forgone the value of the minerals that they will ostensibly no longer be able to access. I would contend that, in regional South Australia, we have not necessarily seen the benefit of those minerals as they are currently mined anyhow.

This morning, I contributed to a debate on the health petition report that I tabled in this place, which highlighted the shortcomings in the facilities of our regional hospitals. There is a 21-bed hospital in Wallaroo that is farcically undersized for our community. That has not seen the benefit of any mining activity as far as we can see. How can we have any faith that benefits would flow from these new exploration rules and that we would benefit from those mining royalties? While it is all well and good to say that South Australians are forgoing the benefit of that mineral value, I would contend that in some ways it feels like we have been forgoing it anyway, despite hosting the mines in regional parts of South Australia.

I am tremendously excited about this becoming an election issue—it very much was last time as well, if my memory serves me. While we remain in a similar place to where we were then, hopefully with continued pressure and sustained force we can drive a fairer bargain for our farmers and landholders and ensure that we provide certainty to both industries about what practice should be encouraged in what parts of our state.

Mr TELFER: I rise to speak in favour of the amendments that have come down from the Legislative Council. From my perspective, I am not here to score political points. I do not think there is any great advantage for me in this process. The advantage is to get the balance right for South Australians across our whole state. This faux division that gets put out there when it comes to these debates really makes me sick. It actually makes me sick to think that these are the sorts of divisions that get driven when we are trying to make laws that are suitable for a balanced outcome for South Australia.

In a regional seat like mine, I have mining and I have agriculture. There are people who are relying on these industries in my electorate for their livelihood, and we need to get the balance right when it comes to decisions. The amendments that have been supported through the Legislative Council I believe strike that balance. They get that balance between giving some certainty to mining companies, that there is a capacity to be able to have an extended period of time over and above the legislated 18 years—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr TELFER: —over and above—but it also gives some context for farmers, for landowners, to have that balance when it comes to engagement, consultation, and certainty going forward.

I believe these amendments are sensible. We have been hearing from communities on the ground that they believe they are ones that strike a good balance. Obviously, it has been spoken about by the shadow minister but we are also hearing about it from the representative body of grain producers. I understand the differing perspectives. A mining exploration company does not want any hindrances on its operations, absolutely. A farmer would not want to have any interactions with a mining company if they had the choice. What we have to do in this place is strike the right balance when it comes to these decisions around legislation such as we are considering.

The amendments that have come down from the Legislative Council, as put by my colleague in the other place and supported by the majority of the crossbench, aim to strike that balance. We need to have the balance right between mining interests and those landowners, many of whom have been generational farmers and have put their heart and soul into these portions of land for decades, if not more, because if we do not have a balance, we see some potentially divisive and perverse outcomes that could come about. This is why I am supporting these amendments.

I commend the Legislative Council for doing the work to try to find a landing point of balance, because I do not think that the process that has been followed by the government, shoehorning this in at the end of the parliamentary term, is the right one. I do not think there has been enough consultation throughout the process. I do not think there has been enough understanding of what the actual impacts are going to be for landowners out there.

Here we are debating amendments on the last formal sitting day without the potential for an optional, which may come to pass when considering important pieces of legislation. From the perspective of not just a regional MP but someone who has a mind for the best outcome for South Australia as a whole, when it comes to this sort of legislation, when we are considering the interactions between mining and farming, we need to get the balance right.

I believe these amendments strike the balance and do so in a constructive, forward-looking way. It is not giving carte blanche powers to a minister to continue on the exploration capacity of a company ad infinitum, which I worry that the existing bill that was put by the government does. It does put parameters, it does provide scope and I think that this amendment, which has been put in the Legislative Council, gets that balance right. I commend my colleagues in the other place and urge the government to consider these amendments for what they are: an attempt to get the balance right in a constructive way when it comes to the consideration of this process.

The important part about this for regional communities in particular is that their voice is heard when it comes to consultation. The amendment, which has been put by the members in the other place, actually legislates a consultation process that a minister is obligated to carry out. I do not think that is a bridge too far. I think that is something which is proactive and constructive when it comes to looking at what opportunities there might be for a piece of land that is under a mining lease that is coming close to the expiration time of 18 years ago.

This is why we on this side believe there need to be greater parameters around this exploration to provide certainty. I absolutely recognise that the existing arrangements and even the amended arrangements do not extinguish any future exploration lease. But the process which has been put forward here, I believe, as amended by the upper house, gives more certainty to landowners and surety that the balance is right between farming interests and mining interests here in South Australia.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00.

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