MARATHON RESOURCES

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:49): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Mineral Resources Development a question about Marathon Resources.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In the Government Gazette of the 27^th of last month, the minister gave notice of his intention to grant a new exploration licence over the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary to allow Marathon Resources to continue exploring after its current licence expires on 10 October this year. On 10 September last year the minister stated in this place, in response to a question from me about the future of Marathon Resources' exploration licence over Arkaroola sanctuary:

When I made my statement I think I mentioned a number of other conditions that Marathon Resources will have to meet before any further exploration will be permitted in that area. One of the obvious ones is its relationship with the landholders. The view I have expressed to any mineral explorer is that, if they do not have good relations with the landholders, the future of mining within those areas is likely to be bleak.

The current landholders, the Sprigg family, have made it abundantly clear on many occasions that they do not want to see the spectacular and iconic Arkaroola sanctuary mined, and that they want Marathon's exploration licence cancelled. In fact, Marg Sprigg was in this very building just last week, when she again stated her complete and absolute opposition to Marathon Resources being allowed to remain in Arkaroola.

The Spriggs have every right to be concerned about the future of their sanctuary. On ABC Radio this week Marathon director and ex-Labor senator and lobbyist Chris Schacht showed that the company has not realised the seriousness of its past actions when he described the 21 separate breaches of its licence conditions—including the illegal dumping of 22,800 calico bags containing drill cuttings, 16 steel and four plastic drums, 1,500 empty plastic bags, folding seats, tyres, safety suits, aluminium trays, PVC pipes, oil and air filters, bottles and cans, and polystyrene foam in three separate sites across the wilderness sanctuary, as well as the deliberate vandalism of the Mount Gee national monument by a Marathon Resources employee using a mechanical digger—as mere littering. In addition, in an article on the front page of Monday's Australian, Marathon Resources' chairman Peter Williams stated that he believed that Marathon had the Rann government's full support. My questions are:

1. Does the minister stand by his statement made on 10 September last year that good relations with Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary landholders was a condition that will have to be met before Marathon Resources would be allowed to resume exploration in the sanctuary?

2. If so, considering the opposition by the Sprigg family to Marathon's continued exploration, why has the minister advertised his intention to issue a brand new exploration licence to Marathon Resources?

3. Does the minister agree with Marathon Resources' chairman Peter Williams that Marathon has the Rann government's full support?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:52): The renewal of a mineral licence is a relatively routine matter; there are 150 of them every year. In the 7½ years I have been minister I can recall only one occasion where I have been involved in a renewal issue, and that was with some chronic non-payment.

The Hon. M. Parnell: This isn't a renewal; it's a brand new licence.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is effectively a renewal. It is a bit like having—

The Hon. M. Parnell: They have had their five years. It's a brand new licence.

The PRESIDENT: Order! You have asked your question.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I understand it, the original licence for Marathon was issued back in the late 1990s for five years. There was a five-year renewal made in 2004, and now the company has applied again. Of course there is absolutely no link between an exploration licence and a right to mine, and that is why it has been quite mischievous for the honourable member and some others who attended the meeting to suggest that there is some proposal for mining. It is also mischievous to suggest, regardless of whether or not a licence is renewed—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is always the same—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: It's a waste of money otherwise; you don't explore if you don't want to mine, Paul.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: There is no link—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Lucas will come to order.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I can well understand that the Hon. Mr Lucas would try to interject, because he does not want to hear the truth. The Hon. Mr Lucas is a master of disinformation; after nearly 30 years in this place he has mastered it well and is good at interjecting. Of course, what he has been an absolute failure at during his time in parliament is actually doing anything constructive. Rob had budget deficits every year when he was treasurer, and he spends most of his time in here trying to justify some of the appalling decisions he made when he held that position.

An example of that is the last budget before 2002 and the way the health deficits in individual units were handled. He is probably still stinging from the quite deserved criticism by the Treasury Under Secretary, whom he appointed, about the fact that those deficits in individual units were never sustainable. Now, of course, how appropriate it is that he is back on the opposition side. What does that say about the opposition? It has had to turn back to someone with that dismal record. He even has the gall to criticise this government in relation to health expenditure when, really, he should be hiding in shame for the exposure of what he did and the way the books were handled in the year that he was there.

Mr Lucas always tries to divert debate, because how terrible it would be if the truth got out! How terrible it would be if the facts were told! When the first licence was given to Marathon—Bonanza Gold back in the 1990s—guess who the environment minister was. It was none other than Mr Iain Evans, the Hon. Mr Lucas's great mate. I believe he would have been minister for environment at the time; he was certainly minister for environment just before the election.

That company had its licence renewed after the second 10 years. It is just like someone who has a driver's licence in that if you misbehave you can have your driver's licence suspended but, if you apply for it to be renewed, the normal expectation is that it would be renewed unless there are good reasons for it not to be. If you do not renew it, it might well be that there are issues of risk to the state, and not just sovereign risk issues, in the message it would send if you arbitrarily take off licences. I am sure the Hon. Caroline Schaefer knows what it would mean if you started taking licences off fishermen, whom you do not like, and say, 'We're not going to renew your licence this year, because of what—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes; and the state was paid a lot of compensation because that was done. They are some of the issues that need to be addressed. What has happened in relation to that licence is that the company has sought to renew it and has paid a fee. Under the act, the fact that it has applied has to go in the Gazette. That is the action that has been taken to date. Perhaps the honourable member is suggesting that somehow or another I should not allow that to be advertised; in other words, breach the act.

Isn't it interesting that all the people who want an ICAC are always the first to criticise you when you abide by the act? Why is it that all these great advocates of an ICAC are the first ones to demand that ministers do not behave properly, that they do not have due process, that you do not allow natural justice, that you do not allow the procedures in the act to take place? They are always the first ones to stand up and say that we need an ICAC. Well, certainly, if that lot opposite ever gets into government we would need an ICAC, because they clearly do not understand. They do not have the first idea about probity and good behaviour and about due process.

All that has happened in relation to Marathon is that the company has applied for a renewal of a licence; it has paid the appropriate fee, and it has been advertised in accordance with the law. As I have indicated on a number of occasions, any groundbreaking activities by Marathon are and remain suspended, and will remain suspended regardless of any renewal of the licence at least and until some of the issues in the act are repaired.

The other thing that the honourable member might not be aware of is that, if for some reason the licence is not renewed immediately, someone else could apply for a licence over that area. The preliminary advice I have is that the Warden's Court would almost certainly issue another licence over that area. There is no power within the act. One of the amendments that the government will be looking at will address that situation. Certainly, the preliminary advice I have is that, if a licence over a particular area is not renewed, anyone else could apply unless, of course, there is some other means of preventing it.

If the government were not to renew a licence, as it would in the fishing industry or with anyone else, that is arguably a matter that could be contested. It is all very well for someone like senator Minchin. Here is a man who is playing total politics. He was the resources minister, so he must know what the issues would be in relation to licence renewal and what sovereign risk issues would mean, but, of course, he is just playing games with us. He knows full well what the issue is.

In relation to Arkaroola, it has been made perfectly clear, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, that anyone who applies to mine that area would have all sorts of enormous impediments in their path. In relation to exploration, there have been exploration licences on that area for more than 40 years, including Mr Reg Sprigg himself, the father of Marg Sprigg; and, of course, that is how that area was first discovered. Indeed, the roads that are used to go to Sillers Lookout were actually mining exploration tracks.

There is no way that any government is going to allow significant ground-disturbing mining on the key sensitive parts of Arkaroola. However, there may be means, as technology changes, by which they can be exploited, but that is entirely the risk of explorers. It all very well for members opposite. As we saw from the first question today, they would love to see mining exploration in this state falter. They would love to create risk.

If you cannot win government legitimately because you are a hopeless opposition, what do you do? You try to sabotage the economy, and that is exactly what the people opposite are doing. They are a disgrace. They know they are a disgrace. They are not fit to govern at all, so what they are doing, through deliberate misinformation on issues such as this, in combination with the Greens, is trying to put this state at risk.