Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Northern Flinders Ranges NORTHERN FLINDERS RANGES The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council NORTHERN FLINDERS RANGES The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:18): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Mineral Resources Development a question about mining in the Northern Flinders Ranges. Leave granted. The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL: On Tuesday, the Premier released a statement entitled 'Balancing mining and conservation in the Northern Flinders', and he put out for public consultation a document entitled the Northern Flinders Environmental Management Framework. Whilst we have had that document for only a couple of days, I have read it, and a number of anomalies are apparent—and I should say these are legal and administrative anomalies rather than geological anomalies. First, the southern boundary of an area between the Arkaroola village and Mount Gee is a straight line running east-west that appears to match almost exactly with Marathon Resources' exploration licence area, which begs the question: why, if these areas have been judged on the basis of their ecological or scenic characteristics, does the boundary follow an artificial mining tenement boundary rather than following natural contours or topographical features? Secondly, on the map on page 15 of the framework, Mount Gee is clearly in zone 2A, and then it is described in the text as being in zone 2B on page 16. The importance of that difference, which might seem subtle, is that in zone 2A mining infrastructure is prohibited but in zone 2B it is allowed. Thirdly, there seems to be a major inconsistency between the proposed new framework and the provisions of the Development Act, which is also under the minister's control, in that Mount Gee is designated under that act as a class A zone which prohibits mining infrastructure, whereas mining is clearly proposed under this framework. So my questions of the minister are: 1.	How were the zone boundaries developed? Were they developed along natural or mining tenement boundaries? 2.	Where is Mount Gee—in zone 2A or 2B? 3.	Is the new proposed framework inconsistent with the Development Act and, if it is inconsistent, which will prevail? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:20): In relation to the latter question, obviously the Development Act sets planning guidelines, but clearly if one is to establish a project in there of this nature it would be assessed separately, either under the Mining Act or under some other major project category, where there would be a full and proper environmental impact statement, and that would apply whether the mine was in a sensitive or nonsensitive area. Clearly that would have to happen, so I do not see a conflict there. First, we have gone beyond Arkaroola. I say at the outset that, as soon as this was published, we knew that it would not be enough for the Greens: nothing less than total removal would have been satisfactory, and once that was done we would go elsewhere. This government has tried to have a proper scientific analysis of all the various values that apply within the northern Flinders Ranges, and this goes well beyond Arkaroola. We are looking at the entire north Flinders region, and some of the regions identified are well north of the Arkaroola boundary. Also, they are not solely within the Marathon licence area. The Mawson Plateau, probably the largest area under this proposal with no access at all for any mining—it is a large area—is not within the Marathon licence but is in fact licensed to by another company. It is generally identified by everyone to be one of the key geological assets of that region. The maps that accompany the study of the northern Flinders Ranges indicate three zones. The first zone has no access at all. There is then the 2A and 2B zones, which allow some activity but it is very restrictive, with no significant surface disturbance in the region. There are those areas that remain outside. That has been done to try to look at the entire northern Flinders region, a very large region of many square kilometres, and say that we need to identify those areas at a particular aesthetic, environmental or geoscientific value. The Mawson Plateau is not only valuable as an environmental and aesthetic resource but also many geologists regard it as one of the real jewels in the geological crown of this state because of its geological features. It is named after Mawson for a very good reason. Putting all that together, the honourable member asked about the area around Mount Gee, and that area is certainly within the restricted zones of either 2A or 2B, and the maps are included on the website. One can look at them and make comment. The government will welcome comments on this proposal up to 19 December. We have tried to identify those values in the area that are important so that we can protect the essential environmental, tourism, geological, iconic values, while at the same time, where it is possible to do so, allow some economic development, whether tourism or other activities, in areas where that will not detract from those values, so that we can get, as the document says, a proper balance. Under this proposal, significant areas of the northern Flinders Ranges, including some outside Arkaroola itself, would, as well as being significant areas, have much tighter controls on them as to what sort of activities could take place. Many areas would have no access whatsoever, and we welcome comments on that. The government sees this as a sensible way of trying to manage this issue so that over an area of many hundreds of square kilometres we can get the balance right. We can protect all those highly sensitive areas, while at the same time, where it is less sensitive, allow, subject to appropriate conditions, some economic development in the area, which could provide significant return to the state without unnecessarily damaging the overall environment and aesthetic appeal of the area.