ARKAROOLA PROTECTION BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (16:27): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading explanation inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

The Arkaroola area is a significant place for the Adnyamathanha People, whose connections with this place remain strong and vibrant.

It is a region defined by towering granite peaks, razor back ridges, and deep gorges. Arkaroola also encompasses ancient sea beds which hold fossils that are up to 650 million years old. Geologists have stated that the ancient Arkaroola Reef is of tremendous scientific importance and includes a reef framework containing calcified organisms that may represent the remains of the oldest animals on Earth. Arkaroola is also home to over 160 species of birds, and the rare Yellow-footed Rock-wallaby. It is a unique combination of superlative natural phenomena.

The purpose of this legislation is to protect the cultural, natural and landscape values of Arkaroola in perpetuity. This legislation will establish the Arkaroola Protection Area, and provide for the proper management and care of that area. The legislation also specifically prohibits all forms of mining activities within the Arkaroola Protection Area.

This unprecedented legislation, in conjunction with other measures initiated by the Government, will result in Arkaroola being protected for all time.

In 2009 a draft policy document, Seeking a Balance, generated considerable interest across the community, with nearly 500 submissions being received, the vast majority of which were overwhelmingly in favour of protecting Arkaroola from mining.

Having been delivered this unequivocal message from the people of South Australia (and further afield), on 22 February 2011, the Government undertook a consultation process on identifying the best conservation management framework for Arkaroola. In doing so, we considered all of the available options to preserve the iconic Arkaroola area, including a definitive ban on mining at Arkaroola.

The Minister for Mineral Resources Development and I personally undertook consultation with directly affected parties. This included the Adnyamathanha People, the Arkaroola and Mount Freeling Pastoral Lease Holders and all exploration and mining companies with an interest in the area. Following this process and Cabinet consideration of the consultation outcomes, the conclusion was that exploration and mining access should be excluded from a defined area of Arkaroola as a first step in protecting its landscape and conservation values, and to meet community expectations.

Accordingly, on 22 July 2011, the Government announced a series of measures that will permanently protect Arkaroola. The first step, as an interim measure, has been to reserve the land from the operation of the Mining Act 1971 and the Opal Mining Act 1995. His Excellency, the Governor in Executive Council, made these proclamations on 29 July 2011.

The Premier has also recently written to the Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard MP, signalling the South Australian Government’s intention to pursue the listing of Arkaroola on Australia’s National Heritage List and to seek to have the area inscribed on the World Heritage List. As a precursor to these National and World Heritage nominations, the Premier also recently nominated Arkaroola to be assessed for its State heritage significance and the South Australian Heritage Council has since resolved to enter Arkaroola in the South Australian Heritage Register.

The most powerful protection, however, comes from this special purpose legislation. The Arkaroola Protection Bill 2011 will protect the cultural, natural and landscape values of a defined area to be known as the Arkaroola Protection Area, and will exclude exploration and mining within the area.

These measures in combination will give Arkaroola the highest level of protection that can be afforded by the Parliament of South Australia.

An important element in considering this Bill is that the Arkaroola Protection Area will meet international and national standards for what is considered a protected area. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has devised a series of protected area management categories, which are recognised by the Convention on Biological Diversity as a way of categorising the incredible variety of protected area management types in the world.

Indeed, not only will it meet the IUCN definition of a protected area, but the Arkaroola Protection Area will specifically meet the definition of a 'category II National Park' under the IUCN framework. This Bill is therefore unique in enabling us to establish the Arkaroola Protection Area so as to have the same legal status in South Australia as a National Park under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, as well as being internationally recognised as a protected area.

The Bill spatially defines the Arkaroola Protection Area, via a deposited plan that will only be capable of amendment by further Act of Parliament.

Through its objects the Bill provides for the conservation of features of cultural and natural significance, including the conservation of habitat, ecosystems, biological diversity, geological features and landscapes.

The native title rights of the Adnyamathanha People will be fully respected by this legislation, and Aboriginal heritage will continue to be protected. Accordingly, the Bill has a specific provision to support the conservation of objects, places or features of cultural value to the Adnyamathanha People. Rather than affecting the determined native title rights of the Adnyamathanha, this legislation supports the continued existence, enjoyment and exercise of those rights.

The Bill contains objects to support scientific research and environmental monitoring that is in keeping with the other objects of the Bill. It also contains an object to foster public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of the cultural and natural features of the Arkaroola Protection Area.

To ensure the proper management and care of the area, the Bill requires that the Minister for Environment and Conservation must develop a management plan for the Arkaroola Protection Area. The management plan must be consistent with, and seek to further, the objects of the proposed Arkaroola Protection Act 2011.

The management plan will be an expression of policy and does not in itself affect rights or liabilities. It will, however, be a powerful tool in establishing the rules relating to matters such as grazing and incompatible development within the area. Significantly, the Bill requires any person or body involved in the administration of any other Act to exercise their powers and functions in relation to the Arkaroola Protection Area in a manner that is consistent with and seeks to further the Arkaroola management plan.

The role of the management plan is further strengthened by the requirement for the Minister responsible for the administration of the Development Act 1993 to review any Development Plan relating to the Arkaroola Protection Area to ensure its consistency with the management plan.

Preparation of the management plan will commence once this legislation has passed. In order that the native title rights of the Adnyamathanha people remain unaffected, the management plan must be developed in a manner which is not inconsistent with the continued exercise and enjoyment by the Adnyamathanha People of their determined native title rights and interests. The Bill, therefore, requires that the Adnyamathanha People (and all other persons or bodies holding an interest in the area) be consulted about, and be involved in, developing the management plan.

The Bill specifically provides that no mining rights or operations or regulated activities under the Mining Act 1971, the Opal Mining Act 1995 or the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act 2000 can be acquired or exercised in relation to land within the Arkaroola Protection Area. The definition of this land is the same as that contained in the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 and will include the subsurface land within the area. This includes both existing and future operations and activities related to exploration or production.

The unique nature of the region justifies the decision to end mining access at Arkaroola but suggestions that this decision will increase South Australia’s sovereign risk are clearly refutable. This Government remains unashamedly pro-mining.

The decision to ban mining in a small, clearly defined area of the State does not change the overall ground rules for mining access in the South Australia, nor does it have any implications beyond Arkaroola—hence the need for special purpose legislation relating only to Arkaroola.

The intent of the proposed legislation is only to prohibit exploration and mining within the Arkaroola Protection Area—if a tenement boundary crosses into the Arkaroola Protection Area, only that part of the licence within the Arkaroola Protection Area will not be available for exploration and mining. Mining operations or regulated activities under a mining Act will remain permissible in the part of the licence not within the Arkaroola Protection Area.

The Bill also includes the provision to allow the Governor to make such regulations as are contemplated by, or necessary or expedient for the purposes of, the proposed legislation.

The Bill also makes related amendments to:

the Development Act 1993, so that the Planning Strategy will be taken to include the objects of the proposed Arkaroola Protection Act 2011, and to establish arrangements for the amendment of the development plan to ensure consistency with the proposed Arkaroola Protection Act 2011;

the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 so that the Regional NRM plan, when adopted (or amended), is to be consistent with the management plan for the Arkaroola Protection Area; and

the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989 so that pastoral leases relating to land in the Arkaroola Protection Area will include conditions requiring the lessee to use that land in accordance with the management plan.

The Arkaroola Protection Bill 2011 and the related initiatives provide the framework by which we will protect an iconic part of South Australia for future generations to enjoy and appreciate.

Explanation of Clauses

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

3—Interpretation

This clause defines certain terms used in the measure.

4—Objects

This clause sets out the objects of the measure.

5—Administration of Act

The administration of the measure is to be committed to the Minister administering the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.

6—Interaction with other Acts

Except where the contrary intention is expressed, the measure is in addition to and does not derogate from other Acts.

7—Native title

This clause confirms that the measure is not intended to affect native title rights existing over the Arkaroola Protection Area.

8—Management plan

This clause provides for the development of a management plan for the Arkaroola Protection Area. Whilst the management plan is an expression of policy and does not, of itself, affect rights or liabilities, the provision requires persons and bodies involved in the administration of Acts to act consistently with, and to seek to further, the management plan in exercising powers and functions in relation to the Arkaroola Protection Area.

9—Review of Development Plans

This clause requires that the Minister responsible for the administration of the Development Act 1993 ensure that any Development Plan under that Act that relates to the Arkaroola Protection Area, or a part of the Area, is reviewed within 6 months after publication of the management plan for the purpose of determining whether any amendments should be made to the Development Plans to promote consistency with the management plan.

10—Prohibition of mining operations and regulated activities

This clause provides that after the commencement of this section, rights to undertake mining operations or regulated activities cannot be acquired or exercised pursuant to a mining Act in respect of the Arkaroola Protection Area (despite any other law). The clause also makes express provision to the effect that nothing in the Act affects the rights of an adjacent tenement holder in respect of any land comprised in the tenement that is outside the Arkaroola Protection Area.

11—Regulations

This clause provides for the making of regulations for the purposes of the measure.

Schedule 1—Related amendments

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Amendment provisions

This Part is formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Development Act 1993

These related amendments would ensure that the objects of the measure are incorporated in the Planning Strategy and make provision in relation to amendment of Development Plans to promote consistency with the management plan.

Part 3—Amendment of Natural Resources Management Act 2004

This related amendment requires a regional NRM plan to be consistent (as far as practicable) with the management plan under the measure.

Part 4—Amendment of Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989

This related amendment provides for the inclusion, in relevant pastoral leases, of land management conditions providing for the lessee's obligation to use the land in accordance with the management plan. Under the existing section 22(1a) of the Act, this condition will be taken to be a condition of the existing pastoral leases, but may be varied by the Board if the variation of condition is accepted by the lessee (see section 26 of the Act).

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:28): The Greens welcome this legislation to protect the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary from inappropriate development, including mining. The decision made by the government last year was the right decision, and it was also a decision that was welcomed by the community.

Members are now well aware of the importance of Arkaroola; we have been debating it in this place for the last five years. We all know that Arkaroola is an important habitat for native animals, it has important vegetation, and it is a geological wonderland that is used by students from around the world to study the origins of our planet and the origins of life on our planet.

We know many of the species of plants and animals there are rare and endangered and we also know that we do not actually know everything that is there. In fact, it was as recently as 2010 when the first new species of frog to be identified in South Australia in 45 years was found at Arkaroola. Certainly, from my discussion with the scientists, they know that there is a lot more there yet to be discovered. It is a very important part of South Australia and the Greens are delighted that we are now moving to entrench the commitments that have already been made to protect this area into legislation.

I first raised this matter in state parliament back in 2007. At that point, I introduced the National Parks and Wildlife (Mining in Sanctuaries) Amendment Bill. As members might recall, the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is a declared sanctuary under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. It is not the most common categorisation of protected area and, certainly, in terms of sanctuaries in South Australia, Arkaroola, by area, represents 60 percent of sanctuaries. That bill failed.

Since 2007, I have raised the protection of Arkaroola in this place dozens and dozens of times. I have introduced stand-alone bills. I have introduced amendments to the Mining Act. I have asked numerous questions, made matters of interest speeches and moved motions for the protection of Arkaroola. As members will recall, just last year on 8 June, a couple of days after World Environment Day, the Legislative Council, in its wisdom, passed a Greens motion calling for Arkaroola to be protected.

I will just remind members that the motion, voted on 8 June 2011, called on the state government 'to urgently guarantee permanent protection for the iconic and majestic mountains of Arkaroola'. Now, people sometimes wonder whether successful motions in the Legislative Council have much of a bearing on the decisions of executive government, but I think by that stage the government realised that there had been enough mucking around and it was time to actually stand up and protect Arkaroola once and for all.

So, I was delighted to personally congratulate and thank the premier. When I say personally, I think by Twitter was the approved format in those days, but I have since spoken to the former premier and I certainly acknowledged that this was the right call for the government to make. So, having been fighting for this protection for five years, the Greens are now delighted that the end of the campaign is now in sight. Whilst it has been a frustrating exercise waiting for the government to do the right thing, we are now almost there. Here is a bill that will enshrine protection.

I also have no doubt that, once we have got this bill through the parliament, the scientific investigations that need to be put in place to investigate Arkaroola better will be done and that we will eventually see a nomination for World Heritage status for Arkaroola. My experience with World Heritage nominations is that some of them are a bit half baked. This one, I think, is the full bottle. I think Arkaroola, on any assessment, is a special place of global significance.

I hope that the state government, in conjunction with the commonwealth government, acts with all haste to meet the next deadline. As I understand it, there is a date in February each year when World Heritage nominations are lodged and I think we should be aiming for February 2013.

I briefly want to mention the issue of the government decision to compensate Marathon Resources for not being able to mine in the Arkaroola area. I make no bones about the fact that I think the government made the wrong call in that regard: 5 million to a cowboy operation. I am not the only person who has used the word 'cowboy'. The former premier used that word as well.

This is a company that is not entitled under law to compensation and, by their behaviour, they do not under any moral test deserve any compensation. I think and the Greens believe that $5 million could be far better spent in so many ways. We can talk about Keith hospital, we can talk about unmet needs in disability, we can talk about education—the list is endless of better ways of spending $5 million than handing it over unnecessarily to an undeserving mining company.

I do need to take this opportunity to mention that the mining minister, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, has been fairly loose with the truth when he has debated me and made comments on radio. He seems to delight—and I think that his predecessor did as well—in simply saying, 'Well, those Greens are just anti-mining.' If you say something often enough, no doubt within some sectors of the community it might stick.

This is not about being anti-mining. Protecting Arkaroola is about protecting our important places. As I have said in this place many times before, the vast bulk of South Australia is open for mining. Three-quarters of our national parks, by area, are open for mining. Most of the Aboriginal freehold land is open for mining. There is only a small number of special places that are protected, and Arkaroola is now being added to that list. About 95 per cent of the state is available for mining.

So, protecting Arkaroola does not equate to being anti-mining. If the minister had been a bit more accurate he would have confined his remarks about the Greens to uranium mining. We make no bones about the fact that we do not support uranium mining. In fact, just this week I attended a talk at the University of South Australia by former diplomat Richard Broinowski. The topic of his talk was 'Fukushima and the future of nuclear power'.

Members might be aware of the former diplomat Mr Broinowski's views. He has thoroughly researched this industry over many years, and his assessment is that many countries are now backing away from nuclear energy at a very rapid rate of knots. The connection, of course, between South Australian uranium and the Fukushima disaster is that there is every likelihood—in fact, it is as close to a certainty as you can get—that South Australian uranium is implicated in that nuclear disaster.

We know that the Tokyo Electric Power Company is the biggest buyer of Australian uranium. We know that most Australian uranium comes from Olympic Dam. It comes from South Australia, and therefore we have that direct link to Fukushima. I do not propose to go into it any further than that. If members want to look at my contribution to the Olympic Dam expansion legislation, I put a lot more facts on the table at that point.

The other point that has come out in the debate over the compensation package to Marathon Resources is this idea—it is a fact, in fact—that permission to explore does not equal permission to mine. The government has acknowledged that and yet it still saw fit to offer $5 million to Marathon Resources. There is another way of looking at this whole issue, and that is to have a look at Marathon Resources, their track record and their history, and under any reasonable interpretation you have to say that they have form for making stupid investment decisions. They have form for trying to go into places where on no reasonable assessment are they ever going to be allowed to get away with mining.

The first example, and one some members might be aware of, goes back to 2006, when they were seeking to explore for uranium at Yankalilla, near Myponga. Local residents were up in arms. We are talking about an area about 10 kilometres from the Myponga reservoir, and in the end the premier stepped in and basically said that there would be no mining of uranium while he was premier. In fact, an interesting article at that time (I think it was in the Victor Harbor Times), was written by one Amy Brokenshire who, I am reliably informed, is daughter of our honourable colleague. In her article on 5 October, in relation to Marathon Resources she says:

The company has issued a 'Notice of Entry' to landowners on the Yankalilla side of Myponga but have said their project is purely for research and they do not plan to open a uranium mine.

It goes on and quotes the Chief Executive Officer of the company:

We are not specifically looking for a mine. We don't expect to find a mine significant enough to be able to develop. The area demands to be looked at because we know mineral resources have been found in the area before.

What do these people take us for? The residents were not fooled. The residents knew that this was not some philanthropic, geological, public-interest exercise on behalf of the company. They were looking for minerals and, if they found them, they wanted to mine them. They did not have any inclination, it seems, that they were up against a massive battle to try to get a uranium mine so close to Adelaide and in one of our prime food producing areas.

It was interesting that former premier Mike Rann's response was that 'his cabinet would never approve a uranium mine anywhere near the Myponga Reservoir'. The quote from the premier's statement was:

Under Don Dunstan's 1971 Mining Act companies have a legal right to explore, but while I'm premier of the state there will be no uranium mining established anywhere near the Myponga Reservoir.

So, Marathon Resources clearly did not learn from that exercise. It has gone away from the Fleurieu Peninsula and gone up to another area where they must have known that they had Buckley's chance of getting permission to mine. They have gone into one of the most well-loved, iconic outback wilderness areas, the mountains of Arkaroola.

I want to also mention some of the amendments I have foreshadowed—I think they have been tabled, and we will debate them in the next week of sitting, as I understand. Because this piece of legislation is a stand-alone piece of legislation, that makes it all the more important to get it right because of the precedent it sets. One of the things I want to make sure we get right in this legislation is that we provide proper recognition for the Adnyamathanha people, who have responsibility for this part of our state. That is what the Greens' amendments attempt to do.

The words in the legislation are very important, and we need to make sure we get them right. Last week I travelled to Port Augusta to meet some of the Adnyamathanha people. I met with the Anggumathanha Adnyamathanha Elders, a group also known as the Camp Law Mob, to talk about a range of issues, including this legislation before us to protect Arkaroola.

I have to say that it was an absolute privilege to be in a room with such dignified, graceful and wise South Australians. They really do care about Arkaroola. They feel a great sense of responsibility to Arkaroola and, as one of the people said to me, 'We might live in towns, we might shop in supermarkets, but this is our country and we need to look after it'.

I take the opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the Aboriginal people I met: Enice, Vera, William, Cheryl, Vicky, Reg, Wilfred, Ivan, Gil, Linda, Rin, Rhonda, Lil, Martha, Charlie, Lesley and Deidre, as well as Linda and Krystal, for meeting with me and for imparting their deep sense of responsibility and custodianship of their sacred lands.

The Adnyamathanha Elders are scattered throughout South Australia: Port Augusta, Beltana, Quorn, Mallala and Gladstone are some of the places they are now living, but according to the co-ordinator of their group, Aunty Enice Marsh, 'they are all in the same boat when it comes to protecting our land'. The Adnyamathanha people have a long and evolving relationship with the land and they deserve an opportunity to help shape the management of this area into the future.

I should say also that I have had a discussion with Vince Coulthard of the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association, and we have to acknowledge that that group are the formal native title holders, and they are a key part of any future of Arkaroola as well.

In relation to the camp law mob that I met with last week, these are people who are descended from elders who have all championed and opposed the restriction of mining in the sacred lands of Arkaroola. As they said to me, they were brought up to follow their father's law, and they still follow it. They call it camp law. As one person said to me:

Our fathers sat us down and said 'no mining at Arkaroola'. The boys were told by their fathers, the grandmothers and mothers as well to their girls—you must protect.

Certainly these Aboriginal people expressed strong concerns about Arkaroola, but they also expressed very strong concerns about the Four Mile mine and Beverley, as well as the activities of Marathon Resources. One person said, 'I can't take my kids anywhere I used to go 'cause there is mining activity everywhere'. Another said, 'I am no longer able to drink water out of the creek'. Another one said, 'We crave for water in our creeks but now it's all polluted'. For these people, the area around Mount Gee is regarded as Anngurla Yarta, which is spiritual land.

One of the people I met, Uncle Gil Coulthard, who has been an important voice in favour of protection, talked with reverence about the importance of Mount Painter near Mount Gee. He said, 'My forefather was born just near Mount Painter'. When we were talking about the potential for mining in different locations, he said:

You can't break the connection between the land. Once you put a tunnel through one mountain, the spirit is ripped out of it.

I should also mention that these elders have a good and happy connection and a lot of respect for Marg and Doug Sprigg, and that is a reciprocated relationship.

What I seek to do through these amendments is make sure that the minister consults all relevant Aboriginal people. In that way, the chance of things falling through the crack will be reduced and the chance for the best possible management plan will be enhanced.

There are really only two amendments that I have put forward. The second one is to insert the word 'spiritual' into the description of values that are sought to be protected by this legislation and by the ban on mining. The word 'culture' is there, but that is a term that is debatable. You have to have continual practice of your culture in order for it to be recognised. If culture is not continually practised, it can often be challenged, but the spiritual values are enduring, and they continue on. So, I think that is an important recognition. Spirit is inherent, and I think it more appropriately acknowledges the enormous importance of and the deep connection to this region that the elders have.

A number of other issues came out of the meeting which I do not need to go into in detail now. I know that there are concerns about the way native title works. One of the people said:

I put in for native title because I thought it would protect our rights. Now it is being exploited by mining companies.

I think that is a debate that we have to continue. I also understand now that the Aboriginal Heritage Act is likely to come before us at some stage, and I think that will be an important occasion on which to debate some of these issues as well and make sure that we get the best possible legislation. With those words, the Greens are delighted that we have this legislation before us. It is the culmination of many years of work by many people, and we look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:49): I rise to indicate the Liberal Party's support for this bill. Arkaroola and the protection of it is a matter that has been debated several times in these chambers in recent years. I apologise to the council if I have made some of these comments before, but I think it is important to place them on the record again in relation to this bill, which will provide ongoing protection for the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

A number of Liberal members visited Arkaroola in 2010, I think it was in August, including our leader Isobel Redmond. There were probably nine of us all up, and we were very grateful to the Sprigg family and the locals who showed us around. We were able to come to a good understanding of what the unique values of that special place are and the need to protect it for future generations.

The most environmentally and geologically significant parts of Arkaroola fall within what is called an environmental class A zone. This zone sets out the conditions under which mining activities may be permitted; that is, 'that a deposit's exploitation is in the highest national or state interest that all other environmental, heritage or conservation considerations may be overridden'. The potential uranium deposit at Mount Gee in Arkaroola is supposedly approximately some 30,000 tonnes.

In October 2009, the Labor government sought to water down the provisions of the environmental class A zone with the release of its paper 'Seeking a Balance', which as a document supposedly to facilitate the co-existence of protecting the environment with mining activities was short on detail, substance or reference material. It was a hastily constructed document containing motherhood statements, with much space devoted to coloured photographs. The consultation period having to be extended by six weeks was an admission that the government had rushed the process to fit in with the upcoming election.

Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary contains a number of endangered species of plants, birds, frogs, fish and the nationally threatened yellow-footed rock wallaby. Its mountains provide a refuge for temperate endemic species which are less likely to survive in other parts of a bioregion, especially in times of extended drought, and the existing zone for this area recognises the vulnerability of this region and expresses an appropriate level of caution regarding our future development activities. We were opposed to the government's attempt to water down that class A zone and my leader in this place tabled a bill which would have enshrined its protection by amending the Development Act.

When the state government granted Marathon a 12-month extension on its exploration licence in December 2010, it failed to tell South Australians whether or not it would be allowing mining in the wilderness sanctuary. At that stage, our leader had called on the government to come clean about whether or not it supported mining.

This bill extends the proclamation made on 29 July 2011, a proclamation that mining be prohibited in the Arkaroola region under section 8 of the Mining Act. However, exploration was permitted to continue. Marathon Resources has been engaging in uranium exploration in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary for several years, most notably through its tenement at Mount Gee. However, its exploration licence is due to expire shortly with no right of renewal.

This bill establishes the Arkaroola protection area (APA) in which mining and exploration are prohibited. The bill makes related amendments to the Development Act 1993, the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 and the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989. One of the key sections of the bill is section 7, which refers to the management plan, which I note has no statutory review period and I would appreciate some comments from the government as to when it envisages that the management plan may be reviewed.

The minister will be required to develop a management plan for the APA, with the primary objective of environmental protection. The minister must consult with any groups or people who hold interests in and around the APA—well, it will not be Marathon Resources but would have been—native titleholders and the Sprigg family.

Section 8 is the review of a development plan; that is, the minister must review any development plans relating to the APA within six months of the management plan being published. The zoning of the APA will likely be revised. I would appreciate knowing whether the government envisages that the class A zoning will be removed.

Section 9 prohibits mining operations and regulated activities. Mining rights and rights to undertake regulated activities will not be able to be acquired or exercised, and that does not affect tenements adjacent to the APA. Section 10 allows for regulations which the Governor may make inside the APA prohibiting the removal of native plants and the imposing of fines not exceeding $10,000.

I am grateful for the briefing I received from the minister's office and the department in November. I did ask at that time to be provided with status regarding Marathon's negotiations for compensation. They had their annual meeting not long after that period, and certainly there had been missives in the press that had indicated that they were having arguments with the government. I did not receive any formal information from the government. I am told that that should have been provided to me by minister Koutsantonis, but the silence on that issue was quite deafening.

As I have said, mining has been banned in Arkaroola since the Governor's proclamation on 29 July. This bill largely transfers that protection into legislation. A key addition is the abolition of mining exploration and the requirement for a management plan. So, much of the detail will be referred to the management plan, which must be consistent with nature conservation; conservation of objects, places or features of cultural value to the Adnyamathanha people; supporting scientific research and environmental monitoring; and fostering public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of the Arkaroola area. I would also appreciate knowing for the record whether that management plan will be published and where it will be available.

I note that pastoral leases rights are unaffected by the bill. I was told in the briefing that the bill itself does not seek to extinguish pre-existing rights for compensation, and that crown law advice is that the bill adds no legal liability to the government with regard to compensation, and those details have not been provided to either house of parliament. That was one of the concerns in relation to whether that bill was to be passed last year.

I would like to spend a few moments making some remarks about the way in which this has been done. It is the Liberal Party's firm view that this is yet another complete stuff-up by this government. It is a good outcome for Arkaroola, but it has not been a good outcome for the taxpayers and it certainly has not been a good outcome for Marathon shareholders in that they were given a right to explore and the rug was pulled out from under them.

I understand that, for several months, the government would not talk to them about their particular claim for compensation. That has now been settled, but it falls well short of the mark. It is certainly not ideal that the taxpayer should be funding these sorts of things but, in our view, the government had the opportunity on several occasions not to renew the lease, yet it did so. Then, in order to provide himself with some sort of legacy, the former premier, in his vanity and at great expense to the taxpayer, has taken this action.

It was interesting to note that, prior to the retirement of the previous premier, there was a segment on ABC Radio that was looking at his legacy. Several different commentators were asked to be interviewed, including Professor David Paton. The compere asked him:

David Paton, when you hear Mike Rann say that he wanted to look at the triple bottom line and he wanted to make sure that the environment was improved as well, in the 10 year period that you had the Rann Foley Government how did the environment fare?

The compere had mentioned the protection of one of the great icon sites of South Australia, Arkaroola. Dr Paton said:

...if you put a 10 year sort of comparison across that, the environment's actually probably deteriorated over that time and so has the level of funding that's actually given to environmental areas.

So, that is the view of at least one of our academics in this whole post-Rann period. I am not sure that Marathon wrote to all members, but they certainly wrote to me at the end of November, following the passage of this bill in the House of Assembly, from which the comments of the former premier had been reported in The Advertiser. In that, they stated that Marathon has spent $17,173,662 in direct exploration costs in Arkaroola and had sought that the proclamation be declared void.

I am amazed that exploration was ever allowed in this particular site but, having allowed them in, the government has treated that particular company very shabbily indeed. I think it will have an impact on other companies that may seek to do business in South Australia because they will look at this particular situation and know that there is some sort of political prerogative that any of the rights they may have under other situations may well be pulled out from under them.

Now that they have reached a settlement this issue is all done and dusted, but it is an expense that the taxpayer should never have had to pay and Marathon should never have been led up the garden path to think that they may be allowed to continue activities in that area. I am pleased that Arkaroola will be protected and, with those comments, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (17:01): In closing this debate, I would like to thank the Hon. Mr Parnell and the Hon. Ms Lensink for their contributions, and I am grateful for their offer of support for this legislation. I look forward to having the debate around the amendments that have been foreshadowed when we come to the committee stage on the next day of sitting. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

At 17:05 the council adjourned until Tuesday 28 February 2012 at 14:15.