HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-07-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ARKAROOLA WILDERNESS SANCTUARY

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (15:36): I rise to raise questions about the government's decision on whether Arkaroola should be mined. There is one thing that both the government and the opposition agree on, that is, we must protect Arkaroola. I have serious concerns about the process that the government has used in this instance and the way in which it plans to do it because it is in stark contrast with the way that, for example, we have approached the BHP question at Roxby Downs.

In the case of BHP and its plans to expand Roxby Downs, we have welcomed the mine, we have allowed the process to develop to pre-feasibility, we have welcomed BHP's initiation of an exhaustive environmental impact statement process, we have looked at the science and we have made decisions on what we will and will not allow, based on the science and the facts. For example, BHP plans to build a desalination plant in the Upper Spencer Gulf. The Spencer Gulf would have to be at least as important environmentally as Arkaroola. It is a pristine environment and our aquaculture industry hinges on it. We are going to allow that desalination plant to be built because we have looked at the science and satisfied ourselves that it is not going to destroy the Spencer Gulf Environment.

That process stands in stark contrast to the process that the government has used in Arkaroola. No-one will be a greater champion of protecting Arkaroola than the state Liberals, we have made that clear. We have made it very clear that we do not intend to see the protections at Arkaroola dumbed down at all. Our policy makes it very clear that unless it is a resource of paramount importance, and of the highest national and state interest, we should not be mining there. But because the government has stepped in and nobbled the process before Marathon Resources has even had a chance to do a pre-feasibility study, and to develop an environmental impact statement and give us the facts, I ask, on the basis of what facts has the government made its decision?

I am quite certain that we would have all benefited from seeing the facts and the science on mining at Arkaroola. It may be, and we will never know now, that Marathon might have been able to develop a mining proposition without damaging the environment. I have heard the Premier postulate that they planned an open cut mine. He knows that is not true. That is just spin. He knows that is not true, and I think his statements about that on the radio were deliberately misleading. They plan to mine from underground, as he well knows. Within a few miles of this site, Heathgate Resources are leaching uranium out of the ground in a very environmentally sustainable way and should leave the site relatively undamaged.

So, on what basis has the government made this decision? We have reports today that it could cost up to $15 million of taxpayers' money in compensation. That is money coming out of health, education and police.

I also have concerns that the boundary line drawn as a reserved area in Arkaroola appears to have been drawn so that Heathcote, another miner, will be allowed to continue to explore at the Four Mile site, but Marathon will be closed out. Is it the intention of the government to protect all of Arkaroola or only that part occupied by Marathon? I also question whether his plans for the government to implement 'strict government guidelines' will have any effect on the activities of the Sprigg family who manage the pastoral lease up there. There are so many unanswered questions about this entire proposal.

I will say this: by not adopting the same process for Marathon as we have with BHP, have we sent a message to the mining industry more broadly—because there are many miners looking to explore the Flinders Ranges and other pristine areas—that, if the purple-spotted gudgeon, the spidery wattle or the yellow-footed rock wallaby are found near your mining exploration site, your investment may be rendered worthless (and we have seen Marathon's share price plummet) before you have even had a chance to further your explorations, develop the science and give the parliament the facts?

This flies in the face of all the rhetoric about mining being important for the future of the state economy. Our economy is in trouble without mining, and what are we doing? Nobbling it by using different processes for one miner (BHP) but another process for a second miner (Marathon). Are we now going to deny access to cherry pick favourite places around the state without giving miners an opportunity to show us that science and their plans before we make a decision? We may well have made the same decision to stop Marathon from mining if we had seen the science, but I have to say I have more of a concern with the process than I do about the decision, and I think the government should reconsider the way it is doing business.

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