HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-11-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ARKAROOLA PROTECTION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 October 2011.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:12): This bill is the culmination of a fairly tawdry set of events. Let me put on the record straightaway the opposition's position with regard to Arkaroola. I know it very well, because the opposition put a lot of work and effort into coming to a considered position on Arkaroola, and I was a part of that as the shadow minister for mineral resources. At least I can say that I think the opposition through that whole process was open and honest, not just with themselves but with the stakeholders involved, which is something I am not too sure that I could say of the government's position.

I am delighted that the minister is here. Before I go too far into this, I do wish to ask a question and possibly a point of clarification from you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as to this matter that is before the house today. I understand that Marathon Resources, which will be impacted significantly by this piece of legislation, has taken matters to court over this and other actions of the government. I want an assurance from you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is okay for us to debate this matter, in view of the fact that there is some court action at foot, and that there are no restrictions on what we may indeed be able to debate and the matters that we might be able to bring—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It's not a jury trial.

Mr WILLIAMS: The former attorney-general, although I understand he has never actually been in a court as a lawyer, but has been there as witness, I believe, or a defendant, or maybe both—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I have never been a defendant, you liar.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What was the comment you made, member?

Mr WILLIAMS: Well, I am about to draw your attention to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, don't move on quite yet. What comment did you make?

Mr WILLIAMS: I am forced to because I have just been called a liar across the chamber, which I believe is unparliamentary. The member for Croydon was the culprit in calling me a liar. If the member for Croydon wants to point out that I have erred, I am quite happy to accept that he might point out the error of my ways; but I believe that calling a member a liar is unparliamentary and I call on him to apologise and withdraw.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I withdraw, sir. The member for MacKillop erred, and I would appreciate a correction.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am seeking clarification from yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, as to whether it is fine for us to debate this matter and whether there are any restrictions on any material that we might bring to the attention of the house with regard to this bill, considering that there is a Supreme Court action afoot concerning the very matters that this bill canvasses.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the minister to provide some advice.

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It does not close the debate. As much as I would like that, no it does not.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (12:17): I am happy to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that my office sent through some information to both the shadow spokesperson and the shadow from the other place on this particular matter. Quite clearly, the action by Bonanza Gold Pty Ltd (a subsidiary of Marathon Resources) was recently filed against the state in the Supreme Court. It is a judicial review action which essentially seeks to challenge the proclamation made by the Governor under section 8 of the Mining Act 1971 (on 29 July 2011) which exempted the proposed Arkaroola protection area from the operation of certain parts of the Mining Act.

Quite simply, the action does not affect the proposed operation of the bill and there would not appear to be any legal impact on the operation of the bill even if this action were to succeed. However, I am also advised that the passage of the bill may affect the litigation in that commencement of the provisions of the bill would, to a large extent, eliminate any practical benefit that could be obtained by the action, so—

Ms Chapman: It is an embarrassment to the government.

The Hon. P. CAICA: —it would certainly—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bragg, I need to hear this, so I would appreciate if you could keep your comments to yourself.

The Hon. P. CAICA: The proposed act—I will reinforce this because of the rude interjections of the member for Bragg—does not affect the proposed operation of the bill, and there would not appear to be any legal impact on the operation of the bill even if this action were to succeed. What is currently being undertaken is a judicial review action which seeks to challenge the proclamation made by the Governor, and what we are doing today is the bill that brings effect to that proclamation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Based on that, my assessment would be that the matter before the court is not the same matter that is a part of this bill, and I am happy for the debate to continue. You can resume your discussion, member.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: But should you stray into other areas which are not directly related to the bill—

Mr WILLIAMS: No, no; I—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —then you take it upon yourself—

Mr WILLIAMS: I have no intention of that. The closing remark that the minister just made was that he thought that this bill would, in fact, give effect to the proclamation.

Ms Chapman: No, it's protection—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

Mr WILLIAMS: Protection to the proclamation.

The Hon. P. CAICA: No; the bill will provide the proclamation—

Ms Chapman: It's the back-up to cover your backside!

The Hon. P. CAICA: No; not at all. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not quite sure how at one the member for Bragg is with her community or with the views of the broader South Australian community, but a decision was made by this government to give the highest level of protection to Arkaroola. We do not shy away from that. We undertook a comprehensive consultation—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are now debating the bill itself.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I apologise, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I suggest that you just ignore the interruptions by the member for Bragg.

The Hon. P. CAICA: In essence, the action is to challenge the proclamation. This is a bill that in effect will provide the protection that this house is, I think, going to agree to provide.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, would you like to address the bill now?

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you. Can I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I still have some concerns. We have got two parties here, at least, and the government is being sued by Marathon Resources on behalf of Bonanza—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Oh, and that's our fault, is it?

Mr WILLIAMS: I am not saying that it is anyone's fault. The court will determine that. I just have some concerns—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Croydon!

Mr WILLIAMS: He is not being helpful, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Neither are you, member. Member for MacKillop, I have made my ruling. You can now debate this matter. If you do not wish to avail yourself of the opportunity, I am happy for you—

Mr WILLIAMS: No, I do want to debate the matter.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, well, let's get to it, then.

Mr WILLIAMS: I want to make sure, sir, because the opposition does not want to be a party to increasing any costs that might befall the government over this matter. Let me put the opposition's position quite clearly. The opposition believes that the Arkaroola wilderness deserves to be protected. The opposition believes that the current protection under the Development Act did that, and we have reaffirmed our position with regard to that a number of times over the last year or two.

However, the government, through a set of tawdry processes, has exposed the taxpayer of South Australia, and the opposition is concerned that, if we are a party to supporting this legislation (as the government is asking us to), we might further expose the taxpayer of South Australia to further damages. I want to put that on the record because I am going to spend some time going through some of the history here which I think exposes this as a fairly tawdry exercise on behalf of the government. I believe that the government has been quite disingenuous on this whole matter, and I believe that the evidence suggests—

The Hon. P. Caica: Are you supporting the bill or not?

Mr WILLIAMS: You will hear all about that in due course, Paul.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister! Member for MacKillop, you will refer to him as 'minister'; and can you sort of move it along, please?

Mr WILLIAMS: I am trying not to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you get to your point?

Mr WILLIAMS: —be baited by his interjections, sir. It is difficult but I am trying. Mr Deputy Speaker, there is obviously a level of concern within the community in South Australia. Just to give an insight into why I called the government's handling of this exercise disingenuous, the former premier on public radio in Adelaide only a couple of months ago made the claim that Marathon Resources wanted to develop an open pit mine in Arkaroola.

Now, I challenge any member of the government, including the former premier, to come forward with any skerrick of evidence that there was ever a proposal from Marathon Resources to develop an open pit mine at Arkaroola. In other words, there has been a beat-up by the former premier, and that is probably one of the reasons why he is no longer the premier. That was his modus operandi.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I will take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. I think that comment is actually a reflection on the member in the house. You will withdraw that comment.

Mr WILLIAMS: Which comment, sir?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Why the member is not in the chamber. I think that is a reflection on him. The member for Ramsay you were reflecting on?

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes. You want me to withdraw the comment that he said on public radio that Marathon—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. The comment you made was that that was probably one of the reasons why he is no longer here, or as premier. That was the inference you made.

Mr WILLIAMS: And that is unparliamentary, is it, sir? For me to express an opinion that one of the reasons he is no longer the premier that—I must admit, I am somewhat at a loss as to where I have transgressed the standing orders or even the conventions of the parliament by suggesting that the former premier is no longer the premier for a particular reason. I would have thought that sort of comment is made quite regularly in this place. Indeed, the member for Croydon just suggested that this will be the last time I speak as the deputy leader. It is not a dissimilar comment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear that; he should not have said it, anyway. Minister, do you wish to continue?

The Hon. P. CAICA: My point of order is one of relevance. The issue being debated by the deputy opposition leader is not relevant to the bill before the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can the member for MacKillop return to the bill as soon as he can?

Mr WILLIAMS: Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can understand the minister not wanting to talk about the background and the reasons why we are debating this bill: because he is ashamed of it. He is complicit—and I am going to put some things on the record which will show why he is complicit. Let me just explain.

The reality is that part of the justification for this particular bill and the proclamation that was made a few months ago—I think on 22 July—was that Marathon Resources was going to develop an open pit mine in Arkaroola. I have issued a challenge to any member of the government to bring forth some evidence to back up that claim. The claim was made on public radio. I have done a bit of trawling and I have failed to find any evidence. I would challenge any member of the government to come forward with any such evidence, because it might change the way some of us think about the process that has been undertaken by the government.

Notwithstanding that, there is a long history of a lot of things. There is a long history of mining exploration and mining activity in Arkaroola. In fact, I doubt that the Sprigg family, who are currently the holders of the pastoral lease over what we call Arkaroola, would even have an interest in the area if it were not for the late Reg Sprigg and the fact that he was a geologist. He went to that part of South Australia because he was a geologist and because he had an interest in the geology of the area and any potential mineralisation. As I said, there is a long history of exploration, going back well over 100 years, and of mining. I think all of us know that uranium was mined from the Mount Painter region—

Ms Chapman: Radium Hill.

Mr WILLIAMS: Radium Hill—in the 1950s. The tracks that allow tourists to go there and marvel at the uniqueness of the region would not be there—access would not be available to anyone—if it was not for the activities of mining exploration in the area. I think it is important for us to understand that. More recently, this government—notwithstanding the rhetoric that has been issuing forth from time to time, particularly from the former premier, from other members of the government—continues to encourage exploration in the area. In fact, the company, Bonanza—

The Hon. P. CAICA: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is all well and good that from the deputy leader's perspective he is making a contribution of sorts—and I accept that—but, again, my point of order is on relevance. I do not know why he is blabbing on about mining; this bill is about conservation and protection of the environment, not about mining.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will not uphold the point of order; however, I would ask the member to see if we can get an abridged version of the history, rather than the long version.

Mr WILLIAMS: Mr Deputy Speaker, for the information of the house, under clause 3 of the bill, in the definitions, it refers to the Mining Act:

mining Act means—

(a) the Mining Act 1971; or

(b) the Opal Mining Act 1995; or

(c) the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act 2000;

mining operations means mining operations within the meaning of the Mining Act 1971 or the Opal Mining Act 1995, but does not include—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, I said I did not uphold the point of order, so I am not sure why you are going further.

Mr WILLIAMS: I apologise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am happy to rule the other way if you would like.

Mr WILLIAMS: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to appraise the minister of what is actually in the bill that he has brought before the house, because I doubt whether he has read it.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You mean apprise him not appraise him.

Mr WILLIAMS: No, I am going to appraise him.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Are you going to appraise him?

Mr WILLIAMS: He will be appraised then.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: So, you are doing an evaluation on him? You are not telling him something?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Croydon.

Mr WILLIAMS: He is still not helping.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are we getting back to the bill now?

Mr WILLIAMS: We absolutely are.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good.

Mr WILLIAMS: The bill is, indeed, about mining or, indeed, about being mined, and I think it is about protection.

The Hon. P. Caica: And conservation and heritage.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, please. You will have your chance to rebut.

Mr WILLIAMS: From 1 August 1994 to 31 July 1999, Bonanza held exploration lease 1966 over the area of Arkaroola. In July 2004, Marathon Resources gained 100 per cent ownership of Bonanza and, at that stage, was granted a new exploration lease (lease number EL 3258) for a period of two years; that was in 2004, under the current government. On 22 September 2006, that exploration lease (3258) was renewed for a further five years, as of 11 October 2004, so giving an expiry date of 11 October 2009.

On 22 October 2009, a new lease was granted—exploration lease 4355. It was granted for a period of one year. On 2 February 2011—that was this year—that exploration lease (EL 4355) was renewed for a period of one year and four months, beginning 22 October last year, giving it a life until 22 February next year. I put that onto the record because it is obvious that, during the tenure of this government, they have granted at least two exploration leases to the current exploration leaseholders and continued to renew those leases over that period.

There was a mishap that occurred with regard to the operation of the lease. I understand that, on 4 January 2008, Marathon Resources advised PIRSA Minerals that they had an issue with the burial of material. Again, my understanding was that the licence did prohibit the burial of certain materials and that was the issue here. It was not the burial of materials per se but, to my understanding, where the contracting drilling company fell foul of the licence was the fact that the material, which was drilling cuttings, was actually buried in plastic bags.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Correct.

Mr WILLIAMS: The member for Croydon says, 'Correct.' I am sure the member for Croydon is well aware of the true facts.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I was the acting minister at the time.

Mr WILLIAMS: That's right. As he said, he was the acting minister at the time. My understanding is that, if those drill cuttings were indeed buried in a calico bag, there would not have been an issue. So, it was the plastic bag that was the issue. Again, I come back to my use of the word disingenuous. A lot of publicity was promulgated about the quantum of material that was buried. My understanding—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Non genuine. My understanding is that the problem that the licensee had was the fact that the plastic bags were buried, not with any of the other material that was buried. Again, the problem was relatively minor, but it was blown up to be a much more serious problem than it was. In fact, there were many letters to the local press suggesting that it was outrageous that tailings from drill holes, which intersected with radioactive material, were being buried. That, in reality, was not the issue. The issue was that plastic bags were being buried.

It was a blowing up; I think the standard expression is 'making a mountain out of a mole hill'. Notwithstanding that, it became a serious issue. To be quite honest, I would like to congratulate former minister Holloway, who was minister for most of the time while this was going on, for the way he operated with regard to this. I think he was pretty genuine in his operations both in administering the act and in the way he worked with the company concerned. Indeed, he issued the company with instructions about how they were to undo the wrong that had occurred. PIRSA, I understand, on 28 April 2009 signed off on the rectification works.

Later on that year, in October 2009, the premier issued a ministerial statement and talked about a document that the government was about to release called Seeking a Balance. That document was released to the public on that particular day: 27 October 2009. It came as a surprise. As the shadow minister for mineral resources, I received a number of representations from the mining sector. I had a number of discussions with people who were very concerned.

Some of us are very keen to see the increase in mining in this particular state. Some of us genuinely believe that the state's future will, to a significant extent, be saddled to the success or otherwise of developing a viable mining sector in this state. It was expressed to me on a number of occasions that the government was playing, in a very serious field, hard and fast with the rules. There is a thing that miners all over the world talk about, and it is called 'sovereign risk'.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Croydon!

Mr WILLIAMS: It is called sovereign risk. When mining companies go into the field to explore, the reality is that they generally spend a lot of money before they have any great level of success. The risks are high, the costs are high. What they do require is a set of rules which they know are going to stay in place. They require surety. The other place is debating this right at the moment with the Roxby Downs indenture. We debated it a couple of weeks ago in this place, about providing surety for a company to come in and invest large amounts of money over a long period of time. They want to be assured that the rules are not going to change on the way through.

That is exactly what mining houses assess with the jurisdiction as they are making boardroom-level decisions about investments. That is why a number of people in the sector spoke to me with grave concerns about the level of sovereign risk that seemed to be appearing here in South Australia. That is why I think it is important that we canvass all the issues behind this particular matter so that we get a good understanding of what is happening here, and we move ahead carefully, because it could have significant ramifications on the future of this state. I think that point has not been made, and I think that the government has failed to annunciate that, and I can understand why.

It is important to juxtapose the sort of things that the government has been saying over the last couple of years to what has occurred in the last couple of months because it highlights this problem of sovereign risk in South Australia. On 14 September 2010, when a bill was being debated in the other place, minister Holloway made some comments with regard to Arkaroola. Amongst other things, he said that the government's approach to protecting the environmental cultural and conservation values of the Northern Flinders ranges was through established conservation and heritage legislation.

Just over 12 months ago, the minister for mineral resources in the other place said that the government's approach to protecting the area was through established conservation and heritage legislation, the sort of legislation which I talked about and which the opposition reaffirmed its belief in with regard to the Development Act. He also went on to say that, in the government's view, 'conservation controls should be not affected by prescribing particular regions as exempt from mining under the Mining Act'. Again, just over 12 months ago, the minister for mines said that it was the government's view that 'conservation controls should be not affected by prescribing particular regions as exempt from mining under the Mining Act', which is the exact opposite to what this bill is doing.

I want to put on the record that the government has done (at least) a 180° turn on this particular matter in just over 12 months. On 27 October, minister Holloway in the other place said:

...we are working with the minister for environment in relation to getting a response to the 'Seeking a Balance' report. It was not just on radio that I made comments about it, but also in this parliament. If one goes back and looks at it, I am sure I indicated that there was, clearly, some dissatisfaction in relation to that report. That is not to say that it was a waste of time, because what it has done is brought in a whole lot of submissions that have been extremely helpful in relation to the way forward.

Again, on 10 November, in the other place, he reiterated, saying the government is still 'seeking' its response to Seeking a Balance and 'the future of Arkaroola really rests on the consideration of a number of other submissions, in particular those we have received in relation to Seeking a Balance'. The minister for mineral resources was saying that they were seeking a response just on 12 months ago. The Seeking a Balance report was basically a discussion paper but it did not seek to do what this bill is doing. It did not seek to ban mining activity from the whole of the Arkaroola area. It sought to break up the Arkaroola area into smaller subzones and apply different levels of environmental protection to those smaller subzones. It certainly was never proposed in that document that there be a blanket ban on exploration and mining activity.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: No, it wasn't.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: No, I think Seeking a Balancewas seeking to provide proper protection. The point I am trying to make, minister, is that the government has changed its position significantly on what it believes is proper protection. Seeking a Balancerecognised that there were many parts of what we call the Arkaroola area which were not as highly prized environmentally and were not as highly prized visually. I think most people accept that, particularly for the tourism industry, it is the visual amenity which is important to that area. I am not suggesting that is the only thing of import up there, but the visual amenity is something that I do not think anybody wishes to see despoilt.

The reality is that Seeking a Balancerecognised that there were some parts within the whole of the Arkaroola which deserved the highest level of protection and other parts which did not deserve quite that level of protection. The government could not come to a landing on that. As I understand it, there was considerable tension between the agencies, particularly the mineral resources agency and the environment agency. Notwithstanding, I had discussions with people within the environment agency who were relatively relaxed about Marathon Resources' activities, as long as they met the appropriate environmental standards. I obviously will not mention names, but that was the result of discussions that I had with people in the agency.

To move the story on, on 22 February the then Premier, the member for Ramsay, made a ministerial statement in the house, saying, amongst other things, that the government had been legally obliged to renew Marathon's exploration licence under the Mining Act. He said that he was going to institute a new consultation. He said indeed that Marathon was advised prior to the renewal of that licence that the government was:

…examining options for the future conservation management of the Arkaroola Sanctuary

and

these options could include the exclusion or limiting of future mining in the environmentally sensitive areas of the Arkaroola Sanctuary, including areas that are the subject of the company's lease.

I do not think in the context of the Seeking a Balance document that the government had promulgated some months before that that you would read 'include the exclusion or limiting of future mining in the environmentally sensitive areas'. You would read that as meaning the whole of the Arkaroola area. I think any reasonable person reading that would read it in the context of the Seeking a Balance report and take from that that there were certainly areas within the Arkaroola sanctuary zone which deserve a very high level of environmental protection.

What the Premier also went on to say on 22 February this year was that it would be:

…inappropriate for the Government to make a decision like this without consulting native title holders, pastoral lease holders and the holders of exploration licence. The Government will announce our intentions about how to best protect Arkaroola once the consultation period has been completed.

He went on to say:

I have asked the Minister for Environment and Conservation and the Minister for Mineral Resource Development to lead the consultation process on the conservation management of Arkaroola. Following the consultation process, recommendations for the future management of Arkaroola will be brought to cabinet.

There were other statements in the house about this and about the consultation process going on. Indeed, on 8 June the house was told:

...discussion with key stakeholders, namely, the leaseholders of the Arkaroola, Mount Freeling and Wooltana Pastoral Leases, the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association, who hold native title over the area, and several exploration and mining companies, including Marathon Resources, but also Heathgate Resources, Alliance Craton Explorer and Giralia Resources. Their views are being sought on the best options for conserving Arkaroola's unique values.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is fact that on the day prior to the announcement that the proclamation was to be made that the Minister for Mineral Resources was in Perth at a mining conference. It is also fact that the Chairman of Marathon Resources was at the same conference, and it is a fact that they spoke.

I cannot claim that the alleged conversation they are claimed to have had is fact, but it has certainly been alleged that the Minister for Mineral Resources, who was supposedly taking a joint submission to cabinet about how to move forward, was unaware that he would be travelling to Arkaroola the very next day to make a joint statement that there would be a proclamation basically banning mining and exploration activities in Arkaroola.

Again, I think it is very important that the house understands what has been happening, and that the house understands why this process is under question. I bring it back, sir, to the very important issue that this potentially exposes to the taxpayers of South Australia. I understand that the consultation process—there will be allegations made to the court, and I do not particularly want to canvas those—

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I understand that the traditional owners claim that they were not consulted, and I understand that there is certainly at least one mineral leaseholder who was to be consulted, and a meeting was cancelled and postponed to a date which, as it turned out, was beyond the date, namely, 22 July, when the proclamation was made. So, there is at least one mineral leaseholder who, according to their statement, was certainly never spoken to.

That is a potted history of what has gone on; we have the government expressing some concerns about environmental outcomes of mining activities in Arkaroola, which a part of South Australia which has been subject to mineral exploration for over 100 years, and I do not have any problems with those concerns being expressed.

The government put out a discussion paper which recognised that there were certainly some parts of the Arkaroola area that deserved a very high level of protection from mining exploration and activity, and that there were other parts which did not seem to deserve anywhere near that level of protection.

We then had the establishment of a further inquiry by two ministers; it seems, certainly on the face of it, that the consultation was very limited, and that some key stakeholders are claiming that they were not genuinely consulted. In fact, I think one claim from the native title holders was, when they complained to the minister that they had not been consulted, the minister's response was, 'Take this as your consultation'—that's the phone call after the event. We now have a bill to back up the proclamation that was made on the 22nd.

We know that the company, Marathon, has been informed that the government will consider some form of ex gratia payment as compensation. I understand that Marathon claims that it has spent in excess of $15 million to date on exploration in the area. That is direct expenditure; it does not allow for the cost of that money over the period or, I am sure, many other incidentals. So, I would suggest that there is some level of exposure, particularly given that the government said that it would look at some ex gratia payment.

The Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy made that statement about the government considering an ex gratia payment some months ago. I believe Marathon has become very frustrated in trying to meet with the minister to get some understanding of the considerations that it might get from the government. I understand that Marathon has indeed done what the government has asked of them; that is, they have provided the government with a full set of documents substantiating their costs. However, they have had virtually nothing come back the other way as to where the government is at with that assessment and with making a decision.

At the end of the day, Marathon has sought I guess the only redress that was open to it, and that was to lodge a case in the Supreme Court of South Australia for damages against the government of South Australia. As the minister pointed out earlier, that action is about the proclamation. To be quite honest, I wonder whether, if that action were successful, it would flow that a similar action would be successful against this piece of legislation? Alternatively, is this piece of legislation designed to cut off Marathon's action in the Supreme Court? Is this a signal to the Supreme Court to say, 'It doesn't matter what you say, it won't stand up and it will have no impact.' I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00]


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