HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-11-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ARKAROOLA PROTECTION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 November 2011.)

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (15:48): I wish to conclude my remarks. The Liberal Party has made a decision to support this bill. Even though I have strong thoughts about the matter, I will concur with the wishes of the party. However, I just want to add a couple of things to what I said last night, particularly in relation to Marathon Resources.

I think that they have been absolutely appallingly handled. They have been used as a convenient whipping boy over Arkaroola. They have changed completely from the time when this survey work was done. It is a different entity in many respects, and they are responsible and good South Australian operators at the moment. I think that the way they have been treated is shocking.

It is worth noting that the tracks and the roads inside Arkaroola were, indeed, put in by mining companies .The track for the Ridgetop Tour was put in by a mining company. Unless it was opened up years and years ago by mining companies having a look around, people who go up there to visit now would not have access through that road and track system. I just find it ludicrous.

The other thing that really worries me is that you just cannot lock everything up. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, I am sure that in years to come—however many decades, or 100 years, or whatever—uranium will be mined. They will do the investigations; I am sure about that.

The other reality of this is that, as I mentioned before, minister Koutsantonis was summoned back from Perth and the former Premier went up to Arkaroola to make the announcement. Whether they like it or not—and the government will not admit it—the SDA's visit by Mr Malinauskas and the Treasurer to the former premier's office was brought about in large part by the Arkaroola business. I do not have any doubt whatsoever in my mind about that. That is feedback I have had from sources outside of here.

The parliament will go on. The lower house will support this bill. It will go to the upper house and what will be, will be. I just want to put on the record that I have a good deal of cynicism about the way this has all gone through. At the risk of repeating myself, I think that, in many years to come, uranium will be mined out of Arkaroola.

The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay) (15:51): Thank you very much, Mr Acting Speaker. I will just say that, apart from the fact that you are not suitably robed in the traditions of Peter Lewis, it is great to see you in the chair. Back on 22 July, I, along with the environment minister, Paul Caica, and the mineral resources minister, Tom Koutsantonis, flew north to the Flinders Ranges to announce that the government would move to protect Arkaroola and the adjacent Mawson Plateau. This followed a visit to Arkaroola the previous year by me with minister Caica and the then minister for mineral resources, the Hon. Paul Holloway MLC.

On 22 July, we announced that our first move to protect Arkaroola was to take administrative action under the Mining Act to ban mining and mining exploration in the area, but we also announced that we would back this action with special legislation, that is, the legislation introduced on my last days as premier that we are discussing today. We were keen to introduce and pass this legislation because we did not believe that regulations under the Mining Act would provide sufficient protection for this beautiful and rich ecosystem from all forms of incompatible development because a regulation made through Executive Council could easily be unmade by a future government.

Proclamation by itself was important. It is quick, it is decisive and it signifies intent, but, in my view and in the view of my colleagues, it was not enough. Legislation to protect Arkaroola and the Mawson Plateau in South Australian law makes it much more difficult for any future government to quickly cave in to vested interests and reverse it; after all, any change to the legislation would have to go through both houses of this parliament. Given the huge public support for saving Arkaroola, the political pain would be too great for any government stupid enough to try to undo what we are doing here today.

For me there had to be an even greater insurance policy by building even further and higher obstacles to any future government wanting to water down the protections that we want for this unique area. That is why I began the process of nominating Arkaroola for national and for UNESCO-backed world heritage listing. I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard beginning this process for Arkaroola and for the environmentally important Nullarbor.

I know that this plan for triple protection has caused some angst in some mining circles. That angst is not well based. The mining and exploration industry in this state has very little to complain about under this government; that is why they gave the Legend in Mining award to Paul Holloway; that is why this government's mining policies have been singled out as world's best practice in mining conferences around Australia and overseas.

Our pro-mining regulatory environment has been highlighted as the best in Australia, and one of the best in the world, by several international mining rating agencies. We are seen as one of the fastest jurisdictions in the world in the process of mines moving from exploration to export.

I would remind the mining industry that this government introduced the PACE scheme—the Plan for Accelerated Exploration—which saw a fivefold then tenfold increase in mining exploration, with a program that involves government subsidies for drilling. The good news is that this exploration initiative uncovered billions of dollars worth of mineral wealth.

We have already seen the number of new mines more than quadruple, with scores of new mines coming. It was this government which played a major role in changing the national ALP's no new uranium mines policy back in 2007, which has and will continue to unlock countless billions of dollars of wealth in this state, creating thousands of jobs as well as providing emission-free energy through our uranium exports. We have and are playing a role in working to change the ALP's national prohibition on exporting uranium to India.

We have also this year successfully completed years of negotiations with the federal government to unlock the Woomera defence prohibited area—an area the size of England—which has prohibited mining in that region for nearly seven decades. Of course, most recently—and I know there is legislation before this house—I signed the indenture agreement with BHP Billiton to underpin the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine to become the world's largest mine, which will generate tens of thousands of jobs and will be around for the next 100 years or more.

The vast majority of mining and exploration companies have a clear understanding that an exploration licence is a licence to explore, not a right to mine. I want to today acknowledge that my respect for mining companies has strengthened since my strong engagement with them over the past nearly 10 years.

The vast majority of mining companies want to do the right thing by their workers, by the environment and by the community, as well as their shareholders. Most want to mine ore bodies, not the stock exchange. They actually want to extract minerals, not manipulate the share market. I particularly today want to highlight a couple of companies that I regard as exemplars nationally in terms of their care for the environment and also their care for social responsibility.

Iluka, which, of course, is mining zircon over on the West Coast, has some extraordinarily innovative programs: pre-employment training programs, employment programs for local Aboriginal people, as well as a mentoring scheme for Aboriginal businesses and high school and university scholarships for Indigenous students.

OZ Minerals, which operates the Prominent Hill copper mine near Coober Pedy, has won this year's inaugural Social Inclusion in Mining and Energy Award for its outstanding role in Aboriginal involvement; again, with pre-employment schemes and a whole range of supports to encourage local Aboriginal people, not only from Coober Pedy but from the APY lands, to be involved in Prominent Hill. I think there are about 80 Aboriginal employees, and the retention rate has been extraordinary.

I also want to congratulate BHP Billiton for its involvement with the state government out of Port Augusta in its integration program for prisoners into the resources industry. There are many outstanding companies who do the right thing socially, the right thing in terms of jobs, the right thing in terms of Indigenous people and the right thing in terms of the environment.

Getting back to Arkaroola, our decision and the legislation that we are considering today, there is no doubt that there are some vested interests with deep political ties who were offended by a decision motivated only by the public interest. I mentioned at the start of this contribution that I, Paul Holloway and minister Caica visited Arkaroola last year.

It was my first ever visit to Arkaroola and we met there with representatives of Marathon Resources and with opponents of the proposed mine led by the Sprigg family, owners of the Arkaroola tourist facility. I had met with Marathon's principals on previous occasions; in fact I had spent far more time with proponents of the mine than those opposing it. However, up at Arkaroola a year or so ago, the meetings and inspections were conducted in a most cordial and respectful way.

Marathon was given a private hearing by all three ministers—myself, minister Caica and minister Holloway—on site, and so were the Spriggs. They were given equal amounts of time to make their case and then we met and lunched together—the ministers, the Spriggs and Marathon Resources' representatives. Minister Holloway and minister Caica then made a helicopter inspection of the area, including the Mawson Plateau.

Earlier this year, at the very beginning of the year, the government renewed the conditional one-year exploration licence for Marathon Resources to explore an area within the Arkaroola sanctuary as the government was legally obliged to do. Given recent media coverage and commentary, it is important to note, as I reminded the parliament at the beginning of the year, that the conditional one-year exploration licence that had been awarded in no way conferred a right to mine.

Even before that renewal was granted, Marathon Resources was clearly advised that the government was examining options for the future conservation management of the Arkaroola sanctuary, and the company was also advised that these options could include the exclusion or limiting of future mining in the environmentally sensitive areas of the Arkaroola sanctuary, including areas that were the subject of the company's lease. It was clearly spelt out to them.

I advised the house, with considerable media interest, at the beginning of the year that, 'We will be considering all of the available options to preserve the iconic Arkaroola sanctuary.' So anyone who says that this legislation and my 22 July announcement has somehow come as a bolt out of the blue is either kidding themselves or deliberately attempting to mislead others. Those who say that our decision to protect Arkaroola has damaged our reputation for being pro-mining clearly do not know what they are talking about. There is enormous support in this state for mining, including for uranium mining. This government, and I hope this parliament, is doing the right thing in protecting Arkaroola.

We did not take this decision lightly. We listened to all of the arguments and spent many, many months coming to the decisions that we took, even though there was massive support in the South Australian public for the protection of Arkaroola. The South Australian government took the right decision in the public interest following a great deal of discussion and reflection. We did the right thing. The public were right in asking for the protection of Arkaroola, and we are doing the right thing by supporting this legislation in the house today.

To have done the wrong thing and allowed mining would have not only been bad for Arkaroola but would have significantly damaged support for mining in this state. Anyone who does not realise that, quite frankly, is not competent in the job working for the people they claim to represent. The decision we took was the right one for the environment, but it was also the right one for mining, because doing the right thing is what all of us are elected to do, and saving and protecting Arkaroola for all time is absolutely the right thing to do.

I want to pay tribute to minister Caica for his great wisdom and for the support of his officers. I also want to pay tribute to minister Koutsantonis for his courage. It was to terrific to hear people from his own department say to us, when we made the announcement, that we were doing the right thing. This, in my view, is a clear-cut decision. We have gone through an extraordinary process. We have taken our time in doing so and were criticised for taking that time. My view is that on every single indicator protecting the environment and the values and the heritage of Arkaroola and the Mawson Plateau is something that this parliament can be proud of for generations to come.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:08): As members of this house would know, Arkaroola is within the electorate of Stuart. It is an incredibly special place in the northern Flinders Ranges, and I am exceptionally proud to have it in the electorate that I represent here in parliament. I am pleased that there will be no mining at Arkaroola. Let me be very clear: I strongly support mining; but I can look at any piece of land and consider its beauty, its cultural significance, its current and alternative uses and say that I would prefer no mining to take place there and for it to be left as it is. Even the plainest outback country would still be more attractive without a mine on it.

However, the reality is that we do need an active and successful mining industry. So, in all situations it comes down to the cost-benefit analysis, taking absolutely everything into consideration. The more remarkable an area is, the more I and most people would hope that the genuine cost-benefit analysis comes out on the side of not mining. Therefore, in that vein, I am very pleased that there will be no mining in Arkaroola.

The unfortunate part of this situation is that the government repeatedly granted mining exploration licences to companies to explore within the Arkaroola pastoral lease, the most recent of which is Marathon Resources. This is what has made getting to this point so messy and so prolonged. I do believe that if a company is granted an exploration licence, and if that exploration is fruitful, the company should be optimistic that a mining lease, with responsible conditions attached, would subsequently be granted.

What has happened in this case is that, after providing renewals of the mining exploration lease to Marathon Resources, Labor's last premier announced that his government would prohibit all mining in Arkaroola—with no consultation with Marathon Resources, no consultation with the local Aboriginal leaders, no consultation (we are told) with the minister for mineral resources, and, I suspect, no consultation with (other than, perhaps, last minute advice to) the Sprigg family, although that was probably not necessary, as they were certainly going to be grateful for the decision.

As the shadow minister for mineral resources has already outlined, the court will determine whether Marathon Resources is due any compensation for the way in which the government has handled this matter, and I anticipate there will end up being significant compensation paid to Marathon Resources at taxpayer expense, but that will be up to the court.

It is very important to point out that Doug and Marg Sprigg are not opposed to mining in general. Their family and this property have both been involved in mining in many ways for decades. They are not opposed to mining. They certainly are opposed to the mining of uranium in the vicinity of Mount Gee, for various reasons, including, among others:

fear of damage to the great beauty of the area;

fear of damage to the environment;

the previously unacceptable behaviour of Marathon Resources whereby they had inappropriate material buried on site;

the extreme terrain and relative inaccessibility and, therefore, extremely high cost of mining in the area; and

because they have never believed that commercially attractive quantities of uranium actually exist in the area.

With regard to the value of the resource, Marathon has a very different opinion, and now it seems that no-one will ever know.

For my part, I believe that the class A environmental protection that has been in place since 2003 did give enormous protection to the Arkaroola area. If it had been proven commercially attractive and environmentally responsible to mine in the area, it still would not have been legally possible to do so unless it could also be proven that it was in the highest interest of our state and the nation to do so. I freely acknowledge that the Spriggs and others thought it was important to have even greater protection, and have now received it, but I do think that the previous protection was sufficient. It is important to point out that that protection was in place before Marathon started exploring, so they knew the hurdles that would have to be jumped for any company to ever be permitted to actually mine.

It is also important to point out that, just as the previous class A zone protection required it to be the state's and the nation's highest interest for any mining to be permitted, I am sure that, if, by some very unfortunate chance, it is ever in the state's and the nation's highest interest that there be mining at Arkaroola some time in the future, then the new protection being given to the area now would, unfortunately, need to be overturned by the government of the day. By definition, if it is ever in the state's or the nation's highest interest, then the government of the day would have no choice.

I also point out that there is currently uranium mining at the Ranger Mine in the Kakadu National Park and world heritage area in the Northern Territory. It is easy for people to make assumptions about what different, well-known types of protections do or do not offer. Of course, I, and everybody else who supports this bill, hope that it will protect Arkaroola forever. As this house knows, the Liberal opposition supports this bill, and I am very pleased to say that a group of seven other Liberal MPs joined me in a trip to Arkaroola last year to investigate this issue, and I know that trip helped our party come to our position. I was very grateful for the complete assistance of Marg and Doug Sprigg and also of Marathon Resources to have open and frank briefings from each group, both in the field and in indoor meeting presentation format.

I would also like to be sure that all members of this house understand that the Arkaroola protection area provided for by this bill is not exactly the same as the Arkaroola pastoral lease area. It does not cover all of the Arkaroola pastoral lease and also does cover a large part of the adjoining Mount Freeling pastoral lease. I think it is fair to assume that, just as the government did not consult with the parties that I previously mentioned before deciding to make the announcement about the protection, the owners of the Mount Freeling pastoral lease may not have been consulted, either.

While I have not seen the detailed maps necessary to be sure, it appears that as well as Marathon Resources' exploration lease area the Arkaroola Protection Area covers mining exploration licences held by Alliance and Quasar together, and also until very recently by Sturt Exploration.

Importantly, the Arkaroola Protection Area does not cover the actual Beverley, Paralana or Four Mile projects, and I would not support the protection if it did. It is interesting to note that the protection area does cover the freehold land which the Spriggs own adjacent to the pastoral lease land. This is certainly not a problem in this instance, because neither the Spriggs nor anybody else would support mining there, but I am sure that other freehold landowners throughout the state would be interested to know that the government believes it can apply a mining prohibition zone to a piece of freehold land.

Section 7 is clearly one of the most important in this bill and refers to the management plan, a management plan which must be done in conjunction with the NRM Act, the Pastoral Act and the Development Act. I do not expect that the agencies responsible for administering these acts will have trouble coordinating their objectives in this instance, but it may well be far more difficult if this is ever done again without consultation anywhere else in the future, particularly if a pastoral lease is used for pastoral purposes, which is the norm, rather than for tourism and educational purposes, as is the case with the Arkaroola pastoral lease.

Finally, I support the bill but I am disappointed in the way the government has handled this issue over the last several years. It has been exceptionally sloppy. Renewing legal entitlements to explore for minerals then banning mining without notice or consultation has not filled the Australian mining industry with confidence in the government.

I trust that Marathon Resources will receive whatever level of support it deserves from our legal system. More importantly in the context of this bill, I am pleased that the extraordinary Arkaroola area, including the Mount Painter, Mount Gee and Armchair areas; the stunning Freeling Heights; the enticing Mawson Plateau (which I would love to walk through one day); and other areas will be protected for current and future generations to enjoy. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (16:17): I rise to support the principle of Arkaroola not being mined. Before the last election I was one of two Liberals who went out and called on the government to take action to protect Arkaroola—myself as a former environment minister and that other well known environmentalist, Nick Minchin, whose grandfather or great grandfather was the first curator of the Adelaide Zoo, so the Minchin family have had a long history of support for the environment.

The reality is that as a former environment minister I was involved in a number of decisions that preserved special areas of the state. The better known one was the decision not to allow mining in the Gammon Ranges National Park (in the Balcanoona Gorge, in particular) when a company sought to mine magnesite there. As luck would have it, under the proclamation of that national park, it fell to the environment minister to make the decision, not cabinet, so I ended up falling on the side of the environment, and ultimately moved legislation here to protect the Gammon Ranges National Park.

During that time I went to Arkaroola and met the Spriggs, and that was my first visit there. I have had other visits since. Indeed, as a result of this particular public debate, I drove with one of my sons to Arkaroola and met with the Spriggs to walk over the issue of possibly mining Mount Gee. From memory, I met with one of the Marathon Resources representatives who was in charge of their drilling program at the time.

When I was involved with the Gammon Ranges decision it seemed to me that there are certain areas of the state the public are never going to accept being mined regardless of their mining merit according to the mining industry. There are certain areas that are, from the public's viewpoint, no-go zones. The mining industry knows this; that is, I encouraged it at the time to sit down with the environment groups and come up with a list of no-go areas to save the mining industry a lot of heartache about whether it could or could not, or should or should not explore and then should or should not mine or could mine. That did not occur; the mining industry did not take up my offer and, to my knowledge, it has not occurred since.

It seems to me that the court of public opinion was never going to allow Arkaroola to be mined. It is my view that the court of public opinion will never allow Wilpena Pound to be mined, and if you look even closer to Adelaide at the Hills Face Zone—where you have to get permission to paint anything but brown or green—you never would be able to mine there either. So there are certain areas where I think the public says 'That's a no-go zone.' Arkaroola is certainly one of those, in my view, and that is why I went out and expressed a view that Arkaroola should not be mined. The other areas I was involved in protecting were legislation in relation to no mining at Seal Bay on Kangaroo Island and legislation with regard to no mining in the Flinders Chase National Park.

I am not anti-mining. When I proclaimed the only national park to be proclaimed within the last 20 years in this state, which is the Gawler Ranges National Park—I assume some of it is left after the fire in recent days—that proclamation was what is known as a joint proclamation, so that mining is allowed there based on its merits. Every issue has to be looked at on its merits. To me, the Arkaroola issue was always going to win on the no mining case.

I worked with Mark Parnell from the Greens to try to develop legislation that could protect certain areas of Arkaroola. There really was not a form of words that we could come up with from the benches of opposition—the government has far more resources than us—but to those officers in the various departments who worked with us to try to develop legislation, I thank them for their assistance.

When I went out and voiced my view that Arkaroola should not be mined, I had a visit from Mr Schacht and Peter Williams on behalf of Marathon Resources. I told them that my view, regardless of what the government was telling them before the election, was that ultimately the premier of the day would move to ban mining, because my observation of that premier of the day was that, if nothing else, he was a pragmatic populist.

The populist position was not to mine Arkaroola, and in my political judgement it was only a matter of time that the government would change its position from being not against the mining of Arkaroola to the mining of Arkaroola. It was a only matter of time in my view, because as the member for Ramsay (the former premier) outlined in his contribution a minute ago, the non-mining of Arkaroola is by far what the public wants. It does not want Arkaroola mined. My view was that the premier was always going to land in that position, the argument was always going to be over.

I was called a loose cannon on radio by Mr Schacht. Well, I am pleased to report to the house that the loose cannon won, and my judgement was right on that occasion. Despite saying before the election that the government was not going to ban mining in Arkaroola, it was not long after that it came to the same view that the member for Davenport had, and that was that there was something special about Arkaroola and we did not need to mine it at this point.

I accept other members' view that in 300 years' time or 400 years' time something might change in the world; there might be some unique special chemical or mineral found in all of our areas in the state that are not open to mining. There might be something unique found. Well, the community can make its judgement then if it wants. Of course, protection is really only as good as the legislation of the parliament, and ultimately if a future parliament wants to overturn, well, that will be the debate to be had at that time.

I am pleased to support the principle that Arkaroola should not be mined. I am very pleased to support it. The Sprigg family were very generous hosts to me on a number of occasions, and I thank them for it. I thank them for a lot of their communication to my office about the issue. I was pleased to take up the fight on their behalf. It might not have been necessarily the collective view of my party, but we have a great principle in the Liberal Party that, if you wish to speak on behalf of your electorate, then, by going through due process, you can. I am pleased to see that the Liberal Party is supporting this legislation to preserve Arkaroola.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (16:25): I also rise to support the bill. The Liberal Party will be supporting the bill, but I wish to canvass a few issues concerning the journey that the parliament has been on as it arrives at this point on both sides of the chamber.

Mining, as we all know, is pivotal to the future of the state, there is no question. It was interesting earlier hearing the member for Ramsay (the former premier) speak passionately about the bill. I am sure that the member for Ramsay would have spoken equally passionately back in the 1990s when he opposed Roxby Downs, and he has spoken passionately also now about the need to expand the indenture at Roxby Downs.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: It's one thing to speak passionately, it's another thing to have a cause, a consistent cause. While I respect the member for Ramsay's commitment to the environment, which is unquestioned, sometimes you either cannot have it both ways or you need to find a way to have it both ways, and it is there that I want to focus back on this bill to do with Arkaroola, because the dilemma with which the parliament is faced is that on the one hand it wants to mine (it wants the jobs, it wants the economic activity from mining), but on the other hand this house wants to protect the environment, and they are both worthy aims.

It seems to me that the thinking of the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s has really been that you must have one or the other. The thinking has really been that mining is inherently destructive, that it will damage the environment and that, if you were going to allow mining in a certain area you really want to protect, it will destroy that beautiful and pristine location and you should not allow the mining.

So, the politics of the world, really, the politics of the left and the right and the politics of South Australia has largely been caught up in this argument that you must have a struggle between the pro-mining, pro-economy, pro-development lobby and the pro-environment conservation lobby, and that the two are inherently in conflict. I want to question that entire premise in the 21st century, because the technology of mining has changed and the science has changed.

As great men have noted, when the facts change and the science changes people sometimes change their point of view. I think that the real key with these decisions we face embodied in this bill is whether mining is going to damage the environment, and that is particularly in this case to do with Arkaroola, because clearly the government is of the view that mining is going to damage Arkaroola.

There are some on both sides of the house who are not as convinced that mining would have necessarily damaged Arkaroola and that maybe we could have mined at Arkaroola and preserved the environment. How do we find that out? How do we establish the facts? How do we establish the science? Well, how we do that is that we allow a company to explore in a way that does not damage the environment, to develop the science around the proposed mine, to measure it, and to look at an environmental impact statement and how it might mine successfully at the site and what impact that might have on the environment.

Then, once the company has fully explored the body and reached a pre-feasibility stage and completed its environmental impact statement, we can then ask it to present a full feasibility case for a decision by government and the regulatory authorities. Based on all of the science, we can then make a determination about whether or not we should allow mining and whether or not it will destroy the environment. That is the proper, logical way to do it, and that is exactly the proper, logical way we approach the Roxby Downs expansion.

BHP has been allowed to go on with its pre-feasibility. It has been able to produce an exhaustive environmental impact statement. That has been openly and publicly debated. Everyone has had a go at it. It has then produced a feasibility study and, finally, that has resulted in an extensive negotiation about an indenture. The parliament is now debating it and everyone who has an interest and a stake in the matter has had a say. The mine is going ahead and the environmental issues are being addressed based on the science. BHP has been required to perform on a range of things.

We have done the same thing with Santos, we have done the same thing with any one of a raft of other mining proposals but, for some reason, this one we have treated differently. With this one, the government said to Marathon, 'You can go in there and you can explore. You can measure the resource, you can determine whether it is a resource of national or international status and whether or not it should be mined. You can start work on the pre-feasibility study', but we have suddenly torpedoed that entire process by making a decision suddenly to intercept the entire process and kill off the entire proposal for a mine at Arkaroola before the company has had a chance to advance to pre-feasibility or to the EIS stage.

Essentially, we have made a decision without the science. I have not seen any science produced by the government or by others to support the proposition that mining will definitely damage Arkaroola. Marathon did not help itself with the accidents and other mistakes that were made during its early exploration. I simply ask: where is the science?

I am not concerned with the decision to not allow mining in Arkaroola. I think that, in all likelihood, had the EIS process been allowed to be completed, had the pre-feasibility been conducted, had we seen all the science, we might very well be right where we are at this very moment: considering a bill that will allow mining at Arkaroola.

I think Marathon and the investors in this public company—which include Australian mums and dads, overseas companies and Australian companies who have lost enormous amounts of money—had every right to expect that, having been given the right to explore, they would be given a fair go; that is, that they would be given the right to at least advance to the pre-feasibility stage and to put forward an environmental impact statement with science funded by them that could be considered in a rational and logical way. But, no, the government has intercepted that entire process and, in so doing, it has wronged Marathon substantially, in my view; it has hurt mum and dad investors and it has cost a number of people millions and millions of dollars. Frankly, I think the process is rotten to the core.

This whole thing is curious. I am reminded of a story from Bernard Shaw who once at a social gathering in Victoria, England, said to a high society lady, 'Madam, if I were to offer you a million pounds, would you come home and sleep with me?' Fluttering her eyelids and her fan, she blushed at him and said, 'Oh, Mr Shaw, if you offered me a million pounds, of course I would come home with you. A million pounds is a million pounds. What a wonderful proposition. Where is the million pounds?

Then he said, 'Madam, then if I offered you one pound, would you come home and sleep with me?' Her response was, 'Well, one pound? Don't be stupid, Mr Shaw. What sort of a woman do you think I am?' His response was, 'Well, we have already established that. We are simply arguing about the price.'

You might say, 'How does that relate to Arkaroola?' I just ask this question: if underneath the ground at Arkaroola there was 20 billion barrels (or however you want to measure it) of oil, gold or uranium, or a resource that was of such international and national standing that it would simply be madness not to mine it, I wonder if we would be here today saying, 'Let's not mine at Arkaroola.' I wonder if, like that Victorian lady, we might just sell ourselves for the higher price.

Clearly, it is not so much a matter of principle here: it is all about the dollars, isn't it? Obviously, the government has decided that the resource underneath the ground at Arkaroola, though important, is just not quite so important that we cannot say no in this case. We have been here before, of course, because the government tried to say no to Roxby Downs. Now, of course, they realise—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No, the government did not.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Now, the Labor Party realises that Roxby Downs—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No government did that.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —is, in fact, very important—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You are making it up again.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —to the future of the state.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You just make it up.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: My bicycle clip-wearing, braces-bestowed, lord—what was it?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Atkinson of Upper Ovingham.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —Atkinson of Upper Ovingham-upon-Tunbridge or something, is rattling away. I can feel the marbles bouncing around in that empty space located between his ears as he corrects our English with a dictionary in one hand and the Bible in the other. I simply say that it is the case that the company, Marathon, has been wronged.

I put to you that we need to change our thinking in this parliament about mining. It is my view that mining and the environment need to coexist. Now, that does not mean they will always be able to coexist. If we can establish, and we find after we have collected the science and we know the facts, that the damage being done to the environment is such that we simply should not allow it, then we should not, but we should at least make our decisions based on the science. This is a decision that is not made on science: it is a decision made on polling, because we know that stopping mining at Arkaroola is popular, particularly in the city. It is a decision made on emotion and it is a decision based on factional swings and roundabouts within the Australian Labor Party.

We all know that minister Koutsantonis and various other people on the government side of the house wanted to go ahead with this mine. We all know that minister Koutsantonis was telling the company just days before that he would get it through and we all know that he was gazumped by the then premier, the member for Ramsay, who simply came in and sort of announced that we would be blocking mining at Arkaroola. There was the big media show and the whole thing was about politics: it was not about decisions made on the basis of science that are in the best interests of the state.

I am not saying that we have made the wrong decision. As I explained earlier in my contribution, I think we may well have made the right decision—it is about the process. It has a lot to do with the departure of the member for Ramsay at this particular juncture, about the need to establish legacies—a whole host of things. As I said, I am not concerned so much about the decision we have made, the landing we have reached, but about the process. I know concerns within the mining industry about this decision have been dismissed by others, but I have spoken to miners about this.

I have noted the comments by SACOME and other leading business people about the decision and I think it does send the wrong message. The message it sends is that if the purple-spotted gudgeon or the spidery wattle or the yellow-footed rock wallaby are found near your mining exploration site, then your investment may be rendered worthless, as you are denied the right to advance to an environmental impact statement and a prefeasibility study for your proposed mining development.

Even if the resource to be mined is of paramount importance and the exploration is in the highest national state interest; that is the message it sent. So it said, 'We are going to cherrypick certain areas that we have decided, based on emotion and polling, should not be mined, before you have had a chance to develop an EIS or a prefeasibility, and we are going to rule that area out.'

If I am looking to invest in South Australia in a mining venture, I am going to ask: where next? Is it going to be some Labor member who says, 'I don't want mining in my backyard'? Is it going to be some little lobby group that turns up on the Eyre Peninsula or somewhere else and says, 'Look, I've got a purple spotted gudgeon and spidery wattles in my area. Don't allow mining here'? It has added a certain element of uncertainty into future investment propositions across this state.

The Rann Labor government's rhetoric for years was that exports and jobs hinge on the golden goose of mining, but the process that the government has used to arrive at this Arkaroola decision, as I have said, has been made without considering the science. If the science is there, I invite the government to present it to the house now during this debate. Let us see the science.

Let us see the research that shows that whatever it was that Marathon was proposing to do there would have damaged the environment. How have you established that they would not have been able to access the mining ore deposit from underground or from outside the wilderness area, even, without damaging the area? How do you know they would not have been able to restitute it so that there was no sign of them ever having been there? Maybe they could not do that but, unless someone has science to show me, then I am not convinced.

Are we going to deny access to cherrypicked, favoured places around the state without even giving miners an opportunity to show us that science and their plans for mining and the environment to coexist for their mutual benefit or are we going to allow due process? Are we going to have one process that applies evenly to all mining propositions—because this involves hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in this state—or are we going to continue this process of cherrypicking?

I know a lot of areas around the state that many would view equally of value alongside Arkaroola that perhaps should be banned from mining. Perhaps we should ban mining in the whole Fleurieu. The whole of the Eyre Peninsula, in my friend the member for Finniss's electorate, is a beautiful pristine area. I could see an argument put up. We will ban the whole of the Eyre Peninsula. The Yorke Peninsula—I love the place, I have family over there. Let us ban the whole of the Yorke Peninsula.

We can take whatever argument we wish because this is the logic that this process has now introduced to our decision-making—an illogical process based on emotion and polling and political imperatives, not based on science and what is best for South Australian jobs, South Australian investment or even the environment.

We should not be looking at these questions as a choice between the environment and mining. The two are not mutually exclusive. As I said, that is the thinking of decades past when we had the argument about Olympic Dam in its first iteration. It should not be a case of either/or but rather a case of looking at how mining and the environment can coexist to the mutual benefit of both the environment and the economy. I will start to wind up on this simple remark.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: It is about the economy, stupid. It is about the economy. It is about jobs. It is about our children having a future. It is about generating the sort of revenues in this state that we can then invest back into the environment. This is a self-defeating circle. Take the mining and the enterprise away, and you do not have the money to spend on protecting our environment, on parks, on protecting wilderness areas, on reinvesting in protecting our flora and fauna species. You just do not have the revenue; you have to have them both.

The challenge for this parliament, and I put it to the Labor government, be they in government or opposition, as a party, is to work this through, because we all know that if this was a much bigger, more valuable resource, you probably would have made another decision because you would have been bought by the value of the resource, but you have cherrypicked this one based on expediency, not on what is right.

I will be watching with interest the legal proceedings between Marathon and the government. My understanding is that Marathon has every reason to feel that it has been wronged. If it was always the government's view that they should not be allowed to mine, why let them explore in the first place and why send them such mixed messages?

As I said, we may well have arrived at the right decision, and I will be supporting the measure with my party, but I am very critical of the process this government has used. It uses a different process for every decision it faces, based on what is expedient, based on what the latest poll or focus group they have held tells them, rather than on a well-considered, scientifically-based consideration of what is best for the state. Most importantly, they have not worked out how to balance economic growth with the environment. Labor never has, Labor has not today, and Labor probably never will.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:46): I rise to speak on the Arkaroola Protection Bill 2011. This is a bill introduced by the minister for the environment on 19 October 2011. It followed an announcement by the then premier and minister, together with the minister for mineral resources, on 22 July 2011 that he would protect Arkaroola forever. This was again followed up by another press announcement by the premier on 18 October 2011 that he had very recently travelled to the Arkaroola wilderness sanctuary with the minister and that he was going to shortly unveil legislation to protect the area forever.

Members will recall that again this had been subsequent to the era of assessment by the government's Seeking a Balance exercise, which was to provide a major consultation by the government to investigate how it would best protect the most sensitive areas within the region. All of that, of course, overlapped an era of some years where one particular party had been granted the right to undertake exploration in the region. This was Bonanza Gold Pty Ltd, which is a subsidiary of Marathon Resources, which had been granted the opportunity, via the Mining Act (and I will refer to that again shortly), for them to see what was there and what was of value that could be exploited subsequently and subject to any successful application for a lease.

In the exploratory stage there were a number of years that this company in particular was given that opportunity. What we have following all this exercise was the introduction of the bill. It was essentially following three aspects. We had an announcement by the minister at the introduction of the bill that the first step in the protection of the Arkaroola region was to issue a proclamation. This is done by the Governor, obviously, on the advice of the Executive Council and, on 29 July 2011, the reserve of the land in question had been proclaimed, as the minister said, as an interim measure.

That was coupled, he said, with the announcement that the Premier had written to the Prime Minister signalling the government's intention to pursue a listing of Arkaroola on Australia's National Heritage List and the World Heritage List and that there would also be a request for assessment for the state heritage significance list by the Australian Heritage Council; and I understand from subsequent commentary that the latter has occurred.

The third and direct involvement of this bill was to establish a protective measure, as identified by the minister, to have special-purpose legislation (which is what we are considering today), he said: 'to 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.'

Can I say, on the first step, that this proclamation procedure is the subject of litigation that I wish to address today. I have not had any update on the applications for the Australian or world heritage recognition. I do not have any issue with those things. I think, if they are a good thing to do, I am a little surprised that it has taken the government 10 years to write to the Prime Minister about this but, nevertheless, I have no issue with that.

The third step is this legislation, which the member for MacKillop has indicated we will be supporting, and I will join him in that; but I indicate my concern that the government had not undertaken a more appropriate remedy to provide protection, that is, by using the Mining Act and therefore allowing the management of future mining exploration permits to be consistent and not one-off.

The minister also indicated that the establishment of this defined protected area will specifically meet the definition of a category 2 national park and that this whole process of the establishment under this special-purpose legislation would ensure that any definition of the protected area would only be capable of amendment by a further act of parliament.

With that outline, it was not surprising, I think, that the public was left with an impression by the announcement of these three steps by the government—one had already been executed, one was in progress and one was awaiting the decision of the parliament—that this was going to provide some iron-clad protection for this defined area against any interference, exploitation and mining activity forever.

I do not think that is the case. Given that there is a capacity to undertake mining in national parks—obviously, there are a number of hurdles to overcome—I think the public would be deluded if they think this has closed this area and created some sanctuary and respite from any interference in this way forever. They will be very disappointed.


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. P. Caica]


Ms CHAPMAN: My concern is that the process is one which does not provide a universal application. It does frustrate those who want to invest in South Australia in the future in this area, whether for exploration or exploitation—either way—therefore that is not a model which I endorse. Probably the most direct consequence of taking this approach is the existence of the litigation which is currently before the Supreme Court.

This type of approach (if it is to be repeated in other areas of South Australia at whatever whim they might take, meritorious as it may be) as to the protection needed or a decision not to grant an exploration licence or a mining lease, if we are left at the mercy of whatever a premier of the day might think is important to him or her, raises questions about whether that will have a negative impact on those who are prepared to risk their funds and the investment in this state for future exploration and exploitation, so I am concerned about that.

I will address the issue of the current litigation. The Supreme Court is currently seized of an action by Bonanza Gold Pty Ltd which is a subsidiary of Marathon Resources. It has filed against the State of South Australia in the Supreme Court. That is of concern for two reasons. One is that litigation alone raises questions about the reliability of statements and indications—even undertakings–but certainly representations by the government being able to be safely relied upon in the future by investors. Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, the exposure to the risk of a very substantial claim on taxpayers of South Australia.

The existence of these proceedings is symptomatic of what has happened, and what has happened is that, firstly, the government of the day saw fit to extend to this company an exploration licence. I remind members of the house that part 5 of the Mining Act 1971 makes specific provision for the granting of an exploration licence.

Members will be familiar with how many times the former premier and various ministers for mineral resources came proudly into this house to speak of the decade of opportunity of exploration under their reign in this state, how they had advanced the PACE scheme and how they had provided support with pride for the opportunities for exploration in this state and, in this instance, the offering of an exploration licence under the Mining Act to Bonanza Gold. I remind members of section 30(2) which I think it is important to take note of. Under that section it says:

The Minister shall, in determining the conditions subject to which a licence is to be granted under this Part, insofar as the Minister considers to be necessary or appropriate in view of the nature and extent of the licence and any other relevant factor, give consideration to the protection of—

(a) any aspect of the environment that may be affected by the conduct of operations in pursuance of the licence;

Then it lists other items, including, of course, recognition of the Aboriginal sites and objects. At all material times this is the legislation under which the minister of the day has granted exploration licences, and in this instance to this particular company. At all material times he or she obviously has had the responsibility of making an assessment about the environmental impact of offering such an exploration licence and to make sure that appropriate conditions were issued.

I think it is fair to say that members would be familiar with some conditions that were imposed over the last few years for exactly that reason, including the disposal of by-product from the exploration and the very significant publicity regarding allegations against this company for their breach of one of those conditions, in particular, allowing some substances to enter the local creek scheme.

I am sure there was a lot of angst in the general community when they read of complaints about any person who has been given the privilege, under these licences, when there may have been some breach, and on the face of it there was a very significant breach. Of course, there was an opportunity for the minister of the day to have revoked that exploration licence, having considered the environmental sensitivity, the significance of the site as a cultural and historical place for protection, and having set the conditions which were then breached. We can only assume that all those things were foremost in the mind of the minister at the time, especially when these apparent breaches occurred.

Nevertheless, whether it is the same minister or another one, under this government the exploration licence either continued or was reissued through this time period and has, as at July, effectively been wiped out, not by an expiration of time but by the act of the government using section 8 of the Mining Act again where they have declaration of mineral land power.

I now turn to this, because it is this proclamation, again by Executive Council via the Governor, where a declaration is made for a parcel of land: what we now know, under this bill, is to be the area in the Arkaroola Protection Area. Pursuant to section 8 of the Mining Act these declarations can be for areas anywhere in South Australia. There is capacity to vary and revoke them and the like.

The act makes it absolutely clear that when such a declaration is made there is the capacity for a division of the mineral land into surface stratum, or one or more surface strata, and to fix the depth of surface stratum and depth of any subsurface stratum below which lies any further subsurface stratum resulting from division. So there are very clear powers for the government of the day to identify an area which will have special protection.

What has happened in this instance, however, is that, while Marathon's subsidiary company has coasted along with its exploration licence, which had been duly and properly issued and continued and/or reissued, notwithstanding an apparent breach of one of the conditions, they went along with their exploration licence and presumably continued to spend a lot of money to pursue the identification and assessment of a future resource that may or may not ultimately be worthy of exploitation.

Suddenly, after 9½ years of the government, the former premier decided (and obviously he got his cabinet to agree) that he is going to exercise the power under section 8 and declare this area. I do not know where the former premier has been for the last 9½ years. I do not know whether he read any reports about this area, whether he just happened—as a once-off—to fly up there and suddenly decide that this was going to be in need of protection, whether he read the material that was prepared for the—what was it called again—tipping the balance?

Mr Williams: Seeking a Balance.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, the Seeking a Balance report that had been prepared by one of the departments or whether he had given a tink about this area at all. But it seemed that, for 9½ years, he was willing to do it, so God help the poor taxpayers when they have to pay out this mess.

Time expired.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:06): I will only make a brief contribution. A few other members also wish to speak.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: If only. I will admit to knowing very little about the site other than the fact that I did have the great privilege of travelling there in, I think, about August last year with other members of the Liberal Party. I had been in discussion with the now retired senator Alan Ferguson who is a neighbour of mine in Maitland and who had been there quite often. He impressed upon me that it is a special place and that it is important that it be protected.

I tried to keep a relatively open mind to it until I went there. I was certainly aware of the history of the exploration permit that had been granted to Marathon Resources. I was also aware of the history which had occurred by then of some 22,000 bags of materials (it turned out to be) that had been buried on site. I was shocked when I heard the number of materials that had been buried there.

When I went to the site, the very first question I asked the representatives of Marathon Resources was, 'How the hell could they let that happen?' Clearly, it was beyond the ability of the company to do so; it had no permit to do that sort of thing. They provided an answer to me, which still frustrated me. There is a responsibility on management to ensure that contractors or workers on the site ensure that every provision that is provided as part of the exploration permit is actually met. It was very disappointing to find that out, and subsequently that action resulted in the temporary halt of the exploration permit which was later returned.

When I had the opportunity to go there with quite a few other members of the Liberal Party, we were flown over the top and we were driven through it, and it is impressive. There is no doubt about it. You come from this flat ground and suddenly there is just this magnificent collection of ranges which are visually impressive from the air. However, when you are on the ground, driving through it or walking around some of the gullies, ravines and over the hills, it is even more impressive. It is a special place.

I want to put on the record my thanks to Marathon Resources in briefing us on the day that we were there, and putting information to us and putting a side of the argument to us. I also want to sincerely thank the brother and sister team of Doug and Marg Sprigg, the generosity they showed to us and actually telling us from their perspective about the importance of Arkaroola.

One thing I do take from the Sprigg's contribution to me was the fact that they are actually supportive of mining. It is part of their family business to some degree. Their late father, Dr Reg Sprigg, I understand, was a resident of Yorke Peninsula as a young man; so, I am aware of some connection there. Dr Sprigg had been involved very strongly across mining activities both on the board and in a practical sense in South Australia and Australia, so, for their family, mining was an important aspect of it.

Also when being shown around you could see some obvious signs of previous exploration efforts of, I think from memory, up to 90 years ago. You could still see where a track had been taken up to an exploration site to try to extract 'precious minerals' as they were then. It has been a very emotive argument. I know that a lot of time has been consumed by the South Australian public, no doubt within the Labor Party caucus and the Liberal Party joint party room. We have talked about it on numerous occasions. To me, the Zone A conservation requirements that are in place for that area carry some very key words when it comes to the opportunity for a mine to be established by any firm that might want to operate there. The shadow minister and I have discussed this. We think—

Mr Williams interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you. It was actually of paramount importance. When I read that as being a condition that would be considered as part of any mining licence there, it seemed to me that, to be of paramount importance, it would mean in the defence of our nation or of such key importance that all other concerns would have to be disregarded and it had to be given approval.

I am respectful of the level of professionalism that Marathon Resources have brought. It has demonstrated that it has a property that is offsite where they stay when they are there. When the vehicles come into the area, they are washed down to ensure that no weed infestations are brought with the vehicle.

I am aware that Marathon's proposal suggested that there would be a tunnel excavated from, I think, the eastern side on the plains, and then to mine underneath Mount Gee—obviously at a high cost, no doubt about that. Marathon would have to factor in that high level of production and mining exploration and mining and whether it would still produce a profitable balance for them before they proceeded with it. A lot of factors were involved in this, but I recognise that it is a special place.

Others within this place have made the decision to put the bill before the house. Obviously the member for Ramsay (previously as the premier) had a very strong position on that. We know that minister Koutsantonis seemingly was not aware of that when he was at a mining conference in Western Australia at which Mr Williams, as chairman of the board of Marathon Resources was also attending. It has been an issue that has consumed a lot of people's efforts for many months and years.

In his contribution, the member for Davenport reflected that he has long held a position on what should and should not occur there, and that has been held by federal members of parliament, too. However, for us in this place who have had the opportunity to go there, it is a special place; but then again, it is not for me to say because I do not have the expertise to say that it would be impossible to mine there without affecting it.

From the information that Marathon Resources have put before me, they believed that they had a plan scoped out that would have allowed it. The fact that the exploration permit has now been taken away means that they would never be able to pursue that, to do the environmental impact statements, to assess not only its financial capacity but the environmental costs associated with mining there.

South Australia will continue to move forward in mining but, I must admit that, as a process-driven person, I have been upset at the way it has been handled. The fact that the exploration licence was granted meant that it was assessed under very stringent terms to determine whether there could be people on site taking the drill holes and checking the samples to determine the viability of the ore, or the source. That requires a lot of work. It is not just somebody who ticks a box and that sort of stuff. There are enormous controls in place. When that process seems to be broken by a decision being made without due deference to what opportunities might exist there, that is when I get a bit upset. I know that other members on this side are also frustrated.

The member for Waite has contributed at length about this. If you are going to consider any level of development, mining, or whatever, it has to be driven by a process that the community has confidence in as being beyond reproach. We need to ensure that it is very thorough so that we do not have instances where permission is given to access land that, in the long term, is never going to happen.

I understand and appreciate the fact that the Liberal opposition is supporting the bill. I know that there will be many people who will debate this bill and the uniqueness of Arkaroola. I just want to reflect quickly upon the fact that I have been there and can appreciate the importance that it plays and the significance that it holds. Certainly the cultural beliefs for the Aboriginal community are no doubt very strong.

I think there might have been an opportunity to do things through a process that will now never have the opportunity to be explored. I am concerned about the claim that is before the state government by Marathon Resources and the financial implications for South Australia as a result of this decision, but I reflect upon the fact that the Zone A conservation zone, in my eyes, would have made it probably impossible for a mining licence to be granted on the site. It was so stringent in any consideration given that I cannot imagine an occasion on which it would have been deemed to have been suitable for that mining to occur. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (17:14): I knew Reg and Griselda Sprigg quite well. Of course, Reg was a geologist of international repute. I did geology at secondary school and, as a young person, I met Reg Sprigg. Also, the late Len Beadell and, indeed, Sir Mark Oliphant—he was not Sir Mark then—were both very prominent in this country. If you go there today, you will see—

Mrs Geraghty: I didn't realise you were that old.

Mr VENNING: I am getting mature.

Mr Brock: Like a fine wine, Ivan.

Mr VENNING: Like a fine wine—you're right. Certainly, when you read Len Beadell's books—

Mrs Geraghty: They're fantastic.

Mr VENNING: They are fantastic and to meet the guy—of course, he is now in the large hunting ground in the sky—what a fantastic sort of guy this fellow was. So, this place is steeped in a fair bit of history, as I said. I now know quite well his son Doug and sister Margaret—again, characters of quite some repute. Everybody knows them and they are a great host and hostess.

It has been difficult for us to get our heads around this quite complicated, controversial issue. Arkaroola is a wonderful place; that is beyond any argument. It is quite iconic. My favourite subject at school, as I said, was geology, and this area is a truly unique place in the world for the geology that is there—some of the oldest rock formations in the world.

I have been there often as a guest of the Spriggs, flown over it, done the famous ridge-top tour many times and gazed into the night sky from the observatories—and they've got two of them. I also visited the Gammon Ranges in my early days here, with the then minister Hon. Wayne Matthew, in relation to the Gammon Ranges National Park.

Our minister at the time was the member for Davenport and the question then was: were we going to mine in this park? Of course, no, we didn't. We found this fish called the spotted gudgeon and the member for Davenport being ever pragmatic—that was the end of that. The Hon. Wayne Matthew led us up there on the counter argument, we had a look and, in the end, the minister, the member for Davenport, won. Again, there was an existing licence there. We went in and you could see where the haul road was. So, all this area has had a fair bit of scrutiny in the last 15 to 20 years, and it is all interesting reading.

The court of public opinion was always going to ensure that we were never, ever going to allow mining in Arkaroola, so it necessitated that we don't allow further exploration. That part I do not necessarily agree with because, before we lock up this country forever, it would have been good to know just what we are banning or locking up, or just what we are choosing to leave in the ground. I hope that the exploration already done will give an indication of what is there and the quantity and quality of the ore bodies, so that we know exactly, for the future, what is there, if we ever have to mine it for the sake of the economy or whatever.

I also hope that the information will be public. Obviously, there is going to be some compensation that we will pay here and, in lieu of that, I hope that the information that Marathon have gained will become public property, so then we will all know.

Yes, we know what happened and how the licence was breached by the licensee, Marathon Resources. What happened was very regrettable. Just let it be a lesson to us all that, just because it was an isolated, desolate place, it was no excuse to leave an exploration site in such a mess. I am sure it was not an intentional act of the Marathon management, just a careless oversight by a couple of employees. It looked worse than it actually was, particularly on national TV, because it was only the core samples being put back into the ground, but the plastic bags lying around, some ruptured, did not look good at all on national TV.

So, the die was cast then. So, the decision was made, a decision that I think, reluctantly, is the right one. But the process certainly has been less than perfect. I cannot support the concept because mining leases have been granted on this land for years, and Marathon Resources, having been granted an exploration lease, I initially felt that their lease should have been renewed with the strict proviso that, before any mining lease be granted, very strict criteria be met and all the boxes ticked.

I am sad in some ways because I feel that mining could have proceeded here with low environmental impact. We have heard various theories around particularly about tunnelling from outside the Arkaroola sanctuary area. That could have been an option, particularly if we knew what ore body is there. I would presume, now, that Marathon—and I have no criticism of them—will be compensated and I think that is a reasonable thing. Hopefully, the minister will be in some negotiation. I can understand that, and I think we have to support that because you cannot spend all that amount of money—and we would be talking millions that they would have spent. It would have to be, because we have seen ourselves the extent of the work they have done. I wish the minister all the best with that.

Also, I am a bit sad because I feel the Arkaroola resort will probably need another resource to upgrade or keep it to a standard that is required to allow the people of the world to come there and to enjoy this site. It is very expensive to maintain a resort like that and the tourism is certainly seasonal there with the very hot summers. I always felt—and I had discussions with the Hon. Graham Gunn and we both felt—that the mining industry would have been the future to protect this area and help give the Spriggs the resources to be able to upgrade it to a position to keep it, because the maintenance on a place like this is high and everything is expensive because of the distance. Whether they can do that now, without the mining being there, I do not know.

I hope they can because I have been there. I will be going back again shortly. We love the place; we love the ambience of the place. I want to thank the Spriggs very much, particularly Doug and Margaret, for their hospitality, understandably, because they knew right through that I was not necessarily a convert. There were no hard feelings about that, but now we accept what has happened.

I do appreciate advice from my colleagues, particularly the shadow minister sitting here, the member for MacKillop, and others in saying what is possible and what is not. Also my leader is strongly passionate on this. Can I say she has carried the day on an issue like this because she has a strong commitment. We had some very good debate, particularly when the Hon. Graham Gunn was still here and this issue was going then.

Can I say to the Spriggs: well done on a case well put. Thank you for your hospitality. Also to the Marathon Resources company, we wish them all the best for the future. In the end, I hope that Arkaroola will go on giving the joy that it has given to me and everybody else—all members and the people of Australia and the people of the world. It is a great place, and let us hope that it always stays that way.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (17:23): I rise to support the bill as the other members of the opposition have, and the minister will be pleased to know that I am the final speaker on this bill. I know he will be pleased because I can see that the faithful are gathering in the dining room.

As an opposition, we have agreed to support this bill, as the other speakers have indicated, but I must admit that initially it did pose something of a dilemma for me, the reason being that, fundamentally, I have some difficulty in simply locking country up. I believe that oftentimes land is far better off if it is managed to be productive rather than simply shutting the gate on it. As a fundamental principle, I believe that the more productive a landscape is, the more sustainable it is, and that was alluded to by the member for Schubert just previously.

Having said that, I was certainly lobbied by my constituents—quite a number, in fact—to protect Arkaroola. Interestingly, I was always lobbied by people who had been there, who had visited Arkaroola. When this discussion first began I had not had the opportunity to visit Arkaroola. It was an unknown landscape for me. I was not aware of the environment, the landscape or what people were talking about, necessarily.

I did have the opportunity to visit Arkaroola with a number of my colleagues last year in August 2010 and it was certainly an impressive piece of country. I had been to the Flinders Ranges before but never to the northern Flinders. This is wild and rugged territory. I understand that some of the rocks present at Arkaroola are 1.65 billion years old; some of the oldest rocks in the world that are visible exist in Arkaroola. From that perspective, at the very least—

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: There's plenty of it. We did the Ridgetop Tour, and being a good country boy, I viewed the landscape, really, as a sheep station initially, as it was, of course; it was the Arkaroola pastoral lease. I do know that one of the conditions of employment for jackaroos in those early days, when it was run as a sheep station (as pastoral property), was that the employer would provide one set of boots per year, because the jackaroos had to walk to round up the sheep. It was too steep for horses and ultimately too steep for motorbikes. The jackaroos walked and wore out at least one pair of boots a year, but the employers provided them.

It was interesting to consider its history. In fact, I became aware that the property next door, the Umberatana Station, was managed for a time at least by one branch of our family, the Treloar family, who went north. I discovered that the Coulthard family, who are members of the Adnamutna tribe, were present on Umberatana. This is some generations ago, but 12 children were born to Mrs Coulthard in a corrugated iron shack on Umberatana. Mrs Coulthard's prized possession was a Metters stove that she had been given by a Mrs Treloar all those years before. It was a nice touch for me to be a part of that history.

We were well-hosted by the Spriggs family, as has been mentioned earlier. They obviously, without doubt, have an attachment to the property, the landscape, the environment. I believe anybody who lives in and on an environment for any period of time can develop that attachment. Often we talk about Aboriginal people having an attachment for the land. Well, I believe that white people can have that attachment as well, and the Spriggs family have that. We were hosted by the Spriggs family. We were given the opportunity to talk with Marathon as well, who presented their case. It was a very convivial and diplomatic way of going about things.

There have been some interesting points raised today in the contributions, particularly about competing interests and about finding the balance. I believe it is imperative that we do this in this state. What Arkaroola has done is highlight this situation for me, but it comes closer to home, because we are fully expecting that mining will be undertaken some time in the near future on the Eyre Peninsula. Once again, there will be competing interests, there will be competing land uses. You could very well argue that any part of the Eyre Peninsula could be deemed unique, thereby requiring protection.

It is an ongoing and difficult debate. I can see the day in the very near future when we can no longer deal with these issues on an ad hoc basis. The way it has been done up until now simply does not give any security to land owners. It does not give any security to exploration companies, and it doesn't, most importantly, give any security to the environment. I believe the day is coming soon when this parliament will need to have consistent legislation, processes and framework in place so that the slow, messy and convoluted process that has been Arkaroola and has finally led to this day will not be repeated.

As I said, I am the final speaker from this side of the house on this. Thank you all for the contributions. There have been some interesting comments. I am hoping that the minister can agree that it is being done with goodwill, and with that I offer our support.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (17:29): I thank most of the honourable members for their contributions to the debate on this significant bill. The purpose of this legislation, as I have said previously, is to protect the unique cultural, natural and landscape values of Arkaroola for the long term. It forms one prong of the government's three-pronged approach to protecting Arkaroola, the others being the proclamation to exclude the Arkaroola Protection Area from the operation of parts of the Mining Act in addition to heritage listing nominations at the state, national and world levels.

This legislation establishes the Arkaroola Protection Area and provides for the care and management of that area. The bill specifically prohibits all forms of mining activity within the Arkaroola Protection Area, and I remind some members of the opposition that the bill was introduced following a significant period of consultation, almost a month before legal proceedings were instigated by Marathon, and that being for a judicial review of the Governor's proclamation under the Mining Act.

Contrary to the assertions of the member for MacKillop and others, there has been extensive consultation conducted in the lead-up to the introduction of this bill. My officers and I have met with the key stakeholders, including the traditional owners and their legal representatives, on more than one occasion. Indeed, leaders within the Adnyamathanha community publicly voiced their delight at the government's decision to protect Arkaroola. I also met with Heathgate Resources and Marathon Resources, at their request, I understand, following their having met with the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy.

Nothing could be further from the truth with respect to the assertions made by the member for MacKillop in regard to this particular process. The government's policy has been based on extensive consultation and has evolved to reflect community aspirations. This bill reflects community aspirations for the protection of Arkaroola. I could go through a very detailed process about Seeking a Balance, where we got to with Seeking a Balance, and the 500 submissions that were received.

The vast majority, of course, were overwhelmingly in favour of protecting Arkaroola from mining. We have gone through the details through previous speakers (in particular, the member for Ramsay), in the history of this, which is somewhat contrary to the potted history that has been given by others on the other side. It was quite clearly and expressly stated by the former premier some time ago that the government will consider all available options to preserve the iconic Arkaroola sanctuary. He stressed that all options, including a definitive ban on mining at Arkaroola, were on the table.

He went on to add that it would be inappropriate for the government to make a decision like this without consulting with native title holders, pastoral lease holders and the holders of exploration licences. To that end, he asked both the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation (that is me) and the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy to lead a consultation process prior to recommendations being brought to cabinet. We undertook that direction and that particular process.

Even since the July 2011 cabinet approval for a series of measures to be implemented to secure Arkaroola's permanent protection (which included reserving the land from the operation of the Mining Act; enacting special-purpose legislation to protect the natural, cultural and landscape values of the area in perpetuity; and nominations, as I said earlier, of the area for national heritage listing and placing it on Australia's tentative list for the world heritage list), we undertook further targeted consultation with affected parties and other relevant bodies throughout that period of time on the provisions of the draft Arkaroola Protection Bill that we are dealing with today.

Through this bill, native title rights of the Adnyamathanha people will be fully respected by this legislation. Aboriginal heritage will continue to be protected accordingly. The bill has made specific provisions to support the conservation of objects, places or features of cultural value of 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.

Nevertheless, I foreshadow that in committee I will seek to introduce an amendment that adds a provision highlighting the continuance of native title rights under this bill, and I believe a copy of that amendment was circulated to the opposition on Wednesday morning. The management plan developed under this bill will become a very powerful tool, especially in dealing with matters related to development within the protected area that would be incompatible with the objects of the proposed act. A further series of other matters were raised in the course of briefings held previously, which I am happy to note at this point but take up further, if necessary, in committee.

I thank the members for Frome and Mount Gambier for their interest in this bill. They sought advice in relation to the timeline for preparing the management plan. I can advise that this work will commence in earnest as soon as the bill has been enacted. The intention is to work with the pastoral leaseholders, native title holders and other interests to prepare a draft plan for consultation within 12 months. The briefing was also able to clarify the relationship between the management plan and the usual development process.

It has been a privilege to be involved in the development of this legislation. I thank the Hon. Mark Rann for the pivotal role he has played in driving this unprecedented level of protection for Arkaroola. I also thank my colleague the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, as well as many other members of parliament, both behind me and on the other side, for the support they have provided with respect to this bill. I also thank the numerous members of the public who have expressed their support for protecting Arkaroola for the future.

I would like to pay tribute to the Adnyamathanha people who are the traditional owners of this area, especially to Mr Vince Coulthard, Chair of the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association; Marg and Doug Sprigg, the pastoral leaseholders of Arkaroola; their eternal ally, Mr Dennis Walter, the Mount Freeling pastoral leaseholder whose lease covers the Mawson Plateau; and other groups and individuals who participated constructively in the consultation process.

I thank the deputy leader for his support for the bill. I have been kept wondering about the position of the opposition on this widely-supported proposal. I think we have had previous indications of support from the Leader of the Opposition for protecting Arkaroola. The deputy leader has indicated support for the bill, though to listen to his contribution one might be easily confused. I found his apparent concern about a legal proceeding that is not about this bill a bit perplexing, since a good deal of his speech appeared to be advocating for the initiating party.

The local member has indicated his support. We had a pretty incomprehensible but typical tirade from the member for Finniss, including a statement that he did not support the bill, but I understand he now does. The shadow minister for the environment in another place has given no clear indication on the bill.

I also acknowledge the contribution by Iain Evans who lauded the protection of Arkaroola but, of course, was unable to get it during his period of time as the minister for environment. I am glad that he has been able to convince his party room to support it on this occasion. I think most South Australians will be at one with those of us who would like to progress this bill as expeditiously as possible.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr WILLIAMS: I talked extensively in the second reading about my concerns about the implications of this bill to the matter that is currently before the courts. There are two matters. On the one hand, the government publicly stated that it was going to give an ex gratia payment in the way of compensation to Marathon Resources, presumably because the government accepted the fact that Marathon was going to suffer some loss through this. I think the government has been given documentation to substantiate costs of at least $15 million.

The government has acknowledged that to not give some sort of compensation would certainly send the wrong message to the mining sector. I think that is what the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy has said. What is the government's position? There are two parts to the question. First, what is your legal advice regarding the impact of this particular bill on the case in court?

I am not a lawyer, but if the court finds in favour of Marathon do they have to go back and start the process again with respect to this particular matter, or is there a chance that the Supreme Court, once this bill is through the parliament and enacted, would look at this and say, 'There is no point in hearing the case'? So, is it the effect of this bill that it chops off Marathon's right to seek damages through the court process because of the proclamation that was handed down on, from memory, 22 July? So that is one part: what is the impact on Marathon's lawful right to sue for damages?

Secondly, what is the government's position on its earlier stated position that it would look at compensation or some form of ex gratia payment? I understand that Marathon has not heard anything more from the government after quite a few months and, out of sheer frustration, it has gone to seek damages through the courts.

The Hon. P. CAICA: As I said yesterday, this bill is about the protection of Arkaroola. In fact, I am advised that this legislation does not give rise to compensation. The advice is that where parliament removes existing rights there is no enforceable legal right to compensation under state law in the absence of the relevant statutory provision authorising the payment of compensation.

Notwithstanding all that, what was lodged was a judicial review. A judicial review was lodged in the Supreme Court on 11 November. The Arkaroola Protection Bill 2011 was prepared and consulted on throughout August and September and introduced into the House of Assembly on 19 October accordingly. It was prepared and introduced without the knowledge that Bonanza Gold was intending to initiate legal proceedings. In fact, the government was, as you have said, considering an ex gratia of payment to Bonanza Gold when legal proceedings were initiated.

Quite simply, and you know this as well as I do, that matter will now be a matter before the courts, both the judicial review and anything that might arise from the judicial review. That is where the matter will be dealt with.

Mr WILLIAMS: But minister, do you have any advice regarding what the impact of the bill will be on that judicial review? My non-legal assumption is that the court may well look at this, if it is enacted at least before the court comes to the conclusion of its process, and it seems that it will. Do you have any advice? Will the court look at this and say, 'There is no point in us going on,' and therefore, simply by passing this legislation, we have removed what up to date has been Marathon's legal right to seek compensation?

The Hon. P. CAICA: As I informed the house yesterday during the response, I think at the very start of the debate on this bill, I am certainly advised that 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 Marathon's actions were to succeed. It will now be a matter for the courts.

Mr WILLIAMS: You are misunderstanding my question.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I don't think so.

Mr WILLIAMS: My question is not about Marathon's actions having an impact on the bill; my question is about the bill, becoming an act, having ramifications for Marathon's actions. You made a comment a moment ago about my contribution to the second reading; my contribution to the second reading was largely about the process to get us to this point. What I want to know, what the opposition wants to know, is: is what we are being asked to agree to here unilaterally taking away the right of a citizen—namely, Marathon Resources—to seek what is, before we pass this, its legal right to seek compensation for the proclamation that was made back in July?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Licences in the form of what was granted to Marathon have no automatic right of renewal and no legal entitlement to a subsequent exploration licence, and we have made that clear; nor should there be any reasonable expectation relating to future mining production tenements in the region, as there is no legal entitlement for tenements.

Any decision to pay compensation will be a matter of policy and not based on any legal obligation brought about by this legislation or any existing act. Quite simply, what is before Justice Kourakis I think at the moment is a judicial review, and he is dealing with that. That is where the matter is. I can say it again: this bill has no relevance to that particular matter before Justice Kourakis. There is no claim for compensation by the affected mining company.

Ms CHAPMAN: The—

The CHAIR: Sorry, we have actually had two or three questions on this clause already. I will allow one more.

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Mr Chairman. I am sorry, but each member is allowed to have three questions.

The CHAIR: Okay, well, you have done your three then.

Mr WILLIAMS: I think I have had two, actually.

The CHAIR: Actually, you haven't . You have had three, and the Clerk confirms that you have had three.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The CHAIR: That's okay. You go your hardest.

Ms CHAPMAN: Minister, the statements you made yesterday that caught my attention on the question of whether this legislation may in any way impede or interfere with the current proceedings were twofold. One was on the legal impact. You said:

What we are doing today is the bill that brings effect to that proclamation.

The second thing you said was:

...the bill may affect the litigation and that commencement of provisions of the bill would, to a large extent, eliminate any practical benefit that could be obtained by the action...

As you have explained (and I have not read the pleadings in the Supreme Court), it is an application to review the decision that there be a proclamation. If that is successful and that is set aside by the judge, that will mean that the Executive Council's decision to proclaim this area under section 8 (as you have described, an 'interim measure') to protect it is declared invalid.

Presumably then their existing licence for exploration would continue to have effect and they would continue to negotiate with your government to secure some financial contribution (let us put it that way) without acknowledging liability towards the extraordinary expense they claim they have made for this exploration. Perhaps they may be seeking to discuss with you the loss of benefit that may arise if they were able to on-sell that to someone who might want to apply for a mining lease.

I understand all that. It is the fact, though, that you actually said yesterday that it may affect the litigation by eliminating any practical benefit that could be obtained by the action. The way that I am reading that—as narrow as it could be—is that you are saying, 'Look, with the passage of this legislation we don't need the proclamation anymore; we'll have it as statute and that statutory exclusion, elimination, of any right to do anything on this property in this protected area will be statutory, and that will eliminate them being able to progress any exploration licence that they have under the other section.' That is the way I understand that.

However, in a broader sense, it does suggest that there is an elimination of any practical benefit that could be obtained by the action. I think that you and I both know, Mr Chairman, as would the minister, that the benefit of this sort of action is not to sit there and talk about all the legal implications of whether or not a declaration should stand: it is all about ensuring that there is an environment in which the two parties will come together with some reasonable settlement.

I cannot blame either Marathon for that or your government for ensuring that it does the best thing it can by the taxpayers; after all, we have one monumental stuff up here and we have a big cost. So, I want some clarification about whether your understanding is that the bill could affect the opportunity for Marathon to continue to negotiate, because it seems to me that this bill will extinguish forever the right to be able to progress the opportunity for compensation because it would no longer have to rely on the proclamation because it could be overturned.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank my learned friend for the way in which she has posed the question. The judicial review, as I understand it, is seeking to, if you like, force the mining register to process its mining applications. So, yesterday when I said that the passage of this bill may however 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, that is the action they are trying to seek. You are quite right to highlight that.

This bill is not about preventing, if you like, or facilitating any discussions that might occur at a subsequent date in relation to any matters that Marathon may wish to raise in relation to compensation. However, that is not being dealt with in this bill nor is it being dealt with through the judicial review. So, I again make perfectly clear to everyone here that that is the case.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr WILLIAMS: I just simply want to say to the government that it would have been a lot easier for the parliament to progress this bill—and I think you have bipartisan support for the principle. It would have been a lot easier if you, minister, and your colleagues had done what you said you were going to do and come to a negotiated settlement with Marathon before we got to this point. That would have made it a lot easier for us. That is the greatest concern I have about this: that we are taking an action here which is, I think, causing an incredibly unfair burden on a company that has operated in good faith under the Mining Act and expended its shareholders money and is now being hung out to dry by the processes that have been instituted by your government. So, I just put that on the record: that it would have been a hell of a lot easier for all of us concerned if your government had acted a bit more judiciously in this whole matter.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am not going to respond to the assertions. All I will say is that the matters that have been raised by the member for MacKillop have nothing to do with this particular bill, and those matters will be dealt with through a judicial review.

Clause passed.

Clauses 3 to 6 passed.

New clause 6A.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 4, after line 6—Insert:

6A—Native title

Nothing in this act affects such native title as may exist over, or in relation to, the Arkaroola Protection Area.

Mr WILLIAMS: I have a quick question, and you may wish to take this on notice and come back with a response in the other place. I am getting noises coming from the Adnyamathanha people—the native title holders—that they wanted this exploration to go ahead and were looking forward to there being a mine there such that they could derive some revenue from the land that they hold the native title over. Have you taken any advice on whether the native title holders may have some sort of claim of compensation against the government of South Australia because of this legislation? If so, what is that advice?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, thank you very much. We are dealing with an amendment here on native rights and the bill has an object to support the conservation and objects, places or features of cultural value to the Adnyamathanha. Yes, I have spoken with them and, yes, there are a variety of views, as there is everywhere. Even within your party room I expect there was a variety of views about the appropriateness of this bill. Rather than affecting the determined native title rights of the Adnyamathanha, this legislation supports the continued existence, enjoyment and exercise of their rights, but I also note that access to minerals is not a native title right.

New clause inserted.

Clause 7.

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, I do not mind if you take this on notice and bring back a response later on in the other place. The management plan says that, amongst other things, you have to fulfil the objects of the act. The management plan must be cognisant of the objects of the act. The objects of the act are about providing for conservation, supporting conservation of objects, places, features, etc., supporting scientific research and fostering public appreciation. The opposition is wondering what the cost is going to be to government to do that. Have you taken any advice on the cost that this is going to impose on, I presume, your agency?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I could give a very long answer to this but what I will do is take this question on notice and provide the honourable member with information between the passage of this bill from here to the other place.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (8 to 10), schedule 1 and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (17:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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