HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-10-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ROXBY DOWNS (INDENTURE RATIFICATION) (APPLICATION OF ACTS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 September 2007. Page 777.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:31): I indicate from the outset that the opposition will not be supporting this bill, and I will explain why in my brief contribution. This bill seeks to remove special exemptions from state law which apply pursuant to the indenture act. One of the key aspects of this bill is the amendment to section 7 of the act. The key elements of the bill are that the five named acts are to be removed from the power of exemption—the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1979, the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988, the Development Act 1993, the Environment Protection Act 1993, and the NRM Act 2004.

The bill also seeks to amend clause 35 of the indenture so that the secrecy provisions will no longer apply in relation to FOI applications, but the protections in relation to commercially confidential material, for example, will remain. Clause 5 repeals section 9; that is, Aboriginal heritage can no longer be modified. We know that the Olympic Dam mine is likely to undergo some significant expansion in the next five years. The operation will change significantly from an underground mine to an open-cut mine. A whole range of factors will need to be taken into consideration with an open-cut mine. It is my understanding that in excess of 1 billion tonnes of overburden will be taken out of that mine and deposited somewhere.

We also have the uncertainty of how BHP will deal with the product when it mines it. Whether it will be exported as a finished product—copper, uranium, silver and gold—or whether it will be exported as a concentrate, which at some point has been proposed as an option. A whole range of factors will change the current operation. The decision has to be made whether supplies for the mine will be brought in using existing roads and whether the product will be taken out using existing roads, or whether another railway line will be constructed.

If the expansion goes ahead, there is also the issue of the proposed desalination plant in the Upper Spencer Gulf somewhere near Whyalla and whether or not that will provide water for towns in the region. There are some issues to be decided. Then we have the massive expansion itself. Recently, I managed to take a few days off from the office and I visited the area where the proposed 10,000 man construction site will be built. I also visited the new airport site (which was across the road) which will take significantly larger planes—I think up to 767s will land there. At some point in the future, the opposition is quite happy to look at the indenture act, which I am sure we will see come into this place. I know that it is undergoing some significant review because the scope of the mine, the environmental impact, the impact on Aboriginal heritage and all the acts listed by the Hon. Mark Parnell in the bill will have a significant impact on the expansion.

It seems somewhat premature to be debating this at great length. When the mining expansion goes ahead (as we all expect it will in some form or another), that will be the appropriate time to spend a significant amount of time looking at the indenture act and how it affects all the acts that the Hon. Mark Parnell has listed he would like removed from the legislation, as well as the freedom of information exemptions and the Aboriginal heritage legislation.

From the opposition's perspective, it seems to be premature, given the almost total transformation of the mine. It is an underground mine which, at the moment, produces 300,000 tonnes of copper every year and which will double or treble its output. A whole range of issues will have to considered, including its economic impact and its environmental impact. The opposition believes that, at this time, it is premature to participate in a lengthy debate. We understand why the Hon. Mark Parnell has put these issues on the table. They are important issues but today is not the appropriate time to be undertaking a lengthy debate. With those few words, I indicate that we will not be supporting the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of the Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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